HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04172012 - SD.6 (2)RECOMMENDATION(S):
AUTHORIZE the Department of Conservation & Development to: (1) initiate a General
Plan Amendment study for a comprehensive review of policies pertaining to energy
production, renewable energy resources, and climate change in response to new state
mandates; (2) update the Zoning Code for the purpose of allowing development of
commercial solar energy facilities in Contra Costa County; and (3) review County
Williamson Act program rules and Zoning Code regulations regarding solar energy
facilities.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Initiation of the General Plan review on policies pertaining to energy production, renewable
energy resources, and climate change in response to new state mandates and a Zoning Code
update to allow development of commercial solar energy facilities in unincorporated Contra
Costa County would be accommodated under the Department of Conservation &
Development’s budget. The cost in staff time and materials for this effort is estimated to be
in the range of $75,000 to $150,000. The Department will be pursuing grant opportunities to
support this effort.
APPROVE OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
Action of Board On: 04/17/2012 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor
Mary N. Piepho, District III
Supervisor
Karen Mitchoff, District IV
Supervisor
Federal D. Glover, District V
Supervisor
ABSENT:Gayle B. Uilkema, District II
Supervisor
Contact: Patrick Roche, DCD, (925)
674-7807
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: April 17, 2012
David Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By: June McHuen, Deputy
cc:
SD. 6
To:Board of Supervisors
From:Catherine Kutsuris
Date:April 17, 2012
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:County response to new State mandates related to renewable energy / climate change
BACKGROUND:
I. California's Renewable Energy Mandate and the County's Role
The State of California has ambitious plans for renewable energy. A recently enacted
state law requires that, by 2020, one-third of the state’s electricity come from renewable
energy sources. This new law codified the California Energy Commission’s Renewables
Portfolio Strategy (RPS) Program that set a goal of generating 33 percent of California’s
electrical power from renewable energy sources, including solar and wind power. This
new RPS preempts the California Air Resources Board's 33 percent Renewable
Electricity Standard and applies to all electricity retailers in the state including publicly
owned utilities, investor-owned utilities, electricity service providers, and community
choice aggregators. All of these entities must adopt the new RPS goals of 20 percent of
retails sales from renewables by the end of 2013, 25 percent by the end of 2016, and the
33 percent requirement being met by the end of 2020.
Additionally, Governor Brown’s “Clean Energy Jobs Plan” includes a goal of 12,000
megawatts of “distributed” or local renewable energy generation from smaller systems ,
and 8,000 megawatts of large-scale (or utility-scale) renewable energy systems to meet
the State’s future energy demand.
Responding to the mandate that one-third of California’s electricity be generated from
renewable sources by 2020, and the Governor’s goal of 12,000 megawatts from local
renewable energy generation by smaller systems, will require the orderly and timely
review and approval of renewable energy projects at the local jurisdiction level. In
recognition that California counties will be expected to play a key role in meeting state
mandates for renewable energy generation, particularly solar and wind power, the
California County Planning Directors Association (CCPDA) has developed a guidance
document to both explain statewide renewable energy goals, policies, and programs, and
to assist counties in their efforts to provide a regulatory climate to facilitate the
installation of smaller scale renewable energy projects that do not fall within the
jurisdiction of the California Energy Commission or the California Public Utilities
Commission. More specifically, this guidance document focuses on how counties may
consider the appropriate development of smaller-scale solar energy facilities while
protecting important farmland and sensitive habitat. The guidance document also includes
a model ordinance for permitting solar energy facilities of 20 megawatts or less and
model renewable combining zone to permit larger solar energy facilities. A copy of the
CCPDA guidance document is attached for reference.
II. Energy Production in Contra Costa County
The production and distribution of energy is a vitally important industry in Contra Costa
County. For energy production, Contra Costa County is home to four large oil refineries,
16 utility-scale and peaker electrical power plants located primarily along the County’s
waterfront , a cluster of wind turbines in East County, and, also in East County,
numerous oil and gas wells. There is also an extensive energy distribution infrastructure
in the County, ranging from natural gas pipelines directly serving industries in the County
or those traversing the County, to a network of electrical powerlines serving both Contra
Costa communities and electrical transmission lines serving the entire state. There are
thousands of jobs in the County associated with energy production and distribution.
Currently, the most significant form of commercially based renewable energy production
in the County involves the wind turbines (or wind farms) that are located in the hills
southeast of Byron. Taken together, the existing and approved wind turbine projects in
the County are projected to generate approximately 172 megawatts of electrical power.
There are, of course, several site-specific solar photovoltaic (PV) systems throughout the
County, typically either installed on roofs or ground mounted on private and public sites
to generate onsite power, and, in some cases these solar PV system sites participate in a
net metering program, which allows a power customer to receive a credit for generating
excess electricity that can be used to offset onsite when the solar system is not generating
power, e.g. at night. Examples of solar PV systems installed on private sites include, the
Athenian School (Diablo), Crescent Park Apartments (Richmond), and Dahl-Beck
Electric Company (Richmond). The installation of solar PV systems on public owned
facilities, motivated by the desire to save on energy costs and reduce greenhouse gases,
has become a common practice. For example, 12 County-owned facilities have or will
have solar PV systems installed, the Mount Diablo Unified School District is adding solar
PV systems to 51 of the district’s school buildings and facilities, and there is a solar PV
system at West County Wastewater District Treatment Plant in Richmond used to
generate power for the treatment plant.
III. Contra Costa County's Renewable Energy Potential and the Existing County
Policies/Regulatory Process
Contra Costa County’s location, terrain, and weather, and, its existing energy
infrastructure, provide very good conditions for the development of both solar and wind
energy resources. These conditions have the potential to allow for the development and
expansion of a clean and naturally replenishing source of electrical power for residents
and industries in the County that reduces greenhouse gases, potentially creates “green”
jobs, and, in the bigger picture, helps the state meet its renewable energy mandates.
As noted above, Contra Costa County has been in the forefront in the development of
commercial wind energy production for more than 25 years. There are existing General
Plan policies to encourage wind energy production and specific regulations and standards
under the County Zoning Code have been established to promote the effective and
efficient use of wind energy conversion systems in Contra Costa County. The
Conservation Element to the County General Plan has designated a “Wind Energy
Resource Area” in the southeastern hills of the County where the average wind speed is
equal to or greater than 15 mile per hour at 70 feet above ground. This 19 square mile
area provides an ideal location for wind turbines designed to generate electrical power
for sale to electrical utilities. Additionally, the County Zoning Code at Chapter 88-3.2,
Wind Energy Conversion Systems, provides regulations and standards for the placement
of wind energy conversion systems for both commercial systems, which are constructed
for the purpose of generating electricity for sale to a public or private utility or to an
offsite consumer, and residential systems, which are used only as an accessory use to
allowable residential or agricultural uses and has a rated capacity of not more than 50
kilowatts.
The Conservation Element includes a section on Renewable Energy Resources with
corresponding goals, policies, and implementation measures aimed at facilitating the
development of renewable energy. The Conservation Element also includes a section on
Oil and Gas Resources with corresponding goals, policies, and implementation measures
to achieve utilization of oil and gas resources in manner beneficial to all County residents,
and the County Zoning Code at Chapter 88-14 – Oil and Gas Drilling and Production
provides review procedures of oil and gas drilling activity for all land use districts except
the Planned Unit District (P-1).
Even though the Conservation Element has a section on renewable energy resources it is
almost exclusively devoted to wind energy production, and the few references to solar
power only relate to onsite solar installation. There is nothing in the Conservation
Element, or elsewhere in the General Plan, that discusses the permitting, sitting,
regulations, or standards for the placement of a commercial solar energy facility in the
unincorporated area (“commercial” meaning a solar energy facility designed,
constructed, and operated for the purpose of generating electricity for sale to a public or
private utility or to an offsite consumer). Likewise, the County Zoning Ordinance Code
makes no mention or reference to a commercial solar energy facility as a permitted use,
or use allowed through conditional use (land use) permit, in any of the agricultural,
commercial, industrial, or residential zoning districts. The only reference in the Zoning
Code related to solar energy systems concerns those systems designed to generate energy
onsite (e.g. solar panels installed on a residence).
The relevant sections from the Conservation Element on Renewable Energy Resources
and Oil and Gas Resources are attached for reference along with Chapter 88-3 Wind
Energy Conversion Systems and Chapter 88-14 – Oil and Gas Production.
IV. Recommended Actions
Since the adopted policy of the State of California is to aggressively expand the
development of renewable energy sources, including the rapid expansion of commercial
solar energy facilities, now is the time for Contra Costa County to consider its role in
facilitating the development of renewable energy resources to meet state mandates to
simultaneously reduce greenhouse gas emissions and expand renewable energy
production. Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors authorize the Department to
initiate a General Plan review and Zoning Code update as follows:
General Plan Amendment Study – To either consider the addition of a new Energy
and Climate Change Element in the General Plan, or to consider amending the
Renewable Energy Resources section in the Conservation Element, and, as
necessary other elements in the General Plan, for the purpose of updating and
adding General Plan goals, policies, implementation measures, and maps/figures, in
support of the expansion and development of the County’s renewable energy
resources and in response to climate change. This General Plan Amendment study
would specifically consider the development of commercial solar energy facilities in
locations where important environmental resources, sensitive habitats, agricultural
lands, and public safety are protected. The General Plan Amendment review should
be based on “Smart from the Start” principles , where renewable energy projects are
sited on lands that have already been developed or disturbed, and/or lands with low
value for agricultural and biotic resources; and are constructed with minimal impacts
to cultural and archaeological resources; and are near existing or planned
transmission lines; and are built using appropriate technology (low impact). It is
noted that the Department, under direction from the Board, has recently initiated the
preparation of a Climate Action Plan. It is expected that the Climate Action Plan
will include recommended actions and measures directly related to renewable
energy resources that should also be included in this General Plan Amendment
review. Additionally, this General Plan Amendment review would consider the
economic impact of the energy industry (both conventional energy sector and
renewable energy sector) on the County and the region. This economic impact
would include a focus on how the expansion of the renewable energy sector may
support job creation.
1.
Zoning Code Update – Amend and update the Zoning Code to promote the effective
and efficient use of commercial solar energy facilities and to regulate the
installation of commercial solar energy facilities within appropriate agricultural,
commercial, and industrial zoning districts.
2.
Review County Williamson Act Program Rules and Zoning Code Regulation
Regarding Solar Energy Facilities – The Williamson Act provides local jurisdictions
with primary responsibility for implementation of the Act. Under the Act, counties
may establish agricultural preserves, which are designated areas consisting of one or
more parcels totaling 100 acres and devoted to agricultural, open space, or
recreational use. Once a preserve is established, the county may enter into contract
with landowners within the preserve to restrict the use of the land in exchange for a
lower property tax basis. These Williamson Act contract restrictions limit the uses
and structures for contracted land to those activities that are compatible and
consistent with agricultural production. There are approximately 44,000 acres of
agricultural lands in Contra Costa County under Williamson Act contracts.
Commercial solar energy facilities are not currently recognized as compatible use
under the County’s Williamson Act Program. The Williamson Act grants counties
broad discretion to adopt local rules defining allowable (compatible) uses on all
parcels within Agricultural Preserve (Williamson Act) Contracts. A review of the
County Williamson Act Program rules regarding commercial solar energy facilities
would appear to be in order given the state mandates. This review should include
3.
consideration of enacting provisions under Senate Bill 618 which allows counties to
concurrently rescind a Williamson Act contract on marginally productive or
physically impaired land and enter into a solar easement that restricts use of the land
to a photovoltaic (PV) solar energy facility.
As a final matter, staff advises that should the Board authorize this review the
Department would undertake an extensive outreach effort to encourage the participation
of all potential stakeholders, including but not limited to:
• energy industry (both conventional and renewable energy sectors)
• solar industry representatives
• electric utility industry representatives
• consumer interests (including those industrial, business organizations that are large
consumers of electrical power)
• local environmental and land trust organizations
• farmers, ranchers, and other local landowner interests
• state and local public agencies
CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
Without a General Plan review and Zoning Code update the County’s policies and
regulations would not be in alignment with new state mandates regarding renewable
energy and climate change. For example, without a Zoning Code update the permitting of
commercial solar energy facilities in the unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County
would not be possible. The continuation of the status quo could frustrate the County’s
efforts to reduce greenhouse gases and to assist in meeting the state’s renewable energy
mandates.
CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT:
Not applicable.
CLERK'S ADDENDUM
Speakers: Gary Craft, Contra Costa Economic Partnership and Diablo Innovation
Alliance; Tom Brenkle, resident of Martinez.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment #1:
Attachment #2: Model Solar Energy Facility Ordinance, California County Planning Directors Association, February
2012
Attachment #3: Contra Costa County General Plan (2005-2020), Conservation Element, Relevant Sections
Attachment #4: Contra Costa County Zoning Code, Excerpts
!invisible_toc_marker
Solar Energy Facility
Permit Streamlining Guide
February 3, 2012
http://www.ccpda.org
Participants in the Development of this Guide
Adocumentthiscomplexandcomprehensivewastheworkofmany,manypeoplefromavarietyof
backgrounds,areasofexpertise,positions,skills,interestsandabilities.Italsoreflectsthewonderof
California’sdiversitywiththerepresentationofindividualsfromlocal(allCAcountiesviaCCPDA)and
stategovernment(OPR,CEC),CSAC,environmentalgroups,statefarmbureau,smallandlargescale
solar,contractors,consultantsandmanyothers.Withinthelargergroup,therewasacorethatdrafted
documents,respondedtocomments,metandreviewedtorefineitintoitsfinalform.
Core Group
Tim Snellings, Project Leader Butte County Development Services Director
tsnellings@buttecounty.net
Jennifer Barrett, Co-Leader Sonoma County Planning Department Deputy Director
Jennifer.Barrett@sonoma-county.org
Al Solis Sol Development Associates, LLC
Alex Hinds Marin County Community Development Director (retired)
Bill Geyer Geyer Associates (Solargen, Solarpack, Wellhead)
Eli Harland California Energy Commission
John Gamper California State Farm Bureau
John Heiser Hauge Brueck Associates
Kate Kelly Kelly Group (Defenders of Wildlife)
Mike Bowler Westlands-Solar
Sandy Goldberg Governor’s Office of Planning & Research
Seth Israel Recurrent Energy
Shannon Eddy Large Scale Solar Association
Sky Stanfield Keyes & Fox LLP (Interstate Renewable Energy Council)
Susan Lee Aspen Environmental
Tricia Stevens Sacramento County Planning Department
Vickie Sakamoto CAL FIRE - Office of the State Fire Marshal
Project Participants
All of the Planning Directors from CCPDA, and
Aimee Epstein
Albert Lopez
Andy Popper
Art Henriques
Ben Higgins
Cara Martinson
Carl Holm
Carson Combs
Charlotte Mitchell
Chris Calfee
Chris Macek
Chris Ellison
Christina White
Craig Murphy
Craig Spencer
Dave Iadarola
Dave Hardy
Diane Fellman
Dustin Hauck
Elizabeth Brady
Ellen Carroll
Eric Parfrey
Garry O'Neill
George Finney
Gulsum Rustemoglu
Jack McDermott
James Aboytes
Jason Bougie
Jason Giffen
Jeff Forest
Jesus Arredondo
Jill Yung
Josh Cook
Josh Lazarus
Julia Jauregui
Karen Keene
Kathy Mannion
Kenzie Riesselman
Kristin Burford
Kristin McKee
Linda Myers
Liz McElligott
Lorelei Oviatt
Marcus Lubich
Mark Dwight
Mark Higgins
Mary Pinto
Michael Courter
Michael Wheeler
Mignon Marks
Nicole Nakagawa
Omar Peña
Ray Kelly
Renee Robin
Rob Olmstead
Ron Liebert
Ruth Darling
Sarah Taheri
Scott Morgan
Sherrill Neidich
Stephen Hackney
Steve Peterson
Steve Sexton
Steve Hunter
Trevor Keith
CCPDA SEF Permit Streamlining Guide — page i
Contents
I.Introduction..............................................................................................................................................................................................................1
A.Background.......................................................................................................................................................................................................1
B.TheChallenge.................................................................................................................................................................................................3
C.StructureoftheModelOrdinance............................................................................................................................................5
II.SolarEnergyFacilityPermitStreamliningGuide.......................................................................................................8
A.Purpose...................................................................................................................................................................................................................8
B.GeneralConsiderations.......................................................................................................................................................................8
B.1TypeandScaleofSEFs...........................................................................................................................................................8
B.2LegalFramework......................................................................................................................................................................10
B.3ProcurementandIncentivePrograms...............................................................................................................17
C.PolicyOptionsandGuidanceforLocalJurisdictions........................................................................................19
C.1LocalIncentives..........................................................................................................................................................................19
C.2ProjectSiting.................................................................................................................................................................................20
C.3PermitStreamlining...............................................................................................................................................................21
C.4JobCreationandEconomicDevelopment.....................................................................................................22
C.5Interconnection.........................................................................................................................................................................24
C.6BrownfieldandLandfillReuse....................................................................................................................................27
C.7ProtectingFarmlands...........................................................................................................................................................29
C.8EnvironmentallySensitiveHabitats......................................................................................................................34
C.9ScenicandHistoricResources....................................................................................................................................35
C.10CulturalResources..................................................................................................................................................................35
C.11Decommissioning.....................................................................................................................................................................36
C.12FinancialAssurance...............................................................................................................................................................36
C.13AbandonedFacilities............................................................................................................................................................37
D.StreamliningthePermitProcess............................................................................................................................................37
D.1ProjectDevelopment...........................................................................................................................................................39
D.2CompatibilityFindingsandNexus...........................................................................................................................39
D.3ProgrammaticEnvironmentalReviewforOrdinanceAdoption..............................................40
III.ReferencesandSupportingInformation...................................................................................................................................41
IV.Appendices
AppendixAModelSEFPermitStreamliningOrdinance
AppendixBRenewableEnergyCombiningZone
AppendixCSales&UseTaxAgreement(SonomaCounty)
AppendixDDeveloperAgreement(TulareCounty)
AppendixEFinancialAssuranceExample(SacramentoCounty)
AppendixFPublicBenefitFee(ImperialCounty)
AppendixGImpactFeeStudy(KernCounty)
AppendixHSampleConditionsofApproval(SanLuisObispoCounty)
Tables
TableB.1FederalAgencieswithPermit,Leasing,orReviewRequirements..............................................................12
TableB.2StateAgencieswithPermit,Leasing,orReviewRequirements...................................................................13
TableB.3LocalAgenciesorDistrictswithPermit,Leasing,orReviewRequirements.......................................14
CCPDA SEF Permit Streamlining Guide — page 1
February 3, 2012
I. Introduction
A. Background
Californiaismovingbeyondagreenenergyvisiontoagreenenergyreality,and
isleadingthenationindevelopingSolarEnergyFacilities(SEFs).Thebenefitsof
atransitiontosolarenergyaremany.Thecentralgoalsaretosubstantially:
Reducerelianceonforeignpetroleumsupplies.
Provideahedgeagainstnaturalgaspricevolatility.
Stimulatelocaleconomicdevelopmentandjobcreationamidststruggling
localandworldeconomies.
Reducetheemissionsoftoxicaircontaminantsandgreenhousegases.
Californialawrequiresthat,by2020,oneͲthirdoftheState’selectricitycome
fromrenewableenergysources.Thetimelyexpansionofsolarenergyisakey
partofthesolution.WithworldwidecompetitionforsolartechnologydeployͲ
ment,thesolarindustryisrapidlyevolvingtomeetanexpandingmarketdemand.
ThesolarenergymarketisexperiencingunprecedentedgrowthinCalifornia.
GovernorBrownenvisions12,000megawatts(MW)ofenergyproducedfrom
localizeddistributedelectricitygenerationand8,000MWoflargeͲscalerenewͲ
ableprojectsthroughouttheState.Thisvisionhasbeenaccompaniedbyongoing
investmentinrenewableenergyandexcitementoverhowbesttoaccomplish
thisgoal.Onaverage,oneMWofsolarenergyproductionrequiresapproximately
sixacresoflandandcanprovideelectricityforaround750homes.
InCalifornia,manyofthepermit
applicationsarefordevelopment
ofSEFslocatedinruralareas,and
potentiallyinvolveagricultural
landsandwildlifehabitat.Inlight
ofthegrowingnumberofappliͲ
cations,membersoftheCalifornia
CountyPlanningDirectors’AssociͲ
ation(CCPDA)surveyedcounty
regulationsofSEFs.Thedegreeof
regulationvariedamongjurisdicͲ
tions,andinsomecasesthere
wasacompleteabsenceofzoning
thatwouldpermitutilityͲscale
facilities.Sincethemissionof
CCPDA SEF Permit Streamlining Guide — page 2
February 3, 2012
CCPDAistocoordinateCaliforniacountyplanningprogramsandtocreateconͲ
sistencywherepossible,theCCPDAExecutiveCommitteeagreedtoassemble
interestedpartiesanddraftaModelSEFOrdinanceforconsiderationbyall
Californiacounties.
TheCaliforniaStateAssociationofCounties(CSAC)staffthenassistedinbringing
interestedpartiestogether.ParticipantsinthisWorkingGroupincludedrepreͲ
sentativesfromcountyplanning,CSAC,Stateagencystaff(Governor’sOfficeof
PlanningandResearch,CaliforniaEnergyCommission(CEC),CaliforniaDepartͲ
mentofForestryandFireProtection,andothers),thesolarindustry,theCalifornia
FarmBureau,environmentalorganizations,consultants,SonomaStateUniversity’s
CenterforSustainableCommunitiesandothers.TheWorkingGroupidentified
31issuestobeaddressedbytheModelSEFPermitStreamliningOrdinance(Model
Ordinance)andacompanionModelSEFPermitStreamliningGuide(Guide).
USERGUIDE:Howisthismaterialorganized?
TheModelSEFPermitStreamliningGuideisintendedtoassistlocal
agenciesinfacilitatingtheappropriatedevelopmentofTier1Ͳ3facilities
aswellaslargeͲscaleorutilityͲscalesolarfacilities(Tier4).
o TheIntroduction(SectionI)providesbackgroundinformation
regardingthedevelopmentoftheModelSEFPermitStreamlining
OrdinanceandModelSEFPermitStreamliningGuide.
o TheremainderoftheGuide(SectionII)focusesonchallengesand
policyoptionspertainingtothepermitprocessforSEFs.Itisintended
toprovidearangeofpotentialstandardsandpracticesapplicableto
varyingcircumstancesthroughoutCalifornia.
TheModelSEFPermitStreamliningOrdinance(AppendixAtothisGuide)
focusesonprojectsandpermitthresholdsthatqualifysmallerSEFs(Tiers
1,2,and3)forstreamlinedpermitprocessing.TheModelOrdinance
includesdescriptionsofthecharacteristicsofeachtier(seeTable1,
AppendixA).
TheModelRenewableEnergyCombiningZone(AppendixBtothisGuide)
wouldexpeditelargerSEFs(Tier4).
CCPDA SEF Permit Streamlining Guide — page 3
February 3, 2012
B. The Challenge
InpreparingtheModelOrdinanceandGuide,theWorkingGroupfocusedonthe
followingquestions.
HowcanCaliforniacounties:
IncentivizeandfacilitatetherapidexpansionofSEFs,and
Simultaneouslyprotectimportantagriculturallandsandwildlifehabitatareas?
HowcanapplicantsforSEFs:
ObtaintimelyandcostͲeffectiveauthorizationfortheirprojects,and
Complywithchangingmarketconditionsaswellasacomplexweboflocal
andStateregulatoryrequirements?
Fourkeyissueswereraised,centeredonconcernsfromrepresentativesofthe
agricultural,environmental,planning,andsolarindustrystakeholders,andeach
issummarizedbelow.TheseissuesmaynotariseonallprojectsandthepotenͲ
tialimportanceofeachissuecouldvarydependingonprojectsizeandlocation.
1.LossofAgriculturalLand:Themainconcernsrelatedtolossofagricultural
landswereprimarilyfocusedonfacilitieslocatedonImportantFarmland
mappedasPrimeFarmland,FarmlandofStatewideImportanceandUnique
FarmlandbytheStateFarmlandMappingandMonitoringProgram.AddiͲ
tionalconcernswereexpressedregardingtheabilitytobuildlargeͲscalefacilͲ
itiesunrelatedtoagriculturaloperationsonlandsunderaLandConservation
Act(WilliamsonAct)contract.SomewerealsoconcernedthattheinstallaͲ
tionofSEFsonoradjacenttoactive
farmlandswouldadverselyimpactthe
abilityofthefarmertooperatetheir
farmandeventuallycompromiseagriͲ
culturalproduction.Atthesametime,
somewereconcernedthatSEFsshould
notbeburdenedwithmitigationobliga Ͳ
tionsthatdonotapplytootherlargeͲ
scaleresidentialandindustrialdevelͲ
opmentimpactingagriculturalland.
2.EnvironmentalImpact:IssuesrelatedtotheenvironmentcenteredonconͲ
cernsthatproposedSEFdevelopmentincertainareascouldadverselyaffect
sensitiveenvironmentalhabitats.SomealsoexpressedconcernsthathabiͲ
tatsofspecialstatusspecies—includingthehabitatofthreatened,endanͲ
gered,orrarespecies,EnvironmentallySensitiveHabitatAreas,important
CCPDA SEF Permit Streamlining Guide — page 4
February 3, 2012
habitat/wildlifelinkagesorareasofconͲ
nectivity,conservedlands,andareas
coveredbyHabitatConservationPlans
orNaturalCommunityConservation
Plans—wouldbeadverselyaffected.
3.AbandonmentandRestoration:There
wassomeconcernthatlargeSEFscould
eventuallybeabandonedandbecome
potentialnuisancesoreyesores.
Planners,thesolarindustryandother
representativesdiscussedwhether
requirementswereneededfordecommissioning,siterestorationandposting
financialassurances,andexpressedgeneralconcernsabouttheadministraͲ
tiveprocessfordeterminingwhenanSEFhasbeenabandoned.
4.AdditionalRegulatoryBurdens:Othersexpressedconcernsthatanordinance
orguidancedocumentwithnewpermittingrequirementsandfinancial
assuranceswillcreatefurtherburdensonboththeindustryandutility
customerswhoultimatelybearthesecosts,ratherthanstreamlininganoften
lengthyandunpredictablepermitprocess.SomebelievethatStatelawproͲ
videssufficientprotections,andanyadditionalregulationsorrequirements
arejustifiedonlyinexchangeforincentivessuchasexpeditedprocessing.
Aftermuchdiscussion,there
wasaconsensusamongmost
inattendancetorefocusthe
ordinancearoundregulations
thatwouldqualifySEFprojects
formoreexpeditedpermit
processingandseparatethe
WorkingGroup’seffortsinto
twodocuments.First,the
ModelOrdinanceincludes
standardsforsmallerprojects
(generallyunder20acresinsize)thatcanbeapprovedadministrativelythrough
eitherazoningclearanceorminorusepermit(Tiers1,2,and3).Second,the
GuidewaspreparedtoincludeinformationapplicabletolargeͲscaleprojects
(Tier4)thatarepermittedbylocalagencies(notthoselicensedbytheCEC)and
providesrelatedinformationtolocalgovernmentsandothersinterestedinthe
permittingprocessforprojectsofallsizes.
CCPDA SEF Permit Streamlining Guide — page 5
February 3, 2012
C. Structure of the Model Ordinance
AppendixApresentstheModelOrdinanceandAppendixBpresentstheRenewͲ
ableEnergyCombiningZone.Eachisdescribedbelow.
TheModelOrdinance(presentedinAppendixA)waswrittenspecificallyto
addresssmallerprojectsinTiers1,2or3.Itsoverarchinggoalistoincentivize
smallerSEFprojectsthatlargelyavoidorminimizesignificantimpactsonthe
localenvironmentbyqualifyingthemforastreamlinedpermitprocess.
TheModelOrdinancealsoencouragesthesitingofSEFsinareaswherethereis
existingorplannedelectricalinfrastructure(capacityinsubstations,transmission
lines,etc.)and/orwheretherearemarginalsoilswithnoorlimitedhabitator
biologicalissues.Overall,theModelOrdinanceseekstosimplify,tothegreatest
extentpossible,thepermitprocessforwellsitedprojects.
Tier4facilitiesaregenerallylargerinscaleandtheModelOrdinancerequires
aconditionalusepermitfortheselargerutilityscalefacilitiesincertainzones
andprovidesaModelRenewableEnergyCombiningZonewithdevelopment
standardstoenableexpeditedpermittinginspecificallydesignatedareas.The
keyissuesandpolicyoptionsforTier4facilitiesareaddressedinthisGuide.
TheModelOrdinanceisdividedintothefollowingsections:
Section1:Definitions.ThissectionclarifiesvarioustermsusedintheModel
Ordinance.
Section2:Purpose.ThissectionestablishestheobjectivesoftheModelOrdiͲ
nancetoenableandfacilitateSEFswhilebalancingotherconcerns.Ithelps
allstakeholderstobetterunderstandthepolicyframeworkoftheModel
Ordinanceanditsgoalsandobjectives.ThePurposesectionofanordinance
isgenerallyusedtomakeinterpretationsoflocalcodesandguidedecisionͲ
makingandfindingsofconsistency.
Section3:Applicability.ThissectionexplainsthattheModelOrdinance
appliestonewlyproposedTier1,2,and3SEFs,exceptforSEFsinstalledprior
totheadoptionoftheModelOrdinance(AppendixA).
Section4:PermitRequirements.Permitrequirementsaredefinedinatable
formatforeaseofreferenceusingthresholdlevels,or“tiers,”todefinethe
typeofpermit(s)required.Therearefourtiers(AppendixAͲTable1),which
refertorequirementsforbuildingpermits(Tier1),administrativepermits
(Tier2),minorusepermits(Tier3)andconditionalusepermits(Tier4).Building
permitsandadministrativepermitsareministerialpermitsissuedatacounty
stafflevelbasedonwhethertheSEFmeetsparticularstandards.Ministerial
permitsgenerallyhaverequirementsatascalethatiscompatiblewiththe
CCPDA SEF Permit Streamlining Guide — page 6
February 3, 2012
primaryuseorpurposeofazoneinallcircumstances.Usepermits,onthe
otherhand,arediscretionarypermitsthatrequireenvironmentalreviewand
anopportunityforapublichearingbeforethedecisionͲmakingbody.
Conditionsaregenerallyaddedtoensuretheuseiscompatiblewiththe
surroundinglandusesandpotentialenvironmentalimpactsaremitigated.
Minorusepermitsaregenerallyapprovedattheadministrativelevel,either
bycountystafforazoningadministrator.Conditionalusepermitsgenerally
requireadecisionbyahearingbody,suchasthePlanningCommission.Use
permitsprovideanopportunitytoallowausethatmightnototherwisebe
consideredcompatibleinaparticularzone.
Section5:ParcelLineSetbacks.ThissectionproposessetbacksforSEFTiers
1Ͳ3baseduponthezone.
Section6:HeightLimits.Thissectionproposesheightlimitsforrooftopand
groundmountedSEFsinTiers1Ͳ3dependingonthezone.
Section7:GeneralRequirements.ThissectionprovidessuggesteddevelopͲ
mentstandardsthatapplytoTiers1,2,and3forbuildingpermits,Rightto
FarmNotices,floodplains,agriculturalbuffersanddisclosures,visibility,
enforcementforabandonmentandothergenerallyapplicableprovisions.
ThissectionisintendedasaguidetowardsdevelopmentofconsistentstandͲ
ardsandpractices,whilerecognizingthateachcountymayneedtovarythese
standardsasappropriateforthediversityoflandscapesandlocalnorms.
Sections8to11:SEFsTiers1to4:Tier1,2,3,and4facilitiesaredescribedin
Sections8,9,10,and11,respectively.Thesesectionsincludethegeneral
developmentstandardsforeachTier.
TheModelOrdinancealsoincludesamodelforaRenewableEnergyCombining
Zone(AppendixB)withsupportingDevelopmentStandardstoprovideanexpedited
permitprocessforlargerscaleSEFsindesignatedareas.
TheRenewableEnergyCombiningZoneisproposedtoallowalocaljurisdiction
tobestrategicindesignatingareaswhereutilityͲscalerenewableenergyfaciliͲ
ties,includingSEFs,shouldbeencouragedacrossarangeofzoningdistrictswhile
alsoaddressingissuesofcompatibilityandpotentialimpacts.ARenewableEnergy
CombiningZonecanbeappliedinconjunctionwithanotherbasezoningdistrict
toeitherenableorrestrictcertainlandusesorapplycertainsitingcriteriaor
developmentstandards.
ARenewableEnergyCombiningZoneincentivizesrenewableenergyprojectsby
designatingappropriateareaswheresuchfacilitiesarepermittedwithexpedited
CaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA)reviewandaministerialorminor
CCPDA SEF Permit Streamlining Guide — page 7
February 3, 2012
usepermitapprovalprocessattheprojectlevel.
EstablishmentofRenewableEnergyCombining
Zonesshouldbebasedon“SmartfromtheStart”
principles.1
ARenewableEnergyCombiningZonealsocontains
standardsthatmitigatepotentiallysignificant
impacts,suchastheconversionofimportantagriͲ
culturallandsorotherpotentiallysensitiveareas,
whilefacilitatingthesitingofsolarprojectsbyonly
designatingtheportionsofagriculturalorresource
zonesthataremostfeasibleforrapiddeployment
ofsolarfacilities,whilepreservingotheragricultural
andresourceareasfromwidespreadconversion.
Inthisway,theRenewableEnergyCombiningZone
approachservestoaddresscumulativeimpacts
relatedtoadoptionofordinancespermitting
utilityͲscaleSEFsinsensitiveresourcesareas,and
reducesorpossiblyavoidstheneedforextensive
environmentalreviewforconformingprojects.
Whileevaluationoftheproximityandavailable
capacityofexistingorplannedelectricsubstations
andtransmissionlinesistimeconsuminganddiffiͲ
culttodeterminewithcertainty,localjurisdictions
shouldusethisinformationtodeterminetheapproͲ
priateareasforapplyingaRenewableEnergyComͲ
biningZone.Otherfactorstoconsiderincludethe
topographyofthelandarea,shading,vegetation
andclimate,suchastheamountofsolarradiation,
cloudcoverorfog.
1“SmartfromtheStart”renewableenergyprojectsaresitedonlandthathasalreadybeen
developedordisturbed,and/oronlandwithlowvalueforagricultureandbioticresources;
areconstructedwithminimalimpactstoculturalorarchaeologicalresources;andarenear
existingorplannedtransmissionlines.Thesefacilitiesarebuiltusingappropriatetechnology
(forexample,leastwaterͲintensive).Planningfora“SmartfromtheStart”renewableproject
istransparent,withearlyandclosecooperationbetweendevelopers,permittingagencies,
localgovernments,andconservationgroups.(BLM,2010;NevadaWildernessProject,2011)
CCPDA SEF Permit Streamlining Guide — page 8
February 3, 2012
II. Solar Energy Facility Permit Streamlining
Guide
A. Purpose
Thepurposeofthisguideisto(1)assistcountiesandlocalgovernmentagencies
inunderstandingthestatewidegoals,policiesandprogramsdesignedtoexpand
SEFsand(2)todevelopregulatoryincentivesthatsupporttheexpeditedproͲ
cessingofSEFsthatavoidorminimizeadverseimpactstoimportantagricultural
lands,scenicresourcesandsensitivehabitats.Inparticular,thisGuidehasbeen
draftedtoassistlocalagenciesinthedevelopmentofzoningstandardsto
facilitatepermittingandprovidesadditionalguidanceforlargerscaleSEFsthat
requireapprovalofausepermit.
ThisGuideisorganizedasfollows:
SectionBdescribesthegeneral
considerationsrelatedtoSEF
development,includingSEFtypes
andsizes,theexistinglawsand
regulationsapplyingtoSEFs,and
thecurrentprocurementand
incentiveprogramsforrenewable
energy,includingSEFs;
SectionCofferspolicyoptionsandguidanceregardingarangeofdevelopͲ
mentissuesassociatedwithSEFsforconsiderationbylocalagencies;and
SectionDdescribesimportantconsiderationsandmethodsforlocaljurisdicͲ
tionsinstreamliningtheirpermitprocesses.
B. General Considerations
B.1 Type and Scale of SEFs
Inordertomeetthestate’s33percentRenewablePortfolioStandard(RPS)goal
andotherenergygoals,CaliforniaisgoingtohavetodeployawiderangeofdifͲ
ferentenergysources.Itislikelythatsolarwillmakeupasignificantportionof
therenewableportfolio,butallsolarisnotthesame.Alongwithvariationin
technologies,fromsolarthermaltosolarphotovoltaictechnology,therearea
rangeofbenefitsanddrawbackstoSEFsdependinguponthesizeandlocation
chosenfortheseprojects.
Theterm“distributedgeneration”oftenreferstoprojectsupto20megawatts
(MW)insize,butsizealonedoesnotguaranteethattheprojectsofferthe
CCPDA SEF Permit Streamlining Guide — page 9
February 3, 2012
benefitsoftenattributedtodistributedgeneration.Someofthesebenefits
includemakingefficientuseofthegridtominimizetheneedforsysteminvestͲ
ments,reducedenvironmentalfootprints,abilitytomakeuseofunderͲutilized
land,etc.Distributedgenerationprojectsgenerallysplitintotwocategories.
Thefirstcategoryofprojectsincludesthoselocatedonthebuiltenvironment,
includingcommercialandresidentialrooftopsandparkinglots.Theseprojects
connecttothedistributiongridandareoftendesignedlargelytooffsetonsite
load,thoughtheycanalsoofferpowerforsale.TheseprojectsareusuallyTier1
undertheModelOrdinance,andthusdonotrequirediscretionarypermitsand
arenotrequiredtoundergoCEQAreview.
ThesecondcategoryofdistributedgenerationprojectsincludesgroundͲmounted
projectsthatarealsointerconnectedtothedistributiongrid.Theseprojects
havethepotentialtobelocatedonlandssuchasmarginallyproductiveorconͲ
taminatedagriculturallands,brownfields,formerindustrialsites,orclosed
sanitarylandfillsthatareunderͲutilized,previouslydisturbed,and/ornotoptimal
forotherusesasaresultofcontamination.Utilizingtheselandscanhelppreserve
biologicalhabitatsandopenspaceelsewhere.LikewithrooftopSEFs,projects
thatarelocatedonthedistributiongridcanalsooffsetload,andtherebymaxiͲ
mizeuseoftheState’sexistingelectricalinfrastructureandpotentiallyreduce
theneedfortheconstructionofcostlyandlandͲintensivetransmissionlines.
ProjectsinthedistributedgenerationsizerangearebecomingmorepriceͲ
competitivewhencomparedtoprojectsover20MWasthecostsofenvironͲ
mentalreview,mitigation,andtransmissionupgradesarerealizedbylarger
projects.
Inadditiontodistributedgeneration,therearenumerouslargerprojectsbeing
developedthatarecommonlyreferredtoas“utilityͲscale.”TheseprojectsgeneͲ
rallyinterconnectdirectlytothetransmissiongridandrequirelargeramountsof
landtoachievetheirMWgoals.Theycanachievegreatereconomiesofscaleand
CCPDA SEF Permit Streamlining Guide — page 10
February 3, 2012
areoftenproposedinareaswithhighsolarinsolation,2
andthusachievegreaterefficiencies.
IndevelopinglandusepoliciessurroundingSEFs,
countiesshouldtakeintoaccountthedifferentbenefits
andchallengesposedbythesedifferentcategories
andrecognizethatdifferentconsiderationswillneed
tobeappliedtoeach.3ThisGuidefocuseslargelyon
groundmounteddistributedgenerationinTiers1–3
andonlargerdistributedgenerationprojectsand
utilityͲscaleprojectsinTier4.
B.2 Legal Framework
Itisimportantforprojectapplicants,regulatorsandotherstakeholdersto
understandthewebofregulationsthatmayapplytoSEFsdependingonsite
location.Onceunderstood,duplicativeorconflictingrequirementscanbemore
easilyavoidedandregulatorygapsfilled.TheprimarylawsthatapplytoSEFs
thatrequireausepermitaretheCaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA),
andwherefederalpermitsarerequiredorfederallandisaffected,theNational
EnvironmentalPolicyAct(NEPA).UnderCEQA,a“leadagency”isresponsiblefor
consideringtheeffectsofallactivitiesinvolvedinaproject.Theleadagency
coordinateswithany“responsibleagencies,”whohaveanobligationtoapprove
portionsoftheproject.
DuringreviewofapplicationsforusepermitsforSEFs,eachlocalagencywill
requirecompliancewithsomeorallofthefollowing:
GeneralPlan
SpecificorAreaPlans
AirportLandUseCompatibilityPlans(ifinAirportReferralarea)
LandConservationAct(WilliamsonAct)Rules(ifinanAgriculturalPreserve)
LocalCoastalPlan/ProgramComplianceandCoastalDevelopmentPermit
(ifinCoastalZone)
UsePermitandZoningStandards
EncroachmentPermit(forworkinapublicrightͲofway)
BusinessLicense
2Insolationisameasureofsolarradiationenergyreceivedonagivensurfaceareainagiventime.
3Forexample,thePublicUtilityCodeprovidesregulatedpublicutilitiesanexemptionfrom
localplanningordinances.Therefore,ifaSEFisbeingdevelopedbyautilityandnotaprivate
entity,thelocaljurisdictionmayhavelimitedtonoauthorityovertheproject.Inaddition,the
CPUConlyrequiresthatutilitiesobtainapprovalfromtheCertificateofPublicConvenience
andNecessity(CPCN)forprojectsthatexceed50MWsinsize.Thus,projectsunder50MWs
thatareutilityownedmaybeabletoproceedwithverylittlelocaloversight.
CCPDA SEF Permit Streamlining Guide — page 11
February 3, 2012
FinancialAgreements
DevelopmentAgreement
GradingandBuildingPermits
Atthelocallevel,utilityͲscalesystemsthatfeedenergyintothegridareoften
notaddressedinlocalzoningordinances.Generally,ifauseisnotlistedasan
alloweduse,thenitisnotpermittedinthatzone.Forthisreason,localjurisͲ
dictionsareencouragedtoupdatetheirzoningcodestoenableutilityͲscaleSEFs
whereappropriate.TraditionalzoningoftenonlyallowsutilityͲscalepower
generatingfacilitiesinindustrialordesignatedresourcezones.Thus,manylocal
jurisdictionsaregrapplingwithdevelopingenablinglegislationtopermitSEFs
thatarecompatiblewiththeprimaryusesofvariouszoningdistricts.
Inadditiontothepermittingrequirementsandconsistencywithlocalplans
andpoliciesoftheleadagency,otherregulationsandlawsthatcanapplyto
SEFsfallintotwocategories:(1)lawsandregulationsthatapplytoalldevelͲ
opment(summarizedinSectionB.2.1below)and(2)lawsandregulations
thatapplyonlytosolarenergyprojects(summarizedinSectionB.2.2below).
Moredetailonalloftheseexistingregulationsandlawsispresentedin
AppendixA.
CCPDA SEF Permit Streamlining Guide — page 12
February 3, 2012
B.2.1 Laws and Regulations Applicable to All Development
TablesB.1,B.2andB.3listthefederal,State,andotherjurisdictionalagencies
thatadministerlawsorhaveregulationsthatapplytolocaldevelopmentprojͲ
ectsandmaybeapplicabletoSEFs.NotalloftheseregulationsapplytoallprojͲ
ects.TheprimarysourceoftheinformationinthetablesistheCaliforniaEnergy
Commission’sEnergyAwareFacilitySitingandPermittingGuide(September
2011).
TableB.1.FederalAgencieswithPermit,Leasing,orReviewRequirements
Agency Permit/Review Legal Authority
Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation
Historic Preservation Advisory
Comments
National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966, as amended
36 CFR Part 800
Army Corps of Engineers 404 Permit/Jurisdictional
Determination
Clean Water Act
Bureau of Indian Affairs Right-of-Way Grants Title 25, United States Code
Sections 323-328
Bureau of Land Management Right-of-Way Grants
Land Leases
Federal Land Policy and
Management Act
Mineral Leasing Act and Energy
Policy Act
Department of Defense Land use Compatibility Special Use Airspace Military
Training Routes
Environmental Protection
Agency
Adequacy of NEPA Review
Prevention of Significant
Determination
Clean Air Act Section 309
Clean Air Act Section 112
Federal Aviation Administration Airspace Review Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 77
Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Assessment
Biological Opinion
Jeopardy Opinion
Fish & Wildlife Coordination Act
Endangered Species Act
Federal Power Act
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Eagle Protection Act
Forest Service Special Use Permit
Project-specific Plan Amendment
(if not designated for the use)
36 CFR 251
National Park Service Right-of-Way Permit (for
transmission lines)
Title 16, United States Code
Section 79
CCPDA SEF Permit Streamlining Guide — page 13
February 3, 2012
TableB.2.StateAgencieswithPermit,Leasing,orReviewRequirements
Agency Permit/Review Legal Authority
Coastal Commission, San
Francisco Bay Conservation
and Development Commission
Development Permit
Consistency with Local Coastal
Plan
Consistency with federally
approved Coastal Management
Plan
CA Coastal Act 1976, Public
Resources Code Section 30000
et seq.
McAteer-Petris Act, Public
Resources Code Section 66600
et seq.
Suisun Marsh Preservation Act
of 1977, Public Resources Code
Section 29000 et seq.
Coastal Zone Management Act,
16 United States Code Sections
3501 et seq.
Department of Fish & Game Approval Stream or Lake
Alteration Permit
Dredging Permit
Endangered Species Take
Permit
CA Endangered Species Act,
Fish & Game Code Sections
1600-07, 2090, 5650-53.9,
11037
Department of Forestry and
Fire Protection
Timber Operations License
Timber Harvesting Plan
Timberland Conversion Permit
Fire Permit
Defensible Space
Requirements
Fire Safe Regulations for
Building in the SRA
Powerline Clearance
Requirements
Industrial Operations
Requirements
Public Resources Code Sections
4100 et seq., 4511 et seq., 4521
et seq.
Public Resources Code 4291
Public Resources Code 4290
Public Resources Code 4292 –
4428
Public Resources Code 4427-
4428, 4431, 4442-4443
Department of Parks and
Recreation
Right-of-Way Permit Public Resources Code Section
5012
Department of Resources
Recycling and Recovery
Solid Waste Facility Permit Government Code Section
66796.32; Public Resources
Code Section 40000
Department of Toxic
Substances Control
Permit to Operate Health & Safety Code, Div. 20,
Ch. 6.5
Department of Transportation Encroachment Permit DOT regulations coveringfacil-
ities that impact State highways
Division of Occupational Safety
and Health (Cal-OSHA)
Construction-related
Requirements
29 CFR 910.0
Energy Commission (CEC)(for thermal projects > 50 MW)
Certification
Warren-Alquist Act
Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC)
(for transmission lines of IOUs and
for SEFs owned by IOUs)
Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity
Permit to Construct
Public Utilities Act
Reclamation Board Encroachment Permit Water Code Section 8590 et seq.
State Historic Preservation
Officer
Section 106c consultation National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966, as amended
36 CFR Part 800
CCPDA SEF Permit Streamlining Guide — page 14
February 3, 2012
TableB.2.StateAgencieswithPermit,Leasing,orReviewRequirements
Agency Permit/Review Legal Authority
State Lands Commission Land Use Lease Public Resources Code, Section
6000 et seq.
State Water Resources Control
Board
Certification of Adequacy of
Water Rights Permit to
Appropriate Water Statement
of Diversion and Use
Stormwater NPDES permit
Clean Water Act Section 401
Certification
Public Utilities Code Section
2821; Water Code, Divs. 1 & 2
TableB.3.LocalAgenciesorDistrictswithPermit,Leasing,orReviewRequirements
Agency Permit/Review Legal Authority
Air Districts Preliminary/Final Determination
of Compliance
Permits to Construct/Operate
Clean Air Act
Warren-Alquist Act (if CEC)
California Independent System
Operator
Interconnection Agreement FERC Order No. 2003-C
Municipal Utilities Project Approval Locally Elected Governing
Boards
Planning, Building,
Environmental Health, Public
Works, Fire
Use Permits
Planning Clearances
Building Permits
Building Code
General Plan
Zoning Ordinance
CA Planning Law
Fire Code
Regional Water Quality Control
Boards
Stormwater (NPDES)Permits
401 Certifications
Clean Water Act
Porter Cologne Water Quality
Control Act
Water Code Section 13000
B.2.2 Laws and Regulations Applicable to SEFs Specifically
Inadditiontolawsandregulationsthatmayapplytoalldevelopment,thereare
severalregulationsthatapplyspecificallytoSEFs.ThefollowingdiscussionsumͲ
marizestheexistingCaliforniaregulatoryframeworkforpermittingSEFs,but
shouldnotbeconsideredacompletelistofallapplicablerules.
TheCaliforniaSolarRightsAct(GovernmentCodeSection65850.5)was
originallyadoptedin1978.Thelawhasbeeninterpretedtoapplytoany
solarenergysystem(hotwaterorelectric)designedtoprovideenergyfor
onͲsiteuse.Itestablishesthelegalrighttoasolareasement,defineswhich
SEFsarecoveredbyitsprovisions,andlimitslocalgovernmentsfromadopting
ordinancesthatwouldunreasonablyrestricttheuseofsolar.Italsorequires
localgovernmentstouseaministerialoradministrativeapplicationreview
processinsteadofadiscretionaryprocess.Thus,theModelOrdinancedefines
accessorysolarenergysystemsforonͲsiteuseasexemptfacilitiespermitted
CCPDA SEF Permit Streamlining Guide — page 15
February 3, 2012
inallzoneswithaministerialbuildingoradministrativepermitsubjectto
healthandsafetystandards.TheSolarRightsActhasbeenamendedover
theyearstospecifystandardsintheStatebuildingandelectricalcodesand
permittingrequirements.TheSolarRightsActhasseveralrelatedcomponents:
CivilCodesSections714and714.1:Limitcovenants,conditions,and
restrictionsonsolarinstallationsandrequiretimelyreview.
CivilCodeSection801:Establishesthelegalrighttoasolareasement.
CivilCodeSection801.5:Defineswhichsolarenergysystemsarecovered
byitsprovisions.
GovernmentCodeSection65850.5:Limitslocalgovernmentrestrictions
onsolarinstallationsanddiscourageslocalgovernmentsfromadopting
ordinancesthatwouldunreasonablyrestricttheuseofsolarenergysysͲ
tems.ItalsorequireslocalgovernmentstouseaministerialoradminisͲ
trativeapplicationreviewinsteadofadiscretionaryprocess.
HealthandSafetyCode17959.1:ProvidesforthecityorcountytoadminͲ
istrativelyissueapermit,unlessthesolarinstallationwouldhaveaspecific
adverseimpactuponpublichealthorsafety.Italsoestablishesthehealth
andsafetystandardsasolarenergysystemisrequiredtomeet.
GovernmentCode66473.1:Requiressubdivisiondesigntoprovidefor
futurepassiveornaturalheatingorcoolingopportunities.
PublicResourcesCode25405.5(b):Requiresthatforalltentativesubdivision
mapsdeemedcompleteonorafterJanuary1,2011,sellersofnewhomes
mustofferasolarenergysystemtoallpotentialbuyers.
GovernmentCode66475.3:Allowslocalgovernmenttorequireeasements
toensuresubdivisionparcelsreceivesunlight.
CivilCode714:Voidsexistingcovenantsanddeedrestrictionsthat
prohibitorrestrictinstallationoruseofsolarenergysystemsand
specifiesstandardsthatsolarenergysystemsarerequiredtomeet.
GovernmentCodeSection65919.10;PublicResourcesCodeSections
21080.35,21083.9,21084,21094.5,21094.5.5,and25500.1:Incentivizes
solarenergysystemsbyprovidingastatutoryexemptionfromCEQAfor
solarenergysystemsandassociatedequipmentonexistingrooftopsor
existingparkinglots.(SB226,Simitian,2011)
GovernmentCodeSections51255.1,51190etseq.;Fish&GameCode
Sections2805,2835,3511,4700,5050;Revenue&TaxationCodeSection
402.1:ProvidesamechanismforlargerutilityͲscaleSEFslocatedonlands
thatarephysicallyimpairedormarginallyproductiveunderaLandConͲ
CCPDA SEF Permit Streamlining Guide — page 16
February 3, 2012
servationAct(WilliamsonAct)contracttotemporarilyrescindthecontract
andreplacethecontractwithasolarͲuseeasementontheproperty.
(SB618,Wolk,2011)
Otherlawsrelevanttosolarfacilitiesinclude:
CaliforniaFishandGameCode2069(ABx113,Perez2011):DefinestheDesert
RenewableEnergyConservationPlan(DRECP)andprovidestheframeworkfor
interimmitigationofendangeredspecieswithintheDRECPplanarea.
CaliforniaFishandGameCode2099(ABx113,Perez2011):Providesforthe
managementoftheRenewableEnergyTrustFundformitigationofCalifornia
EndangeredSpecies.
CaliforniaFishandGameCode2099.10(ABx113,Perez2011):Establishes
feetobepaidbyeligiblerenewableenergyprojectstotheDepartmentof
FishandGameforprocessingofincidentaltakepermitsandtheestabͲ
lishmentofcostsharingagreementsbetweentheDepartmentandtheCEC.
CaliforniaFishandGameCode2099.20(SB16,Rubio2011):Requiresthe
DepartmentofFishandGametotakestepstoexpeditetheprocessingof
renewableenergypermitsandrequirestheDepartmenttoreportbackto
Legislatureonpermittingactivities.
CaliforniaPublicResourcesCode25619(ABx113,Perez2011):Establishes,
pendingappropriation,a$7milliongrantprogramforthedevelopmentor
revisionofplans,policiesandrulesthatfacilitatethedevelopmentofeligible
renewableenergyprojectsfortheCountiesofFresno,Imperial,Inyo,Kern,
Kings,LosAngeles,Madera,Merced,Riverside,SanBernardino,SanDiego,
SanJoaquin,Stanislaus,andTulare.
GovernmentCodeSections51200Ͳ51297.4and16140Ͳ16154;Revenueand
TaxationCodeSections421Ͳ430.5(CaliforniaLandConservationActor
WilliamsonAct):Thisprogramwasenactedin1965toensuresufficientfood
supplies,discourageunnecessaryconversionofagriculturallands,discourage
leapͲfrogdevelopment,andtopreserveopenspace.WilliamsonActcontracts
currentlycoveroneͲthird(16.6millionacres)ofprivatelandinCalifornia.The
contractsareprincipallywithcounties,withonlyafewcitiesparticipating.
Landownerswithcontractsrealizelowerpropertytaxpayments.Solar(and
wind)facilitiesmaybelocatedonlandsubjecttotheWilliamsonActifone
ormoreofthefollowingconditionsaremet:theuseiscompatiblewiththe
agriculturaloperation;thecontractisnotrenewed;thecontractiscancelled;
orthelandisacquiredthrougheminentdomain.Determinationsarevery
siteͲandfactͲspecificandrequireconsultationwithDepartmentof
Conservationandlocalgovernments.
CCPDA SEF Permit Streamlining Guide — page 17
February 3, 2012
LandownerswhochoosetoenterintoWilliamsonActcontractswiththe
countyagreetomaintainthelandincommercialagriculturaluseforaperiod
of10or20yearsinexchangeforareductioninpropertytaxes.Eachyeara
taxreductionisreceived,thecontractextendsforanother10Ͳor20Ͳyear
perioduntilthecontractisphasedͲoutorotherwiseterminated.IftheSEFis
proposedonasiteunderaLandConservationcontract,thefacilitymustbe
listedasacompatibleuseinthelocallyadoptedAgriculturalPreserveRules
andallowedbythetypeofcontract.Inaddition,findingsofcompatibility
mustbemadebythelegislativebodyinconsultationwiththeAgricultural
Commissionerand/ortheappointedadvisorybody.TheSEFmustbefound
consistentwiththeprinciplesofcompatibilityunderGovernmentCode
Section51238.1.TheSEFmustbefoundnottoimpairtheagricultural
productivityofthelandorlandsinthesurroundingarea.TheAgricultural
PreserveRulesmaylimitthesizeandamountoflandareathatcanbe
devotedtoautilityͲscalefacilitythatisnotforonͲsiteagriculturaluse.
PublicUtilitiesCode2869(b):Whenaresidencereceiveselectricityfroma
SEFontheproperty,oronadjacentproperty,butthesystemisownedbya
differentparty,theowneroftheSEFmustrecordaNoticeofIndependent
SolarEnergyProducerContractagainstthepropertywheretheelectricityis
usedandthepropertywheretheelectricityisgenerated,ifdifferent.
PublicResourcesCode4290Ͳ4291:Thesesectionsdefinefireprotectionand
defensiblespacerequirementsthatwouldalsoapplytoSEFs.
PublicResourcesCode4292Ͳ4293:Thesesectionsdefinerequirementsfor
firesafetystandardsrelatedtoelectricpowerlinesandrequiredvegetation
clearances.
CCPDA SEF Permit Streamlining Guide — page 18
February 3, 2012
B.3 Procurement and Incentive Programs
TodateCaliforniahasimplementedarangeofdifferentprocurementprograms
andincentivevehiclestopromotetheexpansionofrenewableenergytomeet
theState’sRPSandotherenergygoals.Therehasbeenparticularattentionpaid
togrowthinthedistributedgenerationmarketinthelastfewyears.Virtuallyall
oftheenergygeneratedinCaliforniaisdevelopedtosatisfytherequirementsof
aparticularprocurementprogramauthorizedbytheCaliforniaPublicUtilities
Commission(CPUC)oramunicipalutility,whicharetargetedtowardsdifferent
SEFprojectcategories.Someofthekeyprocurementprogramsaredescribed
belowinordertoprovidesomecontextfordevelopers’motivationsindesigning
theirprojects.
NetEnergyMetering(NEM):ForsmallͲscalesystemsuptooneMWthatare
sizedprimarilytoserveonͲsiteload,CaliforniahasarobustNEMprogram.
NEMallowsacustomerwithaneligiblerenewableenergygenerationfacility
(e.g.,anSEF)toreceivecreditforgeneratingexcesselectricitythatcanbe
usedtooffsettheelectricityusedonsitewhentheSEFisnotgenerating
power,e.g.,atnight.ManyNEMprojectsalsotakeadvantageofCalifornia
SolarInitiative(CSI)incentives,butreductionsinthepriceofsolartechnolͲ
ogiesandimprovementsinthepermittingprocessesandapplicablerateproͲ
gramsareenablingdeveloperstocontinuetobuildNEMprojectsevenwithͲ
outCSIincentives.
FeedͲInTariff:TheLegislaturerecentlyexpandedtheState’sfeedͲintariff
programtoallowforwholesale(i.e.projectsdesignedtoprincipallysell
powertothegrid)renewableenergysystemsuptothreeMWinsizeto
obtainapreͲdeterminedrateforpowersalesonafirstͲcome,firstͲserved
basis.TheIOUprogramiscurrentlycappedat750MW.Othermunicipal
utilities,suchastheSacramento
MunicipalUtilityDistrictandLos
AngelesDepartmentofWaterand
Power,havesimilarprograms.AfeedͲ
inͲtariffprovidesaconsistentprice
signalforqualifieddevelopersinthe
identifiedsizerange.FeedͲintariff
projectscanberooftoporgroundͲ
mounted,andwillnormallybe
interconnectedtothedistributiongrid.
RenewableAuctionMechanism(RAM):TheCPUCestablishedaoneͲ
gigawattpilotprogramutilizingtheRAMtofacilitatethedevelopmentof
renewableenergyfacilitiesfrom500kWto20MWinsize.Theprogram
requiresthethreeIOUstoholdbiannualcompetitiveauctionsinwhich
CCPDA SEF Permit Streamlining Guide — page 19
February 3, 2012
renewableenergyproducerscansubmitbidstosellelectricalpower.The
utilitiesmustawardcontractsstartingwiththelowestͲcostviableproject
andmoveupinpriceuntiltheMWrequirementisreachedforthatround.
Theprogramusesstandardcontracttermstolowercostsandprovidesan
effectivemeansoffinancingprojects.Tominimizeunderbidding,theproͲ
gramrequiresadevelopmentsecurityandrelativelyshortprojectdevelopͲ
menttimeframes.Eachparticipatingutilitypublishesinteractivewebbased
mapsthatassistdeveloperswithchoosingprojectlocationsbasedonavailable
gridcapacity.Thesemapsareusefulforlocaljurisdictionstolocateareaswith
underutilizedgridinfrastructurewithintheirplanningboundaries.
ForutilityͲscaleprojects,theIOUsgenerallyrunasimilarcompetitivesolicitaͲ
tion,knownastheRPSsolicitation,onceayearinordertoenterintocontracts
forlargerͲscaleprojectstohelpmeettheirRPSgoals.
Otherprograms:Inadditiontotheseprograms,utilitiesarealsoabletonegoͲ
tiatebilateralcontractsforprocurementofrenewableenergyinanysize
range.ThefeedͲinͲtariff,RAMandRPSsolicitationprogramsarespecificto
California’sIOUs,butthemunicipalutilitiesinCaliforniaalsohaveavariety
ofdifferentprogramstoenablethemtomeettheirRPSgoals.Thesepolicies,
incentivesandregulatoryprogramshavefueledademandforbothsmall
andutilityͲscalerenewableenergyfacilitiesandencouragedrapidwidespread
developmentofSEFsthroughouttheState.
C. Policy Options and Guidance for Local
Jurisdictions
Manyoftheunderlyingpolicy,legalandtechnicalissuesassociatedwith
permittingSEFsaresimilar.However,duetoregionalvariationsinsoiltypes,
typography,wateravailability,contaminationlevelsandothergeographical
differences,a“onesizefitsall”approachtodevelopmentofSEFsisdifficultto
achieveinaStateaslargeanddiverseasCalifornia.Therefore,thissectionconͲ
tainsadiscussionofcommonissuesalongwitharangeofpolicyoptions,which
canbetailoredtosuitaparticularjurisdiction.
Theissuesaddressedinthefollowingsectionsare:
LocalIncentives
ProjectSiting
PermitStreamlining
JobCreation&EconomicDevelopment
Interconnection
BrownfieldandLandfillReuse
ProtectingFarmland
EnvironmentalSensitiveHabitats
Scenic,Historic,andCulturalResources
Decommissioning&FinancialAssurance
AbandonedFacilities
CCPDA SEF Permit Streamlining Guide — page 20
February 3, 2012
C.1 Local Incentives
LocalincentivesofferoneoverarchingpolicytooltofacilitateappropriateSEF
developmentthatbenefitsthelocalcommunity,andcancomplementStateand
federalincentives.CountieshavetheabilitytosupporttheexpansionofSEFs
throughrenewablepowerpurchaseagreements(PPAs),publicoutreachefforts,
stafftraining,renewableenergyGeneralPlandesignation,implementationof
RenewableEnergyCombiningZone,reducedfeesforSEFs,andfinancialincentives.
SomecommunitiesaretakingadvantageofrecentStatelegislationfacilitating
localincentives.AB811(Levine,2008)enableslocaljurisdictionstoprovide
financingforenergyconservationandrenewableenergyprojectsthrougha
propertytaxassessment,otherwiseknownasPropertyAssessedCleanEnergy
(PACE).Manycommunitiesareleadingthewaybyadoptingaggressivegoalsfor
localgovernmentoperationsandimplementingplansforachievingthosegoals,
includinginstallationofSEFsonvariouspublicbuildings,airportsandotherpubͲ
liclyownedlands.
AnotherlocalincentivethatisgaininggroundinCaliforniaisCommunityChoice
Aggregation,wherealocalgovernmentagencycanbecomeapowerserviceproͲ
viderbypurchasingorgeneratingpowerandsellingdirectlytoconsumers.This
allowsforinvestmentintherenewableenergyprojectsthatmaynotbelocated
withinthelocaljurisdiction,expandingtheopportunitiestoareaswheresolaris
mostfeasible.
Inaddition,throughoutthissection,streamliningthepermittingprocessisidenͲ
tifiedasatoolforaddressingvariousissues.SectionDprovidesadditionaldetail
withregardingconsiderationsrelevanttostreamliningthepermittingprocess.
Overall,itisimportanttorememberthatafundamentallegalprincipleinland
useplanning,sometimesreferredtoasequalprotection,requiresthatsimilar
projectsshouldbetreatedinasimilarmannerinthediscretionarypermitproͲ
cess.Assuch,itisimportantthatregulatoryrequirementsplacedonSEFsbe
implementedinamannerthatresultsinalevelplayingfield.Comprehensively
consideringdifferenttypesofsolarprojectscanhelplaythegroundworkfor
equitableregulatoryrequirements.
C.2 Project Siting
WhencountiesorsolardevelopersbeginevaluatingsitesforpotentialsolarfacilͲ
itiesitisimportanttofirstidentifytheconstraintsandopportunitiesofaparticuͲ
larlocation.Factorssuchasflooding,wetlandsorprotectedhabitatsorthe
presenceofthreatenedorendangeredspeciesshouldbeidentifiedandavoided
wherepossible.IfavoidanceofhazardoussiteconditionsorsensitiveenvironͲ
mentalfactorsisnotpossiblethenthepotentialsiteshouldbedroppedfrom
CCPDA SEF Permit Streamlining Guide — page 21
February 3, 2012
considerationoranEnvironmentalImpactReportprepared.ConversionoffarmͲ
landdesignatedasPrimeFarmland,UniqueFarmlandorFarmlandofStatewide
Importanceandprotectionofscenicresourcesareotherconsiderationsthat
mustbeevaluatedandproperlyweighedinthedecisionͲmakingprocess.Similar
considerationsshouldbeappliedtotheproximitytotransmissionlinesandother
importantinfrastructure.SpecificsitingconsiderationsarediscussedinthefolͲ
lowingsections.
Projectsthataresitedanddesignedtoavoidimportantresourcesshouldbe
expeditedinthepermittingprocess.However,projectsthatareproposedin
locationsthatpotentiallycannotavoidimpactstotheseresourcesshouldbesubͲ
jecttodiscretionarypermits,environmentalreviewandpublichearingsinorder
toensuretheprojectsaredesignedtominimizeimpactsandcontainpropermitiͲ
gationsiftheyaretomoveforward.Morespecificpolicyoptionsarediscussedin
thefollowingsections.
C.3 Permit Streamlining
Discussion.EncouragingtherapidexpansionofSEFsistheadoptedpolicyofthe
stateofCaliforniaandissupportedinmanyCountygeneralplans.Nonetheless,
thecurrentpermitprocessisfrequentlylengthy,uncertainandexpensive.InconͲ
sistentprocessesandrequirementsfromjurisdictiontojurisdictionandbetween
agenciesfurthercomplicaterenewableenergydevelopment.Streamliningthe
permitprocessiswidelyconsideredacompellingincentivethatlocalgovernͲ
mentcanoffer.Afaster,morepredictablepermitprocessisparticularlyimporͲ
tantinlightoftherelativenewnessoftheindustry,thecurrenteconomicsof
SEFs,andconcernsregardingtheloomingimpactsofclimatechange.
Therearemanyothervaluesalso
supportedbystateandlocal
policies,includingtheprotection
ofimportantenvironmental
resourcesandagriculturallands
andsustainingrobustfood
supplies.Tothisend,thegoalof
thecountiesshouldbetopromote
thedevelopmentofSEFsin
alignmentwiththeneedtoprotect
importantenvironmental
resources,agriculturallands,and
publicsafety.
PolicyOptions.Permitstreamlining(AppendixAͲTable1)isproposedasa
potentiallycompellingincentiveforwellͲsitedprojects.Streamliningmethods
CCPDA SEF Permit Streamlining Guide — page 22
February 3, 2012
includetheadoptionofclearstandardsorspecialuseregulationsthataddress
environmentalconcernsandprovideaclearsetofguidelinesforthesolar
industrytofollowaspartofamorepredictableapprovalprocess.Theuseofwell
definedsitingcriteriaasprovidedintheModelOrdinanceorRenewableEnergy
CombiningZonescanpotentiallyprovideadditionalincentivestoencourage
sitingofsuchfacilitiesinappropriateareasbyfurtherreducingtheburdenonthe
applicantofcostlyenvironmentalreviewand
uncertaintieswithdiscretionarypermitreview.
Establishingconsistentstandardsandreduced
buildingpermitfees,especiallyforadirectͲuse
SEF,isalsoapracticeusedbymanycommunities.
Streamliningcanalsooccurbydedicatingagency
staffmemberstoreviewsolarprojects,orbygiving
prioritytorenewableenergyprojects,andby
allowingapplicantstocontributetoCountycosts
foroutsideconsultantsorspecialiststoexpedite
reviews.
Whilefederal,stateandlocalprogramsarefueling
thedemandforrapidexpansionofsolarenergy
facilitiesthroughoutthestate,thepermitting
processcanoftenbecomeamajorobstacleatthe
locallevel,particularlyforlargeutilityͲscalefacilities
inareaswherelocalofficialshavelimited
experiencewithpowergenerationfacilities.This
Guideisintendedtoassistlocalagenciesin
streamliningthepermittingprocessbyproviding
increasedconsistencyacrossjurisdictionsand
addressingpolicyissuesandenvironmental
concernsinthepermittingprocess.
C.4 Job Creation and Economic
Development
Discussion.AccordingtotheSolarFoundation,the
solarsectoriscreatingjobsatamuchfasterrate
thantheoverallU.Seconomy.A2008Navigantstudyfoundthatforeverysix
homesthatgosolar,onelocal“green”jobiscreated.Overthepastyear,the
numberofpeopleemployedbythesolarindustryhasdoubledfrom
approximately50,000in2009to100,000in2010.Thenumberofjobsinthesolar
industryisexpectedtoincreaseby26percentin2011,whichisanunusually
highindustrygrowthrate.In2009,therewereapproximately4,000residential
CCPDA SEF Permit Streamlining Guide — page 23
February 3, 2012
solarjobsintheU.S.By2012,projectionsindicatethattherewillbeover20,000
jobsinthehomesolarindustry.
Anygivensolarinstallationproducesanincreaseinincomeandconsumption
greaterthantheinitialamountspent—aneffectknownasthe“multiplier
effect.”Solarenergyprojectsproduceconstructionjobsandrevenuesthat
accruetolocaljurisdictionsandenablethefundingofadditionalcommunity
benefits.ForlargeͲscalegroundmountedsolarprojects,theavailabilityoflongͲ
termoperationsemploymentatthesolarfacilitiesshouldbeconsideredin
balancewithanypotentiallossofemploymentresultingfromtheconversionof
landfromusessuchasagriculturetosolarenergyproduction.
Projectsthatresultinbenefits,suchasjobopportunitiesforexistingcommunity
membersandincreasedlocalpurchases,arelikelytobeconsideredwelcome
additionsbythecommunity.Sinceconstructionandoperationsjobsinthesolar
energyfieldrequirespecificskills,workforcetrainingprogramscanfacilitatethe
placementoflocaljobseekersattheseprojects.Assuch,itisoftenmutually
advantageousforasolarprojectapplicanttoworkwithlocalworkforceinvestͲ
mentboards,communitycollegesandsimilaragenciestoincreasetheopportunity
forexistingnearbyresidentstoalsoobtainemployment.
Inadditiontoissuesofjobrecruitmentandtraining,communitiescontinueto
struggletoprovideservicestobusinessesandresidentsalike.Althoughsolar
facilitiesarenotlaborintensiveuses,theydorequireextensivelandareas,genͲ
erallyinmoreremotelocationswherepublicservices,suchaspolice,fire,road
maintenance,andemergencyservicesaremoredifficultandcostlytoprovide.
Incaseswherefarmlandsareconvertedtosolarfacilities,theconstructionjobs
associatedwiththeprojectmaynotoffsetthepermanentlossofagricultural
jobsthatsupportresidentsofthecommunity.
PolicyOptions.Amongthejobsandeconomicdevelopmentstrategies,individͲ
ualcountiesorregionsmaywishtoconsiderare:
AdoptingtheModelSEFPermitStreamliningOrdinanceadaptedtolocalconͲ
ditionstoprovideexpeditedpermitprocessingandincreasedcertaintyfor
qualifyingSEFs.
Workingwithlocalcommunitycollegesandbuildingindustryassociationson
trainingprogramsforcontractorsandrelatedtrades.
Pursuingfederal,stateandutilityfundingforjobtrainingprograms.IncentivizͲ
ingacontributionorcooperativeapproachtojobtraininginrenewableenergy,
restorationorsimilaractivitiesmaybeappropriate.
Offeringprioritypermitprocessingwhenaclearcommitmenttoworkforce
developmentisprovided.
CCPDA SEF Permit Streamlining Guide — page 24
February 3, 2012
Incollaborationwithprojectapplicants,agreeingonapermitconditioncalling
forthepreparationoflocalhiringplans.Inthisapproach,targetsmaybeset
forlocalhires,alongwithaprotocolforsequencinglocaljobrecruitment
activitiesandconstructionmonitoringrequirements.Itisimportantforlocal
hiringplanstoretainflexibilityandbeinalignmentwithlegalprinciples
pertainingtoequalaccesstoemploymentandfreedomofcommerce.
RequiringSalesand/orUseTaxAgreementsthatrequirereportingofsales
and/orusetaxesontheconstructionmaterialsatthejobinstallationsiteso
thatthesalesandusetaxeswillaccruetothelocaljurisdictioninwhichthe
projectislocated.Onlargeinstallations,thiscanamounttomillionsofsales
orusetaxdollarsthatcanthenhelptooffsetthecostofimprovedinfrastrucͲ
ture,jobtrainingprogramsorotherservices.
RequiringFeesInLieuofPropertyTaxAgreementsintheeventasiteissold
toanonͲtaxableentitytooffsetthecostofprovidingcountyservicesfor
police,fire,roadmaintenanceandemergencyserviceswiththeconclusions
supportedbyafiscalnexusstudy.
NegotiatingFranchiseAgreementsforuseofpublicrightͲofͲwaysrequiring
anannualfee.
Implementing“CommunityBenefitFees”tooffsetpermanentjoblosses,
suchasagriculturaljobslostwithconversionoffarmlandstoSEFs.
SeeAppendicesCthroughHforexamplesofprogramsandpermitconditions
applicabletolocaleconomicdevelopmentandfiscalimpacts.
C.5 Interconnection
Discussion.Acriticalcomponenttoidentifyingaviablesitefortheconstruction
ofaSEFistheabilitytointerconnecttoeitherthedistributionortransmission
gridinalocationthatwillnotrequireprohibitivelyexpensiveortimeconsuming
upgrades.Thereareanumberofdifferentfactorsintheinterconnectionprocess
thataffectadeveloper’sabilitytoselectaspecificsizeandlocationfortheir
projectthatCountiesshouldbeawareofwhenevaluatingappropriatezoning
CCPDA SEF Permit Streamlining Guide — page 25
February 3, 2012
policiesforSEFs.
SEFscanpotentiallyinterconnecttothetransmissiongridortothedistribution
grid.Transmissionlinesaregenerallythosethatareusedtotransmitenergyover
alongdistanceathighervoltageswhiledistributionlinesarethoseusedfor
deliveringenergydirectlytothecustomers,usuallyatalowervoltage.The
voltageofalineisonelimitingfactoronthesizeofthesystemsthatmayconͲ
necttothem.Anotherimportantfactoriswhatentityhasjurisdictionoverthe
lines.Generallyspeaking,theFederalEnergyRegulatoryCommission(FERC)has
jurisdictionovertransmissionlinesandtheCaliforniaIndependentSystem
Operator(CALISO)managesthemonbehalfoftheutilities.Thereisacomplex
sevenͲfactortestthatisusedtodeterminewhetheralineisaFERCͲjurisdictional
transmissionlineandthesizeofthelinesineachofthethreeInvestorOwned
Utility’s(IOU)territoriesinCaliforniavaries.TheCaliforniaPublicUtilitiesComͲ
missionhasjurisdictionoverthedistributionlinesownedbytheIOUS,andthe
utilitiesoperatetheirdistributionlinesindependently.
Thereareprosandconstointerconnectingoneithersystemthatmayaffect
whatlocationadeveloperchoosesfortheirproject.Theproceduresthatgovern
interconnectionvarydependingonwhohasjurisdictionoverthepointofinterͲ
connection(thereareFERCjurisdictional,CPUCjurisdictional,andpubliclyowned
utilityprocedures),whichutility’sterritorytheprojectwillbelocatedin,and,in
somecases,whichprocurementprogramthe
generatorplanstosellitspowerthrough.The
lengthoftheinterconnectionprocesscanvary
considerablydependinguponwhichsetof
procedurestheprojectmustuse.Generally
speaking,theinterconnectionprocedures
provideaprocessfortheutilitiesand/orthe
CALISOtostudywhat,ifany,upgradesmustbe
madetothedistributionand/ortransmission
systeminorderfortheprojecttosafelyplace
theenergygeneratedontothegridforsale.
Alongwiththesizeandtypeofthegenerating
unititself,therearenumerousfactorsthat
determinewhetheraprojectmaytrigger
upgradesonatransmissionordistributionline.
Becauseinterconnectioncostscanrangefroma
fewthousanddollarstooveramillionormore,
developersoftentrytobeverystrategicwhen
selectingapointofinterconnection.Forsmallerdistributionlevelprojects,develͲ
opersoftenseektolocateonlinesthathavecapacityforadditionalgeneration
CCPDA SEF Permit Streamlining Guide — page 26
February 3, 2012
thatdoesnotexceedtheminimumloadontheline.Thiscanmeanthatfewif
anyupgradeswillberequiredandcanalsoenabletheprojecttotakeadvantage
ofexpeditedreviewprocedures.Interconnectiontothetransmissiongridis
generallysignificantlymoreexpensive.Duetotheirsizemostlargesystemswill
connectdirectlytothetransmissiongridwhilesmallerprojectstendtoprefer
distributionlevelinterconnections.CaliforniahasnumeroustransmissionͲ
constrainedareasandinterconnectioninthoseareascanbeparticularlydifficult,
timeͲconsumingandexpensive.Whileupgradestothetransmissiongridare
morecostͲintensiveupͲfront,someofthosecostsoftencanbereimbursedto
thedeveloper.Currentlyupgradesonthedistributionsystemareborne
exclusivelybythedeveloper.
WhiletheIOUshaverecentlybeguntomakemoreinformationavailabletothe
publicaboutthecapacityandotherrelevantinformationregardingtheirdistriͲ
butionandtransmissionlines,4itcontinuestobedifficultfordevelopersto
determinewhichlocationswillrequireupgradesinadvanceofsubmittingan
application.Thisinformationasymmetry,andtheconstantlyevolvingnatureof
thegrid,mayalsomakeitdifficultforCountiestotakepreciseinterconnection
locationsintoaccountintheirzoningandoverlaydesignations.Althoughitisnot
alwayspossibletopredictthecapacityofthetransmissionanddistributionsysͲ
temforsiteplanning,itisclearthatthelocationoftransmissionlinesortheneed
toextendtransmissionlinesisanimportantfactorinsitingofSEFs.
LocaljurisdictionsarepreͲemptedunderstatelawfromreviewingwheretransͲ
missionfacilities(under100kV)andsubstationscanbelocated.However,the
policiesofalocalGeneralPlanorZoningareevaluatedbytheCPUCandcan
influencethetransmissionfacilitysitingdecisions.TransmissionlinesareencourͲ
agedtobelocatedalongexisting
rightsͲofͲwaysorroadways,
wherefeasible.Inaddition,
transmissionanddistribution
upgradescanrequireenvironͲ
mentalreviewunderCEQA.
PolicyOptions.Inadditionto
usingSmartfromtheStart
principles,countiesshould
considerthelocationsofexisting
4Utilitysystemmapsareavailableat:
PG&E:http://www.pge.com/b2b/energysupply/wholesaleelectricsuppliersolicitation/PVRFO/pvmap/
SDG&E:http://sdge.com/distributed-generation-map
SCE:http://www.sce.com/EnergyProcurement/renewables/renewable-auction-mechanism.htm
CCPDA SEF Permit Streamlining Guide — page 27
February 3, 2012
andplannedtransmissionanddistributionlinesandanyknownconstraintson
thoselinesintheirevaluationofappropriatezoningandpossiblesitesfor
renewableenergycombiningzones.
TheCaliforniaEnergyCommissioncanprovideinformationonthelocationof
thesefacilitiestocountiesunderaconfidentialityagreement.Theutilityin
chargeofthelinesintheareaisalsoagoodsourceforinformation.Asdescribed
above,theIOUsinCaliforniahaverecentlyprovidedpubliclyavailablemaps
thatareupdatedregularlyandcontainsomeinformationonlinecapacity,
substationlocationsandotherrelevantdatapoints.Whiletherearenumerous
factorsthatdeterminewhatthecostsofconnectingareatanyparticularpoint
onthegrid,dependingonthesizeoftheproject,thedistancetothe
interconnectionpointmightbealimitingfactor.
TheprojectdescriptionforproposedSEFsshouldincludeallknownequipment
thatisnecessarytoconnecttheprojecttotheelectricitygrid,includinganysubͲ
stations,lineextensions,orotherfacilities.SomeprojectsmayincludeinterconͲ
nectionequipmentthatwillbecomethepropertyoftheelectricutility.Forthe
investorͲownedutilities,thiscantriggertheneedforPUCapprovalofthese
equipmentupgrades.Indoingitsreview,thePUCwillrelyontheGeneralPlan
consistencyandCEQAanalysisconductedbythelocalgovernmentprovidedit
determinesthatthelocalreviewwasadequate.Therefore,localgovernments
shoulddesignatethePUCasaresponsibleagencythatreceivesallCEQAnotices
fortheproject,sothePUChastheopportunitytoparticipate.Inadditionto
designatingthePUCasaresponsibleagency,thelocalgovernmentmaywantto
reachoutdirectlytotheagencyearlyͲonintheprocesstoensurethatallthe
relevantcomponentsoftheprojectareincludedintheprojectdescription.
Largerprojectsmayincludeextensionoftransmissionordistributionlinesornew
substations,whichshouldalsobeevaluatedforconsistencywithlocalplansas
partoftheusepermitorrezoningprocess.FailuretoconsidertheseasacompoͲ
nentoftheunderlyingSEFcouldcreatesegmentationproblemsunderCEQA.
Somejurisdictionshavepoliciesthatincludesetbacksfortransmissionlinesor
majorsubstationstoseparatethemfromresidentialandothersensitiveland
uses(i.e.,schools)duetoconcernsoverelectromagneticradiation.Sitingofnew
transmissionlinesinagriculturalareasshouldmaintaincontinueduseandaccess
foragriculturalpracticesincludingagriculturalaviationandfarmmachinery,
throughcarefulsitingofsupportstructures.Transmissionlinesshouldavoid
environmentallysensitivewildlifehabitatareas.Considerationsshouldalsobe
giventovegetationmanagementbelowtransmissioncorridors,whichreduces
theriskofwildfire,andtopotentialimpactstowildlife.Indesignatedforested
landstransmissionlinescanresultintheconversionoftimberland.
CCPDA SEF Permit Streamlining Guide — page 28
February 3, 2012
C.6 Brownfield and Landfill Reuse
Discussion.TheU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)haslaunchedaproͲ
gramtohelpencouragerenewableenergydevelopmentoncurrentandformerly
contaminated,landfillandminesites.TheU.S.EPAREͲPoweringAmerica’sLand
programhasbeguntoevaluatethepotentialforrenewableenergyoncertain
SuperfundsitesintheU.S.,includingthreesitesinCalifornia.OutsideofSuperfund
sites,therearenumerousothercontaminatedsitesinCaliforniathatcouldoffer
opportunitiesforrenewableenergy.
Brownfieldsareprimecandidatesforrenewableenergyprojectsforavarietyof
reasons.PreviouslydisturbedsitestendtonotofferhighqualitybiologicalhabiͲ
tatduetotheintensityoftheirformeruse.Dependingonthelevelandtypeof
contamination,andtheplansforcleanupofthesite,theremaybealimited
rangeofotherusesappropriateforthesite.Renewableenergyprojectscanthus
providetheopportunitytobringcontaminatedpropertiesthatmightotherwise
layvacantintoproductiveandsustainableuse.Formerindustrialsitesoftenhave
accesstogoodinterconnectionlocationswithexistinggridinfrastructureand
mayalsobelocatednearexistingload.Developmentofthesesitescanhelp
preserve“greenfields”andagriculturallands.Wherethereisanongoingcleanup
operationonsitethatrequiressignifiͲ
cantenergyuse,thedevelopmentof
renewableenergycouldbeusedto
offsettheenergyuserequiredfor
remediation.Closedlandfillsitesare
alsogoodcandidatesforsomeofthe
reasonsnotedaboveandbecause
thenaturalsettlingofthelandsomeͲ
timesmakesotherdevelopmenton
thesiteimpossible.NewpaneltechͲ
nologiesandmethodsforinstalling
footingshavemadesolarandwind
possibleonthesesites.TheUnited
StatesEnvironmentalProtection
Agency(EPA)haslaunchedaprogram
toencourage“renewableenergy
developmentoncurrentandformerly
contaminatedlandandminesites
whenitisalignedwiththecommunity’s
visionforthesite.”TheEPAprogram
helpstoidentifysiteswithgoodrenewͲ
ableenergydevelopmentpotential
CCPDA SEF Permit Streamlining Guide — page 29
February 3, 2012
and“providesotherusefulresourcesforcommunities,developers,industry,state
andlocalgovernmentsoranyoneinterestedinreusingthesesitesforrenewable
energydevelopment.”5
ThesesitesalsoposeparticularchallengesforSEFdevelopers.Oneofthecentral
concernsthatSEFdevelopershaveiswhethertheywillincurliabilityforthe
existingcontaminationiftheychosetodeveloponthesite.Theseconcernsare
valid,althoughinsomecasesmaybeadequatelyaddressedusingstateandfedeͲ
ralcleanuplawsforparticularsites.CaliforniahasanumberofstatutesthatproͲ
videliabilityprotectionforprospectivepurchasersorlessees.Sitesthathave
existingsoilcontaminationoftencontainrestrictionsthatpreventdevelopers
fromdisturbingthesoillayers,whichcanposeachallengeforsitesthatarenot
levelorwherethefootingsrequiredisturbance.
PolicyOptions.InmanycasesCaliforniacountieshavealreadytakenownership
overcontaminatedsitesorareactivelyinvolvedintheremediationofsites.In
othercasesthelandsareprivatelyheld.CountiesshouldevaluatewhetherproͲ
vidingexpeditedpermittingforSEFslocatedonlandscontaminatedwithhazardͲ
ousmaterialsisfeasibleandwhetheritprovidessufficientincentivestoprivate
developerstoconsiderutilizingthosesites.IncludingsiteswithpreͲapproved
remediationplansinplaceinareasthatonlyrequireminorusepermitsforthe
installationofSEFsmayhelpmaketheseareaslessdifficulttoutilize.Insome
instancestheremaybeapotentialtoincludebrownfieldsinRenewableEnergy
CombiningZonesandfurtherfacilitatetheir
development.
C.7 Protecting Farmlands
C.7.1 Important Farmlands
Discussion.Theprotectionofproductivefarmlands
—includingtheagriculturaloperationsthemselves
—isanissueofnational,statewideandlocalimporͲ
tance.Agricultureisacriticalconsiderationtothe
economy,qualityoflifeandfoodsecurity.Itiswidely
heldthatourfoodsystemsareasmuchatriskasour
energysystemsfromtheimpactsofagrowingglobal
populationandclimatechange.Assuch,issuesof
concernincludethedegreetowhichnonagricultural
structuresandactivitiesareallowedonprimesoils
5USEPA,ReͲPoweringAmerica’sLand,SitingRenewableEnergyonPotentiallyContaminated
LandandMineSites,availableat:http://www.epa.gov/oswercpa/.
CCPDA SEF Permit Streamlining Guide — page 30
February 3, 2012
andotherimportantagriculturallands,bufferzonerequirements,andavoidance
versusmitigationpertainingtotheconversionofagriculturallands.
AgriculturalprotectionmeasuresvaryacrosstheStatedependinguponthelocal
geography,soiltypes,andpastlanduses,aswellastheprevailingeconomic
andpoliticalcontext.Thepotentialforconversionofagriculturallandsisa
primaryconcernthatmustbeconsideredbylocaljurisdictionsinadoptinglocal
ordinancesandprocessingusepermits.TheModelOrdinanceforsmallersolar
projectssuggestslimitingtheamountofdisturbancetoPrimeFarmland,
FarmlandofStatewideImportance,andUniqueorLocallyImportantFarmlands,
unlesssuchlandhasbeendeterminedtobechemicallyorphysicallyimpaired.
PolicyOptions.Insomecircumstances,SEFsmaybedevelopedinconjunction
withanunderlyingagriculturaluse,suchassheepgrazing,tolimitthelossof
agriculturalproductivity.Insomecases,anagriculturalmanagementplancanbe
implementedtoensurethatthelongtermproductivecapabilityofthelandis
monitoredandmaintained.Inthesecases,mitigationforlossofagriculturalland
maynotberequired,whenthefarmingactivitycontinuesinconjunctionwith
theSEFasa“conjunctiveuse.”Ontheotherhand,onceasiteisconvertedtoan
energyͲgeneratingfacility,thereisageneralpresumptionthatthesitewillconͲ
tinuetobeusedforenergyproductiononanongoingbasis,eventhoughthe
permitorcontractspecifiesotherwise.Usepermitsrunwiththelandandthus
allowforapermanentconversionofagriculturallandsinmostcases.Incases
whereonlyaportionofthesiteisusedfortheSEF,aninͲperpetuityagricultural
conservationeasementonthebalanceofthelandmayensurethatthelossof
agriculturallandislimited.
Agriculturalzoningtypicallyrequiresthattheprimaryuseofthelandremainin
agriculturalproduction.SomecountieshavestrongagriculturalpreservationpolͲ
iciesintheirGeneralPlansanddonotpermitusesunrelatedtoagriculturalproͲ
ductiononprimeagriculturallandsandlimitnonͲagriculturalusestothosethat
donotremovelandfromproductionorimpairagriculturaloperations.Other
countiesrequiremitigationforthelossofagriculturallandsfromothersimilar
facilitiesorhaveestablishedinͲlieufeesandmitigationfunds.Countiesshould
applyaconsistentsetofpoliciesregardingfarmlandmitigationtosimilardevelͲ
opmentthatpermanentlyconvertsfarmlandtononͲfarmuses.
CCPDA SEF Permit Streamlining Guide — page 31
February 3, 2012
IftheproposedTier3or4SEFwillimpactfarmlandsclassifiedbytheStateDepartͲ
mentofConservationasPrimeFarmland,FarmlandofStatewideImportance,or
UniqueFarmland,theagencyshouldevaluatetheproductivecapabilityofthe
landtodeterminethesignificanceoftheimpact.Insomecounties,Important
FarmlandsalsoincludeFarmlandsofLocalImportance.Duetothevariationin
howthoselocallyimportantfarmlandsaredefined,eachcountymustevaluate
impactstothoselandsbasedonlocalpractices.Theamountoftemporaryor
permanentlossofimportantfarmlandshouldbedeterminedbyaquantitative
analysisofimpactssuchasusingDepartmentofConservation’sLandEvaluation
andSiteAssessmentModel,orsimilarassessment,preparedbyqualifiedprofesͲ
sional(s)underconsultationwiththelocalAgriculturalCommissionerand,ifnecͲ
essary,theStateDepartmentofConservation.
WhereImportantFarmlandsaredeterminedtobesignificantlyimpacted,feaͲ
siblemitigationmeasuresforthetemporaryorpermanentlossofagricultural
landsshouldbeincorporatedinaccordancewithlocallyadoptedguidelinesand
procedures.Forexample,if
allowedbylocalguidelines,
mitigationforthetemporary
orpermanentlossof
agriculturallandcanbe
satisfiedbythededicationor
fundingofperpetual
agriculturalconservation
easementseitheronthe
remainderoftheparceloroffͲ
site.Suchconservation
CCPDA SEF Permit Streamlining Guide — page 32
February 3, 2012
easementsshouldbeheldbyaqualifiedconservationorganizationorother
arrangementssatisfactorytotheCounty.Conservationeasementsmayalsobe
tiered/layeredwithconservationeasementsformitigationofsomesensitive
habitats(seediscussiononEnvironmentallySensitiveHabitats)providedthe
conservationobjectivesandmanagementrequirementsarecompatiblewith
farmingactivities.InsomecountiesaninͲlieufeeisestablishedthatallowsthe
agencytoacquireagriculturalconservationeasementsinaccordancewith
countywideprograms.Duetochangesinmarketvaluesoflandandthedifficulty
ofpubliclandacquisitions,thepreferredapproachisdirectacquisitionand
dedicationofeasementsorfeetitlebytheapplicantsratherthanpaymentofin
lieufees.Ifnofeasiblemitigationmeasuresareidentified,thentheimpactto
importantfarmlandswouldneedtobedisclosedinanEnvironmentalImpact
Report(EIR)andastatementofoverridingconsiderationswouldneedtobe
adoptedbythelocalagencyinordertoapprovetheproject.
Anotheroption,discussedearlierinthisdocument,istoencouragedevelopers
tositeprojectsinRenewableEnergyCombiningZones(AppendixB).Thiswould
enableacountytoidentifythelowerͲimpactareasfordistributedgenerationor
largerutilityͲscalefacilitiesandlimitthecumulativelossofimportantfarmlands
thatcouldbeconverted.
C.7.2 Agricultural Preserves
Discussion.Anothersitingconsiderationrelatedtotheconversionoffarmlands
isthestatusofaparcelundertheLandConservationAct(WilliamsonAct).The
LandConservationActof1965enablescountiestoestablishagriculturalpreserves
andprovidetaxincentivestofarmerswhoagreeundercontracttomaintaintheir
landinagriculturalproduction.Landownerswhochosetoenterintocontracts
withthecountyagreetomaintainthelandincommercialagriculturalusefora
periodof10or20yearsinexchangeforareductioninpropertytaxes.Eachyear
ataxreductionisreceived,thecontractextendsforanother10or20Ͳyearperiod
untilthecontractisphasedͲoutorotherwiseterminated.IftheSEFisproposed
onasiteunderaLandConservationcontract,thefacilitymustbelistedasacomͲ
patibleuseinthelocallyadoptedAgriculturalPreserveRulesandallowedbythe
typeofcontract.Inaddition,findingsofcompatibilitymustbemadebythelegisͲ
lativebodyinconsultationwiththeAgriculturalCommissionerand/ortheappointed
advisorybody.TheSEFmustbefoundconsistentwiththeprinciplesofcompatiͲ
bilityunderGovernmentCodeSection51238.1.TheSEFmustbefoundnotto
impairtheagriculturalproductivityofthelandorlandsinthesurroundingarea.
TheAgriculturalPreserveRulesmaylimitthesizeandamountoflandareathat
canbedevotedtoautilityscalefacilitythatisnotforonͲsiteagriculturaluse.
CCPDA SEF Permit Streamlining Guide — page 33
February 3, 2012
ASEFthatisdesignedtosupporttheagriculturaluseoranotherpermitted
compatibleuse,suchasaprocessingfacility,isgenerallyconsideredcompatible
onlandsunderaLandConservationAct(WilliamsonAct)contract,describedin
SectionB.2.2above.AutilityͲscaleSEFmaybeconsideredcompatiblewithinan
AgriculturalPreserveoronlandunderaLandConservationActcontractwhen
specificfindingsaremadethattheSEFdoesnotimpairtheagriculturaloperation
anddoesnotaffecttheagriculturalproductivityofthelandorlandsinthesurͲ
roundingarea.IfthefacilityisnotsizedordeterminedtootherwisetobeacomͲ
patibleuse,orifasiteisdeterminedtonolongerbefeasibleforagriculturaluse
duetomarginalsoilsorinabilitytoirrigate,thesitemaybephasedoutofthe
contractpriortoconstruction,orthecontractmaybeterminatedeitherthrough
cancellationorconversiontoasolaruseeasementunderSB618,alsodescribed
inSectionB.2.2.
PolicyOptions.InordertoallowforSEFdevelopmentnotrelatedtotheonsite
agriculturaluse,WilliamsonActcontractsmaybeterminatedorsolaruseeaseͲ
mentsmaybeputinplace.
ThereareseveralwaysforaWilliamsonActcontracttobeterminated,including
nonͲrenewalandphaseͲout,lotlineadjustments,easementexchanges,solaruse
easementconversionsorcancellation.BotheasementexchangesandcancellaͲ
tionsrequirereviewbytheStateDepartmentofConservation.
PhaseͲoutisinitiatedbyanoticeofnonͲrenewalservedbythelandownerthat
beginsanineͲyearphaseoutperiod.Duringthephaseoutperiod,therestrictions
onthelandarestillineffect,whilethetaxesonthepropertyaregradually
increasedtofullvalue.LotlineadjustmentsandeasementexchangesimmediͲ
atelyremovethelandfromthecontractbyplacingothernonͲcontractedland
underthecontractoreasementinexchangeforrescindingthecontractona
specificparcel.Lotlineadjustmentsandagriculturalconservationeasement
exchangescouldbeconsideredmeasuresthatalsomitigatethepotentiallossof
agriculturallandastheyprovideamechanismtoensurethesameamountof
landremainsincommercialproduction.
Cancellationofacontractisadiscretionaryactionwhichrequiresapublichearing
andseveralfindingsthatmustbemadebythelegislativebodyasdefined
underGovernmentCodeSection51282.Thetwoprimaryfindingsarethat:
(1)cancellationisconsistentwithpurposesoftheLandConservationAct,and
(2)cancellationisinthepublicinterest.Thereareseveraladditionalfindingsor
criteriarequiredforeachofthesetwomajorfindings.Forexample,thelocal
agencymustfindthatcancellationcanbefoundtobeinthepublicinterestonly
ifotherpublicconcernsoutweightheobjectivesoftheActandthatthereisno
proximatenonͲcontractedlandwhichisbothavailableandsuitablefortheuse.
CCPDA SEF Permit Streamlining Guide — page 34
February 3, 2012
Cancellationfindingshavegenerallybeenmadeonlyonlandsthathavebeen
determinedtobemarginallyproductiveorotherwisecontaminated.CancellaͲ
tionrequiresapenaltyfeeupto12percentoftheunrestrictedvalueofthe
land.
SolaruseeasementsareanotheroptionrecentlyapprovedforuseunderSB618
thatwouldenablethecontracttoberescindedandreplacedwitha10Ͳyear
rollingsolareasementonmarginallyproductiveorphysicallyimpairedlands.
C.8 Environmentally Sensitive Habitats
Discussion.Theprotectionofhighvaluebiologicalresourcesisanimportant
considerationwhensitingaSEF.Thelossorconversionofhabitat,fragmentaͲ
tionofhabitatbyroads,increasedpredation,fencingandweedmanagement
associatedwithsolarfacilitiesisapotentialconcern.Sitesshouldbecarefully
evaluatedandsurveyedbyaqualifiedbiologisttodetermineareasthatcontain
(a)rareplantsorhabitatsforanyrare,
threatenedorendangeredspecies,or
(b)importantlandscapeorregional
habitatlinkagesorconnectivityareas.
Knownsitesaregenerallylistedinthe
CaliforniaNaturalDiversityDatabase
maintainedbytheDepartmentofFish
andGame.However,manysiteshave
notbeensurveyedandmaynotbe
includedinthedatabasesositespecific
surveysarenecessary.Manycounties
havepoliciesandprogramstoprotect
importantbioticresources,including
designationasopenspaceintheGeneralPlan,adoptedstreamsideconservation
areas,riparianandwetlandsetbacks,orRenewableEnergyCombiningZones.
PolicyOptions.IfaproposedSEFprojectiswellsitedtoavoidenvironmentally
sensitivehabitats,thenthepermittingprocessmaybeexpeditedeitherthrough
anadministrativepermitorminorusepermitanduseofamitigatednegative
declaration.However,iftheSEFislocatedonhighhabitatvalueparcel(s),the
permittingprocesswillrequiremoreextensiveenvironmentalreviewpossibly
includinganEIRandpublichearingsbeforethedecisionͲmakingbody.Applicants
areencouragedtocoordinatewithresourceagencies,suchastheStateDepartͲ
mentofFishandGameandtheU.S.FishandWildlifeService,duringsiteselecͲ
tiontoensurethatimportanthabitatscanbeavoided,impactsminimized,or
thatthelossofsuchhabitatscanotherwisebemitigated.Localagenciesshould
considerimportantbioticresourceswhenadoptingasolarstreamliningordiͲ
CCPDA SEF Permit Streamlining Guide — page 35
February 3, 2012
nanceandincorporatesitingcriteriatominimizeimpacts.
C.9 Scenic and Historic Resources
Discussion.ThesitingofaSEFshouldincludeanevaluationofthecommunity’s
scenicandhistoricresources.ScenicandhistoricresourcesoftenformthebackͲ
dropofacommunityandarehighly
valuedasanimportantelementofthe
localtourismindustry.ManycommuͲ
nitieshavedesignatedsceniccorridors
andscenicareasintheirGeneralPlans
andzoninglaws,includingsignificant
landforms,ridgelines,community
separatorsandscenichighways.Due
totheirsize,utilityͲscaleSEFscanhave
directandindirecteffectsonidentified
scenicandvisualresourcesareas,
especiallyiftheyaresurroundedby
chainlinkfencestoppedwithbarbed
wire.
PolicyOptions.Scenicresourcesshouldbetakenintoconsiderationwhensiting
SEFs.Inaddition,measuresthatcanbeusedtomitigatepotentialvisualimpacts
ofSEFsindesignatedscenicareasincludeavoidingsignificantscenicorhistoric
resourceareas.Whenavoidingtheseareasisnotfeasible,considerusinglarger
setbacksfrompublicroadsandstreams.Onemitigationoptiontopreservescenic
resourcesistorequiresitingofSEFssuchthatnaturaltopographyandvegetation
willhelpscreenviewsoftheprojectinscenicareas.Requiringadditionallandscape
vegetationmaybeappropriatealongtheroadfrontagesandadjoiningresidential
areastoprovideavisualbuffer.Insensitivelocations,fencingmaterialsand
similartechniquesshouldbeconsideredtosoftenthevisualeffectstotheextent
practical,whileensuringthatthefencingorscreeningisdesignedtobewildlife
friendly.
C.10 Cultural Resources
Discussion.Culturalresources,includingsacredlandscapes,shouldalsobetaken
intoconsiderationwhensitingSEFs.Recordsearchesshouldbeobtainedfrom
theappropriateCaliforniaHistoricalResourcesInformationSystem(CHRIS)InforͲ
mationCenterandNativeAmericanconsultationconducted.Therecordssearch
willdetermine(1)whetherapartoralloftheprojectareahasbeenadequately
surveyedforculturalresources;(2)whetheranyknownculturalresourceshave
alreadybeenrecordedonoradjacenttotheprojectarea;and(3)whetherthe
CCPDA SEF Permit Streamlining Guide — page 36
February 3, 2012
probabilityislow,moderate,orhighthatculturalresourcesarelocatedwithin
theprojectarea.IfaproposedprojectincludesgrounddisturbanceandtheprojͲ
ectsitehasnotbeenadequatelysurveyedthenfieldsurveybyqualifiedarchaeͲ
ologistisgenerallyrequired.Areconnaissancelevelsurveymayberequestedif
theprojectsitehasalowprobabilityofculturalresources.
PolicyOptions.Ifthestudiesdescribedabovedeterminethatnocultural
resourcesarepresentwithintheprojectarea,thennofurtheractionisneeded.
Ifresourcesareidentified,thereareseveralwaystotreatandmitigateimpacts
totheseresources.Theseincludepreservationthroughavoidance,sitecapping
(burial),creationofconservationeasementsand/ordatarecovery.
C.11 Decommissioning
InordertoensuresitesarerestoredtotheirpreͲdevelopmentstate,localjurisdicͲ
tionsmayrequirethereviewandapprovalofarestorationplanforthedecomͲ
missioningofsolarenergyfacilitiesattheendoftheirusefuleconomiclifeas
partoftheusepermitprocess.Adopteddevelopmentstandardsorusepermits
mayrequirethatallstructures,equipment,footingsandfencingberemoved
whenthefacilityisnolongerinuse.Forlargerfacilities,thelocaljurisdictionmay
wantamorespecificRestorationPlantobereviewedandapprovedaspartof
thepermitprocess.Generally,thesewouldincludeestimatesofcostsforrestoͲ
rationandshouldbebasedonprevailingwagesandallowcreditforsalvagevalue
ofthepanelsandsystemmaterials.
C.12 Financial Assurance
Forinstanceswheretheultimatesalvagevaluemaynotexceedtheremoval
cost,somelocalagenciesmayrequirefinancialassurancetosecuretheexpense
ofdismantlingandremovingtheSEFandreclaimingthesiteshouldthefacility
beabandoned.Solarprovidershaveexpressedconcernthattheserequirements
maybetooonerous,particularlyforsmallandmediumsizedfacilities,asthey
canaddsubstantialcosts.Thesolarindustryindicatedthatrequiringfinancial
assuranceisnoteconomicallyfeasibleforfacilitieslessthan30acresinsize.
Becausefinancialassurancescanaddasignificantburdenorcost,theneedfor
financialassurancesshouldbeevaluatedtakingintoaccountthelocationand
sizeofthefacility,thetermofuseofthesiteasapowergeneratingfacilityand
thepotentialforfuturechangesinleaseholdinterests,technologyanddemand.
Additionally,localjurisdictionsshouldconsiderothersimilartypesoffacilities
andapplysimilarstandards.
Financialassurancesmayberequiredforlargeprojectsoriftheprojectislocated
onpubliclyownedlands.Financialassurancecanbeinvariousformsacceptable
tothecounty,includingbonds,letterofcredit,trustfundsorsimilarguarantee.
CCPDA SEF Permit Streamlining Guide — page 37
February 3, 2012
Thereareseveralconsiderationsindeterminingtheamountandtimingofthe
financialassurance.Onefactoristheamountoftheassurancebasedoncurrent
costestimatesofsalvagevalueofthepanelsandsystemmaterials,andhowto
updatethecostestimatesovertime.Insomecases,thesolarcompanieshave
indicatedthattheultimatesalvagevaluemayexceedtheremovalcost,resulting
innonetcostfordecommissioning.
Ontheissueofthetimingoffundinganescrowaccount,considerationcanbe
giventorequiringfinancialassurancepriortooperationorfundingtheaccount
atatimeclosertotheendoftheleaseholdorPowerPurchaseAgreement(PPA)
period.TheCountymaydeterminethatatrustfundorescrowaccountisan
acceptableformoffinancialassurance
basedonaproratedamountaccruing
eachyeartowarddecommissioningof
thesolarfacility.Thetrustfundorescrow
accountshouldbeestablishedpriorto
issuanceofbuildingpermits,butatthe
yeardesignatedbytheCounty,the
operatorwouldbeginputtingfundsinto
theaccountsothattheengineer’scost
estimateisfullyfundedbytheendofthe
leaseholdperiodortheusefuleconomic
lifeofthefacility.
C.13 Abandoned Facilities
ThoughSEFareintendedtoprovideapartofthepermanentresponsetotheState’s
energygoals,thereispotentialforsomefacilitiestobeabandonedforavariety
offactors.Abandonedfacilitiescanbecomeunsightlyandcreateanattractive
nuisance.Abandonedsitescanalsobeexpensivetoreclaimorredevelopdueto
theextentoffootingsandcancreateanobstacleforreuseofthesiteanddeter
economicinvestmentinthearea.Countiesmayhavedifficultyinenforcementof
decommissioningrequirementsifaclearprocessfordeterminingwhena
facilityisabandonedisnotsetouteitherinlocalzoningcodesorusepermit
process.TheModelOrdinance(AppendixA)includesprovisionsformaking
determinationsofabandonmentthatcaneitherbeadoptedintolocalzoning
codesorasaconditionofapproval.
D. Streamlining the Permit Process
EncouragingtherapidexpansionofSEFsistheadoptedpolicyoftheStateofCalͲ
ifornia,andissupportedatthefederallevelandinmanylocalpolicies,including
countygeneralplans.Nonetheless,thecurrentpermitprocessisfrequently
CCPDA SEF Permit Streamlining Guide — page 38
February 3, 2012
lengthy,uncertainandexpensive.Inconsistentprocessesandrequirementsfrom
jurisdictiontojurisdictionandbetweenagenciesfurthercomplicaterenewable
energydevelopment.InSectionCabove,streamliningthepermitprocesswas
identifiedasawaytodealwiththevariousissuesdiscussed.Streamliningiswidely
consideredacompellingincentivethatlocalgovernmentcanoffer.Afaster,more
predictablepermitprocessisparticularlyimportantinlightoftherelativenewness
oftheindustry,thecurrenteconomicsofSEFs,andconcernsregardingthelooming
impactsofclimatechange.
TherearemanyothervaluesalsosupportedbyStateandlocalpolicies,including
theprotectionofimportantenvironmentalresourcesandagriculturallandsand
sustainingrobustfoodsupplies.
StreamliningmethodsincludetheadoptionofclearstandardsorspecialuseregͲ
ulationsthataddressenvironmentalconcernsandprovideaclearsetofguideͲ
linesforthesolarindustrytofollowaspartofamorepredictableapprovalproͲ
cess.TheuseofwelldefinedsitingcriteriaasprovidedintheModelOrdinance
orRenewableEnergyCombiningZonescanpotentiallyprovideadditional
incentivestoencouragesitingofsuchfacilitiesinappropriateareasbyfurther
reducingtheburdenontheapplicantofcostlyenvironmentalreviewanduncerͲ
taintieswithdiscretionarypermitreview.Establishingconsistentstandardsand
reducedbuildingpermitfees,especiallyforadirectͲuseSEF,isalsoapractice
usedbymanycommunities.ProposedfacilitiesthatdonotfallwithinthethreshͲ
oldsorthatdonotmeetthestandardsmaybelimitedtocertainzonesand/or
requireadiscretionaryusepermitprocessandpublichearing.
Streamliningcanalsooccurbydedicatingagencystaffmemberstoreviewsolar
projects,orbygivingprioritytorenewableenergyprojects,andbyallowing
applicantstocontributetoCountycostsforoutsideconsultantsorspecialiststo
expeditereviews.ThelocalagencycanalsofacilitatepermittingofSEFwith
otherresponsibleagenciesbyconveninginteragencymeetingstocoordinate
CEQAreviewandpermitconditions.
Thefollowingprovidesanoverviewofelementsofthepermittingprocess,sugͲ
gestedfindingsandkeyissues.
Tothisend,thegoalofthecountiesshouldbetopromotethe
developmentofSEFswhilebalancingtheneedtoprotect
importantenvironmentalresourcesandagriculturallands.
CCPDA SEF Permit Streamlining Guide — page 39
February 3, 2012
D.1 Project Development
Thekeyforstreamlinedprocessingisgenerallyintheprojectdevelopmentphase
ofaprojectwheretheapplicantshouldfirstevaluatesiteconstraintsandopporͲ
tunities.Earlyconsultationwiththeleadandresponsibleagencies,utilitiesand
neighborsisimportantinevaluatingaproject’sfeasibilityanddeterminingdesign
issuesthatshouldbeaddressedduringprojectdevelopment.Preparationofa
completeandaccurateprojectdescriptionwhichaddressestheSEFandall
ancillaryimprovementssuchastransmissionlines,substations,roadsandstaging
areasisafundamentalstepinanalyzinganapplicationandexpeditingthepermit
process.Tothatend,itisrecommendedthattheappropriatecountyplanning
staffmemberbecontactedearlyintheprocess.MostjurisdictionsprovideappliͲ
cationinformationandformsontheirdepartmentalwebsiteandanopportunity
forearlyconsultationpriortoformalsubmittalofapermitapplication.After
applicationsubmittal,itisimportanttogathercommentsandinformationfrom
otherresponsibleagenciesthatareinvolvedinpermittingoftheproject.Most
StateandlocalagenciesinvolvedinpermittingrelyontheCEQAdocumentpreͲ
paredbytheleadagencyandlocallanduseagenciescanserveanimportantrole
infacilitatingpermittingforsolarprojects.WhenaprojectinvolvesinterconnecͲ
tion,countiesshouldengagetheCPUCstafftoensurethattheyareincludedin
theearlystagesofreviewandthatCPUCissuesareaddressedinCEQAdocuments,
eventhoughtransmissionlinesandinterconnectionfacilitiesarenotwithinthe
locallanduseauthorityandmaynotbecompletelyknownbytheapplicantat
thetimeofpreparingtheCEQAdocument.
D.2 Compatibility Findings and Nexus
UsepermitsmaybegrantedonlywhenthedecisionͲmakingbodymakescertain
findingssupportedbysubstantialevidencethattheuse,asconditioned,willnot
bedetrimentaltothehealth,safetyorgeneralwelfareofthecommunity.The
findingsareprescribedintheapplicablezoningandlandusesordinancesofthe
County.Additionalfindingsregardingaproject’spotentialdirect,indirectand
cumulativeimpactsarealsorequiredunderCEQA.CaselawrequiresaclearconͲ
nectionornexusbetweenarequiredconditionormitigationandtheassociated
impactcausedbytheprojectinquestion.Requiredmitigationmeasuresmustbe
roughlyproportionaltotheimpactoftheproject.Forexample,projectappliͲ
cantsareonlyrequiredtoaddresspotentiallynegativeimpactsoftheirprojects
andcannotbeforcedtocorrectpreexistingconditions.Notwithstandingthese
legalstandards,projectapplicantsoftenvoluntarilyincorporateelementsinto
theirprojecttoincreasebenefitstothelocalcommunity.DevelopmentstandͲ
ardsareoftenincorporatedintozoningordinancesinordertoprovideamore
streamlinedprocessformakingthecompatibilityfindingsandensuringenvironͲ
mentalimpactsaremitigated.
CCPDA SEF Permit Streamlining Guide — page 40
February 3, 2012
D.3 Programmatic Environmental
Review for Ordinance Adoption
EnvironmentalreviewisrequiredunderCEQAforboth
adoptionoflocalordinancesandfordiscretionary
projectsthatrequireusepermits.SEFsarelandͲ
extensiveprojects—thatistheyutilizealargeland
area—thatcancreatesubstantialvisualimpacts
andimpactstobiologicalresourcesandagricultural
lands.Generally,however,theydonotcreatesubͲ
stantialnoise,traffic,airorwaterqualityimpacts,
otherthanshortͲtermconstructionimpacts,that
othertypesofpowergenerationcreate.SEFscan
providesubstantiallongͲtermbenefitstoairquality
andwatersuppliescomparedtoalternativelanduses.
WhenanEIRispreparedforadoptionofalocalordiͲ
nance,itiscalleda“ProgrammaticEIR.”Subsequent
projectscan“tieroff”theProgrammaticEIRand
streamlinethepermitprocesssolongastheProgramͲ
maticEIRcontainstheappropriatelevelofanalysis,
mitigationmeasures,andfindingsofoverridingconͲ
sideration(wherenecessary).Inordertotieroffa
ProgrammaticEIR,anInitialStudyispreparedforthe
SEFbythelocalagency,whichidentifiestheimpacts
fromtheprojectandhowmeasuresinthelocalordiͲ
nanceorplanmitigatethoseimpactsandwouldbe
appliedtotheproject.IftheimpactsfromtheprojͲ
ectareadequatelyaddressedintheProgrammatic
EIRontheordinance,thentheprojectlevelreview
doesnotneedtocoverthemfurther.Totheextent
theProgrammaticEIRidentifiedsignificantunavoidͲ
ableimpactsthatwereoverriddenbythedecisionͲ
makingbody,subsequentprojectsthatconformto
theordinancecanbemorereadilyapprovedwitha
mitigatednegativedeclaration,tieredofftheearlier
findingsmadeintheadoptionoftheordinance.The
InitialStudyincorporatesbyreferencethegeneral
discussionsfromtheearlierProgrammaticEIRand
thenfocusesthediscussionsolelyonissuesspecific
tothelaterproject.Thisapproachcaneliminate
repetitivediscussionsofthesameissues.
EvaluatingCumulativeImpacts
With the rapid expansion of renewable energy
in California, often concentrated in certain
regions, the consideration of the cumulative
impacts of these is particularly important.
However, cumulative impacts are difficult to
address and mitigate on a project level. The
need to consider these impacts can trigger
the requirement than an EIR be prepared to
enable the agency to fully review the impacts
and implement the necessary mitigation mea-
sures and/or consider adopting a statement of
overriding considerations if the impacts are
unavoidable. According to the CEQA Guide-
lines, Section 15064(h)(1), an EIR is required
if “the incremental effects of an individual
project are significant when viewed in con-
nection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probably future projects.” However,
even with an EIR, it is difficult to properly
mitigate cumulative impacts on a project-by-
project basis.
Programmatic EIRs can provide a tool for
overcoming this challenge. For this reason
most ordinances are designed to be “self-
mitigating” by including siting criteria, general
standards or special use regulations and
defining thresholds for ministerial permits that
would be benign in all circumstances. The
programmatic EIR can evaluate the impacts
of siting a number of projects in accordance
with the standards in the ordinance and look
at what mitigation measures are necessary
to prevent cumulative impacts from occurring.
Therefore, when an individual project is pro-
posed in compliance with the ordinance, the
possible cumulative effect will have already
been considered and mitigated. Projects not
proposed in compliance with the ordinance will
still need to have their cumulative impacts fully
evaluated.
CCPDA SEF Permit Streamlining Guide — page 41
February 3, 2012
III. References and Supporting Information
BLM(U.S.BureauofLandManagement).2010.PressRelease:“Salazar,ChuAnnounce
NextStepinNation'sMarchtowardRenewableEnergyFuture.”http://www.
blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/newsroom/2010/december/NR_12162010.html.
CaliforniaDepartmentofConservation.2011.WhitePaperentitled“Considerationsin
SitingSolarFacilitiesonLandEnrolledintheWilliamsonAct,”03/11/11:http://
www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/Pages/Index.aspx.AddresseslargeͲscaleSEFs
locatedonWilliamsonActLands.
CaliforniaEnergyCommission.2011.ReleasedtheEnergyAwarePlanningGuide,which
providescomprehensiveinformationinregardstothesiting,interconnection,
permitting,constraintsandotherissuesrelatedtoSEFs.http://www.energy.ca.
gov/2009publications/CECͲ600Ͳ2009Ͳ013/CECͲ600Ͳ2009Ͳ013.PDF
CaliforniaPublicUtilitiesCommission.RenewableAuctionMechanism.http://docs.cpuc.
ca.gov/PUBLISHED/AGENDA_DECISION/127465.htm
CountyofSantaClara.2010.SolarZoningOrdinanceSummary:ExamplesofZoningOrdiͲ
nanceStandardsforSolarElectricGeneratingFacilities.http://www.sccgov.org/
keyboard/attachments/Committee%20Agenda/2010/May%2013,%202010/
202934788/TMPKeyboard203054870.pdf
FAARegsonAviation.http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/
rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/22990146db0931f186256c2a00721867/$FILE/ac70Ͳ
7460Ͳ2K.pdf
GreentechSolar.2010.EricWesoff,“FeedͲinTariff,CaliforniaStyle:CPUCpassesone
GigawattRAMProgram.”http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/ram/
NavigantConsulting.2008.FinalReport,EconomicImpactsofExtendingFederalSolar
TaxCredits.PreparedfortheSolarEnergyResearchandEducationFoundation
(SEREF).September2008.
NevadaWildernessProject.2011.“SmartfromtheStart”discussion.http://www.
wildnevada.org/smartfromthestart.html.
OregonDepartmentofEnergy.2005.AModelOrdinanceforEnergyProjects,http://www.
oregon.gov/ENERGY/SITING/docs/ModelEnergyOrdinance.pdf?ga=t.July2005
TulareCountySolarOrdinance,Interpretation,http://bosagendas.co.tulare.ca.us/
MG309919/AS309922/AS309939/AI310239/DO310243/DO_310243.PDF
USEPA(U.S.EnvironmentalprotectionAgency).ReͲPoweringAmerica’sLand,SitingRenewͲ
ableEnergyonPotentiallyContaminatedLandandMineSites.http://www.epa.
gov/oswercpa/.
YoloCountySolarSmallSolarFacilitiesOrdinance,adoptedSeptember27,2011.http://
www.yolocounty.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=17407
Model Solar Energy Facility
Permit Streamlining Ordinance
Appendix A
to
Model Solar Energy Facility
Permit Streamlining Guide
February 3, 2012
http://www.ccpda.org
CCPDA SEF Permit Streamlining Guide
Appendix A: Model SEF Permit Streamlining Ordinance
Page A-1
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. _______ OF THE
COUNTY CODE OF ( ) TO PROVIDE FOR THE PERMITTING
OF SOLAR ENERGY FACILITIES
1. DEFINITIONS
A.“Applicant” is the Landowner, developer, facility owner, and/or operator with
legal control of the project, including heirs, successors and assigns, who has
filed an application for development of a Solar Energy Facility under this
Ordinance.
B.“Parcel” means all land within a legally established parcel.
C.“Practicable” means it is available and capable of being done after taking into
consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project
purposes.
D.“Landowner” means the persons or entities possessing legal title to the
Parcel(s) upon which a SEF is located.
E.“Protected Lands” means, for the purpose of this chapter only, lands
containing resources that are protected or regulated by established regulatory
standards of local, state, and federal agencies, conservation easements or
other contractual instruments in such a way that prohibits or limits
development of those lands.
F.“Review Authority” means applicable county or city land use decision-making
body as determined by local ordinance and appeal procedures.
G.“Solar Energy Facility (SEF)” means a Solar Electric System that satisfies the
parameters set out in Tiers 1 through 3 below.
H.“Solar Electric System (SES)” means the components and subsystems that,
in combination, convert solar energy into electric or thermal energy suitable
for use, and may include other appurtenant structures and facilities. The term
includes, but is not limited to, photovoltaic power systems, solar thermal
systems, and solar hot water systems.
I.“Renewable Energy Combining Zone” means a zoning district that may be
combined with other base zoning and applied to specific geographic areas
within the County, where the County has determined the land is suitable for a
specified variety of Solar Energy Facilities and where permitting for such
facilities may be expedited if specified conditions are met.
O.“Uses Allowed” means one of the following:
i. Accessory Use – a SEF designed primarily for serving on-site needs or
a use that is related to the Primary Use of the property.
ii. Direct Use – a SEF designed and installed to provide on-site energy
demand for any legally established use of the property.
CCPDA SEF Permit Streamlining Guide
Appendix A: Model SEF Permit Streamlining Ordinance
Page A-2
iii. Primary Use – a SEF that uses over 50% of the Parcel(s) and is
devoted to solar electric power generation primarily for use off-site.
iv. Secondary Incidental Use – a SEF that provides up to 125% of on-site
electricity (or hot water) demand and generally less than 50% of the
building site area, or 15-25% of the Parcel land area.
v. Secondary Use – a SEF that is not the Primary Use of the property and
uses less than 50% of the Parcel(s).
P. “Williamson Act Contracted Parcel” means a Parcel of land that is in contract
with a local authority for the preservation of agricultural and open space land
per the Land Conservation Act of 1965 or similar local agricultural land
preservation programs.
2. PURPOSE
The purpose of the Ordinance is to facilitate the construction, installation and
operation of a Solar Energy Facilities (SEFs) in the County of (___________) in a
manner that protects public health, safety and welfare and avoids significant
impacts to protected resources such as important agricultural lands, endangered
species, high value biological habitats and other protected resources. It is the
intent of this ordinance to encourage solar facilities that reduce reliance on
foreign petroleum supplies, increase local economic development and job
creation, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, assist California in meeting its
Renewable Portfolio Standards, and/or promote economic development
diversification.
3. APPLICABILITY
A.This Ordinance applies to the construction of any new SEF within the
County.
B.A SEF legally established or permitted prior to the effective date of this
Ordinance shall not be required to meet the requirements of this
Ordinance, however:
i. Physical modification or alteration to an existing SEF that materially
alters the size, type or components of the SEF shall be subject to
this Ordinance. Only the modification or alteration is subject to this
Ordinance;
ii. Substantial conformance review determinations are not major
amendments to a project's existing permits; and
iii. Routine operation and maintenance or like-kind replacements do
not require a permit.
4. PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
The type of permit required for SEFs shall be as shown in Table 1 Permit
Requirements (see following page).
CCPDA SEF Permit Streamlining GuideAppendix A: Model SEF Permit Streamlining Ordinance Page A-3
CCPDA SEF Permit Streamlining Guide
Appendix A: Model SEF Permit Streamlining Ordinance
Page A-4
5. PARCEL LINE SETBACKS
The following setbacks from the Parcel line to the closest part of the SEF shall be
established as shown in Table 2. Fencing, roads and landscaping may occur within
the setback. (Each County will need to establish their own setback requirements -
the following table is intended to assist in this effort).
Table 2. Parcel Line Setbacks
Zoning District Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
Front Rear Side
Ag Zone *
Per Zoning for
that District
Per Zoning for
that District
30’ 30’ 30’
Commercial * 30’ 30’ 30’
Industrial * 30’ 30’ 30’
Rural Residential
(> 10 acres) 100’ 100’ 100’
Residential
(<10 acres) Per Zoning for that District
* Complies with required front yard setbacks, or otherwise does not impair sight distance for safe access to
or from the property or other properties in the vicinity as determined by ministerial zoning clearance.
6. HEIGHT LIMITS
For ground mounted systems, height restrictions will be measured from natural
grade below each module in the event the site has topographic changes. (Each
County will need to establish their own height limits – Table 3 is intended to assist in
this effort).
Table 3. Height Limits
Zoning District Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
Ag or Rural
Residential
Roof – 2’ above roof
surface
Ground – 15’
Roof – 2’ above roof
surface and may project
above the height limit
Ground – 15’
Roof – 2’ above roof
surface and may project
above the height limit
Ground – 15-25’
Commercial or
Industrial
Roof – 4’ above roof
surface and may project
above the height limit
Ground – 15’
Roof – 4’ above roof
surface and may project
above the height limit
Ground – 15’
Roof – 4’ above roof
surface and may project
above the height limit
Ground – 15-25’
Residential Roof – 2’ above roof
surface and may project
above the height limit
Ground – 10’
Roof – 2’ above roof
surface and may project
above the height limit
Ground – 10’
Roof – 2’ above roof
surface and may project
above the height limit
Ground – 15’
CCPDA SEF Permit Streamlining Guide
Appendix A: Model SEF Permit Streamlining Ordinance
Page A-5
7. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (apply to all tiers unless otherwise noted)
A. Building Permits Are Required –
a. Nothing in this chapter modifies the minimum building standards
required to construct a SEF, consistent with applicable building and
fire codes. The SEF components and all accessory equipment
shall comply with the most recently adopted Building Code as
determined by the Building Official and Fire Code as determined by
the Fire Official.
b. A site plan shall be provided at the time of the Building Permit
application demonstrating compliance with the setbacks in Tables 1
and 2.
c. The Building Permit shall include review by local permitting
departments including, but not limited to, the local Fire Authority, for
Health and Safety Requirements.
B. Right To Farm – If the SEF is located on or adjacent to an agricultural zone,
the Applicant must acknowledge the County’s Right to Farm Ordinance and
shall be required to record a Right to Farm Notice on their Parcel(s) prior to
issuance of any Building Permits. This shall be included as a recommended
condition of approval of the land use entitlement if a discretionary permit is
required.
C. Off-Site Facilities – When the SEF is located on more than one Parcel, there
shall be proper easement agreement or other approved methods for the
notification of all impacted parties.
D. Septic System Avoidance – The SEF shall not be located over a septic
system, leach field area or identified reserve area unless approved by the
Department of Environmental Health;
E. Floodplain Avoidance – If located in a floodplain as designated by FEMA, or
an area of known localized flooding, all panels, electrical wiring, automatic
transfer switches, inverters, etc. shall be located above the base flood
elevation; and, shall not otherwise create a fire or other safety hazard as
determined by the Building Official.
F. Conform to Development Standards for Underlying Zone – The SEF shall
be ground mounted, or when located on structures, the SEF shall conform to
the development standards for a principal structure in the zone in which such
facilities and structures are to be located, except as otherwise provided
herein;
G. Visibility
a. Scenic Areas – For Tier 2 and 3 SEFs in Scenic areas, as
designated in the General Plan, efforts shall be made by the
Applicant, to the maximum extent practicable, to shield the SEF
CCPDA SEF Permit Streamlining Guide
Appendix A: Model SEF Permit Streamlining Ordinance
Page A-6
from public view. On-site power lines shall, to the maximum extent
practicable, be placed out of sight or underground.
b. All Areas - Additionally, all ground mounted facilities shall:
i. If lighting is required, it shall be activated by motion sensors,
fully shielded and downcast type where the light does not
spill onto the adjacent Parcel or the night sky;
ii. Not display advertising, except for reasonable identification
of the panel, inverter or other equipment manufacturer, and
the facility owner;
iii. Be sited behind existing vegetation (which shall be
supplemented with landscaping where not adequate to
screen the project) or be sited using the natural topography
to screen the project; and
iv. Be enclosed by a fence, barrier, barbwire, razor wire or other
appropriate means to prevent or restrict unauthorized
persons or vehicles from entering the Parcel(s). Fences or
barriers shall incorporate wildlife friendly design. No barrier
shall be required where projects employ full-time security
guards or video surveillance.
H. Locations Requiring Discretionary Review – The following principles shall
apply to the Review of Tier 3 locations: No portion of the SEF or their
structures shall occupy Protected Lands, unless specifically evaluated under
CEQA and permitted. Protected Lands that are potentially incompatible
locations, requiring Tier 3 permits, include:
a. Floodways.
b. Wetlands, wetland transition areas, riparian corridors, or open
water.
c. In agricultural zones, project sites designated under the
Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program’s Division of Land Resource Protection map as “Prime
Farmland”, “Farmland of Statewide Importance” and “Unique
Farmland”.
d. Lands subject to Williamson Act Contracts that disallow the SEF
per principles of compatibility per Government Code 51201 (e),
51238, 51238.1 and 51238.3.
e. Habitat of special status, threatened, endangered, candidate, or
fully protected species, species of special concern, or species
protected under the Native Plant Protection Act; Environmentally
Sensitive Habitat Areas, important habitat/wildlife linkages or areas
of connectivity; and areas covered by Habitat Conservation Plans
CCPDA SEF Permit Streamlining Guide
Appendix A: Model SEF Permit Streamlining Ordinance
Page A-7
or Natural Community Conservation Plans that preclude
development.
f. Lands within easements where SEF is a prohibited use.
I. Abandonment – A SEF, other than a Tier 1 system, that ceases to produce
electricity on a continuous basis for twenty four (24) months shall be
considered abandoned unless the Applicant or Landowner demonstrates by
substantial evidence satisfactory to the County Planning/Development
Services Department that there is no intent to abandon the facility. Applicants
and/or Landowners are required to remove all equipment and facilities and
restore the site to original condition upon abandonment.
i. Facilities deemed by the County to be unsafe and facilities erected
in violation of this section shall also be subject to this Section. The
code enforcement officer or any other employee of the Planning,
Building and Public Works Departments shall have the right to
request documentation and/or affidavits from the Applicant
regarding the system’s usage, and shall make a determination as to
the date of abandonment or the date on which other violation(s)
occurred.
ii. Upon a determination of abandonment or other violation(s), the
County shall send a notice hereof to the Applicant and/or
Landowner, indicating that the responsible party shall remove the
SEF and all associated facilities, and remediate the site to its
approximate original condition within ninety (90) days of notice by
the County, unless the County determines that the facilities must be
removed in a shorter period to protect public safety. Alternatively, if
the violation(s) can be addressed by means short of removing the
SEF and restoration of the site, the County may advise the
Applicant and/or Landowner of such alternative means of resolving
the violation(s).
iii. If the Applicant and/or Landowner do not comply, the County may
remove the SEF and restore the site and may thereafter (a) draw
funds from any bond, security or financial assurance that may have
been provided or (b) initiate judicial proceedings or take other steps
authorized by law against the responsible parties to recover only
those costs associated with the removal of structures deemed a
public hazard.
8. SOLAR ENERGY FACILITIES – TIER 1
A. General Requirements. Tier 1 Solar Energy Facilities are ground mounted
SEFs that provide energy primarily for on-site use, or rooftop systems that
provide energy for any use, that are permitted as Accessory Uses in all zone
districts within the County as shown in Table 1. Rooftops or ground mounted
systems covering developed parking areas or other hardscape areas are
encouraged as preferred locations for a SEF. In addition to the General
CCPDA SEF Permit Streamlining Guide
Appendix A: Model SEF Permit Streamlining Ordinance
Page A-8
Requirements in Section 7, the following standards shall apply to all Tier 1
SEFs, notwithstanding the development standards for the underlying zone:
i. Tiers Table 1 – Meet the size thresholds for a ministerial permit in
Table 1;
ii. Lot Coverage – Rooftop systems can be any size, ground
mounted systems may not exceed ½ an acre;
iii. Setbacks – Ground mounted structures shall conform to the
setbacks as shown in Table 2. For front yard setbacks, the
Applicant may show that the SEF otherwise does not impair sight
distance for safe access to or from the property or other
properties in the vicinity as determined by ministerial zoning
clearance; and
iv. Height Limits – Facilities shall conform to the height limits of Table
3, unless demonstrated by a structural engineer to meet public
safety standards.
v. Floodway - A Tier 1 SEF shall not be located in a Floodway
unless evaluated under a discretionary process.
9. SOLAR ENERGY FACILITIES – TIER 2
A. General Requirements. Tier 2 SEFs provide energy for on-site or off-site use
and are permitted as secondary and incidental uses as shown in Table 1. In
addition to the General Requirements in Section 7, the following standards shall
apply to all Tier 2 SEF, notwithstanding the development standards for the
underlying zone:
i. Tiers Table 1 – Meet the size thresholds for an administrative permit in
the applicable zoning district as shown in Table 1;
ii. Lot Coverage – Allowable lot coverage varies by zoning district as
shown in Table 1;
iii. Setbacks – Ground mounted structures shall conform to the setbacks
as shown in Table 2. For front yard setbacks, the Applicant may show
that the SEF otherwise does not impair sight distance for safe access
to or from the property or other properties in the vicinity as determined
by ministerial zoning clearance.
iv. Height Limits – Facilities shall conform to the height limits of Table 3.
v. Floodway - A Tier 2 SEF shall not be located in a Floodway unless
evaluated under a discretionary process.
B. Agricultural Resources – Tier 2 SEF facilities shall be sited to avoid important
farmlands as mapped by the state department of conservation including prime,
farmlands of statewide importance, unique or locally important farmlands,
unless determined by the review authority in consultation with the Agricultural
CCPDA SEF Permit Streamlining Guide
Appendix A: Model SEF Permit Streamlining Ordinance
Page A-9
Commissioner to be chemically or physically impaired, except for an SEF on
less than 15% of the Parcel(s).
i. Williamson Act – Tier 2 SEF are allowed on Williamson Act contracted
land only if determined to be a compatible use. The SEF must be
listed as a compatible use in the local Williamson Act Rules. The total
site area for all compatible uses, including renewable energy facilities,
should not be greater than 15 percent of the Parcel(s) or 5 acres,
whichever is less, if located on prime land or 30 percent of the
Parcel(s) or up to 10 acres if located on non-prime land, unless
determined by the legislative body in consultation with the Agricultural
Commissioner and/or the appointed advisory body that a larger site
area is consistent with the principles of compatibility in conformance
with Government Code Section 51238.1.
C. Biological Resources – Tier 2 SEF shall not be located on lands which
support listed, candidate or other fully protected species, species of species
concern, or species protected under the Native Plant Protection Act;
Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas; or provide important habitat linkage or
connectivity on a landscape or regional scale as designated in a General Plan,
Area or Specific Plan or as identified in the California Natural Diversity
Database. If a proposed Tier 2 SEF project is located on such land, it shall
require a minor or conditional use permit as determined by the director.
10. SOLAR ENERGY FACILITIES – TIER 3
A. General Requirements. Tier 3 facilities are allowed as Secondary or Primary
Uses that provide energy for on-site or off-site use as shown in Table 1
subject to a minor use permit, CEQA review and approval by a Zoning
Administrator or other similar administrative approval process. In addition to
the General Requirements in Section 7, the following standards shall apply to
all Tier 3 SEF, notwithstanding the development standards for the underlying
zone:
i. Tiers Table 1 – Meet the size thresholds for a minor use permit in the
applicable zoning district as shown in Table 1;
ii. Lot Coverage – Allowable lot coverage varies by zoning district as
shown in Table 1;
iii. Setbacks – Ground mounted structures shall conform to the setbacks
as shown in Table 2 and whenever an SEF abuts an agricultural
operation or agricultural zone, an agricultural buffer on the SEF Parcel
shall be established at a minimum of 100 feet. The buffer may be
reduced if the decision-making body determines that there is a
substantial screen such as existing topography or landscaping
vegetation and/or an operational management plan and/or an
agricultural operation easement is provided;
iv. Height Limits – Facilities shall conform to the height limits of Table 3;
CCPDA SEF Permit Streamlining Guide
Appendix A: Model SEF Permit Streamlining Ordinance
Page A-10
B. Agricultural Resources – The preservation of agricultural activities and
agriculturally viable soils is an important consideration. Therefore:
i. Farmland Protection - Tier 3 SEF projects shall limit the amount of
disturbance to Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance,
Unique Farmland and Locally Important agricultural lands to the
highest extent possible and consistent with local agricultural
preservation requirements, unless determined by the review authority,
in consultation with the Agricultural Commissioner, to be chemically or
physically impaired.
ii. Grading - Grading within Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide
Importance, Unique Farmland shall be limited to only that necessary to
construct access roads and install equipment, unless the areas are
determined to be chemically or physically impaired.
iii. Agricultural Preserves – If the facility is located on a site under a
Williamson Act contract, the facility must be listed as a compatible use
in the local Agricultural Preserve Rules, allowed by the type of
contract, and findings must be made by the review authority in
consultation with the Agricultural Commissioner and/or the appointed
advisory body that the SEF is consistent with the principles of
compatibility in conformance with Government Code Section 51238.1
or the contract must be otherwise terminated in accordance with
existing law.
C. Biological Resources – The protection of high value biological resources is
an important consideration. Tier 3 SEF projects shall not be located on lands
that support listed, candidate or other fully protected species, species of
special concern, or species protected by the Native Plant Protection Act;
Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas; or provide important habitat linkage
or connectivity on a landscape or regional scale as designated in a General
Plan. If a proposed Tier 3 SEF project is located on such land, it may be
directed for hearing to the Planning Commission. Applicants are encouraged
to coordinate with permitting agencies such as Dept. of Fish and Game and
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service during design stages.
D. Soil Stabilization, Erosion Control and Ground Water Management – For
Tier 3 SEFs, the following requirements shall apply:
i. To the extent feasible and compatible with the climate and pre-project
landscaping of the property the site shall be restored with native
vegetation. The re-vegetation plans shall be reviewed and approved
by the County Planning and Fire Departments. All areas occupied by
the facility that are not utilized for access to operate and maintain the
installation shall be planted and maintained with a native shade
tolerant grass or other vegetation for the purpose of soil stabilization or
other methods approved by the Planning Department.
CCPDA SEF Permit Streamlining Guide
Appendix A: Model SEF Permit Streamlining Ordinance
Page A-11
ii. A storm water management plan showing existing and proposed
grading and drainage demonstrating no net increase in runoff shall be
provided subject to approval by the review authority.
iii. A maintenance plan shall be submitted for the continuing maintenance
of the SEF, which may include, but not be limited to, planned
maintenance of vegetation or ground cover, equipment maintenance,
and plans for cleaning of solar panels if required.
iv. Prior to issuing a final Building Permit, an as-built grading and drainage
plan, prepared by a licensed professional surveyor or other approved
qualified professional shall be submitted to the reviewing agency’s
engineer for review and approval. The plan shall show that the as-built
conditions are substantially the same as those shown on the approved
grading and drainage plan.
11. SOLAR ENERGY FACILITIES – TIER 4
A.Facilities that exceed the size thresholds or do not meet the standards for
Tiers 1-3 shall be considered Tier 4 facilities. Tier 4 facilities are allowed as
Secondary or Primary Uses that provide energy for on-site or off-site use as
shown in Table 1 subject to a Conditional Use Permit, CEQA review, public
hearing and approval by the Planning Commission and/or Board of
Supervisors. Conditions of approval may be added through the Conditional
Use Permit review process.