The Santa Barbara County Planning Commission decided to cap the number of acres available for solar panel use to 16,000 acres and streamline the building process for new installations.

The commission approved the countywide cap in a 3-1 vote on Wednesday during a discussion about where solar panels could be built, and which projects would be exempted from permitting.

Commissioner Vincent Martinez voted against the cap, and the seat for District One is currently vacant after the retirement of Commissioner Michael C. Cooney.

County staff presented the commission with three options for the cap, ranging from 8,000 acres, 16,000 acres, and 24,000 acres. The 16,000-acre cap chosen by the commission will limit solar panels on agricultural land to 2% of the county’s available acreage.

Commissioner Roy Reed supported a cap and recommended the middle option.

“I think if we’re really going to be all in, 16,000 would be a reasonable start, since it will allow more than just equalizing what our county consumes,” Reed said. “It’s not overly large.”

Commissioners Kate Ford and John Parke also supported setting the cap at 16,000 acres. Martinez said he was not against the cap but supported the lower amount. He added that the county could increase or decrease it depending on future technology or demand.

The amount of land available for solar panel use would change how much energy the panels could supply the county’s population. County staff explained that solar panels capped at 8,000 acres could supply 100% of the county’s power needs, while 16,000 acres could supply 200% of the county’s current needs.

The total number of acres in Santa Barbara County designated as agricultural land is 760,525 acres.

“These numbers show that even a relatively small percentage of agricultural land, if developed with solar, could support a significant share of the county’s energy needs,” said Matt Hernandez, a planner for the Long Range Planning Division.

The commission also discussed whether to ban installing solar panels in the county’s coastal zone and along the Gaviota Coast, but the commissioners opposed the ban. Commissioner Parke acknowledged the desire of residents to protect the coastline but said he thought a ban was unnecessary.

“We’ll have (conditional use permit) hearings on each one of these things, where everything here will be examined, like every grain of sand on a beach, and do we need to have the exclusion as well? I don’t think so,” Parke said. “I think it could be counterproductive.”

The rest of the commission agreed with Parke, and the item was not approved.

The commission also approved changes to expand permitting exceptions for solar projects and allow them to be installed without planning permits.

The new exemptions will apply to solar canopies on developed land, ground-mounted solar panels on developed sites up to five acres, and allow battery storage systems next to solar panels up to a quarter-acre.

The commission unanimously approved the exemptions. The item will now return to the Board of Supervisors for review and approval.

Public Comment

Speakers overwhelmingly supported the changes to build solar energy. Comments ranged from a desire to keep up with a growing industry and the need to add more renewable energy to the county’s power supply.

Das Williams, the former board supervisor for District One, expressed his support for the battery proposal, saying it was needed to keep up with increasing demand for solar energy.

“There is a revolution happening out there in energy, and it’s taken place since this ordinance was first conceived,” Williams said.

Katie Davis, the chairwoman of the Sierra Club Santa Barbara, said adding new solar farms would benefit the county as it attempts to move away from gas. She added that solar panels on farms can benefit crops, animals, and workers by providing shade and protecting them from excessive heat.

Ben Schwartz, the policy director at the Clean Coalition, thanked the commission for considering the coalition’s input on the changes.

Schwartz supported streamlining the installation for smaller solar projects.

“Obviously, if it’s something massive, if it’s utility scale, if it’s 100 megawatt hours, review is essential,” Schwartz said. “But if it’s something that’s going on the side of someone’s house to charge their electric vehicle, it doesn’t really make sense to go before you.”