The Sacramento County Planning Commission voted unanimously on Monday to recommend the Board of Supervisors certify the final environmental impact report and issue permits for the proposed Coyote Creek Agrivoltaic Ranch project, a utility-scale solar and battery storage development on the Barton Ranch near Scott Road and the Prairie City State Vehicular Recreation Area.

The project, as described by county staff, would "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," Kimber Gutierrez, the county's principal planner, told commissioners during the hearing.

The vote follows more than four hours of staff presentations, applicant remarks and public testimony that drew strong support from ranching families, labor unions and solar proponents, and strong opposition from conservation groups, State Parks advocates and local recreation users. The commission’s recommendation will go to the Board of Supervisors, which will hold the final decision.

Why it matters: The project sits on roughly 2,700 acres of Barton Ranch and aims to deliver local, utility-scale renewable energy to SMUD and to preserve portions of the property under agricultural management and conservation easements. Supporters say the development keeps the land in agricultural use and generates tax revenue and union construction jobs. Opponents say the site contains oak woodland, vernal pools and wildlife corridors that would be irreparably harmed and that the county should prioritize previously disturbed or industrial lands for large solar projects.

Staff findings and mitigations

County staff summarized the project's evolution and environmental review. The site has been redesigned through three iterations; staff said the "proposed project is the reduced-footprint project," which shrinks the solar array area by 55 acres compared with an earlier draft. An environmental impact report (EIR) prepared for the proposal identifies mitigation for most effects but finds three impacts would remain significant and unavoidable: aesthetics (visual change from Scott Road and Prairie City SVRA), cumulative oak woodland loss and tribal cultural resources.

Julie Newton, the county environmental coordinator, described mitigation commitments for the significant areas: "There is mitigation included... they would be protecting at a 1 to 1 ratio... in the form of 1,150 acres under conservation easement, either on-site or adjacent," she said, and added that "it does not mitigate the change to the landscape" as to visual impacts and temporal loss of mature canopy.

The project as analyzed by staff includes: a proposed 200 MW photovoltaic facility; a battery energy storage system (staff described it as 100 MW); an on-site substation and a roughly 1.3-mile generation tie line to a switchyard; and a planned 35‑year operational life with a required decommissioning and site restoration plan. The conditions of approval would require reclamation to commence within six months after operation ceases and be completed within 24 months; financial surety (for example, a bond) is required for decommissioning, staff said.

Applicant and proponents

The applicant, represented by William Marisi of Desert Renewables and project consultant Jim Gillum, emphasized local benefits and steps taken to reduce environmental harm. Marisi said the project is contracted with SMUD and framed the proposal as part of a larger effort to meet regional carbon goals; he told the commission Coyote Creek "is contracted with SMUD to provide an additional 200 megawatts of solar and 400 megawatts of battery energy storage." The project team described grazing and agrivoltaic practices beneath panels, a 1:1 tree replacement plan and negotiated on- and off-site conservation easements with neighboring landowners.

Applicant testimony also described economic effects: the developer cited a third‑party economic analysis estimating substantial construction spending and long-term property tax contributions; project representatives said the proposal would produce union construction jobs and about $67 million in property taxes over 20 years from the developer's contracted portfolio calculations.

Public testimony and opposition

More than 60 speakers addressed the commission. Supporters included Barton Ranch family members, labor union representatives and local business owners who said the project would keep the ranch in family ownership, provide jobs and help SMUD reach decarbonization goals.

Opponents included state-park and conservation groups and local recreation users. Tom Bernardo, a retired state park ranger speaking for Sea Spray (the California State Park Rangers Association), said the association "voted unanimously... 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." Conservation groups raised detailed concerns about the loss of mature blue oak woodlands (the EIR estimates several thousand trees would be removed), habitat fragmentation, impacts to vernal pools and to tribal cultural landscape values. Sierra Club and other conservation commenters urged the county to prioritize previously disturbed or industrial lands for large solar facilities.

County responses and legal context

Staff briefed commissioners on policy conflicts the EIR identifies. The project was found generally consistent with many renewable-energy and agricultural policies in the general plan, and staff said it "is partially consistent or inconsistent with policies related to oak woodland preservation, scenic corridor protection and tribal cultural resource avoidance." County planners prepared CEQA findings of fact and a statement of overriding considerations concluding that the project's public benefits would outweigh the unavoidable environmental impacts; those findings and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program are included in the final EIR package.

Commission action and next steps

Commissioner Verga moved and Commissioner Borja seconded a motion recommending that the Board of Supervisors certify the final EIR as adequate, adopt the CEQA findings, statement of overriding considerations and mitigation monitoring program, and issue the requested use permit and special development permit, finding substantial compliance with the countywide design guidelines subject to conditions. The commission's roll call showed all members present voted to recommend approval; staff recorded the vote as unanimous. The action is advisory: the Board of Supervisors will hold the final hearing and decision.

What remains unresolved

Speakers and commissioners pressed several topics for the Board and for further work: (1) whether the EIR responses fully reconcile counts and calculations (trees and grading quantities) between the draft and final documents; (2) details and enforceability of tribal cultural resources protections and whether some resources should be preserved in perpetuity; (3) the adequacy of visual mitigation for views from Prairie City SVRA and Scott Road (a candidate scenic corridor); (4) construction traffic routing and potential impacts on White Rock Road and park access; and (5) long‑term success rates for oak mitigation plantings and the duration of monitoring and financial assurances.

The Board of Supervisors has not set a date in the hearing record provided; the commission transmittal recommends the board act on certification of the final EIR, adopt the CEQA findings and mitigation monitoring program, and consider issuance of the use and special development permits and design review compliance.

Ending

The Planning Commission recommendation moves the project to the Board of Supervisors for the county's final decision. Commissioners and staff asked the applicant to continue coordination with the tribes, state parks and other stakeholders and to document any further refinements in the administrative record ahead of the Board hearing.