public comment matrix: solar facilities · 3/2/2018 · customers seem to want renewable power,...

10/31/2017 Email, Chad Unland

PUBLIC COMMENT MATRIX: Solar Facilities

Corrections to previous letter

Comments regarding criteria for solar siting

Comments on proposed draft regulations

Comments on Process

Corrections related to comment draft



Comments regarding draft regulations

Comments regarding EFSEC applications

Comments regarding facility placement

Siting

Comments regarding timeline suggestions

Comments regarding decomissioning facilities

Priority Mitigation measures list


Multiple comments received at community open house, See attached document" October 23, 2017 Open House Comments"


Comments, Concerns about siting in Ag land, Letter submitted 10/24/2017


There should be regulations to address when a project goes bust, especially with smaller developers involved

It is very rare that a project site is abandoned. It is not build until the funding is secured and if the company goes under after a

site is established it is easily sold or operated by th banks involved.

Comments regarding criteria for solar installations

Meeting 3 discussion comments



Siting

Siting

Siting

Mitigation

Mitigation

Mitigation

Mitigation

Siting, Mitigation, Permitting

Siting

DNR Support Maps showing DNR Lands

Regulations Comments regarding draft regulations

Customers seem to want renewable power, the demand is high due to increasing effiiency and cost reduction

DNR Representative expressed interest in solar leasing opportunities on DNR land, letter also submitted 9/28/2017

30 to 40 years for a solar lease is a long time to tie up farm land

Anything larger than 20 MW generally will require a new substation, but only projects over 50 MW are large enough to

financially support a new one.

Comments regarding criteria for solar installationsConcerned with my view from solar company installation near my property. Its hard on neighboring housing, do not trust solar

company promises for view mitigations

Good Farm land is difficult to find and solar development won't make this any better, frusturated with lack of control over solar

farm developers. What happens when solar is here? How will these facilities be maintained? What are the methods in place to

make sure they do what they say they will do?

Regulations

Regulations

Regulations

Advisory Group

Decomissioning

Siting

Regulations

Process

Comments

Siting

Siting

Regulations

11/30/2017 Letter, Keith Crimp

12/22/2017 Email, Stephen Zabransky

12/30/2017 Email, Eilert Bjorge

1/8/2018 Email, Mary Christensen

1/9/2018 Email, Ivan Manley

1/25/2018 Letter, Jeff Dunning

10/23/2017 Email, Andrea Sledge

10/23/2017 Open House

10/26/2017 Email, James Briggs

10/24/2017 Letter, Jeff Dunning

11/1/2017 Email, Dwight Bates

11/28/2017 Email, Scott Downes

11/10/2017 Email, Dick Carkner


2/13/2018 Email, Theo Leonard

2/26/2018 Email, Andrea Sledge

2/27/2018 Letter, Jason Evans

3/1/2018 Letter, Damien Hall

3/1/2018 Letter, Jason Evans


10/21/2017 Email, Jeff Dunning

10/21/2017 Email, Mary Christensen

MItigation

Mitigation

Mitigation, Permitting

9/26/2017 MTG 2

9/26/2017 MTG 2


10/10/2017 MTG 3

10/10/2017 MTG 3

10/10/2017 MTG 3

Siting

Grid

Mitigation

Mitigation

Siting

Mitigation

10/10/2017 MTG 3


10/16/2017

Meeting Comments Meeting discussion comments and questions, email received 9/8/2017

Meeting Comments

We hear the argument that we don’t want irrigated ag fields converted into solar, but we’ve seen these areas converted into

other uses-like housing-so just want to make sure we are being consistent in our approach. Email received 9/14/2017

Source Topic Comment

9/26/2017 MTG 2

9/26/2017 MTG 2

Renewable Power

DNR



1

Chelsea Benner

From: Dan CarlsonSent: Monday, October 09, 2017 10:20 AMTo: Chelsea BennerSubject: FW: Subject: Solar Advisory Committee

Dan Carlson, AICP Community Development Services Director Kittitas County 411 N Ruby ST, Suite 2 Ellensburg WA 98926 (509) 933‐8244 [email protected]

From: Dick Carkner [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, September 08, 2017 5:33 PM To: Dan Carlson; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Subject: Solar Advisory Committee Thanks for the opportunity to serve on the solar advisory committee. We should be able to protect our prime farm lands and accommodate solar facilities as well. Our goal should be to do what is in the best interests of our community. Based on our discussions on Thursday, solar facilities wants include sites of 20 acres or more, relatively level, (slopes of less than 5 %) and access to the power grid. They indicated that they do NOT need irrigation so lets not give it to them. Water rights could be a disqualifier. Land that is not prime farmland, as defined below, could be cheaper as well and that is one of the solar siting criteria listed by TUUSSO Energy. How many sites in the county do we have that meet their three basic wants? For purposes of discussion, prime farmland is land with water rights and currently in the production of hay, potatoes, sunflowers or other high value crops. It would not include range land or shrub steppe. One of our presenters indicated that he had an option on land that meets the wants listed above but is not prime farm land. How many other sites are there? Planning staff could identify them as examples or identify an inventory of sites where solar facilities would need to be. I think the term solar farm should be dropped in favor of solar facilities. As a retired agricultural academic I find the term solar farm as a phony attempt to equate solar sites with agriculture. Other siting issues that were brought up on Thursday were the impact of solar facilities on surrounding land values and the impact on view sheds. These issues could be factored into siting criteria. Another question is how many utility scale solar sites can PSE accommodate with the current inventory of substations? Beyond utility scale solar what policies do we have to facilitate solar in our building codes? Most developments I have seen in the county are platted on a grid that does not consider solar orientation. Why not give developers incentives to capture solar energy with suitable structure orientation? I realize this process is on a fast track but need it be? Thursday’s meeting was a good introduction to the solar siting challenges facing the county but I think we need some working sessions for committee to delve deeper into the issues if we are to develop the best policies. In my opinion, it is a stretch to think that we could draft regulations at the next meeting at least as far as getting committee input is concerned. Certainly County planners could come up with

2

some regulations but don’t you want to take advantage of the committee? The committee might even hold public meetings to gather input from the community. What do you think? Thank you! Dick Carkner Sent from Mail for Windows 10

Notice: Email sent to Kittitas County may be subject to public disclosure as required by law. message id: 38eb45916c6dcbdac24bb8719d004a14

1

Chelsea Benner

From: Dan CarlsonSent: Monday, October 09, 2017 10:21 AMTo: Chelsea BennerSubject: FW: Solar Facilities Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting 1 Agenda


From: Downes, Scott G (DFW) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 10:57 AM To: Dan Carlson Subject: RE: Solar Facilities Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting 1 Agenda Dan, Another piece of info that would help discussions if we could look at the number of acres (even if its rough) of irrigated agriculture that has been converted in last 10 years. We hear the argument that we don’t want irrigated ag fields converted into solar, but we’ve seen these areas converted into other uses‐like housing‐so just want to make sure we are being consistent in our approach. Thanks, Scott

Scott Downes Fish & Wildlife Habitat Biologist Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Region 3 Habitat Program 1701 South 24th Ave Yakima, WA 98902‐5720 [email protected] Office‐509‐457‐9307 Cell‐509‐607‐3578

From: Dan Carlson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, September 01, 2017 10:34 AM To: Andrea C. Sledge <[email protected]>; David Nerpel <[email protected]>; Howard F. Lyman <[email protected]>; Ivan Manley <[email protected]>; Jeff Dunning <[email protected]>; Marg Christensen <[email protected]>; Marlene Pfeifer <[email protected]>; Richard Carkner <[email protected]>; Downes, Scott G (DFW) <[email protected]>; Steven England <[email protected]>; Susie Weis <[email protected]>; Theo M. Leonard <[email protected]>

2

Cc: Paul Jewell <[email protected]>; Chelsea Benner <[email protected]>; Dusty Pilkington <[email protected]>; Jeremy Johnston <[email protected]> Subject: Solar Facilities Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting 1 Agenda Hello all, Please see attached agenda for the Solar Facilities Citizen Advisory Committee meeting next week. Looking forward to seeing you all there. Have a great weekend!


Notice: Email sent to Kittitas County may be subject to public disclosure as required by law


1

Chelsea Benner

From: Ivan Manley <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, September 29, 2017 10:12 AMTo: Chelsea BennerSubject: Re: Solar Meeting #2

Follow Up Flag: Follow upFlag Status: Flagged

Please find my comments following regarding criteria for solar installations: 1) I assume the usual boiler-plate regarding fire, police, esthetics, access, building codes, etc. 2) Solar installations should not be within ____ feet/miles from a current residence. 3) No more than ___ % of irrigated land within Kittitas County maybe used for solar installations. 4) No more than ___ % of non-irrigated land within Kittitas County maybe used for solar installations. 5) No more than ___ % of red zoned land within Kittitas County maybe used for solar installations. 6) A trust fund shall be setup so that at the end of the life-cycle of the solar installation on irrigated land, the land shall be returned to it’s original state. 7) A trust fund shall be setup so that at the end of the life-cycle of the solar installation on non-irrigated land, the land shall be returned to natural state. 8) A trust fund shall be setup so that at the end of the life-cycle of the solar installation on red zoned land, the land shall be returned to natural state. 9) A solar installation shall not exceed ___ acres of land. 10) Solar installations should not be within ____ feet/miles from a current solar installation. Thank you for the opportunity to support Kittitas County. Ivan Manley

1

Chelsea Benner

From: Ivan Manley <[email protected]>Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2017 1:39 PMTo: Chelsea BennerSubject: Re: Solar Advisory Committee Meeting 3 Minutes


Thank you for the information. Please find following my comments: Siting - Agriculture zoning, red zones, non-irrigated areas. Not within 1,000 feet of an existing residence. Not within 1 mile of an existing solar facility. Thresholds - Considered commercial grade if electricity is intended for use outside the property. Permitting - (See Sterns County.) Standards - (See Granville County.) Reclamation - Bond or similar device. Irrigated land back to original state. Other land to natural state (E.G. buried foundations can be left buried, etc.) Safety - (See Iron County.) Aesthetics - (See Iron County.) Environmental Impacts - (See St. Lucie, FL.) Decommission Responsibilities - Secured decommissioning account/bonding. Lighting Restrictions - Only motion detected lighting during nighttime hours. Specie Migration - Avoid known specie migration routes. Weed Control - Noxious weed control program. Crime - Motion lighting and video surveillance. Property Values - Cannot be sited within 1,000’ of existing residences. Landscape plans consistent with the surrounding character. Glare - (Tracking panels are not a problem as they are reflecting back toward the sun.) Fixed panel installations require barriers to contain the glare within the site perimeter. Visual Impact - Cannot be sited within 1,000’ of existing residences. Landscape plans consistent with the surrounding character.

2

Thank you for the opportunity to provide support and input to the solar committee. Ivan Manley

On Oct 11, 2017, at 3:21 PM, Chelsea Benner <[email protected]> wrote: Good Afternoon, Attached are the draft minutes for yesterday’s meeting. Please review them prior to the meeting on November 2nd. Also please remember to individually send me your top 10 list of mitigations that YOU feel are the most important by Friday the 20th. These will be used to start to compile a list to further refine at the next meeting. Have a great week! Thank you!

Chelsea Benner Planner I

Kittitas County Community Development Services

411 N Ruby Street, Suite 2 Ellensburg, WA 98926

(p) 509‐962‐7506 (f) 509‐962‐7682

[email protected]


<2017.10.10 Solar Facilities Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting 3 Minutes DRAFT.pdf>

1

Chelsea Benner

From: Theo Leonard <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 2:47 PMTo: Chelsea BennerCc: Dan CarlsonSubject: RE: Solar Advisory Committee Meeting 3 MinutesAttachments: Solar Facility - Conceptual Mitigation Site Plan.pdf


Chelsea, Attached is a simple graphic I made to help show the list of mitigation items from my end of things. I think the decommissioning plan may get the most push‐back from the industry depending on if there’s a bond requirement. Depending on what the rest of the committee thinks this may be worth asking the industry representatives to see what percentage of their investment could be allocated toward bonding for decommissioning before it becomes financially impractical. I also don’t think we should have any restrictions regarding the slope. If it’s economically viable for a company to build in an area with slopes greater than 5% that seems ideal for everyone and not something we should prevent or otherwise discourage. In terms of permitting, based on what we’ve heard so far I think a three tiered permitting process or similar makes sense:

Tier 1 – Administrative CUP: This would be the most straight forward permit for sites that would not require construction of a sub‐station and would receive the least amount of public scrutiny (i.e. not farm ground with senior water rights).

Tier 2 – CUP with Alternatives Analysis: Sites that would not require construction of a sub‐station but would receive public scrutiny. The analysis could include items such as why other sites would not work and also potentially how leasing the site for solar could actually save the farm or property from otherwise being sold or neglected.

Tier 3 – CUP with Alternatives Analysis: Sites that would require construction of a sub‐station. Per our last meeting it seems the sites we’re focusing on for now are smaller sites that would not require construction of a sub‐station. This Tier could have a more robust alternatives analysis that could be part of an EIS if one was required. To a certain extent it seems the details for this Tier could be worked out after the initial regulations come out.

Hope this helps and please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Theo Leonard, PE Senior Engineer

From: Chelsea Benner [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 3:21 PM To: Andrea C. Sledge <[email protected]>; David Nerpel <[email protected]>; Howard F. Lyman <[email protected]>; Ivan Manley <[email protected]>; Jeff Dunning <[email protected]>; Marlene Pfeifer <[email protected]>; Mary Christensen <[email protected]>; Richard Carkner <[email protected]>; Scott Downes <[email protected]>; Steven England <[email protected]>; Susie Weis

2

<[email protected]>; Susie Weis 2 <[email protected]>; Theo M. Leonard <[email protected]> Cc: Dan Carlson <[email protected]>; Dusty Pilkington <[email protected]>; Jeremy Johnston <[email protected]> Subject: Solar Advisory Committee Meeting 3 Minutes Good Afternoon, Attached are the draft minutes for yesterday’s meeting. Please review them prior to the meeting on November 2nd. Also please remember to individually send me your top 10 list of mitigations that YOU feel are the most important by Friday the 20th. These will be used to start to compile a list to further refine at the next meeting. Have a great week! Thank you!




(p) 509‐962‐7506 (f) 509‐962‐7682

[email protected]


Property Line

County Road

Private Driveway Residence

Neighboring Farm

25-ft SetbackAlong County Road

Landscaping in SetbackBetween Fence andProperty Line

Fencing AroundFacility

15-ft SetbackAlong Private Driveway

15-ft SetbackAlong Neighboring Farm

25-ft SetbackAlong Residence

N

Scale: 1" = 150'

Solar Facility ConceptualMitigation Site Plan

- Existing 40-Acre Farmused for Reference

Mitigation Items forFacility to Include:

- Fire Protection andAccess Plan

- Fencing Plan

- Glare Analysis

- Landscaping Plan

- Weed Control Plan

- Stormwater Plan

- Erosion Control Plan

- Facility MaintenancePlan

- Setbacks as Shown

- Decommissioning Plan

1

Chelsea Benner

From: Downes, Scott G (DFW) <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, October 20, 2017 11:13 AMTo: Chelsea BennerSubject: RE: Solar Advisory Committee Meeting 3 Minutes WDFW Mitigation Measures


Chelsea, Here are the mitigation measures that WDFW would be looking for.

1. Habitat mitigation. Under the CAO (FWHCA) all native unaltered habitats and some of the altered habitats, WDFW believes does have habitat value for Fish and Wildlife species. We will be looking for habitat mitigation ratios in all native habitats, likely pairing of our wind power guidelines (as we don’t have solar guidelines yet) and sometimes looking for habitat mitigation on altered landscapes, depending on the current habitat value of the land before the installation.

2. Proper buffering of creeks. WDFW does not believe that the current CAO provides adequate riparian buffers for many of the creeks in the county. WDFW would be advocating for appropriate setbacks, such as from WDFW PHS guidance, from the creek if the installation is next to a creek and may look for some opportunity to blend in habitat mitigation with restoring the riparian creek buffer with native shrubs, working with both the developer and landowner on site plans.

3. Avoidance of wildlife migration/connectivity corridors. If installations are built in native habitat, work with WDFW in citing criteria to assure that the site is not placed in critical migration corridors for wildlife.

4. If a site is planned for native habitats, WDFW shall be consulted early in the process (pre SEPA) to work through minimization/mitigation efforts.

5. Seasonal construction restrictions. If sensitive species such as raptor (hawks, owls, eagles) or heron rookeries nests are next to the site WDFW would look for construction timing restrictions so as to not cause excessive disturbance of the nest during construction.

6. Revegetation of the site. If the habitat of the site was native plants before construction, WDFW would want to see native plants replaced in revegetation efforts. Any stream shrubs or plants as part of a creek buffer should be native plants. In previously altered habitats, WDFW would be looking for plants that fit with requirements of the site (adapted to local environment if not being watered and low growing so as to not cause fire concerns). There have been some neat efforts in other parts of the country that pair dryland alfalfa with these solar sites and pollinator species can still benefit from the site. Pollinators are a benefit to both the wildlife community and the farming community.

7. Any lighting of the site would be downward lighting so as to not attract nighttime migrants/increase light pollution.

8. Fencing of the site would have wildlife in their design consideration, i.e. design a site not to allow wildlife to pass through them but rather design so that the fencing does not harm wildlife that may come into contact with the fence. Avoid razor wires and exclude large wildlife completely rather than allowing them to get partially through and get stuck. WDFW can provide further guidance on this topic.

9. If berms are installed as part of visual buffers, those berms must be outside of the floodplain and shall not restrict flood movements.

10. New powerlines shall be put underground, particularly in native habitats, whenever feasible so that this additional infrastructure does not have additional impact on wildlife resources. If they are to put aboveground, new powerlines should follow guidance in the APLIC guidance document: http://www.aplic.org/mission.php

Let me know if you have any questions on these.

2

Thanks, Scott

Scott Downes Fish & Wildlife Habitat Biologist Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Region 3 Habitat Program 1701 South 24th Ave Yakima, WA 98902‐5720 [email protected] Office‐509‐457‐9307 Cell‐509‐607‐3578

From: Chelsea Benner [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 3:21 PM To: Andrea C. Sledge <[email protected]>; David Nerpel <[email protected]>; Howard F. Lyman <[email protected]>; Ivan Manley <[email protected]>; Jeff Dunning <[email protected]>; Marlene Pfeifer <[email protected]>; Mary Christensen <[email protected]>; Richard Carkner <[email protected]>; Downes,Scott G (DFW) <[email protected]>; Steven England <[email protected]>; Susie Weis <[email protected]>; Susie Weis 2 <[email protected]>; Theo M. Leonard <[email protected]> Cc: Dan Carlson <[email protected]>; Dusty Pilkington <[email protected]>; Jeremy Johnston <[email protected]> Subject: Solar Advisory Committee Meeting 3 Minutes Good Afternoon, Attached are the draft minutes for yesterday’s meeting. Please review them prior to the meeting on November 2nd. Also please remember to individually send me your top 10 list of mitigations that YOU feel are the most important by Friday the 20th. These will be used to start to compile a list to further refine at the next meeting. Have a great week! Thank you!




(p) 509‐962‐7506 (f) 509‐962‐7682

[email protected]


1

Chelsea Benner

From: Jeff Dunning <[email protected]>Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2017 8:50 AMTo: Chelsea BennerSubject: Mitigation


Chelsea: I apologize for this being late. I had to go out of town this week and was delayed getting back until Friday evening. The following are my thoughts on mitigation aspects: (1) Decommission plan submitted with application prior to permitting a project. Decommission plan applies to successors/heirs (i.e. bank or other funding entity) and applies in case of project failing before completion. Failure to comply within 30 days becomes a lien against parcel and daily fine of $500.00 applies. (2) Nighttime, motion activated lighting. (3) Specie/Habitat Shrub Steppe mitigation: Developer to secure non-development agreements in the amount of 1.5 times the project acreage from landowners within the area surrounding the project or per DWF requirements, whichever is greater. (4) County code states farming and ranching the PRIORITY in CAZ. I believe locating a project within CAZ may be a violation of GMA and GMHB 1995 decision. All effort must be made to locate projects outside CAZ. If no suitable lands found outside CAZ developer must secure non-development agreements from landowners in the immediate vicinity of a propose project. A 20 acre project should be required to secure such agreement(s) in the amount of a minimum of 200 acres. (5) Weeds must be controlled per county code at a minimum. IF a project is placed in the CAZ crops such as alfalfa or other compatible short growing crops or grasses should be used and can be controlled by hand or suitable machinery. Growth must be kept to non-flowering/going to seed growth state. (6) Crime/Security: Security system that notifies law enforcement. (7) Property Values: County BOA required to reduce tax valuation of surrounding properties if location of a project reduces property valuation below level existing at the time of project construction. (8) Glare: Maintain panels to FAA regulations at a minimum. (9) Visual: Primary structures and other buildings limited to height of fencing or existing code restrictions, whichever is most restrictive/limiting. (10) All projects to be a CU and should have at least one public hearing. Respectfully Submitted, Jeff Dunning

Suggested mitigation measures for solar installations (not necessarily in order of importance) Safety – electrical equipment enclosed with appropriate warning signage. Description of emergency and normal shutdown procedures. Protocol for fire control, of surrounding vegetation as well as the installation itself. Aesthetics – attention to the overall appearance of the site and its effect on the surrounding neighborhood. Effort made not to detract from the views or enjoyment of the outdoors by nearby homes and properties. Landscaping practices that are suitable and sustainable. Environmental impacts – concern for the effect on wildlife—birds, insects (bees, butterflies), small animals. Rain water and snow melt run-off, irrigation practices in nearby fields could all be affected. Ensure that any berms created do not re-direct water to harm surrounding properties. Effect on fish and other water-borne creatures if an installation borders a creek, stream, lake or other small body of water. Weed control/water – the introduction of diverse seed-bearing weeds into agricultural lands could have an economic impact on the production and sale of field crops. Accompanying this – what water practices and resources are available to maintain vegetation beneath the solar panels and the surrounding property? Reclamation – the site of any solar installation needs to be restored to at least its former state or an ―improved‖ state. Site planning – consideration should be given to the location of future associated structures, in regard to property lines, roads, adjacent properties, overhead and buried utility lines, other physical features of the proposed site and properties within a half mile. Impact on property values – long-term leases will affect property values on adjoining or nearby properties for more than one generation. What can be done to alter a negative effect?

Not strictly mitigation but a concern Land use – Is this the best and most suitable use of this land or are there other lands more suited to this purpose? To commit a piece of land to a solar installation for decades means that land is not being used for another, perhaps better, purpose. What could a subsequent land owner do about it? I have also observed that Kittitas County Code – Title 17 Zoning Chapter 17.61 A Windfarm Resource Overlay Zone Has some relevant info – ½ mile from existing structures, set-back from nearest non-participating building structure, preserving ―character of surrounding neighborhood.‖ Perhaps some of these and other items should be reviewed and considered in our mitigation efforts. Thanks, Mary Christensen

1

Chelsea Benner

From: Andrea Sledge <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 3:31 PMTo: Chelsea BennerSubject: Mitigations


Chelsea, These are the most important mitigations for me, though not in order of importance:

environmental impacts reclamation standards siting aesthetics

Andrea Sledge Sent from iCloud

October 23, 2017

Solar Development Regulation Open House

Public Comments

General:

Solar farms give farmers another “crop” option they wouldn’t otherwise have.

Mitigation Idea Boards:

1. Visual Impacts

a. Glare, ugly wire (razor) around fencing, ugly fences

b. What is the reflectivity, maximum height, noise levels of these panels

c. Why do we have to look at these panels, fencing, and any other unsightly components?

d. These will block existing land owner’s view of the town and mountains which was our

main reason for living where we chose to.

2. Setbacks/ Buffers

a. This is an industrial site. Surrounding ground is Ag land as determined by WA State.

Solar sites should have to comply with the state, meeting the requirement of “Rural

Character” as defined by GMA and the growth management hearings board.

b. Shouldn’t the panels have to meet the county requirements for setbacks from roads,

high water lines, wells and etc.?

3. Environmental Impacts

a. What is the noise level of these panels?

b. How disturbing will they be to humans, stock, pets, birds, etc.?

4. Lighting

a. Does the facility HAVE to be lighted? Our views will be destroyed at night.

b. They said no light will be needed; make them stick to their word!

5. Vegetation

a. What type of ground cover will be planted?

b. What time of perimeter trees are being used? Mature height?

c. Plants that are of the type of variety grown on surrounding farm lands

d. Effects on native habitat?

6. Location/ Siting

a. Non irrigable land

b. Commercial Ag zone- No

c. No agriculture/ farm land

d. Land should have to be rezoned to commercial of industrial

e. Land no longer conforms to definition of Ag as stated in GMA, Must come out of open

space with back taxes interest and penalty if applicable must apply as it will not meet

definition of “open space.”

f. How will these projects impact the property values of boarding land owners?

7. Permitting

a. Must prove there is not another location suitable

b. Agree with above

c. GMA says that Ag lands of long term commercial significance must be protected from

development or change of use

d. Why were adjoining property owners of proposed projects not notified prior to

approvals?

e. Changing Ag land to housing development is more invasive that a solar farm, the

housing is not able to return to as, solar farms can be.

October 24, 2017 Dan Carlson, Director Kittitas County Community Development Services Dan: I wrote the EWGMHB hoping they could provide some clarification on the EWGMHB Final Decision and Order, Case No. 95-1-0009, May 7, 1996. They responded they are not allowed to do so. I reiterate here that I am very much in favor of solar energy production as I have stated in our meetings. As a committee member I feel it is part of our duty to avoid recommendations that could place the county in a position of future litigation. One of the committee’s tasks, and perhaps the most crucial one, is to recommend where solar generating facilities are to be located. Currently county code allows said facilities as a Conditional Use in the Ag 20 Zone, Commercial Ag Zone, Forest and Range Zone and Commercial Forest and Range Zone. My main concern is the CAZ. County Code for Ag 20 reads: “The agriculture (A-20) zone is an area wherein farming, ranching, and rural life styles are dominant characteristics. The intent of this zoning classification is to preserve fertile farmland from encroachment by nonagricultural land uses; and protect the rights and traditions of those engaged in agriculture.” County Code for the CAZ reads: “The commercial agriculture zone is an area where farming and ranching are the priority. The intent of this zoning classification is to preserve fertile farmland from encroachment by nonagricultural land uses and protect the rights and traditions of those engaged in agriculture.” I learned from writing and giving testimony in Washington D.C. and our state legislature that one needs to pay attention to every word, especially with laws and codes. To me the word PRIORITY, as opposed to DOMINANT CHARACTERITICS, has significance. The intent/requirement under the GMA requiring the county to designate certain lands as significant to the preservation of farming and ranching activities, thereby creating the CAZ, was to insure those lands with their prime soils were not infringed upon by uses that would diminish and alter those lands and/or their characteristics, historically as well as those being present at the time of the designation. These CAZ lands were determined to be of long-term commercial agricultural significance, which includes the growing capacity, productivity, and soil composition for long-term commercial agricultural production. Kittitas County cannot produce any more of said lands (as I am sure everyone realizes). Perhaps to some, 5 projects (for example) of 50-100 acres each would not seem like much to take away from our CAZ. I’m not sure that is the point.

Under Issue #5 of the Board’s Findings it is stated: “Similarly, electrical substations may be needed to power irrigation pumps….”. Further on is stated: “A line must be drawn which bars incompatible uses from agricultural resource lands but which allows uses necessary for the agricultural industry.” Under Issue #9 the Board states: “ Finally, public utility buildings are a necessary part of our public service infrastructure, and are necessary as well for a viable agricultural industry. The placement of public utility buildings on commercial agricultural lands will not impede agricultural activity.” My interpretation of the county CAZ Ordinance inclusion of the word PRIORITY is that a use such as a solar generating facility could only be integrated into the CAZ if no other location in the other 3 zones was to be found, feasibility aside. In the case of what our committee has to consider I do not find that any of the solar facilities that wish to locate in the CAZ will be providing power to irrigation pumps. These facilities would have a substation from which overhead lines would run to Puget Sound Energy lines having the capacity to accept the power from the solar facilities. Similarly, I believe that the wording from Issue #9 does not apply in this instance as PSE is a private utility and the purpose of the facilities has nothing to do with provision of a service to agriculture in our valley’s CAZ. Nor, other than PSE’s requirement to have production of a certain amount of “green energy ”, has a public NEED been stated. The EWGMHB Order cites RCW 36.70A.170(1) and RCW 36.70A.030(2) and (11). I do not find solar facilities there as a use. It has come to my attention that 5 of these proposed projects have already gone to EFSEC even though they know (have attended our meetings) we are trying to get guidelines in place by December. I believe the ruling of EWGMHB protects the CAZ and, the intent of the GMA, against the placement of solar facilities in the county CAZ. I believe said facilities could be located in the Ag 20 Zone as well as the Forest and Range Zone. I would question their placement in the Commercial Forest and Range Zone for reasons similar to the CAZ. I not aware there is any intent to place them in that zone however. I realize I have written a considerable amount to get to the bottom line here which leads to the following concern/questions: Since the solar facilities would not be providing a service to the agricultural industry (i.e. power to irrigation pumps) and, could be located in zones where farming and ranching are not the PRIORITY, would the committee be putting the county in a position adversarial to the intent of the 1996 Final Decision and Order and the GMA and thereby subject to litigation were we to recommend the allowance of locating the facilities in the CAZ? Also, if it was to be the case the GMHB felt the location of the facilities in the CAZ would not be in compliance with the GMA and/or the GMHB 1996 Final Decision and Order and county code, can EFSEC supersede a GMHB decision and thereby the GMA?

I fully understand I am asking some legal points but I feel the committee needs to seriously consider the ramifications should we recommend something I believe could result in another GMA lawsuit against the county. Is there any legal person on county staff that could consider my concerns and provide the committee with some answers? I realize this is short notice before our committee meeting November 2nd but would be most grateful for a response by then if at all possible. Respectfully, Jeff Dunning 509-607-1207 [email protected]

1

Chelsea Benner

From: CDS UserSent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 9:51 AMTo: Dan Carlson; Chelsea Benner; Jeremy Johnston; Dusty PilkingtonSubject: FW: Inquiry through County web site


From: Jim Briggs [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 9:37 AM To: CDS User Subject: Inquiry through County web site ATTN. CDS Director, Dan Carlson Dear Mr. Carlson, I am sorry I was unable to attend the solar farm siting meeting on Monday but I would like to offer my opinion if that is acceptable. I wholeheartedly agree that solar energy is the key to a sustainable future and Ellensburg is the forefront with its innovative solar array at West Ellensburg Park. That is an ideal location for such a facility. But existing forest land or sagebrush land definitely are not. There is enough disturbed land in our county to support acres of solar collecting equipment. One such place is the already‐fenced construction yard used during the windfarm construction on Rt. 97. There are many more such locations. If the goal of solar electricity generation is to prevent the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, why would somebody want to destroy a forest or shrub steppe ecosystem that is already sequestering carbon? Leave these natural places as they are and put the collectors in city parks, parking lots and on building roofs. Let nature do what is very good at doing. Thank you. James N. Briggs 1110 E. Spokane Ave. Ellensburg, WA


1

Chelsea Benner

From: UNLAND, CHAD (DNR) <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 3:31 PMTo: Dan CarlsonCc: Chelsea Benner; Mink, Kathryn (DNR); ANGEHRN, JASON (DNR)Subject: Map of DNR Lands in Kittitas CoAttachments: kittitas.pdf; Kittitas_DNR_Parcels.pdf


Hi Dan: In response to the letter DNR sent to Kittitas County in support of solar projects, some have asked for a map showing DNR lands within your county. Please see the attached map(s) and share them with your solar committee if you can. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Thank you. Chad Unland Natural Resources Specialist Southeast Region, 713 Bowers Rd. Ellensburg, WA 98926 Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) 509-925-0935 [email protected] www.dnr.wa.gov

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

""

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

""

"

"

"

"

"""""

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

""

"

""

"

""

""

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

""

"

"

"

"

"

"""

""""""""

"

"

"

"

"

"

""

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

""

"

"

"

"

"

"

""

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

" "

"

"

" " ""

" ""

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

""

"

"

"

"

""

"""

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

""""" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

""""

"

"

""

"""

"

"

"

" "

"

"""

""

"

"

"

" " "

"""""

"

"

""

"""

"

"

"

" """""""

"

"

""

"""

"

"

"

""

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"""

"

"

"

""

"

"

"

""

""

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

""

""

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

6<6<

6<

6<

6<

6<

6<

6<

6<

6<

6<(

(

R

(

P

P

(

(

(

R

(

Ellensburg

T19R13E

T18R15E

T19R14E

T18R20E

T17R20E

T16R21ET16R20E

T18R17E T18R19E

T19R20E

T17R19E T17R21E T17R22E

T18R18E

T19R15E

T20R22ET20R18E

T19R16E

T15R19E

T17R17E

T18R22E

T17R18E

T15R22E

T16R22E

T17R15E

T15R20E

T18R16E

T19R22ET19R18ET19R17E

T20R21E

T18R21E

T19R21E

T15R21E

T21R19E

T19R19E

T17R16E

T23R14E

T21R16E

T20R20E

T22R13E

T21R15E

T22R14E

T21R18E

T16R18E T16R19E

T22R16E

T21R14E

T22R15E

T20R15E T20R17E

T21R17ET21R13E

T18R14E

T22R11E

T20R14ET20R13E T20R19ET20R16E

T23R13E

T24R14E

T23R15E

T15R23E

T21R12E

T23R12E

T19R12E

T22R12E

T20R12E Roslyn

Cle Elum

Kittitas

South Cle Elum

Kittitas County Solar Power Potential6< Sub Stations

" " Power LinesDNR

Slope0 - 5%Over 5%

NREL Photovoltac Solar Potential kwh/m2/DayCATEGORY

Very Good = 5.0-5.9

0 10 205Miles

Date: 10/31/2017

Existing Wind Leases

1

Chelsea Benner

From: Dwight Bates <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 10:05 AMTo: Dwight Bates; Chelsea BennerSubject: Re: Solar Farm


I suggest to you that we use an overlay zone for future solar farms. We did this for the Wind farms. I as a Professional Engineer recommend this overlay zone to be in the Sagebrush east of Ellensburg since it is flat , not farm land and is close to a substation. On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Dwight Bates <[email protected]> wrote: Marlene I suggest to you as my representative to the County Solar Facilities Citizen Advisory Committee that we use an overlay zone for future solar farms. We did this for the Wind farms. I as a Professional Engineer recommend this overlay zone to be in the Sagebrush east of Ellensburg since it is flat , not farm land and is close to a substation.

1

Chelsea Benner

From: Dick Carkner <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 11:37 AMTo: Chelsea BennerSubject: RE: Solar Meeting Minutes/EFSEC


Hi Chelsea; I have a few comments on our last meeting. One thing we should not do is merge Tiers 3 and 4. They are distinguished in part by one being irrigated and the other not. This is an important distinction. There appears to be a difference of opinion among committee members on whether industrial solar should be allowed on farm land., Part of the reason is the way the question was raised and I think it should be revisited. Is it a technical difference, for example solar would be allowed on irrigated farmland only if it could be demonstrated that no other suitable land exists. If that is the case then given the significant inventory of land that meets solar siting requirements (not irrigated) there is little chance that we will run out of non irrigated land in our lifetimes. Are you familiar with EFSEC process? There is a public hearing to be scheduled by mid December so how soon after that are they likely to make a decision? Perhaps you could look at the wind siting where EFSEC over ruled the County. As I understand it that ruling was not because we did not have wind energy siting regulations on the books. If that is the case how important is it for us to have solar siting regulations? Thanks

Chelsea, Thanks for the clarification. Below are my comments-I had 4.

1. 17.61C.030. Siting Overlay, regarding the sentence talking about “desirable”:

Value statement, "desirable". Consider revising as the subject here is irrigated agriculture:

from: "are most and least desirable. As siting moves from a more desirable location to a less

desirable location.."

to: "are in irrigated agricultural land to those lands that are not irrigated agricultural. As siting

moves from non-irrigated agricultural land to irrigated agricultural land".

As stated in meetings, solar may actually help to preserve some farm land; if a farmer does not

want to farm his entire land any longer, by putting some in solar production and farming the rest

may be an alternative to selling the entire land to a developer for a subdivision which will be a

permanent loss for agricultural land. So I'm still skeptical that putting some solar in agricultural

land won't actually help to contribute to the long-term ag viability of some of these lands.

2. Under 17.61C.030 it says “shall be permitted”. Change word from "shall" to "may". The word

"shall" implies pre-determined process. If an application was submitted that violated county

ordinance or code I don't think it would get permitted but this code is saying it would by using

word "shall". Change throughout the tiers.

3. Under Tier 1 a. It says “where environmental review and public process has already occurred”. As

mentioned in my comments earlier, are we doing a new SEPA review for this Tier? I don't believe

it is appropriate to use the environmental review that was done for wind energy and just apply it

to solar. Wind and solar have different environmental impacts and if creating an overlay zone for

solar, an environmental analysis should be done for solar.

4. Under 17.61C.050. Visual Impacts/Aesthetics. 1. Referencing fence height and design. At least 8

feet in height. Deer and elk have been known to jump fences less than 8 feet in height and we

wouldn't want deer or elk in the facility, trapped. Also per my earlier comment of avoiding razor

wire on top of the fence as it may likely harm wildlife trying to land on the fence. A single strand

of barbed wire would be preferable from a wildlife standpoint.

I will check with Jen and if she is willing, may sit in the audience and listen in to discussions to help me in addition to notes provided from the meeting. Have a good meeting. Guarantee you and my fellow committee will be having more enjoyment than I!

Scott

1

Chelsea Benner

From: Dan CarlsonSent: Friday, December 22, 2017 10:54 AMTo: Chelsea BennerSubject: FW: Solar Farms in Kittitas Valley


Public comment for solar committee record. Thanks.


From: Stephen C Zabransky [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, December 22, 2017 10:38 AM To: Dan Carlson Subject: Solar Farms in Kittitas Valley Mr. Dan Carlson: I would like to comment on the Solar Farms in Kittitas valley. I have only been a resident in Ellensburg for just over five years but have had a cabin in the Liberty area and have utilized most types of recreational activity within the Kittitas valley since the late 70’s. To me, “the Rural Character” of the valley is easy to understand and I cannot even fathom the idea of solar panel farms even partially covering the valley. I understand there are about 18 other companies looking at the current situation and seeing how it turns out. If the current farms in question are allowed, I can fore see a future of almost nothing but solar panels in the area not to mention the loss of farm ground. I also understand that these farms really don’t pencil out without the subsidies that accompany them. What happens when the subsidies are retired? Another aspect could be the loss of ground water as these areas would not be irrigated on a regular basis as farming needs require. Could our water tables shrink? I also understand there is private land available that is not within the valley floor which would be preferable. There would still be the visual impairment but better than spread throughout the Kittitas valley proper. Please do all you can to not permit the start of commercial solar farms in our area. Respectfully, Stephen C. Zabransky 1531 Kittitas Hwy. Ellensburg, WA 98926

2


1

Chelsea Benner

From: Dan CarlsonSent: Tuesday, January 02, 2018 8:41 AMTo: Chelsea BennerSubject: FW: Solar farm siting in Kittitas County


New solar comment attached.


From: Kittitas County Commissioners Office Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2018 8:06 AM To: Paul Jewell; Obie O'Brien; Laura Osiadacz Cc: Dan Carlson; Neil Caulkins Subject: FW: Solar farm siting in Kittitas County

Julie Kjorsvik, CMC Clerk of the Board Kittitas County Board of Commissioners Office 205 West 5th Ave. Room 108 Ellensburg, WA 98926 509.962.7508 http://www.co.kittitas.wa.us “Be the change you wish to see in the world” - Gandhi

From: E Bjorge [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2017 10:17 AM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; 'Tom Dent'; 'Matt Manweller'; Kittitas County Commissioners Office Subject: Solar farm siting in Kittitas County

2

I request that no siting approval be granted in Kittitas County until the county establishes the land use regulations for commercial solar “farms” in the county. I am also against the use of prime irrigated farm land for solar “farms”. They are not farms but rather a commercial generation plants. A great deal of public and private money has been invested in developing the farm land in Kittitas County. It would be a crime to destroy that investment. I understand the solar companie’s desire not want to have the expense of building infrastructure but in our county l see the cost to the residents of the county is too high. This is doubly true when you look at the other possible sites in the state. They are also looking at a quick and easy build. I do not the residents of our county to lose because of their desire for an easy fix. Examples are to name a few:

1. The south facing slopes along the Columbia river east of Goldendale adjacent to the old aluminum plant. 2. Area adjacent to the Wenatchee aluminum plant 3. The Horse Heaven area along SR 221 4. South facing slopes along the Snake River close to existing hydro generation dams. 5. The wheat areas east of SR 395

Eilert Bjorge 2614 W. Willis Rd. Ellensburg , WA 98926 509‐925‐5689 [email protected]


1

Chelsea Benner

From: Mary Christensen <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, January 08, 2018 7:47 AMTo: Chelsea BennerSubject: Advisory committee


Chelsea, I want to express my hope that the advisory committee will not meet until the EFSEC Council has met on the 16th of January, Several of us have been more than casual observers of that process and realize their decision will undoubtedly affect the county‐level decision making. We understand the county’s wish to finally conclude this business, but surely we can reach a more effective conclusion after the state decision. Thank you for sharing this request. Mary L. Christensen

1

Chelsea Benner

From: Ivan Manley <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2018 11:36 AMTo: Chelsea BennerSubject: Re: Solar Committee


There is one area of conditions that have yet to be addressed sufficiently - restoring the site to it’s original condition. Other political entities have requested a 125% bond to cover the restoration but I think that this bond may be insufficient considering inflation and other cost increases. May I suggest that the political entity in which the solar farm exists, request, annually, a survey and estimate to restore the property to it’s original state and that 1% of that estimate be put into a fund or a bond provided for that amount. Therefore, by the end of the 25 year life-span of the solar far, the fund should have a reasonable basis by which the site may be restored. Thank you, Ivan Manley On Jan 8, 2018, at 12:08 PM, Chelsea Benner <[email protected]> wrote: Good Afternoon, We have received a few questions regarding the date of our next Solar Advisory Committee meeting. Currently we are working on finishing up the final draft regulations and will provide those to the group a few weeks prior to when we schedule the next meeting. Please also be aware that on January 3rd, 2018 the BOCC approved another 6 month extension of the solar moratorium which will expire on July 10th or when the BOCC adopts new solar regulations, whichever comes first. I hope everyone has a great week. Thank you,




(p) 509‐962‐7506 (f) 509‐962‐7682

[email protected]


January 25, 2018 Dan: I realize our committee is being guided by staff to try and adopt criteria for the siting of some proposed solar facilities and thereby establish some governing county code, apparently, prior to, a decision by EFSEC on TUUSSO’s expedited process application. I have spent a considerable amount of time reviewing the GMA RCW’s as well as what I can find relevant to our committee’s task in existing county code. Although the county somehow listed solar as a CU in the CAZ and, apparently AG 20 zone, and has not been challenged on that, I believe, at the very least, such a listing in the CAZ is in direct conflict with the GMA, the Final Decision and Order of the Growth Management Hearings Board for Eastern Washington in Case No. 95-1-0009 and a Supreme Court decision of July 28, 2011. Although it has not yet been challenged yet, I believe Judge Hooper’s ruling as to rural character also throws some question as to existing county code legitimacy. GMA RCW’s 36.70A.030 (2),(11),(16),(18); 36.70A.170, 36.70A.177 (1), and (2)(a) address and define prime agricultural lands designated as being of long-term commercial significance. County Code 17.08.187, Conservation or resource values: “Conservation or resource values means the use and sustainability of the land for farm, agricultural, or forest production and the perpetual retention of the land for such purpose.” County Code 17.08.250: “Farm” means an area of land devoted to the production of field or truck crops, livestock or livestock products, which constitute the major use of such property”. I do not see small solar projects fitting in here. I do not see how I can consider voting to approve regulations for the siting of solar facilities (not “farms” as they do not fit even the county code definition of a farm) in the CAZ specifically, and perhaps the AG 20 zone considering the Hooper ruling, when for all practical purposes that would appear to be in direct conflict with the RCW’s, Orders and Decisions, and county codes I have mentioned above. I believe I would be voting to approve an action that, in view of my research, would be approving something that just sets the county up for legal action. I requested at our last meeting that the committee have whomever would be the proper county legal counsel give a presentation as to how the committee can accomplish its task given all that I have listed above. I feel even more strongly now that should be done. If that were not possible I would hope at the very least staff would then be prepared to address what I have brought forth here. Sincerely, Jeff Dunning

DRAFT SOLAR REGULATIONS

(Proposed amendments to Jan. 12th, 2018 Draft)

17.61C.010 Purpose The purpose and intent of this chapter is to establish a process for recognition and designation of properties in Kittitas County suitable for the location of Solar Power Production Facilities (SPPF), to protect the health, welfare, safety, and quality of life of the general public, to allow for development while protecting existing agricultural resources and rural character, to comply with the goals and requirements of the Washington State Growth Management Act, and to ensure compatibility with land uses in the vicinity of these facilities. 17.61C.020 Definitions 1. “Alternative Analysis” means a study prepared by a licensed professional engineer that demonstrates why a particular Tier 3 site is justified the only viable alternative and why other Tier 1 and Tier 2 areas cannot reasonably accommodate the proposed SPPF. The study must address the following questions: a. Can the proposed SPPF be reasonably accommodated on Tier 1 or Tier 2 properties? b. Can the proposed SPPF be reasonably accommodated on Tier 3 land that is already irrevocably committed to uses other than irrigated agriculture? b. Can the proposed SPPF be reasonably accommodated inside an urban growth area? If not, why not? c. If the SPPF can only be located in Tier 3, a ‘High-Value Agricultural Resource Area’, can it be done in compliance with Washington State Growth Management Act’s policies and standards and in a way that has no impact on rural character or the long-term viability of commercial agriculture either in direct impacts or cumulative impacts?

2. “Cultural Resources” are lands, sites, and structures, that have historical, archaeological, or

traditional cultural significance where there is tangible and material evidence of the human past,

and include archaeological sites, historic buildings and structures, districts, landscapes, and

objects.

3. “High-Value” Agricultural Resource Area” means lands located within the general boundaries of an irrigation district or with commercial scale irrigation rights with a zoning status under the Washington State Growth Management Act designed to maintain and support area agricultural operations of long-term commercial significance. The acreage within such a designation is primarily devoted to the commercial production of horticultural, viticultural, floricultural, dairy, apiary, vegetable, or animal products or of berries, grain, hay, straw, turf, seed, Christmas trees, or livestock. Land within such designations will be predominantly cultivated or, if not currently cultivated, predominantly comprised of

arable soils defined as irrigated Class I, Class II, or Class III soils or non-irrigated prime, unique,

Class I or Class II soils by the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service of the United

States Department of Agriculture.

4. “Rural Character” refers to the patterns of land use and development established by Kittitas County in the rural element of its comprehensive plan: (a) In which open space, the natural landscape, agriculture and forestry, and vegetation predominate over the built environment including land-uses that are of urban, suburban, commercial, or industrial character;

(b) That foster traditional rural lifestyles, rural-based economies, and opportunities to both live and work in rural areas; (c) That provide visual landscapes that are traditionally found in rural areas and communities, maintaining a visual separation and distinctiveness between rural, suburban, and urban environments for the benefit and enjoyment of all Washington state citizens; (d) That are compatible with the use of the land by wildlife and for fish and wildlife habitat; (e) That reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into built environments out of character with the rural landscape vernacular; (f) In which landscapes of regional significance are preserved for future generations; and (g) That generally do not require the extension of urban government services, utilities, or other urban improvements per the definitions established in WAC 365-196-200 (19) and WAC 365-196-200 (20).

5. “Solar Power Production Facilities” or “SPPF” means a utility on an area of land designated for the purpose of producing photovoltaic electricity over one hundred kilowatts (100 KW) and includes, but is not limited to, an assembly of equipment that converts sunlight into electricity and then stores and/or transfer that electricity. This includes photovoltaic modules, mounting and solar tracking equipment, foundations, inverters, wiring, and storage devices and other components. SPPF also include electrical cable collection systems connecting the photovoltaic solar generation facility to a transmission line, all necessary grid integration equipment, new or expanded private roads constructed to serve the photovoltaic solar power generation facility, office, operation and maintenance buildings, staging areas and all other necessary appurtenances including but not limited to landscaping, visual screens, and facility fencing. For purposes of applying the KW standard in this definition, a SPPF includes all existing and proposed facilities on a single tract, as well as any existing and proposed facilities under common ownership or related ownership subsidiaries or associated facility sales, development, or operation on lands with less than 5280-feet of separation from the tract on which the new facility is proposed to be sited.

17.61.C.025 Adoption of Solar Power Production Facilities Overlay Map 1. The official Solar Power Production Facilities Overlay Map is adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this chapter. The official Solar Power Production Facilities Overly Map shall be identified by the signature of the Chairperson of the Board and attested by the Clark of the Board. 2. No changes of any nature shall be made to the Solar Power Production Facilities Overlay Map except in conformity with the procedures set forth in this title. 17.61C.030 Siting Overlay As a rural county, maintenance of ‘rural character’ and the protection of existing agricultural resources is a priority, particularly for ‘High-Value Agricultural Resource Areas’ where substantial public and private investment has and continues to be made in regional irrigation systems that supports the community economic base. The purpose of the following tiered system is to preserve ‘High-Value Agricultural Resource Areas’ that require economies of scale to maintain regional commercial agriculture by designating areas of the county that are appropriate for the siting of SPPFs. As siting moves from Tier 1 to Tier 3, the stringency of the permitting required increases. SPPFs are strongly supported and encouraged in Tier 1 areas, treated in a neutral manner in Tier 2 designations, and prohibited in the ‘High-Value Agricultural Resource Areas’ designated as Tier 3 except under unique and non-detrimental circumstances. 1. Tier one (1) consists of areas that are primarily characterized by high-quality irrigated agricultural lands marginal agricultural private lands and public lands of negligible or no agricultural value,

particularly Washington State Department of Natural Resources Public Trust Lands that are widely available for solar development and legally obligated to be utilized for the financial support of the state’s schools. a. The placement of a SPPF of any size shall require an administrative conditional use permit.

a. The placement of a SPPF with a foot print of up to and including two-hundred fifty (250) acres is an out-right permitted-use subject to the performance standards of this Chapter. The placement of a SPPF with a foot print larger than two-hundred fifty (250) acres shall require public notice, a conditional use permit, and compliance with the performance standards of this Chapter. b. A conditional use permit will be required whereby the County may impose clear and objective conditions in accordance with the County Comprehensive Plan, County Zoning Code, provisions of this Chapter, and the goals, policies, and rules of the Washington State Growth Management Act. 1.‘Findings of Fact’ in the issuance of the conditional use permit must include but not necessarily be limited to an affirmative assessment by the County of the following: a. The proposed SPPF will not create significant negative impacts on large-scale irrigated commercial agricultural operations conducted on the subject property not occupied by the project or other large-scale irrigated commercial agricultural operations in the vicinity. b. The long-term environmental, economic, social and rural character consequences resulting from the SPPF at the proposed site are acceptable when balancing considerations of public interest and welfare. c. The extent and disposition of Irrigation water rights on project lands that will occur post project development have been analyzed and determined per the policies of any associated irrigation district ,or if located outside of an irrigation district, the Washington Department of Ecology. 2. Tier two (2) consists of areas that are primarily characterized by non-irrigated agricultural lands that are located outside of a ‘High-Value Agricultural Resource Area’. a. The placement of a SPPF with a foot print of zero(0) to fifty (50) acres shall require a conditional use permit. To preserve ‘rural character’ SPPFs larger than fifty (50) acres are prohibited in this tier. There shall be a minimum of one (1) mile between the perimeters of all SPPFs in this tier. b. A conditional use permit will be required whereby the County may impose clear and objective conditions in accordance with the County Comprehensive Plan, County Zoning Code, provisions of this Chapter, and the goals, policies, and rules of the Washington State Growth Management Act. 1.‘Findings of Fact’ in the issuance of the conditional use permit must include but not necessarily be limited to an affirmative assessment by the County of the following: a. The proposed SPPF will not create significant negative impacts on irrigated commercial agricultural operations conducted on any portion of the subject property not occupied by the project or other irrigated commercial agricultural operations in the vicinity. b. The long-term environmental, economic, social and rural character consequences resulting from the SPPF at the proposed site when combined with the requirements of Tier 2 and any supplemental measures designed to reduce adverse impacts, including potential mitigation through the provisions

of 17.61C.100, are not significant. c. The extent and disposition of Irrigation water rights on project lands that will occur post project development have been analyzed and determined per the policies of any associated irrigation district ,or if located outside of an irrigation district, the Washington Department of Ecology. 3. Tier three (3). Tier 3 consists of public lands and areas that are primarily characterized by nonagricultural lands. Tier 3 consists of areas recognized as high-quality agricultural districts dominated by irrigated commercial agriculture that qualify under the definitions of this Chapter as a ‘High-Value Agricultural Resource Area’. a. The placement of a SPPF with a foot print of zero (0) to fifty (50) acres or 5 megawatts, whichever is smaller, shall require a conditional use permit and alternatives analysis. SPPFs larger than fifty (50) acres are prohibited in this tier. There shall be a minimum of one (1) mile between the perimeters of all SPPSs in this tier. a. The placement of a SPPF in Tier three (3) is prohibited except under the following conditions and requirements to preserve prime agricultural resources and rural character: 1. An alternatives analysis as specified in 17.61C.040 must be conducted. 2. SPPFs larger than fifty acres are prohibited in this tier. 3. There shall be a minimum of one (1) mile between the perimeters of all SPPFs in this tier. 4. A conditional use permit will be required whereby the County may impose clear and objective conditions in accordance with the County Comprehensive Plan, County Zoning Code, provisions of this Chapter, and the goals, policies, and rules of the Washington State Growth Management Act. 5.‘Findings of Fact’ in the issuance of the conditional use permit must include but not necessarily be limited to an affirmative assessment by the County of the following: a. No reasonable alternative site exists in Tier 1 and Tier 2 districts that could accommodate the project with the applicant having the burden of proof. b. The long-term environmental, economic, social and rural character consequences resulting from the SPPF at the proposed site with measures designed to reduce adverse impacts are not significantly more adverse than would typically result from the same proposal being located in Tier 1 and Tier 2 low value or marginal agricultural lands. c. The cumulative effects of siting multiple SPPFs in Tier 3 have been adequately considered and that the presence or possibility of multiple SPPFs in a ‘High-Value Agricultural Resource Area’ will not lead to negative effects on local farming and ranching operations nor tip the balance of existing land use activities away from commercial agriculture. d. The proposed SPPF will not create unnecessary negative impacts on agricultural operations conducted on any portion of the subject property not occupied by the project or other agricultural operations in the vicinity, nor will it have significant adverse impacts on rural character. e. The SPPF will not result in the loss of Class I, II or III irrigated farm land as a result of unnecessary soil erosion, compaction, or irrigation rights disruption that could limit the future agricultural productivity of the subject property.

f. Agricultural land and rural character mitigation has been provided per the provisions of 17.61C.100 prior to, or concurrent with the granting of the conditional use permit. g. The extent and disposition of Irrigation water rights on project lands that will occur post project development have been analyzed and determined per the policies of any associated irrigation district ,or if located outside of an irrigation district, the Washington Department of Ecology. 17.61C.040 Permit Submittal Requirements The following shall be submitted for all SPPF applications: 1. Site and development plans which identify and/or locate all existing and proposed structures, setbacks, access routes, proposed road improvements, residential uses within one quarter of a mile of the project perimeter, existing utilities, pipelines, transmission lines, proposed utility lines, utility and maintenance structures, existing and proposed drainage areas, topography, proposed grading/landscaping, areas of natural vegetation removal and any re-vegetation methods, weed control, dust and erosion controls, and critical areas (as defined in KCC 17A) on or abutting the property, any ‘cultural resources’ as identified by an acceptable cultural survey, and any other relevant items identified by Community Development Services. All maps and visual representations shall be drawn to an appropriate scale. 2. An affidavit of agreement between lot owner and facilities owner or operator (when applicable confirming that permission has been granted to propose, construct and/or operate a SPPF. 3. A written compliance narrative addressing how the proposal meets the following criteria in KCC 17.61.C050, .060, .070, .080, .090, and .100. The following shall be submitted for all SPPF applications on lands identified as Tier 3 on the Solar Power Production Facilities Overlay Map: 1. An alternatives Analysis prepared by a Washington state licensed professional engineer. The Alternative Analysis shall contain the following: a. A description of the proposed SPPF, to include proposed equipment, power to be generated, and property sizing requirements. b. A description of the subject property, to include topography, existing vegetation, critical areas, geotechnical considerations, proximity to electrical substations and transmission lines, and surrounding land uses and densities. c. An analysis of at least five (5) potential SPPF alternative sites located in Tier 1 and potentially Tier 2 locations that generally approximates to the degree possible the scale, development characteristics, and economic attributes of the initial SPPF proposal. At least one of the five alternative sites evaluated must be located on Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Trust Lands if such a site is available. d. Official correspondence from DNR indicating either the degree of availably of sites on Tier 1 Trust Lands in Kittitas County or the lack thereof. e. A conclusion addressing the following: 1. Can the proposed SPPF be reasonably accommodated on other Tier 1 or Tier 2 properties? 2. Can the proposed SPPF be reasonably accommodated on Tier 3 land that is already irrevocably committed to uses other than irrigated agriculture?

3. Can the proposed SPPF be reasonably accommodated inside an urban growth area? If not, why not? To demonstrate that the proposed SPPF must be located in Tier 3, a High-Value Agricultural Resource Area, an applicant must show conclusively that the full range of reasonable alternatives have been considered for a similar but not necessarily identical facility and that the facility must be located in a Tier 3 location due to: 1. The lack of an available property in Tier 1 or Tier 2; 2. The lack of an available property within a designated Urban Growth Area; and 3. The facility can be located in Tier 3 in full compliance with the requirements and necessary ‘Findings of Fact’ in Section 17.61C.030(3) of this Chapter on land that is irrevocably committed to uses other than agriculture. 17.61C.045 Procedures The following procedures shall be followed for all SPPF applications: 1. SPPF applications shall be processed with the applicable provisions of Kittitas County Code 15A. 2. Public notice of proposed SPPFs shall be provided to all property owners within 1,330 5,280 feet of the proposed project site and posted on project perimeters. (Drafting note: The EFSEC standard is one mile notice partly due to the extended visual impacts in topography such as Kittitas County) 17.61C.050 Visual Impacts/Aesthetics 1. SPPF projects shall be screened, or enclosed by perimeter fencing a minimum of six (6) feet in height. Screen and/or fencing shall be consistent with the surrounding character and utilize landscaping and /or native vegetation strategies to screen the facility from routine view of public right-of-ways or adjacent residential property. When used, fencing type and style shall also reflect any safety concerns specific to adjacent wildlife and children. 2. On-site power lines shall, to the maximum extent practicable, be placed underground. 3. Glare resistant solar panels shall be used if the solar facility is located in an airport overlay zone, or if there is a risk of glare impacts from projects projecting glare across valley locations. Additional glare mitigations may be required by Kittitas County and appropriate measures may also be taken to ensure glare does not negatively impact surrounding neighbors, wildlife or adjacent livestock. 4. Lighting of the SPPF and accessory structures shall be limited to the minimum necessary and night time restrictions may be required when determined necessary to mitigate visual impacts. Lighting shall be contained within the perimeter of the facility whenever possible and any exterior lighting shall face downward and be shielded. 17.61C.060 Setbacks/Buffers/Standards 1. SPPFs shall meet the minimum zoning setback for the zoning district in which they are located, or 25 50 feet, whichever is greater except that screening and/or fencing improvements shall not have to comply with setback requirements. This applies to front, rear, and side setbacks. 2. SPPF free standing infrastructure shall not exceed a maximum of 20 feet in height as measured from the grade at the base of the structure to its apex (See Figure 17.61C-1) 3. The construction and operation of any SPPF shall be consistent with applicable local, State, and Federal requirements including but not limited to safety, construction, electrical, communication, and fire requirements. All fixtures and buildings shall comply with all local and State building codes. 4. SPPFs shall comply with lot coverage standards for the zoning district of the proposal.

Comment [A1]: This needs to be checked. These projects are likely to have lot coverages of 70% or more in most cases excluding service lanes depending on definition. Most non-industrial and commercial zoning districts have far smaller limits.

17.61C.070 Environment 1. All SPPF applications shall require a noxious weed management plan outlining methods, maintenance schedules, and any potential soil viability impacts. Construction or maintenance activities shall not result in the unabated introduction or spread of noxious weeds and other undesirable weed species. 2. Kittitas County shall review impacts on areas of environmental concern including but not limited to wildlife habitat, avian death due to reflective surfaces and false lake effect visuals, migration routes and critical areas when processing commercial solar land use permits. If the project is found to have potential environmental impacts, the applicant shall provide sufficient mitigation strategies to lower the said impacts below a significant threshold to the satisfaction of Kittitas County as well as any applicable State or Federal agency with jurisdiction. This may include studies, reports, certificates, a host of mitigation measures, or other approvals at the discretion of the Director. 3. All projects shall comply with Kittitas County Critical Areas Ordinance and Shoreline Master Program requirements. 4. All SPPF applications shall include a stormwater management plan which shall include any proposed ground disturbance and mediation measures (such as reseeding with appropriate vegetation) to contain storm water runoff. The stormwater management plan shall comply with the storm water management standards in KCC 12.06 5. Projects shall have a Kittitas County Fire Marshal approval fire wise/fire management plan prior to building permit approval. 6. A cultural resources survey in accordance with accepted professional methods and Federal/State standards appropriate for the project shall be conducted and any significant resource values protected during construction and operation. 17.61C.080 Security/Safety 1. The manufacturers’ or installers’ identification and appropriate warning signage shall be posted at the site in a clear and visible manner at the entrance and along perimeter facing. A sign consistent with KCC 17.70 shall be provided that shall identify the owner of the facility and provide a 24-hour emergency contact and phone number. 2. All photovoltaic systems shall comply with the most current edition of the National Electrical Code. 17.61C.090 Decommissioning/Abandonment 1. Abandonment Requirements: a. SPPF’s which have not been in active and continuous service at an operational level of no less than 70% of the facility’s original design capacity for a period of 1 year (365 days) shall be removed at the owner/operator’s expense. b. The Planning Official, Building Official, Code Enforcement Officer or designee may issue a Notice of Abandonment to the owner/operator of the facility. The owner/operator shall have the right to respond to the Notice of Abandonment within 30 days from the Notice receipt date. The Building Official, Code Enforcement Officer or designee may withdraw the Notice of Abandonment and notify the owner/operator that the Notice has been withdrawn if the owner/operator provides sufficient information to demonstrate that the facility has not been abandoned, which may include documentation or certification by the owner/operator of the electrical grid that the SPPF has met the requirement of 17.61C.090 (1)(a). c. If the owner/operator fails to respond to the Notice of Abatement Abandonment or if after review by the Planning Official, Building Official, Code Enforcement Officer or designee it is determined that the facility has been abandoned or discontinued, the owner/operator of the facility shall remove the SPPF at the owner/operator’s sole expense within 3-months of receipt of the Notice of Abandonment. If the owner/operator fails to physically remove the

facility after the Notice of Abandonment procedure, the County shall have the authority to enter the subject property, physically remove the facility and recover costs associated with that removal from the property owner/operator. 2. Decommissioning Requirements: a. The site shall be restored to its original condition within six (6) months of removal. Restoration of the site shall consist of the following: 1. Dismantle and removal of all photovoltaic solar power generation facilities including modules, mountings, foundations, gravel beds, inverters, wiring, and storage devices. 2. Private access road areas shall be restored by removing gravel and restoring surface grade and soil, unless the landowner directs otherwise. 3. After removal of the structures and roads the area, if disturbed during SFFP construction and operation, shall be graded as close as is reasonable possible to its original contours or contours advantageous for agricultural operations and the soils shall be restored to a condition compatible with farm uses or consistent with other resource uses. Revegetation shall include plant species suited to the area, or planting by landowner of agricultural crops, as appropriate, and shall be consistent with noxious weed control measures. b. Proponents of any commercial SPPF shall demonstrate decommission assurances to Kittitas County in the form of a surety bond or escrow account to cover the cost of removal in the event the facility must be removed by Kittitas County. The intent of this requirement is to guarantee performance (not just provide financial insurance) to protect the public interest and the County budget from an unanticipated, unwarranted burden to decommission a SPPF. The proponent shall submit a fully inclusive estimate of the costs associated with removal prepared by a qualified Washington State licensed engineer that is accepted by Kittitas County. The surety bond or escrow account shall be provided prior to installation. and cover 125% of The qualified estimate shall be based on the projection of present year dollars for a period of 30 years at an annual inflation rate of 2.5% to offset increased removal costs as a result of inflation. The surety bond shall not be subject to revocation or unjustified reduction before decommissioning. c. A decommissioning plan must be submitted at the time of initial application for review and consideration. 17.61C.100 Agricultural Land and Rural Character Mitigation 1. Agricultural land and rural character mitigation shall be required for any SPPF project approved in Tier 3 as a result of impacts in an ‘High-Value Agricultural Resource Area’ and it may be required for conditional use approval for projects in Tier 2, dependent on project impact analysis. 2. In Tier 3 approved SPPF projects that result in the taking out of potential production high-value arable soils defined as irrigated Class I, Class II, or Class III soils or non-irrigated prime, unique, Class I or Class II soils by the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service of the United States Department, a ratio of 2:1 shall apply where the residential development rights on a minimum of two acres of agricultural land shall be acquired and dedicated for every acre the project takes out of potential production. For every acre of non-arable soil a minimum of one acre of high-value agricultural land shall be preserved through the acquisition of residential development rights. a. Eligible residential development rights for mitigation are restricted to undeveloped platted lots of record of 6 acres or less in size on high-value arable soils as defined in this section under commercial agricultural production. Residential development rights that may exist on

the project site are not eligible for mitigation. b. The dedication of residential development rights will be the granting in perpetuity as a farmland conservation easement to a qualifying entity (conservation land trust) with the County as a third party beneficiary or they may be directly retained by the County at the County’s discretion. c. Acquired and dedicated residential development rights as a farmland conservation easement should be within 2 miles of the SPPF project, if reasonably available, but in no case should they be located outside of Tier 3 boundaries. 3. Within Tier 2 should impact analysis indicate mitigation is required to off-set impacts on rural character, a ratio of 1:1 shall be required in the a and dedication of development rights. a. Eligible residential development rights for mitigation are restricted to undeveloped platted lots of record of 6 acres or less in size. Residential development rights that may exist on the project site are not eligible for mitigation. b. The dedication of residential development rights will be the granting in perpetuity as a conservation easement to a qualifying entity (conservation land trust) with the County as a third party beneficiary or they may be directly retained by the County at the County’s discretion. c. Acquired and dedicated residential development rights as a conservation easement should be within 2 miles of the SPPF project, if reasonably available, but in no case should they be located outside of Tier 2 boundaries. 17.61C.100 Exceptions The following shall be treated as Tier 1 regardless of how the property is designated on the Solar Power Production Facilities Overlay map; 1. Land that is already irrevocably committed to uses other than agriculture. 2. Lands that do not contain soils suited for agricultural uses as described by the Soil Survey of Kittitas County.

1

Chelsea Benner

From: Dan CarlsonSent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 10:49 AMTo: Chelsea BennerCc: Lindsey OzboltSubject: FW: Solar Advisory Committee


New public comment for the Solar Facilities Citizen Advisory Committee.


From: Theo Leonard [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 8:50 AM To: Dan Carlson Subject: RE: Solar Advisory Committee Dan, Will you be sending out drafts of the revised regulations provided by Dick and his group for review and comment? Overall I was playing catch‐up at the last meeting since we spent a good portion of time discussing the revised regulations that we didn’t get a chance to review or discuss before they were presented. The main part I was confused about was Dick and his group’s comment regarding their reasoning for meeting which was basically feeling like they were having regulations shoved down their throat. I don’t understand if they feel that way because of the way the regulations have shaped up or if they feel like things have been rushed. We’ve all had equal opportunity to weigh in on all of the issues as the committee’s work has progressed. We have also all acknowledged the need for the County to provide regulations related to siting solar facilities since none currently exist. Our timeline may not be ideal but given how long the meetings have lasted and the fact that the County extended the moratorium so the committee could finish its work I don’t feel like we’re rushing things. We’ve had votes along the way as a group and probably the main vote we’ve had is whether to even allow solar facilities in Tier 3 areas. One of the last votes we had was in regards to the distance mailing notices should be sent to neighboring properties. I was in the minority for that vote and even though things didn’t go my way I did not feel like I was having anything shoved down my throat or that we were rushing things. What I did after the vote was respect the process by accepting the majority group’s decision and moving on. What I did not do was follow up after the vote to collaborate with the other folks that voted with me to start a sub‐committee where we brought in an industry professional to help us graft language to get around the majority vote. What I’m hoping is the group working with Dick did not just consist of people that voted no to allow solar facilities in the Tier 3 area. If that is the case then it would lead me to believe the purpose of Dick’s sub‐committee is basically an attempt to include additional language in the regulations that would serve to make solar projects infeasible in the Tier 3 area. During the last meeting Dick kept referring to Don Chance as the person whom principally authored the revised

2

regulations and publicly states on his LinkedIn page that he has “Specialization in behavioral incentives in planning practice…”. If the final language in the regulations included land‐banking requirements or similar for siting solar facilities in the Tier 3 area that could definitely be considered a behavioral incentive to not site solar facilities in the Tier 3 area due to the level of cost and permitting complexity. If the revised regulations were truly developed because a bipartisan (those for and against solar facilities in the Tier 3 area) sub‐group wanted additional technical language to bolster the regulations that were developed by the group as a whole I think that it’s feedback that should be considered and discussed at the next meeting. If the group consisted entirely of people in the ‘no’ category for allowing solar facilities at all in the Tier 3 area then I believe the language should be considered an attempt to overturn the majority ‘yes’ vote to allow solar facilities in the Tier 3 area, and the revised regulations should not be discussed or voted on at the next meeting as this would not be respecting the process the rest of the committee has diligently been involved with the last 6 months. Thank you for the time and please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Theo Leonard, PE Senior Engineer

From: Dan Carlson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 2:58 PM To: Chelsea Benner <[email protected]>; Andrea C. Sledge <[email protected]>; David Nerpel <[email protected]>; Howard F. Lyman <[email protected]>; Ivan Manley <[email protected]>; Jeff Dunning <[email protected]>; Marlene Pfeifer <[email protected]>; Mary Christensen <[email protected]>; Richard Carkner <[email protected]>; Scott Downes <[email protected]>; Steven England <[email protected]>; Susie Weis <[email protected]>; Susie Weis 2 <[email protected]>; Theo M. Leonard <[email protected]> Cc: Lindsey Ozbolt <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Solar Advisory Committee Hello all, The previous draft regulations that we sent out had the tier descriptions reversed. A revised clean version and track changes version are attached with the correct tier descriptions. See you on February 8th!


From: Chelsea Benner Sent: Friday, January 19, 2018 2:14 PM To: Andrea C. Sledge; David Nerpel; Howard F. Lyman; Ivan Manley; Jeff Dunning; Marlene Pfeifer; Mary Christensen; Richard Carkner; Scott Downes; Steven England; Susie Weis; Susie Weis 2; Theo M. Leonard Cc: Dan Carlson; Lindsey Ozbolt Subject: Solar Advisory Committee Good Afternoon,

3

As promised, here is the proposed final draft of the solar regulations and draft map. There are two copies attached to this email. One is the version showing the track changes. The other is a clean version. Both documents are identical except for one shows the changes that were made. We will be holding the next meeting on February 8, 2018 from 1‐4pm at the fairgrounds. Please review the provided documents and be prepared for some good discussions! An agenda will be sent to you about a week prior to the meeting. Thank you!




(p) 509‐962‐7506 (f) 509‐962‐7682

[email protected]


DRAFT SOLAR REGULATIONS

(Proposed amendments to Jan. 12th, 2018 Draft)

17.61C.010 Purpose The purpose and intent of this chapter is to establish a process for recognition and designation of properties in Kittitas County suitable for the location of Solar Power Production Facilities (SPPF), to protect the health, welfare, safety, and quality of life of the general public, to allow for development while protecting existing agricultural resources and rural character, to comply with the goals and requirements of the Washington State Growth Management Act, and to ensure compatibility with land uses in the vicinity of these facilities.

17.61C.020 Definitions 1. “Alternative Analysis” means a study prepared by a licensed professional engineer that demonstrateswhy a particular Tier 3 site is justified the only viable alternative and why other Tier 1 and Tier 2 areas cannot reasonably accommodate the proposed SPPF. The study must address the following questions:

a. Can the proposed SPPF be reasonably accommodated on Tier 1 or Tier 2 properties?b. Can the proposed SPPF be reasonably accommodated on Tier 3 land that is already

irrevocably committed to uses other than irrigated agriculture? b. Can the proposed SPPF be reasonably accommodated inside an urban growth area? If not,

why not?c. If the SPPF can only be located in Tier 3, a ‘High-Value Agricultural Resource Area’, can it be

done in compliance with Washington State Growth Management Act’s policies and standardsand in a way that has no impact on rural character or the long-term viability of commercialagriculture either in direct impacts or cumulative impacts?

2. “Cultural Resources” are lands, sites, and structures, that have historical, archaeological, or

traditional cultural significance where there is tangible and material evidence of the human past,

and include archaeological sites, historic buildings and structures, districts, landscapes, and

objects.

3. “High-Value” Agricultural Resource Area” means lands located within the general boundaries of an irrigation district or with commercial scale irrigation rights with a zoning status under the Washington State Growth Management Act designed to maintain and support area agricultural operations of long-term commercial significance. The acreage within such a designation is primarily devoted to the commercial production of horticultural, viticultural, floricultural, dairy, apiary, vegetable, or animal products or of berries, grain, hay, straw, turf, seed, Christmas trees, or livestock. Land within such designations will be predominantly cultivated or, if not currently cultivated, predominantly comprised of

arable soils defined as irrigated Class I, Class II, or Class III soils or non-irrigated prime, unique,

Class I or Class II soils by the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service of the United

States Department of Agriculture.

4. “Rural Character” refers to the patterns of land use and development established by Kittitas County in the rural element of its comprehensive plan:

(a) In which open space, the natural landscape, agriculture and forestry, and vegetation predominate over the built environment including land-uses that are of urban, suburban, commercial, or industrial character;

,

The detail and comprehensiveness of the definitions, even if available elsewhere, reiterate their importance in applying the proposed code, decrease the likelihood of arguments about definitions and their relevance in specific applications.

Yellow highlights are where I have made punctuation and grammar edits.

andreasledge

Highlight

(b) That foster traditional rural lifestyles, rural-based economies, and opportunities to both live and work in rural areas; (c) That provide visual landscapes that are traditionally found in rural areas and communities,

maintaining a visual separation and distinctiveness between rural, suburban, and urban environments for the benefit and enjoyment of all Washington state citizens; (d) That are compatible with the use of the land by wildlife and for fish and wildlife habitat; (e) That reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into built environments out

of character with the rural landscape vernacular; (f) In which landscapes of regional significance are preserved for future generations; and (g) That generally do not require the extension of urban government services, utilities, or other

urban improvements per the definitions established in WAC 365-196-200 (19) and WAC 365-196-200 (20).

5. “Solar Power Production Facilities” or “SPPF” means a utility on an area of land designated for the purpose of producing photovoltaic electricity over one hundred kilowatts (100 KW), and includes, but is not limited to, an assembly of equipment that converts sunlight into electricity and then stores and/or transfers that electricity. This includes photovoltaic modules, mounting and solar tracking equipment, foundations, inverters, wiring, and storage devices and other components. SPPF also include electrical cable collection systems connecting the photovoltaic solar generation facility to a transmission line, all necessary grid integration equipment, new or expanded private roads constructed to serve the photovoltaic solar power generation facility, office, operation and maintenance buildings, staging areas and all other necessary appurtenances including but not limited to landscaping, visual screens, and facility fencing. For purposes of applying the KW standard in this definition, a SPPF includes all existing and proposed facilities on a single tract, as well as any existing and proposed facilities under common ownership or related ownership subsidiaries or associated facility sales, development, or operation on lands with less than 5280-feet of separation from the tract on which the new facility is proposed to be sited.

17.61.C.025 Adoption of Solar Power Production Facilities Overlay Map 1. The official Solar Power Production Facilities Overlay Map is adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this chapter. The official Solar Power Production Facilities Overly Map shall be identified by the signature of the Chairperson of the Board and attested by the Clark of the Board. 2. No changes of any nature shall be made to the Solar Power Production Facilities Overlay Map exceptin conformity with the procedures set forth in this title.

17.61C.030 Siting Overlay As a rural county, maintenance of ‘rural character’ and the protection of existing agricultural resources is a priority, particularly for ‘High-Value Agricultural Resource Areas’ where substantial public and private investment has and continues to be made in regional irrigation systems that support the community economic base. The purpose of the following tiered system is to preserve ‘High-Value Agricultural Resource Areas’ that require economies of scale to maintain regional commercial agriculture by designating areas of the county that are appropriate for the siting of SPPFs. As siting moves from Tier 1 to Tier 3, the stringency of the permitting required increases. SPPFs are strongly supported and encouraged in Tier 1 areas, treated in a neutral manner in Tier 2 designations, and prohibited in the ‘High-Value Agricultural Resource Areas’ designated as Tier 3 except under unique and non-detrimental circumstances. 1. Tier one (1) consists of areas that are primarily characterized by high-quality irrigated agricultural lands marginal agricultural private lands and public lands of negligible or no agricultural value,

Again, important specificity re what SPPFs are - no wiggle room

andreasledge

Highlight

particularly Washington State Department of Natural Resources Public Trust Lands that are widely available for solar development and legally obligated to be utilized for the financial support of the state’s schools.

a. The placement of a SPPF of any size shall require an administrative conditional use permit.a. The placement of a SPPF with a foot print of up to and including two-hundred fifty (250) acres

is an out-right permitted-use subject to the performance standards of this Chapter. Theplacement of a SPPF with a foot print larger than two-hundred fifty (250) acres shall requirepublic notice, a conditional use permit, and compliance with the performance standards ofthis Chapter.

b. A conditional use permit will be required whereby the County may impose clear and objective conditions in accordance with the County Comprehensive Plan, County Zoning Code, provisions of this Chapter, and the goals, policies, and rules of the Washington State Growth Management Act.

1.‘Findings of Fact’ in the issuance of the conditional use permit must include but not necessarily be limited to an affirmative assessment by the County of the following:

a. The proposed SPPF will not create significant negative impacts on large-scale irrigated commercial agricultural operations conducted on the subject property not occupied by the project or otherlarge-scale irrigated commercial agricultural operations in the vicinity.

b. The long-term environmental, economic, social and rural characterconsequences resulting from the SPPF at the proposed site are acceptable when balancing considerations of public interest and welfare.

c. The extent and disposition of Irrigation water rights on project lands that willoccur post project development have been analyzed and determined per thepolicies of any associated irrigation district ,or if located outside of an irrigation district, the Washington Department of Ecology.

2. Tier two (2) consists of areas that are primarily characterized by non-irrigated agricultural lands thatare located outside of a ‘High-Value Agricultural Resource Area’.

a. The placement of a SPPF with a foot print of zero(0) to fifty (50) acres shall require aconditional use permit. To preserve ‘rural character’ SPPFs larger than fifty (50) acres areprohibited in this tier. There shall be a minimum of one (1) mile between the perimeters of all SPPFs in this tier.

b. A conditional use permit will be required whereby the County may impose clear and objective conditions in accordance with the County Comprehensive Plan, County Zoning Code, provisions of this Chapter, and the goals, policies, and rules of the Washington State Growth Management Act.


a. The proposed SPPF will not create significant negative impacts on irrigated commercial agricultural operations conducted on any portion of the subject property not occupied by the project or otherirrigated commercial agricultural operations in the vicinity.

b. The long-term environmental, economic, social and rural characterconsequences resulting from the SPPF at the proposed site when combined with the requirements of Tier 2 and any supplemental measures designed toreduce adverse impacts, including potential mitigation through the provisions

of 17.61C.100, are not significant. c. The extent and disposition of Irrigation water rights on project lands that will

occur post project development have been analyzed and determined per thepolicies of any associated irrigation district ,or if located outside of an irrigation district, the Washington Department of Ecology.

3. Tier three (3). Tier 3 consists of public lands and areas that are primarily characterized by nonagricultural lands. Tier 3 consists of areas recognized as high-quality agricultural districts dominated by irrigated commercial agriculture that qualify under the definitions of this Chapter as a ‘High-Value Agricultural Resource Area’.

a. The placement of a SPPF with a foot print of zero (0) to fifty (50) acres or 5 megawatts, whichever is smaller, shall require a conditional use permit and alternatives analysis. SPPFs larger than fifty (50) acres are prohibited in this tier. There shall be a minimum of one (1) mile between the perimeters of all SPPSs in this tier.

a. The placement of a SPPF in Tier three (3) is prohibited except under the following conditionsand requirements to preserve prime agricultural resources and rural character:

1. An alternatives analysis as specified in 17.61C.040 must be conducted. 2. SPPFs larger than fifty acres are prohibited in this tier.3. There shall be a minimum of one (1) mile between the perimeters of all SPPFs in this

tier. 4. A conditional use permit will be required whereby the County may impose clear and

objective conditions in accordance with the County Comprehensive Plan, County Zoning Code, provisions of this Chapter, and the goals, policies, and rules of theWashington State Growth Management Act.


a. No reasonable alternative site exists in Tier 1 and Tier 2 districts that could accommodate the project with the applicant having the burden ofproof.

b. The long-term environmental, economic, social and rural characterconsequences resulting from the SPPF at the proposed site with measuresdesigned to reduce adverse impacts are not significantly more adverse than would typically result from the same proposal being located in Tier 1 and

Tier 2 low value or marginal agricultural lands.c. The cumulative effects of siting multiple SPPFs in Tier 3 have been

adequately considered and that the presence or possibility of multiple SPPFsin a ‘High-Value Agricultural Resource Area’ will not lead to negative effects

on local farming and ranching operations nor tip the balance of existing land use activities away from commercial agriculture.

d. The proposed SPPF will not create unnecessary negative impacts on agricultural operations conducted on any portion of the subject property notoccupied by the project or other agricultural operations in the vicinity, norwill it have significant adverse impacts on rural character.

e. The SPPF will not result in the loss of Class I, II or III irrigated farmland as a result of unnecessary soil erosion, compaction, or irrigation rights

disruption that could limit the future agricultural productivity of the subjectproperty.

f. Agricultural land and rural character mitigation has been provided per theprovisions of 17.61C.100 prior to, or concurrent with the granting of theconditional use permit.

g. The extent and disposition of Irrigation water rights on project lands that willoccur post project development have been analyzed and determined per thepolicies of any associated irrigation district, or if located outside of an irrigation district, the Washington Department of Ecology.

17.61C.040 Permit Submittal Requirements The following shall be submitted for all SPPF applications: 1. Site and development plans which identify and/or locate all existing and proposed structures,setbacks, access routes, proposed road improvements, residential uses within one quarter of a mile of the project perimeter, existing utilities, pipelines, transmission lines, proposed utility lines, utility and maintenance structures, existing and proposed drainage areas, topography, proposed grading/landscaping, areas of natural vegetation removal and any re-vegetation methods, weed control, dust and erosion controls, and critical areas (as defined in KCC 17A) on or abutting the property, any ‘cultural resources’ as identified by an acceptable cultural survey, and any other relevant items identified by Community Development Services. All maps and visual representations shall be drawn to an appropriate scale. 2. An affidavit of agreement between lot owner and facilities owner or operator (when applicableconfirming that permission has been granted to propose, construct and/or operate a SPPF. 3. A written compliance narrative addressing how the proposal meets the following criteria in KCC 17.61.C050, .060, .070, .080, .090, and .100.

The following shall be submitted for all SPPF applications on lands identified as Tier 3 on the Solar Power Production Facilities Overlay Map: 1. An alternatives Analysis prepared by a Washington state licensed professional engineer. The Alternative Analysis shall contain the following:

a. A description of the proposed SPPF, to include proposed equipment, power to be generated,and property sizing requirements.

b. A description of the subject property, to include topography, existing vegetation, critical areas, geotechnical considerations, proximity to electrical substations and transmission lines, and surrounding land uses and densities.

c. An analysis of at least five (5) potential SPPF alternative sites located in Tier 1 and potentiallyTier 2 locations that generally approximates to the degree possible the scale, developmentcharacteristics, and economic attributes of the initial SPPF proposal. At least one of the fivealternative sites evaluated must be located on Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Trust Lands if such a site is available.

d. Official correspondence from DNR indicating either the degree of availably of sites on Tier 1 Trust Lands in Kittitas County or the lack thereof.

e. A conclusion addressing the following:1. Can the proposed SPPF be reasonably accommodated on other Tier 1 or Tier 2

properties? 2. Can the proposed SPPF be reasonably accommodated on Tier 3 land that is already

irrevocably committed to uses other than irrigated agriculture?

Does the official correspondence requirement pose a problem of requiring something from an agency that it might not choose to provide? Chelsea brought this up at the 7th meeting.

andreasledge

Highlight

3. Can the proposed SPPF be reasonably accommodated inside an urban growth area? If not, why not?

To demonstrate that the proposed SPPF must be located in Tier 3, a High-Value Agricultural Resource Area, an applicant must show conclusively that the full range of reasonable alternatives have been considered for a similar but not necessarily identical facility and that the facility must be located in a Tier 3 location due to:

1. The lack of an available property in Tier 1 or Tier 2;2. The lack of an available property within a designated Urban Growth Area; and3. The facility can be located in Tier 3 in full compliance with the requirements and

necessary ‘Findings of Fact’ in Section 17.61C.030(3) of this Chapter on land that isirrevocably committed to uses other than agriculture.

17.61C.045 Procedures The following procedures shall be followed for all SPPF applications: 1. SPPF applications shall be processed with the applicable provisions of Kittitas County Code 15A.2. Public notice of proposed SPPFs shall be provided to all property owners within 1,330 5,280 feet of the proposed project site and posted on project perimeters. (Drafting note: The EFSEC standard is one mile notice partly due to the extended visual impacts in topography such as Kittitas County)

17.61C.050 Visual Impacts/Aesthetics 1. SPPF projects shall be screened, or enclosed by perimeter fencing a minimum of six (6) feet in height.Screen and/or fencing shall be consistent with the surrounding character and utilize landscaping and /or native vegetation strategies to screen the facility from routine view of public right-of-ways or adjacent residential property. When used, fencing type and style shall also reflect any safety concerns specific to adjacent wildlife, and children. 2. On-site power lines shall, to the maximum extent practicable, be placed underground.3. Glare resistant solar panels shall be used if the solar facility is located in an airport overlay zone, or ifthere is a risk of glare impacts from projects projecting glare across valley locations. Additional glare mitigations may be required by Kittitas County and appropriate measures may also be taken to ensure glare does not negatively impact surrounding neighbors, wildlife or adjacent livestock. 4. Lighting of the SPPF and accessory structures shall be limited to the minimum necessary and nighttime restrictions may be required when determined necessary to mitigate visual impacts. Lighting shall be contained within the perimeter of the facility whenever possible and any exterior lighting shall face downward and be shielded.

17.61C.060 Setbacks/Buffers/Standards 1. SPPFs shall meet the minimum zoning setback for the zoning district in which they are located, or 2550 feet, whichever is greater except that screening and/or fencing improvements shall not have to comply with setback requirements. This applies to front, rear, and side setbacks. 2. SPPF free standing infrastructure shall not exceed a maximum of 20 feet in height as measured fromthe grade at the base of the structure to its apex (See Figure 17.61C-1) 3. The construction and operation of any SPPF shall be consistent with applicable local, State, and Federal requirements including but not limited to safety, construction, electrical, communication, and fire requirements. All fixtures and buildings shall comply with all local and State building codes. 4. SPPFs shall comply with lot coverage standards for the zoning district of the proposal. Comment [A1]: This needs to be checked. These

projects are likely to have lot coverages of 70% or more in most cases excluding service lanes depending on definition. Most non-industrial and commercial zoning districts have far smaller limits.

andreasledge

Highlight

17.61C.070 Environment 1. All SPPF applications shall require a noxious weed management plan outlining methods, maintenanceschedules, and any potential soil viability impacts. Construction or maintenance activities shall not result in the unabated introduction or spread of noxious weeds and other undesirable weed species. 2. Kittitas County shall review impacts on areas of environmental concern including but not limited towildlife habitat, avian death due to reflective surfaces and false lake effect visuals, migration routes and critical areas when processing commercial solar land use permits. If the project is found to have potential environmental impacts, the applicant shall provide sufficient mitigation strategies to lower the said impacts below a significant threshold to the satisfaction of Kittitas County as well as any applicable State or Federal agency with jurisdiction. This may include studies, reports, certificates, a host of mitigation measures, or other approvals at the discretion of the Director. 3. All projects shall comply with Kittitas County Critical Areas Ordinance and Shoreline Master Programrequirements. 4. All SPPF applications shall include a stormwater management plan which shall include any proposed ground disturbance and mediation measures (such as reseeding with appropriate vegetation) to contain storm water runoff. The stormwater management plan shall comply with the storm water management standards in KCC 12.06 5. Projects shall have a Kittitas County Fire Marshal approval fire wise/fire management plan prior tobuilding permit approval. 6. A cultural resources survey in accordance with accepted professional methods and Federal/Statestandards appropriate for the project shall be conducted, and any significant resource values protected during construction and operation.

17.61C.080 Security/Safety 1. The manufacturers’ or installers’ identification and appropriate warning signage shall be posted at thesite in a clear and visible manner at the entrance and along perimeter facing. A sign consistent with KCC 17.70 shall be provided that shall identify the owner of the facility and provide a 24-hour emergency contact and phone number. 2. All photovoltaic systems shall comply with the most current edition of the National Electrical Code.

17.61C.090 Decommissioning/Abandonment 1. Abandonment Requirements:

a. SPPF’s which have not been in active and continuous service at an operational level of no lessthan 70% of the facility’s original design capacity for a period of 1 year (365 days) shall beremoved at the owner/operator’s expense.

b. The Planning Official, Building Official, Code Enforcement Officer or designee may issue aNotice of Abandonment to the owner/operator of the facility. The owner/operator shall have

the right to respond to the Notice of Abandonment within 30 days from the Notice receiptdate. The Building Official, Code Enforcement Officer or designee may withdraw the Notice of Abandonment and notify the owner/operator that the Notice has been withdrawn if theowner/operator provides sufficient information to demonstrate that the facility has not been abandoned, which may include documentation or certification by the owner/operator of theelectrical grid that the SPPF has met the requirement of 17.61C.090 (1)(a).

c. If the owner/operator fails to respond to the Notice of Abatement Abandonment or if after review by the Planning Official, Building Official, Code Enforcement Officer or designee it is determined that the facility has been abandoned or discontinued, the owner/operator of the facility shall remove the SPPF at the owner/operator’s sole expense within 3 months of receipt of the Notice of Abandonment. If the owner/operator fails to physically remove the

andreasledge

Highlight

andreasledge

Highlight

facility after the Notice of Abandonment procedure, the County shall have the authority to enter the subject property, physically remove the facility and recover costs associated with that removal from the property owner/operator.

2. Decommissioning Requirements:a. The site shall be restored to its original condition within six (6) months of removal.

Restoration of the site shall consist of the following:1. Dismantle and removal of all photovoltaic solar power generation facilities including

modules, mountings, foundations, gravel beds, inverters, wiring, and storage devices.2. Private access road areas shall be restored by removing gravel and restoring surface

grade and soil, unless the landowner directs otherwise.3. After removal of the structures and roads the area, if disturbed during SFFP

construction and operation, shall be graded as close as is reasonable possible to its original contours or contours advantageous for agricultural operations and the soilsshall be restored to a condition compatible with farm uses or consistent with otherresource uses. Revegetation shall include plant species suited to the area, or planting by landowner of agricultural crops, as appropriate, and shall be consistent with noxious weed control measures.

b. Proponents of any commercial SPPF shall demonstrate decommission assurances to KittitasCounty in the form of a surety bond or escrow account to cover the cost of removal in theevent the facility must be removed by Kittitas County. The intent of this requirement is toguarantee performance (not just provide financial insurance) to protect the public interestand the County budget from an unanticipated, unwarranted burden to decommission a SPPF.The proponent shall submit a fully inclusive estimate of the costs associated with removal prepared by a qualified Washington State licensed engineer that is accepted by Kittitas

County. The surety bond or escrow account shall be provided prior to installation. and cover125% of The qualified estimate shall be based on the projection of present year dollars for aperiod of 30 years at an annual inflation rate of 2.5% to offset increased removal costs as a result of inflation. The surety bond shall not be subject to revocation or unjustified reduction before decommissioning.

c. A decommissioning plan must be submitted at the time of initial application for review and consideration.

17.61C.100 Agricultural Land and Rural Character Mitigation 1. Agricultural land and rural character mitigation shall be required for any SPPF project approved in Tier3 as a result of impacts in an ‘High-Value Agricultural Resource Area,’ and it may be required for conditional use approval for projects in Tier 2, dependent on project impact analysis. 2. In Tier 3 approved SPPF projects that result in the taking out of potential production high-value arablesoils defined as irrigated Class I, Class II, or Class III soils or non-irrigated prime, unique, Class I or Class II soils by the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service of the United States Department, a ratio of 2:1 shall apply where the residential development rights on a minimum of two acres of agricultural land shall be acquired and dedicated for every acre the project takes out of potential production. For every acre of non-arable soil a minimum of one acre of high-value agricultural land shall be preserved through the acquisition of residential development rights.

a. Eligible residential development rights for mitigation are restricted to undeveloped platted lots of record of 6 acres or less in size on high-value arable soils as defined in this section under commercial agricultural production. Residential development rights that may exist on

andreasledge

Highlight

the project site are not eligible for mitigation. b. The dedication of residential development rights will be the granting in perpetuity as a

farmland conservation easement to a qualifying entity (conservation land trust) with the County as a third party beneficiary or they may be directly retained by the County at theCounty’s discretion.

c. Acquired and dedicated residential development rights as a farmland conservation easement should be within 2 miles of the SPPF project, if reasonably available, but in no case should they be located outside of Tier 3 boundaries.

3. Within Tier 2, should impact analysis indicate mitigation is required to off-set impacts on ruralcharacter, a ratio of 1:1 shall be required in the a and dedication of development rights.

a. Eligible residential development rights for mitigation are restricted to undeveloped platted lots of record of 6 acres or less in size. Residential development rights that may exist on theproject site are not eligible for mitigation.

b. The dedication of residential development rights will be the granting in perpetuity as a conservation easement to a qualifying entity (conservation land trust) with the County as a third party beneficiary or they may be directly retained by the County at theCounty’s discretion.

c. Acquired and dedicated residential development rights as a conservation easement should be within 2 miles of the SPPF project, if reasonably available, but in no case should they be located outside of Tier 2 boundaries.

17.61C.100 Exceptions

The following shall be treated as Tier 1 regardless of how the property is designated on the Solar Power Production Facilities Overlay map; 1. Land that is already irrevocably committed to uses other than agriculture. 2. Lands that do not contain soils suited for agricultural uses as described by the Soil Survey of KittitasCounty.

Missing word ? in "the a and dedication"

Why is the exceptions section not needed?

andreasledge

Highlight

andreasledge

Highlight

February 27, 2018

BY E-MAIL

Dan Carlson Director of Community Development Services Kittitas County

Dear Mr. Carlson:

We appreciate the opportunity we have had to observe and advise the Kittitas County Solar Facilities Citizen Advisory Committee (“CAC”) for the past six months. A letter from Jeff Dunning dated January 25, 2018 (“Dunning Letter”) and accompanying proposed amendments to the working draft of solar regulations (“Dunning Amendments”) were circulated at the February 8, 2018 meeting of the CAC. The content of the Dunning Letter and Dunning Amendments are a departure from the CAC process, and are substantively inconsistent with the County’s stated objectives of balancing the conservation of actively farmed land with providing clear and objective standards that allow development of solar farms.

This letter is provided in response to the Dunning Letter and accompanying Dunning Amendments, and I hope it can inform the CAC as it considers its final recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners. Please provide this letter to the members of the CAC at your first convenience.

I. Consistency with State Law

The Dunning Letter voices concern that the Growth Management Act (GMA) prohibits solar facilities on agricultural land. However, the Dunning Letter does not acknowledge that: (1) the current solar facility regulations meet the objectives of the GMA1; (2) the solar facility regulations under consideration by the CAC would provide more protections for the County’s agricultural land and economy than the current code; (3) solar facilities can improve the sustainability of the agricultural economy; (4) all of the cases identified in the Dunning Letter

1 In fact, the Board of County Commissioners made a legislative decision that solar facilities are an allowed, conditional use in the zoning code. The County’s Rural Plan Element and accompanying development regulations were found by the GMHB to be compliant with the GMA, and this includes solar facilities as an allowed use.

address urban level residential and mixed-use (commercial) development, not solar facilities and other land uses considered to be compatible with farming; and (5) solar facilities are good neighbors to agricultural land uses.

The GMA requires the rural element of local comprehensive plans to utilize zoning to allow limited rural development so long as the zoning is also designed to conserve agricultural lands and encourage the agricultural economy. See Lewis County v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 157 Wash.2d 488, 508-09, 139 P.3d 1096 (2006). The GMA gives deference to county determination of the best zoning measures to meet these objectives. The solar regulations being considered by CAC encourage conservation of agricultural lands by providing increased regulation based on the agricultural capacity and history of a site and limiting the size and proximity of solar facilities. These protections are not found in the current code.

Further, solar facilities can increase the sustainability of agricultural operations by allowing a farmer to convert their least productive land into a steady revenue stream that is not dependent on weather or agricultural markets. That income can be used to make the balance of the agricultural operation more financially resilient or to expand an agricultural operation.

The cases cited in the Dunning Letter deal with restricting the use of agricultural land for development of homes and businesses to serve those homes. Unlike such development, solar facilities are good neighbors to farming. Where housing and urban businesses in rural areas create density and increased human presence and land uses that conflict with agricultural practices, solar facilities have no such conflict with surrounding farm operations. Indeed, the GMA explicitly discourages sprawling residential development, in large part to prohibit the extension of urban services (e.g. public water, wastewater, stormwater, police, schools and fire services). Sprawling urban development causes a proliferation of domestic wells and the installation of septic systems, both with consequential damage to important water resources. Residential uses are, as a matter of fact and law, destructive to farming, leading inevitably to conversion of farmlands to more and more housing developments.

Instead, solar facilities need only episodic O&M services, do not require the extension of urban services, cause no damages or losses to critical water resources, do not negatively impact surrounding agricultural uses, and in no way cause or encourage the permanent conversion to incompatible land uses (i.e., home construction). Solar facilities do not increase the costs of surrounding farming. These are the impacts of residential sprawl, not solar facility development. Solar facilities emit little noise, vibration, light, dust, or other particulates that would impact crop cultivation or livestock beyond the fenced enclosure of the solar facility. They do not segregate farm lands, impede “farm to market” routes with traffic impacts, and they do not cut off farm vehicle access. In summary, unlike sprawling housing developments, solar facilities are entirely compatible with sensitive surrounding agricultural practices and do not require or cause farmers to change or increase the cost of their operations to accommodate an adjacent solar facility.

For these reasons, solar energy facilities are consistent with the GMA, advance Washington’s clean energy economy, and are consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan and zoning code. Adoption of reasonable solar regulations will promote conservation of the agricultural land and improve the economy in Kittitas County.

II. Proposed Amendments to Draft Solar Regulations

The Dunning Amendments to the draft regulations include a number of flaws that would render them subjective and unenforceable. These include: (1) the inclusion of an “environmental, economic, social and rural character” [emphasis added] evaluation as a permit requirement; (2) elevating the proof of “rural character” as a permit criteria; (3) imposing a “mitigation” scheme that would require a solar facility developer to acquire and essentially extinguish existing residential lots, through an unclear concept of “conservation,” and (4) requiring an “alternative location” evaluation requirement.

1. The requirement to evaluate “long term environmental, economic, social and rural character” consequences “while balancing considerations of public interest and welfare” is subjective, duplicates SEPA, and is unbounded by legal standards.

This concept appears to be borrowed from Oregon’s “environmental, economic, social and energy” (“EESE”) evaluation process, required as a precursor to the grant of a “Goal 3” agricultural land use exception. The inclusion of this requirement in the County’s code is deeply flawed for a number of reasons, including the following:

• Oregon’s “EESE” criteria is objective, requiring in a much abbreviated form, an environmental evaluation akin to a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance finding under Washington’s SEPA. The proposed “EESR” criteria borrows “environmental, economic and social” factors, but not “energy,” and introduces “rural character” instead. This exchange, and reliance on “rural character” as part of a legal test, renders an objective tool into an utterly subjective test. “Rural character” is a GMA definition of attributes included by the legislature in the statute to aid local governments in the consideration and formation of comprehensive plans, in particular, in deciding which areas of a county should be devoted to a host of different “rural” land uses, versus residential development. It is not, and cannot be applied as an objective test of whether a particular land use in a particular location is allowed. The question of Kittitas County’s use of the “rural character” definition to subjectively allow or deny permits is at this time pending before the Washington Supreme Court, on appeal of the Iron Horse solar project decision.

• The “EESR” criteria also duplicates and trumps SEPA review. Kittitas County does not need an additional and redundant tool to evaluate “environmental, economic and social” impacts (let alone “rural” impacts). Such a tool (including “energy”) may make sense in Oregon, where there is no SEPA or an equivalent (due to longstanding legislation

effectively holding that once a land use is permitted in any location, further environmental review at the permit stage is unnecessary). It makes no sense in Washington and would create a confusing and ambiguous meshing of the same evaluation, applied in a new, subjective way.

• In Oregon, the EESE evaluation is based on an extensive regulatory and legislative history, fleshed out by decades of laws, legal review and judicial precedent. This history provides a reliable and understood framework for its use and application. If such an evaluation were to be imposed, it should be based on a clear legislative scheme, most specifically, through the GMA. Without that backbone supporting it, the proposed “EESR” evaluation would violate the GMA, imposing standards that defeat the deliberative comprehensive planning process, as implemented by thoughtful development regulations, adopted only after robust public participation.

2. Elevating rural character as a permit criteria misuses and misapplies the GMA Definition guiding comprehensive planning:

As noted above, the “rural character” factors are found not in the GMA’s guidance for formulating clear, objective development regulations, but within a definition section intended by the legislature to assist local governments in evaluating the character of lands that could be subject to rural zoning, most particularly, related to the prohibition of rural residential sprawl and the inappropriate extension of urban services. Using “rural character” factors as permit criteria undermine predictable, criteria-based permits, mandated by the GMA, as further confirmed and made robust through the Regulatory Reform Act, RCW Ch. 36.70B. The Dunning Amendments would somehow require compliance with “rural character” in multiple ways, including in evaluating the appropriateness of projects, and also, as noted above, in the misapplication of an Oregon-like EESE test. As noted above, the use of this definition as criteria is at this time pending before the Washington Supreme Court.

3. Rural lot acquisition as mitigation. The requirement that a solar developer purchase, on an acre-for-acre basis, platted rural lots is novel and unlawful:

“Mitigation” to address development impacts must first and foremost be based on lawful, legislative standards, such as RCW Ch. 80.02, and most typically, SEPA. To be lawful, such mitigation measures or “exactions” must be clear, objective, and capable of being accomplished. They must be proportionate to the “impacts” mitigated, with a clear “nexus” between the impact and the exaction. The idea that a developer of any sort of facility should be required to find and extinguish lots previously permitted approved by Kittitas County is deeply flawed, disproportionate, and bears no relation to the impacts of a solar facility. Moreover, such a requirement, if established, should be equally applied to every rural land use approved as a conditional use. This requirement, apparently intended to “undo” a history of County platting, would apply equally to churches, mines, the County’s ambitions to build a garbage transfer

station, and a host of other non-farming land uses allowed by the County code. Singling out solar facilities is unlawful, and this concept is not capable of a reasoned or fair application.

4. Alternative site evaluations would violate the legal limitations of SEPA for alternative site consideration, and would result in subjective and unpredictable decisions.

SEPA provides authority for the consideration of alternative sites, but not for private development proposals, unless the applicant seeks a rezone. WAC 197-11-440(5)(d). The concept of requiring an alternative site evaluation directly violates SEPA and finds no other statutory support. Further, the key locational factors for siting solar facilities are the location of existing transmission lines and utility substations. Requiring an in-depth alternative site evaluation would be a costly and fruitless process, and will not likely result in any changes in site selections.

Aside from the legal flaws in this requirement, we do have practical concerns about whether an alternatives analysis is an appropriate regulatory measure to apply as part of a conditional use process. As with the introduction of the “mitigation” concepts, without the kind of legal framework found in SEPA, the introduction of an alternatives evaluation process is unbridled by legal standards and seems very likely to result in subjective decisions. At minimum, the code should incorporate more specificity as to what evidence and information can be presented that objectively meets the requirements of an alternatives analysis. We would also suggest that zoning measures other than alternatives analyses should be further explored, as alternatives analyses are difficult and costly to prepare and give rise to questions of how comprehensive they must be, including:

• What is the correct geographic scope of such an analysis? • What does it mean to “reasonably accommodate”? • What is the nature of the factors to consider in determining reasonable accommodation?

(E.g. is a site disqualified because it is not available for lease or purchase or is not economically viable?)

Speaking practically, the uncertainties in creating and evaluating an alternatives analysis will make it difficult to determine if a particular site will be considered suitable for solar prior to submitting an application through the County land use process. Without additional detail and clear and objective standards, the only manner of resolving these questions will be through legal challenges to local decisions and future code amendments. A process where it is impossible to gauge whether a “preferred” site is acceptable until a subjective permit decision is made by the BOCC is deeply flawed, contrary to Washington’s land use decision framework, and will prevent solar development under Kittitas County’s regulations.

We appreciate the opportunity to respond to these late-breaking amendments and legal arguments and look forward to continuing to work with the County and the CAC to craft an objective, evidence-based, and workable set of regulations.

Sincerely,

Jason Evans Vice President, TUUSSO Energy, LLC

February 27, 2018

BY E-MAIL


Dear Mr. Carlson:

We appreciate the opportunity we have had to observe and advise the Kittitas County Solar Facilities Citizen Advisory Committee (“CAC”) for the past six months. A letter from Jeff Dunning dated January 25, 2018 (“Dunning Letter”), and a set of proposed amendments to the working draft of solar regulations prepared by a number of CAC members and members of the public, and presented to CAC by Dick Carkner (“Carkner Amendments”) were circulated at the February 8, 2018 meeting of the CAC. The content of the Carkner Amendments are a departure from the CAC process, and are substantively inconsistent with the County’s stated objectives of balancing the conservation of actively farmed land with providing clear and objective standards that allow development of solar farms.

This letter is provided in response to the Dunning Letter, and to the Carkner Amendments, and I hope it can inform the CAC as it considers its final recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners. Please provide this letter to the members of the CAC at your first convenience.

I. Consistency with State Law

The Dunning Letter voices concern that the Growth Management Act (GMA) prohibits solar facilities on agricultural land. However, the Dunning Letter does not acknowledge that: (1) the current solar facility regulations meet the objectives of the GMA1; (2) the solar facility regulations under consideration by the CAC would provide more protections for the County’s agricultural land and economy than the current code; (3) solar facilities can improve the sustainability of the agricultural economy; (4) all of the cases identified in the Dunning Letter

1 In fact, the Board of County Commissioners made a legislative decision that solar facilities are an allowed, conditional use in the zoning code. The County’s Rural Plan Element and accompanying development regulations were found by the GMHB to be compliant with the GMA, and this includes solar facilities as an allowed use.

address urban level residential and mixed-use (commercial) development, not solar facilities and other land uses considered to be compatible with farming; and (5) solar facilities are good neighbors to agricultural land uses.

The GMA requires the rural element of local comprehensive plans to utilize zoning to allow limited rural development so long as the zoning is also designed to conserve agricultural lands and encourage the agricultural economy. See Lewis County v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 157 Wash.2d 488, 508-09, 139 P.3d 1096 (2006). The GMA gives deference to county determination of the best zoning measures to meet these objectives. The solar regulations being considered by CAC encourage conservation of agricultural lands by providing increased regulation based on the agricultural capacity and history of a site and limiting the size and proximity of solar facilities. These protections are not found in the current code.

Further, solar facilities can increase the sustainability of agricultural operations by allowing a farmer to convert their least productive land into a steady revenue stream that is not dependent on weather or agricultural markets. That income can be used to make the balance of the agricultural operation more financially resilient or to expand an agricultural operation.

The cases cited in the Dunning Letter deal with restricting the use of agricultural land for development of homes and businesses to serve those homes. Unlike such development, solar facilities are good neighbors to farming. Where housing and urban businesses in rural areas create density and increased human presence and land uses that conflict with agricultural practices, solar facilities have no such conflict with surrounding farm operations. Indeed, the GMA explicitly discourages sprawling residential development, in large part to prohibit the extension of urban services (e.g. public water, wastewater, stormwater, police, schools and fire services). Sprawling urban development causes a proliferation of domestic wells and the installation of septic systems, both with consequential damage to important water resources. Residential uses are, as a matter of fact and law, destructive to farming, leading inevitably to conversion of farmlands to more and more housing developments.

Instead, solar facilities need only episodic O&M services, do not require the extension of urban services, cause no damages or losses to critical water resources, do not negatively impact surrounding agricultural uses, and in no way cause or encourage the permanent conversion to incompatible land uses (i.e., home construction). Solar facilities do not increase the costs of surrounding farming. These are the impacts of residential sprawl, not solar facility development. Solar facilities emit little noise, vibration, light, dust, or other particulates that would impact crop cultivation or livestock beyond the fenced enclosure of the solar facility. They do not segregate farm lands, impede “farm to market” routes with traffic impacts, and they do not cut off farm vehicle access. In summary, unlike sprawling housing developments, solar facilities are entirely compatible with sensitive surrounding agricultural practices and do not require or cause farmers to change or increase the cost of their operations to accommodate an adjacent solar facility.

For these reasons, solar energy facilities are consistent with the GMA, advance Washington’s clean energy economy, and are consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan and zoning code. Adoption of reasonable solar regulations will promote conservation of the agricultural land and improve the economy in Kittitas County.

II. Proposed Amendments to Draft Solar Regulations

The Carkner Amendments to the draft regulations include a number of flaws that would render them subjective and unenforceable. These include: (1) the inclusion of an “environmental, economic, social and rural character” [emphasis added] evaluation as a permit requirement; (2) elevating the proof of “rural character” as a permit criteria; (3) imposing a “mitigation” scheme that would require a solar facility developer to acquire and essentially extinguish existing residential lots, through an unclear concept of “conservation,” and (4) requiring an “alternative location” evaluation requirement.

1. The requirement to evaluate “long term environmental, economic, social and rural character” consequences “while balancing considerations of public interest and welfare” is subjective, duplicates SEPA, and is unbounded by legal standards.

This concept appears to be borrowed from Oregon’s “environmental, economic, social and energy” (“EESE”) evaluation process, required as a precursor to the grant of a “Goal 3” agricultural land use exception. The inclusion of this requirement in the County’s code is deeply flawed for a number of reasons, including the following:

• Oregon’s “EESE” criteria is objective, requiring in a much abbreviated form, an environmental evaluation akin to a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance finding under Washington’s SEPA. The proposed “EESR” criteria borrows “environmental, economic and social” factors, but not “energy,” and introduces “rural character” instead. This exchange, and reliance on “rural character” as part of a legal test, renders an objective tool into an utterly subjective test. “Rural character” is a GMA definition of attributes included by the legislature in the statute to aid local governments in the consideration and formation of comprehensive plans, in particular, in deciding which areas of a county should be devoted to a host of different “rural” land uses, versus residential development. It is not, and cannot be applied as an objective test of whether a particular land use in a particular location is allowed. The question of Kittitas County’s use of the “rural character” definition to subjectively allow or deny permits is at this time pending before the Washington Supreme Court, on appeal of the Iron Horse solar project decision.

• The “EESR” criteria also duplicates and trumps SEPA review. Kittitas County does not need an additional and redundant tool to evaluate “environmental, economic and social” impacts (let alone “rural” impacts). Such a tool (including “energy”) may make sense in Oregon, where there is no SEPA or an equivalent (due to longstanding legislation

effectively holding that once a land use is permitted in any location, further environmental review at the permit stage is unnecessary). It makes no sense in Washington and would create a confusing and ambiguous meshing of the same evaluation, applied in a new, subjective way.

• In Oregon, the EESE evaluation is based on an extensive regulatory and legislative history, fleshed out by decades of laws, legal review and judicial precedent. This history provides a reliable and understood framework for its use and application. If such an evaluation were to be imposed, it should be based on a clear legislative scheme, most specifically, through the GMA. Without that backbone supporting it, the proposed “EESR” evaluation would violate the GMA, imposing standards that defeat the deliberative comprehensive planning process, as implemented by thoughtful development regulations, adopted only after robust public participation.

2. Elevating rural character as a permit criteria misuses and misapplies the GMA Definition guiding comprehensive planning:

As noted above, the “rural character” factors are found not in the GMA’s guidance for formulating clear, objective development regulations, but within a definition section intended by the legislature to assist local governments in evaluating the character of lands that could be subject to rural zoning, most particularly, related to the prohibition of rural residential sprawl and the inappropriate extension of urban services. Using “rural character” factors as permit criteria undermine predictable, criteria-based permits, mandated by the GMA, as further confirmed and made robust through the Regulatory Reform Act, RCW Ch. 36.70B. The Carkner Amendments would somehow require compliance with “rural character” in multiple ways, including in evaluating the appropriateness of projects, and also, as noted above, in the misapplication of an Oregon-like EESE test. As noted above, the use of this definition as criteria is at this time pending before the Washington Supreme Court.

3. Rural lot acquisition as mitigation. The requirement that a solar developer purchase, on an acre-for-acre basis, platted rural lots is novel and unlawful:

“Mitigation” to address development impacts must first and foremost be based on lawful, legislative standards, such as RCW Ch. 80.02, and most typically, SEPA. To be lawful, such mitigation measures or “exactions” must be clear, objective, and capable of being accomplished. They must be proportionate to the “impacts” mitigated, with a clear “nexus” between the impact and the exaction. The idea that a developer of any sort of facility should be required to find and extinguish lots previously permitted approved by Kittitas County is deeply flawed, disproportionate, and bears no relation to the impacts of a solar facility. Moreover, such a requirement, if established, should be equally applied to every rural land use approved as a conditional use. This requirement, apparently intended to “undo” a history of County platting, would apply equally to churches, mines, the County’s ambitions to build a garbage transfer

station, and a host of other non-farming land uses allowed by the County code. Singling out solar facilities is unlawful, and this concept is not capable of a reasoned or fair application.

4. Alternative site evaluations would violate the legal limitations of SEPA for alternative site consideration, and would result in subjective and unpredictable decisions.

SEPA provides authority for the consideration of alternative sites, but not for private development proposals, unless the applicant seeks a rezone. WAC 197-11-440(5)(d). The concept of requiring an alternative site evaluation directly violates SEPA and finds no other statutory support. Further, the key locational factors for siting solar facilities are the location of existing transmission lines and utility substations. Requiring an in-depth alternative site evaluation would be a costly and fruitless process, and will not likely result in any changes in site selections.

Aside from the legal flaws in this requirement, we do have practical concerns about whether an alternatives analysis is an appropriate regulatory measure to apply as part of a conditional use process. As with the introduction of the “mitigation” concepts, without the kind of legal framework found in SEPA, the introduction of an alternatives evaluation process is unbridled by legal standards and seems very likely to result in subjective decisions. At minimum, the code should incorporate more specificity as to what evidence and information can be presented that objectively meets the requirements of an alternatives analysis. We would also suggest that zoning measures other than alternatives analyses should be further explored, as alternatives analyses are difficult and costly to prepare and give rise to questions of how comprehensive they must be, including:

• What is the correct geographic scope of such an analysis? • What does it mean to “reasonably accommodate”? • What is the nature of the factors to consider in determining reasonable accommodation?

(E.g. is a site disqualified because it is not available for lease or purchase or is not economically viable?)

Speaking practically, the uncertainties in creating and evaluating an alternatives analysis will make it difficult to determine if a particular site will be considered suitable for solar prior to submitting an application through the County land use process. Without additional detail and clear and objective standards, the only manner of resolving these questions will be through legal challenges to local decisions and future code amendments. A process where it is impossible to gauge whether a “preferred” site is acceptable until a subjective permit decision is made by the BOCC is deeply flawed, contrary to Washington’s land use decision framework, and will prevent solar development under Kittitas County’s regulations.

We appreciate the opportunity to respond to these late-breaking amendments and look forward to continuing to work with the County and the CAC to craft an objective, evidence-based, and workable set of regulations.

Sincerely,


March 1, 2018

BY E-MAIL


Dear Mr. Carlson:

In a letter submitted to you on February 27th for consideration by the Kittitas County Solar Facilities Citizen Advisory Committee (“CAC”), I mistakenly referred to the proposed amendments to the working draft of solar regulations as the “Dunning Amendments”, and implied that Jeff Dunning had prepared and submitted these amendments on his own. I would like to correct that error.

It is my understanding that, in fact, this set of proposed amendments was prepared by a number of CAC members and members of the public and was presented to CAC by Dick Carkner. Attached are a redlined and clean copy of my previous letter incorporating this correction for the public record.

Sincerely,


public comment matrix: solar facilities · 3/2/2018 · customers seem to want renewable power,...

Documents