Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Yeah. Welcome to the 03/11/2026 hearing of the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission. We may have a few difficulties this morning since a lot of our staff is delayed due to highway traffic from Santa Barbara, but we are rolling nonetheless. So please join us as we begin, with the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Mister Villalobos, would you please make the TV announcement?

Yes. Thank you, mister chair, and good morning to the commission and everyone else. Planning commission hearings are televised live on County of Santa Barbara television CSB TV channel twenty at 9AM in the South Coast, Longpokes, San Yenas Valley, San Maria, and Orca areas. Rebroadcast of Pontiac Christian hearings are on Fridays at 5PM on CSB TV channel twenty. Today's hearing will also be streamed live on the county's website, as well as the county's YouTube channel, and will be available for download in a day or two. Should I continue to roll call? Yes, please. Commissioner Cooney. Here. Commissioner Park. Here. Commissioner Martinez.

Here.

And Chair Reid. Here. And Commissioner Ford will be with us shortly.

Mr. Wilson, can we please have the agenda status report?

Good morning chair and commissioners. The status of our agenda today is there's one item on consent, which is a government code conformity determination, which is a request by our real property division of general services department. And then we also have only one item on our standard agenda, which is amendments for the utility scale solar projects. Staff is here and ready to present on those items. And I can move to the projection report, Mr. Chair.

Please do. Yeah, please do.

Our next scheduled hearing is going to be March 25. And that will be in Santa Barbara. There are two items projected for that hearing. One is a Chick fil A project on Eastern Goleta Valley. And then they also a general plan amendment rezone in the Eastern Goleta Valley as well. Then following that, at our last hearing, we took action to cancel our April 1 hearing. And so that would put our next hearing will be on April 8. And that will be here in Santa Maria. And that is to bring forward under the board's direction amendments to the oil and gas ordinance. And again, that's will be here in Santa Maria on April 8.

After April 8, we'll be back in Santa Barbara for two items. A development plan and also another

project in

the Los Alamos area which is a housing development project. Again, that's April 29 in Santa Barbara. And then nothing else is projected beyond April 29. And so we'll work with staff to put item on the agenda for May and June. But that's it for the projection report, Mr. Chair.

Alright. Thank you. Now this will bring us to general public comment. This time is available for members of the general public to make comments on issues and items not included in today's agenda. So at this time, Mr. Villalobos, do we have any speakers' slips or hands online?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have not received any physical slips. For those of you online, if you'd like to speak during general public comment, raise your hand and I will call on you. No hands raised.

Alright. Well thank you. So that will conclude the time for general public comment. Next, planning commissioners informational reports. Do any commissioners, would any commissioners like to present a report on planning issues or other seminars, meetings, literature, anything they have encountered, that may be of interest, to the public or the commission?

Seeing none, we will proceed, to the director's report.

Good morning, Mr. Chair.

Good morning.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay. Great.

I have a few things to report to you this morning. Some recent board actions. We had our general ordinance amendment package that had been heard by the planning commission. These were just minor cleanup items, and that was approved by the board on the February 3. The Araya Hayduck appeal, was in Montecito, was denied by the board on February 24.

And then yesterday, the board heard two items from PND, and that was the environmental justice element, which the board slightly modified. They removed Gary from the environmental justice element based on new data regarding income levels. So they no longer were at 80% or lower than the area median income. And then, also, there was some ability with respect to discretion on the boundaries of an EJ community, and they decided to shrink the Sisquak, boundary to just be around the residential areas. And it was something that had been talked about at the planning commission, I think commissioner Martinez brought it up.

And we did add language at the time that the commission approved to try and clarify that it was meant to apply to the residents of the area, but this was just the next step in that process. So they made that change. They also have asked that our working group, that of all departments that help develop the e j element continue to meet quarterly for some period of time. And then they talked about the development of a possible advisory committee with a couple of different options. One being that it'd be a nonprofit advisory committee that we come and we can meet with and and present to them, or it could be a county sponsored one or some other type of committee.

So they've asked for us to come back, work with the CEO's office to talk about it, and come back with a recommendation to them at some point in the future. The other thing they wanted was some report backs. And so we're looking at possibly an annual report back with the one climate report back that happens annually. So we'd be working with CSD on that. And then the board also heard the cannabis odor abatement extension applications yesterday.

We had eight growers seek extensions to incorporate the odor control systems, the new odor control systems that have been required by the board a year ago roughly. And the board ultimately denied all of the extensions. So what will happen now is growers will either have to come into compliance by the March 18 for compliance with respect to chapter 35 or and article two. And if they don't, we will be issuing notices of violation and working with them to bring them into compliance. Chapter 50, which controls the business license, also has a standard in it, and they have a deadline of March 31 that they have incorporate incorporated the new odor technology.

And if they do not do that by March 31 under chapter 50, there will be a process to, suspend or revoke their license. That's a process that can take a couple of months because there's an appeal, that can happen. So I think what we will probably see is that growers trying to come in compliance, and then they may end up having to reapply for their license at some point in the future. But if they lose their license, they have to remove the plants from those greenhouses. So that is the status of the, odor abatement.

We had there most of it applies in the Carpenter area. We have a couple of inland growers that are subject to it as well because of the processing and, drying and trimming, etcetera, that they're doing indoors. And then with respect to future board items, we have the long range work program for LRP that'll be going to the board on the April 7. And we have been working with, CSD on local preference program. We're we're working on having a local preference for capital a affordable projects and then another process for market rate projects to have some type of marketing plan that focuses on local employees initially and and throughout the process to the greatest degree possible within the content context of the fair housing laws that we have to abide by.

And that's all I have. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you for your report. I found it very, useful. I am happy that with respect to the environmental justice component, reason prevailed. And Gary was removed as an EJ community, and the and the the zone around Sisquak was greatly reduced. I do have a question for county council. I was formerly recused on environmental justice element on the basis that I had holdings proximal to Gary. Since Gary has been removed, have I likewise been, removed, from recusal?

Mr. Chair, that's an interesting question. Because it's a legislative item, I wasn't sure that your recusal was even necessary. But I know that that was something you elected to do. I think the removal of Gary now would be a factor in favor of you participating in the future if you chose to do so. I think the item will be returning for updates at some point. And you could consider that.

All right. Thank you. I think it's an important element. So glad to be able to participate in the future. I was also very impressed by Sheriff Brown's presentation on the reduction in overdose deaths. That was significant. But it's still, I think, pretty sad that we still have almost one hundred people a year, succumbing to overdose. So that's the extent of my comments. Any others? Alright. With that I suppose we can proceed to the consent agenda. Mr. Villalobos could you please read the item?

Yes. Thank you, mister chair. The following is a hearing on the request to James Cleary, agent for the Real Property Division General Services Department, to consider case number 26GO v 2, application filed on 01/28/2026, for determination that the proposed vacation and relinquishment of approximately 400 square foot of county fee owned right away adjacent to APN number 005177003 conforms with the comprehensive plan of the County Of Santa Barbara pursuant to California government code section 65,402 a. And I believe, mister Cleary is online if there are questions.

Yes. I'm available.

Since there are no questions.

So Mr. Chair, I believe that our general procedure is to ask if our commissioners, anyone wants to pull it from consent and then take, ask for public comment. And if the answer for both is no, then we look for a motion.

Alright. Is any commissioner wish to have that pulled? Do we have any public comment either in person or remotely?

I don't see anyone rising for in the hearing room. Anyone online who'd like to speak on our consent agenda item. Raise your virtual hand and I'll call on you. No hands raised.

Okay. So I guess it would be appropriate to ask for a motion to approve the consent agenda. Commissioner Ford. So moved. Second. I'll second it. Cooney. Okay. All in favor of approving the consent agenda signify by saying aye. Aye.

Approved. Okay.

So is staff ready to present item? Okay. Mister Villalobos, could you read the item into the record?

Yes. Thank you, mister chair. The following is a hearing on the request of the County of Santa Barbara Planning and Development Department that the County Planning Commission consider case number 24 ORD 28, an ordinance amending the County Land Use and Development Code, as well as case number 24 ORD 29, ordinance amending amendment to article two.

First, I would just like prior to that, if if any commissioners have any ex parte, any meetings, anything they feel, should be disclosed prior to the beginning?

Mister chair, commissioners, just to clarify, you don't need to do ex parte for a legislative act.

All right. I just myself, I had a discussion with Claire Wyman from growershippers, a brief one. You. So, staff if you could proceed.

Sure, thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair, Commissioners. Alex Tuttle with Long Range Planning and I'm joined here today with, working down the line here, Wilkinson, supervising planner Matt Hernandez, project planner and Zoe Carlson, senior planner and project manager for the project. Zoe and Matt will be giving a presentation today. And then all of us will be available for questions at the end.

Zoe Greetings, Chair and Commissioner. My name is Zoe Carlson. And I'll kick off the presentation and then pass it along to Matt. I believe we also have Chief Fred Tan from the fire marshal from the Santa Barbara County Fire District who is joining us today to answer any questions you may have regarding fire safety. Excuse me, that's the Santa Barbara County Fire Department.

I'll start by providing you with some context and presenting the proposed regulations that are before you today and then we'll discuss the environmental review as well as policy consistency and the next steps. A little bit of history about the project. In 2014, the board adopted amendments to the land use and development code or LUDC, as well as the land use element to allow for utility scale solar, specifically a proposed project within a 600 acre Cuyama Valley overlay and after this proposed project and a subsequent project were installed within the overlay there was very little remaining room for utility scale solar projects within the county. In 2019 the board adopted the strategic energy plan in order to stimulate local renewable energy. They included several recommendations including amending the county code to allow for utility scale solar throughout the county.

So in 2021 the board directed long range planning to develop these amendments to expand the opportunity for utility scale solar throughout the county, Including specifically within agricultural zone lands and handful of other zones. And the board also directed staff to amend the uniform rules to allow for utility scale solar as a compatible use on Williams and that contracted land. To be clear, utility scale solar, as I mentioned, is currently allowed within that overlay. Solar is also allowed for on-site use throughout the county currently and is exempt from planning permits. We developed a tiered permitting system to clarify both the current allowed use as well as all requirements for solar throughout the county.

Specifically, amendments include clarifications and updated definitions regarding solar, establishing permit tiers as well as development standards that I'll discuss on subsequent slides. And we use the term systems, as in solar energy systems, for the smaller, which are tier one or tier two size projects, and solar energy facilities for those larger tier three and four projects. The project also clarifies that standalone battery energy storage systems are currently allowed, as within our code as utility facilities or private services uses. And these projects do currently require a major conditional use permit. And we are not proposing any changes to that.

Although unfortunately in the EIR there was a minor error that mentioned a minor conditional use permit was currently required for those projects. It is a major conditional use permit and will continue to be under our proposed amendments. We are also proposing that battery energy storage systems or battery ESS are allowed as a component of solar energy systems as well as facilities as long as they are commensurate in size with the proposed solar system or facility. This table shows the smaller solar energy system, Tier one and Tier two. So the Tier one are exempt from the planning permit, so that's the lowest tier.

In the inland area. Ground mounted projects within the coastal zone would require a coastal development permit. It should be noted that these projects, even though they're exempt from planning permits, will still require building permits, electrical permits, and plumbing permits, as well as solar use permits as applicable. These systems are generally intended for on-site use. The Tier two solar energy systems include mounted systems that are greater than half an acre, up to including five acres.

And these would be allowed with the zoning clearance or a coastal development permit within the coastal zone. Excuse me, my voice is a little tired. Tier three and four solar energy facilities. Permitting is shown on this slide. Generally, solar energy facilities have the primary purpose of energy generation for off-site use.

Due to the size and commercial nature of these projects, they are not allowed in all zones, just the Arg one and two PIPU and manufacturing zones showed on this slide. And I might have to pass the ball to Whitney, because I'm losing my voice. Apologize.

Okay. So to continue, tier three or community scale solar energy facilities are up to 30 acres in size and would be permitted with a minor CUP and a coastal development permit in the coastal zone. Utility scale or tier four solar energy facilities are over 30 acres and would be permitted with a major CUP and a coastal development permit in the coastal zone. Tier three and four projects in the public utility zone would be allowed with the development plan in lieu of a CUP and would still also require a CDP in the coastal zone. This map shows the zones where tier three and four facilities would be allowed.

It's hard to see all of the zones at the scale, but we have an interactive project map available that we can pull up and walk through if you want to take a closer look at any of the zones here. The amendments include development standards for solar that become more rigorous as project size increases. These standards build on existing solar standards for utility scale solar in the LUDC, incorporate applicable measures from the program EIR, and include best practices to improve consistency. These development standards include height and setback requirements for all solar energy systems, Tier one and two, and solar energy facilities, Tier three and four. Battery energy storage systems also have development standards and are included for all tiers, with additional requirements for larger systems and facilities.

All battery energy storage systems, no matter the size, would be reviewed for compliance with applicable building and fire codes. The regulations and design standards for battery energy storage systems have advanced substantially in the past few years. Additionally, design standards for tier three and four solar energy facilities and tier two as applicable. These include visual screening and landscaping requirements and construction and operation standards that address noise, traffic, and safety controls, and include fencing, signage, and transmission line requirements. Development standards to protect resources and address project safety over the full life cycle of a solar facility include resource protection standards that address agricultural and biological resources and include vegetation maintenance requirements.

They also include hazard prevention standards that include geologic hazard and hazardous material avoidance requirements, and fire prevention and emergency management measures. They also include decommissioning standards that include a decommissioning plan, waste reduction, and site restoration requirements as applicable. The project also include proposed amendments to the uniform rules per the board's direction. The proposed updates include updated definitions, compatible and those amendments include solar is a compatible use for on prime contracted land where our premises sorry. Let me collect my thoughts for a moment.

Solar energy systems and facilities are compatible for off-site use on contracted land, up to 10% of the premises size, or 10 acres, whichever is less, with a minimum premises size of 40 acres. And on non contracted land using 15 of the premises size or 100 acres, whichever is less, with a minimum premises size of 100 acres. It's it's also, the amendments clearly state that, solar would be an incompatible use on open space and recreational Williams Sonat contracts. And there's updated language clarifying the solar use easement process. Staff presented these proposed amendments to APAC, and APAC was supportive of all of the staff's proposed amendments and recommended changing the limit on non prime contracted land to 10% instead of 15%.

The APAC recommendation will be taken directly to the board for their consideration. The proposed project includes amendments to the comprehensive plan's land use element, which includes removing the utility scale solar photovoltaic facility overlay, including deleting the associated policy 15 utility scale solar policy for consistency. Similarly, for consistency, there are minor updates to the coastal land use plan. Just clarifying that solar facilities are a conditional permitted use. I'll now turn it over to Matt to finish up the presentation.

Thank

you, Whitney. I'll now pick it up from here to go over our outreach efforts, environmental review, policy consistency, and next steps. This slide summarizes the key outreach steps described in greater detail within the staff report. First, staff held a developer and stakeholder meeting in May 2024 to review the tier framework, allowable zones, and permitting approach. Comments from that meeting were incorporated where appropriate.

For CEQA, the notice of preparation was issued, and the scoping hearing was held in November 2024, and the scoping comment period closed December 2024. On the agriculture side, because we are proposing solar on ag land, staff met with the Agricultural Advisory Committee in August 2024 and November 2025. AAC feedback emphasized supporting on-site agricultural solar with minimal discretionary permitting where feasible, and staff refined parts of the tier approach in response. Specifically, this translated to expanding where tier two systems would be allowed to include both developed and improved land. On February 18, staff also presented the project to the Montecito Planning Commission where they voted five to zero to recommend board adoption of the MLUDC amendments and to recommend that the County Planning Commission support board adoption of the CZO amendments as proposed by staff.

Environmental review for the comprehensive plan and ordinance amendments was completed through a program EIR prepared under CEQA guidelines section 15,168. The draft program EIR was circulated for public review from 08/19/2025 through 10/03/2025. The program EIR impact analysis at a programmatic level determined that most of the impacts were related to the larger scale tier three and four solar energy facilities with minimal impacts associated with the smaller tier one and tier two solar energy systems. At a program level, the EIR also identifies significant and unavoidable impacts in three areas aesthetics and visual resources, agricultural resources, and cultural, tribal cultural, and paleontological resources. The program EIR also identifies significant but medicable impacts in the other topic areas listed on the slide air quality, biological resources, greenhouse gases, hazards, noise, transportation, utilities, and wildfire.

The program EIR also includes a mitigation and mitigation monitoring and reporting program to ensure mitigation measures are implemented as future projects tear off from this program level analysis. As a reminder, the EIR is at a program level and tier three and tier four solar projects will still be subject to additional project specific environmental review as appropriate. As required by CEQA, the program EIR also evaluated a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. First, alternative one, a no project alternative, would retain the existing framework, including the 600 acre utility scale solar overlay in the Koyama Valley. Under this alternative, there would be no streamlining or expanded permitting areas.

Next, alternative two, the reduced Williamson Act allowance alternative, would prohibit or further limit tier three and tier four solar facilities on Williamson Act contracted agricultural lands and add additional footprint caps. Finally, alternative three would prohibit tier four solar facilities in coastal areas. Alternative three was identified by the program EIR as the environmentally superior alternative. However, it's important to note that both alternative two and three would still result in significant impacts including class one significant and unavoidable impacts, meaning that no alternative would avoid all of the key environmental trade offs. For these reasons, staff is recommending the proposed project as it best meets project objectives while still providing programmatic mitigation and project level review.

Within the staff report you will also find a detailed policy consistency analysis that evaluates key resource areas. Staff's conclusion is that the project is consistent with the county comprehensive plan including the coastal land use plan and the land use element. This analysis was completed at the program level and future nonexempt projects that require a permit will still be subject to a project level policy consistency analysis. And to close, staff recommends that the Commission first adopt a resolution recommending that the Board of Supervisors adopt the coastal zone ordinance amendments and make the required findings. Next, to adopt a resolution recommending that the Board adopt the LUDC amendments and make the required findings and finally, to recommend that the Board certify the program EIR and make the required sequel findings for the project.

After this hearing, the County Planning Commission's recommendation would be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. The Board will consider certifying the program EIR in adopting the ordinance amendments. Following Board action, the local coastal program amendments would then be submitted to the California Coastal Commission for certification. That concludes our presentation and staff is now available to take any questions that the commission may have. Thank you.

Questions from commissioners. Commissioner Cooney?

I just want to acknowledge the presentation by the team. We were presented with a number of communications just in the last couple of days. And, going through that, some of the, objections, of the submitters, seem to be, concerned with not enough review allowed. And, so, I'd be interested in hearing, whether there is anything among the submitted documents that we should consider, adding or including or is the process set to go to the board and then, modified from there if the board so, believes.

Commissioner Acunae through the chair. So yeah, there were a number of comment letters that have come in the last several days. Certainly, if there's any comments or suggestions, recommendations from any of those comment letters that your commission wants to explore or discuss, we're happy to have that conversation. And if you want to incorporate any of the recommendations into your action today or when you're ready to take action, then, you have that discretion to incorporate those into your into any recommendations. If there is any particular comments or material from the comment letters that you wanted to review in further detail, just let us know and we can talk through that.

Commissioner Park. I had three

things I wanted to ask about. And the first one will just be a follow-up on Commissioner Cooney's comment. You know, reviewed the various letters. There's multiple recommendations. It's hard for me to remember what they all are.

And so I think the best way to handle that, and do just what you've suggested, Mr. Tuttle, is to take the coalition's letter, which at the end, the very end, has seven or eight recommendations. And just to ask you to briefly state those recommendations and what your response is. And then I can comment on the ones that I would think are a good idea. I don't want to do that right now.

Because I think the best thing to do is to do that process after public comment and people can state what their recommendations are. Okay. So now I want to go to the two things, though, that I'm going to ask questions about. One is biological. I think one of the slides showed that biological resources that would be impacted is stated in the environmental impact report, that they are significant but mitigatable.

And I'm just wondering what those are and how are they to be mitigated. And one I'm particularly interested in is, it kind of reminds me of the oak tree ordinance in wineries where we had conversion of large amounts of rangeland to vineyards and a whole lot of oak trees were removed all of a sudden. And I wonder if these utility scale solar projects have the capability of doing the same thing and what prevents that. Presumably there are some development standards that would but I don't know. So could you address what the biological resources are that are impacted as described environmental impact report, how they are to be mitigated and then particularly address oak tree removal.

Commissioner Park through the chair. The resources, biological resources that could be potentially impacted are numerous. As we know, have a lot of Right. Important biological resources within the county, particularly in our rural undeveloped areas, whether it be riparian corridors, oak woodlands, grasslands, native grasslands, foraging habitat for various wildlife species. So the way and it's impossible at a programmatic level to really hone in with any clear specificity as to what the exact impacts might be, because it's going to be project specific.

So, but the potential certainly exists with any of those higher tier projects, likely the tier three or tier four projects which can occur on undeveloped land. So the primary mitigation is for any project would have to undergo biological fairly rigorous biological resource assessment to establish what the baseline conditions are and what the resources are that are present. And then from there, depending on what resources are identified within the project site, and I think we established a 500 foot buffer around the project site, it's sort of an avoidance. And then if you can't avoid, then you mitigate it by various ways. So avoidance is based on your resource assessment, looking to see if it's feasible to site the project in an area that would avoid those resources or impacts to those resources.

And then if for some reason it was determined that avoidance was infeasible, then again, a series of mitigation measures would come into play depending on the resources that were being impacted. I would also note that a project, tier three or tier four project, would still be subject to consistency with all of our existing county policies. We have many policies within the county regarding tree protection, particularly Oaks. Avoidance is always the first effort or first line of defense is to cite it to avoid those resources, and then mitigation comes in after that if avoidance isn't feasible. So I think in all there's about 16 or 17 biological resource mitigation measures in the EIR that a future project would be subject to complying with.

And it's also set up where if the biological assessment identified a resource that wasn't anticipated in the program EIR, that additional mitigation measures could be identified based on the site specific conditions. Because those future projects are going to have to do some level of environmental review. They'll be able to potentially rely in part on the program EIR, but in most cases there'll be some level of supplemental CEQUA review that would be necessary.

Well, let me cut right to the chase. If I'm going to convert some rangeland to to vineyards, then I run into our oak tree protection ordinance. If I'm going to do the same thing and make it utility scale solar, is am I going to run into the same ordinance? Will it offer the same protections consistently as any other project would?

Commissioner Park, through the chair? Yes, I believe it would. Because that oak tree ordinance and the oak tree regulations that we have in place aren't specific to wineries. So, they would apply to any type of development would be subject to those requirements.

You know, on to my next topic, I want to ask just a factual question. I'm not familiar with utility scale solar panel projects in this county, except for one out in Nukuyama, which I've driven by every week, sometimes in the last few years. And maybe because there aren't any others, I don't know. Does anybody know how big that one is? Because I kind of want to be able to visualize what a tier three or tier four project looks like. I mean, think I heard today that it is a 600 acre overlay and there is not much room left in it, so maybe that one is close to that 600 acres or I don't know. Anybody know?

Commissioner Park to the chair. I believe that the large there is two. But they are kind of side by side.

Alright.

I believe the larger one is in like the 300 to 400 acre range. And then the smaller one is more like 50 acres or something around there. 327 acres is the larger one. 20 acres is the smaller one. So together, yeah, about three fifty acres. So that gives you a sense of scale.

Let me move on to my next topic. And that is the conversion of agricultural land. I think about this a lot because even in my legal practice, which sometimes would involve litigation concerning the sale of agricultural land. And I've always been sensitive to the effect of pricing on, of agricultural land on, on, on the farmers. And, and you realize once you get into that stuff that we think we have these enormous acreages for agricultural land, but really there's a high demand for every square foot of it from the farmers.

And I'm, I don't quite understand the economics of what happens if some of this is converted to utility scale solar. And I would imagine there would be an economic impact on other farmers because there would be less land available and it might even impact the ability to have service from companies and so forth because as agricultural land shrink, there's less likely to have the people that can serve it. So is there a, how is that addressed in this ordinance? And is there any kind of a limit on how much of our key agricultural land can be converted to solar? Utility scale solar?

Commissioner Park to the chair. So there's no like, like with cannabis where there's a total county There's wide acreage no such county wide cap for solar. That's proposed as part of this project. So theoretically, every property could develop some level of solar on their ag property. I think the cap would likely be more dictated by market demand.

So while theoretically, yes, every property could develop solar, I don't believe that there's the infrastructure or the market to support that. So the strategic energy plan had come up with some sort of like maximum build out scenarios and then a realistic build out scenario. And a realistic build out scenario represented about 10% to 20% of the overall land as being a more realistic level of build out. Again, that's probably I would anticipate be on the higher end of what we might reasonably see. I will say that for the Williamson Act contracted land, and as you are probably well aware from our work on the ag advisor or ag enterprise ordinance, Williamson Act contracted land covers approximately two thirds of our agricultural land is under Williamson Ag contract.

And so with Williamson Ag contracted land, there is a proposed limit per premises of for the prime contracts no more than, what is it, 10 acres on a prime contract. And on the non prime contract, the maximum size would be up to 100 acres. 15% per 100 acres, whichever is less. So there is a cap that you would see with that, that would translate into depressing sort of the maximum build out potential within our contracted land.

I will state a reaction to the uniform rules, that part. And I get that. And I think it kind of makes sense. And it really is for every size parcel. It's just percentages of it, right?

Okay. There are some odd size small parcels that are just sort of vestigial that are ag two and things like that. And if if you had a small ag two parcel that's non prime and not very useful, I personally would rather see solar concentrated onto that, solar development, above and beyond the 10% or 15% as opposed to sacrificing other land that is in more usable parcels. That is something we can get to later.

I will also note that there a state law provision that we've carried over and incorporated into the Wilms and Act contract into the uniform rules, are these solar use easements. So there's this pathway for a contracted land to kind of like through cancellation, essentially, convert through a solar use easement that sort of pulls that land out of contract to allow for solar. So that potentially be something that might be suitable for the instance or scenario you're imagining.

So I'm done for now. I just want to get back after the public comment to ask about those recommendations. Particularly in the clean air coalition letter. Thank you.

Commissioner Martinez.

Yes. Good morning everyone. I'm looking at this and I'm thinking that the use of the terms solar is so welcoming in one sense. But then once you introduce battery storage, I believe that's becoming an apple and an orange. Because I think they just produce two different concepts of energy and concerns.

You were just answering a question and I think might have addressed one of my questions. In slide 14 you were indicating reduced Williamson Act allowance for tier three, tier four. But there's a lot out there you were mentioning that would actually allow the property to maintain its Williamson Act and not lose its Williamson Act contract if it was just limited to a certain amount of solar energy. And this is where my idea is coming from. Agricultural farmers, even low oil industry for their wells, their pumps, whatever they have out there, they're getting hit with more and more evasion of carbon emissions.

So there's solar concerns. There's all these concepts that are coming out. So it's a concept of saying this is what you shall do. And then the business avenues are left with well, how can I do that without losing what I have? So is there, is that, am I interpreting what you're saying correctly? Or is there nothing out there?

Commissioner Martinez to the chair. So, yeah, the proposed amendment to the uniform rules would allow a certain amount of solar as a compatible use on contracted land. So if a property were to build within the allowances, then they would be able to remain under contract And so, receive the benefits of that. It doesn't remove the requirement to continue to meet the eligibility requirements of the Wellington Act. So there's production requirements for a property in order to remain under contract, minimum production requirements. They'd still be responsible for meeting those.

But there's also distinguished language between solar that is used for on-site purposes to support the ag operation versus solar that is more intended as a commercial enterprise for off-site use? So it really depends upon what the proposal is for the solar for the use of the solar energy being produced through the solar panels, let's just say. Because I'm just worried about that Fresno situation where the guy goes out there, develops a solar area and loses his Williamson Act contract through the Bureau of Equalization. And that's what my concern was. Long as there's this uniformity of saying this is going to work for all.

That we don't lose something while trying to get something else. That's my concern. If the answer is not here today, then that's something I'm looking for in regards to it.

Right. Commissioner Martinez, you're the chair. So the proposed language that the Ag Preserve Advisory Committee landed on and staff presented and they supported was for the prime contracts, which are normally premises between forty and one hundred acres in size. You could have up to 10 acres, 10% or 10 acres, whichever is less, set aside for solar development. And then for the non prime contracts, which are those larger premises, 100 acres or greater, you could go up to 10 or 15% depending on where the board lands, up to 100 acres of solar, whichever is less and still remain eligible for continued enrollment under your willingness to act contract.

Okay. So that will move me on to the next one in regards. You've already mentioned that it's a major CUP application if they're going to be moving into I think you said solar or maybe battery storage. But my concern really focuses on battery storage. When there's an announcement of a project which is going to be a major CUP and it's going be a battery storage facility.

Does it just use the word solar or does it use we are doing this as a solar project which is going to be a battery storage facility. Because that's what I've seen in the past is the community gets these announcements about solar energy. They think it's the solar panels. But really what's hidden underneath that is a battery storage facility. So does it make it clear within those notices that goes into the community within our regulations that it is going to be

identified as a battery storage facility. Commissioner Martinez, you're the chair. So if I could just clarify a couple things. Because this was actually a comment that came up in a lot of the comment letters too is about battery energy storage systems. So the board's direction with this project was to develop regulations for solar facilities, solar systems and facilities.

Battery storage was not part of our charge with this project. So what we tried to do is distinguish between a standalone battery energy storage system and not really touched that because that wasn't within the scope of our project. And really focused more on solar. But recognizing that for nowadays, for most solar projects, certainly larger solar projects, there is often a battery storage component for that is associated with that solar project. So for a standalone battery energy storage system, we're not proposing any any new regulations or changes to those.

All we're doing is clarifying where those are already currently allowed and not changing the permit requirements or the standards for those. For a battery storage system that may be a component of or accessory to a solar project, for one, it has to be sized appropriately. So you can't have five solar panels and a 10 acre storage system and and and as a way to get in as what is essentially a battery storage system. It has to be accessory to and supportive of the the solar project. But to answer your question on the noticing, our standard requirement in MNR code when notices are sent out on a project, particularly, you know, especially something like a CUP, is that there be a well defined, clear project description.

And so if solar project had a battery storage component, that would be part of that project description. So that would be in any notices that go out to the community.

Okay. So what I'm hearing you say then, you correct me if I'm wrong, is that what we're addressing here is solar itself. And yes, I understand that the engineering of it, the solar is, even though it produces energy, is going to have to go through some component of a battery system in regards to where it stores the energy and then it goes into the system itself. We're not talking here about a battery storage facility that's a standalone, that's right next to some other PG and E facility where it's just storing the energy solely and then putting it back into the system. We're not talking about that here today.

Correct. Okay. Because that's different that's why I was doing the apple and the orange because that's something completely different. I could see why people get mixed up because when people do get notices, and I've seen this not in this county yet, but I've seen it in San Luis Obispo County where they say we are having a solar project that's going to go right next to your house. People think great.

And they wake up the next day and it's a battery storage facility stand alone because it's right next to a PG and E facility and it can get the energy alone. We're not discussing that today. As long as we're not discussing that, that takes me away from the fire prevention and emergency management thing. But it does bring me into slide nine, your decommissioning of site restoration requirements. When you decommission these things, my understanding is there any concern about what's done with the panels that once they're removed?

I mean because these are not things that you just break down and throw away into the dump. You just don't do that. These are things that have, well they do have chemicals in them. They have a lot of other things that don't necessarily can be thrown away. But tell me about that. I'm interested to see what happens when I say I'm going to break down a solar farm. What do we do about it? We say okay, you can break it down or that's it? Check a box?

Commissioner Martinez, through the chair. So the requirements I think for something like that are going to continually continue to evolve as technology changes and information is gained. But there are requirements, code requirements for handling of waste such as solar panels. Yeah, they can't just be thrown in a landfill. There are requirements for how you handle that waste.

And there, I think, recycling of the components of the solar systems is there is sort of a growing field for that. So while the ordinance itself doesn't really get into those details, they would have to prepare a decommissioning plan.

And,

know, most of these projects would have a, you know, a typical life of a solar panel is somewhere in that twenty five to thirty, you know, plus years. So, yeah, you can imagine that a lot of things might change between now and then. But yeah, generally speaking, there are code requirements, both mostly at the state level that dictate how that type of material and that type of waste would be handled and disposed of.

Okay. And then moving on to slide number six. I mean this picture, slide number six, is these battery storage containers. So if we have a large solar development, large of an area are we going to have of these containers with these battery storage? Is there if you have 10 acres of solar, you're going to have a 10 by 10 area of this kind of these kind of battery storage facilities. Is there some kind of formula that that I can just get in my head?

Commissioner Martinez to the chair. There's no like one formula because it it depends on how for how long they're trying they might be wanting to store the energy. You could have a storage system that is only attempting to store the energy for say twelve hours before it sends it off to the grid or you could have a system that's trying to store the energy for longer that might have to be larger. But what I can tell you in talking with our general services who, you know, if you look across the street, they've developed various solar projects, like solar canopies. And, you know, for a five or 10 acre solar project, you might have something like the size of a shipping container of battery cabinets to support that.

But there is no one to one relationship necessarily or direct correlation.

So then my next question is in regards these are lithium batteries that I take it are in these.

Yeah, typically, although again, the technology for batteries is sort of constantly changing.

Yeah. I would rather stay away from that language because that's what I keep on hearing from these battery storage facility places. Well, it's all changed.

I will say it's changed a lot from Moss Landing. Know there's a lot of fear and concern from what happened there. And by the way, we do have just to remind, we do have Fred Tan. He's in down in the Santa Barbara Hearing Room from County Fire. He presented to the board a year or so ago on sort of the safety issues associated with battery storage and can speak to that if you

do have questions. Which I was leading into in my questions, this may be for him, is that, and I mean he's listening in right now. But my understanding is a fire plan for these kind of battery storage facilities, even for small ones look for the solar area. Let's just stick to that. There's certain equipment that needs to be used. You just can't pull out a fire hose and spray it with the water. And what I'm asking is does our fire department have that kind of equipment and training to address these kinds of fires?

Oh, there he is.

Okay, great. There you are. Okay.

Good morning. Sorry, I don't see your nameplates there. I haven't memorized the commissioners' names by heart. But to address that, maybe more broadly, we do have a battery energy storage system that we have in the county in Goleta that we were part of the development. The things that we required of that facility is a fire protection plan, fire hazard analysis, and then a training for all our personnel that were close to the in proximity for those storage systems.

As Mr. Tuttle has kind of spoken to, the technology has really changed compared to Moss Landing. In my presentation to the board last year, between the different technologies of lithium ion batteries, the ones in Moss Landing, they tended to hit thermal runway at much lower temperatures, around 185 degrees, where the newer batteries are almost 500 degrees. And they're stored outside in cabinets, which allow for, in an event where these storage systems are monitored, we required air monitors. We required twenty four hour monitoring in order for if there was any temperature spikes for these battery energy storage systems in an individual cell, they would turn them off remotely.

These things are designed that if there was a fracture of some kind, that the products of combustion typically are just what you would find in nature. So you'd have some steam, hydrogen, oxygen released into the environment. And our actions really are to monitor and turn off any of the power that is in the area and be able to handle a situation if it escalates. But the new technology is intended to really encapsulate an event within the boxes, and not have an event that really escalates, especially with the temperature ranges that these things operate at now. So we do have some training.

We have a policy in place with the fire department. And then individually, with all the battery energy storage systems, through the fire protection plans, through the fire code requiring setbacks, access, defensible space. We are able to require a lot more stringent safety measures. And then our crews do have the training to be able to mitigate some of the events here.

What I didn't hear yet, and maybe you can help me here, is what about my question regarding the special equipment that's supposed to be utilized for these kinds to prevent to allow you to maintain the defensible spaces. That something the county has or is working on it?

Yeah. There's different tools for different types of fires. For the battery energy storage systems, these cases are really designed to mitigate the fires as they stand. And so there are different tools. So if you have a vehicle fire, some technologies where there are tanks that you fill with water, and you can drop the entire vehicle

in.

We have access to some of those. We don't do that. Our policy is just essentially for the vehicles is a whole different tactic and strategy. For the battery energy storage systems, with the safety measures that we're requiring, with the designs that are in place, the cases themselves really are the mitigating factor.

Okay. So it's the manufactured casings that is providing the defensible space is what I'm hearing. Okay. Those are my questions for right now.

All right. Thank you. Commissioner Ford.

Thank you. And thank you for the presentation. I have been lucky through the Santa Barbara Unified School District to work pretty closely with the Community Environmental Council. And as a result, as I want to support this ordinance. But I do continue to look at the goal of stimulating, streamlining, and expanding renewable energy locally.

And I feel very strongly that the suggestions should merit a greater attention. So I know that both Mr. Park and Mr. Cooney have expressed some issues around our public comments and our other expert comments. And I wonder if you are prepared now to address the recommendations that were made or later in the meeting or at another time. I would need those addressed in order to support the ordinance.

Commissioner Ford through the chair. I think I mean, we can certainly answer any questions right now. But I think the suggestion of hearing public comment and then kind of tackling it

Oh, that's fine.

As a whole might be more appropriate.

Thank you. I was ready to go now, but commissioner Park, do you have something brief? Or

I do. I keep it very brief.

Subject of battery storage and and fire control. I can't remember who was on the commission not too long ago when we went through a Strauss wind energy project for installation of a battery storage facility. It was outside. And and at the time, at that hearing, we spent quite a bit of time with County Fire, with the applicant, going over all the differences for modern planning and equipment for those facilities compared to what was then burning at Moss Landing. So, I think our county has some tremendous resources on how to deal with this stuff.

Okay.

Alright. Thank you. Now, I have a few questions. I am going to start at kind of a higher level, you know, because I think, well, I'll give you the short view. I think the tier one, tier two, and probably the tier three projects are beneficial and mostly a good idea.

I would be happy with them. I have some real issues with the tier four things in that I think they could be transformational for a lot of our wonderful ag properties in this county, particularly for our rangeland. So I'm gonna start first in trying to determine the footprint for these things. Now I notice, it says in the EPEIR, our ag, productive ag land is approximately 704,000 acres. Is that correct?

That's straight from the PEIR. And I think it's also in your staff report.

Yeah, don't have that number memorized but

Not a precise That's Sounds good estimate, right? And it says Williamson Act, well it's various numbers appearing where you go. Staff report is 493,000. PEIR says 490,000 on one page, five fifty on another. But somewhere around between 6570% of the total ag land. Okay. So 500,000 in Williamson Act. 700,000 total. So then we have 211,000 acres of ag land that's not part of the Williamson Act. Is that correct?

Okay. And among that whole amount of land, there's 500 and About 504,000 acres of grazing land. Range land in other words. Correct? That came out of the PEIR so I will take their word for it.

Yeah. I think any of the data there within reason is we can rely on.

Yeah. Sorry Zoe, I didn't mean to upset you. I hope you're okay. No. Alright. Now. Okay. So here's what I'm also looking at. Now in these amendments and things, they're apparently only related to properties under Williamson contract. Is that Am I correct?

Commissioner or mister chair, commissioners, the amendments would apply to all ag properties, whether they're in Act or not. There's a separate set of the uniform rules that would be squarely applied to contracted lands. But outside of the contracted lands, those properties would still be subject to the regulations. So it covers both.

The same regulations? All good.

I'm

somewhat reassured by that.

Well, quite this. So they are subject to the same zoning regulations. Within whether they're willing to act contract to land or not. The uniform rules is a sort of another layer of regulation that would only apply to the contracted lands. And it's the uniform rules that establish the sort of the footprint limitations.

That's the core of

my concern those, right like the 100 acre on prime or on non prime contract or 15%, that would only apply to contracted land. Williamson Act. Yes.

So if you have that was the root of my concern because according to this, if you have Williamson Act land, regardless of the size of your parcel, if you buy a thousand acres, you can still only get 10% or, you know, a 100 acres. You can't convert more than a 100 acre. If you have 2,000 acres and it's under Williamson, you're limited to a 100 acres total. Is that correct?

That's correct. Per per premises. Yeah.

Okay. But outside of Williamson Act, you can have as much as you want. Right?

Chair After your CUP. Yeah. Theoretically there's no upper size limit through the major CUP.

Hence my concern for the potentially transformative nature of this. I know those among us who are fortunate enough to be able to traverse the Central Valley, I know I am. I know Mr. Wilson are. We've seen an amazing, I could say amazingly depressing transformation of thousands of acres of former ag land into photovoltaic wastelands.

I was gonna say photovoltaic deserts, but deserts are beautiful in their own way and are valuable habitat. When I say wasteland, it's they are generally, you know, these solar farms, alien and sterile environments inhabited pretty much only by the guys who spray the rain the Roundup, or maybe in some cases, the short legged grazing animals, kinda like Commissioner Park's, weed eating sheep. But if you're lucky. So, yeah, my concern is we've got 504,000 acres of beautiful grazing land. You know?

And the other word for rangeland is habitat. Okay? It's important habitat for all kinds of grasses, native grasses, other grasses, all kinds of various critters of all description. It's foraging habitat for raptorial birds, else, and you transform that to solar, it's no longer any of those things. So I I do have concerns with this, that those 200 and some thousand acres could be transformed into solar farms to serve, you know, remote sites in far away municipalities or server farms?

Are you, you're familiar with, you ever been to Parkfield? You know about the California flat solar project up there? Bankrolled I think by Microsoft and the and the havoc gets reaped for the agricultural community and rural residents of Parkfield. We don't want that in Santa Barbara County. So, you know, while we have a number of these limitations that are gonna apply for Williamson Act properties.

I'm really concerned about what could happen in those other properties. Another thing I would like to introduce, kind of based on some of the comments from commissioner Park about reduction in available ag properties. Now, you know, since, well, all the properties in the county, most of them that could be used for this, Certainly, ones that knows 500,000 acres of grazing land and the 700,000 total, a lot of those are owned by others and rented out to ag. Well, I know if you have land and you're renting it out to a strawberry grower, it's, you know, $33,000 an acre or so, 3,500. If it's really prime vegetable land, couple of thousand more.

Yeah, so that's that's that part of it. If you have grazing land, well we have some grazing land, it's about $10 an acre. Not worth too much. Do we have an idea or is it part of the PEIR part of this whole process? If you're a landowner and you're gonna lease out land for solar farms, what that is what that rents for an acre or leases for an acre?

Any idea? Mister chair, commissioners, no. I don't we don't have that information of the economics behind it.

Well, my concern would be that by removing that little overlay in the Cuyama Valley and opening up all our county's ag land. And like I said again, my biggest concern is rangeland opening to that. And even perhaps some cropland. You could be opening the gates for a land war. You know, other entities, institutional investment firms, whatever, come in, rent the land at prices higher than people in ag could afford to pay, put in solar.

So in one transformed the nature of the county, you've subtracted a lot of important habitat, So and you've put a lot of people in agriculture out of a place to ply their trade or their business. So I think those are all risks that are thus far not addressed. And, you know, so I think that overlay, people were wise to institute that. As I do have concerns and we've heard questions before about the potential of would it be wise to institute an upper limit or a cap for acreage of land that's available for conversion to solar? Could be something worth considering, not addressed at all in the PEIR or anything else I have read on this.

So I think that's important. Another question. Originally, the estimate was the county had the potential to produce 2,925 megawatts if this project were built out. Any idea on how many acres of ag property were included in formulating that estimate? Because I know you look at the map and ag too is the is obviously the major part of it.

And again, I have no difficulty whatever in approving agricultural facilities that produce electricity for use on-site by the grower, by the rancher, by the farmer to support their operations. But it's these larger distributed commercial type systems that create the concern. So, any idea on how many acres that 2,925 megawatt estimate was based on?

Yes, Mr. Chair, Commissioners. So, I believe that that estimate had come out of the strategic energy plan. And, they had correlated that maximum to, you know, perhaps a maximum of up to about 13,000 acres.

13,000 acres. Good number. It's kind of makes me think back to like the seventies or eighties. We had no grapes here, very few. Louis Lucas started planting a few out by Sisquark. Okay? Bring us to, not too long ago, they were what up to I think 22,000 acres, now they're about 12,000 acres. Pretty close to the amount you're talking about with these photovoltaics. So you drive around the county, how many, how often are you looking at grapevines? Pretty often.

Okay? Just to get a feel as commissioner Park said, how how big a project would be. You know, because things tend to start out small if they're successful, they get big. I remember back in the eighties, when I moved away to get involved in pharma. Santa Maria Valley had about, I think about a thousand acres of strawberries.

Now there's, well, probably more than what you mentioned. So you look at berries, they're ubiquitous. They're everywhere. I don't think anybody really wants to look around our county and see solar farms everywhere. Particularly not the people on the South Coast who are probably gonna be exempt from most of the effects and like to shove stuff like that up into the North County.

So I think we need some stringent controls and protections on the amount of acres that can be converted. And that's all conspicuously absent from the PEIR or any evaluation thus far has gone into that. And I think its inclusion is is very warranted because I don't think Santa Barbara County's rural residents, want to be victimized like the people up near Parkfield. So just some, I think, very important considerations. Now with the respect to the rest of it, we we talk about mitigation.

We talk about mitigation measure ag one. It would be important, but it's also stated in your report that it's it's uncertain as if it would really be successful in mitigating all the potential negative impacts of this. You know, when we look at the remediation plan, it's contained there and it's contained in some of the various charts about mitigation, alternatives in the PEIR as would it really be totally effective in removing all the adverse effects? I think the answer is either unknown or no. Along with the fact that there's no real time course established for remediation of these sites at such time as they're closed down.

And I would, I mean solar right now is a bit of state of the art, but is it really gonna be state of the art for decades and decades? Or is it something that's transitional until some technique like cold fusion or a more tolerable form of fission is developed? So that could be you know, a large consideration. I could go on and on. But just finally, I will kind of wind it up. Statement of overriding considerations. Who wrote these things?

Mr. Chair, Commissioners, staff wrote the statement of overriding considerations.

Okay. Because I find, you know, it's pretty general and nebulous and I don't really find anything that particularly addresses the the potential harm to the ag community with respect to the the goals of that statement. So I find it somewhat deficient. I will I will then one other question, with the batteries. The batteries because it appears as this is written, you know, batteries will be approved and not really reviewed as long as they're commensurate in size to the facility.

Is that kind of where you are? I think that's what I understand. But the discussions with chief fire marshal Tan, he spoke about, you know, a better technology available for battery storage now? Batteries that tend to contain a fire. Do we need to add a standard for battery storage for the battery, the equipment that will be used as part of this to ensure we have the absolute lowest risk possible from batteries?

Mr. Chair, Commissioners, I would suggest that that is addressed sufficiently through the fire code and building code requirements that these projects would be subject to. So when you say a battery storage would not get reviewed, there are a lot of code requirements that any of these projects, regardless of the size, whether it's a desktop or 10 acres, be subject to. That those have a lot of controls and restrictions on the type of construction and the type of material and making sure that they're appropriate technology and tested and certified and all that.

Okay, one final thing. For systems, if we were to, you know, systems which feed out into the general grid, their distributed systems are approved. What about the inverter farms that are attendant with that? You know, because the the panels are they produce DC. The batteries store DC. But if you're gonna feed it in the grid, it needs to be converted to alternating current. And around all of these have you driven by a lot of these things?

Yes. I have.

Yeah. Well, you drive through the battery farm and then on a pretty significant foot print is a big inverter station, which converts that DC out of the batteries if they are there into alternating current, which goes over the lines because you don't transmit DC. Edison tried that a hundred and fifty years ago and doesn't work well for long line transmission. That's why we adopted Tesla's system of alternating current. So, but they're also significant. They have a significant footprint and they nowhere appear in this PEIR. So I see that as a significant deficiency.

Mr. Chair, Commissioners, so in terms of the footprint, the footprint of a system or facility would be all the pertinent development. It would be if you're looking at permitting a 10 acre solar facility, it would be the 10 acres of that facility plus any other accessory development would be subject to that 10 acre footprint. It's not like you get 10 acres of solar plus another however large footprint of accessory development. It would all be limited to that footprint cap that was applied as part of the project.

But there is a discussion and analysis in the IR of accessory equipment. It doesn't go into sort of the perhaps that level of detail as to specifically focusing on inverters. But it does discuss and consider the impacts of a facility that is inclusive of that pertinent equipment.

Okay. Last question.

You said that before.

Excuse me? You said last question before. Well, came up with a better one. Okay. Sorry. But no. Just Okay. Now, how about noticing? You're gonna put one of these in. You're gonna have batteries.

And as commissioner Martinez mentioned, there's a great deal of concern on part of the public about batteries. How are we going to be, if this ultimately gets approved and is implemented, how we are we really going to ensure that the public gets adequate noticing about batteries? I think many people here remember what recently happened up on the Napomo Mesa where you have that solar plant near the sewage treatment facility and just kind of insconspicuously in the black are a bunch of little white things look like cargo storage containers that many people who live up there were surprised to hear are battery storage and had a great deal of concern and were somewhat irate and wound up creating a stink at the Board of Supervisors up there. How are we going to ensure that that won't happen in this county if this moves ahead?

Mr. Chair, Commissioner, so as I indicated previously, any tier three or tier four project would be subject to a conditional use permit minor or major, which requires public noticing, public hearing, CEQA analysis. So it's full discretionary process. Our noticing requirements already exist in our code for what the noticing must entail to satisfy those requirements in terms of project description and who it gets noticed to and the noticing placard. So it would be subject to the standard noticing that would be applicable to a conditional use permit.

There's legal ads. There's all sorts of noticing that goes along with any permit subject to a CUP. And for that same reason, there's also a lot of discretion that comes with a conditional use permit because there's findings that have to be made. So that is intended to provide opportunities for ensuring that a project is appropriate and suitable for the site and for the surrounding character or development. So I appreciate your concerns, and I think everyone would be in whole heart agreement that no one wants to see the entire agricultural area of the county converted to solar farms.

I don't think that's anyone's expectation or intent. And the conditional use permit requirement is intended to help, ensure that that is not the, unintended outcome.

I appreciate that. Thank you. I just think the county should use all due diligence, like you said, in this program if it's ever to be implemented. Because I don't think as an unintended consequence, we want to create yet another gold mine for appellant attorneys. I will conclude my comments there. Any additional comment staff feels the need to make? So are we ready to move? Can we take, like, a five minute break before we pull the phone in? We will take a five minute break at the request of mister Wilson. Thank you.

I was gonna request 10, but that's

Welcome back to the March 11 hearing of the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission. At this point, we are ready for public comment.

For those joining us online, raise your hand if you'd like to speak just so we have an idea of how many, speakers we have.

We have to to limit the amount of time each speaker has.

We have at least three four online. Perhaps up to five.

Four online. Okay. We will begin each speaker. We'll begin with those in person here. Each each of you will have three minutes. We're going to start with Claire Weinman. Following her will be Mary Hayden.

Good morning. I'm Claire Weinman with the Grower Shipper Association of Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties. We've been involved since the first First Solar project in Cuyama. And actually just wanted to add that the original overlay acreage was based on estimates of the substation transmission capacity at the time. So that's where that 600 acres first came from.

There's definitely a lot to unpack here today. You know, looking back to, I think it was 2019, we would have loved to see an option for on-site wind or co gen as part of this process in the original board direction, and we'll continue to advocate for that in the future. We'll also continue to advocate for agricultural on-site and premises use. I guess one question today come with mostly questions rather than comments or a blend. But would this be included in the definition of on-site if there's a solar array on a separate APN than where the electricity will be used, like for cooler.

So just was thinking about that. I know some jurisdictions use the word premises. I'm not sure if that's something I've seen in the county as much as others, but just wanted to raise that. And then we do have concerns as discussed about the conversion of ag lands, especially on the valley, the flat valley floors. Flat farmland on the coastal valleys is exceptionally special and worthy of protection.

And we also have significant concerns like those shared about the potential of battery fires and impacts to outdoor agricultural employees, soil health, and agricultural crops. Appreciate hearing more about the package today and had a handful of questions about the proposed LUDC amendments. First of all, who is the solar use permit appealable to and are other tiers also subject to the solar use permit? Are the building electrical and plumbing permits already existing requirements, especially for smaller projects that aren't mounted to buildings? If not, this seems excessive.

What is the site coverage limitation? For ag land, must the parking lot be paved or can it include a permeable surface, AKA dirt? For tier two on premises for ag land is cultivated is cultivated land considered developed. For tier three and four we definitely support the weed management plan. We'd also like to see that any products used be compatible with neighboring ag food crops.

And there need to be adequate tools to control rodents, can be vectors for food safety problems. And also feces from grazing animals. We'd like to see that is an exclusion in areas with food crops. For tier three and four for those ag preservation funds, we'd like to see those funds stay local versus going into a statewide bank. On the emergency notification procedures for the Bess fire, are there mechanisms to immediately notify the surrounding users versus going to an intermediary for that notification?

And then had a question. So on page fifty one and fifty three I'm confused if the tier three and four are zoning clearance or discretionary. There was language that made it read like it was a zoning clearance. And then on page 64 I was wondering is there a typo for the acreage for tier three and wanted clarification on what qualifies for a tier three permit. And then finally on page 51, who determines if it's feasible to avoid ag land. So in closing we appreciate the opportunity to learn more about this and how we can increase options available for reliable and affordable electricity while also protecting health and compatibility. Thank you.

All right, thank you. Next we'll have Mary Hayden.

Good morning everyone. My name is Mary Hayden and I'm a beef cattle rancher in the North County. My family owns and operates the Ted Chamberlain Ranch outside of Los Olivos. I also have more kind of needs of clarification versus specific comments. I wanted to say in the strategic energy plan there were 20 sites that were found as potential sites for commercial ags or solar sites, and we were five of those.

And so specifically our property, if you are setting down or going down the 101 South and you get off on the 154, soon after that there's a Zaccha Station Road. And if you go down maybe about a mile or two, probably about a half mile, our property starts there. I think it would be a great site. I guess my questions are specifically with the uniform rules limitations. It's saying that it could only be 10 acres.

And the site that we would potentially want to use is a 65 acre plot. And per Williamson contract, 25 acres of the 3,000 acre contract parcel is prime. And so I called the assessor's office spoke to Ryan Fisher, who's the assessor on the questionnaire. And he said that those 25 acres are not specific to acreage, designated to specific acres. I don't know if that's true or not.

And I don't know who I speak to about that. Because it would be a bummer if this perfect spot on our property would be the 25 acres and we would not be able to use it. The reason why I say it's a perfect spot, it's up on a mesa, it's out of the view shed, which is hugely important for Santa Barbara County and San Ynez Valley. People do not want to see solar farms everywhere. But we also have a substation on our property.

And so the feed could go directly into PG and E lines, which is also probably a huge limiting factor for not having solar farms everywhere. Because I don't know if there are PG and E substations everywhere. So my question is how would I know what prime land definition is? How do I know what these 25 acres on our parcel is? And then my question also would be the Williamson Act contract itself.

The parcel is 3,100 acres. The area that we'd want to use is 65. Would we have to take that parcel out of the Williamson contract to be able to do this? Or how would that work? And then getting a major CUP, what would the timeframe on that be? I understand there's a lot of things you have to go through and get checked on. It sounds like APAC would be also reviewing it. So would this be a two year project, a ten year project? I know it takes a long time to get a CUP. I think those are my main questions. So thank you very much for listening.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair and Commissioners. My name is Ben Schwartz and I'm the policy director for the Clean Coalition. I submitted joint comments on behalf of Clean Coalition and Community Environmental Council. Clean Coalition is a nonprofit dedicated to accelerating the transition to renewable energy and a modern grid. And I just want to say, from a personal standpoint, it's really exciting to be here.

I first worked on this as the first project that I did with the Clean Coalition, submitting comments on the strategic energy plan in 2019. So it's great to see it's gotten this far. And thank you to staff for all the hard work that they've done. From the Clean Coalition's perspective, our focus is primarily the built environment. We want regulation that is clear, that is proportionate to the environmental impacts of a project, and that is practical, that acknowledges that the county code may not be up to date with state code and it may not be up to date with trends in the renewable energy industry and where things are going.

And it's important to align those to achieve local climate and energy goals and state climate and energy goals. So we provided a number of recommendations and appreciate the suggestions that we have those addressed here today. There are three main points that I wanted to cover today. The first is the actual reason for this, which is the Board of Supervisors created direction to address the definition of front of the meter. Right now, when we think of traditional rooftop solar, that is behind the meter, meaning behind the electrical meter and owned and controlled by a site.

Whereas front of the meter means connected directly to the utility grid. From the perspective of existing code, a rooftop solar system that is behind the meter is permitted and typically exempt. A rooftop solar system that is connected in front of the meter is considered to be utility scale and not permitted. And this is the only such definition that we've ever seen like this. It's extremely restrictive.

So it's important that we are making that change to allow these systems. However, it's also important that we are not adding new restrictions to behind the meter projects that are already typically exempt. So that's the first point. The second point is that anything on the built environment built on an impervious substance should be included in tier one and exempt from planning permit requirements. That includes parking canopy solar, which an example of that is just across the street.

Right now that would be included, that project, in tier two And that creates a significant impediment to a project being completed in a timely manner. We've already got rooftop solar and parking structure solar in tier one. We just need to include parking canopy solar there as well. I know I don't have time, but the last point is on battery energy storage. And it is really critical to have energy storage systems because of their value to time shift energy, meaning collecting cheap, abundant solar energy and shifting that onto the grid or using it on-site when it's most expensive during peak hours from four to nine and when the grid is most strained.

It's also critical for energy resilience. The Santa Barbara County line, South County is served by Southern California Edison. North County is served by PG and E. And those grids were never connected. And so having energy resilience, meaning the ability to respond to disturbances on the grid, including power outages, and ensure that critical electrical loads remain powered is very important.

And I'm happy to talk a lot more about that. I'll also note that Clean Coalition has given presentations in other jurisdictions, including County Of Solana Beach and the City Of Irwindale about battery storage and safety issues. And we would be happy to present on something similar to the county. Thank you.

I have a question to Mr. Schwartz. Yes. Yes. We sort of have an amusing process where we planning commissioners will ramble on and no one can understand us. Then we take the experts in our audience and we give you three minutes. And so there we are. But you had eight recommendations, I believe, in your letter. We're going to go over those. You've highlighted some of this, like the parking canopy.

You closed with a discussion of the value of having battery storage. I get that. I think I agree with you. Can you highlight your key recommendation on battery storage? I mean, is it you're concerned about with regard to this draft ordinance that you'd like to see different? If you can boil it down to battery storage in an answer supplemental to your three minutes?

So I'll try to go quickly. Our recommendation is that any battery storage with a footprint of 0.25 acres or under should be included in tier one. And it should be allowed in any zone. Under the proposed ordinance I could have a solar system plus a battery storage system that's included in tier one and it would be exempt. But if I were to take that same system and say I want a solar project, tier one, and a standalone battery project, that battery project would be put into tier three or tier four automatically.

And that would substantially change the permitting cost and the permitting time. And it's worth noting, and the fire chief noted this, that there are already other sets of code. You have building codes, right? You have plumbing. You have inspections by the fire. And you have other standards that already apply to battery storage. So the question is, do we need to create additional standards and requirements during the planning permit process that are going to be duplicative of efforts that are further on down the line.

As a practical matter, is there some reason created by economics or the workings of these things that would create a demand for quarter acre or less standalone battery storage?

So absolutely.

What would that be?

An energy perspective, that would provide about 10 megawatt hours of battery storage. And just as an example, the Clean Coalition is working to develop five community microgrid projects, which require assets that are in front of the meter to power an entire section of the grid and provide resilience to that entire section. So we included one such image of a microgrid in the Isla Vista area. And we are working to get funds through an existing program up to $14,000,000 Having that energy storage is critical to being able to have enough power under any situation to provide that resilience. In other words, to continue powering that section of the grid in the event of an outage.

And if you do not have energy storage, for example, if you only have solar, when the grid goes down, your solar will stop working. If you have solar plus a battery system, then your solar will continue to work as long as you have energy in that battery. But if you have a microgrid, that provides an extra level of energy resilience. And the Clean Coalition is very proud that we've worked with Santa Barbara Unified School District to deploy 14 solar plus storage and solar microgrid systems that's solar or solar microgrids at a single site behind that meter. And now we are working to deploy community microgrids both in the South County and North County as well. And you can't do that without having energy storage.

What's a microgrid?

Right. So a microgrid takes some sort of generation source, like solar in this case. It combines it with battery storage. And then it takes hardware and software controls. So you can determine if an outage happens and the rest of the grid shuts down, your microgrid forms what's called an island.

And that island continues to function because of your solar and your battery storage. And you can also choose, are there certain critical loads that we need to prioritize to sustain? For example, the fire station, that would be your dispatch so you can coordinate emergency response, and your pumps so you can keep your fire trucks moving. And having community microgrids at the level that we are trying to work towards would ensure multiple days worth of power for the full electrical load within that footprint of the community microgrid.

Okay. Well, you Mr. Schwartz. Thank you.

So before we move on to our online speakers, just with the help of our CSB TV staff, just wanted to make sure that we didn't have any speakers in our South County Hearing Room first.

This is Fire Marshal Tan. There's there's no public speakers here.

Thank you, sir. Appreciate that. Alright. Moving on to our online speakers. And again, if you like to speak, raise your hand. Our first speaker will be Isabelle Stice to be followed by Juan Lares, and then Deborah Williams.

Hi, everyone. Can you hear me?

Yes. Go ahead when you're ready.

Hello? Amazing. Hello, everyone. Good morning. My name is Isabelle.

I am a policy communications associate with the Clean Coalition, and I'm also a student at UCSB. I know Ben got to talk on, a few of our amendments that we've proposed, but I just wanted to emphasize a few more key things. Starting with just as a pretext, projects with under the streamlining permitting process, in any tier would still be regular rigorously evaluated and tested in every other stage of the project development process. And this is important context in regards to our proposed amendment in moving parking canopy solar from tier two to tier one. To go into that a little bit further, parking canopy solar is currently grouped in with ground mounted solar in tier two despite their different impact levels.

Park canopy solar is deployed on the built environment. So place basically, places that have been previously developed, experienced grading, paving, and other development process already that could cause potential environmental harm. And as a result, these park and canopy projects fail to result in any sort of land use changes or habitat impacts associated with ground mounted solar. Under a clean coalition study of solar siting potential in the county, there's about 70% of our potential that exists on parking lots and parking structures. And by placing unnecessary barriers to development on these areas, the county would effectively prevent projects with minimal environmental efforts or environmental impacts from moving forward.

Although it might be said that permitting requirements under tier two are relatively inconsequential, this statement would be relatively incorrect as the additional financial and time costs associated with these additional burdens often can be the difference between the success and the failure of a project. I also wanted to go back to the first amendment that Ben had proposed on additional restrictions to behind the meter projects and just reemphasize that these projects don't require any planning permits. And the purpose of this ordinance is not, to cut further restrict solar, but instead, to enable front of the meter projects or those utility scale solar projects. And although the Clean Coalition understands the intent of the ordinance to streamline the process, this would be a step in the wrong direction as it would induce those additional restrictions on those behind the meter projects. So we strongly urge the commission to consider amending the ordinance to include explicit language that exempts behind the meter projects from any new stringent requirements.

I wanna reemphasize that the Clean Coalition is support is in support of the goals to offer the meter solar development throughout the county and establishing a streamlined set of permitting requirements. But I would strongly urge the commission to consider these amendments in order for the ordinance to properly achieve these goals and for our county to be able to efficiently move forward in its renewable energy goals. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Our next speaker will be mister Lares to be followed by Deborah Williams and then Anna Citron.

Hello? There we go.

Sorry about We can hear you. Go go ahead.

Oh, yeah. No problem.

Go ahead.

Morning, chair and commissioners. My name is Juan Ladis, and I work with regional partners focused on community engagement and equitable energy planning across Central Coast. First, I wanna start by thanking you and county staff for the work that has gone into updating the solar ordinance. Creating clear and more practical pathways for solar and solar plus storage projects is an important step if Santa Barbara County wants to meet its energy, economic, and climate goals. There are a few improvements that would help ensure the ordinance achieve these goals.

First, as others have mentioned, projects on the built environment such as rooftops, parking lots, and structures should be category in tier one and exempt from planning permit requirements. These projects use already developed spaces, have minimal land use impacts, and provide clear public benefits such as shade and local energy generation. Second, the ordinance should avoid adding new permitting requirements for projects that already qualify for streamline review. Clear and predictable rules help reduce unnecessary unnecessary costs and delays while still maintaining the county's oversight and safety standards. Third, small battery energy storage systems paired with solar should also be included in tier one.

Energy storage plays an important role in maintaining reliability during peak demand, heat events, and the countless emergencies we face in the region. Santa Barbara County's grid is relatively constrained and vulnerable to outages and disruptions. Expanded expanding responsibly cited solar and storage can strengthen local energy resilience by allowing more power to be generated and stored closer to where it is used. Taken together, these updates would help ensure the ordinance supports responsible clean energy development while maintaining the county's ability to evaluate projects carefully and protect community priorities. I encourage the commission to incorporate these improvements and move the ordinance forward. Thank you for your time and service.

Our next speaker will be Deborah Williams to be followed by Anna Citron.

Good morning, chair and commissioners. My name is Deborah Williams, and I'm making sure you're hearing me. Are you hearing me?

Yes. Go ahead.

Oh, very good. Because my time didn't start going down. So excellent. Let's start from the beginning again. Good morning, chair and commissioners. My name is Deborah Williams. I'm a resident of Galita, and it is an honor to speak with you this morning. This issue is coming up at a very important historical time. I think we recognize here and throughout the nation and the world that renewable energy, energy storage to help us detach from our dependence on oil and natural gas is more important than ever. So it is very timely that you are considering this.

I not only own a home in Goleta, but we have 16 solar panels on the home and we just installed a full house Franklin storage, which we are enjoying a great deal. We are walking the talk. I am also a lecturer at UCSB in the Environmental Studies Department. And I can't say I'm officially channeling my students in this presentation. But I strongly believe that taking the actions that the Clean Coalition is suggesting, is recommending, is important not just for us, but important for our students and future generations.

And so I really encourage you to accept the recommendations of the clean coalition, both in my professional, personal and intergenerational equity capacity. I would just like to highlight three of their recommendations in the time remaining. First, we happen to live just a few blocks from the Galita Valley Middle School, and they're wonderful solar parking lot project. These are throughout the city and throughout the county. Everything should be done to promote the expansion of solar parking lot projects.

And so they should definitely all be categorized as tier one projects. And, they should be advanced wherever possible. This not only is good for our, independence from non renewable fossil fuels, but also as a message to our youth that we are invested in their future. I also strongly recommend the adoption of the storage recommendation. It's just a quarter of an acre maximum.

A battery storage, again, we're walking the talk and that in general, the recommendation one, the ordinance should not create additional restrictions or requirements for projects that do not require planning permits notably behind the meter projects. Thank you so much for listening to this testimony. I really appreciate commissioner Ford's comments and or other comments. And please do the right thing. Thank you very much.

Thank you. And our final speaker will be Anna Citroen.

Good morning. Can you hear me?

Yes. Go ahead.

Great. Good morning, Chair Reid and Planning Commissioners. I'm Ana Citroen, legal and policy director for the Gaviota Coast Conservancy. GCC understands just how important the transition to renewable energy is, and we generally support this ordinance and in particular efforts to advance solar projects within the built environment. We do have some concerns about tier four facilities on agricultural and undeveloped lands, and specifically, we do not support allowing tier four facilities on the Gaviota Coast, particularly within the coastal zone.

The Gaviota Coast is the last relatively undeveloped coastal landscape in Southern California. It's a global biodiversity hotspot and has many important cultural and historic sites. Agriculture on the Gaviota Coast continues a long legacy of Coastal California agricultural history that has disappeared from our coast elsewhere. To protect these irreplaceable resources, GCC has consistently fought to prevent industrialization of energy systems, including community scale solar energy facilities on the Gaviota Coast can be a meaningful part of the transition to renewable energy. However, large tier four facilities are, in our view, not compatible with this resource sensitive agricultural landscape.

The Gaviota Coast plan struck a delicate balance in articulating what a future enabling ordinance for renewable energy projects on the Gaviota Coast should allow, resulting in Gaviota Coast plan action TEI seven, which calls for an enabling ordinance for community and utility scale wind projects, but only community scale and not utility scale solar. We raise this issue at each public comment opportunity on this ordinance and the PEIR, but the package before you today does not include an option to exclude the Gaviota Coast planning area. The EIR does, however, identify an environmentally superior alternative that disallows tier four facilities in the coastal zone throughout the county. Adopting this alternative in lieu of the proposed project would only reduce land available for utility scale facilities I mean, tier four facilities by 8% in the EIR and would reduce substantially reduce many of the class one impacts and and appears readily feasible based on the EIR. We respectfully request that the planning commission take one of two actions to protect against industrialization of the Gaviota Coast, either approve the ordinance with a change disallowing tier four facilities within the Gaviota Coast plan area, or approve alternative three.

Thank you very much. Appreciate your consideration of this important ordinance.

I have a question for miss Sidran, mister chair. Oh, commissioner Park? Yes. I have a question for you about something very specific. Los Flores Canyon, where the processing facility is.

Years ago, I was at a site visit there and I asked a simple, innocent question that has ignited a controversy that's been behind all of the oil controversy since then. And that was, how many GHGs on an annual basis are emitted by that cogeneration facility? And the answer was over 300,000 metric tons. It's something we think about if we're going to start a pipeline again. And so I suggested that that co generation plant be replaced by a solar facility?

If that was to occur, which would be a dream of mine, would would that that violate what you suggest this should happen in this ordinance that that that kind of facility could not occur at Los Flores Canyon?

Thanks for bringing that up, commissioner Park. That that was something I was not aware of, in terms of the suggestion to convert an existing highly impactful facility to a a less impactful renewable facility. And I I think in theory, we would be supportive of that effort, and how to accommodate it within the framework of this ordinance would be a question, perhaps a carve out for existing industrialized facilities. Does that answer your question? It

does. Just see that nothing is as simple as it seems. And that sometimes by saying, well, we don't want this use in this particular area, it actually can increase the environmental damage, not lessen it. Alright, thanks.

Thank you.

So with

no more speakers?

Mr. Chairman was our last speaker.

Okay. So with that, do we have any responses from staff relative to the public comment?

Mr. Chair, Commissioners, I know there was a previous request to walk through the recommendations from the Clean Coalition's and CEC's letter. So, prepared to do that. But, besides that, just a couple questions that I heard. Some of them came pretty rapid fire. So I don't really couldn't really absorb them. But a couple clarifications. Mary Hayden was asking about contracted land. And the regulations are by the type of contract, not by whether there's prime soils. So in the case of a large ranch, that would be a non prime contract.

So you'd be permitted up to that 10% or 100 acres allowance, which sounds like would accommodate that type of project that was being considered. And then I think Claire Wyman had a question about what's considered on-site versus off-site. And if you had it on a separate parcel serving, like, say, cooler next door on a separate parcel, would that be considered off-site? And again, I think you kind of we don't necessarily define on-site or off-site from a parcel perspective. So you have to look at what its intended use is.

And if it's clear it's all part of the same operation, it just happens to be on the separate parcel, I think we would likely consider that to be for on-site use. And so otherwise, I think a lot of what we heard kind of would be covered by walking through the Clean Coalition recommendations and requests. So if you'd like me to jump into that, we can do that.

What do we feel? Do we want to do that now? Or would it be I'm almost getting to the feeling that this needs to be continued so staff could contemplate and incorporate this? What are your feelings?

Mr. Chair, my preference would be to talk through that now. And then certainly continuances, if that's what you'd like, is appropriate. But we always prefer continuances with clear direction and something to come back with. So I prefer to walk through some responses. And if that triggers any considered text changes or changes to the project before you for your, you know, your final recommendation or action, that would make our lives a lot easier. That would be my preference.

That's your wish. I think I would be fine with that. I noticed Commissioner Park has his light on.

I need to hear it now today. Think. Okay.

Just want, if I may. I'm up for hearing what's going to be done right now. But I'm to be honest with you is that as I hear these things coming at me, I can't say that I'm just going to take it all in and make a decision based upon that. That's going to have to be contemplated. So, I welcome everything. And it probably, to me personally, I would think that I would follow-up with questions later on down the road, which is instead of being in the hot seat here in front of everybody, trying to get some understanding of it and come back with some true deliberative remarks in regards to it. But I just wanted to say that out loud.

Okay. Thank you. So Mr. Tuttle.

So as was indicated, the the the end of their letter identified eight requests or or recommendations. So I'm just gonna walk through those and feel free to interrupt me. So the first one is the ordinance should not create additional restrictions or requirements for projects that do not currently require planning permits, notably behind the meter projects. So as was discussed, the current regulatory framework puts solar projects kind of into two buckets. There's utility scale, which is basically anything that's not for on-site use regardless of the size.

And then there's sort of personal use or on-site use regardless of the size. And one is exempt and the other is only allowed in the Cuyama Valley 600 acre overlay. So and let me just make one minor correction. In the coastal zone, things are a little different, which is any freestanding ground mounted solar project in the coastal zone requires a CDP currently. And that would continue to be the case.

So in the coastal zone, we're not increasing the the current permit requirements for ground mounted freestanding solar. In the inland area, we are proposing to establish through our tiers some structure to what would be allowed. And we were criticized we've been criticized as an agency from the get go of the odd way in which we currently regulate solar, which is by putting everything that's front of meter into the utility scale category and everything behind the meter into the personal category. So in sort of response to that criticism and feedback, we have moved away from that into focusing more on the land use as opposed to where the energy is going. So we've created this tiered structure based on size as a way of providing some structure and clarity in terms of what is allowed in the different permit levels.

So what we attempted to do with tier one is to create a framework that would allow for an unlimited amount of rooftop or building integrated solar, so there's no size limit to be exempt under tier one. And that rooftop or building integrated solar can be used for front of meter, behind the meter. We don't care. Most of those will likely be behind meter, but it doesn't have to be the case. We've moved away from that.

For ground mounted or freestanding, we have established a half acre cap for to be considered tier one or exempt. We determined the half acre to be an appropriate amount that would accommodate most on-site uses, particularly when you can add or supplement that by roof mounted or building integrated. If your commission or the board wants that cap to go bigger, that is certainly within your discretion. But that was the amount that was identified, say, to accommodate a residential use or other on-site uses. The tier two category was specifically created to provide and try to accommodate what we have been seeing a lot of, which are like these solar canopies over parking lots.

We've seen a lot of schools incorporate those businesses, government agencies that we can see across the street. So we created that tier two to accommodate that. The permit level, rather than making them exempt or allowing them as exempt without any max size. We did put them into a zoning clearance level, which is a ministerial staff level permit. So it's not a discretionary approval.

We have put up a five acre size limit, was selected based on feedback to accommodate something like a microgrid. You heard from a clean coalition about microgrids that they're developing mostly on the built environment. So five acres would accommodate those types of systems, as well as projects that you see around the community. And again, that would be a tier two zoning clearance approval process. Again, if your commission or the board wants to capture that within the tier one framework without a size limit, there's certainly the ability to do that or restructure how that's arranged.

We can certainly consider that. But that was a framework to try to create some structure, some upper limits, and to distinguish between what are really for on-site personal use versus a tier two project can be for on-site or off-site generation. We don't distinguish between it. Again, we've kind of moved away from front a meter, behind a meter, are just focusing on the project size and scale. Tier one and tier two are allowed in all zones.

And, yeah, I'm reminded that. So we we have proposed that for a certain subset of zones, mainly those zones that have are particularly resource sensitive or are intended to protect sort of a use. So our Ag zones, our resource management, our mountainous zones, those tier two projects in those zones would be limited to on-site use. We don't really think those zones are appropriate for off-site tier two utility generation. So that's why we've structured it the way it is.

It is different than the current structure in terms of providing some limits for that would come into play for behind the meter. But we do believe that the half acre allowance for the tier one exempt level should be sufficient to accommodate most on-site uses combined with no size limit for the roof mounted or building integrated. And then for the tier two, keeping it at a zoning clearance level in the inland area or non appealable CDP in the coastal zone that would actually be downshifting from what the current permit requirement is in the coastal zone was an appropriate starting point. Again, this is all open for debate and that's why we have these hearings. So if your commission and the board want to take a different approach or establish different limits or consolidate those tiers, that's certainly something that we can explore.

So scroll down. That's not the scroll down to the end. Keep going. It's all the way keep going. Okay.

The second recommendation. Parking canopy solar should be categorized as a tier one project like building integrated or roof mounted and thereby exempt from planning permit requirements at all project sizes. So I kind of touched on that with my first response. But we have proposed a five acre size limit for for those parking canopy scenarios And are proposing that it would fall within tier two, which would be a zoning clearance. It does have to be on the built environment or some area that's already developed or improved.

But we don't distinguish between how that energy is used. So it could be for on-site or off-site use. So again, currently, if it's for off-site use, you can't develop it under our existing regulations. If it's for on-site use, currently, it it would be exempt in the inland area, require a CDP in the coastal zone. So that is a bit of a shift again in sort of the way we were approaching these is moving away from the how it's being used to focusing on the size and scale.

If your commission and or board are interested in accommodating that through the tier one concept or umbrella, that's, again, something we can certainly explore. But we're trying to come up with this sort of stepwise or tiered approach to accommodate most situations without adding a lot of extra permit process. The zoning clearance, again, is intended to be at staff level. It's ministerial. It's just to make sure a project is reviewed for compliance with the development standards.

If it meets those standards, then the permit is issued, and they can move on to their building permit. So I don't think it would add a lot of time or process be burdensome. But that's up to your up to the decision makers. The third comment, energy storage both paired and standalone up to 10 megawatt hours should be included in tier one and exempt from planning permit requirements. So back to well, first of all, if it is paired, if it's just energy storage that is paired quarter of an acre, that would fall normally in the tier one category because a tier one can be up to half acre in size.

If it's standalone, back to a comment I made earlier, this project, the scope of this project was not to facilitate and approve or expand where battery standalone battery energy storage systems could be developed within the county. That was not what we were tasked with with this project. So, it's not something we have explored. It's not something the board asked us to look at. I understand battery storage standalone battery energy storage has a whole host of issues that we haven't really considered as part of this work effort.

So my recommendation is to kind of stay within our current project scope and focus on not get into the mix of addressing standalone battery energy storage. But if the decision makers want to consider that, if it meets the size allowances for tier one, something we could explore. I think the fourth recommendation is kind of the same thing. Storage, battery storage that meet tier one should be allowed in all zones. If it's paired with a solar project, it would be allowed in all zones.

So I think that comment again goes back to the notion of trying to allow for standalone battery energy storage systems, which is beyond the scope of this project. Fifth, for paired solar and storage projects where the solar component qualifies as tier one, permitting requirements should be determined based on the acreage of the storage. I'm not exactly sure what that is intending to mean, but the way we define the footprint allowances, it's it's it's the footprint of all all of the projects. So it would be the solar plus any impertinent structure. So if there's a battery component, if there's inverters, the footprint allowances capture the whole of the of the system.

So if the battery storage and the solar fell within the size allowances for tier one, then they'd be permitted as a tier one. I think the sixth one there's a weird numbering thing. Project should remain in tier one unless the storage footprint exceeds quarter acre. I think that's kind of the same comment. Seven, the ordinance should provide all actionable information upfront in one central location.

That's more like the way our ordinance might be organized. I can't really speak to that. I believe our ordinance is set up consistent with the way our ordinance is set up, and all of the solar regulations are packaged into one section of the zoning code. And then the eighth comment as far as how you determine project acreage, that is in our definitions for the different tiers and for the different systems and facilities. It does clearly state that the footprint or the acreage includes both the solar plus all the accessory equipment that is included as part of that.

That's I think that's our response to those questions or comments or recommendations. Happy to discuss any of those particular ones further. Or if you have any follow questions that you'd like me to elaborate on, happy to do that.

So I learned long ago, you can turn any comment into a question. And so I'm going to try here. And of course, as a preface, I need to make a comment that I generally favor these recommendations. But for item number four, which I didn't quite get, I'm kind of imagining what it would be like to have a Doctor 12 zone or something like that with a quarter acre battery storage facility standalone in the middle. So I'm not sure about item four.

But otherwise, I'm for all of those. And I realize that some of them are duplicative and some are already in your ordinance anyway. But of the things that are in those eight recommendations were we all to support them that might be included in the ordinance, is that something you do right now or is that something you need a continuance to do?

Commissioner Park to the chair, we would need a continuance.

Okay. Well, I'm in favor of that anyway. Alright. That's my question.

Commissioner Cooney, I'm sorry Commissioner Park stepped in front of you.

It's alright. Okay. It's happened before. Well, to begin with I think there's a marked improvement in what you presented And I liked a lot of what you and your team offered initially. And I thought what was going through my mind was there's no way we can do more than just kind of move it along.

It's like when it was brought to us, it's like the fourth inning and we could spend a lot of time and try to wordsmith things a little bit here and a little bit there. But, at least am prepared to support, the version that you just, spelled out for us.

Does that mean you support incorporating clean coalitions, pointers, or the whole thing?

How would you describe, what you did? I mean, I realize you could call it different things, but to me it was modifications of what the staff report started out with and what was commented upon by the public speakers. So, you know, if we don't accept some version here, I don't know that we're helping the process along.

Commissioner Acunae to the chair. I guess I would characterize my responses as not necessarily proposing any changes to the package that was before you, but just providing some rationale or thought process as to why we did what we did. If your commission is specifically interested in incorporating any of the recommendations from the comment letter, then we'd be looking for that direction. But my responses didn't necessarily offer up anything. It was more just answering questions.

One more thing. So Mr. Tuttle, standing on the precipice of moving this along, you would ask us to continue this to a date certain in the future and come back with additional thoughts and modifications? Or what's the purpose of the continuance?

That's correct. I would ask for a continuance with hopefully some specific guidance from your commission as to what, if any, tweaks you'd like us to consider to the set of ordinance amendments that would respond in part or in whole to what you've heard today. And then we would, depending on what you're asking or what you're interested in, we could decide how much time we would need in order to regroup and come back. All

right. Thank you. I would support incorporating many of the public comments we received, including the comments from Clean Coalition, perhaps with the exception of number four, which is I believe what Commissioner Park had mentioned. I sympathize with number seven, but as you said, it refers to the way most of these ordinances are organized. I think they're trying to say it's confusing.

And I'd agree, but we're not going to upset the apple cart and rearrange the way you conduct all of your business. So I'll sympathize on that one, but no. Don't move forward on it. One question I have. I'm looking at the, you know, alternatives.

Okay. Alternative three, they call it the environmentally superior alternative. While I support it while I support the Gaviota Coast Conservancy's position and city of Carpentaria's position. I don't know who decided to call it environmentally superior because I would not want to support that and leave our Williamson Act controlled lands unprotected? So is there some way of crafting perhaps a hybrid? One question. Okay.

Mister chair, commissioners. Yes. So the way alternatives work is the EIR looks at a range of alternatives and evaluates them against the project. The reason that alternative three was considered the environmental superior alternative over alternative two was just sort of overall on on balance. It reduced more impacts than alternative two did.

But it it doesn't necessarily mean it's a better alternative than alternative two. It's different alternative. But we've done it in the past of creating hybrid projects that incorporate bits and pieces from different project alternatives. So long as you're not really coming up with anything new that wasn't evaluated in some way within the EIR, you're able to kind of pick and choose and select bits and pieces from different alternatives. So you could combine theoretically both alternatives

Yeah, all right.

Bits and pieces.

And not to be facetious, if I did live in Goleta or somewhere, I would think three was the environmentally superior alternative. Living up here I think a little differently, but everybody needs to be accommodated. And I can certainly appreciate, given the zeal of the objections we get every time we look at any kind of development on the South Coast. I appreciate their point of view. Okay.

But, so with respect to alternative two, I have a question. Says, you know, in total under alternative two, tier three and four facilities could be located on approximately 285,691 acres of Williamson Act controlled land. Now I will pose to you a mathematics problem. How many premises are included in that 286,000 acres? And given the fact that each premises could have a 100 acre facility potentially, at most, what's the total amount of acreage that could be if every one of those premises used created a 100 acre facility?

Now what I'm getting at is not a math lesson. I'm just wondering what that would yield in terms of total acreage of photovoltaic, I would be kind in calling facilities, I won't say wasteland again. But how many acres that would be? Because I'm thinking along the lines, well, maybe we go with that. But perhaps we could think in the area of establishing a cap for like five years to see how many are built out.

At the end of five years, if that is satisfied, we could consider increasing the size of a cap. I just like the idea of a cap or an overlay as something of an insurance policy against overbuilding and some sort of unintended transformation of our county open spaces. So I'd like that to be considered. And I would invite opinions from other commissioners with respect to that.

So Mr. Chair, Commissioners, I think that's something that when if and when it's continued, we can come back with some data on how many premises there are out there, both prime and non prime contracts, to figure out if everyone were to come in with a project, what that maximum build out potential would be?

Yeah, would appreciate that. I think it would help us make a quite necessarily better informed decision with respect to the potential transformational aspects of this program. So are we ready for deliberations, leanings? Commissioner Park, I'm sorry I didn't see your light.

Well I'm always ready for deliberations. And I think we've kind of, from your comments, oozed over from questions into deliberations. Everybody's had an opportunity to ask questions, so let's do deliberations.

Deliberations.

And I want to make a general comment or two about some specific concerns of mine. And then I want to make a motion for a continuance. Which I think from what I've heard from the various commissioners, at least four commissioners are ready for a continuance, if not five. And so, let me go ahead. There's an irony here.

I I think a general purpose of these solar installations is to reduce GHGs and those kinds of things that come from hydrocarbon energy production. But part of the irony is if we put massive utility scale projects on rangeland, we're extinguishing the external benefits that all of us get from rangeland. The owners don't get them, but we get them. And that is the open space, the habitat, but especially the carbon sequestration. And that's, since this has been going on since 2014, and here we are today talking about an ordinance that shows how quick we are at the county to respond.

But in those eleven or twelve years, Mary Hayden's ranch and all the other cattle ranches are out there actively sequestering carbon through the oak trees and grasslands, and it's been very beneficial to us all. So I don't want to remove I'm wary of removing rangeland for solar installations if it's out of balance. What would I mean by out of balance? Every day, we open up the papers, well, don't open up the papers, you look on the internet, and you read about the tremendous demand for additional energy created by, a few years ago, it was cryptocurrency. And since our current administration makes a lot of money on cryptocurrency, we probably will keep seeing that.

But there's also tremendous amount of energy demand, and companies are specifically requesting plans for it, for artificial intelligence, large language model training. And gosh knows where that is ever going to wind up. I mean, it could be huge and huge amounts. And they'll soak up agricultural land with solar generation. I think it's something to think about.

So, do we really think that out of 700,000 acres in agriculture, we're going to lose a giant portion of it to a utility scale solar? We don't have enough to know. We we we really don't. So I do favor looking into, should we have some overall limit so that this county doesn't become the place like it was gonna be the place for cannabis and we become the place for AILLM solar generating facilities? Or do we say, you know, hey, maybe if we have 15 or 20,000 acres of it that's distributed appropriately, that's okay.

But we should at least think about that. I don't want to be the guy that sits around the Planning Commission and has to answer the questions ten, twenty years from now, if we've destroyed agriculture. And I'm also concerned about the distribution over agricultural property. Mary Hayden spoke about where on their eight or 9,000 acres it would be appropriate to have one and how it would fit with what parcels, and I know that ranch pretty well and I kind of see it. I don't see eight or 9,000 acres of solar there.

I don't see how you could do it, but you've got the right spot, there you go. But I'm very, very concerned about our limited supply of row crop land being converted into solar. I almost want to think about the same overlay we have for AEO that we have that for solar. I mean, I would want to think about that. And because I want to think about this stuff some more, I do want to have a continuance.

We need it. I would hope that you could look at the idea of an overall cap, what would be in the ballpark, And if we could be more specific on how we distribute these utility scale projects over our inventory of agricultural land. And I'd also ask, because I'm giving you instructions, that you incorporate the Clean Coalition recommendations, with the exception of number four. And knowing that some of those things you think you've already covered in the ordinance. But I certainly know on items one and two and some of the others you have not, and they'll need to be worked in.

So I will move for a continuance to the date that Mr. Wilson will tell me makes sense. And maybe he'll want to take a minute or two and take a break and talk to Mr. Tuttle about that.

Chair and commissioners, we're looking at May 6 as a potential date.

Okay.

As of right now, that would be that would be located in Santa Barbara due to this particular room being reserved by another entity. So May 6 would be in Santa Barbara.

And I've developed pretty good antennae over the years of knowing when the board wants something right now. And when we can help them out by taking the time to further consider it. I know I started my first day in the Planning Commission was the cannabis ordinance. They needed that draft done by 05:00 that day. And I wished I hadn't given it to them. But we don't have something like that here, right? I mean, no. Okay. You'd be telling us. So that's my motion. May 6. Can you do what you need to do by May 6?

Yes, Commissioner Parf, through the chair. May 6. We could probably come back April 29, but May 6 is fine.

Well,

they're both Santa Barbara. But let's just stick with May 6, and that should be sufficient. I do have, if it's appropriate, a couple clarifying questions.

Was there a preference, mister Wilson, to April 29? Or I guess I wasn't listening.

Commissioner Parks of the chair. We were just looking at locations. And those two dates are Santa Barbara. If there's a desire to have it in the Santa Maria, then May 13 is. We could have that in Santa Maria. But I don't know if it matters. So May 6 would be more efficient in bringing this back. I just want to be aware of the location.

But you know, with respect to location, I think that this is something that the whole county would weigh in on. And we've given North County a chance to weigh in on it conveniently here. And we should probably give South County the next round.

Should I do it?

I would lean towards putting it in the South County. One of the things I said that, well, I find it a bit disappointing. We have so many environmental groups who routinely appear to voice their opinion on any sort of rural developments that might affect our natural lands. Yet, they are strangely absent and mute here. So, perhaps if we have it in Santa Barbara, it would afford them the capacity to appear and make comment.

Letters are public comment.

Not nearly enough. Well, are. Few.

Anyway, my motion is May 6, Santa Barbara.

Mr.

Chairman. Take it from there. Do.

Could I ask, just clarifying also. Yes. To clarify what your recommendation for the continuance is, you recommending that the continuance be done so that these recommendations from coastal I'm sorry I'm going blank, but that the coastal suggestions be incorporated as a condition of the continuance?

Go ahead. Yes.

Okay, great.

I did exclude number four. Yes. And I did this realizing that we had comments from Mr. Tuttle that some of these ideas were already captured in the ordinance.

That's right.

But whatever way he sees fit to do that.

Do you need a second now or after Mr. Tuttle speaks?

I think we should wait for him to speak.

All right.

So, yeah, do just have a couple points of clarification. And that is with regard to battery energy storage, standalone battery energy storage. So their third recommendation is that energy storage project, whether it's paired or standalone up to quarter acres, should be included in tier one and exempt from planning permit requirements. But then four is three and four are kind of saying the same thing. Four is saying that storage projects meeting tier one should be expressly allowed in all zones.

That would mean a battery storage system with no planning permit allowed in a residential zone up to a quarter acre, a standalone. Is that something that you are wanting to see happen?

Speak to that. Yes. Yes.

Look,

I think that Mr. Schwartz gave a logical explanation, I even understood it, on microgrids in Isla Vista, for example, and that you might have a good practical need for a quarter acre or less standalone battery storage facility, but it's in affiliation with a nearby solar or some other purpose. Okay? But having what's called out in number four, which is allowing a battery storage facility in every zone, including design residential, without any connection whatsoever to solar or anything else. Mean, who knows what it would be generated with.

That seems overly broad to me. So that's why I left four out.

Okay. So,

but maybe there's a way to make it more specific.

Well, I mean, I guess I would contend that we already accommodate three, which is if you're doing battery storage in support of like a micro grid or supportive of a solar project, that would be allowed under our current set of proposals. It's the standalone battery storage that has no tie or connection to a solar project, a microgrid or what have you, that we're not addressing as part of this current package. And I just wanted to be clear on that, that what we're coming back with is not addressing standalone battery energy storage.

Yeah. Know, none of us here on the commission have the command the ordinance you have and what's needed to to really meaningfully comment on that. So I I that's that's where I'm looking to you to try to incorporate these recommendations. And if you come back and say, hey, we've already got it in there, here's where it is, I'll be satisfied. Okay. But I can't here at this time, and I don't think anybody else can say yes or no. We'd have to laboriously go through those things and determine it. We'd probably never come to a determination. And so some of these things will be relatively simple to do. I think the parking canopy solar, that's one that clearly there needs to be some change.

And I look for you to take the time to review these things and see if you need to incorporate others or make them more clear in the ordinance. And you'll report to us on May 6 and we'll do what we do then. And it's also like anything else at the Planning Commission, we may give you very clear instructions and a tentative decision. And after two months go by, and our brains don't remember anything that we did, or maybe we've just changed our minds, and we come up with a completely different motion. And that happens, you know that.

Thank you, Commissioner Park. And through the chair, and then I guess the last clarification or question, I did hear some that you'd like us to explore sort of an overall cap and come back with some information that might support consideration of that. Did you want us to do anything with regard to the project alternatives? And you heard from Gaviota Coast Conservancy preferring alternative three or at the very least prohibiting tier four within the Gaviota Coast or coastal zone? Did you want us to come back with any additional information on, some sort of hybrid alternative or anything of that nature?

I like either a hybrid or a carve out. I appreciate all the concerns that we have heard so many times about any sort of development on the Gaviota Coast. I appreciate Ms. Citroen's input on this. She is obviously an environmental oriented organization who actually did appear to make a comment.

I appreciate that. We should I I would I believe we should accommodate that as well as wishes of city of Carpinteria and avoiding tier four on the coastal zone. But at the same token, I want to ensure that our inland areas are also protected as an alternative too. So I I think what I'm asking about look at it either way, either a blend or a carve out of the the four in the coastal zone. Either one. I similarly appreciate the input of, Mr. Schwartz and clean coalition.

Okay, Mr. Chair, Commissioners, understood. I think what we might come back when we return is maybe some options for your consideration. We probably will not write it in ordinance format because it's still open to a lot of movement, I think. But we can at least come with some options

Well, think after we have the calculation based on acres available and number of premises, what that would produce, that'd give us a better basis to make a determination on if a cap would be feasible or necessary. You know, I don't want to limit so much that we don't wind up generating any electricity at all.

Right. If you go back to that map that we had up, if we took out all ag properties, we'd end up with very little solar capacity. So I think that would be contrary to the board's direction. It doesn't mean that an overall cap might not be appropriate or some additional limits. But understood.

Thank you. So Commissioner Park. You

know, I would like you to think about where, if there is a cap, where it's distributed among the agricultural properties. You know, I think there's I don't want to see it all in one place. And I'm not sure it all needs to be on range land, probably most of it will be. I don't really want to see it soaking up prime row crop land if we can avoid it. So I'd like to hear what staff thinks about this, and I'm going to think about it myself and talk to agriculturalists over that next two months.

And then specifically on the suggestion by the Gaviota Coast Conservancy about excluding Tier four utility scale in the Gaviota planning area. I think that's over broad and I explained that in my question. I mean, I've been saying for what is it now, six, seven years, that if you turn lost florist back on because you solve the transportation problem with trucking or with a pipeline, then you're going to increase the GHGs in this county by about 70%. Because the GHGs at that cogeneration plant emitted in 2015 were about 40 to 45% of the total GHGs in this county. So, you know, I think one solution, if that happens, and by the way, if it happens, it's outside of county control.

It's going be based on state and what the federal government does, which is never predictable. And so we may see that thing fire up again. And if it does fire up, I would sure hope that it got an EIR, and I would sure hope that one alternative would be electrical power produced by solar generation at Flores Canyon instead of the cogeneration plant that burns natural gas. So I do not favor that exclusion of all utility scale solar in the coastal zone, or that planning area, which they're not exactly the same.

Commissioner Martinez?

Oh, was just ready to vote on the continuance.

Oh, okay.

Commissioner Ford? Oh, sorry. Nope. Oh. I'm good.

So could you restate your motion just so we're we can get a second?

Yeah. Yes. The motion is to continue this matter to May 6 and to incorporate the coalition's recommendations. There's eight of them set forth on the end of their letter to us. But for those recommendations you think are already included in the ordinance, you'll explain that to us.

And also excluding item number four, and that you prepare some options relating to an overall cap on utility scale solar in this county, and on the distribution of utility scale solar on agricultural lands.

Chair Reid, Commissioner Park, does that motion also include looking at those, the cap and the distribution of ag, exploring options on the environmental alternatives as well?

Yeah. That too?

Sure. I'm not sure what that means, but other people want it. Go for it.

Yeah. I do. I can second it with that addition.

Okay. My thing, I would I would support that. I think two of the points that commissioner Park brought up that I was very concerned with and kind of revisited during my presentation were size, how much of the county do we want transformed, the cap, and where the placement, which he covered in his motion. And I would also support having that meeting in Santa Barbara to afford, as I said, the opportunity for the many environmental organizations that always weigh in on every project on the South Coast to give them a chance to on on a project like this, which has such potential for transfer pay transformation and effect on our natural sites in the county, give them a chance to comment, if they have any concerns about the potential damage or, on the other hand, in support of it. So I would invite them.

I'm a little disappointed none of them have, shown up thus far. So perhaps if we're in their home, that's fine. I would support that motion.

I would support the motion but I would also have to add that I, just being one of the five commissioners, I will email you suggestions in regards to it. Because I think every commissioner wants to convey to you their concerns. And I think going through all our interests or our concerns may be voluminous in time. But I'm all for the continuance. Thank you.

Any further comments? Are we ready for a vote?

Sure.

Let's do a roll call. Mr. Villalobos.

Commissioner Cooney. Aye. Commissioner Ford. Aye. Commissioner Park. Aye. Commissioner Martinez?

Aye.

And Chair Reid? Aye. Motion passes five to zero.

I want to thank staff for the good job to do this. Tough stuff to be covering. Absolutely. And and I also want to thank those who did come and comment because I think your comments were great. I really appreciate them.

With no more business, I will find us adjourned.

Thank you. Cheers.