Good evening. Welcome to April 14, 2025 Sacramento Planning Commission. Will the clerk please

stand for the pledge of allegiance?

Yes, Chair, Commissioner Virga, Devlin, Corona Sabaniano,

Borja, Chair Cronklin, we have a quorum with those members present.

Thank you very much. Will you please stand with me for the pledge of allegiance?

Thank you very much. Clerk, will you please provide the announcements for this evening?

Absolutely. The county fosters public engagement during the meeting and encourages public participation, civility, and the use of courteous language.

The commission does not condone the use of profanity, vulgar language, gestures, or other inappropriate behavior, including personal attacks or threats directed towards any meeting participant.

Seating may be limited and available on a first come first served basis.

To make an in-person public comment, please complete and submit a speaker request form to the clerk.

Each individual will be invited to the podium to make a public comment.

Members of the public may send a written comment to the clerk, which will be distributed to commission members and filed in the record.

Contact information is optional and should be included with the meeting date and the off agenda item number as follows and sent to e-mail a comment to board clerk at saccounty.gov, mail a comment to 708 Street,

2450 Sacramento, California, 95814.

And that ends public announcement.

Thank you very much. And will you please start us off with the first agenda item on the non-contested portion of our agenda?

Yes. Item number one is PLMP 2024-00114.

This is a tentative parcel map, a special development permit, and design review.

It is located at 10672 Davis Road, located 2,650 feet south of the intersection of Walmort Road and Davis Road in the Consuminous Community.

And this environmental document is exempt.

Wonderful.

Is there a staff report or are we...

It is up to the commission as this is a non-contested item.

Staff is prepared, should you wish a presentation, but is that at your discretion?

I'd like to know the staff recommendation.

Second.

All right. And do we have any testimony from the applicant?

Not necessary, but if you want to, you're more than welcome to.

I think the staff does be...

Good. All right.

And any other members of the public wish to testify?

Not seeing any.

Close of public hearing.

I think we have a motion and a second.

And there are no public comments.

And I will go ahead and do a roll call.

Members Virga.

Members Devlin.

Members Corona Sabaniano.

Members Borja.

And Chair Conklin.

That vote passes.

Thank you.

All right. Moving on to agenda number two, contested item.

The clerk please call.

Item number two is PLER 2025-0039 establishment of a foothill farm CPAC.

And the environmental document is notice of exemption.

Wonderful.

And it looks like we have a presentation by staff.

Good evening, planning commissioners.

My name is Nicoli.

I'm an assistant clerk of the board of supervisors.

And tonight before you will discuss the establishment of a proposed foothill

farms community planning advisory council or CPAC.

And so just a little bit for background of why this item is before you today.

The district three office was approached by members of the foothill farm

community and they expressed extreme desire, a strong desire to have their

own CPAC that represented their community.

They emphasized in those conversations a need for local CPAC to provide a more

direct platform for community input on development projects within the foothill

farms community.

So district three began to engage in conversations in various community

meetings, public events and from those conversations they garden feedback from

the residents, from local leaders and stakeholders to better

understand the community need.

And so currently the foothill farm CPAC is split between two other CPACs.

So the North Highlands foothill farm CPAC and the Carmichael foothill farm

CPAC.

And so today before you, like I said, the foothill farms community, they expressed

that desire to have their own CPAC.

And so there's currently 14 CPACs that represent the unincorporated

communities within Sacramento County including a CMEC in the Delta area.

And so chapter 2.36 of Sacramento County ordinance code provides that the

Board of Supervisors by resolution can establish a CPAC and so that's what we

are recommending today here that you make that recommendation that the Board of

Supervisors do make that approval.

So just a couple things.

So I have a few different maps so you could see what area that we are discussing

tonight.

So you have to excuse me because these maps are really, really small swarms.

I'm going to show you some maps in a few different ways so that you can see it.

And so like I mentioned earlier, the foothill farms community is currently

connected with part of it is if you see on that map, there's a red line that goes

between that foothill farms.

That's the proposed foothill farms area.

So that's basically all of the foothill farms area taken out of both the North

Highlands and the Carmichael CPAC.

What you're seeing is just that area now which is all pink being its own foot.

So that is the proposed area.

You can see a little bit more so that would be what would be considered in the

green, the North Highlands CPAC.

So that does change the composition of the North Highlands or the boundaries of

that North Highlands CPAC.

And then also it does change the area for that Carmichael CPAC.

Again, all we're doing is recommending is moving out that foothill farms community.

And then of course this would be the proposed map with all of the CPAC areas

and way up there at the top you see three.

There's a 15th and that will be that 15th CPAC that will be that we're proposing

before you today for that.

And so as part of the engagement efforts, this project did go before the CPACs,

all of the both of the affected CPACs.

So there were three CPAC meetings that were held from April through September of

2024.

It first went to the North Highlands CPAC on April the 23rd and there was just a

discussion that was had there with that CPAC.

I don't believe at that CPAC meeting they had a quorum.

And on May the 8th it went to the Carmichael Old Foothill Farm CPAC and they did

unanimously vote 6 to 0 to recommend that the Board of Supervisors approve this CPAC.

Then it went back to the North Highlands Foothill Farm CPAC September 24th,

2024 for a vote this time.

They weren't able to move forward a recommendation.

There was two yeses and two abstains so they were not able to move forward a

recommendation.

Some of the comments received were that the CPAC members had questions really about

member distribution and what the recruitment efforts would be for those CPACs.

They had just some concerns there.

There was one public comment received in favor of the proposal at the North

Highlands Foothill Farm CPAC but for the most part positive comments received.

For the CPAC member composition because CPACs have seven members per CPAC.

The current seat distribution of course what you're seeing here today for the

proposed Foothill Farm CPAC the current there's obviously not a proposed seat

distribution but for North Highlands currently it is comprised there's three

affected districts that are impacted by these proposed changes and so the existing

CPACs and the newly proposed CPAC will be determined by those affected

Supervisorial districts and then ratified of course by the Board of Supervisors

when this does move forward to the board upon approval of the establishment of

that proposed CPAC.

So currently North Highlands there is District 1 has one seat, District 3 has

three seats, District 4 has three seats and this is pretty much based on the area

that is covered within that CPAC and then Carmichael CPAC District 3 it's all

within District 3 and so they have seven seats.

So with the removal of the Old Foothill Farms with the removal of the Foothill

Farms community from those CPACs it does change that seat distribution just

slightly and so we are proposing that for the Foothill Farm CPAC all seven seats

would go to District 3 and that is because all of that entire area is within

the Supervisorial District 3.

For North Highlands CPAC that has the most impact of all of this and so it did

change that composition a little bit when you remove that Foothill Farms area from

North Highlands so we're recommending today that District 1 gain a seat and so they'll

have two seats, District 3 will lose two seats because now they just have a very

small portion of that North Highlands, the proposed of North Highlands and then

District 4 will gain a seat and have four seats and then for Carmichael CPAC there

would be no change and so they would retain all seven seats just again because that

area is all within District 3.

So the clerk of the board on behalf of Supervisorial District 3 does recommend that

the Planning Commission make the recommendation to the Board of Supervisors

to approve a resolution establishing the Foothill Farm CPAC and then amending the

consolidated CPAC bylaws that will include the Foothill Farm CPAC within it.

So I'm available to answer any questions that you may have today and that is all I

have for you.

Thank you very much. Any questions from the Dias?

No questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

I'll open up for I guess public testimony since there's no.

I have no public comments.

Applicant or proponent. All right. No, so no public. Any deliberation or questions?

I'm happy to move that recommendation.

I think that we adopt the recommendation with presentation. Thank you.

So we have a motion.

We have a second. Clerk, please call the roll.

Commissioner Verga.

Aye.

Devlin.

Aye.

Corona Sabaniano.

Yes.

Borja.

Aye.

Conklin.

Aye.

And that vote passes.

Thank you very much.

Thank you so much.

All right.

So number three of our agenda with a clerk, please call the agenda item.

Item number three is PLMP 2021-00191.

This is a use permit, a special development permit and a design review.

It is located on multiple parcels totaling approximately 20,

20,000 acres along the Scott Road south of White Rock Road north of Boys Ranch

Road in the Consumers Community.

And the environmental document is a draft environmental impact report.

Thank you very much.

And do we have staff for a presentation?

Yes.

Wonderful.

Good evening.

I don't have a formal presentation for each night,

but I do want to just kind of explain why this is coming before you now.

So Kimber Gutierrez senior planner with planning and environmental review.

So the purpose of this hearing is to introduce the Coyote Creek Agrovoltaic

Ranch project, receive oral comments on the draft EIR,

Environmental Impact Report,

recognize the end of the public review period for the draft EIR,

and direct staff to prepare the final EIR for the project.

So a subsequent hearing will be held for the Planning Commission to consider

and make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors regarding the project.

So staff does ask that all questions and discussion by the commission be held

until that subsequent hearing.

The project site, which was explained by the clerk is generally south of U.S. Route 50,

northwest of Rancho Marietta, southeast of Prairie City,

state vehicle recreation area, and south of White Rock Road in the Kasumnis community.

It specifically is known as Barton Ranch and is situated along Scott Road.

The project does involve a use permit, special development, and design review

to allow an approximately 200 megawatt alternating current photovoltaic solar energy generating facility

and associated four-hour 100 megawatt alternating current battery energy storage system

with a planned operational life of 35 years.

So pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, a draft EIR was prepared for the project,

which identified significant and unavoidable impacts associated with aesthetics,

biological resources, and tribal cultural resources.

The draft EIR was released for review on March 5th of this year with an original end date of April 21st.

However, we have received several extension requests,

and the public comment period will now close on March, or sorry, May 5th.

So to date, several comments have been received on the draft EIR,

which have been forwarded to the Planning Commission,

and staff asked that anyone making a public comment on the draft EIR tonight also submit written public comments,

and they can submit those to CEQA at saccounty.gov.

So following this hearing, staff will prepare a final EIR that will address all comments received

in response to the draft EIR and make any necessary changes if required.

Following the public comments tonight, staff does recommend that the Planning Commission

acknowledge the end of the public comment period for the draft EIR on May 5th, 2025,

and direct staff to prepare the final EIR.

That concludes my overview of the project request before you tonight.

We did also receive a request from Wilton Rancheria to have an extended public comment of 15 minutes.

So I will let them request that from you specifically,

but just wanted to alert you all that that request didn't come in before tonight's hearing.

Thank you very much.

Any questions from the Dias for staff?

I had a quick clarifying question on the agenda under number three.

It says on page five, the minimum interior side yard setback is 50 feet.

The applicant is requesting 100%.

Is it 100 feet or 100%?

100%.

So the solar panels will go over the property lines.

Got it.

Thank you for the clarification.

And the surfacing of the drive aisle way is typically a minimum of gravel for some sort

of substrate there.

They're looking to just have dirt.

Is there a rationale or is that a question better suited for the applicant?

Question better suited for the applicant at the subsequent hearing for the item.

Got it.

Understood.

All right.

Quick question for staff.

Are we approving this project tonight?

No.

Are we approving this environmental document tonight?

No.

Thank you.

Okay.

Is the applicant here?

There we go.

The applicant like to provide any opening remarks or no?

Okay.

We're going to open it up for public testimony.

I understand that we've got a handful of members that would like to speak if we could all stand

up at once and be sworn in collectively.

I will be calling two at a time, one at the microphone and one on deck behind that speaker.

And we'll do so in order, clerk.

Will you please swear them in?

Please raise your right hand and the appropriate response is I do.

Do you swear that the testimony that you are about to give to this board is the truth?

So help you God.

All right.

Thank you very much.

First speaker, we have Greta Lacyan.

I apologize if I mispronounce your name.

And on deck is Michelle Sinclair.

I'm Greta Lacyan and I'm opposed to the approval of the Coyote Creek solar farm.

The project is in violation of smuds in the county's solar siding guidelines.

The DEIR calls for the clear cutting of more than 4,500 blue oaks and flattening the area

with dynamite to be replaced with an industrial farm which will operate, I learned tonight,

for only 35 years.

You probably already know that blue oak woodlands are an habitat for a multitude of creatures,

everything from eagles and hawks to amphibians.

But you may not know this.

I came across a University of California agriculture and natural resources study in an article

entitled Blue Oaks Grow Slowly.

As part of a study, a number of blue oaks were cut down at five locations.

After the trees were felled, discs from the trees were evaluated to determine their age and growth patterns.

The age analysis showed that on average, trees that were seven inches in diameter were 100 years old.

Even in the best site, it took an average of 10 years for a tree to grow in each inch in diameter.

The article concluded, these findings suggest that we should be cautious when making decisions about harvesting blue oak trees.

Even if a stand that was cut today regenerated, it could take several human generations before mature trees were reestablished.

There will be no mitigation offered planting seedlings that is sufficient.

It's not right to destroy an environment to save our environment.

You cannot allow this destruction when no real mitigation planting saplings is possible.

And when there are other locations that are not so environmentally valuable, it is not a wise decision.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

And after Michelle St. Clair, we have Pamela Flick.

So I did ask for more time with Wilton Rancheria. I don't know if that's granted or not.

With respect, I'll, I think everyone's getting two minutes. On behalf of the Rancheria, I'll give five minutes.

Okay. Good evening. My name is Michelle St. Clair and I'm speaking today on behalf of Wilton Rancheria.

My capacity as the tribe's executive director of cultural preservation.

Wilton Rancheria is a federally recognized tribe with significant ancestral cultural and spiritual ties to the land affected by the proposed Coyote Creek Ranch project.

We offer this testimony to preserve the tribe's objections under the California Environmental Quality Act, section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and applicable provisions of the California Administrative Procedure Act.

We are deeply concerned that the project as currently proposed will result in significant and unavoidable impacts to tribal cultural resources, resources that are unique, sacred and irreplaceable to Wilton Rancheria.

These include, among other resources, burial sites, ancestral village areas, trails, ceremonial locations and traditional use areas that are central to the tribe's identity, religious practices, history and ongoing cultural and governance responsibilities.

The project site lies within a historically and spiritually significant cultural landscape, which includes traditional cultural properties of long-standing religious and cultural significance.

The project's footprint threatens to cut into that landscape, resulting in irreparable harm that once destroyed these cultural resources are connections to ancestors, ceremony and place cannot be reconstructed, relocated or replaced.

In addition, we must formally state for the record that CEQA's tribal consultation requirements under AB 52 were not met.

The county unilaterally closed consultation with the tribe, and while the tribe had clearly indicated in writing that consultation was not complete.

This action violated CEQA's requirement to conduct good faith government to government consultation with tribal governments.

This also disregards the spirit and intent of AB 52, which reinforces California's policy of respectful engagement with tribal governments on land use decisions that may affect tribal cultural resources of significance to the tribe.

This failure deprived the tribe of its rights under CEQA and related consultation requirements, including the opportunity to meaningfully engage in the identification of feasible project alternatives, propose avoidance strategies and develop appropriate mitigation measures to resolve adverse effects on traditional cultural resources and properties of religious and cultural significance to the tribe.

Although the draft environmental impact report acknowledges potentially significant impacts to tribal cultural resources, it fails to identify feasible alternatives, avoidance measures or culturally appropriate mitigation.

CEQA requires a thorough and meaningful consideration of project redesign and avoidance of high sensitivity areas that did not occur.

Let us be clear, tribal cultural resources are not relics of the past. They are living elements of the tribe, its peoples, their history, identity and spiritual obligations.

Our responsibilities to our ancestors and sacred places are ongoing and cannot be fulfilled if those places are desecrated or destroyed.

This project proposes permanent development in a landscape where traditional use, ceremony and cultural connection persists to this day.

Therefore, we strongly urge the county to take at least these three steps.

Re-instate and continue AB 52 consultation in good faith in accordance with CEQA requirements.

Identify and evaluate a culturally viable alternative with reduced ground disturbance and avoidance of known high sensitivity areas.

Adopt enforceable long-term protections for tribal cultural resources including conservation easements, recorded avoidance zones and binding mitigation measures developed in coordination with Wilton Rancheria.

Wilton Rancheria remains committed to government-to-government consultation and respectful engagement.

However, we cannot support the project as proposed and will take all necessary steps to protect the tribe's cultural heritage, sovereign rights and the obligations we hold to our ancestors and future generations. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We have Pamela Flick and on deck Rick Codino.

Good evening. I'm Pamela Flick, the California Program Director with Defenders of Wildlife and a 28-year resident of Sacramento County.

We strongly support renewable energy development. However, we must balance this need with protecting sensitive species and habitats through smart planning and site selection to avoid and minimize impacts on high-value resources.

This project location is inconsistent with the county's own sighting guidelines. Unlike the Slew House Solar Project, which we supported, the Coyote Creek Project will require the use of eight tons of explosives every day for over a month, 1.4 million cubic yards of excavation and nearly as much fill.

This will cause irreversible changes to the physical environment, entirely shifting the rural character of the scenic corridor into an industrial complex. How the DEIR can claim that no irreversible change to land use would result from such a massive amount of blasting, grading and filling is beyond logic.

Further, the DEIR itself is deeply flawed, does not rise to the level of adequacy on a number of levels and lacks sufficient information to enable informed decision making. The project objective is overly narrow and prevents identifying and considering reasonable alternatives.

Sight selection methodology was constrained by an extraordinarily limited gentai distance of just 1,000 feet from a smud transmission line, while industry norms can range up to 30 miles. The cumulative impacts analysis was arbitrarily limited to projects within a five mile radius yet failed to include at least three reasonably foreseeable projects in El Dorado County within five miles.

We'll cover the DEIR's additional inadequacies in much more detail in our written comment letter. The DEIR must substantially be revised and recirculated for public review and comment. I've also provided comments from 100 local defenders members who oppose this project. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Okay. Thank you, commissioners. My name is Rick Codina and I am with the Smud Watch team for 350 Sacramento. We're a local climate action group that has been strongly supporting Smud's zero carbon plan. And we've been very supportive of the many renewable projects they have advanced.

But unlike Smud's local solar projects, Coyote Creek, as described in the draft DEIR, will be exceptionally destructive and we can't support it.

Nor do we believe it is at all necessary to meet Smud's carbon goals. To begin with, Coyote Creek is not a Smud project. Smud didn't even solicit the proposal when it agreed to purchase the project's future generation in 2022.

Back then it approved the contract without a site review and in fact Coyote Creek most likely violates Smud's environmental guidelines for developing its own solar projects.

The draft DEIR also asserts that the county lacks alternative sites of sufficient size, suitability and close access to a Smud interconnection.

That might be true in terms of the developer, but it is not true for Smud. In fact, Smud maintains a list of generation projects requesting potential interconnection that includes eight active solar plus battery projects totaling more than 2200 megawatts.

Nearly all have completed the necessary studies and three are requesting Smud connections at the same point of intertie as Coyote Creek.

Some of these sites may prove problematic and may be withdrawn later, but the point is Coyote Creek is not irreplaceable.

The draft asserts Smud's carbon reduction goals, but that's not necessary.

Smud did originally consider that Coyote Creek would be needed to help to close the former Campbell facility soup, but the latest staff update has found that if you look at the country acres 344 megawatt power plant, it's going to provide enough generation to the local grid to replace Campbell without assistance for Coyote Creek.

Thank you very much. Our next speaker is Kim Delfino and on deck is Nick Jensen.

Good evening. My name is Kim Delfino. I work as a consultant for Defenders of Wildlife. I'm also a 25 year resident of Sacramento County.

During the last 15 years of my career, I've worked to improve state, regional and local policy and practice to site and permit large scale renewable energy projects faster and more efficiently.

It always comes down to one key factor. Did the project proponent pick a site that was smart from the start or low impact? Unfortunately for this particular project, it is the antithesis of smart from the start.

As you've already heard, the project require massive blasting and filling and a number of 1.4 million cubic feet of material was coded to you. But just to give you a context, that's enough to fill 450 football stadiums.

So think about that across a landscape of over 2,500 acres. It is a massive change to the landscape.

I want to focus on one critical issue this evening, the impacts to water in the area. I will note that we will be submitting detailed comments and it will include a technical report prepared by a professional hydrologist that will provide far more

great detail than I can do in the next one minute. First, I would just say the DER fails to examine how the extensive blasting and excavations will impact the area's groundwater and spring systems.

Second, it fails to adequately analyze the impacts of blasting will have an existing groundwater wells including wells monitoring the contamination plumes that are in that area.

Third, the DEIR does not include sufficient analysis of groundwater quality or for potential impacts from long term groundwater extractions on the groundwater contamination plumes existing beneath and adjacent to the site.

And finally, there's no analysis on potential long term impacts from groundwater extraction for the project and no evaluation of groundwater dependent ecosystems in the area, particularly in or near Deer Creek.

The environmental analysis and evaluation for this project is sorely lacking. The DEIR must be revised to address the many deficiencies and should be recirculated for public review. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon. My name is Nick Jensen. I'm the Conservation Program Director for the California Native Plant Society, also a resident of Sacramento County.

Start with based on our analysis, the DEIR is insufficient and does not accurately quantify the botanical and habitat impacts of this project.

Given the significance of these impacts, we strongly encourage the preparation of a revised DEIR that addresses these emissions.

With regard to habitat, the project proposes to remove 4,787 trees, 4,699 of which are oaks. This totals 287 acres of oak woodland and constitutes over 54 continuous acres of canopy cover.

The vast majority of these, 4500, are blue oaks, which are one of our slowest growing oak species.

Blue oaks begin to reach maturity at around 90 years of age, at which point they start to produce acorns. It would take centuries to recreate the habitat values that currently exist on this project site and would be eliminated.

Zooming down into nerdy botanist territory, the project would directly impact the occurrences of spiked western rosin wheat. The species is endemic to California and is rare across this entire range.

The DEIR inaccurately represents observations of the species as individual occurrences, greatly exaggerating the number of populations of the species across California. This obfuscates the public's ability to understand the project's actual impacts.

Furthermore, the mitigation for this species proposes to salvage topsoil containing its seeds and return it to site post-construction.

The potential success of this mitigation measure is untested, and while there is language to require monitoring post-construction, there is no language to ensure that the species will survive on the site.

The examples of the impacts to oak woodland and this one rare plant highlight the large effect the project will have and the inadequacy of the analysis provided in the EIR.

So therefore we request to revise the EIR. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

We have Dan Erico speaking and then Sean Wirth on deck.

Hi there. Bad printing. My name is Dan Erolah.

I apologize.

I'm a certified wildlife biologist. I practiced in Sacramento County since 1985 addressing permitting and environmental compliance and also research on a number of the species that occur at the project.

I represent Sacramento Audubon Society and the Central Valley Bird Club, both of which have 600 members.

I prepared 12 pages of comments on the inadequacies of the DEIR just in addressing certain wildlife species and their evaluation at the project site.

I can't go into all those issues, but I'll just highlight a couple of key ones here.

As mentioned, the project would remove 4,800 oak trees on the project site.

That represents about 30% of the remaining oak community in Sacramento County.

So this is a major impact.

This woodland loss would affect nesting raptors including the threatened Swainsons Hawk, the fully protected whitetail kite, and many other species dependent on oak woodlands.

The proposed mitigation for removing these 100-plus year old communities is completely inadequate.

Planting young saplings will not achieve the ecological functions and values of an oak community for decades, if not centuries.

Second, the state threatened and colonial nesting tricolored blackbird nests on the project site has nested there twice based on my studies of that specific area from Scott Road, public land.

That was not acknowledged in the DEIR.

The analysis does not recognize that the largest colony in the region occurs just across the border near the OHV area, and those birds forage on the site, that habitat will be eliminated.

So this project is going to eliminate a substantial amount of grassland.

In short, because I did prepare for three minutes, the DEIR is inadequate.

Additional analysis needs to be done to fully understand the impacts on these species.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

We have Rob Bernes and Herb Garms on deck.

Good evening.

My name is Sean Worth.

I'm the conservation chair for the Motherland Chapter of the Sierra Club.

I want to start out by pointing that we have never been opposed to a solar project in this region before.

This is the first one.

And why might that be?

It's because of where it's placed.

The environmental impact report for this particular project is so flawed that I do not see how it works as an informational document for you to actually make your decision.

There's no project anywhere in the coverage area for the Southlake HCP that anticipates Blue Oak Woodlands being destroyed, Oak Savannah being destroyed.

So there's no money coming in to do any conservation for those particular habitat types, despite the fact they benefit more than two thirds of the species covered by that plan.

The area where this project is going to be, it overlaps into two preserved planning units, but the bulk of it is outside of that in a zone that does not have a preserved planning unit.

And why would that be?

There was no money to buy anything to have a preserved planning unit.

What is a preserved planning unit?

It's a discrete area focused on particular important ecosystem values and the species associated with them.

This is one of the most important ecosystems in the whole area.

It supports so many species and is so critical that a separate appendix was added to the HCP called Appendix J.

Appendix J calls out 8,000 acres of conservation specifically in this type of area, in that particular geography.

That's not even mentioned in the EIR.

And I'm not getting into the weeds yet.

The weeds, it's one of the more deficient EIRs I've seen in a long time.

And the comment letter will be extremely long, but as we're giving only two minutes to talk, I'm sure you have more enough time to read it when it comes out.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

We have Rob Bernus.

Rob Bernus here.

No.

All right.

Herb garms.

And then after herb, we have Tim Washburn on deck.

Thank you.

My name is Herb garms.

I am part of the Barton Ranch.

I wanted to introduce myself and my family because I want to put a name to this ranch because what has been forgotten is that in the end, this ranch will exist after the life of the solar panels.

So no one has talked about that, but I want my wife, Wita and my two daughters, Jackie and Caitlin, to stand up.

They're part of the Barton Ranch.

Thank you.

So I want to give a little history lesson.

We came to California in 1847, the Kuybris family, which was on the Donner Party.

And from that came along Bill Barton later on, roughly 40 years later.

So in 1890, the Barton Ranch was created on Scott Road.

And that ranch has existed since then.

We have run cattle on it, horses, everything that is agriculture.

We believe in ranching.

And I wanted to make sure that you understood who we are.

So the progression is that they talked about mining, or us moving dirt, rock.

Well, I hate to say it, but Tigard is north of us, west of us.

And we have a new mine that's going in to the east that has a hundred year permit.

And that wall town used to exist out there in the 1800s, all up to 1940.

And they did gold mining just to the east of the Barton Ranch.

And so I want you to understand that changes have always happened in that area, all along, all through these 120, 140, 150 years.

But the real two people, well, I see I'm just about out.

So thank you.

I wanted to make sure that you understood what we're in the Williams Act.

We will be here for farming, ranching after this project is done.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

My name is Tim Washburn.

I'm a resident of Wilton, California, a county resident for 25 years.

I just passed out to you the Carbon Zero Plan for SMUD.

I attended the CPAC meeting that occurred prior to this.

And there was a lot of confusion among the CPAC members about how much land did SMUD actually need to meet its 2030 renewable goals.

So I thought I would characterize it here for you from what came from their 2030 plan.

And it turns out that they need about 950 megawatts more than they currently have on ground-based solar.

And that would take about 4,500 acres to achieve that goal.

So this is a pretty big chunk of it, nearly a third.

So understandably, it's a big piece.

But it's not, those guys at the CPAC meeting thought that they needed 25 square miles of land to achieve their renewable goal in that G.

Where are you going to get all that land?

Maybe you do need to do solar on places like, regrettably, on places like Barton Ranch.

But they were misinformed.

It's nowhere near 25 square miles.

It's a fourth of that.

And there's plenty of land in the county for SMUD to meet its renewable goals.

The problem is that the Barton Ranch, although a big chunk of it, is completely, as folks have been saying, at odds with the county general plan guidelines for where to put solar array.

And I have a hand out there to characterize quickly what those goals are.

And it's at odds with virtually, you know, the great majority of the general plan adopted county guidelines for where to put solar array.

The next piece you can see, the vast majority of this project is in a resource protection area, as declared in the general plan.

Only a small part is outside the resource protection area.

And even that is in the scenic corridor of Scott Road.

The last three pieces have to do with the county buffer lands where I believe, and you'll see on the map, there is ample land for solar array around the county buffer lands that the county itself controls.

And where the plan adopted in 2008 says solar array would be appropriate.

So it's within the power of the county to do something far more reasonable to meet SMUD's goal than is proposed here.

All right. Thank you very much.

And the last speaker I have is Stan Van Vleck.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members. My name is Stan Van Vleck. Our family has been ranching in this community since 1856.

We represent about, based on land, about 5% of Sacramento County's farming operations.

And we actually, we're impacted directly by this in two ways.

First, we actually leased the Barton Ranch because the Bartons came to us and said, at this time, we don't have family members who can run the operation.

Can you please take over and lease our operation and use the land so we don't have to sell it?

We want to keep this for the next generation. And that was 10 years ago.

And so, and importantly, it's only half of that ranch because the other half of the ranch is going to be used for mitigation.

And directly south of that, the 480 acres that we have are going to be used for mitigation.

One thing that needs to be balanced and unfortunately and respectfully to some of the people who are opposing this, they're the same people who sued us and opposed us.

When we started the mitigation process to be able to retain our ranch, we're now 90% of our ranching operation is protected.

And this will be some of the final amounts that we can protect. So more of the land in Sacramento County is protected.

They're not looking at what the reality is. They're asking people to hold on to land that they can't afford to hold on.

They want to be able to keep the land without selling it. This gives them that choice. That keeps an open corridor.

That keeps an open corridor for not only the other half of the Barton Ranch.

They've got several other rants is that this allows them to have the economics to do.

That's what our business did by being able to sell some mitigation rights, or in this case, solar for them.

It allows to be able to have the buffer and the additional open space for this county.

And so I would ask is you're doing that balance, not only to look at the four corners of the document,

but look to the reality of how this impacts the families and the greater surrounding areas.

We're a buffer. They're a buffer. We all provide a lot of the backyard for the Sacramento County.

We're proud to do it, but we need to have flexibility, especially when the economics don't give rise to just cattle alone.

Thank you for your time. Thank you very much.

All right. Is there any other public comments? Seeing none. Clerk, is there any on the call?

We have none.

All right. I'll give the opportunity for the applicant or proponents to rebuttal if they so choose.

Nope. All right.

Then we'll turn off to the or turn over to the dais for any questions that they may have.

Yes, commissioner.

I want to make sure we're clear on what we're being asked to vote on.

So can you restate what you were talking about? You want us to actually vote on?

Correct. We just want we're recommending that you just acknowledge the end of the public comment period for the draft dir on May 5th of this year and direct staff to prepare the final ER.

So you're not making a recommendation on the project at all.

So you're asking us basically to bless the closing of the ER process. Correct. Thank you. Just a quick clarification. Commissioner Virga Todd Smith down here.

This is not the end of the ER process. This is simply the draft dir that we're talking about tonight. We have to go back as staff following the end of the comment period prepare responses to comments and go through preparation of a final ER after that.

So you're basically going to prepare responses to what we just heard today. In addition to any other written comments we received. Okay. Thank you.

I have a quick question. Maybe for general counsel. Sorry, Bill.

We heard comments today that there may have been a challenge on equal standing another agency or former government about the county and their interpretation might not be following certain state statutes.

Now we're not certifying the ER at this moment. However, that seems to be a pretty foundational allegation. So I'm not too sure whether or not we do continue the process and we perhaps allow the courts if there's an actual challenge.

Thank you. And also for full transparency, chair and members of the public, I've met with both the proponents of the project, as well as some of the folks who've raised concern.

and also all of the letters, thousands of pages that we're going to be reading and hopefully thinking about. And so look forward to the next step of the process and thank you to general council for responding.

My question earlier. Thank you.

Any other questions? No.

I want to thank staff for preparing a rather comprehensive and voluminous analysis. I think it's might be a record of a little over 5700 pages.

I did have a couple of just logistical questions and I know that the purview of this hearing is more for kind of introductory and to look at the draft environmental impact report.

But just for my own edification, I was hoping staff might be able to walk me through some areas, especially some items that were, I think, highlighted by the testimony this evening.

And I just want to make sure we are addressed some of those concerns.

So on, or at least in the analysis, I saw that the approximate area of the battery energy storage system facility itself is 3.72 acres.

And I just want to make sure that staff is as we're seeing a loss of about 56 acres of oak canopy.

And I just won't, you know, there's been questions about the size of this footprint as it relates to the size of the project.

And I just was hoping somebody could kind of clarify that for me.

Hi there. I'm Alison Little with I can restate the question. Sorry.

Yeah, I'm trying to wonder if you're wondering the whole project size or.

Yeah, so there's there's this.

In the analysis, it says that there's going to be a loss of 56.61 acres of oak canopy.

And that there's going to be a permanent loss of 287 acres of oaks.

And then I see a 3.72 acres for the BESS facility.

I presume there's a larger footprint of for the solar arrays.

And I was hoping to get some idea of what that footprint might look like.

So the solar arrays themselves are over 1400 acres or so of the 2700 acres.

The battery storage energy system is up towards the top or Prairie City State Vehicle Recreation Park is.

But the oak canopy, how we do the analysis is that it's you take the size of the oak woodlands,

which is to about 280 287 acres that are being impacted.

And if you put all of those trees together, it equals that about 54 acres of canopy coverage.

So they're spread out over 287 acres.

The trees themselves got it.

That's helpful.

And then for, I guess my concerns is kind of resting in this kind of general concerns for public safety in the environment with regard to battery energy storage systems.

I understand that the operational or the operation of a BESS facility has inherent risks of fire and thermal runaways and flammable gases.

But there's also this need for increased grid reliability and saving money for ratepayers and making sure that we have some reliable electricity for the county.

And I guess my my concern is that in the last few years, we've had as a state collectively several fire incidences in Moss landing, resulting in state legislations.

And at bill 38, which was referenced in the analysis for evacuation plans and safety protocols.

There is fire in Escondido with San Diego gas and electric.

The Orange County Board of Supervisors just recently approved a moratorium suspending all permits related to BESS.

And so I'm I'm just trying to get a sense of what Sacramento County's overall plan is with regard to fire safety and ensuring that these types of facilities.

If you know if God forbid there is a fire that we have some sort of local fire authority and and county adoption adopted plan.

I'll take a stab at responding to that one.

Commissioner Conklin. First, the EIR mentions in the hazards and hazardous materials chapter in emergency evacuation plan.

The county's Office of Emergency Services has mechanisms in place to deal with that, not just in this location, but countywide narrowing it down to this location.

Our county, not just OES, but our County Department of Transportation has been engaged with the community along Scott Road and Rancho Marietta in particular, where there's a larger population center and is actively working on a grant funded effort to develop a more detailed response emergency

response or evacuation plan. Obviously this will need to feed into that. Should the Board of Supervisors ultimately decide to approve it.

Going back to your first question, what's the county doing about best facilities in general? Sacramento County, along with a number of other jurisdictions throughout the state are engaged in really a statewide conversation about these types of facilities,

given the concerns you mentioned. Learning from those other jurisdictions about, you know, why they're taking certain stances, whether it's Orange County or Monterey County or others.

Right now we have an interim planning director's determination that essentially identifies those areas of concern. And as a result, we have characterized standalone best facilities, battery energy storage facilities,

as requiring a use permit to the Board of Supervisors, the highest hearing body in Sacramento County. Until such time as we have a more specific analysis and kind of framework for dealing with these types of projects.

That's exactly what I wanted to hear. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Is there any other questions or comments?

Okay. Is there anyone entertaining making a motion?

Is this required motion? Yeah, I think it does. They're asking you to make a motion to direct them to go into the final ER. There should be no suspense attached to this. It's a formality and they would have to do it anyway.

I'll go ahead and move that we direct staff to complete a final draft environmental and back report for this project.

Second. We have a motion. We have a second. Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Commissioner Berger. Aye.

Devlin. Aye.

Corona Sabaniano. Yes. Borja. Aye.

And Conklin. Aye.

That passes. Thank you very much. That brings us to our planning director's report.

I'll keep it brief tonight. I think we only have a few items for the upcoming agenda. I don't have anything of substance to report on tonight, but I will say it's nice to something that's kind of behind the scenes that we're doing.

We're actively filling a lot of our vacancies. We have a number of new folks coming on board in the next several weeks and eventually they'll make their way to this body. You'll see a lot more new faces in the coming months.

Thank you very much for that update. Appreciate it. Any miscellaneous scheduling items?

None. I have none.

And our next upcoming hearing is what date?

April 28th. April 28th.

And do we have a full, are we going to have any vacancies or are we going to have vacancy absences?

I won't be here.

Okay. We've got one absence. We have one public. Yep. Yep.

All right. And then brings us to public comments. It looks like we have one individual, Misha Scott.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Hi, my name is Misha Scott. I'm a social worker student who wants to speak on the urgent need for affordable housing solutions in Sacramento County.

We're facing a growing housing crisis that impacts working families, seniors and people experiencing homelessness.

I want to acknowledge the progress already being made. Programs like the Housing Choice Voucher Program and Safe State Community on Stockton Boulevard are important steps towards sheltering our most vulnerable residents.

I also support innovative zoning reforms that increase density and reduce parking minimums, making it easier to build affordable homes.

Policies like allowing religious institutions to develop housing on our land are smart, compassionate solutions that have a real impact.

Affordable housing is more than just a roof over someone's head. It's a foundation of a stable and thriving community.

As a future social worker, I'm urging local leaders to invest in real solutions to address this crisis head on.

Everyone in Sacramento deserves a safe, affordable place to call home. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much for your comments.

Any other comments from the dais? Nope. All right. Well, with that at 633, we adjourn.