Environmental organizations have repeatedly requested that Marin County come up with an ordinance to guide large solar facility development. Currently, the county has no choice but to evaluate each proposal piecemeal — evaluating the location, environmental impacts and other aspects for each and every proposal. This “reinvention of the wheel” is a waste of time and money for everyone: staff, developers, the interested public and decision-makers.
A current example is a project for a solar facility that was approved by the Marin County Planning Commission. A recent Marin Independent Journal editorial described the project site as “unused land.” What does that mean? Development is not the only measure, nor even an accurate measure, to describe or evaluate land. This property is a diked historic bayland and adjacent upland. The grassland provides habitat for many species of birds, including western blue birds, white-tailed kites, turkey vultures and western meadowlarks, among others. For many years, the property has been used for grazing. This use allows flood waters to pond and the vegetation to provide air and water quality benefits.
Recent alarming reports of declines in bird and insect populations are attributed largely to habitat loss. Covering the grasslands on this site (even though the grasses are predominantly non-native) with 11,310 solar modules and associated fencing would prevent many birds and other wildlife from using them, which means that 15 acres of habitat will be lost. This will contribute to the ongoing loss of habitat for birds and insects. Bird collisions with the panels and interruption of the wildlife corridor by fences will further diminish the habitat value.
In discussing the designation of the site as part of the Baylands Corridor, a commissioner referred to a boundary map that is now known to be outdated. The IJ editorial and the commission deferred to this outdated description. While historic data is interesting and often useful, in this case it is the countywide plan that is the relevant guide. The plan identifies the San Francisco Estuary Institute’s historic wetland maps as defining the boundaries of historic baylands and the baylands corridor. The institute’s current maps correct errors in those earlier maps. There should be no doubt that the corridor extends to the land in question. Even the applicant’s attorney has acknowledged that the proposed solar panels would extend into the corridor.
Predicted benefits of any project, including solar, do not negate adverse impacts. Covering 15 acres of bayland and associated upland habitat will restrict and/or prevent wildlife use and diminish benefits for people. This will be a significant loss that should have been thoroughly analyzed but, in the rush to approve a solar facility, it was not. There are many places that are suitable for solar, such as on rooftops and over parking lots, but covering undeveloped habitat, especially land associated with San Francisco Bay, is not one of them. We agree with the editorial, that the Civic Center parking lots would be ideal locations for solar panels.
As stated at the planning commission hearing, because of the importance of this site to the bay ecosystem, Marin Audubon Society and Marin Baylands Advocates want to work with the property owner to permanently protect the property.
It’s disappointing that Marin County would allow the degradation and loss of even more of our remaining bayland habitats. San Francisco Bay has already lost approximately 90% of its historic marshlands. We can’t afford to lose any more. An ordinance should identify sensitive lands that need to be protected as well as locations that are suitable for solar facilities. We need an ordinance that will protect sensitive habitat and encourage solar facilities in Marin County.
Barbara Salzman writes on behalf of the Marin Audubon Society. Susan Ristow represents Marin Baylands Advocates.
