Board delays utility-scale solar ordinance; asks staff to study caps, battery siting and safeguards

The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors on July 14 paused consideration of a sweeping set of ordinance amendments that would allow larger-scale solar projects and more battery storage across unincorporated county lands, and asked staff to return Sept. 1 with additional analysis and specific policy options.

Planning staff presented a programmatic environmental impact report and a three-tier permitting approach: tier 1 for building-integrated, rooftop and small ground-mounted systems (exempt or streamlined in many inland zones), tier 2 for community-scale facilities (greater than 0.5 acre, up to 30 acres) processed as a minor conditional use permit, and tier 3 for utility-scale projects (over 30 acres) processed as major conditional use permits. The program EIR identified potentially significant, unavoidable impacts to visual resources, agricultural resources and tribal/paleontological resources for larger projects and included mitigation measures and development standards the county would apply going forward.

Board members and a long public comment period focused on three fault lines: whether the county should cap new large projects and how to distribute any cap between geographic regions; whether small standalone battery systems should be permitted with streamlined review; and safeguards for batteries, including setbacks, containment and insurance or bonding to manage post‑incident cleanup.

Supervisor Hartman pressed the county to consider agrivoltaics (higher, spaced arrays that allow agricultural production beneath panels) and asked staff to ensure the ordinance does not force a binary ‘‘solar versus farmland’’ outcome. "Agrivoltaics can reduce heat stress and water evaporation and may preserve agricultural productivity," he said.

Supervisor Nelson, whose district includes Orcutt, said he remains concerned about how regulatory actions interact with local housing and agricultural markets and requested careful attention to where projects would actually be sited. Several agricultural representatives asked the board to adopt a smaller countywide cap on new large projects—8,000 acres was proposed by Grower-Shipper representatives—while renewable-energy advocates and local community choice aggregators said storage is essential to capture midday solar and stabilize the grid.

The Clean Coalition and other clean-energy advocates urged the Board to allow limited standalone battery storage (the Planning Commission recommended up to 0.25 acres paired with solar) and asked that the Board consider increasing that allowance to give communities access to resilience hubs and microgrids near substations.

Planning staff told the Board it can change numeric limits relatively easily and recommended that the Board direct staff to return with specific options for (1) a countywide cap and distribution approach (staff will present a 10,000‑acre option applied to tier 2 and tier 3 projects for Board consideration), (2) a revision to the uniform rules to permit up to 15% of some non‑prime contracted agricultural premises for limited solar use (staff will bring language aligning with APAC/AC recommendations), and (3) a scoped review and proposed development standards to allow small standalone battery energy storage (staff recommended up to 0.25 acre in commercial/industrial zones as the CEQA‑compatible starting point and requested time to prepare an EIR revision letter on containment, setbacks from sensitive receptors and bonding/insurance options).

After extended discussion the Board voted to continue the item to Sept. 1 and provided staff the directions above. The continuation gives county planners time to test which changes can be supported by the program EIR without recirculation and to return with draft ordinance language and mapped distribution options for any cap.

What happens next: Staff will return on Sept. 1 with draft revisions that include a board‑directed cap option for tiers 2–3, recommended changes to the uniform rules for contracted agricultural lands, and scoped standards and a CEQA letter for limited standalone battery storage (0.25 acre recommended as a starting point). The Board can then adopt amendments, modify limits or request further study.