SACRAMENTO, CA (MPG) - Over the objections of environmental advocates, off-roaders and tribal representatives, the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a massive solar facility on Nov. 18. The six-hour hearing drew an overflow crowd, with most of the 130 speakers opposed.

The Coyote Creek Agrivoltaic Ranch will be built on the Barton Ranch south of Rancho Murieta, spanning 2,700 acres of pastureland on both sides of Scott Road. About 1,412 acres will be developed for the project, including 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 applicant plans to integrate seasonal sheep 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 project applicant is Sacramento Valley Energy Center, a subsidiary of D.E. Shaw Renewable Investments based in New York City. D.E. Shaw has developed several solar projects in Sacramento County, including a smaller facility on Dillard Road near Wilton and the Rancho Seco solar facility.

Barton Ranch LLC will retain ownership of the Scott Road property.

Audience opposition focused largely on environmental and cultural impacts.

Many speakers raised alarms about the planned removal of 3,493 mature blue oaks, saying the loss of old-growth woodlands would destroy critical wildlife habitat and permanently alter the landscape. They argued that the proposed mitigation measures – including one-for-one tree planting – are inadequate because young saplings cannot replace the carbon-sequestration capacity or habitat value of 100- to 600-year-old trees.

Tribal representatives described the project as an ongoing desecration of sacred and ancestral lands, emphasizing the cultural significance of oaks. The project also perpetuates historical harm to tribal communities, they said.

Many speakers argued that more suitable locations exist, including disturbed land, industrial areas, parking lots and rooftops. One speaker contended that the ranch owners could likely secure a conservation easement that would generate enough revenue – potentially millions – to sustain ranch operations without converting the land to solar use.

Others argued that the loss of the carbon sink provided by the trees, habitat and healthy soil undermined the climate benefits of a new solar facility. Some described the project as greenwashing: presenting itself as sustainable while causing significant environmental damage.

Users of the Prairie City State Vehicular Recreation Area said placing a massive industrial facility next door would degrade the open space, scenic character and ecological integrity.

Audience proponents – including two Rancho Murieta residents and the Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce – emphasized the urgent need for renewable energy to meet SMUD and Sacramento County clean-energy and climate targets. They argued that utility-scale solar projects are essential, noting that regional energy demand far outpaces what rooftop or parking-lot solar alone can supply.

The most heartfelt comments in support of the project came from members of the Mosher-Barton family, including Herb Garms. He spoke passionately about his family’s deep commitment to agricultural heritage and conservation over generations. He emphasized the importance of adapting to changing realities in farming while preserving open space and supporting sustainable agriculture, stating, “It’s a way for agriculture and clean energy to work together, not against each other.”

Several local ranchers also spoke in support, including Stan Van Vleck, who described the financial and operational challenges of keeping his own properties in agriculture.

Union members and business advocates pointed to the benefits of union-wage construction jobs, economic development and increased property-tax revenue.

Senior Planner Kimber Gutierrez explained that the Coyote Creek Agrivoltaic Ranch is largely consistent with the Sacramento County General Plan. She noted that the project supports key county goals for renewable energy development and aligns with the General Plan, the county’s Climate Action Plan and SMUD’s 2030 Zero Carbon Plan.

She added that the project is compatible with agricultural policies because it avoids prime farmland, maintains concurrent grazing under the Williamson Act and includes an agricultural management plan to ensure the land remains in productive use.

However, Gutierrez acknowledged that the project is only partially consistent – or inconsistent – with several other policies, particularly those related to scenic-corridor protection, oak woodland preservation and tribal cultural resource avoidance. She said not all impacts in these areas could be fully mitigated.

Despite those policy inconsistencies, the Planning Commission recommended approval, Gutierrez said, concluding that the project’s economic, social and environmental benefits – including its contribution to General Plan and climate goals – outweighed the remaining significant impacts.

Gutierrez also noted that during the project’s nearly five-year review, it underwent several iterations to reduce environmental impacts. The current version, known as the “reduced footprint project,” shrinks the solar development area by 55 acres compared to earlier designs and preserves an additional 1,150 acres on or adjacent to the site.

Following public testimony, Supervisor Rich Desmond asked about the county’s coordination with the four tribes involved in the review: Wilton Rancheria, the Ione Band of Miwok Indians, the United Auburn Indian Community and the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians.

Planner Julie Newton said the county worked with the tribes to conduct site visits and archaeological surveys to identify areas of concern. She emphasized that the resulting mitigation strategy is robust, designed to avoid known cultural resources and to establish protective procedures in the event of inadvertent discoveries during construction.

However, when Desmond pressed her on whether the tribes had approved the project, Newton acknowledged that none of the four tribes had ever approved or endorsed the Coyote Creek solar proposal.

Jim Gillum, a local consultant representing the applicant, described the use of advanced solar-tracking technology that reduces grading and helps maintain the site’s natural terrain. He said the project incorporates agrivoltaics by integrating solar panels with grazing and pollinator-friendly vegetation.

Gillum also outlined why the site was selected, noting that its large size, lower-quality grazing land and proximity to key electrical infrastructure made it well-suited for a utility-scale solar facility.

Gillum emphasized the project’s oak woodland preservation and mitigation measures, noting they exceed county policy requirements, and he outlined planned partnerships to support long-term oak restoration. He also described commitments to improve the nearby Prairie City State Vehicular Recreation Area and to help facilitate a future public trail system.

Gillum also answered some questions from the supervisors after the public testimony. Responding to widespread concern about vernal pool impacts, Gillum explained that the project would result in less than one one-hundredth of an acre of permanent vernal pool disturbance.

Gillum also addressed questions about SMUD’s role, noting that while the utility was not present at the hearing, the project had been reviewed at a public SMUD board meeting. He said SMUD was fully aware of the site’s characteristics, contradicting audience claims that the utility had acted without due diligence.

Supervisor Rosario Rodriguez made the motion to approve the project. 

“My decision to support this project is a business decision because of the financial conditions of Sacramento County,” she said.

Rodriguez said the county has few opportunities to generate new revenue. 

“To me, it is an economic driver, and it will have a ripple effect throughout our county,” she said. “In property taxes alone, the first year it will generate $4.7 million. This project, over the next 20 years, will generate $76 million just in property taxes alone.”

Desmond described the decision as particularly difficult. 

“This is a Sophie’s Choice, if I have ever seen one,” he said.

Supervisor Patrick Kennedy, who worked for SMUD in the 1990s, reflected on the need for decisive climate action and the difficult tradeoffs inherent in the Coyote Creek project. Drawing on his earlier experience at the utility, he emphasized that “the county Climate Action Plan and the ambitious goals therein that I supported are dependent on SMUD’s success in implementing their own ambitious plan. If one fails, we all fail as a region.”

Supervisor Patrick Hume acknowledged that some speakers defending the oaks had made misstatements, but he said he would not correct them. 

“Because I don’t want to argue against what you’re arguing for, which is the preservation of our natural world,” he said. “I love the outdoors. I love to hike; I love to fish. I love to sit under trees.”

Hume said he has long been a proponent of agriculture and understands the pressures facing family farms. 

“Family farms are dying and being taken over by corporate ag interests because of the costs, the regulation, the work ethic,” he said. “To have a generation that wants to try and keep the land in the family and keep it going is commendable… If they could, they would keep their property as is and just be allowed to continue doing the work that they've been doing, that their parents did, their grandparents did.”

Noting that “sometimes we’re asked to make decisions that suck,” Hume seconded the motion.

Board Chair Phil Serna closed the discussion by noting the difficulty and divisiveness of major land-use decisions, especially when ecological preservation and climate goals conflict. Drawing on his experience in county government and on the California Air Resources Board, he said supervisors must balance input from staff, state law and public testimony to make decisions consistent with the General Plan and climate objectives.

“This is what we do: as supervisors, we hear from our constituents, we hear the different perspectives, we synthesize what we hear, what we understand from our own staff, what we understand from state law as it relates to a CEQA process, and then distill all of that down into a moment like this, where we have a motion and a second on the table, and we’re going to make a decision.”

After Serna called for the vote, the screen showed all five supervisors voting yes. Applause from the audience was loud.