Kern County Board approves Buttonbush solar and storage project, citing jobs, water and tax benefits

The Kern County Board of Supervisors on March 24 certified the final Environmental Impact Report and approved the Buttonbush Solar and Storage project, a large-scale solar-plus-storage development proposed across nearly 12,000 acres in unincorporated Buttonwillow-area farmland.

Director of Planning and Natural Resources Greg Murphy told the board the project would require conditional use permits, Williamson Act cancellations and amendments to the Kern County General Plan and Buttonwillow Community Development Plan. “The project includes development of a photovoltaic solar facility that would generate approximately two gigawatts of renewable energy and 16 gigawatt hours of battery storage, all on just under 12,000 acres across seven different project sites,” Murphy said, and staff attached an updated mitigation, monitoring and reporting program to the staff report.

Applicant Kevin Brooks, vice president of development for the company that presented to the board (self-identified in the hearing as Advantis), said the site was selected for nearby transmission capacity and water benefits: “This project allows landowners to focus their water rights on their remaining land,” Brooks said, adding the developer uses union labor and has signed project labor agreements. Brooks and staff said the project could create roughly 800 construction jobs at peak and about 20 permanent operations jobs; Brooks also estimated substantial long-term tax revenue to the county if state property-tax exclusions for solar end.

Multiple local unions, water districts and landowners spoke in favor during the public-comment period. Rochelle Echevarria of Rosedale Rio Bravo Water Storage District said operational water use for the project would be negligible — “less than ten acre-feet per year” — and that the project supports the district’s groundwater sustainability objectives by repurposing land that otherwise would be fallowed.

Greg Murphy flagged two comment letters received the morning of the hearing: one from an attorney representing a mineral-rights holder on site five and one from adjacent landowners near site eight. Staff proposed a small clarification to mitigation measure 4.12.1C to require final siting of drilling areas to be determined in consultation with mineral-rights holders who provided written notice before issuance of any building permit. Murphy said both the applicant and the attorney representing the mineral-rights holder were comfortable with the language.

Supervisor Parlier moved to approve staff’s recommendation to certify the EIR, adopt the findings of fact and statement of overriding considerations, approve the requested land-use entitlements, and adopt related resolutions and cancellation certificates. Supervisor Perez seconded the motion. After discussion, the board voted to approve the staff recommendations; the clerk recorded the outcome as approved by the board.

What happens next: the approvals authorize the county director and staff to complete the conditions attached to the permits, record tentative certificates of cancellation subject to penalty payment, and finalize required easement and memorandum of understanding documents. The applicant said speed is important to secure federal investment tax credits that help project economics; the board’s approvals allow the county and developer to proceed with the permitting and implementation steps spelled out in the staff report.

Votes at a glance: The Board approved the project and the associated resolutions and findings (motion approved; clerk recorded “All Ayes”).