OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Sacramento County Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 2005 (Coyote Creek Project)

Boards and Commissions — Monday, October 20, 2025
BodySacramento County, California
SessionBoards and Commissions
DateMonday, October 20, 2025
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 3:18:00

Transcript — Verbatim
0:02

Good evening.

0:03

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

0:09

Will the clerk please call the roll?

0:13

Good evening.

0:14

Members Borha.

0:16

Here.

0:16

Members Conklin.

0:17

Here.

0:18

Members Deblin.

0:19

Here.

0:19

Members Virgo?

0:20

Here.

0:21

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

0:23

Thank you very much.

0:23

Will you please join me for the Pledge of Allegiance?

0:26

Commissioner Virgo, could you start, please?

0:37

And Clerk, will you please provide announcements for this evening?

0:53

Absolutely.

0:54

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

1:02

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.

1:14

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

1:18

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

1:26

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

1:30

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

1:37

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

1:45

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

1:49

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

1:57

And that concludes the announcement.

1:59

Thank you very much.

1:59

Appreciate that.

2:01

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

2:22

And then we will do two minutes for public testimony.

2:29

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.

2:41

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

2:48

Item number one is PLMP 2021-00191.

2:54

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

2:58

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.

3:10

Thank you very much.

3:11

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

3:21

Uh my name is Kimber Gutierrez.

3:23

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.

3:34

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

3:41

It's located south of U.S.

3:43

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

3:52

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

4:00

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

4:10

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

4:15

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

4:22

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.

4:33

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

4:43

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.

5:00

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.

5:07

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.

5:22

The project evolved through three iterations.

5:26

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

5:31

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.

5:42

The second iteration is the draft environmental impact report project.

5:46

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.

6:00

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

6:08

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

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Environmental Mitigation█████████████████████████████████████████████51%
Land Use████████████████████23%
Public Comment███████8%
Parks and Recreation█████6%
Economic Development████5%
Engineering And Infrastructure███3%
Procedural██2%
Community Engagement█1%
Agricultural Preservation█1%
Summary of Proceedings

Sacramento County Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 2005

On Monday, October 6, 2005, the Sacramento County Planning Commission held a hearing to consider the Coyote Creek Agro Voltaic Ranch Project (PLMP 2021-00191), a proposal for a 200 MW solar facility and 100 MW battery storage system on 2,700 acres of Barton Ranch in the Consumnes community. Staff presented the project alongside a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) identifying three significant and unavoidable impacts: aesthetics (visual impacts to Scott Road and Prairie City SVRA), cumulative oak woodland loss, and tribal cultural resources. Despite these findings, staff recommended approval, citing alignment with the County's Climate Action Plan and SMUD's Zero Carbon Plan, and a robust mitigation strategy involving conservation easements and tree replanting.

Consent Calendar

  • No specific consent calendar items were listed or discussed in this transcript segment.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Position Supporting Approval:

    • Logan Reed, Michaela Weber, Marcus Gomez, and Sean Worth supported the project, citing the trade-off of removing ~3,500 trees for clean energy and the importance of preserving the ranch from housing development.
    • Barton Ranch family members (Herb Garmin, Melanie Mosier, Caitlin Smith, Jackie Hamford) expressed full support for the project as a necessary evolution to maintain the family's 150-year agricultural legacy and keep the land under the Williamson Act.
    • Van Vleck Ranch representatives (Stan Van Vleck) voiced strong support for the project as it secured a conservation easement for their neighboring land that was previously slated for development.
    • Local farmers (Greta LeChin, Callie Dietrich, Ken Nowak Jr.) and union labor representatives (Troy Arnson, Doyle Radford Jr., Matt Newton Boom) expressed support for the project's job creation, tax revenue benefits (~$67-90 million), and its ability to support agricultural operations alongside energy generation.
    • Dr. Jessica Sanders of the Sacramento Tree Foundation expressed support for the partnership and the seven-year tree monitoring plan.

  • Position Opposing Approval:

    • Tom Bernardo (retired State Park Ranger), Amy Granit (wheelchair user and OHV advocate), and the California State Park Rangers Association (SEASPRAY) expressed strong opposition, stating the project is incompatible with the Prairie City SVRA and will permanently damage the visitor experience and visual corridor.
    • Environmental groups and individuals (Sierra Club, California Native Plant Society, Defenders of Wildlife, Sacramento 350, CNPS) expressed full opposition or concern, characterizing the loss of 3,500+ mature blue oak trees as irreversible and arguing the location is inappropriate compared to brownfields or disturbed lands.
    • Rose Wayne (California Four-Wheel Drive Association) expressed opposition based on procedural violations regarding the Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Commission and the economic trade-off between the solar project and the park's tourism revenue.
    • Steven Schurdett and Ann Feinkner expressed strong opposition to the tree removal and argued that conservation easements (valued at $10,000/acre) were a viable alternative to development that was not properly explored.
    • Several speakers (Paul Smith, Gail Merchant) supported solar generally but argued the location was inconsistent with county general plan policies and that the project was not essential to SMUD's goals.

Discussion Items

  • Project Description and Evolution: Staff (Kimber Gutierrez) detailed the project's three iterations, noting a 55-acre reduction in the solar footprint in the final iteration to avoid denser tree canopies. The project proposes a 200 MW solar array, 100 MW battery storage, and a tie-line connecting to the existing SMUD infrastructure.
  • Impact Analysis: Staff (Julie Newton) and the applicant (Jim Gillam) addressed the three unavoidable impacts:
    • Aesthetics: Impacts on Scott Road (candidate scenic corridor) and Prairie City SVRA viewers were acknowledged as unavoidable despite a "softening" landscape plan.
    • Oak Woodlands: The removal of 3,493 trees was identified as a cumulative significant impact; mitigation includes a 1-to-1 replacement ratio plus 15% surplus planting and 1,150 acres of conservation easement.
    • Tribal Resources: Impacts on the Tosuen tribal cultural landscape were significant; mitigation involves a robust avoidance plan and on-site monitors, though some tribal concerns regarding the adequacy of deferred implementation were raised.
  • SMUD and Regional Goals: Staff noted the project accounts for approximately 15% of SMUD's 2030 clean energy needs. Commissioner Virgo questioned if alternative sites or if the project was strictly necessary, noting SMUD's reported 3,100 MW pipeline.
  • Procedural Concerns: Commissioner Virgo and Commissioner Devlin discussed discrepancies between the staff report and the FEIR regarding tree counts, with staff clarifying the numbers were consistent via a preface in the FEIR. Commissioner Virgo also raised concerns about the OHMVR Commission's engagement, which the applicant attributed to a misunderstanding of statutory citation.
  • Decommissioning: Staff confirmed a decommissioning plan with a bond or letter of credit is required, mandating site restoration within 24 months of cessation.

Key Outcomes

  • Motion: Commissioner Virgo made a motion to adopt Resolution One (certifying the Final EIR) and Resolution Two (recommending the issuance of a Use Permit and Special Development Permit to the Board of Supervisors).
  • Second: The motion was seconded by Commissioner Borja.
  • Vote: The motion passed unanimously with all five commission members voting yes.
  • Recommendation: The Planning Commission recommended the Board of Supervisors certify the FEIR, adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and issue the necessary permits subject to findings and conditions.
  • Next Steps: The case was scheduled for the Board of Supervisors to make the final decision.
  • Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 8:50 PM with brief notes on the Planning Director's Report regarding rooster zoning amendments and the next agenda.

Meeting Transcript

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.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com