Ag panel just one step in Solargen application process
With the agricultural preservation committee’s recommendation
that would nix Solargen Energy’s proposal for Panoche Valley, it’s
important to remember this is an advisory panel and that
supervisors make the final decision based on many factors.
Ag panel just one step in Solargen application process
With the agricultural preservation committee’s recommendation that would nix Solargen Energy’s proposal for Panoche Valley, it’s important to remember this is an advisory panel and that supervisors make the final decision based on many factors.
The county’s agricultural preservation advisory committee last week voted 3-2 in denying a request to cancel 12 Williamson Act contracts on properties where Solargen hopes to build a 420-megawatt solar farm. County supervisors must agree to cancel those agreements – previously, officials denied Solargen’s request to gain Williamson Act status – or it kills the project.
It is an important process in sustaining the law’s strength and reasoning. Despite the act’s state of limbo, with California lawmakers for two years cutting back on the annual break to landowners that comes in the form of lower tax assessments, its standards must remain high on two ends: Restricting the program to properties and uses that legitimately fall in the realm of prime agriculture, and ensuring that those who are breaking the agreements are doing so in the best interest of the community.
That is why the penalties for canceling a Williamson Act contract are so stringent – to deter such cancellations.
For the agriculture preservation panel, the crux in considering such requests – such as the one from Solargen – is to decide whether the cancellations are in the public’s interest. That opens the door for a rather broad interpretation by the agriculture preservation panel and, in this case, largely posed the question in general whether those five voting panel members are in support of the proposal in its entirety. They also are five residents – the panel actually has seven members, while one abstained and another was absent – who logically would weigh the value of agricultural preservation over other factors.
Those residents did their job. They each had individual perspectives in considering whether Solargen’s idea would be in the public’s interest.
As supervisors make a final decision on the Solargen proposal they, too, will consider whether they believe the idea would stand to benefit the San Benito County community. They will not, though, look through the same scope as the advisory panel.
They will consider the value of those Williamson Act contracts, but they will weigh other important factors as well, such as the appropriateness of the land use, the company’s plans to mitigate environmental impacts, assurances for taxpayers in the event there is a problem fulfilling the agreement, and Solargen’s willingness to offset taxpayers’ costs for infrastructure and services.
There is a lot to consider, and last week’s decision will be one piece of the puzzle.
