Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy And Environment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors continue solar zoning debate, direct staff to return Sept. 1 with acreage cap and safety analysis
Summary
After hours of testimony from farmers, environmental groups and energy advocates, the Board of Supervisors directed staff to return Sept. 1 with a refined solar ordinance package that includes a 10,000-acre cap (Levels 2 and 3), options for north/south distribution, and additional analysis on battery safety and containment measures.
The Board of Supervisors continued a lengthy public hearing on proposed solar zoning and energy-storage amendments on July 14, instructing county planners to return Sept. 1 with a narrower package that responds to agricultural and safety concerns.
Planning staff presented a three-tier approach: Level 1 (small canopies/exempt systems), Level 2 (community-scale projects up to about 30 acres) and Level 3 (utility-scale projects over 30 acres). The staff recommendation included parcel-percent limits in prime agricultural land (10% currently in the packet, staff noted there are options for 15%) and a proposed allowance for limited battery storage pads (initially 0.25 acre exemption; staff also discussed allowing up to 1 acre in certain industrial/commercial contexts).
Supervisors heard 14 public speakers representing growers, environmental groups, energy developers and local resiliency advocates. Agricultural representatives urged strict limits and proportional distribution so a single region does not bear the brunt of large solar fields; environmental and clean-energy groups urged rules that enable storage to maximize renewable value.
The board99s direction: Supervisors instructed staff to return on Sept. 1 with a revised package including a countywide cap of 10,000 acres to apply to Levels 2 and 3 (the board99s conceptual direction), analysis on distributing any cap proportionally between the north and south parts of the county, clearer parcel-percent options (10% vs. 15%), and a detailed review of battery storage safety/containment and insurance/financial assurance options in the event of incidents. The board voted unanimously to continue the hearing to Sept. 1 to receive those materials.
Quotes and contention: Several supervisors emphasized the need for transparency and public notice before letting projects be processed at an administrative level. One supervisor said, "I don't want to be in a position where a project is approved at a low administrative level and we never saw it," asking that any exemptions include public notification and appeals.
Next steps: Staff will prepare the revised ordinance language, include alternatives on parcel-percent caps, and research containment, emergency response and financial-assurance practices used in other counties. The Sept. 1 hearing will present those options and the environmental-assessment refinements for final board direction.
