LAKEPORT – Citing the constraints of state law and looming project deadlines, the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday voted down a neighbor's appeal of a solar project that will provide power to pump wastewater effluent to The Geysers.

But the decision to turn down William Sullivan's appeal of the Northern California Power Agency's (NCPA) seven-acre solar array – to be located at the county's Southeast Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant on Old Highway 53 in Clearlake – wasn't one that necessarily pleased board members.

Supervisors Jeff Smith and Ed Robey both voted to uphold Sullivan's appeal because of their concerns that the plans – which will locate the panels 120 feet from Sullivan's property – weren't properly delineated in maps submitted to the supervisors and the public.

The NCPA solar array will supply power to the pumps that transport treated wastewater to The Geysers, where it is injected into the steamfields.

The discussion had been continued from the board's April 8 meeting, during which Sullivan and other neighbors outlined numerous appeals in a lengthy hearing.

The board had asked Eliot Allen of Criterion Planners, who worked on the project, to see if there were any alternatives and if, as Sullivan asked, the project could be moved farther back into the wastewater facility's property.

But Allen provided the board with a letter that said, based on his conversation with NCPA, no changes could be made to the project if it were to meet a deadline set by Pacific Gas and Electric Co. for Oct. 25.

The board approved the project location last November, Allen reminded them. He added that more than $400,000 had been expended on the project so far, with $5.6 million in equipment ordered.

At the board's request, County Counsel Anita Grant explained – as she had last week – that state law prohibits local agencies from turning down solar projects for aesthetic reasons alone. Rather, they must make findings based on health and safety concerns.

Sullivan argued that he considered the project a potential attractive nuisance, and also questioned how the entire project could be built over the facility's major pipeline, which he said had a major break in 2003.

Special Districts Administrator Mark Dellinger said the project is avoiding main lines because of buffers.

“If we get a big break out there you're going to have some serious lawsuits coming up,” Sullivan replied.

Smith said that, after reviewing the original packet, he was not at all happy about the way the matter turned out. “This is one of those instances where I feel the process has let down the folks out there. There's no doubt in my mind.”

He said he didn't realize how close the project would be to the neighbors, in part because of the inadequacy of the map included in the original report. “Usually the process is there to where we can make adjustments if need be,” he said. “I feel I've let down these folks out there because of the process and the way it's worked.”

Replied Sullivan, “You won't have to live with it the rest of your life, either.”

Community Development Director Rick Coel said the legal noticing were adequate and he defended his staff's work on the project. As to the map – which in the past staff has always included as a courtesy – Coel said his staff has changed the map labeling process to offer more clarity.

Robey also pointed out that the map, which used an aerial photograph, hadn't shown the nearby homes. He agreed with Smith that the system broke down because there was a lack of clear information about the proximity to residences.

Supervisor Anthony Farrington said the issue was a tough one, and he appreciated the position Sullivan and other neighbors were in. He said he wouldn't want to live near the project, either.

However, the board needed to look at the body of the law, and based on those confines Farrington said couldn't find in Sullivan's favor. He said he wants to look at an approach through planning to head off conflicts like this in the future.

“This is at its heart a land use conflict,” said Supervisor Denise Rushing, adding that the conflict probably was set in motion when homes were placed near the treatment facility.

Smith moved to approve Sullivan's appeal, with Robey passing the gavel to Rushing so he could second it. The motion, however, was opposed by Farrington, Rushing and Supervisor Rob Brown.

Farrington moved to deny Sullivan's appeal and prepare findings of fact, which Rushing seconded, with Brown also voting in support. Smith and Robey were the dissenting votes.

E-mail Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

{mos_sb_discuss:3}