SU0009067 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-2- Finding No. 5 states, "the use is compatible with adjoining land uses". The Planning Commission determined this finding cannot be made because the proposed use is incompatible with and will interfere with the current residential and agricultural land uses on adjacent properties. On September 13, 2012, Bear Creek Solar, LLC (c/o Christopher Little) appealed the Planning Commission's denial of Site Approval application No. 1200023. APPEAL STATEMENT: In the appeal, the appellant states: "At the public hearing the main opposition did not address whether the proposed use had `the potential to adversely affect other land use,transportation, or facilities in the vicinity'. Rather the opposition disagreed with the use until or unless the County adopted a county wide policy with respect to solar farms. We offer no opinion about the merits or demerits of this claim. However, simply stated,the claim is outside the scope of a simple Site Application and does not apply to the questions asked by the Zoning Title regarding Site Application." "Finally, we respectfully point out that State Law announces a clear policy in support of solar energy and has enacted policies to discourage the denial of solar energy proposal on the basis of local land use laws. See, for example, Government Code section 658509(c)." "The planning commission received no competent evidence or facts concerning the narrow scope of review for a Site Application and made no formal findings denying the request. Since the Site Application complies with all County rules and regulations we respectfully request the appeal be granted by the Board of Supervisors." RESPONSE TO APPEAL STATEMENT: The Planning Commission denied the project based on the inability to make Finding No. 5 in the affirmative. Finally, after considering all oral testimony,the Planning Commission determined that the photovoltaic solar power facility is not compatible with the surrounding land uses and