RANCHO MURIETA, CA (MPG) - Despite strong objections from environmentalists and the Wilton Rancheria, and acknowledging some of their own concerns, the Cosumnes Community Planning Advisory Council (CCPAC) voted 5 to 2 on March 26 to recommend the construction of a massive solar facility north of Rancho Murieta. The vote took place during a meeting at the Wilton Community Center.

Work on the Coyote Creek Agrivoltaic Ranch, located on the historic Barton Ranch along Scott Road, is expected to begin in about a year and take 18 months to build.

The proposed solar facility will span 2,700 acres of pastureland on both sides of Scott Road, an area comparable in scale to the Sacramento International Airport property. Approximately 1,412 acres will be developed to support the project. It will include a 200-megawatt solar array capable of powering up to 40,000 homes and a 100-megawatt battery storage system designed to deliver electricity for up to four hours. The project applicants plan to integrate seasonal grazing around the solar arrays, use strategic landscaping to help screen the panels from view and establish a permanent conservation corridor. All electricity generated will be supplied to the Sacramento Municipal Utility District.

The applicants are Barton Ranch LLC, which will retain ownership of the property, and Sacramento Valley Energy Center, a subsidiary of D.E. Shaw Renewable Investments based in New York City. D.E. Shaw is also developing a smaller solar facility on Dillard Road near Wilton, where work is currently underway. It previously developed and now operates the solar facility at Rancho Seco.

The CCPAC first reviewed the project on an informational basis on Feb.  2, 2022. While council members and attendees raised some questions, the project encountered little significant opposition during that initial presentation.

The Sacramento County Office of Planning and Environmental Review brought the project back to the Cosumnes Community Planning Advisory Council on March 26 following the release of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. The public review period began on Feb. 28 and will close on April 18. At the March 26 meeting, planners requested that the Cosumnes Community Planning Advisory Council vote on whether to recommend approval of the project, which the council did. The County Planning Commission is scheduled to hold an informational meeting on April 14 to gather additional public comments.

After the comment period ends, county staff will prepare the Final Environmental Impact Report, complete a staff report, and return it to the Planning Commission for a formal recommendation. According to lead planner Kimber Gutierrez, the final decision will rest with the Board of Supervisors. She and the applicant anticipate that public hearings will be held in the fall or winter, with construction potentially beginning in the spring of 2026.

After the county planner outlined the project and the request for entitlements, two consultants representing D.E. Shaw, Jim Gillum and Michelle Smira, provided additional details. They said the project would remove carbon from the atmosphere, which is equivalent to taking 80,000 cars off the road, allow grazing activities to continue and keep the land under the Williamson Act.  They also noted that trees removed for the project would be replaced one-to-one, and more than 1,000 acres would be permanently preserved. Smira added that conservation easements established through the project would make extending the boundary of urban services for future development more difficult.

One of the ranch owners, Herb Garmes, said the project would help ensure the family can continue its ranching operations. “Our goal since the 1890s has been to perpetuate grazing and ranching,” he said. That’s what we are good at, and that is what we intend to keep doing.”

Environmentalists 

Five audience members opposed the project, arguing that its environmental costs outweighed the benefits of renewable energy. They cited the expected loss of 4,500 of blue oaks, the removal of 45 acres of woodland canopy, disruption of rare habitat, safety hazards for wildlife, potential impacts on groundwater and the transformation of scenic rolling hills into an industrial landscape.

The most critical comment came from David Wright, who spent eight years reviewing projects with the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife. While emphasizing his support for solar energy,

Wright said, “This is probably the most landscaping-wrecking project I have ever seen.”

Michelle St. Clair, executive director of cultural preservation for the Wilton Rancheria, said the project’s footprint falls within a historically and spiritually significant landscape for the tribe.

“Once destroyed, these cultural resources, our connections to ancestors, ceremony, and place cannot be reconstructed, relocated, or replaced,” she said.

St. Clair also accused the county of having “unilaterally closed consultation” with the tribe. Smira said the applicants were eager to collaborate with the tribe to address their concerns.

Some Cosumnes Community Planning Advisory Council members focused their comments on Scott Road’s designation as a scenic corridor, with Board President Dan Reid and Councilmembers Fred Hegge and John Merchant raising concerns about the county’s ability to enforce protections consistently. Merchant pointed out that the current “scenic view” already includes “a solar field, two quarries and a dirt bike track.”

The county planner acknowledged that staff had determined the project “will have a significant and unavoidable impact on your scenic view” and noted that the final decision would ultimately rest with the Board of Supervisors.

Merchant also raised concerns about traffic impacts. At the 2022 hearing, he had asked whether a right-of-way within the project site could be dedicated to eliminate the most dangerous blind curve, in the event Scott Road is ever improved. Cameron Shew, a county transportation engineer, responded that the county does not have the legal justification to require such a dedication.

Merchant further asked whether the transportation department would implement warnings if five or six construction trucks became backed up on the road. Shew said no, explaining, “We don’t really have that kind of real-time information.”

However, Cosumnes Community Planning Advisory Council members’ primary concern was finding a balance between the impact of large-scale solar projects on open space and agricultural lands and landowners’ property rights.

Reid expressed skepticism about whether SMUD truly needed the project, referencing a previous estimate that suggested it would take around 25 square miles of solar panels to meet Sacramento County’s energy needs, a figure he implied was unrealistic. Councilmember Jim Perham also questioned the project’s location, asking whether they were “shoving these solar panels…into areas that it doesn’t need to be,” and suggested there might be more suitable sites for such developments.

However, Reid, Perham, Merchant voiced strong support for landowners’ right to make sustainable economic decisions about their property. 

Before making the motion to recommend approval of the project, Reid took time to explain why he would vote in favor despite having opposed an earlier solar project on Dillard Road near Wilton, a stance shared at the time by all other CCPAC members.

Reid acknowledged the effort the applicants had put into the project and recognized the challenges agricultural families face in holding onto their land. “I appreciate them exploring their options. While this is not my desired option, I want to see that we have a community here, so I am a yes,” he said.

Perham, Hegge, Merchant, and Bob Hunter also voted yes. Evan Winn and Jim Crowder voted no.

Earlier in the meeting, Winn inquired about the Aerojet groundwater plume, but Garmes responded that it only affected a small corner of the ranch and was being properly contained.

As Winn left the meeting, he told the River Valley Times that he had initially planned to vote in favor of the project but changed his mind after hearing the public comments.

The River Valley Times contacted Crowder after the meeting to get his comment. “I acknowledge the benefits of solar energy, but I was disappointed in how the developer wasn’t showing any flexibility or willingness to address the concerns brought up that evening,” he said in an email.

The next opportunity for public comment will be at a County Planning Commission meeting scheduled for 5:30 p.m. on April 14 at the County Administration Building. The hearing will also be live-streamed via Zoom. The agenda and related materials are available at http://bospublicmeetings.saccounty.gov.

In their final action during the meeting, the CCPAC re-elected Reid as the board chair and Hunter as the vice chair.