San Bernardino County Renewable Energy and Conservation Element COMBINED PARTICIPATION FEEDBACK • SPARC Phase 1 Round 1 – JULY 2014 • SPARC Phase 1 Round 2 – NOVEMBER 2014 • SPARC Phase 1 Listening Session – MARCH 2015 • SPARC Phase 2 – FEBRUARY/MARCH 2016 SPARC Phase 1 Round 1 JULY 2014 MEMO To: Tom Hudson, Karen Watkins, Siri Eggebraten, Michelle McCoy County of San Bernardino Land Use Services Department From: Abby Woods, PMC Community Engagement + Facilitation Tammy Seale, PMC Project Manager Date: July 10, 2014 Re: Renewable Energy and Conservation Element – Summary of Community Engagement, Round 1 This memorandum summarizes the first round of community engagement for the San Bernardino County Renewable Energy and Conservation Element. Round 1 included five workshops conducted by PMC and County staff on April 15, 16, 17, 22, and 23, 2014, and online engagement via SPARCForum.org. Round 1 represented the launch of public participation for SPARC to inform the community and stakeholders about the project and to collect input from community members and industry on the development of renewable energy projects in the unincorporated county. ROUND 1 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PURPOSE AND DESIRED OUTCOMES Purpose • Kick off the project with online and in-person engagement opportunities. • Share best practices for renewable energy and collect input on strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats facing San Bernardino’s renewable energy vision and program. • Provide opportunities for the public to evaluate and recommend appropriate renewable energy technologies and a renewable energy vision for San Bernardino County at an early stage in the project process. Desired Outcomes • Stakeholders will learn about the SPARC process, access participation opportunities, and understand how their input will be used to shape renewable energy policies. • The County will create a transparent process and participants will trust that decisions were achieved through an inclusive and balanced effort. • The County will demonstrate that public input is strongly considered for development of the SPARC program. • Participants will have the opportunity to provide early input on a range of renewable energy technology options. • The County will obtain high quality input from the public to assist with identification of community priorities and further prioritization of technical recommendations. July 10, 2014 Summary of Community Engagement, Round 1 Page 2 COMMUNITY WORKSHOPS, ROUND 1 The following information summarizes the workshop agenda and key themes that emerged during meetings held in five locations: San Bernardino, Big Bear, Yucca Valley, Hesperia, and Barstow. To announce the project, launch the website SPARCForum.org, and promote the workshops, County staff distributed an e-mail and flyer to the following contacts, who then promoted public participation opportunities to their networks: • Chambers of commerce in San Bernardino County • Residents who expressed interest in renewable energy updates • Several local media outlets through the County’s PIO office • All County supervisors • SPARC DRECP Liaison Group • County’s Vision Environmental and Water Group The following table summarizes attendance at each public workshop location: Round 1 Community Workshop Attendance Workshop Location Participants San Bernardino (April 15) 4 Big Bear (April 16) 3 Yucca Valley (April 17) 47 Hesperia (April 22) 15 Barstow (April 23) 13 Total 82 WORKSHOP SUMMARY PMC worked with County staff to develop a workshop approach and agenda that would inform and engage participants. The project team hosted five workshops at different locations across the county to gather diverse opinions and to offer several options for participation. Participants received an information booklet (Appendix A) and workbook (Appendix B) upon arrival. Each workshop session followed the same approach, with the same presentation and workshop activities used at each event. PMC and Aspen began each workshop with a presentation that reviewed the project purpose, timeline, and online forum (SPARCForum.org) and provided a summary of six common renewable energy technologies. Following the presentation, workshop attendees participated in three facilitated, interactive activities: • Community Priorities Selection – Participants chose up to five priorities that were important to them from a list of options provided by the SPARC team. Participants were also encouraged to add additional priorities to the list, if they felt something important was missing. Participants recorded selections in individual workbooks. • SWOT Analysis – In small groups, participants discussed strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats in reference to the six renewable energy technologies summarized during the presentation. PMC facilitators recorded participant comments on large Post-it pads. • Evaluation Criteria – Participants indicated the top three evaluation criteria the County should consider if reviewing an application for each of the six types of renewable energy July 10, 2014 Summary of Community Engagement, Round 1 Page 3 technology that were summarized during the presentation. Participants recorded selections in individual workbooks. The project team encouraged participants to record any additional comments about renewable energy or the public workshop format in their individual workbooks. Appendix C presents results from each workshop activity. THEMES AND KEY FINDINGS Overall, participant comments during the first round of public workshops revealed four primary shared values. The values expressed below were the most commonly discussed topics across all public outreach opportunities (in person and online): 1. Renewable energy development sites should be limited to previously disturbed land. 2. Small-scale distributed generation wind and solar projects are preferred over utility-scale projects. 3. Protecting the environment and wildlife should be a paramount consideration. 4. Clear communication and transparency between residents and the County from the initial application through project implementation is critical to a successful renewable energy program. Additional key themes that emerged from participant comments included: • Participants view the SPARC project as a significant opportunity for the County to demonstrate its role as a leader in renewable energy policy and implementation. • Participants are supportive of the SPARC process if genuine consideration of their input is demonstrated in the final document. • Permanent job opportunities should be developed in conjunction with a growing renewable energy industry. • Several participants felt that the moratorium on renewable energy project approvals should be reinstated until the SPARC process is complete. An overview of responses, by topic, follows. COMMUNITY PRIORITIES During the Community Priorities activity (in-person and online), participants identified their top five community priorities as: 1. Water supply 2. Habitat conservation 3. Protection for sensitive species 4. Rural lifestyle 5. Energy independence These results indicate that participants would like to move toward a more energy-independent future, but would also like the County to carefully consider environmental and quality of life impacts at every step. July 10, 2014 Summary of Community Engagement, Round 1 Page 4 RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES During the Renewable Energy Technologies activity (in-person and online), participants categorized renewable energy technology options as a strength, weakness, opportunity, or threat. A summary of the most repeated comments, by participant-selected category, is outlined below. Strengths • Rooftop and small-scale distributed solar. Support for County’s efforts to plan ahead for renewable energy. Weaknesses • Existing infrastructure limits siting options. • Current notification guidelines are not sufficient for sharing information about new renewable energy projects. • Does not appear that County staff are dedicated or assigned to renewable energy projects throughout the process, including mitigation monitoring and reporting. • Construction jobs associated with renewable energy projects are temporary. • Impacts of renewable energy projects do not seem to be anticipated and addressed early. • Water use of projects could compromise other water users. Opportunities • Create a countywide overlay map for sensitive lands, recreation access, conservation, and mining to help determine appropriate locations for renewable energy projects. • Investment in renewable energy has potential benefit local communities. • Multiple renewable technology types/technologies are available and should be considered. • County could support development of renewable energy for local use by requiring all new construction projects to incorporate renewable energy. • Community wants to have a voice in the County’s renewable energy decisions. • County could become a leader in renewable energy policy for California. • Water use should be quantified during application process. Threats • Unintended consequences of renewable energy development (shadow flicker, avian death, dust storms, glare, extreme heat, habitat/ecosystem destruction). • Incompatibility of renewable energy projects with existing residential communities EVALUATION CRITERIA When considering all renewable energy technology types together, participants selected two evaluation criteria with the highest number of votes: aesthetics/visual resources and biological resources. Above all else, participants would like to see that viewsheds,