Solar Farming


Mar 17, 2018

"Solar farms are not farms"
- Eve Kahn, Get a Grip on Growth

Update 12/17/19
In the past year the the American Canyon project has been built. But the project began an effort in the county to craft a Renewable Energy Systems Ordinance which defines where the construction of such projects is appropriate. The ordinance proposed on 12/17/19 excludes the use of ag and residentially zoned lands for such projects.
Video of the 12/17/19 hearing
NVR 12/17/19: Napa County to ban solar energy farms in ag areas pending a more detailed review

Update 12/5/18
With the return of Comm Hansen, the American Canyon solar farm was approved 3-2, Hansen, Whitmer, Mazotti for, Cottrell, Gallagher no. Comm. Hansen, noting that an ordinance is needed but not necessarily before approving a trend-setting project: "I don't think that this is building a plane while we're flying it." Maybe just building it without any plans.
Video of the 12/5/18 hearing

Update 11/28/18
Renewable Properties President Aaron Halimi, the developer of the projects in Coombsville and American Canyon, indicated at the 11/28/18 Planning Commission meeting that he had withdrawn the application for the Coombsville Palm Drive project. The Planning Commission split 2-2 on their vote to approve American Canyon project and it will be voted on again on Dec 5th, when Comm Hansen returns.

3/17/18
Two major solar farms have been proposed in Napa County. While the issue of the impact of solar arrays on the Napa landscape were raised by a couple of smaller projects, the movement of these two projects toward the Planning Commission have presented a real window into the potential impacts on our environment of this new and unregulated use of the land. One project on Palm Drive will cover a bucolic hillside in Cooombsville. The other will cover a horse ranch in American Canyon.

It's churlish, and un-PC, to bad-mouth solar power. But we should recognize, as solar power provides more and more of our energy, that solar collectors are attractive only in their novelty and their benefit toward prolonging life on earth. In fact they are little different in appearance than a full parking lot.

As small scale installations and solar farms begin to burden the landscape with arrays, the landscape will suffer. We see even now the jarring apparition of arrays climbing the hillsides behind homes and wineries, with little thought about their visual impact, but much admiration for the "green" commitment of their owners. And large solar arrays, as with the Palm Drive and American Canyon, are significant money makers that will further speed their adoption, particularly in areas with a lot of open space - like Napa. It is really time for a solar array ordinance to "mitigate" (I would prefer "eliminate") their visual impacts going forward.

There are issues beyond just the appearance and appropriateness of the location for these types of projects. This seems to be a wild west period for the development of green energy alternatives in the state, and the County and its residents need to take a closer look at the entire ecosystem of developers, like Renewable Properties wishing to tap into the relatively new community choice aggregators like Marin Clean Energy. This may be the wave of the future, but there may also be a wave of failures before the long term solution is found. It would be shame if a string of industrial of brownfield sites tarnishes the legacy of Napa's 50 year commitment to an agricultural and natural environment.

The County of Napa needs an ordinance to regulate the placement of these facilities before it begins approving them. The commitment to preserving agriculture will have been in vain if major chunks of the open space thus preserved are now available to the solar generation industry. Sonoma County has already developed an ordinance needed to regulate such projects. Napa should do the same before the first project is approved.

Documents
Proposed Renewable Energy Systems Ordinance
Sonoma County Renewable Energy Standards
County's American Canyon Solar page
10/17/18 Planning Commission video and agenda
County's Palm Drive Solar page
Community website: Napa Residents for Smart Planning

Articles
NVR 12/17/19: Napa County to ban solar energy farms in ag areas pending a more detailed review
NVR 8/16/19: New solar farm 'greens' former cockfighting site in American Canyon
Gene Bennetts LTE 1/21/19: Solar Farms: The Precautionary Principle--or not?
NVR 1/15/19: Napa County supervisors want to adopt rules before approving another solar farm
NVR 12/6/18: Napa County approves what could be its first commercial solar farm
Aston Periera LTE 12/4/18: Solar Projects in the Napa County Ag Watershed/Ag Preserve
Patricia Tuck LTE 12/4/18 Cui Bono?
Tina Norman LTE 12/3/18: We need rules for solar farms
NVR 10/19/18: Napa County commercial solar proposal raises larger questions
Laura Tinthoff LTE 9/30/18: Keep our valley bucolic: No on Palm Drive solar
NVR 6/9/18: Napa Sanitation District could get nation's largest floating solar farm on ponds
NVR 7/18/18: Proposed utility solar farm in Napa's Coombsville neighborhood becomes a hot topic
NVR LTE 7/16/18: Solar project is not right for Coombsville
NVR LTE 7/13/18: Wrong site for solar project
NVR 7/11/18: Two proposed Napa County solar projects would power 2,000 homes
NVR 4/25/18: Gateway to the city of Napa getting stealth solar farm
NVR 3/17/18: State wants half-acre solar array along Napa's Silverado Trail
NVR 1/20/16: Napa welcomes Marin Clean Energy into city's power market

Posts

You must log in to add comments | Share this topic
9 comments



The solar powered landscape

Bill Hocker - Apr 22, 2022 3:07AM  Share #1838

Update 4/22/22
A private residential solar panel project is scheduled to appear before the Planning Commission on 5/4/22. The documents are here. It is only on the PC docket because exemptions are needed for construction on slopes over 30%, not because of its visual impact on the environment.

The fuzzy photo at the right shows what the installation (top arrow) might look like from the center of the valley. It may be more or less visible. It might be darker or brighter (especially if the sun reflects off it.) I am not creating it to object to this particular project but to show that solar projects do have a visual impact that are at odds with the natural landscape. It is an impact that should be considered as more and more of these project are proposed. The bottom arrow shows an existing array.

The use of solar power, of course, is necessary if we are to meet climate GHG reduction goals in this climate crisis. But the glut in solar power that already exists shows that the ultimate solution is in large scale storage and distribution rather than more individual solar arrays. And there are impacts in building thousands of private arrays, particularly potential visual impacts in a county that derives some of its income from the appreciation of the natural beauty of its environment. Thus far the discussions on solar power have not highlighted visual impacts.

The county seems at the moment to have shelved the proposed ordinance on renewable energy systems, including individual and large-scale solar arrays, in the county. The last action the BOS took regarding that ordinance was to ban solar farms on ag or residential land until the ordinance could be finalized.

Even if it were in effect, the proposed ordinance does not address the visual implications of projects. This is a negligent omission. At the least they should be regulated specifically under the county's view-shed ordinance which would apply to slopes under 30% as well and require planting to screen the view. Until the county does so, there should also be a moratorium on private deployment as well. (Unfortunately the view-shed ordinance seems to be doing little to prevent visible development defacing hillside views, but that's another discussion...)

In crafting zoning ordinances, there is a government obligation to consider the maximum impact that the zoning will permit. Not to do so is cumulative negligence. As the panoramic wetland and vineyard entry to wine country is now being converted to an alley of warehouses, that negligence is upon us. In the battles over winery development, the County was asked to consider the cumulative-impact question: what if every property that is allowed to have a winery builds a winery. The attitude seemed to be that ain't gonna happen, trust us. As I look at the winery approvals at our Soda Canyon Road junction their blasé attitude is definitely beginning to look like cumulative negligence.

So with solar arrays: what if every homeowner builds a solar array on the hillside above their house. There are implications to the visual character of the bucolic landscape that we and visitors treasure. That implication needs to be vetted before the county begins issuing permits, lest it become another example of cumulative negligence in the county's stewardship.

Update 4/25/18
NVR 4/25/18: Gateway to the city of Napa getting stealth solar farm
Exactly the solution needed for the Rector dam corporation yard!

Update 3/17/18
NVR 3/17/18: State wants half-acre solar array along Napa's Silverado Trail

The Trail is already filling up with garish homes and event centers and parking lots and left turn bumps and now the indignity of an industrial power plant.

It's churlish, and un-PC, to bad-mouth solar power. But we should recognize, as solar power provides more and more of our energy, that solar collectors are attractive only in their novelty and their benefit toward prolonging life on earth. In fact they are little different in appearance than a full parking lot.

As every home and business begins to burden the landscape with an array, the landscape will suffer. We see even now the jarring apparition of arrays climbing the hillsides behind homes and wineries, with little thought about their visual impact, but much admiration for the "green" commitment of their owners. And large solar arrays, as with the half acre at Rector, are significant money makers that will further speed their adoption, particularly in areas with a lot of open space - like Napa. It is really time for a solar array ordinance to "mitigate" (I would prefer "eliminate") their visual impacts and potential consumption of ag land going forward.

About the Rector array: this is an ideal opportunity to propose a 6-8' berm (a modest bit of earthwork perhaps garnished with vines) at the front of the property to hide both the panels and the corporation yard with its industrial detritus. It could be constructed perhaps with a bit of the 1400 acre feet of silt washed down from the vineyard development in the hills that currently diminishes the capacity of the reservoir. A definite win-win for all.

The solar power glut

Bill Hocker - Dec 4, 2019 11:46AM  Share #2054

At the Planning Commission meeting on Dec 4th to discuss a proposed Renewable Energy Ordinance for the county, one of the commenters mentioned that currently California must pay other states to take our excess solar power. That's interesting. I Googled it:

LA Times 6/22/17: California invested heavily in solar power. Now there's so much that other states are sometimes paid to take it

The article is two and a half years old. A lot of solar installations have been built in the state, including the one in American Canyon, in the meantime. A more recent, and dire, article is here with graphs: California's Mid-Day Solar Power Glut Has Become Obvious

This apparent glut is a fact that needs to be included in the discussion. Renewable energy is the necessary future of our energy needs. But the glut indicates that the creation of renewable energy is far ahead of the ability to store and distribute it. The sense of righteous urgency over the approval of projects at this point would seem premature. It makes little sense to build projects that may actually not be reducing the amount of fossil fuel energy production and will in fact require some citizens of the Sate of California (perhaps Napans) to continue to subsidize the use of solar power in adjacent states.

Renewable Energy Ordinance

Bill Hocker - Nov 25, 2019 12:21PM  Share #2018

Update 12/17/19
NVR 12/17/19: Napa County to ban solar energy farms in ag areas pending a more detailed review

Update 11/25/19
NVR 11/25/19: Napa County taking a close look at utility-scale solar farms

Update 11/13/19
The County has updated its draft Renewable Energy Systems Ordinance and will be presenting it to the Planning Commission on Nov 20, 2019. The meeting agenda and documents are here.

Note that the second solar farm project in the county is coming up before the Planning Commission on 12/18/19.

Following the American Canyon solar farm approval and the public concern over its potential precedent for the industrial development of ag lands, under the draft ordinance agricultural and residential zones will be excluded from future commercial renewable energy development. County Planner John McDowell has sent this email asking for comment.

Dear Napa County Stakeholder,

Attached for your review and comment is a draft ordinance updating Napa County’s development regulations for renewable energy systems. Notable components are:

- Codifies County’s current practices of allowing ‘accessory renewable energy systems’ such as small solar systems as a matter of right, but limits the system to meeting on-site power needs of private residences, business, and agricultural uses. Applies ministerial development standards consistent with other allowed accessory uses.

- Establishes regulations for ‘commercial renewable energy facilities’ for power generation facilities that provide feed-in tariff power to the public utility grid.
These uses are excluded from agricultural and residential zoning districts, and allowed with a Planning Commission Use Permit in industrial, commercial, and public facility districts.
Establishes comprehensive development standards for such uses

- Codifies County’s current practices of allowing emergency power generators for use during power outages. Generators limited in size to meet on-site power needs only.

- Repeals antiquated ‘small wind energy’ code requirements that expired in 2017.

Please direct comments or questions to John McDowell at john.mcdowell@countyofnapa.org or (707) 299-1354. A public hearing before the Planning Commission is tentatively set for November 20, 2019 [now scheduled for Dec 4, 2019] . Upon conclusion of the Planning Commission’s recommendation, the draft ordinance will be scheduled for a public hearing before the Board of Supervisors.

Sincerely,

John McDowell
Napa County Planning, Building and Environmental Services Department
(707) 299-1354

4/24/19
NVR 4/24/10: Napa County formulates rules for utility-scale solar farms

NV2050 Newsletter writeup on the meeting (with a great photo)

At the Apr 23, 2019 BOS meeting (item 9A here) the Supes took up the issue of regulating the development of commercial solar farms in the County - unfortunately after the County has already approved its first solar farm on agricultural land in American Canyon. The staff letter is here.

The Supervisors did not rule out, in this initial discussion, the use of ag lands for solar development. Sup. Wagenknecht even went as far to say that there is only a limited amount of urban and industrial land in Napa County and that he would not want to limit solar farming to those areas which might reduce the amount of development that could occur there. It was ominous that Napa's greenest Supervisor would rather have solar competing with agriculture rather than industry for land. In a foreshadowing of the pitfalls of allowing solar development on ag lands, a solar power proponent spoke in public comments about using lands too steep for winery or vineyard development for solar power.

The idea of using industrial rooftops and parking lots for large scale solar installations was brought up by Sup. Ramos. It is the most sensible solution, particularly since the county seems committed, unfortunately, to millions of square feet of industrial development that involve both huge flat roofs and huge parking lots. State code now requires all non-residential buildings to be "solar ready", but why not go all the way. The solar energy developers should be working with the major warehouse developers to develop a synergy that is profitable for both. The county could produce such a desirable partnership by simply requiring that industrial facilities provide renewable power equivalent to their power usage as part of the conditions of approval.

A 400,500 sf warehouse, Nova Wine Warehouse, will be up before the Planning Commission on May 1, 2019. Hopefully there will be some carryover from the BOS discussion on solar farms to the commission review.

The solar farm discussion followed a previous agenda item (item 9M here) devoted to climate change. Sup. Wagenknecht proposed a proclamation on the need for a regional approach to climate change and the establishment of a county authority to address the issues. According to Dir Morrison, the county's Climate Action Plan is coming back for another public round in a few weeks.

NVR 4/23/19: Napa County looks at coordinated climate protection effort with cities

AmCan solar farm

Bill Hocker - Apr 10, 2019 7:53AM  Share #1951


Update 8/16/19
NVR 8/16/19: New solar farm 'greens' former cockfighting site in American Canyon

Update 4/10/19
Citizen Tribune 4/9/19: Renewable Properties Breaks Ground on American Canyon Solar Project

Update 12/6/18
NVR 12/6/18: Napa County approves what could be its first commercial solar farm

With the return of Comm Hansen, the project was approved 3-2, Hansen, Whitmer, Mazotti for, Cottrell, Gallagher no.
Video of the 12/5/18 hearing

Update 12/3/18
Aston Pereira LTE 12/4/18: Solar Projects in the Napa County Ag Watershed/Ag Preserve
Patricia Tuck LTE 12/4/18 Cui Bono?
Tina Norman LTE 12/3/18: We need rules for solar farms

On 12/5/18 the Planning Commission returns to render their verdict with a full contingent after the 2-2 split decision on 11/28/18. The property is currently generating income for its owners as a horse and animal farm. Will Comm. Hansen vote for the further urban development of working ag lands? Or will the county decide in its wisdom direct staff to propose regulations for this new land use before rather than after the fact?

Update 11/28/18
NVR 11/28/18: Proposed American Canyon commercial solar farm awaits a tie-breaker

At the 11/28/18 Planning Commission meeting, the motion to approve the AmCan Solar project was split with Comms. Whitmer, and Mazotti for, and Comms. Gallagher and Cottrell against. Comm Hansen was absent. County Council indicated that given the tie the project must be agendized for the next meeting when the 5th member will be present. The project has been put on the Dec 5th agenda.

I'm a bit confused by the policy regarding a tie. In the Girard project, a 2-2 tie was interpreted as a loss of the motion. In the first ALUC hearing on the Palmaz heliport, the ALUC board split 3-3 and the hearing was renoticed for a future meeting. There had to be some clarification on this because the ALUC policy was different than the Planning Commission policy. Perhaps the Planning Commission policy changed? Comm Gallagher asked at the time, why would a hearing be scheduled if the members present are potentially not capable to make a binding decision. Good question.

Update 11/20/18
Planning Commission hearing on project 11/28/18

Agenda and documents
Staff letter for hearing
County's AmCan Solar Project page
Sonoma Co. renewable energy standards
Eve Kahn statement
Lisa Hirayama statement
NRSP/NCFB/NV2050 'quasi-utility' comments

Update 10/20/18
NVR 10/20/18: Napa County commercial solar proposal raises larger questions
The hearing has been continued to Nov 28, 2018

10/10/18
The second solar farm currently being proposed in the county will be up before the planning commission on Oct. 17th 2018. The agenda and documents are here.

The neg-dec notice is here. Less-than-significant impacts as usual. It will cover a hillside in the bucolic, actual American Canyon between Hwy 80 and the AmCan High School. Given the route, a viable alternative connection between Hwys 80 and 29, remaining a piece of the county's unpretentious ranch landscape was not in the cards. It might have become another vanity vineyard, but in this corner of the county closer to a freeway, the most profitable crop seems to be the guiding principle. If the County is willing to consider solar power plants as an acceptable use on ag lands, there are 45000 acres of land in the county already cleared with the intention of soaking up the sun waiting to be developed into more profitable use.

According to one website, leasing farmland for solar collectors might produce a net profit of "somewhere between $21,250 and $42,500 per acre on an annual basis". Compare that to the $7000/ton x 4 ton/acre = $28,000/acre gross revenue from vines in Napa County. With costs of perhaps $16000/acre that would leave $12000/acre/yr net profit, far below the money to be made from a solar farm. While not every farmer would be interested in doubling their income by converting to solar power, there is definitely an incentive to do so.

There is a real need for the County to develop a policy and ordinances for solar development before any projects are considered for approval. Sonoma County already has an ordinance. This question needs to to be answered first: why should agriculturally zoned land, the "highest and best use of the land" in the County's oft-touted phrase, be used for power plants rather than relegating such an expansive industrial use to industrially zoned land?

This illustration shows the size of the American Canyon solar array (18 acres large) in comparison to the ultimate Napa Logistics buildout. The array is about 3/4 the area of the largest building in the complex. The County should ask why solar collection can't be incorporated into industrial or commercial uses to offset the costs of both, as rooftop or parking lot installations (as in the Gasser HQ parking lot)? Would it not make sense to initially target large solar power projects for the industrial areas and uses that need generous amounts of power to operate, and leave ag lands for ag uses?

The NFRSP group has published a statement opposing the project on the NV2050 website here:
Planning Commission: Wait! We need a plan on solar before we set any precedents!

No on Palm Drive solar

Bill Hocker - Nov 28, 2018 7:47AM  Share #1950



Update 11/28/18
At the 11/28/18 hearing on the American Canyon Solar Project, the developer indicated that they have withdrawn their application for the Palm Drive Solar Project. Temporary or permanent?

Update 9/30/18
Laura TInthoff LTE 9/30/18: Keep our valley bucolic: No on Palm Drive solar

9/20/18

Another community group has formed to oppose the urbanization of the "agricultural lands and rural character that we treasure", this time to prevent a wooded hillside in Coombsville from becoming a power plant.

It is Napa Residents for Smart Planning?No on Palm Drive Solar.

Their very well done website does a good job of showing how inappropriate such an industrial project can be to a rural landscape.

The red splotches are stands of oak woodlands to be removed. Given the concerns raised by the Measure C campaign over the last year it is a bit shocking that a company would have the hubris to push forward such an industrial use of Napa's oak woodlands. The plan is one of the documents on the County's Palm Drive Solar page.

Lisa Hirayama letter on solar projects

Bill Hocker - Oct 18, 2018 3:10PM  Share #1953

Lisa Hirayama has written a good letter (as usual) to the Planning Commission concerning the 2 proposed solar projects in Coombsville and American Canyon:

Dear Planning Commissioners,

I am deeply concerned about the prospect of placing large commercial solar panel arrays in the Ag Watershed and Ag Preserve.

The two projects presented by the developer, Renewable Properties, and currently under consideration by Napa County Planning Staff, Planning Commissioners and the Board of Supervisors are the Palm Drive Solar Project and the American Canyon Solar Project.

Planning Staff has agreed that “the magnitude of this project is beyond the scope of our zoning regulations.” The proposed solar projects, while presented as a utility, in reality, would be privately run manufacturing facilities that transform sunlight into electricity which is transferred to the grid. These projects are truly incompatible to the beauty, biodiversity and bucolic nature of the Ag Watershed and Ag Preserve zones. The destruction of native mature oak trees whose ability to capture water and nurture species’ habitats is unacceptable, especially in this age of climate change. Removing oak trees and replacing them with solar panels that change the microclimates are counter intuitive to Napa County’s and the community’s concerns about climate change. The County hasn’t explored and doesn’t have the expertise to make decisions about the health and safety impacts of this type of technology to be constructed on this proposed scale in the Ag Watershed and Ag Preserve.

The Palm Drive project will have significant and permanent negative impacts on the aesthetic, economic and environmental qualities of Napa County. The removal of 3.5 hillside acres of mature blue oaks for non-agricultural, private financial gain will have a deplorable impact on the viewshed and impinge on the quality of life for that neighborhood and potentially Napa County. This proposed project would set a precedent for similar developments on non-cultivatable land for the entire county. There is nothing about this site location that is good for our environment, quality of life, or our economy.

The American Canyon site appears to be more suitable for this type of project, but it is also located in the Ag Watershed. Approval of this project will set a very alarming precedent for future projects in all of Napa County. I believe that citizens need to have a voice in this issue. I am not opposed to all commercial solar, but Napa County has no regulations in place for a project that is expected to last thirty years. The Winery Definition Ordinance was created to define, refine and regulate wineries. The Conservation Regulations were created to regulate vineyard development. Why should solar farms be any different? Neighboring counties have created ordinances or taken a stand on this matter. Napa County is ripe for commercial solar development and the long - term consequences of this decision haven’t been thoroughly considered.

Marin County Supervisors made a decision on solar energy recently, and I believe that Napa County is in the exact same position with regard to these two solar projects. The Marin County Supervisors made their decision based on the very point that Marin County is not equipped to make this decision. Napa County’s current zoning regulations don’t address or provide for consideration of this kind of project in the Ag Watershed and Ag Preserve.

Sonoma County, which is significantly larger than Napa County, has reviewed their zoning regulations with regard to solar in their valleys and on their hillsides. They’ve drafted their zoning ordinance to address the issues that solar brings to the forefront. They’re similar to Napa County in that they have as much natural beauty to protect and preserve and as much to lose by not doing so.

Napa County is allowing more and more development into the hillsides which equates into removal of mature oak woodlands. Walt Ranch is already one devastating environmental project that has been approved by the County with little regard for neighbors or water issues. The Palm Drive project will open the doors for more financial projects into the hillsides and watersheds when consideration should be given to saving mature trees, not cutting them down.

The Planning Staff, Planning Commissioners and Board of Supervisors should NOT create a precedent by approving or recommending either of these projects without taking an opportunity to appropriately revise county zoning regulations. With no ordinance yet in place for a project of this magnitude, this project is detrimental to many residents and the agricultural land itself. To name a few problems: there is no minimum parcel size, no setbacks, no limits on percentage of parcel coverage, no viewshed protections, and the long term implications of this type of decision have yet to be considered.

I encourage the County, as it redrafts the Climate Action Plan, to initiate and develop solar power that is generated on site and remains within our region. County owned rooftops, parking lots and the Napa County Airport are just a few examples of the many suitable sites for solar panels in which the county government could take the lead. It is our elected and appointed officials, rather than private individuals, corporations and developers, who should be accountable for creating regulations with substantial input from citizens.

The Napa County General Plan states that “Napa County will be a place where agriculture is the primary land use and where a vast majority of the county is open space....” The Renewable Properties solar farm proposals are inconsistent with the General Plan and should be denied for that reason and far more. Until county zoning regulations are revised to incorporate solar farms, approval for these projects should be denied or postponed.

Sincerely,
Lisa Hirayama

Solar farms are not farms

Bill Hocker - Oct 16, 2018 7:54AM  Share #1952

Fatal error: Uncaught DivisionByZeroError: Division by zero in /home/dh_j7669c/sodacanyonroad.org/forum.php:586 Stack trace: #0 {main} thrown in /home/dh_j7669c/sodacanyonroad.org/forum.php on line 586