Sonoma County takes closer look at green energy projects

With renewable energy development now a central issue in Sonoma County, disputed rules that would govern the size and location of green energy projects are returning to the Board of Supervisors Tuesday for approval.

The zoning changes, which focus largely on solar systems, would open up more land in unincorporated areas to commercial-scale projects, including agricultural, industrial and business parcels.

The first test case could be a 23-acre solar panel installation proposed for a hayfield outside Petaluma, a project prohibited under current zoning but allowed under the revised rules up for approval.

The new zoning would also ease generation limits on non-commercial renewable systems installed for homes and businesses and lift them entirely for systems covering roofs or parking areas.

Most who have weighed in on the rules agree such projects — in the developed, urban environment — should come first.

The main dispute has centered on where and how to allow energy development on a wider swath of the county's croplands, ranches and forested properties.

When the rules first came to the Board of Supervisors in May, that question divided key agricultural interests. Some favored strong protections against farmland conversions for energy generation, while others argued for flexibility and against a ban on projects in the county's highest-value cropland, including vineyards.

The issue has also presented environmentalists with a complicated choice between priorities that can be at odds — green energy development and landscape protection.

The debate — mirrored across the country amid the wider rollout of renewable energy projects — has been especially significant because of the pending launch of Sonoma County's public power agency, a venture built on the promise of local green energy generation.

Revisions to the proposed rules since May have favored farming and environmental groups that have argued for stronger regulations. The changes would put tighter limits on the size of projects on a vast swath of ranch- and forestland and allow for greater public input on the largest projects.

The rules appear to have the support of the majority of the Board of Supervisors, which was shorthanded with four members present in May when it postponed the issue for further study.

Supervisor Shirlee Zane, who missed that initial hearing and has since been seen as pivotal vote on the issue, last week called the rules "very reasonable," saying they struck "a good balance" between land protection and allowing energy development.

"This county has made a huge investment to preserve agricultural land and open space," Zane said, citing the approximately 105,000 acres protected by the county's taxpayer-supported Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District. "Anything that would undermine that investment is very foolish."

But a representative of local grape growers and chief critic of the rules in May continues to argue they are heavy handed.

Bob Anderson, executive director of the United Winegrowers of Sonoma County, has balked at the blanket prohibition on projects on some cropland, including about 16,000 acres of largely hillside or riverside property.

He contends those acres, which carry the same zoning as the county's most prized farmland but are not designated by the state as prime, unique or important property, should not be subject to the commercial project ban. It would cover about 70,000 acres of cropland, including vineyard and orchard properties.