Royce Meyerott's Letter to County Department of Community Development

San Juan County Department of Community Developement

Marc Santos
135 Rhone Street
Friday Harbor, Wa. 98250 

Re: LANDUSE-23-0122 Bailer Hill Microgrid

 Attn: Marc Santos and Hearing Examiner

 The applicant’s property for proposed development is the southeast corner of the San Juan Valley AG R zoning district. It has additional use restrictions to which it is subject as defined by the Heritage Plan Overlay. I am writing to express my astonishment that Opalco actually had the temerity to propose such a “tone deaf” project, which is in direct conflict to the stated view points of Island residents regarding the preservation of the San Juan Valley. The County Planning Department and the County Council worked diligently from 1990 to 2002 to develop the Open Space and Conservation Plan (OSCP). The OSCP was further updated in 2001 to create what would be adopted as the “San Juan Valley Heritage Plan Overlay District“ by Resolution 2-2002. The integral vision and intent for the Heritage Plan was that it “will recognize and protect visual and open space resources as EQUAL in importance to maintaining TRADITIONAL agricultural uses in this location” The county’s present Comprehensive Plan continues to uphold the same visions, goals, and policies to preserve open space and scenic rural vistas in the San Juan Valley.

 Opalco’s application and subsequent statements attempt to dismiss the Heritage Plan Overlay with a self serving wave of the hand. Their recent actions and statements have demonstrated that they think they can get approval by “gaslighting” the public with false statements and obfuscations concerning this project. The following are a number of such instances:

 1) They have stated repeatedly that one of the main benefits of this power plant will be to supply emergency power to the EMS building, the hospital and the airport. This is patently false as all three facilities have large emergency generators that offer better long term protection from a power outage than would be provided by Opalco’s solar plant and battery. See WAC 388-107-1030, as the generators are required by law. My guess is that Opalco knows this, or certainly should.

 2) Their application is disingenuous in that it states that the power plant covers less than 20% of the acreage of the proposed lot. This is a bit of a magician’s trick as their wording in the application directs one’s attention away from the actual intention of the Heritage Plan Overlay, which is to leave a minimum of 80% of a parcel as “visually” unencumbered. When viewed from a distance, this 19.26 acre property will appear totally covered by solar panels. The intent of the Heritage Plan was to codify the value of rural open space, and not support the visuals of a large solar array permitted under the guise of agriculture.

 3) Opalco’s plan calls for a 6 foot fence as well as screen landscaping around the property as the panels will be installed at 7 feet above the ground. If the ground were perfectly flat, the proposed 8 foot screening might be effective. The actual property is anything but flat and the panels will be very visible, especially on both the north and west approaches to the property. Any effective screening of the panels will completely block the expansive view across the San Juan Valley, leaving the public with a view that will have all of the “Rural Charm” of a penitentiary. The entire plan as proposed is completely at odds with the vision of the Heritage Plan Overlay, as well as the existing Washington State “Scenic Corridor” designation which runs on two sides of this property.

 4) This property has a prominent bald eagle perching/hunting tree. It is a tall fir tree that is open at the top and has proven perfect for the needs of two pairs of eagles that frequent this corner. The eagle’s nest on the property which lies east of the Opalco property. Opalco and the owners of the nesting tree property have stated that the eagles do not perch or hunt from the fir on Opalco’s property. This is again a false statement. All of the other neighbors whom I have talked with will testify that this statement is not factual. I have attached two photos which I took on Dec. 2023 of two eagles perching on the fir tree. Opalco’s application does not mention the eagles or their perching/hunting tree, but their proposal renderings do show that the tree is missing after their solar installation. I believe that this omission was disingenuous and purposeful.

 In conclusion, the intent of the Heritage Plan Overlay is to equally balance the visual, scenic and traditional agricultural resources of the San Juan Valley with any proposed use. The stated 80% open space to 20% developed space is integral to achieving the intended balance. The applicant’s proposed use certainly does not meet that metric. Conditional use proposals must also be appropriate in design, character and appearance with surrounding property uses. The fact that the proposal at hand seeks to screen what they are building informs the reader that the applicant knows that what they are building does not fit it in. Screening or no screening the entire view corridor to the San Juan Valley will be blocked or ruined by this project. This fact alone places the proposal in direct conflict with the intent of the AG Resources Heritage Plan. It is incumbent on the applicant to credibly demonstrate that the project meets or exceeds all of the conditions that the Heritage Plan sets forth in order to be granted a conditional use permit. I ask that you deny the applicants permit request based on their inability to prove that their plan does just that.

 Thank you for considering my letter,
J.Royce Meyerott
San Juan Island

Darcie Nielsen's Letter to SJC Dep. of Community Development

29 March 2024

San Juan County Department of Community Development
Attn. Marc Santos
135 Rhone Street
Friday Harbor, WA 98250

Re: LANDUSE-23-0122: Bailer Hill Microgrid Project

Dear Planning Department and Hearing Examiner,

I am writing to express my profound dismay that the County would consider allowing a vast solar array project on 19.27 acres located at the corner of Douglas and Bailer Hill roads within the San Juan Valley Heritage Plan Overlay District. This proposal is wholly inconsistent with years of citizen driven efforts to protect the historic Valley agricultural resource lands, open space, pastoral landscapes, and significant view corridors.

In the documents submitted by the Applicant the years of planning work to protect open space resources in San Juan Valley are summarily dismissed with the claim that the San Juan Valley Heritage Plan does not apply since the proposal is not a land division. I can assure you that while the Heritage Plan references land divisions as the target development activity it is only because solar farms were never envisioned as a land use that would be compatible with the sensitive open space values that islanders sought to protect in the Valley and that still exist today.

As the Senior Planner working on developing the new San Juan County Comprehensive Plan under the Growth Management Act in the early 90s, and then as an elected member of the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) from 1997-2004, I was directly involved in the long history of planning and working with land owners with regards to the San Juan Valley heritage area. Below is a recap of the community-based planning efforts over the past 45 years.

• In 1979 the County adopted its first Comprehensive Plan. In this initial planning effort care was taken to designate San Juan Valley, with its prime agricultural soils and long history of farming, as Agricultural land.

• In 1990 the County opted to plan under the Growth Management Act and began an intensive multi-year citizen-engaged planning process.

• In the spring of 1990, with a matching grant from the San Juan Preservation Trust, the County initiated an open space and conservation planning process, with the goal “…to develop a plan to identify and protect those open spaces, vistas, and view corridors that substantially contribute to the sense of “ruralness” that now prevails in most of the County.” The resulting remarkable citizen-driven extensively detailed 1991 Open Space and Conservation Plan (OSCP) developed a rating system for landscape units throughout the islands. In the OSCP the San Juan Valley landscape unit was rated the most important on San Juan Island after the American Camp Historical Park unit. Based on the OSCP, the open space value present in this landscape unit results from a combination of pastoral landscapes, agricultural resources, water and mountain views, rural development patterns, and visual accessibility.

• In 1991 the OSCP was further incorporated by Resolution 54-2001 into the 1998 adopted Comprehensive Plan developed under the auspices of the Growth Management Act. The OSCP is still in place today even through many subsequent updates to the Comprehensive Plan.

• In 2001 a steering committee of Valley property owners, planning commissioners, and representatives of the San Juan Preservation Trust, Friends of the San Juans, and the San Juan County Land Bank was appointed by the BOCC to work with county staff and consultants to further implement the OSCP by developing a plan for San Juan Valley that "will recognize and protect visual open space resources as equal in importance to maintaining traditional agricultural uses in this location." Further, the Heritage Plan should "allow for land division and development at a variety of densities as an incentive to maximize conservation and protection of open spaces and to maximize the potential of continuing agricultural uses in this location...” This work resulted in the adoption of the San Juan Valley Heritage Plan Overlay District by Resolution 2-2002 for inclusion in the Unified Development Code (UDC). I can say with certainty that the land owners, engaged citizens, and elected officials at that time never anticipated the prospect of vast solar arrays blanketing and darkening agricultural lands in San Juan Valley or any of the significant agricultural areas in the islands. Such uses would not have been allowed by the UDC in agricultural resource lands because they clearly do not meet the intent and purpose of the Comprehensive Plan.

In subsequent Comprehensive Plan updates and amendments, the vision, goals and policies to conserve open space and scenic vistas remain integral to the Plan as illustrated in several sections:

In Section A. Comprehensive Plan Vision 2036:
Natural Environment. - “Our islands and marine waters have exceptional natural beauty and healthy, diverse ecosystems that are pollution-free. The air is fresh and clean, the water quality is excellent, and the soil is uncontaminated. As careful stewards of these islands and waters, we conserve resources, preserve open space, and take appropriate action to assure healthy land and marine environments. We recognize the integral role that forests play in the stewardship of our air, soils and water resources. The natural environment is central to the ecological health, quality of life, and the economy in the islands. Native plants, animals, and marine life of the islands thrive, and are identified, appreciated and conserved.”
Agriculture – “The San Juan Islands have a rich agricultural heritage that remains culturally and economically significant. We invest resources to ensure that agricultural lands are preserved and to maintain and enhance agricultural viability. We recognize the integral role that agriculture plays in the stewardship of our soils and water resources. Diverse agricultural activities are essential to the health and well-being of our community, contributing to the social, economic and environmental fabric of our islands.”

In Section B. Element 2 – Land Use and Rural
Section 2.1 Introduction
“Central to the GMA planning framework are three primary land use categories: urban, natural resource, and rural lands…. Under the GMA, the County must designate natural resource lands with long-term commercial significance for the production of agricultural, timber, and mineral resources. Natural resource lands must be preserved from incompatible land uses to ensure that they remain available for resource industries.”

2.2.A General Goal and Policies

Goal: “To provide for the orderly use of San Juan County land, shorelines and water areas and to respect, protect and maintain the natural beauty and land and marine resources of the islands, maintain the rural, residential, agricultural atmosphere, and to regulate development in a manner which will protect the rights of private landowners and interests of the public.”

2.2.I Open Space and Scenic Resources
Goal: “To protect and conserve open space and scenic resources.”
1 Policy: Protect open space and scenic resources identified in the County’s Open Space and Conservation Plan through implementation of a variety of conservation techniques including fee acquisition, conservation easements, incentives, overlay districts, purchase, retirement, or transfer of development rights, and educational programs.

2.2.N Agriculture
Goal: Protect agricultural land and promote diverse agricultural activities that enhance stewardship and economic viability, and maintain the rural character of San Juan County.
Policies: There are 15 policies here to protect farmland and encourage productivity and no net loss.

2.4 Resource Lands
Goal: “To recognize and protect the physical conditions and characteristics of agricultural and forest resource lands, including social and environmental benefits, which are conducive to the use of such lands for long-term commercial production.”
Among 6 Policies: Policy 5 - Continue to apply the Open Space Conservation Overlay District regulations to Agricultural Resource Lands located within the San Juan Valley.

2.4.a Agriculture Resource Lands
Goal: “To ensure the conservation of agricultural resource lands of long-term commercial significance for existing and future generations, and protect these lands from interference by adjacent uses which may affect the continued use of these lands for production of food and agricultural products.”
8 Policies: Policy 5 - Limit the location of new roads and road realignments, access routes and other non-agricultural public and private facilities, to the least disruptive locations within agricultural areas.

2.6. Overlay Districts: “…Except as otherwise provided in this Section, the provisions of an Overlay District shall prevail over any conflicting provisions of this Plan…All other provisions of this Plan shall retain full effect within the Overlay District…”
2.6.B Open Space Conservation
Goal: “To protect those significant open spaces and vistas which substantially contribute to the rural character of the County.”
Policies: 1. Identify open space resources of high and very high conservation priority and establish an Open Space Conservation Overlay District for these areas. High and Very High conservation priority areas are preliminarily identified on maps in the Open Space and Conservation Plan. Consider applying the Open Space Conservation District Overlay to those lands that are within landscape units which are rated in the Open Space and Conservation Plan and which have a score of 35 and above. Seek opportunities to work with property owners to prepare conservation plans for development in these areas upon designation of an Open Space Conservation Overlay District.
2. Develop Site planning standards for Open Space Conservation Overlay District areas specific to the type of open space resource and its particular sensitivity to land alteration.

While the UDC identifies “commercial power-generation facilities” as a conditional use in Agricultural Lands, vast solar array facilities were never envisioned in agricultural resource lands and especially in an area rated so highly for its open space and scenic resources. Therefore, the microgrid use is not consistent with the intent and purposes of the Comprehensive Plan from which the UDC is derived. With regards to the specific provisions in the UDC that are applicable to this proposal, my comments are in bold italics below:

UDC Section 18.30.070 Rural, Resource, and Special Lands – Special provisions
A. Agricultural and Forest Resource Lands. On all agricultural or forest resource lands (AG and FOR), the maximum area of development which is not related to agricultural or forestry uses and activities shall be limited to 20 percent of the parcel area, but not less than one acre, regardless of the assigned density. Further, in the division of a parcel by any means, the allowable area for conversion of the parent parcel to nonfarm and/or non-forestry use shall not be exceeded. This shall not apply to parcels smaller than five acres. The area taken up by over 5000 solar panels and metal container cabinets housing the battery energy storage systems (BESS) is far in excess of the 20% limitation requirement for development on Agricultural Resource Lands. Even if sheep can graze under the panels, the intent and purpose of this section is clearly to leave most of the land in an open and unbuilt state to protect the soils for agricultural production as well as to preserve the pastoral landscapes and view corridors.

UDC 18.80.100 Permit procedures for conditional use and variance permits.
D. Conditional Use Permits – Criteria for Approval. A conditional use permit shall be granted by the County only if the following criteria are met:

1. The proposed use will not be contrary to the intent or purposes and regulations of this code or the Comprehensive Plan; The proposed microgrid project does not meet the intent and purposes of the Comprehensive Plan as it is contrary to the vision, goals and policies to protect agricultural resource lands and to preserve open space and scenic resources as specifically defined in the Open Space and Conservation Plan for San Juan Valley. The Valley is highly rated because “the open space values present in these landscape units result from a combination of pastoral landscapes, agricultural resources, water and mountain views, rural development patterns, and visual accessibility.”

2. The proposal is appropriate in design, character and appearance with the goals and policies for the land use designation in which the proposed use is located; The microgrid proposal is wholly inappropriate in design, character and appearance for the Agricultural lands and Open Space Overlay designation in which it is proposed. The vast grid of solar panels spread across the property along with the BESS containers near the roadway is not consistent with the landscape unit values identified in the OSCP for San Juan Valley or the open space requirements for Agricultural lands.

3. The proposed use will not cause significant adverse impacts on the human or natural environments that cannot be mitigated by conditions of approval; The microgrid proposal will cause significant visual impacts on the human and natural environments that the Open Space and Conservation Plan sought to protect in San Juan Valley including the pastoral and water/mountain view landscapes highly prized by islanders. As well, the site is located along a main corridor of the San Juan Island Scenic Byway designated by the State in 2009 to recognize a travelway with unique scenic, natural, archaeological, historical, cultural, and recreational qualities.

4. The cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions (the total of the conditional uses over time or space) will not produce significant adverse effects to the environment that cannot be mitigated by conditions of approval; Given that most of the Valley is currently wide-open space with good southern exposure, if this microgrid proposal is approved it will set precedent for any number of new requests for solar array projects in San Juan Valley. These developments will have cumulative significant adverse impacts to the unbuilt environment that cannot be mitigated by conditions of approval given the very nature of the Valley that is protected by the Open Space and Conservation Plan as part of the Comprehensive Plan.

5. The proposal will be served by adequate facilities including access, fire protection, water, stormwater control, and sewage disposal facilities; The proposal includes 44,317 sq.ft. of impervious surface areas – this will impact natural stormwater flows with the potential to impact the creek that flows through the Valley to False Bay – a University of Washington Biological Preserve. As well, electrical equipment always has the potential for inadvertent fire and a wildfire would have catastrophic consequences for the island.

6. The location, size, and height of buildings, structures, walls and fences, and screening vegetation associated with the proposed use shall not unreasonably interfere with allowable development or use of neighboring properties; Allowable development in the Valley has typically been in the form of traditional farming and farm structures with some limited rural residential development subject to design requirements for preserving open space. The proposed microgrid development interferes with the open space and visual corridors of neighboring farm and residential development and adding vegetation to buffer the glare and visual impacts of such a development is contrary to maintaining the Valley view corridors. As the proposed project site is adjacent to a State Scenic Byway it will interfere with public views from the road out over the pastoral landscape of the Valley.

7. The pedestrian and vehicular traffic associated with the conditional use will not be hazardous to existing and anticipated traffic in the neighborhood; However, the glare from thousands of solar panels will have visual impacts on vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic traveling through the area.

8. The proposal complies with the performance standards set forth in Chapter 18.40.
SJCC; 18.40.430 Utility distribution and transmission lines and substations
A. New utility distribution lines shall be placed underground wherever reasonable and practicable. Undergrounding of existing lines in the course of routine maintenance and replacement is encouraged where practicable, particularly where such undergrounding would enhance recognized scenic and open space areas and resources. While this section refers to utility lines, the language about “recognized scenic and open space areas and resources” is a direct reference to protecting scenic resources from intrusion by these types of utility facilities.

9. The proposal does not include any use or activity that would result in the siting of an incompatible use adjacent to an airport or airfield (RCW 36.70.547); and
While the proposal is not adjacent to the Friday Harbor airport it is within the flight pattern of planes accessing the airport, glare impact on airplanes is highly likely.

10. The proposal conforms to the development standards in Chapter 18.60 SJCC.
With regards to UDC 18.60.050 Density, dimension and opens space standards.
D. Open Space. Open space must be maintained in its natural condition, in agricultural or forestry use, or landscaped according to SJCC 18.60.160. The sensitive open space features that have been identified for San Juan Valley would not be maintained in their natural condition or in traditional agricultural use with this proposed vast solar array spread across nearly the whole site and no amount of landscaping could remedy this.

UDC section 18.60.150 - E. Utility lines within agricultural resource lands shall be designed and located to minimize disruption of existing and potential agricultural uses. (Ord. 2-1998 Exh. B § 6.13) Again, the code here is intended to protect agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance from development that compromises its long-term viability for production of farm products.

The microgrid proposal clearly does not meet the criteria for approval of a conditional use permit as it does not comply with the intent and purpose of the vision, goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan with regards to agricultural resource lands and open space as specifically described in the OSCP for San Juan Valley, and further implemented through the UDC. The proposal does not recognize and protect significant visual open space resources or maintain traditional agricultural uses and would permanently alter the landscape values of San Juan Valley by increasing the built, human environment within an area that is the largest expanse of designated relatively undeveloped natural resource land on San Juan Island. The burden of proof is on the Applicant to fully comprehend and demonstrate compliance with all the goals, policies and provisions of the Plan and UDC – they clearly have not.

I fully support OPALCOs microgrid efforts, but placing a solar array of this magnitude on undeveloped agricultural land in a recognized significant sensitive protected open space view corridor is absolutely unnecessary when there are already built out and/or development impacted areas that could be used to site solar microgrids through innovative collaborative efforts with public agencies and other land holders.

Thank you for your attention to these important land use and development matters.

Darcie L Nielsen

Douglas/Bailer Hill Rd Power Plant

  This is considered 20% usage of the land

Which layout are they going to use?

Bailer Hill Microgrid Project

Friends at San Juan County’s Department of Community Development:

I am emailing in regard to the Bailer Hill Microgrid project, which has applied for a conditional use permit, with a hearing scheduled for April 24.

I support the development of solar microgrids. Harvesting solar energy is, of course, the direction in which we need to be going.

However, I utterly oppose the site OPALCO has chosen for this particular installation. It is unbelievably ill chosen. The corner at Douglas Road and Bailer Hill Road is a viewshed to the west. It includes historic farmland. It is the entry point to the wide vista of San Juan Valley looking east to west.

No amount of hedgerow is going to hide elevated solar panels, and they will need to be elevated if sheep are to be grazed below. Panels no more than two feet off the ground (as OPALCO claims)? Unrealistic! Those with experience of similar projects know that panels must be elevated to allow for mowing, grazing, and weed control, and to keep animals from damaging the panels and wiring.

Presenting the project as a happy convergence of agricultural use and the need for solar power is disingenuous. No number of sheep (or cute lambs) will change the appearance of row after row of eight-foot-high solar panels marching across the pasture.

To claim that the microgrid project will allow a degraded pasture to be improved is also disingenuous. Most of the pastures in the county are degraded, but to propose that this is a marvelous opportunity to improve the pasture beneath the microgrid is strangely dissembling.

What was OPALCO thinking? They present this project as a choice between renewable energy and some dark future—a future of power outages from time to time, heaven forbid. Or as an action that we must take as we face the threat of the mainland grid soon exceeding supply. Yes, we need renewable energy. Yes, we need a microgrid infrastructure. But in this location? No.

Already OPALCO has violated the spirit of the San Juan County Comprehensive Plan with their clear-cutting of wide swaths around power lines. Are they going to blatantly violate the comp plan again with this proposal? Is this a face-off between those pushing utilities at the expense of all else and those who care about the rural character of our landscape and the preservation of agricultural land? To suggest such a thing is an artificial framing of the debate and the creation of an artificial divide within the community.

Build microgrids, but don’t do it in a place of such high visibility. Do more to enable roof-top solar installations. Use existing development (roof tops) to make progress in developing solar power. And keep ag land agricultural. In the future, we will need it. So back off, OPALCO!

I ask that Department of Community Development and the hearing examiner not approve this conditional use permit.

With thanks for your consideration of my input into this decision.

CJ

Review of LANDUSE-23-0122 Bailer Hill Solar Microgrid & Battery Storage Projec

ARC Response Letter

Electric Independence with Solar Power

Hi,

I am writing this letter to oppose solar power energy farms covering our farmland especially in the valley along Bailer Hill Rd. Instead of littering our countryside with black rectangles everywhere, how about putting them on existing structures such as your office buildings. The County has a lot of office buildings. Maybe use the roofs of the hospital and school buildings, as well. Leave the country alone. Farm land is precious.

Here are some facts according to OPALCO's own website about how much land would be needed to be energy independent:

For solar to power the San Juans, we would need 95,194,000 KWh/power ratio of 1.3/each panel output 4.5KW/hr = 16,272,479 OPALCO solar panels to power the San Juans. Given that 600 panels are put on 19 acres at Baylor Hill, we would need 515,295 acres of land to power the San Juans with electricity from solar panels. That is BEFORE everyone has electric cars and BEFORE they replace their natural gas appliances with electrical. Given there are only 110,127 acres in SJC, this presents a problem with solar.

This is derived from the following information:
An average home uses about 893 kW/month or 11,000 kW/yr

About 8654 households in San Juan County, meaning we need about 95,194 MW/yr or 95,194,000 KW/yr(2020 census)

One solar panel on a house produces about 250-400 watts of power/day

Production ratio in Seattle is about 1.3, because of the number of overcast days Seattle gets and the temperature and the small amount of peak sun we get in the winter time...like none. Production ratio for SJC is not listed anywhere.

Baylor Hill set to produce 3800 MWh annually with 2.7 MWh solar array – 600 panels about 5% of total power annually

Each panel produces 4.5 KW/hr,

Quick Fact: Bailer Hill Microgrid - OPALCO
Note: This project is currently in permitting and will be offered to members when permits are complete, hopfully [Not]

Thanks for your time and careful consideration!

RP