Despite lobbying from the solar industry, the majority of supervisors expressed reservations about moving ahead with the project before firming up a policy on where the emerging industry should be permitted.
Nearly all of roughly 30 solar plants proposed in the county, including the one at West Central and South Fig avenues that was considered Tuesday, are slated for highly regarded agricultural land.
The Board of Supervisors has said it's looking to find the right balance between agriculture and solar.
"I think we're getting the cart ahead of the horse," Supervisor Phil Larson said.
The decision to hold off on the plant comes a day after the California Farm Bureau Federation sued the county for allowing another solar project to press forward.The lawsuit contends that the county did not adequately protect farmland when it OK'd a 90-acre plant near Interstate 5 in August.
County supervisors agreed Tuesday to reconsider the latest project as soon as next week. They expect more information about the proposal, the lawsuit and the county's policy on solar development to be known then.
The project, a relatively small plant pitched by Spain-based Gestamp Solar, is somewhat different from the other proposals. It sits in the sphere of influence of the city of Fresno, which means the area is likely to soon be regulated by the city instead of the county.
Still, the county has to make a determination that the property should come out of the Williamson Act, a state program that protects farmland, before the land can be developed.
The land, which used to be an almond orchard, is designated as "prime" farmland, considered of the highest quality for farming.
Gestamp representatives and their supporters argued Tuesday that the location, a mile south of Fresno, is ripe for solar since the land is already due to come out of agricultural production and become part of the city.
And a handful from the local business community urged the board to consider the economic benefits before making a decision.
"I can say wholeheartedly because of the solar industry, we've been able to save jobs," said Ed Dunkel Jr., president of Precision Civil Engineering, who expects to be involved in building solar plants.
Dunkel said rejecting the project sends a bad message to the industry and could prompt businesses to go elsewhere.
The Board of Supervisors recently directed a working group to examine where solar plants should be allowed and where they would be most harmful to farming. The group is expected to bring recommendations to the board this year.
"We need to have this [policy] refined, but I don't think we should hold these things up," said Supervisor Henry Perea, an advocate of solar.
Perea joined the majority in voting to put off the project, but said he did so only because the project will be reconsidered soon. Supervisor Susan Anderson was the only vote against delay.
The plant would generate 2.5 megawatts of power, enough to accommodate up to 2,500 homes.
Tuesday's debate also included concerns from would-be neighbors.
The land "has been farmed continuously for years," said Rick Peeren, who collected signatures from 22 residents opposed to the solar plant. "The people who live in this area wish to keep the rural heritage and atmosphere as long as possible."
Source: http://www.fresnobee.com/2011/11/01/2598773/solar-power-project-near-fresno.html
No comments:
Post a Comment