Good evening.

Welcome to the Sacramento County Planning Commission's hearing for Monday, October 6, 2005.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Good evening.

Members Borha.

Here.

Members Conklin.

Here.

Members Deblin.

Here.

Members Virgo?

Here.

And with those members present, we do have a quorum.

Thank you very much.

Will you please join me for the Pledge of Allegiance?

Commissioner Virgo, could you start, please?

And Clerk, will you please provide 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 toward meeting participants.

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 and provide it to the clerk.

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

Members of the public may send a written comment, which is distributed to commission members and filed on the record.

Contact information is optional and should include the meeting date and agenda off agenda item number to be sent as follows.

Email a covenant to board clerk at Zach County.gov.

Mail a comment to 700 Eighth Street, suite 2450, Sacramento, California, 95814.

And that concludes the announcement.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate that.

Before we call out the first time item of our agenda, just want to lay out some ground rules on our speakers and times.

And then we will do two minutes for public testimony.

So we want to make sure that uh everybody's given an opportunity to make their points before the commission and then before the uh the commissioners will be uh asking questions thereafter.

Uh with that, uh clerk, will you please call out the first item on our agenda?

Item number one is PLMP 2021-00191.

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

The property is located along Scott Road, south of White Rock Road, north of Boys Ranch Road in the Consumeness Community, and the environmental document is an environmental impact report.

Thank you very much.

And staff's ready to present the good evening, Commissioners.

Uh my name is Kimber Gutierrez.

I'm the principal planner with planning current planning and planning and environmental review, and today I will be presenting the Coyote Creek Agro Voltaic Ranch Project.

Um as the clerk mentioned, the project site um is within the Casumus community and spans approximately 2700 acres.

It's located south of U.S.

Route 50 and White Rock Road, northwest of Rancher Marietta, and southeast of Prairie City State Vehicle Recreation Area along Scott Road.

The site is known as Barton Ranch and is currently uh used for cattle grazing.

The terrain consists of rolling hills and open grasslands, interspersed with seasonal wetlands, vernal pools, oak forests and woodlands, and ephemeral drainages.

Key water features include Coyote Creek, Carson Creek, and Little Deer Creek.

And the exhibit on the right shows land cover and aquatic types.

The site includes three zoning designations: agricultural 80 acres, heavy industrial, and aerojet special planning area, and those are all shown on the exhibit on the right.

Green being the agriculture, um, the red, pink being heavy industrial, and the gray beans SPA.

In March of 2021, the Board of Supervisors approved amendments to several agricultural preserves to allow solar and battery storage as compatible uses with Williamson Act contracts.

So the exhibit on the left shows all of the Williamson Act contracts that encompass the project site area, and those were all included as part of the amendment process.

There has been one code violation in the past five years, which was related to junk and rubbish dumped on one of the properties along Scott Road, and the code violation has been remedied and resolved.

The project evolved through three iterations.

The first being the initial project, which was submitted in July of 2021.

This was the proposal before any peer review, and was also the initial project that was included in the notice of preparation for the environmental impact report.

The second iteration is the draft environmental impact report project.

This was this included a redesign to avoid on-site sensitive resources, and this version of the project maintained the same acreage of solar development as the initial project and was analyzed in the draft environmental impact report.

The third and final iteration is the proposed project or the reduced footprint project, which is being presented for entitlement consideration.

This version reduces the solar footprint by 55 acres and preserves 1,500 1,150 acres on site or adjacent to the area.

Technological improvements and siting strategies were also utilized to reduce overall grading cut and fill quantities, and the site plan shown on the screen is the third iteration and proposed project.

The image on the left is the same image you saw on the last slide, although it calls out the areas that were removed from solar development area from the second iteration, so the area shown in red.

This also identifies just the in general where the solar development is in yellow, the best facilities in pink, earth work limits in purple, and then other adjacent lands in the kind of teal blue.

The image on the right is a more detailed site plan.

The proposed project is to construct and operate a 200 megawatt solar development, solar photovoltaic facility, and a 100 megawatt battery energy storage system that spans 1,357 acres of the site.

Components of the facility include an on-site substation, which is shown in light pink up here.

Inverters, solar arrays, which is shown in the orange.

Fencing roads, a generation tie line, which is 1.3 miles, this yellow line over here from the substation that connects to the proposed switch yard.

The proposed facility's purpose would be to supply electrical energy into the overall SMUD regional electrical grid via a long-term power purchase agreement.

And I do want to note that the power purchase agreement was reviewed, discussed, and recommended to be negotiated and executed at the Board Energy Resources and Customer Service Committee and Special Special SMUD Board of Directors meeting on June 16th of 2021.

The last thing I want to touch on for this slide is that the planned operational life of the facility is 35 years.

Minimizing new infrastructure impacts, and providing local employment and training opportunities.

An environmental impact report was prepared for the proposed project.

While most impacts are mitigated, three remain significant and unavoidable.

That is aesthetics, cumulative oak woodland loss, and tribal cultural resources.

A mitigation monitoring and reporting program was prepared to address the impacts and mitigations identified in the EIR.

The Casumna CPAC met twice to hear the project.

The first in February of 2022 for initial input and review.

The second was in March of this year, where they recommended approval of the proposed project that is a five yes to no vote.

The design review advisory committee met in February of 2022 and recommends that the board find the project in substantial compliance with the design guidelines, and the agricultural advisory committee met on in March of 2022 and recommended and voted to support the proposed project.

There has been a large community input component for the proposed project.

Supporters cite renewable energy compatibility with agriculture and land preservation benefits.

Opponents raise concerns about habitat impacts, loss of rural land, and effects on the Prairie City State Vehicle Recreation Area.

So I am going to start with energy.

Being a renewable energy development, the project does align with a couple of different policies.

The first being within the energy element of the general plan, that's energy element or energy policy 19, which is support the development and use of renewable sources of energy, which includes solar.

This would be a local supply of renewable energy through an agro voltaics facility.

A supporting document of the general plan is the climate action plan, which does have a policy greenhouse gas policy three, which is to support the SMUD Zero Carbon Plan.

This is to reduce emissions associated with electricity and coordinate with SMUD to identify sites for renewable energy generation and storage projects.

This is really a flexible roadmap to eliminate GHGs from SMUD's power supply by 2030.

Does state to target 1,0100 to 1500 megawatts of utility scale solar by that year.

Next, the project does align with many general plan policies.

However, it is only partially consistent with public facility policy 78.

There are other policies that lay out kind of siding criteria for renewable energy projects, PF 78 being the main one.

And there are also a number of other public facility element policies that the project is consistent with.

Next, we have agriculture.

And the project has also been found consistent with the Williamson Act principles of compatibility, and there are a number of agricultural general plan policies that the project is consistent with.

For biological resources, up to 3,493 native trees will be removed, resulting in a loss of 41.36 acres of oak canopy.

Mitigation includes one-to-one preservation and replanting, but the temporal loss of oak canopy remains a significant cumulative impact.

Also, despite mitigation, visual impacts from Prairie City State Vehicle Recreation Area and Scott Road remains significant and unavoidable.

Scott Road is considered a candidate scenic corridor, and the proposed landscape plan and direction from the zoning code is to maintain open views while providing a softening effect rather than a strict screening.

So you can see from these visual simulations that softening the softening effect with the kind of various spots of landscaping.

This does lead to the project not being consistent with general plan policy circulation 58, as it is going from open views of grasslands and trees to solar panels.

The visual simulations on the right show the visual impact from Prairie City State Vehicle Recreation Area, and there are additional visual simulations and attachment eight of the report.

The site lies within the Tosuwen tribal cultural landscape.

Despite extensive consultation and mitigation, impacts to tribal cultural resources remain significant and unavoidable as it would substantially alter the historic setting and feeling of contributing elements of the tribal cultural landscape.

To summarize all of that, the project is generally consistent with the general plan in terms of renewable energy development, agricultural compatibility, air quality, and hazard mitigation.

However, it is partially consistent or inconsistent with policies related to oak woodland preservation, scenic corridor protection, and tribal cultural resource avoidance.

Although policy inconsistency has been identified, the planning commission may still recommend approval where the county has jurisdiction of development projects for energy facilities that are contrary to any of the policies in the public facilities element, only when justification is provided through findings.

And that is laid out in policy PF66.

We're prepared for the proposed project and concludes the significant effects of the project have been eliminated or substantially lessened when feasible, and the remaining significant environmental effects are acceptable because the economic, social, environmental, and other benefits of the project, including implementation of the general plan and climate action plan policies and SMUD Zero Carbon Plan outweighing the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts.

Those findings of facts and statement of overriding considerations is included as attachment 16.

The project is also consistent with the Williamson Act and the zoning code and is compatible with surrounding zoning and land uses, and all advisory bodies have been in support.

So the Board of Supervisors is the final hearing body.

Therefore, staff is recommending that the planning commission provide recommendations to the Board of Supervisors.

So you would be adopting a resolution to recommend that the Board of Supervisors certify the final environmental impact report as adequate and complete, adopting the CEQA findings of fact and statement of vote for writing considerations and adopting the mitigation monitoring and reporting program.

And then the second action would be adopting a resolution to recommend the Board of Supervisors issue a use permit and a special development permit and determine substantial compliance with the county-wide design guidelines subject to findings and conditions.

And with that, I will conclude my presentation.

We do have the I know the applicant has a presentation prepared.

We also have our environmental review team available, and I can go back to any slide to show any exhibit.

Thank you very much.

Greatly appreciate your efforts and presentation.

Just some questions about the three areas where you said it um doesn't necessarily fully comply.

Good evening, commissioners.

I'm Julie Newton, environmental coordinator with county planning.

So Commissioner Verga, the three areas of significant and unavoidable impacts that you reference in the environmental impact report relate to impacts related to aesthetics, and that has to do with the substantial adverse change in viewpoints from both prairie city recreational area as well as the change in the viewscape from uh Scott Road.

There is mitigation included consistent with our zoning code requirements to require uh screening, as Kimber mentioned in her uh presentation that would provide a softening effect, uh, but it does not mitigate the change to the landscape.

Um, so that's those are our impacts related to aesthetics as it relates to tree removal.

The project is proposing um a very robust tree mitigation plan, uh consistent with our general plan policy.

They would be protecting at a one-to-one ratio, at least one-to-one ratio, um, an equal amount of tree canopy removed.

And that would be in the form of 1,150 acres of under conservation eatment, either on site or adjacent.

In addition to that, they are also proposing a tree replanting plan that would replace one to one each of the replanting of trees for each that's removed.

That being said, the it is a significant unavoidable impact at the cumulative level, just given the uh the temporal loss of these trees and the amount of time it takes for that number of trees to regenerate.

And then our final uh impact area relates to tribal cultural resources.

Uh we do have mitigation measures related to both tribal cultural resources and also relevant to cultural resources.

Uh our tribal cultural resources mitigation uh there's a plan that would be put in place that was developed in consultation with the tribe so it's currently in draft form and will be finalized before construction.

And that uh that mitigation plan has a number of components, including uh proper procedures for inadvertent discoveries, avoidance of known sensitive areas, um procedures and protocols during construction, having tribe having monitors on site during construction.

Um that there is a very robust plan in place, but through consultation, we we understand from the tribes that this area is part of the Tosuen tribal landscape, which is a sacred landscape to uh the local Native American tribes.

So, due to the uh significant adverse change to the not only to the landscape but also to the ecological um factors such as the trees that are sacred to the tribes, that was also a significant and unavoidable impact.

Um just a couple more questions regarding what you just said in terms of the tribal impact regarding the trees.

There was an issue with the tribal groups regarding the trees.

Correct, yes.

So it is the the trees are um very important to the tribes and their their cultural and their heritage.

So, yes, that is an important factor through that we was discussed through tribal consultation.

And then you talked about the impact of uh the issue of the cells being visible from Scott Road.

Um if I remember correctly, is Scott Road is identified, and I think you brought it up in your presentation of about a being a I don't know about my term it's uh scenic drive.

It is um identified in the general plan as being a candidate scenic corridor, and then there is a circulation element condition or policy that um basically requires it says continue to provide scenic corridor protection for Scott Road from White Rock Road south to La Trobe Road, Michigan Bar Road and Twin Cities Road from highway 160 east to highway 99.

So it's considered a candidate seated corridor, but there is specific policy in the general plan to provide scenic corridor protection to the road.

I guess the the first part of your statements would kind of got me a little bit curious.

You say candidate.

So in other words, it's not been designated as a uh scenic road, it's a candidate for designation as a scenic road?

Correct, but we do have that additional policy that provides scenic quarter protection over the road.

Okay, it's it kind of sounds like it is and it isn't.

Is that what you're saying?

Okay.

Um in terms of of the actual um one-on-one tree planting, replanting, where is that um replanting going to occur?

On-site, given current site or somewhere else?

So our our mitigation measure specifies that that should be happening either on site or in lands uh adjacent to the project site.

Um that being said, the applicant team may be able to speak to um if if they've explored that further at this point if they're looking at specific areas, but our mitigation measure requires that to be within on-site or adjacent lands.

So we're gonna require them on-site or close to the existing site.

That's correct.

Okay.

That's all I have for right now.

Any questions.

Can you maybe discuss any was there any discussion around in the event that it is approved and built and then it ceases to operate?

Is there a plan of what would happen then?

Like before the 35 years or after the 35 years.

Either or both.

Okay.

Um so a decommissioning and site restoration plan, and this is also all part of the conditions of approval as well.

So they are required to prepare this plan.

Um it does provide guidance on how and when any dismantling of the solar facility would occur, how and when restoration of the project site back to its original um viability of an agricultural property would occur, and then also ensures funding will be available for these actions.

So that uh preliminary ones included, but the conditions of approval include um follow-up on that.

Um there's also a condition of approval um 17, um, which requires reclamation to start within six months after the facility has either ceased operation or upon expiration of the 35 years, and then it has to be completed within 24 months.

And the assurity of the funding is does that come in the form of a bond?

Um yes.

I believe I think the applicant's better to answer that question.

Yes.

Thank you so much, Kimbert.

I really appreciate it, Ms.

Noon.

Um 1300 pages of FEIR, quite quite a feat.

Um almost 10 times the the amount of pages of the letters that was provided by some of the organizations that have shared concerns.

Um I just have a number of questions.

Um specifically like for the first one, uh grading plan.

Um the FEIR has talked about uh significant reduction of the amount of soil that needs to be moved in order to perhaps lessen the terraforming impacts of this project.

Can you walk me through what are the assumptions and what kind of environmental impacts um is being highlighted with that advancement or at least change from the last time we had the DEIR or the draft EIR?

Sure.

So between the draft EIR and the final EIR, there is Kimber mentioned in her presentation, there are some revisions made to the site plan to reduce the project footprint.

Uh so the project footprint of disturbance has been reduced by 55 acres that you can see in those areas in red up there on the screen.

Those areas also correlate to where some of the densest tree canopy occurs.

So by removing the 55 acres of uh solar arrays, they're able to preserve an additional about approximately 25% of the previously identified trees for removal will will remain.

Um in terms of uh what that means for for impacts, that means the impacts of the project are reduced.

They're they're disturbing less soil, this in footprint is decreased, the impacts, the project otherwise remains the same.

Um they're able to reduce that footprint given some advances in technology.

So all of the previously disclosed impacts as it relates to um you know the various topical areas, species, cultural tribal resources, those are all um still applicable and largely the same.

The impact has just been reduced because we are reducing the footprint.

Thank you for that.

So aside from reducing the footprint, if we're not having to disturb or or blast more soils, is that the assumption that we have because you're gonna have less you know must have driven to that that area, maybe five or six times just in the last week alone.

Um if you're going to assume that you're not going to be terraforming as much in there.

Would you would you consider it that that's going to be less movement of dirt?

What kind of impacts would that be if you're not going to have to move as much soil regardless of just the footprint itself getting narrower?

Right, that's correct.

So if you're you're moving less soil, there there would be fewer impacts associated with that related to noise, air quality, GHG emissions during during construction.

Um as I mentioned before, that the impacts are still relevant because it's it's a large site, and construction of the rest of the site will still still trigger those impacts, but you're just reducing it because there's less area being disturbed.

Understood.

I want to pivot just a little bit from from grading, and I know you've covered about tree canopy.

Um it's not very many times that we've received um engagement in letters from state commissions on this project.

We we do impact the Prairie City um vehicle recreational area, which is a wonderful, wonderful place, by the way.

If you guys have not gone there, amazing staff, great folks.

Um try to go karting over the weekend myself.

You know, I think it I think it means a big deal to actually drive over there and and and realize the potential impacts of the project.

Uh what if anything were the interactions that the Sacramento County planning had with the with the state and how's that coordination and communication been addressed?

Um, sorry, that's taking drink.

So we did we did work with uh state parks through our CEQA process, um, had had meeting they uh responded in response to they were notified during our notice of preparation um and we had a handful of meetings with them during preparation of the EIR.

Um do we want to elaborate on anything else specifically?

And we have so we we have been meeting with them during the during the preparation of the EIR and the CEQA process.

Understood.

Um I think I'm gonna stop there for now, Chair, and I I think I have another follow-up question, but thank you.

Had a couple questions.

I was hoping you might be able to you, your colleagues kind of help walk me through.

Um did through this process um, were there any alternative sites for this proposed project um that were reviewed or analyzed?

Um any additional locations that were for consideration?

So the EIR does include an alternatives analysis in our alternatives chapter.

Uh we fully analyzed two additional alternatives that would reduce the footprint of the solar arrays on the project site and shift some of that acreage to um neighboring parcels.

The alternatives chapter also considered uh another a number of other potential alternatives that were considered but ultimately rejected.

And those include a full uh off-site loc uh another off-site location uh due to the feasibility um and financial uh challenges with those sites.

We looked at alternative technologies such as wind and nuclear uh and also uh alternative focused more uh infield uh brownfield sites such as rooftop and smaller infill parcels, um, which also posed uh feasibility um challenges and would not fully meet the project objectives of this project.

Okay.

Thank you.

That's helpful.

And have to our recog uh recollection, has there been a similar project that the county has uh uh been involved with that has had uh similar amount of trees removed?

Uh is this kind of the largest?

Uh can you kind of put it in the bell curve of of uh projects that we've dealt with?

Uh I would say this is probably the project that at least in my tenure with the county, this project has had the most proposed tree removal, although we have had others um in the East County Ranch Marietta Easton area come to mind where there is quite quite a bit of oak canopy that would require removal.

Uh and like to just pivot to uh more transportation in the circular.

Um in the analysis I've seen a lot of references to Scott Road, but not White Rock Road, uh, which I understand uh traveling on there is um uh wider um for or multiple lane, uh two-lane road like Scott.

Um will White Rock be impacted?

Is there any need to use White Rock to let's say, for example, gain entrance to Prairie City Park uh during the prospective project of this uh this project?

Yeah, so if you look up on the screen at the at the site plan up there, you'll see the small hall route sign that goes out to um White Rock or Grant Line, that's right about the point that it changes, I believe.

Um and that's intended as as access to the uh Gentai line, small best facility substation.

Most of the construction is gonna be happening along Scott Road, which is where most of that access is gonna take place.

Um and then there's the hall road out to the west.

I do not believe there would be any um ingress or egress through prairie city.

Okay.

Um and those access points would require um uh easements from our county DOT, so it's standard practice for them to be uh reviewing and requiring traffic control plans to ensure safety of ingress and egress onto county roads.

Okay.

I think that I think that addresses most of my questions here.

Oh, uh one last one.

Umere any analysis or um review on glare of the uh PV uh sightings um as I understand it, there's uh some tracks that are used by um uh kids, and I'm just kind of curious how this project uh was analyzed as far as visual impairment or visual uh pollution as it might impact uh various sure.

Yes, our our aesthetics chapter of the EIR did consider GLARE, and there was a GLARE analysis prepared to the project, um prepare for the project that considered potential impacts to uh not only Prairie City but over flying aircraft, other users in the area.

Um the is my understanding this would be a good question for the applicant team to elaborate on, but the the panels are on a a tilting technology and also have an anti-glare um uh covering and glare was not uh was not an issue based on the analysis that was performed.

And I know it's probably going to be brought up, so just to address that um was the glare uh measured from either high points or low points or varying uh locations or just one spot?

I I'll leave those details to the applicant team to elaborate on.

So they prepared the analysis.

And then I will presume the applicant team has heard the question and will hopefully address it.

Uh any other questions from the dice?

Yes.

Yes, I do.

Um you uh talked about the um state parks, the prairie city park, um, and that you had started involvement with them back in uh 2021.

Did you have some kind of a general understanding about how the impact on Prairie City was going to be dealt with prior to the most recent um submittal by the agency itself?

With that agency.

In other words, you had discussions with them.

You talked about how things were going to be dealt with.

Did you have some kind of an understanding of how they were going to be dealt with and you move forward with what you have done?

Because it looked like the issue came up at the last minute.

Their issue, I guess, is I should describe that.

So are uh when you say the issue, are are you referring to the issue about the impact on the uh the park now that just got um well didn't just get, but was recently submitted to the new agency about the impact on that park.

Of the project.

Am I talking past everybody?

Didn't there be related to the to the easement language?

I would have I'm I thought when I read it, you had already worked through that process long time ago.

And then now all of a sudden it something else came up.

Am I correct?

So I'll try to address that one, Commissioner Virgo, Todd Smith, Planning Director um staff did work with uh state parks uh throughout the course of the EIR preparation as Juliet indicated.

Um we have done the analysis related to aesthetics, glare, operational considerations, et cetera.

Um we were we became aware of this this easement question on the Barton Ranch uh a week or two ago.

We have looked at that easement language uh both with the applicant and with county council.

We don't see any uh conflict from an operational perspective.

And I'll defer to county council if you want to weigh in any more on that.

Well, there is there's an easement, and keep in mind that it's a private agreement between state parks and the applicant.

So it doesn't restrict what the county is doing necessarily.

Um I guess there's a question that's uh been brought up is is it a conservation easement?

I don't read it as that.

It's not stated as a conservation easement.

It doesn't even I don't see the word conservation in there.

I don't see the I don't see citations to the statutes for conservation easements.

It's a use restriction, uh which I don't read as necessarily precluding this use.

But ultimately it's still something that uh state parks can take and try to enforce after the county's process is complete.

The entitlements can be approved or not approved, but if they are approved, it's still a document that the easement holder can try to try to enforce.

It doesn't stop you or the county from taking action on the entitlement request.

Okay.

And if um I just want to make sure I read it correctly, because there's about 8200 documents in here that um there didn't appear to be any physical impact to the park, right?

In terms of the project, the it the installation of the the Gen Tai line, you can see up there on uh the north end of the project uh will require some relocation of some facilities within Prairie City, and the applicant team has been working closely with state parks on what that relocation of facilities looks like and that doesn't interfere or cause a problem for us moving forward, right?

Okay.

Thank you.

That's why we'll get any other questions.

Yeah, just one other quick question.

We we talked a lot about things that are happening above ground.

Um we I'd like to have a little bit of discussion about all the hydrologic concerns that were brought up by some of the uh some of the interested community members.

Can you please walk us through some of the hydrological assumptions that we have?

How this would affect our groundwater sustainability plan, everything that's related to Sigma, and what if anything impacts to our groundwater basin?

Sure.

So the uh our EIR considered both um construction and operational impacts to to water, surface water and groundwater.

Uh a water supply assessment was prepared for the project.

Um most of the water use uh would be uh needed during construction and decommissioning.

And during those those times, um the our water supply assessment assumed that the water would be coming um from off-site, either from the other slough house solar wells or from the Sacramento County Water Agency and not from on-site water uh water sources.

During operation of the project, uh water use is minimal.

Uh there would be washing of the panels one to four times per year.

We would expect about 10 acre feet uh total per year across the site to be used.

So for the operational needs, there may be some uh on-site water used for panel washing.

That being said, you know, the the amount is uh minimal such that there would not be uh adverse impacts to the groundwater.

Um and that's there was uh like I said, a water supply analysis and a groundwater study prepared for the project understood.

Did the uh did the EIR or what was analyzed um again?

I'm gonna go back to land grading and excavation activities.

I I'd like to to see what are the impacts to groundwater or like groundwater dependent ecosystems and how was that measured?

Sure.

So there again, there was analysis prepared that considered the construction of the project.

Um there was a potential that in some areas where groundwater is higher, there could be some uh groundwater encountered during construction.

Um that being said, the this project site is fairly removed from nearby groundwater-dependent ecosystems, which are more associated with the Casumus River, uh, which is further downstream.

Uh so we again there would not be any long-term uh impacts associated with those ecosystems.

Thank you.

Um just a couple more questions, Chair, if you don't mind.

Um is the county familiar about the uh the uh the solar project that is north um closer to the SVRA, really at the entrance of the Prairie City Road.

I tried to look up a little bit more information about that, but it it's directly cut a corner to the entrance of Prairie City.

Is that something that perhaps was just planned recently?

Um I mean, if you can pull up a Google map, it's literally at the entrance of the park.

It looks to me like it's uh it's uh it's another large solar uh solar array right in the corner of Air Jet Road and White Rock Road as you enter.

Just right there at the meaning.

Commissioner Borja, what is the question related to the I was wondering?

Is it solar?

Yeah, uh wondering kind of the history or if that's something that was also analyzed as you guys were looking into that, or because it's outside of the project area.

Is that something that perhaps was not considered by our EIR?

I'm I'm not sure I understand the question.

If what was analyzed?

Uh as I was driving zone through White Rock Road at the entrance of the SVRA, there is a there's a solar, there's seems to be a lot of solar panels right on White Rock Road and Aero Jet Road.

Probably not connected to this project, but are you guys familiar about that project at all?

Those are existing solar panels, so we did not um attribute any impacts associated with those existing panels to this project's analysis?

Understood.

Um I was looking into the SMUD's 2030 plan, and there's mention about you know, from a planning, and I'm reading this right under 2024 report from a planning standpoint.

I quote, we've performed significant analysis and outreach, numerous studies and competitive solicitation, and this project is named in that 2030 plan.

Um what kind of involvement or coordination did you, as the planning department have in consideration of this project with the 2030 plan or is it because they're selected as a 2030 plan candidate?

Does that already mean that it already scores high points in our evaluation, or does that is that what is that in consideration?

Yeah, so relative to SMUD's 2030 Carbon Zero Plan, uh, I think as part of Kimber's presentation, she mentioned that the county's climate action plan has a measure of GHG3 that calls for the county to support uh SMUD's goal relative to clean energy.

Uh we obviously can't speak on behalf of SMUD, though they were invited to come here to answer these types of questions.

Um we do know that SMUD is pursuing a number of um uh utility scale uh solar and best facilities, not just in Sacramento County, but um in adjacent counties.

I believe this project makes up roughly 15 percent uh of that total demand that they're seeking to achieve via clean energy.

Um we have had um quite a bit of uh discussion with SMUD, not just about this project, but other projects in unincorporated Sacramento County.

Uh they're currently pursuing one kind of internal closer into the county, but we're also having some or inside the county, excuse me.

We're also having some conversations with our uh county general services folks and real estate folks about potential siting uh on county-owned property as well.

Thank you, Director Smith.

And in those conversations, I'm assuming that SMUD considers consistency or at the very least the impact that they may have in county general plans or county ordinances when they look at siting these types of projects.

I would certainly hope so based on the conversations we've had.

Okay, thank you.

That might be it for now.

Chair, okay.

Thank you very much.

Uh with that, we'll invite the applicant up.

It's reminder you have 15 minutes.

All right.

Good evening, Chair Conklin, Commissioners.

My name is William Marisi.

I'm director of development for Desert Renewables, the applicant for the project.

On behalf of the entire team, thank you for the opportunity to present tonight, and thanks to Kimber and all of county staff for all their efforts over the last several years.

Desre is an American-based leading renewable energy developer.

We currently have projects operating in 22 states, enough to power approximately two million homes, and we own and operate 56 solar sites, 14 wind sites, two battery storage sites with seven additional battery projects under construction.

Here in Sacramento, we have so four solar projects operating contracted with SMUD, totaling 320 megawatts.

Coyote Creek is contracted with SMUD to provide an additional 200 megawatts of solar and 400 megawatts of battery energy storage.

We evaluated the property taxes from our entire contracted portfolio over the next 20 years.

Coyote Creek alone is projected to contribute 67 million of the 90 million dollars generated by our operating portfolio.

These dollars can contribute to improved schools, roads, and services for local residents while asking for few services in return.

Our long-term presence and investment in the community has allowed us to develop key partnerships locally.

I'll use these partnerships to illustrate our project proposal.

In short, we've contracted with SMUD to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and contribute to the sacks success of Sacramento County's climate action plan.

We've worked with county staff since 2021 to reduce environmental tree resource and cultural resource impacts across our site.

Our lease with Barton Ranch enables the family to maintain ownership and stewardship of the ranch that has been passed from generation to generation for over 100 years.

We have further partnered with the Barton Ranch, California Rangeland Trust, and Van Vleck Ranch for it on-site and adjacent conservation easement preserves.

Sacramento Tree Foundation will be using portions of these preserves to replant oak trees as a result of the project and also collect additional acorns for replanting efforts throughout the county.

We'll provide over two and a half million dollars to California State Parks, and we'll take the construction improvements of the go-kart track alongside the construction of the overall project through the use of highly skilled union labor, the best in the business.

We look forward to continued investment in Sacramento County and developing additional partnerships for many years to come.

With that summary and preview, I'll turn the presentation over to Jim Jim Gillam to dive into additional details.

Thank you.

Good evening, Jim Gillam.

Uh representing the applicant.

Beyond what staff already shared.

As William mentioned, the Williamson Act is a component of this property that the family holds dear.

These contracts down date back to the 19 year 1960 and 1970, and they will be maintained during the operation of the project and beyond.

There is a full restoration of the vegetation down below the panels that's going to be made up of pollinator-friendly and forage-friendly plant, not the typical gravel that you would see in a 1990s or 2000s project.

Also bears noting that the restoration plan that Kimber mentioned ensures the removal and recycling of key components of the project.

Everything will be removed, and there is financial surety that can come in form of bond, letter of credit, and variety of other methods.

We're also using uh advanced terrain tracking technology with this project.

This is a picture of our Sloughhouse solar facility that was constructed recently, and you can see how the rays go up and over the terrain.

This is a key component of that grading reduction that we talked about earlier that you were asking about.

It's not just the reduction in footprint, but it's the reduction in grading needed because of the slope tolerances that are currently available in the in the industry.

Agrivoltaic, it's right in the name.

What is it?

Agravoltaic really talks about the dual use of the property not only for solar generation but continued utilization of agriculture.

The project will implement goat or sheep grazing within the solar arrays, and the ranch will continue to operate as a cattle ranch outside the facility.

This does uh does follow the agricultural management plan that was submitted with the project.

That's something that's in your packet if you want to dig into any more details.

The photo in this slide is representative of what a hundred megawatt battery facility looks like.

Uh it is uh storage containers that house the batteries themselves and inverters.

This is one of the few areas of the site that will not be grazed and vegetated for obvious reasons.

We want to keep this graveled and uh free from fuel.

Uh we are ideally sited over a half a mile away from the nearest habitat structure.

And we will be consistent with the California's recently adopted legislation and rules, Senate Bill 38 283, as well as PUC General Order 167.

Kimberwent into the project objectives, but I want to point out a couple of things here in addition to grid stability and reliability.

Having the power generated locally avoids wheeling costs as well as inefficiencies of line loss from far-flung projects.

Further just to emphasize again the alignment with the SMUD plan, the county's climate action plan and uh the wonderful union labor that we'll be utilizing for the project.

We heard earlier about the rooftop solar, and we'll hear more about that, I'm sure.

Uh, currently there are about 28,000 SMUD customers using rooftop solar behind the meter, generating about 210 megawatts for all the the solar rooftop that we have out there.

This project will nearly double that amount.

Smud's current portfolio is operating between three and four hundred megawatts.

Coyote Creek at 200 megawatts.

It does represent about 15% of the need that Smud has identified as Director Smith pointed out to us earlier.

Uh we do feel strongly that uh PF 78 is something that we looked at and uh we point to the disturbed history of the site, um, low quality farmlands as well as the proximity to the facilities that we need to plug into.

Barton Ranch is a fantastic find for us in terms of a project site.

We had a willing landowner of over 3,000 acres of continuous common ownership of low quality grazing lands proximate to the 230 kilovolts smud lines that cross the Prairie City OHV park.

We're able to deal with one party on our interconnect easement as well as the substation and had some existing property rights for the for the underlying landowner on those properties.

And as this slide illustrates, the the history of this property with mining goes back to the 18th century, continued through the 19th and 20th century.

We've talked a bit about it, but I'm gonna hit it again.

Um the emphasis on reduction of impacts and robust mitigation for this project has been a big part of what we've been doing during these five years.

Not only reducing the project by the 55 acres, which took out 15 acres of canopy impacts, but the on-site mitigation shown here in light green as well as the adjacent Van Vleck mitigation.

While these are not codified in the mitigation measures, we have negotiated agreements with these parties so that we can deliver on the areas in light green.

They do follow the creek corridors of of Coyote Creek on the north-south and coming out of the northeast to the southwest is Carson Creek.

And the L-shaped piece that you see in the lower left of the image is the Van Vleck property, and that is important for a number of reasons, including that it is the confluence of those two creeks.

This is just an example of the grasslands on Van Bleck Ranch.

There are wooded areas as well, but this is an area that will remain in this form and be protected for perpetuity.

This is an area on the Barton Ranch that's wooded and will remain like this for perpetuity.

Partnering with the Sacramento Tree Foundation to achieve the one-for-one mitigation.

And I I think I failed to mention on the slide about the uh preservation, but within those conservation easement areas, we have over 13,000 oak trees that will be preserved.

That's nearly four times the number of oak trees that are impacted with the project.

So the requirement is one to one and 1,150 acres of mitigation, but we're achieving a lot more than that with what we are providing.

Within those uh conservation easements, we are going to be planting on a one tree for one sapling basis.

They've already started collecting acorns on the property to utilize here, and we are very excited about the fact that they are not only going to go through a typical three-year establishment period, no, we're going for seven.

So they'll be monitoring those and making sure that we get well-established oaks that I can go see along Scott Road with my grandchildren.

Prairie City Off-Road Vehicle Park, housing the Gentile line and the substation.

Uh we are coordinating closely with the parks with regard to operation impacts.

We will not be shutting down the park in its entirety at all.

We will be coordinating very closely during the long uh the large events that they do, including the hangtown and ensuring that we adjust our construction schedule so that we don't impact those.

There will be some short duration closures on the southerly trails.

Uh those will be signed and worked out with the staff.

There will be a longer-term impact to the go-kart track while we relocate the shop building and the grid, as well as run the GENTI lines.

That's about a one and a half million dollar improvement, actually in excess of that.

And we will also be compensating the vendor there for their lost earnings during the time that they are closed.

We are providing an additional million dollars to parks for their road and trail implementation.

And I think it bears noting, and I think it was brought up earlier that this project was included in their 2024 road and trail master plan update.

Speaking of infusing cash, not just to the parks, but the local economy.

350 union jobs.

And William already mentioned the property tax infusion of 67 million just from this project over the next 20 years.

With that, I appreciate the opportunity to present to you this evening.

I'm happy to answer any questions now and come back up after public comment.

Thank you very much.

We'll open up uh questions for those on the dias for the applicant.

Question question?

Thank you, Mr.

Gillam.

I appreciate I appreciate your presentation.

And and and for full transparency, I have met with uh both the proponents of this project or the applicant.

I've also met with a number of different organizations that have provided concerns uh to this project.

Um Mr.

Gillam, I'd like to ask a couple of questions from a letter that we received from uh one of our tribal partners, the Wilton Rancherio.

Can you speak about the mitigation and what they consider to be a deferred implementation of the mitigation plans that are being um that are being discussed now between the applicant and the tribe?

I can't comment on the confidential conversations going on between the applicant and the tribe.

Could you repeat the part about deferred implementation?

Um the uh the letter is um the letter is suggesting that uh the mitigation uh may be inadequate, but also depends on volunteer implementation by both the landowner and the developer.

Uh the letter also says that they continue to negotiate in good faith with you as the applicant.

Um, but I'm not too sure after rereading the letter at least two or three times whether or not it's requesting something to be memorialized, or if you could please just shed light as to what is going on with or how are you dealing and cooperating with a tribe to make sure that their um their considerations are in place.

Yeah, I I will not go into the confidential discussions that are ongoing.

I I will say that um the tribal resource minimization and avoidance plan is robust.

It was uh it was provided to the county for review and modified per comments from the tribes, uh, and I believe in terms of the on-site avoidance minimization, handling of anything that uh was found on site.

We've we've achieved alignment there in terms of uh the balance, you know, it's it's consistent with the EIR.

Thank you, sir.

Um pivoting just a little bit a little bit north back to SVRA.

You had mentioned um appreciate the pictures of of what's gonna be happening to the go-kart racing track.

Um yet also mentioned that the the applicant or your or the applicant is also committing to uh you know funding them during the construction.

Um can you walk me through kind of like the construction impacts for the prairie city users, both just not in the track, but also the OHV users during your construction season.

Are they going to be open?

Are the parks going to be open?

Are the rangers still going to be employed?

Um you just let us know about that.

I'm happy to talk about that.

In fact, uh, you know, the only area that will be shut down for any length of time more than temporary closures will be the will be the cart track itself.

Uh that is a vendor, not the not the parks employees themselves, and we are going to be compensating for their for their time away.

Uh the Southerly Trails, um, let me see if I can provide anything here.

I don't think we really focused in on that in our presentation.

So the Southerly Trails do have some short-term closures while we um Can I get the overhead?

The Southerly Trails will have some short-term closures.

Uh those will be marked off, but the balance of the trails is really just two portions, small portions of trails in the very southerly portion of the site.

Could could I have the overhead project that uh and I can point to where that is.

Uh but those are between 60, 30 and 60 days of closure overall.

It won't impact the northerly area of the the park at all.

Okay, I'm gonna point now to the area I'm talking about.

Right along here, there are a couple of trails where our GENTI line comes through.

And and those are the the extent of the actual closures.

The balance of the work will be done off-site uh on the Barton Ranch.

So and that's really just setting um power poles that need to be um need to be mounted onto the ground or run the wires across them, and and that'll be it.

Thank you.

In addition, you had to mention that the applicants committing a million dollars to the SVRA for their I'm I'm looking at Chair Salazar's letter.

He's the chair of the off Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Commission, a state entity.

Yeah, I can give a little bit of character to that.

They came to us after seeing the draft EIR and they uh indicated that they felt there was mitigation that was feasible for the visual impacts associated with the project and indicated that if we were to be willing to provide them with additional funding that they could enhance trails elsewhere on the property uh that would in their mind provide some uh benefit to the users as a trade-off for the visual impacts that they'd be enduring.

Understood.

Thank you.

Um I think that's my question is for now, Chair.

I'll pass the mic back to you.

Uh just uh a couple questions if you don't mind.

Um I think you I think this was covered before, but uh just wanted to touch on um will construction of the project require any full or temporary closure of the park and and how will potentially that might conflict with large events uh that are scheduled there.

Again, I think that was already addressed, but just wanted to make sure it was clear.

Yeah, I will make it crystal clear.

There are no planned full closures of the park, period hard stop.

There are limited area closures, limited area closures, small portions of trails, and the go-kart track.

Okay.

And uh I'm not too sure if there's a uh anyone here from the Sacramento Tree Foundation, but maybe you can share a little bit of your insights of the collaboration, the work that you've uh done with their organization to uh help mitigate some of the tree loss.

Yeah, I do believe we have somebody, yeah.

We do have uh the executive director of the tree foundation that that may be able to shed some light on that.

I will tell you from our perspective we were tickled pink to be able to get such a a great organization to implement our mitigation plan.

Uh they do a lot of work within the county and for the county uh in their mitigation programming, so they know exactly what they're doing, and they are a great organization to be able to help ensure the viability of the mitigation that we're putting forth.

All right, thank you very much.

Any other questions for the applicant?

No.

All right, thank you very much.

And I appreciate the opportunity to come back at the end and and give you any additional thoughts.

We'll do, thank you.

Uh now we'll transition over to public testimony.

I think we have uh uh a list of those that have signed up uh to speak.

We'll go in order.

Uh if you haven't had uh uh an opportunity to sign up, please see the um uh staff in the back uh to fill out a form so we can add you to the list.

Uh with our first speaker, we'll go with Logan Reed.

Oh, sorry.

Apologize.

Don't want to step on anyone's toes.

No worries.

If you wish to address the commission about um item number one on the agenda, please stand to be sworn in.

Please raise your right hand in the appropriate responses.

I do.

Do you swear that the testimony that you are about to give to this board is the truth, so help you God.

And if you do not swear, do you so affirm?

Thank you.

Hello.

Okay.

Hi, my name is Logan Reed.

Hi, my name is Logan Reed, and I'm from Rancho Marietta.

Um I believe that the uh the benefits of a carbon-free future far outweigh the tree impacts from this project.

Uh looking at the big picture, the site is 1400 acres of solar, which are impacting around three and a half thousand trees.

That's about two and a half trees per acre.

Um that's a reasonable trade-off uh to get our clean energy goals completed.

They are also replanting every tree lost and ensuring pollinator friendly habitat and grazand be preserved for the ranch.

This project is a no-brainer for approval as they have already gone above and beyond to reduce the impact to the trees.

Please approve this project.

Thank you very much.

Our next speaker.

Hello, my name is Michaela Weber.

I live in Rancho Marietta, and I am supportive of a carbon-free future.

I'm surprised to hear all this environmental opposition to a project that is preserving over a thousand acres of land.

It seems simple.

Either the project is approved, preserving a huge portion of land at the ranch, and we gain a carbon-free source of electricity.

Alternatively, the project isn't approved, nothing is preserved, and we lose 200 megawatts of renewable energy generation.

If the project is not approved, who knows what might be end up on this property?

Bottom line is a vote for Coyote Creek is a vote for the long-term preservation of Barton Ranch and a vote for progress toward our zero carbon future.

Please approve this project.

Good evening, Mr.

Chair, board members.

My name is Marcus Gomez, and I've been co-owner of California Clothing Recyclers, a small business here in Sacramento.

And I'm also a homegrown Sacrament.

In 2022, the California Energy Commission adopted an in-program where solar projects could elect to go through the CEQA review and essential circumvent local land use law.

The developer easily could have withdrawn their application, and I commend the developer for maintaining their application with the Sacramento County.

I think that it's important to interact with the community during the development.

Let's show the developer that they've made the right choice.

I encourage you to improve this project and show the state and local government the state and local government still functions.

And thank you, Planning Commissioner, for the continued support of solar and alternative energy programs through our county.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Your name's Tom Bernardo.

Oh, maybe I'm out of order.

Okay.

All right, Tom.

Good evening.

My name is Tom Bernardo.

I'm a former state park ranger.

Retired after 32 years working many state park units up and down California.

I was a unit ranger at Prairie City for four years, and during that time, we constructed split rail fencing around the mature oaks to protect them.

And we permanently closed acres of park land to protect vernal pools and wildlife habitat.

The proposed Coyote Creek Solar Project is directly adjacent to Prairie City SVRA, a unit of the California State Park system.

I have serious concerns about permanent damage to the park experience and the surrounding environment, including removal removal of over 3,400 protected blue oak trees on over 1,300 acres, permanent view shed reduction to prairie city SVRA visitors, elimination of a significant wildlife habitat and corridors, grasslands, and vernal pools from excavation operations, and construction of 500,000 solar panels.

California State Park Rangers Association, Sea Spray, was established in 1964, the first professional ranger association in the nation.

The association was established to support, protect, and defend the integrity of state parks for present and future generations.

After a thorough review of the environmental impact report and consideration of arguments for and against the proposed project, Seaspray cannot support this project at this location.

Seaspray membership voted unanimously at the annual membership meeting held on September 17th, 2025, to oppose the Coyote Creek Solar Project located on a footprint larger than the entire Prairie City Park.

No amount of mitigation can fix it.

Please do not issue the permits for this project.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next speaker.

Good evening Chair and other commissioners.

I've submitted my testimony through the clerk, and I since this is such a short time limit.

So I grew up a farmer in the Sacramento.

We're second generation.

After farming for a number of years, I ended up going to law school.

But we still have uh solar panels adjacent to some of our farms that my family has.

Um I just want to advocate that this is solar panels are always better neighbors than housing developments.

And in this case, we have the choice we have an opportunity to have clean solar power, and it can still be utilized for agriculture.

Animals can graze underneath this, and it's not really farmland to the fact that you're growing wheat in it, but it is good for grazing and ranch land.

Uh I've seen too many ranches lost to housing developments, and this kind of prevents that by allowing generate revenue through solar while still preserving it does preserve open space.

Our animals can live there and et cetera.

And with that, I'll close.

If you have any questions, please read uh what I submitted for testimony.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Uh, my name is Mark Rodriguez, and I am a retired state employee and lifelong resident of Sacramento County.

I appreciate the dedication of this project to maintain ranching and agriculture.

It's great that the project will have grazing across the property, both inside and outside of the solar farm fence.

I saw on Facebook posts from herders who specialize in grazing sheep under solar projects, and it will look great.

It will be great to see that in person.

I'm glad to see a project that supports agriculture while also generating electricity.

This project is good for our electric grid and good for farmers and small business here in the region.

I ask that you support this project.

Thank you.

Good evening, uh commissioners.

My name is Herb Garmin, it's one of the main owners of the Barton Ranch.

I spent my life in agriculture.

I'm a Cal Poly graduate with uh degree and mechanized ag and over the years I've worked for many in the parts of the industry, from running cattle and growing hay, both in California and Nevada.

For the past 25 years, I've been the project manager for the Barton Ranch.

My goal has been to find suitable projects that align with our family goals, like the Coyote Creek Agrivoltaics Project.

Our goal has been to find a suitable way to preserve agriculture while adapting to changing realities of farming and ranching in California.

This project keeps the property in the Williamson Act.

It continues grazing while producing renewable energy that is benefit for the region.

Coyote Creek Solar was designed by Desre, who understands what it takes to make agriculture a viable long-term goal.

It is a model of how innovation can support conservation, keeping open space and working lands and productivity for future generations.

After two decades of thoughtful planning, I believe this project represents a practical forward-thinking path for Sacramento County and the Barton Ranch.

One that honors our 150 years in agriculture heritage since the Kyber's came over the Sierras.

And while securing a sustainable future for everyone, but but if this project is not approved tonight, it it will change the direction of this family forever to consider other paths that will cause a sale of this ranch.

Thank you very much.

I respectfully ask for your consideration.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mr.

Chair and members uh Stan Van Vleck.

Uh here we are providing the mitigation that was discussed earlier in the presentation.

And we are actually very appreciative to Desiree because if we can, there are families behind the land and families behind the environment that we're dealing with.

And actually Desiree came to us with an opportunity.

Our land, which now is gonna be preserved for mitigation if this is approved, was set for development.

We were selling it.

That was in 2017, because it doesn't work in that area, unfortunately, for agriculture.

But now, if we're able to keep this large swath for preservation, it does.

And so the reality is we go back to the next decision.

If this is rejected, it goes back for sale because unfortunately, having 8,000 houses next door to you is hard to be able to do to be able to function properly.

This gives us a life source.

And to give you an idea of what mitigation entails uh with the Van Vleck family, and we're proud because we understand some from the environmental community don't like this project, and we respect that.

But if we ask them to really look at what the alternatives are, because it's not a matter of keep it status quo or do solar.

It's do you sell it for development or does it go to solar?

Because unfortunately, the families don't have those type of choices to say, let's just stay as is.

And as we look at mitigation, what we do and the benefits that are received by the community.

We're proud that over the last 20 years, we've dedicated 90% of our ranching operation to protecting endangered species to open space and preserving agriculture in perpetuity.

It's the largest private reserve in this region.

So we're putting up where we show our credentials.

And we've gone farther.

We take in compost to put it on a ranch, and we sequester carbon to help this region.

We want to keep doing that, and we will do it on this mitigation area as well and help with that preservation.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Good evening, commissioners.

I represent the significant unavoidable impacts.

What the planners didn't tell you or didn't show you is the impact of the switchyard and the other infrastructure that's going to go in on the side and the entrance to Prairie City SVRA.

You know, for 20 years I've been in and out of a wheelchair.

My name is Amy Granit, and I've also advocated for 20 years during that time for the off-road community because off-road recreation became the only way that I could enjoy the outdoors, enjoy the trees, enjoy the mountains.

Prairie City as a Sacramento resident became kind of my second home.

I love that park.

You only have to go there on a Saturday and see the myriad of children and families and people who love the park.

What they didn't show you is how this infrastructure would negatively affect the park, and there was no mitigation.

There is no mitigation proposed for that.

There's no mitigation proposed for the lack of my experience of being able to go out on a Saturday to my favorite park and to just tootle around and enjoy myself.

There was also in the final environmental impact report, there's appendix A, which has to do with all the impacts to Prairie City.

And there was no mention of the dual responsibility and mission statement of the uh off-highway motorized vehicle recreation division of state parks to protect natural and cultural resources, but also to apply a quality OHV experience to the people who use off-road vehicles.

That wasn't recognized in the final uh environmental impact report.

You have a lot of smart people here.

Um there are ways, there are benefits, obviously, to the plan.

There aren't any benefits for my community and for us.

Um, yes, putting some more money into the park would be great, but changing that outdoor experience for us is just something that can't be compared.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Hello.

My name is Haley Hoang.

I've lived here in Sacramento my whole life.

Um I recently heard that in 2023, California was powered by 70 percent renewable energy, which is amazing, but we're not at our goal just yet with the amount of electric vehicles, electric homes, and growing energy demand.

We need projects like Coyote Creek to help us get there.

These projects make sure our economy and our communities have clean power they need, so let's get from 70 percent to 100 percent.

Please approve this project.

Thank you very much.

Good evening, my name is Jim Perham.

I'm a uh 50-year resident of Slough House, uh lifelong rancher as three generations before me.

Um society is handcuffed legacy ranchers to the point where we wind up in a situation like this.

It's the the one on one hand, we have benefit to the community, benefit to the SMUD 2030 program.

Uh on the other hand, if this doesn't go through, then we wind up with more houses and more encroachment from the urban environment.

Um I've known these families for the 50 years that I've been here in this community, and our society, like I said, is has handcuffed the rancher into the point where this is our alternative.

Either we do this or we sell out.

And it's an important opportunity for these legacy ranchers to maintain their lifestyle, open space, wildlife, grazing, and the Western heritage that we have inherited from our forefathers.

Anyway, thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Good evening.

My name is Joe Thompson.

I'm the owner of a local catering company in downtown Sacramento, and I'm also a Sacramento resident.

And I'm gonna give you a few small reasons why I support this project.

Too often we see all these projects that either destroy open space or fail to support local communities.

This one seems a little different to me.

It protects sensitive habitat, maintains ranching, and provides a stable income that allows the land to remain in family ownership.

At the same time, it delivers renewable energy for decades to come, as well as providing some good jobs in our community as well.

The project is about more than just energy.

It's about protecting our air, our land, and the way of life.

The partnerships with this project and the California Rangeland Trust and Sacramento Tree Foundation show a real commitment to stewardship.

This is not just a short-term solution.

This is long shirt long-term long-term solution.

And if the uh other chance is 8,000 homes, how are we going to get energy for those homes?

So I think we need to start taking care of the people we have first and the energy we need first and then start looking at other ways.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Anthony Cuccio.

I live in Sacramento.

I'm a big supporter of this project, uh Coyote Creek.

It's essential for our energy future.

I think solar can change can change the outlook for us in general.

Um I think the having the battery charged during the day for the energy at night is a great outlook for us, and it'll change a lot of things for us, power grid wise and stuff.

Um it's definitely exciting to see it change into a new direction.

Uh cleaner energy, I like that.

Also creating jobs.

Um, definitely would like you guys to look at this and look for it for approval.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh good evening.

My name is Michael Martinez.

I also live in Sacramento County.

Uh it sounds like Desry also owns and operates the Slow House Solar Project.

I drive past that project often and watch the construction process.

I have to say I was impressed at what I saw.

The project was constructed quickly and the site was orderly and the roads were clean.

Now the construction is completed, the site looks well managed.

The project isn't really visible until you're very close and it looks fine.

I was curious and looked online and saw that Desry also owns other projects in Sacramento.

Seeing the construction process that Desry carried out at the Slough House gives me comfort that they will responsibly develop Coyote Creek.

We need renewable projects such as this to meet our carbon uh reduction goals.

Slough House being right next door shows that Coyote Creek isn't going to be some sort of industrial wasteland.

Coyote Creek will be constructed and managed by a group with a track record of success in Sacramento.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Uh to Paul Smith on the agenda.

Shocking.

Um, Paul Smith living uh Elk Row.

I appreciate your thoughtfulness and to how you've approached this uh this project.

Uh but Coyote Creek, I see is exactly the kind of project that helps our region grow responsibly.

Uh it'll prevent it'll create uh clean power, thousands of homes, uh plenty of jobs, uh, and provide economic stability to the families that that own the ranch.

So it's a benefit the whole community, really can uh be proud of.

So appreciate your support in this project.

Thank you.

Good evening, board.

Thank you for your time.

Uh, my name is William Carter, excuse me, uh Lance Allen.

I'm from Sacramento.

I saw in the news a few weeks ago that Governor Newsom's executive order prioritize renewable energy.

Uh the projects that can start construction before July 4th of the next year.

This project meets the criteria of this order perfectly.

Not only that, but the project meets both the goals of the county climate action plan and SMUD zero carbon, excuse me, vision.

This product checks all the boxes to reduce carbon emissions.

What are we waiting for?

I'm not thinking about climate change.

I'm also thinking about my wallet.

Starting before construction on this project before July 4th of next year will no doubt be the best thing for me and as a smud ratepayer.

It is my understanding that Governor Newsom, excuse me, chooses July 4th because existing financial benefits will expire after that date for renewable projects.

A delay in construction is likely to result in a higher project cost for all future projects after that date.

Building this project without delay ensures the best power price.

For the sake of both of our climate goals and my finances, please approve this project without delay.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Good evening, commissioners.

My name is Paul Smith.

I am a lifelong advocate for sustainable farming.

I graduated from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo with a degree in agricultural systems management and agricultural business.

For the past 20 years, my life's work has been centered around innovation and farming, specifically developing water efficient deep-tillage systems, modern harvesting technologies that improve productivity while conserving our vital resources, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and carbon sequestration.

In the recent years, my focus shifted to closer to home.

Our families' ranching operations and the broader goal of keeping the Barton Ranch in our family for generations to come.

Like many in our community, I've seen firsthand how difficult it has become to sustain a ranching lifestyle on cattle alone.

And the agrovoltaic model represents the realistic and responsible path forward.

One that allows us to diversify income, preserve open space, and honor our agricultural roots while contributing to California's renewable energy goals.

The Coyote Creek Solar Project is not a departure from agriculture, it is an evolution.

The venture allows the property be kept in the Williamson Act, does not impact groundwater, creates new local jobs, and supports our local schools and tax districts without adding homes or traffic burden to rural areas.

This project allows working lands to stay productive, resilient, and relevant in a changing world.

I respectfully ask for your support to help protect our families' heritage, agricultural operations, and adapt, not disappear for our future generations to manage and enjoy.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Joseph Birod, and I am a lifelong resident of Sacramento County.

The Coyote Creek Project represents responsible progress.

It balances clean power generation with open space protection, supports local labor with good paying jobs, and provides a regional climate benefit by reducing emissions.

Approving this project is an investment in a cleaner, more sustainable future for Sacramento County.

It's about making sure our land, the air we breathe, and our communities are safe, healthy, and protected.

The partnerships with the California Rangeland Trust and Sacramento Tree Foundation demonstrates a commitment to doing the right thing.

This is about doing good things today that will benefit our families, our region, and our generations to come.

Please support this project.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good evening.

My name is Peyton Hagen.

I'm a resident of Carmichael here in Sacramento County.

The hundreds of construction jobs this project will generate will leave a real positive impact on our community.

These workers will spend money at local uh businesses during construction, staying in hotels, eating at restaurants.

I'm glad to hear they will utilize well-paid and experienced union workers.

We have a great community here, and I wouldn't be surprised to hear some of the workers stay good after construction.

There are also operational jobs for the project, and I was excited to learn that the company has opened an office in Rancho Mireta.

This shows that they intend to have lasting presence in the community.

Cowdy Creek will increase full-time jobs in the region and contribute to California's modern and increasingly green economy.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

My comments are on the DIR, not the project.

I don't think the DIR was prepared adequately.

In uh chapter 13, it has to do with transportation.

The only thing they mentioned about in the draft is uh the construction roads entering the project coming from Scott Road.

They don't mention anything about all of the work that's gonna have to be done coming off of White Rock Road that comes in on the entrance to the uh park.

Um Scott Road, they identify as a two-lane roadway.

Uh White Rock Road, we know is a four-lane expressway.

Uh I I think that the DIR ignored that fact.

Uh during the comment period, A510 from the California Department of Park and Recreation refers to a power pole existing in a problematic location at the park entrance.

It further states, and I quote, the tight turning radius may also create problems for large trucks and construction vehicles during the construction phase of the project.

So that that mention in the comment should have triggered a evaluation of White Walk Road for the final.

All they did in the comment response was that it would be handled in mitigation measure TC3.

Mitigation measure TC3 is only concerned in the draft and the final, it didn't change about bicycles on Scott Road.

It never mentions addressing anything on White Rock Road.

White Rock Road is 55 miles an hour.

When you have construction traffic, I don't know if you've ever been in that intersection, but that intersection, there's no egress, there's no ingress.

Tractor trailers are going to be trying to get into that island coming from one direction.

They may not get all the way in.

You could get hit by vehicles going in that direction.

There's a rise.

I'm sorry, I'm done.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Shouldn't be thank you, Commissioners.

Sherry Stortron, uh, OHV user, owner, operator, and environmentalist.

I want to urge the planning commission to oppose this FEIS.

Uh it's in the wrong layers, uh, wrong location for this proposed solar project.

Should be located in more of an industrial setting.

The FEIS should have included more alternatives.

The FEIS only offers a slightly scaled down version, still massive environmental destruction.

Proposed project calls for flattening 2700 acres, removing 4700 or 3400, depending on where you're looking, of trees that are 90 plus years old.

The FEIS still has 4700 tree oak trees to be removed.

Destroying thousands of acres of native woodlands, destroying critical habitat, and unknown damage to air quality during all this construction.

The Planning Commission, please oppose this FEIS.

I'm not against solar panels, I'm not against solar projects or union jobs.

I'm just against the location.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Our next speaker.

Thank you for the job you're doing.

Thank you.

Um my name is Sally Calligan.

I live in Falsome, and uh I think you're aware of what my views are.

Um thank you for this opportunity.

UC Davis has estimated that the 3,400, depending upon the numbers you want to use, of the native oaks are actually between 175 and 450 years old.

Our potentially future granddad here proudly speaks of taking his grandchildren to see the trees that are now acorns, and in seven years, if things are really going well, might be about this big.

And that is going to replace these oaks.

Get serious, granddad.

Think about climate.

Mr.

Spaulding of the American River Trees states, we are down to less than 10% of our riparian vegetation as opposed to 50 years ago.

We're talking about habitat for our animals.

It's going to disrupt an important wildlife corridor at a time when the corridors, as I just stated, are increasingly important because of climate change.

It would be far more appropriate for the county to explore what are the alternative locations that these people state they have considered.

I agree with the other citizen who said we need to find an alternative site that is more industrial.

I would also take a front that we have Sack Tree Foundation all over the place in this presentation.

I would be shocked if SAC Tree is supporting this decision.

It seems to run alter to their mission.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Melanie Mosier, and I'm part of the Barton family.

And I'd like to share a little bit about our family history with you.

I come from a long line of pioneers, and I'm a proud descendant of the Donner Party.

In 1846, my relatives, Samuel and Rebecca Kyvers, set out with the Donner Party, but made a pivotal decision to part from the group in the Sierra Nevadas and take a different route while the rest of the group made a tragic fate.

After nearly five months of travel by wagon, Samuel and Rebecca arrived in Sacramento safely, and they were the some of the first settlers to Sutter's Fort.

Years later, their granddaughter, Weeta Kyvers, married William Barton, tying my family to the Barton Ranch, where our roots have remained for more than a century.

This has been a place where my family has lived, worked, and celebrated.

Upon graduating from Cal Poly, my father, William Mosher, dedicated his entire adult life to working cattle on the Barton Ranch.

I grew up just right down the street in Rose Lou House and spent nearly every weekend of my childhood at the ranch, helping my mom bring lunch to the cowboys.

And while I was there, I had the privilege of visiting with my great Aunt Alva Barton, who loves sharing stories of our family.

She would talk about the olden days and the hard times they went through, and how when she and my great-grandmother were young, they delivered milk by horse and buggy.

My family has always worked hard for the cattle, the livestock with pride and determination.

Both of my parents have passed away, and as an only child, preserving that legacy means even more to me.

My father did everything he could to ensure that our family ranch stays together and remains in the family, and I want to do the same for my children.

Diversifying solar will financially allow our family to preserve our heritage, continue our ranching traditions, and expand our commitment to sustainable energy.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Josh Lyman.

I'm a rancher farmer in Amador County.

It preserves their heritage.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good evening.

My name is Greta LeChin.

I've come before you before.

I'm a supporter of SMUD and their climate action efforts, and they made a mistake in this case, I'm afraid.

So there's nothing to protect the foraging habitat for threatened tricolored blackbird populations breeding in the north pond in the northeast of the property.

That matters because the overall population of these birds has plummeted in California.

They are endangered because of habitat loss.

And the staff admitted that this project is not approved.

That this project has the most tree removals in county history.

That won't be any replacement for what will be destroyed, which is nearly 3,500 blue oak trees, still a huge number.

And blue oaks grow very slowly.

It'll take several generations before of human generations before the mature trees are re-established.

All of you asked really good penetrating questions to staff.

I respect your questions, and you I don't think you got really complete satisfactory answers.

So I urge you to take seriously Sacramento 350 and other organizations and their comments on the FEIR, because in the end, the only kind of action that matters is local action.

And your actions today truly matter.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good evening.

My name is Troy Arnson.

I'm the business manager for the Iron Workers Local 118 here in Sacramento.

I represent over 800 iron workers, uh 250 men and women uh apprentices in the apprenticeship program, and I urge you to get this job started so we could have a good place for our men and women to earn a uh profitable living and uh spend their money here in Sacramento where they live.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Robert Krull.

I'm a third generation agricultural family here in Sacramento County.

Um I used to run a dairy in Elk Grove.

Elk Grove expanded so much that I was forced along with my brother to sell to developers.

No choice, and I can't even recognize the area where my former dairy was.

Because of my past experience, I can tell that if nothing happens tonight.

The only option that I shouldn't say the only option, but the main option would be development.

And I don't want to see that, and I know no one else in the family wants to see that, but that's just the facts.

So I really urge you to approve this project and allow things to go forward.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Hello, um, I'm Gail Merchant, a longtime Sacramento resident for 35 years.

I heard about the tax revenue.

This project will generate.

It is impressive to hear that Coyote Creek will contribute over 65 million dollars in property taxes over 20 years.

That's over 3 million dollars per year.

Meanwhile, the project is not asking for hardly any services in return.

It is basically free money for the county.

The project is producing electricity, not using it.

They do not need long-term water service or sewer hookups.

Wear and tear on the roads is minimal, and it looks like if they um have any damages, they will be on the hook for repairs from the construction that will be incurred.

I support this project because I want clean energy, good roads, schools, and services for my family and my community.

I support this project.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Our next speaker, good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Sean Worth.

I'm with the Sierra Club.

I think it's important if you're a deliberation tonight to understand a little bit of the history.

When SMUD was first approached in 2021 about this project and asked to sign a power purchase agreement, they were told that this project would be built on bare rocky ground.

That's what the site was.

This is not bare rocky ground.

SMUD did not do site visits, they didn't do ecological screening, they didn't reach out the environmental community.

The site is the issue.

We met with SMUD almost immediately, and SMUD staff told us this would never happen again, because no longer would they allow for third-party projects to not be screened in the same way they screen their own projects.

But they also told us we can't talk to you about the project.

We signed that contract, we're not allowed to do anything that might impact that contract.

So we were told it's now in the county's hands.

Next stop, county planning.

County planning told us that had they been approached about this project early on before the PPA, not when they were given application, but before an application, that they would have put up a bunch of red flags because of the location.

All right.

EIR comes out.

We did not find it to be a very good effort.

80-page comment letter, lots of problems.

So many problems we felt it should be recirculated.

Instead, what we get is a what I would call hastily prepared FEIR, and I say hastily because there are changes presented in the staff report that in some instances don't appear in the FEIR at all, like the amount of grading that's been reduced, like the number of trees.

So you'd be approving something that's not actually what it is.

You're approving an EIR that wasn't actually adjusted in the way that they said it was.

And then I want to answer a couple of things that I heard.

This idea that if you don't approve this project, that suddenly you're gonna have housing developments spring up immediately.

That's a false flag.

It takes decades, gets like that approved.

Also, the reality of this has to be the only possible way to do ranting is not true.

It's not true.

Conservation aids must work, they're used extensively in this region.

This is a prime property for that in all ways.

Thank you very much.

Next speaker.

Good evening.

I'm Mike Savino.

Uh, there are a lot of things about this project that I view positively.

Uh for example, the good union jobs.

Um, as a son of a union man, I wouldn't be here today without the protection that the union provided for him.

So I love a lot of things about this project.

Except one thing that kills it in my mind.

It's in the wrong place.

It should be in like uh the Sierra Club man said, plain rocky ground.

The the environmental destruction of this project is just egregious.

If the commissioners would allow, I would like to ask if those people who are here and concerned about the negative effects of this project would stand up so we could have a quick idea what the objections are.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next speaker.

Hello, my name is Brenda Gustin.

I urge you to vote no due to multiple downsides of this project.

It could take one to two years of operation just to break even on the loss of CO2 releases from the removal of these trees and soil disturbance.

It erases a long-term carbon reservoir and self-renewing ecosystem that would have continued sequestering carbon long after this solar farm is decommissioned.

Blue oak woodlands are not just carbon assets, they're keystone ecosystems.

They host over 300 species.

Habitat loss at this scale disrupts entire food webs.

Tree canopies intercept rainfall, slow overland flow, and enhance groundwater recharge.

Essential for creek health and local aquifers.

Oaks moderate local temperatures and humidity.

Large clearings raise surface temperatures and evaporative loss.

Counterproductive for climate smart energy projects.

Blue oaks are foundational to California's natural heritage, supporting indigenous cultural practices.

Once lost, these functions are not restored by replanting saplings, especially at one on one.

It takes centuries to rebuild mature oak woodlands ecosystems.

Solar energy is vital for decarbonization, but where and how it's built determines whether it's truly a sustainable.

The California Natural Resources Agency emphasizes conservation science to prioritize dual use or degraded lands, such as brown fields or already disturbed rangeland over intact ecosystems to integrate agrivoltaic systems with existing vegetation and not against it.

For example, spacing panels or using elevated arrays above grassland rather than destroying a forest that will far outlive the 35 years of this solar farm.

Thank you very much.

My name is Nick Jensen and I'm a resident of District 2.

I also happen to be the conservation director for the California Native Plant Society.

I wanted to speak to you today on how Coyote Creek, the Coyote Creek Project lands with me as a relatively new homeowner and someone who has dedicated my professional career to advocating for appropriate land use and the conservation of biodiversity.

When we bought our house in Hollywood Park in 2021, one of the first things we did was sign up for Smud's Green Energy Program.

Our assumption then, which continues to this day, well, partially, uh, was that by paying a little extra each month, we would be a small part of the solution to the crisis of climate change.

People like my wife and I would like to think that investing in the green energy program is a hundred percent positive thing.

How could it not be?

The absurd reality that by signing up for this program, we would be in any shape or form in any way, shape or form, be enabling a poorly conceived and poorly cited project like Coyote Creek never crossed our minds.

I'm willing to bet that many, many, probably hundreds, if not thousands, of uh homeowners like me would be appalled at the at the siding of this project and its significant unmitigatable impacts.

Quite simply, a solar project that will kill thousands of mature oak trees, fragment habitat, and eliminate the function of an already imperiled ecosystem is not the kind of clean or green energy project that we should have in Sacramento County or anywhere for that matter.

Sacramento County is graced with ample, flat, previously disturbed habitat where a project like this could be constructed with minimal or no environmental impact.

Coyote Creek is the wrong is simply a project in the wrong location for this type of development.

The people and the habitats of count of Sacramento County deserve better, and I strongly urge you to vote no on this project.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next speaker.

Good evening.

I'm Brendan Wills.

I'm the conservation program coordinator with the California Native Plant Society.

The staff assessment for this project, the information in the agenda pack is based on an analysis of the reduced footprint, which calls out 3,493 trees.

The FEIR for the project still indicates that 4,887 trees would be removed.

There are similar inconsistencies with the acres of canopy cover and the total acres of oak woodlands lost.

Is the Planning Commission basing their decision on the information in the FEIR, which we were allowed to comment on, or are they basing their decision on the updated information in the staff assessment?

The vast majority of trees being removed are blue oaks.

One of California's slowest growing oak species.

This oak is three years old.

Blue oaks begin to mature at about 90 years old, and at that point they would just be beginning to produce acorns, snags, downed wood, hollows, all of those values that the wildlife that rely on these habitats need to thrive.

By the end of the seven-year term of mitigation, we anticipate that the planted trees would not be about this tall, but would be about a foot tall.

Now that I'm in my mid-40s, these trees are about eight feet tall.

None of us in this room will see these trees reach maturity.

None of our children will.

Thank you.

Appreciate that.

Next speaker.

I'm Cassie.

Okay, thank you very much.

Next speaker, good evening.

Good evening.

My name is Callie Dietrich, and I am a walnut farmer, and I'm here to show support for the Coyote Creek project.

I grew up in Sacramento County where my family still lives in the rural part of the community, and I've seen firsthand the challenges facing family farms today.

I'm here tonight to voice my support for this project because it will allow the Barton Ranch to remain in the Williamsome Act, something that I'm a part of as well on my ranch, securing its legacy in agriculture.

That matters not only for this family but for the future of farming.

To put in perspective, walnut prices last year.

You cannot break even.

You can't make a profit.

My husband and I work full-time jobs to support our passionate farming.

It's not sustainable.

We don't want that for our kids.

Something needs to change.

So families like mine and the Bartons are struggling to cover even the most basic costs of electricity to run water pumps or have a catastrophic failure mid-growing season, like I had this year, where we had to scrounge to turn on electricity to water our trees to provide food for our state and the world.

So I am a tree farmer.

I have an appreciation for the trees and their impact on the environment.

That's why I studied environmental science in college.

With a project like Coyote Creek, it's important to note their properties similar to mine, where a lot of the oak trees are diseased.

The replanting of these uh trees for mitigation and putting in healthy trees to sequester carbon are a significant impact to the environment as well as the solar farm that we're discussing.

I strongly believe this project helps preserve not only the Barton Ranch but agriculture heritage for Sacramento County and the state, and for that I ask for your support.

Thank you very much.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Barbara DuGal, and I am here to uh to say that the Coyota Creek Solar Project cannot be approved at the proposed sites.

It is unconscionable to destroy thousands of trees and critical habitat.

The project violates SMUD's own environmental solar siding guidelines and runs counter to the county's own general plan directives for the use of the area.

The no project alternative is the most superior project and must be adopted.

Even SMUD's own reliability studies have shown that the 200 megawatt project will not be required to meet its own zero carbon goals to begin shutting down gas power plants.

I urge the county and SMUD to seriously pursue alternative and more environmentally suitable locations in order to stop the destruction of critical habitat.

New energy, new green energy development is essential for reducing fossil fuel emissions, but it's critical that we don't sacrifice important undeveloped landscapes and the wildlife that live there in pursuit of these projects.

The county and SMUD can and must do better than the current Coyote Creek proposal.

Please take the time to seriously consider alternative solar locations.

A dirty road to clean energy is just not worth it.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next speaker.

Hi, good evening, Commission.

My name is Rose Wayne.

I'm the statewide natural resources consultant for California Four-Wheel Drive Association.

I represent 3,500 members, most of whom regularly utilize our Prairie City SVRA.

Sacramento County has failed to comply with California Public Resources Code Section 5090.24.

This law requires that the county coordinate with the off-highway vehicle motorized recreation commission on any action that will affect an SVRA, including Prairie City.

The project developers stated their cooperation with state parks.

However, their coordination with state parks fully excluded the OHMVR Commission.

Throughout prescoping, scoping, and creation of the DEIR.

The OHMVR Commission just learned about the solar project in May of this year, a few days prior to the close of the public comment period for the DEIR.

It's critical to note that PRC requires local agencies to cooperate with the Commission to maintain long-term viability of SVRA lands and requires the Commission to hold a public hearing with them on any substantial development proposed near to the SVRA.

That cooperation and hearing have not been fulfilled.

By advancing the FEIR without coordination of public process through the OHMBR Commission, the county is violating state standards and denying the public its right to meaningful participation.

This failure undermines both CECOA and public resource code and puts Prairie City's future at significant risk.

Generally and specifically to Prairie City.

Prairie City contributes $59 million every year to the local economy, including $9 million annually in tax revenue and supports 385 jobs.

That economic contribution is growing every year as local outdoor recreation demand continues to rise.

By contrast, the proposed solar project would create only temporary construction jobs and fewer than 10 permanent positions once operational, producing a fraction of the economic value that Prairie City produces year-round.

Yet the FEIR completely ignores that disparity and fails to analyze how project construction, dust, and visual impacts could reduce visitation.

Desri also states that the project would contribute 67 million in annual tech in tax revenue over 20 years, while Prairie City will contribute 180 million in that same time frame.

If utilization and quality of the recreation experience at Prairie City are not diminished by an industrial solar facility immediately next door.

So this also violates CEQA and public resource code.

The remedy is clear.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Tim Washburn.

I'm a resident of Wilton in the county.

And I have a problem with the recommendation that you're being asked to make to the Board of Supervisors.

And that recommendation is that yes, we have significant and unavoidable impacts to Oakwoodlands, cumulatively, to the Scott Road Scenic Corridor, and to cultural resources, but there's a compelling justification to override those impacts and approve the project.

And what is that compelling justification?

Theoretically, it is that the Coyote Project is needed to meet SMUD's zero carbon project goal for uh renewable energy.

That goal is 3,000 to maybe 3,400 megawatts by 2030.

I've taken a look at the most recent SMUD update on where they are in the program to achieve that ZCP goal.

In April 2025, just this last April, they presented to SMUD an update that said we're about 3100 megawatts along in committed and project pipeline projects, including the 300 megawatts at Coyote Creek.

Since then, they've gotten commitments for 500 megawatts of solar power that weren't analyzed in the update.

One is a Desre project at Rancho Seiko, 640 megawatts of battery storage, one in Placer County, next to their country acres project, 312 megawatts of solar and battery storage, and one in Sacramento County near where I live, down along uh Eagles Nest Road, the Bayo uh ranch project.

500 megawatts added to that total.

If you took the 300 megawatts of uh this project off the program, they'd still meet their goal.

Now, I'm not advocating necessarily you take all 300 megawatts, or maybe it's 400 according to today's presentation.

I'm not saying you need to do that.

I'm saying that 300 megawatts, 1400 acres, is totally missized for this site, as people have been saying.

That project could be downside considerably to something more approximating the Avea Ranch or even the one right next to me, Slough House on Dillard Road, and easily meet SMUD's ZCP goals.

So I would encourage you not to buy into the idea that the overriding consideration here is to meet that goal.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

I'm Pamela Flick, the California program director for defenders of wildlife and a 28-year resident of Sacramento County.

SMUD's mistake does not have to be Sacramento County's mistake.

We can and must do better when it comes to citing renewable energy projects.

While defenders strongly supports renewable energy development, we must balance that need with protecting sensitive species and habitats through smart planning and site selection to avoid and minimize impacts to high value resources.

Coyote Creek is one of the most poorly cited projects we've ever seen in more than 15 years of our work on renewables.

The proposal will result in significant environmental impacts, including the destruction of increasingly rare oak woodlands, which provide vital habitat to dozens of vulnerable species, including bald and golden eagles, burrowing owls, pond turtles, and many other amphibians, birds, and unique aquatic animals.

Further, the project is located smack dab in the middle of a critically important regional habitat corridor in a portion of our county that is seeing explosive growth with no end in sight.

If developed, our areas, wildlife will have even fewer places to go.

Lastly, I will note the defenders commissioned a license hydrologist to review the project.

Their technical analysis was included in our DEIR comments, yet the FEIR summarily dismissed all of those concerns.

Clearly, there is no interest by the county or the project developer to address the core issues identified in our comments in a meaningful way to ensure the project does not have adverse impacts on hydrological resources of the area.

Ultimately, the planning commission must make a finding that the solar project is compatible with adjacent uses.

An industrial scale solar project that will remove nearly 3,500 trees, excavate over a million cubic yards of earth to install more than 400,000 solar panels, plus the associated infrastructure is not compatible with surrounding land uses just because some livestock grazing will occur on the site.

We strongly urge you to deny this permit.

Don't let Smuds mistake become our mistake.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next speaker.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Ken Nowak Jr., and I am a fifth generation Sacramento County resident, and I've witnessed our region grow and change over the decades, and I certainly understand how important it is to protect our rural landscapes, our family ranches, as I am a rancher myself, and our open space that makes our county so special.

This project provides a balance between progress and preservation.

It keeps the land in productive agricultural use through livestock grazing and adds renewable sour power solar power to name a few.

This is not a development that necessarily takes away from the land.

It is one that keeps us working and beneficial to the community.

It provides clean energy, supports family agriculture, and habitats that define eastern Sacramento County.

It's a project, it's forward thinking, it's a forward thinking plan that preserves what's best about East Sacramento County, looking forward toward the future.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next speaker.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Lou Slim, and I'm here to speak on behalf of the environmental environmental council of Sacramento, a coalition that has engaged in public planning for over 50 years to advocate for cohesive development and a healthy environment for all.

Eco supports the environmental and OHV groups that have consistently engaged with this project and expressed their concerns.

The sighting of this project in a hilly oak woodland with protected species and next to a state park make this a very unusual and incompatible location for such extensive solar development.

Although we typically support solar projects, ECO simply cannot support a project with so many irreparable costs to the environment, the Prairie City SVRA, the future of California State Parks as natural preserves, and the unique natural resources of our region.

And we definitely can't support a project that doesn't even follow the county's general plan guidelines for project siting.

Please don't support a project that conflicts with your own plans.

Now I'd like to speak as an individual for a moment.

Four years ago, I spent my first summer as a geology grad student backpacking in the North Cascade Mountains.

We had days hiking up to 13 miles in the backcountry with packs that sometimes weighed upwards of 60 pounds with our rack rock samples, or at least it felt that heavy.

Everybody's body and abilities change.

That isn't unique to me.

I just happen to be confronted with it relatively early.

But it brings me great comfort to know that I should one day find myself unable to put a pack on and journey into the wilderness, that I would still have a place like the SVRA to get away and enjoy nature with my loved ones.

Thank you very much.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, my name is Susan Jones, and I've been a resident in Sacramento County for 28 years.

I'm not quite sure.

We have solar on our roof.

We drive an electric car.

I believe in uh labor unions, but I think Smud has made a mistake in where they're planning where they want to put this project.

It really should be on brown fields or areas that are not already disturbed.

Um have a strong feeling as the last speaker for wild places and wild landscapes, vernal pools, oak woodlands, and this is a place that is of value to people, even people who live in the city to go out and see these places and enjoy uh a natural habitat.

So please consider uh not approving this project.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next speaker, good evening to the commission.

My name is David Wright.

I'm representing Sacramento 350.

Uh we are an organization whose goal is to reduce greenhouse gases to safe levels for people and the planet.

Um and we participated in a multi-organization comment letter about this project.

Typically, we favor solar and renewable energy projects, but this project is in the wrong place.

Uh it can go somewhere else.

Uh we're in favor of labor unions and uh good construction jobs for these guys.

Um, but they they can work on a project in a different place.

Um when I was working for the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service on threatened and endangered species.

That's a regulatory branch of that of that agency.

Um we had to work with project proponents to reduce, avoid, uh minimize and mitigate impacts to threatened and endangered species.

And those projects were not always easy to resolve.

When I was working on a project, I often thought about what I called the picnic test.

You know, if you could go out to that project site a decade later or seven years later when their oaks are this tall, and uh um and have a picnic with your family.

How would you feel about the decision that you had made, the uh work that you had done?

So there are alternatives to this project, maybe they weren't analyzed.

Um, and there are other projects out there that can fulfill the need for that energy.

Um I would urge you to say no to this project.

It's not your obligation to uh to approve every project that comes forward.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next speaker.

Uh good evening.

Uh, my name is Kim Delfino, and I was the program director for Defenders of Wildlife for 20 years.

Now I work with a number of other conservation organizations.

I'm also a 25-year resident of Sacramento County.

Um I'm here to ask you to deny the project.

Um, in my 20 years of working on renewable energy siting and planning and policy work, this is probably one of the top three worst sighted projects that I've seen.

The other one was the Ivanpaw project uh along the border in California and the Pinoch Valley Project uh up in the Pinoch Hills.

Um the location of this project is wholly inappropriate from a land use perspective, and as already been noted, is inconsistent with your own policies.

The level of site disturbance, blasting, or dread uh cut and fill and disturbance is I've never seen anything like this in all of the projects I've ever worked on.

In fact, when I saw the project uh when I first went out there and saw the rolling hills, I was rather shocked given um the constraints that solar companies have in terms of um slope uh in when they do their projects.

Further, the level of destruction to oak woodlands and intact vernal pool and wetland systems is also shocking.

More than 3,500 oaks, including nearly 1,800 heritage oaks, are going to be destroyed.

That is the that is a shocking number of oaks.

I we've never approved anything like that here in Sacramento County.

I tried to do a search.

The most the largest number I saw was the Levee project with that was 600 oaks.

Finally, the as noted by folks that enjoy the state vehicle rec recreation area.

Um the fact that you would be approving a project right next to a state park and depriving folks of enjoying their state park with the rolling hills around them is also deeply disturbing.

Therefore, by approving this project, you're sending a message to other developers that it's okay to come here to Sacramento, disregard uh your policies and undermine impacts um and have these types of impacts to your um to your county.

And for these reasons, I would urge you to vote against this.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next speaker.

Next speaker.

Not seeing moving on to the next speaker.

Philip.

Not seeing Philip.

Moving on to the next speaker, Doyle.

Thank you very much.

All right.

Good evening, uh, Chair Conklin, respected uh commission.

My name is Doyle Radford Jr.

I am the business manager of construction and general laborers local 185.

We've been proudly building this community since 1929, including this building, this lovely building that was built almost 50 years ago, right here.

So it's something we're proud of.

We build uh projects that are built to last with quality local men and women.

And it's an honor to be able to work on environmentally friendly projects uh that uh that put the local men and women to work.

Uh we grow them organically.

Uh we worked on the Rancho Seiko Solar Project, currently the Country Acres Clean Powers Project, and uh we're here tonight to encourage you to vote yes on the Coyote Creek Solar Project as well.

And I'd like to take my uh work out off to personally commend the the Barton and the Van Bleck family.

I'm from a pioneer family in South Placer County that um that didn't leave any land for the future.

Uh I can't tell you what I'd be able to give to show my children and maybe my grandchildren what the land was and um this project that would uh restore the land to its natural beauty in 30 years, as well as some of it preserved by the Williamson Act.

So good job.

Um I commend that, and again, we we uh are here to support the project, and thank you for your time.

Thank you very much.

Next speaker thank you, Commissioners, for being available today.

Um it's a somber day when I see farmers actually struggling and seeing uh facing challenges when they're um concerned about feeding America.

This is a devastating situation.

Thank you for all you do, thank you for all these struggles, and thank you for carrying on.

It's a privilege to see this and to see these efforts.

It's also been a privilege the last few years to visit Rancho Seco and visit my members out there as a business representative for Local 185.

I've enjoyed the reality of looking at my members and um side by side right next to them, there's some sheep.

And there's possibility for people to make a living actually having these sheep out there and having sustainable energy.

I come probably from the worst example in energy.

I was a pipeliner by trade.

I actually carved out um many right-aways in across the country, and I know what it's like to leave a permanent scar in the infrastructure that these that these retaways leave behind.

Something that's not sustainable, something where the wildlife is taken away, whereas beautiful as a mountain may see or any other landscape may be, as long as it's not a swamp, it is not going back to normal.

It is not going to be a visible, it is a severe scar that is left on the ground, and um these right-aways are anywhere from 50 to 100 feet, and they just stay permanently.

And um, the only time somebody revisits this land is actually just to go and kill the wildlife that that actually goes up there.

So having a situation where there is a satisfaction, there is a pride of actually keeping this land going, keeping this um wildlife going on and actually people making a living.

It's a great privilege to see after all the damage I've done to this planet.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Next speaker.

Hello, my name is uh Robert Hunter.

I'm a veterinarian in Wilton, and I've uh been around this area for a lot of you a lot of years.

And um, I'm also on the consumer seat back, and um we approved this, and we've tried not to approve some other uh uh solar properties.

Um they're a difficult thing to do.

I don't know if there's any great place, but this is as good a place as I can ever imagine.

They've got creeks, they've got trees, they've got animals, like it's just a beautiful, well thought out uh place for having a solar farm.

So I think it's a wonderful thing.

I'm all in support of it.

Thank you very much.

Next speaker.

Hi, I'm Dr.

Jessica Sanders, executive director of the Sacramento Tree Foundation.

I've spent my career working in the urban interface to ensure that trees and people can live harmoniously together.

The need for essential energy infrastructure and nature are often at odds with each other.

Both are necessary for growth and our well-being.

This project balances the need for sustainable green energy with a long-term stewardship plan.

The tree foundation will contribute to the vision of stewardship through the long-term partnership agreement we have established with Desre and Coyote Creek Solar.

As part of our partnership, we will ensure that for each oak tree removed during construction, a new one will be planted.

The tree foundation will be planting at least 25% more trees than removed to ensure not only the survival of these trees planted, but healthy, thriving trees.

We are excited to carry out this mitigation approach directly on site, enhancing existing oak woodlands with the conservation easement corridors.

These replantings will further enhance the wildlife connections built into the design of the project site.

The tree foundation will monitor and maintain the trees for seven years, which exceeds the Sacramento County standard of three years to ensure they live into establishment and to continue to thrive to our uh adjusting climate.

In my own experience, seven years is adequate to ensure the long-term success and viability of these planted oaks.

The trees will be planted, will come from blue and valley oak acorns harvested this fall at Barton Ranch using our volunteers.

Not only will these acorns be used on this site, but we will use them to engage Sacramento youth in educational programming as well as on other sites throughout the region.

This will further ensure the provenance of these majestic trees are continued and honored in this region.

The dominant species in the urban forest is people, not trees, and the ability to ensure a balance between our ecosystems' needs and the energy needs of a population will always remain a challenge.

Our partnership provides tree mitigation in exchange for a vital renewable energy source, which as our climate warms, we will continue to need to ensure Sacramento remains livable, not for the few, but for the most vulnerable populations who need low-cost energy.

Thank you very much.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Jackie Hamford.

I'm proud to come from the Barton family, a fifth generation ranching and farming family here in Sacramento County.

My great-great-grandparents started the Barton Ranch over 150 years ago.

And today my children represent the sixth generation working to preserve the legacy our family has cared for this land through droughts, market shifts, and the rising challenges of making agriculture sustainable in California.

I'm here today in strong support of the Coyote Creek Solar Project.

This project represents exactly what the future of agriculture should look like: a balance between tradition and innovation.

Agrovotaics gives ranchers and farmers like us a path forward.

Keeping land in the Williamson Act, continue to graze livestock while also producing clean renewable energy that benefits our community.

This isn't about replacing agriculture, it's about preserving it.

The reality is that ranching alone no longer supports most families, but projects like this create new income streams, local jobs, and tax revenue for our schools without adding traffic students or urban sprawl.

Coyote Creek Solar will also protect protect groundwater support habitat corridors and preserve the scenic rural character of Slough House, ensuring it remains open land instead of future subdivisions.

Sacramento County has the opportunity to lead by example showing that we can honor our agriculture roots while embracing responsible renewable energy.

This project allows families like mine to remain stewards of the land for generations to come.

I respectfully ask for your vote to approve the Coyote Creek Solar Project.

Thank you for your time and for your consideration what this forward-thinking project like this means to the people who have dedicated their lives to working the land.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Caitlin Smith, and I am a small owner and member of the Barton Ranch family.

I graduated from Calpoli, San Luis Obispo with a degree in agribusiness.

I grew up in Slough House and on the Barton Ranch and have dedicated my life to remaining in agriculture as well as other members of my family have.

I am here today as an advocate for the continuation of our family's legacy in agriculture.

I want to explain that operating and in agriculture has historically always been on razor thin margins.

Diversity of commodities have always helped farmers and ranchers.

Agrovoltaics has been a breakthrough commodity to which renewable energy resource while having many benefits within ranching and farming.

It maintains biodiversity, creates sustainable farming practices.

This project maximizes our land use and also commits mitigated land to environmental presentation preservation.

Just like other changes in technology and farming and ranching, it was pioneers who first made those changes that are seen as common practice today.

I'm from a pioneering family and think of ourselves as modern pioneers in agrovoltaics with grazing.

Some other main points to consider, which you've heard, which will it will provide thousands to thousands of dollars of tax revenue to schools without the impact of actual students, creates local job growth, and the groundwater will not be impacted the same way as if it was housing or another ag commodity.

This isn't the agriculture most people are used to driving by and seeing, and that's scary.

This isn't about moving away from agriculture.

This is about protecting its future.

Change is hard, but it's necessary.

Agravoltaics still provides a resource we need to survive and help us meet our clean energy goals as a state.

Thank you very much.

Next speaker.

Hi.

Uh Harry White, Chair of Conservation Committee, Sack Valley Chapter CNPS.

Location.

It's the location.

The location for this facility will result in significant environmental damage, outweighing the benefits provided by the solar power being generated.

Instead, this industrial solar facility should be built at a different site.

At the Coyote Creek site, the need to cut down more than 3,000 oak trees, destroy valuable habitat for many species, and disrupt an important wildlife corridor renders this location inappropriate.

It conflicts with the South Sac Habitat Conservation Plan and the intent of the Sack County General Plan.

Many environmental groups, uh such as the CNPS, Sierra Club Motherlow chapter, have been involved with this for years.

They've reviewed the series of EIRs, including the FEIR in detail, and provided you with extensive and convincing arguments as to why this facility at this location should not be approved.

Our local CNPS group that is Sacramento area agrees with their analyses.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you very much.

Next speaker.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Thanks for your patience.

My name is Dr.

Goli Saba, and I'm with Third X Sacramento.

According to UC Davis, blue oaks are long-lived, 170 to 450 years.

They're California's most drought tolerant deciduous deciduous oak and are a dominant species in the blue oak woodland ecosystem.

When I spoke with a SMUD official about why are they cutting down this many trees?

They said, oh, well, they only live about 100, 140 years, and they're old anyway.

As many of you are aware, oak trees are keystone species, meaning they are indispensable to the ecosystem, and without which there's irreparable damage to the many species that depend upon them.

According to the Sacramento Valley Conservancy, oak woodlands are the key to California's biodiversity, providing food, shelter, and nesting opportunities for wildlife.

There are about 100-200 species of birds that breed in California's oak woodlands, 105 mammals, 58 amphibians.

I could go on and on reptiles and an estimated 5,000 species of insects.

Approximately 80% of hardwood rangelands are in private ownership.

Therefore, wildlife conservation will fall on all of us and you, commissioners.

Oaks preserve water quality and increase water availability in California by filtering runoff, preventing erosion.

Now I told don't take me wrong.

I totally support SMUD's 2030 Carbon Zero Goals.

But there has to be some limits as to how they get there.

So think about it.

So think about it.

We're trying to reach carbon zero rapidly by 2030 to help with limiting climate change to get there by cutting down some of the largest species that actually sequester carbon for us just doesn't make intuitive sense.

Blue oaks are slow-growing oaks, and even if they plant four trees for each one-day topple, it would take 90 plus years for them to reach the carbon sequestration ability of these trees.

I just want to remind folks that this 2030 Carbon Zero was set due to the declaration of a climate emergency by SMUD as well as the county and city of Sacramento to speed our reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

Because we just don't have 80 years to wait.

These acorns actually very much I'm almost done.

Reach the level of carbon sequestration that these trees are currently providing.

That's well, anyway, thank you for your thank you.

Good evening, Chair and Commissioners.

I'm Steve Schurdett, resident of District One.

And Sacramento, this we're here in downtown, used to be called the City of the Plains.

Then it became city of trees.

It's our identity, the trees of Sacramento.

And there's two things that are rare in this area.

Most of it's flat, like it was called City of Plains.

And the rare things are the hills and the blue oak woodlands.

There's a very small band of blue oak woodlands on the hills that start from Rancho Marietta, go north through Deer Creek Hills Preserve that was preserved about 20 years ago, and up to south of Folsom, which is which is currently being developed.

And those rare things are something that we should hold precious.

It's inexcusable to cut down these forests of blue oak woodlands for a project that could go anywhere.

It's a false choice that you've been presented with that housing could be placed on these lots.

The easement that you heard about earlier specifically prohibits housing.

That's why the landowners were paid $3.4 million of public dollars to prevent housing from being built next to the OHV park.

Also, it's outside of the urban services boundary, which is the permanent growth boundary for Sacramento County.

And you would never approve something outside of the urban service boundary, right?

Recent appraisals for the value of conservation easements in the area of the Barton Ranch have been in the range of $10,000 per acre.

And there's currently $200 million going before the sustainable agricultural land conservation program statewide that they're going to be giving out on Wednesday.

This would be a great project for conservation and something that the landowners should consider.

They could walk away with a conservation easement valued at $24 million.

Thank you very much.

This project is inconsistent with your goals, and I urge you to deny it.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Hi.

My name is Ann Feinkner.

I'm a certified arborist.

I'm also served the California Urban Forest Council for 10 years.

I am a UCE Cooperative Extension Master Gardener.

I've clocked in over 7,000 hours, including offering tree tours to people.

I strongly oppose this project due to its significant and irreversible impacts on the site's mature trees and sensitive ecosystems.

As you've heard over and over again, the draft EIR will impact thousands.

It's kind of questionable the real number, but quite thousands of trees.

And most of these trees are valley and blue oaks.

As mentioned again prior, these trees are keystone species, central to the ecological health of this landscape.

They provide critical wildlife habitat, soil stabilization, and they take centuries to develop.

Mature oaks, particularly those that exceed 100 years of age, cannot, cannot be replaced in a human lifetime.

Mitigation plantings established over a seven-year period cannot replicate the canopy structure, biodiversity, or ecological function of these established trees.

And most of these trees that are slated for removal are valley and blue oak.

Blue oaks are native only to California.

Think about it.

They're found nowhere else in the world.

So their presence across the rolling foothills of Sacramento County represents one of the last extensive native blue oaks habitats in the world.

So I've served the Sacramento Tree Foundation for 16 years.

I'm very familiar with the mitigation program.

And while the SAC Tree Foundation has made efforts over the past 30 years to mitigate oaks, the long-term survival and maturation of these trees has not been demonstrated.

The result results vary.

Um there's many um uh considerations.

But the mitigations um typically span six uh three to eight years, and that's just not enough.

I have so much more to say.

I'm sure thank you very, very much.

But I just want to underscore that.

This is it, my friends.

Yep.

Once they're gone, they're gone.

Thank you very much.

Another location.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Yep.

Good evening, good evening, commissioners.

Uh my name is Sheila Harrington.

I live here in Sacramento.

And I want to start off by saying that I hate that this issue pits the environmental community against ranchers and farmers.

And I don't think I'm the only one here who feels that way.

Um I grew up in Wisconsin um practically next door to corn and dairy farmers.

So I've always followed rural and farmer issues, and I I have a deep appreciation and predicament for what you all are going through.

Um, and that's a problem that our governments at all levels should try to address by way of zoning and relief of property taxes and so forth.

And yet, I also have to say that I just really oppose this project because of all of the reasons that other people have said.

And um it's just it's too big.

It's too destructive of trees and native habitat.

Uh and it does kind of seem like robbing Peter to pay Paul when you're, you know, the whole point of solar is reducing our carbon imprint, and then we're cutting down these huge old oak trees, which make no mistake, the amount of carbon that they sequester far exceeds the amount that a replacement number, even 25% more, is going to sequester of carbon dioxide.

So, anyway, um, I just want to say that I do encourage you to oppose this project, and I really hope that the farmers and ranchers um look into some of the conservation easements that other people have talked about.

Um, because I would hate to see their land go to developers.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

And our next speaker, please.

Good evening.

My name is Jane Artilla.

I'm a resident of the Rancho Cordova and a proud user of Prairie City SVRA.

I have a you have a handout for me with pictures on it, and also my comments on the FEIR.

Um, the OHB community only had four days, some people three days to respond, and I did not have the time at that time to respond, so it's a 10-page comment letter.

So hopefully you read it.

Um, Prairie City SBRA is more than just this open space.

It is one of the few places in Sacramento where families can safely enjoy camping, mountain biking, hiking, and off-road recreation while connecting to the outdoors.

The environment the environmental impact report emits scenic impacts to Prairie City City would be significant and unavoidable, but it does not sufficiently address the glare off the panels.

The glare at high points in the park was not analyzed.

So if you can imagine you're at the kids' track, the overlook, the main stage are Hangtown Hill, and you're up here on the hill, and you have the panels going from south to north, and at a 60-degree angles, you're gonna be riding along with your kids on the trails or you know, on the on the trails, and that glare hits your family.

That's a huge safety concern that was never addressed.

Prairie City serves as central outdoor space for diverse families, especially as a Latina who brings her family to recreate who rely on it as affordable, safe recreation and cultural connection.

Industrial scalar industrial scale solar development would not only destroy and degrade the park's open space characteristics, but distribute disturb wildlife and erode the family-oriented community-based values that the park supports.

Thank you very much.

I urge you to protect Prairie City SVRA by rejecting this project.

Thank you.

Our next speaker.

Good evening, Chair Conklin and Commissioners.

My name is Matt Newton Boom, and I serve as assistant business manager for Local 340 IBEW, representing thousands of skilled electrical workers across the Sacramento region.

I have a prepared statement here.

I'm here tonight to voice our strong support for the Coyote Creek Agrivoltaic Branch Project.

This project represents the kind of responsible future focused development our county should be leading.

Producing clean renewable energy while keeping farmland and productive use and creating good family supporting union jobs.

The developer has gone above and beyond in their outreach and environmental efforts, meeting with neighbors, addressing concerns, and incorporating real mitigation measures to reduce impacts and protect natural resources.

That kind of proactive engagement is rare and deserves recognition.

We know not everyone will agree on every detail, but this project demonstrates what's possible when clean energy, agriculture, and community values come together.

It should be viewed as a model for how commercial solar projects are done in the future, responsibly, transparently, and with local labor.

Built by IBW electricians, this project will meet the highest standards of safety and quality while investing directly in Sacramento County's workforce and economy.

We appreciate your time and urge you to support and your approval of this important project.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

And our next speaker.

Excuse me.

Rob Burness with CR Club and Ecos.

I also was a planner with Sacramento County for over 30 years, and led the team that developed the conservation element and the open space element for the groundbreaking 1993 general plan.

I would like to elaborate a little bit on the consistency issues with the general plan that uh are associated with this project.

Most of the area is within the resource conservation overlay designation of the land use diagram.

It identifies areas with special resource management needs, specifically the Blue Oak Savannah.

The intent is to assist landowners with resource protection and enhancement.

This hardly seems like a project that is consistent with the idea of assisting the landowner in protecting the resource.

The conservation element also includes a goal to preserve and manage natural habitats and their ecological functions throughout Sacramento County.

The text, by way of explication, is that rural habitats play a critical role in the protection of landscape level ecosystem processes.

And you've heard about policies 78 and 79 calling for siting of solar facilities in a way to minimize impacts and how they are hardly doing that.

They emphasize avoiding habitat with high habitat values, scenic values, and cultural resources, resources, all of which are found to be significant and unavoidable impacts in the environmental document.

The project before you this evening involves involving substantial removal of blue oak savanna, is incompassive inconsistent with these policies, undermines a goal of the conservation element, and excuse me.

Um as a result, uh we ask you to recognize the degree to which this project deviates from the these policies and plans, the extent of the project's significant and unavoidable impacts.

Thank you very much.

And the fact that the project is no longer essential to meeting SMUD's carbon-free goals.

Thanks.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Our next speaker.

Hi, I'm Alan Kogwar.

Uh thank you for being here in all your work.

Um, I'm a resident of Sacramento County and a retired geospatial analyst.

That means somebody who looks at um planning from a map standpoint.

And what I see missing in the this whole project is a um sighting analysis that would look at um uh sensitive areas and opportunistic areas for uh solar.

I just wanted to also add that you know, I am totally in support of solar energy, good jobs, and ranching.

And um, you know, um I'd like to see our ranchers be, you know, they're good conservation partners.

A lot of verno pools are are under ranch land and and make great uh mitigation banks.

The other thing is um there's a place that does um burials and memorials, you know, where you can bury your ashes, you know, you know, for a certain cost.

Maybe that's an uh difference diversification for this site.

Anyway, I yield the rest of my time.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next speaker, hi, I'm Cynthia Garcia, and um I realize it's late.

So I will just be repeating much of what has been said.

I just want to request that if you all could consider something that unites us, then it's project that divides us.

And I appreciate everybody's comments.

Thank you.

Thank you very much All right.

I don't see any other speakers from the public.

We'll return it back to the applicant for rebuttal.

Chairman, members of the commission.

Um candidly, in listening to all the testimony, it's it's ground that we've covered.

Um so I'm happy to answer questions, but I don't really have anything that I thought needed to be um addressed.

Okay.

Uh we'll kick it back to the dais for any questions for the applicant.

I don't have a question, but I did forget to um state just for transparency's sake that I had two Zoom meetings with the petitioners and um off-slaw our staff.

So thank you very much.

Mr.

Vice Chair.

Um just a couple of questions for both the applicant and to the to our planning department.

There's uh first of all, thank you for all the speakers.

That's about six, eight or seven of the folks that spoke today, not to mention hundreds of dozens, if not, uh dozens, if not hundreds, of emails, comments, and letters that were um also in the packet, but also um that we received on our own emails.

Um rector Smith or or Ms.

Newton, uh there was a question about inconsistency from what is in the staff report and what is in the FEIR.

Can you please just head that straight on?

Yep.

Are are are are we are we here approving a document that's inconsistent?

And do we have and maybe I'll look to general counsel here.

Do we do we have any legal um risk if if those two numbers do not match what we have in the staff report and what we have and what we're proposing to recommend to the to the board?

Well, I can say that what's in the staff report is consistent with our final EIR.

The way our final EIR was prepared is we uh have prepared a preface up front at the beginning of the document that explains the modifications and the changes.

We did not do a line-by-line strike through of the entire document.

So the modifications were explained up front in the preface.

There's also additional detail and clarification that's provided in the response to comments that we received on the draft EIR, which has been incorporated as chapter 20 in the final EIR.

Understood.

So are are we speaking about the same number of trees?

And are we speaking about the same number of dirt that may or may not be moved in in the changes from the grading plan and from what the applicant has has spoken to.

The the numbers that you see in the staff report were the same numbers that were pulled from the final EIR.

Thank you for that.

Um Mr.

Gillam, can you uh uh I'm not in the solar business.

Can you please walk me through what you guys have to do in order to cite um I mean I would imagine that there may be some challenges and or considerations both economically and also feasibility of the project, but there's been a number of concerns about that.

This is a rolling hills, but there's other options in the county.

You guys must have gone through some sort of reasoning.

There's a lot of money involved in the project in here, and there's a lot of staff time.

And you've also gone through engagement with SMUD.

Can you just walk me through or at least give me a few minutes of us too?

Why you selected this site and why are you proposing this at this site?

Yeah, I'd be happy to do that.

Um you're correct.

There is a lot of work, a lot of energy that goes into not only looking for available sites, but once the site is selected, looking at the site itself, uh studies surveys, et cetera.

As I as I mentioned in the presentation, it's rare to find a site that's under common ownership that's this large.

It's even rarer to find one that is not prime farmland.

This site has a history of mining that you know disturbed the land prior to the current grazing operations that occur there.

The fact that it's near a Gentile line is even more significant.

Um makes it more rare, as well as the fact that the Gentile line goes across one property.

There's you know, there's been some comments about the fact that it's more than a thousand feet, but it's one property owner that we're dealing with.

Further, the the family actually has a mining easement across the southern boundary of the OHV park, and during our initial site selection, we felt that was something that we could actually utilize for the GENTI and are working with parks to supplant that easement for the easement rights that we need.

Uh so that's part of that that character of the project site.

Uh and you know, it it's noteworthy that the entirety of the SMUD contribution from rooftop solar is just about the same as this project.

All the rooftop solar that's been constructed amounts to this one project.

We need big swings like this.

This is a big swing of a project, and it's needed to achieve the goals.

The the uh there are other sites that are being worked on both by SMUD and by Desri.

It took us five years to get to this hearing.

Those are all in pre-development.

We need this project, and we need those projects too.

Some of them will pan out, some of them won't.

Um, but when you look around and you look at the criteria that you have to achieve and you have to find a willing landowner, it's a very difficult thing to do.

Understood.

Thank you, sir.

Um and and again, forgive me, Chair, but I just have one more question.

Um there's been concerns that the OHV community, or at the very least, the OHV are commissioned as a highway vehicle recreation commission, again, another state agency have not been given an adequate time in order to actually engage with you as the applicant.

What do you say to to those concerns?

Do you feel like the OHVR commission has been given adequate time, or do you continue discussions with the OHVR commission?

Uh thanks for the question.

I I am remiss though.

I wanted to, before I started responding, I did want to thank everyone in the audience that testified this evening for the very civil tone and productive comments that they made.

I apologize for using some of my time to answer your question for that, but I had I hadn't intended to do that before I started.

Uh as it relates to the OHV commission, uh, we've been engaged with the state parks, and there was a dialogue between the commission and the staff about the statute that's been raised.

And our understanding from parks uh staff was that uh the citation that's being referenced is an error, and that we've done what we need to do uh relative to our engagement with parks.

Um, you know, from our understanding the the parks commission weighs in on things that are by the parks as opposed to a project that's external.

Thank you.

And um what is the history of um, you know, folks have mentioned that okay, it's not just gonna go to development automatically.

But what is the history uh if you're able to share with us today of you know Department Ranch or any of the surrounding properties that were around that?

Were they actually on sale for development for commercial use or for something else?

Um you just give us some paper on that.

Well, you heard Mr.

Van Vleck uh out of his own mouth what what his plans were for his family's property.

Uh I can't speak beyond that.

Uh and I think that the the concern you know that we have here or that's been expressed relates to the families' need to have sustainable operations.

I know at one time they had a mine application on this site, and it's not out of character for this part of the world to have gravel mining.

Uh Tykert has a large aggregate mine just south of the OHV park, and there's an approved one just to the east.

Um, that is a use that that's been considered in the past on the property.

Um you know, it it is a disturbed site.

It it was mined as I mentioned through the 18th century, 19th century, and 20th century.

It's just south of the AeroJet project uh property, the OHV park was actually part of the rocket plant back in the day.

I mean, that you know, this area has a lot of history associated with it.

Um as for the you know the chance that it'll be houses tomorrow, uh you know, I it does take longer than that for those changes to occur.

So I'm not interested in speculating on that.

Thank you.

And then uh and there's uh there's a number of questions regarding the it's almost like a a question of whether or not um the maturation of of the trees, given that it's seven to ten years, and there's a question about mortality rate.

Uh you guys are in this, if approved, you guys are in this project for at least 30 years.

What is your commitment to ensure that you don't just walk away from the trees that you planted seven years from now when the agreement with SAC Tree Foundation ends on that, you know, that mitigation plan.

Can you walk me through that?

Yeah, I mean, the you know, there's a multi-tier approach to our mitigation plan.

It's not just the plantings, which again, we're you know, we're planting these trees through uh a very reputable organization that does this.

This is their their deal.

And so, you know, we've agreed to a seven-year monitoring on that, but we're also preserving at a four to one basis, the the number of trees being impacted within those preserve areas.

So we feel really strongly that we're going away over and above as it relates to the offset understood.

Um yield my chair back to you, uh, my time back to you, Chair.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Commissioner Devlin.

All right.

Thank you very much.

If you'll just bear with me for one second, I just wanted to make sure Rob did anything on the OHB that I missed that you wanted to stop.

No, I don't.

Okay.

I I just wanted to check on that.

So thank you on the time.

All right.

Uh we'll now bring it back to the commission for deliberation.

I have a quick question for uh county staff with uh regard to the Wilton Rancheria's letter.

Um there's a claim that the uh final EIR's reliance on the mitigation measures uh TCR1 through TCR 3 uh is inadequate.

I was wondering if staff could opine or elaborate a little bit more on that.

Sure.

Thank you too.

Uh so we were we did receive a comment letter from Wilton Rancheria to uh this afternoon, um Commissioner Conklin, as you mentioned, it references uh reliance on measures TCR 1 through TCR 3, which which is not correct.

Um there's only one tribal mitigation measure, which is TCR 1, um stating that the mitigation is inadequate and improperly deferred.

Um and then also reference to these being unenforceable uh measures within within that mitigation measure.

So that is that is not true.

Um mitigation measure will be enforced by the county through the mitigation monitoring and reporting program.

Um of the concerns brought up by Wilton Rancheria is uh concerns that the documented uh sites, uh tribal sites that are on the project site uh will not be enforcibly fully uh avoided.

Again, that is not true.

That is a uh line item in mitigation measure that this project will be required to fully avoid all documented sites.

Um there's uh and then there's also some concern uh mentioned about the uh preferred uh preferred mechanism uh to mitigate encountered resources is to preserve in place.

That is in our mitigation measure that says step one, the preferred mechanism is to pref is to preserve in place, and then if that is not feasible, we have an outline performance criteria in our mitigation measure pursuant to our avoidance and minimization plan uh that outlines the actions that would be taken.

So that mitigation is not deferred.

Um and then finally, Wilton Ranchery also mentions uh a desire to see some of these documented on-site resources to be protected in perpetuity.

Because this project is fully avoiding those sites, the development area is not covering those sites.

What that means is the the lease area of this project would not cover those documented tribal sites.

So there really is no mechanism to require this applicant to put any sort of permanent preservation over those sites since it would not be within their lease area.

All right, thank you very much.

I appreciate that.

Um I appreciate the staff's uh indulging me in quick uh clarification on that point before we uh bring it back to the dais uh for deliberation.

Um Chair, just one quick question, just just a point of clarification.

Even though those sites are not going to be protected, the applicant would still be required though, if if there were things such as a cultural fine, that was to happen in the project during during their construction, right?

Right, just because it's not in a protected zone does not mean that if there's anything that is might be found that they're not liable to actually follow through with any of our Native American and our cultural requirements.

If there if there are resources that are uncovered during construction, uh that is the purpose of having our tribal cultural resources avoidance and minimization plan in place.

So it's a very comprehensive document that outlines the policies and procedures that would be put in place, including the the steps that you would take, starting with avoiding the resource if possible, if not possible, then there are subsequent steps that would be taken in coordination with the tribal monitors on site and the county uh our archaeologists on site as well, if necessary.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Commissioner Virgo.

Um I don't have any other mitigations, but I will be making a motion if that's acceptable at this point.

Okay.

Um we do have a motion.

Is there uh any other comments or uh don't ask Alexa.

Um wish to kick it off with uh any thoughts or yeah, I guess just some some thoughts and thank you, Chair.

Um first thank you to everyone who provided comments and letters and came out here tonight.

It is um I think incredibly reassuring um and kind of almost a feel good moment when we can have a moment where people are disagreeing about something in such a civil manner, especially at this kind of this moment in in time.

So I'm very proud um that Sacramento has maintained its civility.

Um I think for me, as you get through the 8,262-page report and all the technicalities in it, um it comes down to trade-offs.

Um potentially incompatible uses for the off-road vehicles versus solar, the loss of tree habitat, understanding that you know these are particularly slow growing species.

Um I struggled with this one um uh a lot, especially around the the tree mitigation um or the loss of tree uh canopy.

Um however, we are in a bit of a climate emergency.

Um and we do need more clean power.

We need a lot of it.

I think if it was up to me, I wish we could, you know, wave a magic one and you know, turn back on Rancho Seiko.

Um we probably wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Um but that's certainly not the case.

In absent, you know, uh uh miracle solar is a great option for providing power to uh communities.

Um I think on balance for me the tree mitigation along with the other parts of preserving land around it that that are going with this project.

Um I think for me swinging in favor of supporting it.

Um just leave it at that.

All right.

Thank you very much.

Um I I want to echo uh my colleagues' comments and thank everyone who came out and um shared their thoughts.

Um I too have met with uh the applicants as well as uh the multitude of stakeholders over the last uh few days, last week and today, even um read through uh letters and really appreciate everyone's time and and energy.

Um I do see this this project um as really a uh culmination of hard work by both the applicants and uh many of the stakeholders.

I appreciate the hard work and collaboration of the ranchers and the farmers.

Um I I recognize that Sacramento County's climate action program uh uh is has certain goals and and uh milestones, but beyond its our future needs, um we've got potentially uh uh policies from the state that will kick into gear soon that will require uh our area and our region to uh participate in a more integral electrical grid statewide um to offset differences elsewhere.

And uh I think the uh the culmination of this project that reflects really uh restorative planning and the mitigate uh mitigating a lot of the environmental impacts and um and and I think helping uh address some of those those uh those concerns over the various iterations um of this proposal.

I think they've they've uh tried to do their their best to strike a uh a balance.

Um and then with just regard to um the economic development um in what would most likely result in C46 and C 10 licensed uh job opportunities in really good paying union careers.

Um really appreciate those voices coming out and and uh sharing their thoughts.

Um those are those are areas that uh need as much opportunities as as we can create.

Um so with that, I know we have a first uh or a motion by uh Commissioner Burga um in support of um both the staff's recommendations for Rezo One and Reso two.

Uh are there any other comments?

Yeah, thank you, Chair, and and again, I sincerely appreciate each and every single one of you guys that have spoken again, the hundreds, dozens and hundreds of letters.

Um, you know, it behind every project are are faces and families, and I really think that that's that to me is is a big crucial element.

You know, a gentleman at that spoke here asked about a picnic test.

You know, I have a one-year-old who I I should probably be checking in right now on on on my phone whether or not he's asleep.

But I hope that when he turns six, and I'm still in my mid-30s, that I I am able to go through that picnic test and go through the preservation areas that this project is promising to do.

You know, there's a question about you know just how difficult it is to get a conservation easement here in California and and how feasible it is for for the landowners to still be able to get funds in that conservation easement.

And and and I and I definitely hear that many of these folks that lobbied so hard to make things like proposition four happen in order to provide funds for the state ag land use program to provide funds for all of these competitive grants to keep places like this.

And now we have a project that is hoping to put hundreds, if not thousands of acres of conservation um with a family that's willing to to hopefully work with us in perpetuity to still keep that land open.

And so some of my some of my like sniff tests whenever I go through a project and I drive through that with an EV with my family in mind so that I can lower my vehicle miles travel because I really do believe in things like SB 743 and lowering our vehicle miles travel than our greenhouse gases.

You know, I I I play a counting crow song and said, you know, are are we really paving paradise to put up a parking lot?

And I I do not know whether or not this is paving a paradise to put up a parking lot.

I think we're like putting in a solar to hopefully enjoy another thousands of acres of gonna be open space.

And and and to me that's kind of where my struggle have been.

And and and I definitely hear for the man, there's been dozens and dozens of folks that live outside of this county that emailed and contacted this commission.

Folks from Danville, folks from outside of the county that I sincerely do hope they're also very involved in their respective jurisdictions that said where we're OHVR users.

And so I went there multiple times, didn't identify myself, but also just talked to the families and uh got myself a cart ride of the folks that said, yeah, it's gonna more than likely impact my or no, it's gonna impact my business.

But that this willing applicant is willing to pay for my business to stay open and float so that I can still employ my family members and still get a new goal card track out of that.

So those are the voices and families that you know, unfortunately not here in this room today that are still worthwhile when I'm making this decision.

And so it I don't take this lightly.

I I do think that it's it's important for us to preserve and open our spaces.

I really do have wished that our utility provider were here to kind of answer the questions as to why that decision was made.

But this is the cars have been dealt with, and I don't think that we're making such a problem.

But this is one thing that I'd like to really ask for um when we support or if we support this project is for the applicant to continue working with these community members and see what else can we do better.

I mean, we're we're going to be approaching a baseline of the agreements that we have in our uh in our mitigation strategies, but there might still be other opportunities to which we can work with these folks and and and to the to the to the farmers and the families that are willing to put up with this, knowing that there's other alternatives that may still give you that financial benefit to still pass it down to your generations yet.

You still look at this middle ground for us to still even consider open spaces again.

I mean we're we're going to be approaching a baseline of the agreements that we have in our and our mitigation strategies but there might still be other opportunities to which we can work with these folks and and to the to the to the farmers and the families that are willing to put up with this knowing that there's other alternatives that may still give you that financial benefit to still pass it down to your generations yet you still look at this middle ground for us to still even consider open spaces again I just thank you and hope that we could still work with work with the environment community and work with a communities that want to preserve and still hopefully find a middle ground where you can still provide food for your families while still protecting this planet that hopefully that my child and his child who may not be able to see the acorns by the time they turn 90 that perhaps those generations after that can enjoy the fruits of our labor for today and again I don't take this very lightly it's it's a lot of thousands of pages and a lot of business in tribes down Scott Road and White Rock Road and and so uh at this time I'm prepared to support fellow commissioner vergus um motion okay uh we have a motion uh by Commissioner Verga a second um by Commissioner Borjas uh to adopt resolution one certifying the final EIR as adequate and complete and adopt reso two issuing a use permit and a special development permit um clerk sorry one quick clarification if you would be recommending the board of supervisors sorry issue and all that uh recommending to the uh board of supervisors to adopt thank you and clerk call the roll or oh we're doing electronic yeah the electronic now so and that vote passes with all members voting yes all right thank you very much all right and now we're going to item two on the agenda planning director's report I'll keep it brief tonight commissioners um I would just make a note that our next hearing agenda is pretty full uh but I think a number of those items are relatively quick so I don't think it'll be as late a night um I also wanted to make a note regarding some of the off agenda comments that were distributed earlier today uh regarding the um zoning code and county code amendments for roosters that we conducted a workshop on a few meetings ago as a result of all of the feedback we've received we are actually in the process of tweaking uh what our proposal is we're doing additional outreach to some of the folks who submitted those comments uh and we will anticipate that coming back to the commission later than originally anticipated okay and that concludes my report tonight all right thank you very much director smith uh clerk are there any other scheduling items to raise to the commission I have no items all right are there any public comments any issues to raise that are not on the agenda tonight's agenda not seeing any not receiving any additional comment okay wonderful then at 850 we adjourn