Sonoma County power agency plan scrambles political allegiances

"I just don't see that kind of pressure," said Doug McIlroy, director of winegrowing for Rodney Strong. "We haven't even filled up our rooftops at our winery facility and that's where a lot of our power need is."

Still, the unusual split between farming interests could interrupt what has been a fairly unified drumbeat in leading political circles for the power plan. It calls for a wide network of green energy projects - mostly solar installations for the time being - that could shrink the local carbon footprint.

As yet, no single plan exists for how the county would guide renewable energy development. Nearly all those involved in the issue say projects in urban areas - solar panels on roofs and over parking areas - are the first place the county should turn to encourage generation.

"We shouldn't be carpeting hillsides with solar panels," said Woody Hastings, renewable energy manager for the Climate Protection Campaign, the main advocacy group behind the public power plan.

But different visions for how rural lands could figure in green power production could also drive a wedge between environmental camps.

Conservationists say loosely governed development would ruin decades of work to protect farmland, greenbelts around cities and open space that serves as the visual backdrop for the area.

"Watch out," Bill Kortum, a former county supervisor and veteran environmental activist, told the current board Tuesday. "The landscape of this county is very valuable to all of us .

.

. What you're dealing with today is a very serious challenge to that landscape." Power plan proponents, including climate activists, said they didn't disagree. Hastings said he was not worried about a breakdown in the constituency supporting the power plan. But the largest local environmental group, Sonoma County Conservation Action, is in a wait-and-see mode on the power plan. Along with the Farm Bureau - normally an adversary - the conservation group is worried about conversion of working and wild landscapes for energy development. "It feels good that we're on the same page on this," said Dennis Rosatti, executive director of Conservation Action. "We have to be really sensitive to what we've been building on for the last 25 years in this county in terms of land protection."So far, outside of the Geysers geothermal field in northeast Sonoma County, no renewable projects proposed locally come close to the large solar installations taking over hundreds of acres of farmland in the state's Central Valley, or the even larger industrial-scale projects covering thousands of acres in the Mojave Desert. The largest project currently on the drawing board - a 20-megawatt solar installation at Charles M. Schulz Sonoma County Airport - would cover about 50 acres.The county's valley-bottom vineyard lands are mostly shielded from commercial projects. Proposed caps would limit the size of systems on non-prime farmland to 30 percent of the parcel with a maximum of 50 acres.Farm Bureau officials largely backed those limits while voicing their preference for lower caps."Whatever policy that is developed needs to be thoughtful and respectful of the amount of ag land that we have here and how we maintain that for the future," said McCorvey, the Farm Bureau director.Finding that balance was difficult this week for the Board of Supervisors. They endorsed some measures but diverged sharply on others, foreshadowing the case-by-case fights that could arise over energy projects in the unincorporated area. While taking no formal action, a short-handed board without Shirlee Zane sided three to one - with Mike McGuire, Susan Gorin and David Rabbitt in the majority and Carrillo in the minority - in favor of a ban on commercial projects on 70,000 acres of cropland, including vineyard and orchard properties. That includes state-designated prime, unique and important acreage, farmland set aside through the tax-shelter Williamson Act program, and the 16,000 acres of hill- and riverside property disputed by Anderson, the winegrower representative. The same ban was recommended by the county Planning Commission on a 3-2 vote after five hearings on the issue this year and last.Rabbitt voiced concern that much of the farmland being opened to commercial projects would be in 180,000 acres of pasture, mostly in his dairy-heavy, south-county district.That includes the solar installation proposed on a 130-acre hay field off Frates Road and Adobe Road outside of Petaluma.The 4-megawatt project - enough to power about 750 homes - calls for 6,340 panels on 22.6 acres across from a large PG&E substation and underneath high-voltage transmission lines. "If we're talking about renewables, they have to go somewhere," said Dave Hood, chief executive officer of Coldwell Solar, a Placer County-based firm that is purchasing the land and putting forward the project. The remainder of the property could be planted in grapes, Hood said.The City of Petaluma and a local environmental group have weighed in with their concerns about visual impacts and conversion of farmland."To start chopping that up for an industrial use is bad policy," said David Keller, of the Petaluma River Council.Hood said the 20-year installation would involve no grading or concrete foundation, meaning the land could easily be returned to agriculture. The county Agricultural Commissioner's Office has not objected to the project, which is not on prime farmland.But non-prime ag land is valuable and shouldn't be sacrificed, Rabbitt said Tuesday. "We need to make sure we preserve that." McGuire and Gorin supported tighter regulation for projects on the biggest swath of the county - 395,000 acres of ranches and forest properties zoned as rural resource lands. Commercial energy projects already are allowed on that acreage though none exist outside of The Geysers. Going forward the projects could be larger - up to 30 percent of a property with a maximum of 50 acres - and would need to come to the Planning Commission or the Board of Supervisors for rezoning under a change McGuire and Gorin backed.It would safeguard viewsheds and wildlands that otherwise could be jeopardized, McGuire said."One mistake can have a generation of negative impacts," he said.Carrillo, on edge throughout the board's deliberation, barely contained his frustration."I find some of the conversations here rather amusing, but I won't focus my comments on that," he said. "I cannot support the recommendations." He urged Rabbitt, the chairman, to delay a formal vote so the full board could weigh in later.That leaves all eyes on Zane, a strong advocate of the county power plan but also an ally of conservation groups. She could find herself in the middle of a shifting board when it returns to the issue Aug. 6By that time, a formal vote on an initial power supply contract for the public agency could be just days away.The power venture and land protection measures don't have to be mutually exclusive, conservation officials and power agency advocates say."You can support the landscape protections we're asking for - and that the Planning Commission backed - and still get what you need for the power plan," said Rosatti, the Conservation Action leader.Zane's stance could be key to how that balance tips, he predicted.

Power plan proponents, including climate activists, said they didn't disagree. Hastings said he was not worried about a breakdown in the constituency supporting the power plan.

"We're not at that point," he said.

But the largest local environmental group, Sonoma County Conservation Action, is in a wait-and-see mode on the power plan. Along with the Farm Bureau - normally an adversary - the conservation group is worried about conversion of working and wild landscapes for energy development.

"It feels good that we're on the same page on this," said Dennis Rosatti, executive director of Conservation Action. "We have to be really sensitive to what we've been building on for the last 25 years in this county in terms of land protection."

So far, outside of the Geysers geothermal field in northeast Sonoma County, no renewable projects proposed locally come close to the large solar installations taking over hundreds of acres of farmland in the state's Central Valley, or the even larger industrial-scale projects covering thousands of acres in the Mojave Desert. The largest project currently on the drawing board - a 20-megawatt solar installation at Charles M. Schulz Sonoma County Airport - would cover about 50 acres.

The county's valley-bottom vineyard lands are mostly shielded from commercial projects. Proposed caps would limit the size of systems on non-prime farmland to 30 percent of the parcel with a maximum of 50 acres.

Farm Bureau officials largely backed those limits while voicing their preference for lower caps.

"Whatever policy that is developed needs to be thoughtful and respectful of the amount of ag land that we have here and how we maintain that for the future," said McCorvey, the Farm Bureau director.

Finding that balance was difficult this week for the Board of Supervisors. They endorsed some measures but diverged sharply on others, foreshadowing the case-by-case fights that could arise over energy projects in the unincorporated area.

While taking no formal action, a short-handed board without Shirlee Zane sided three to one - with Mike McGuire, Susan Gorin and David Rabbitt in the majority and Carrillo in the minority - in favor of a ban on commercial projects on 70,000 acres of cropland, including vineyard and orchard properties. That includes state-designated prime, unique and important acreage, farmland set aside through the tax-shelter Williamson Act program, and the 16,000 acres of hill- and riverside property disputed by Anderson, the winegrower representative.

The same ban was recommended by the county Planning Commission on a 3-2 vote after five hearings on the issue this year and last.

Rabbitt voiced concern that much of the farmland being opened to commercial projects would be in 180,000 acres of pasture, mostly in his dairy-heavy, south-county district.

That includes the solar installation proposed on a 130-acre hay field off Frates Road and Adobe Road outside of Petaluma.

The 4-megawatt project - enough to power about 750 homes - calls for 6,340 panels on 22.6 acres across from a large PG&E substation and underneath high-voltage transmission lines.

"If we're talking about renewables, they have to go somewhere," said Dave Hood, chief executive officer of Coldwell Solar, a Placer County-based firm that is purchasing the land and putting forward the project. The remainder of the property could be planted in grapes, Hood said.

The City of Petaluma and a local environmental group have weighed in with their concerns about visual impacts and conversion of farmland.

"To start chopping that up for an industrial use is bad policy," said David Keller, of the Petaluma River Council.

Hood said the 20-year installation would involve no grading or concrete foundation, meaning the land could easily be returned to agriculture.

The county Agricultural Commissioner's Office has not objected to the project, which is not on prime farmland.

But non-prime ag land is valuable and shouldn't be sacrificed, Rabbitt said Tuesday. "We need to make sure we preserve that."

McGuire and Gorin supported tighter regulation for projects on the biggest swath of the county - 395,000 acres of ranches and forest properties zoned as rural resource lands. Commercial energy projects already are allowed on that acreage though none exist outside of The Geysers. Going forward the projects could be larger - up to 30 percent of a property with a maximum of 50 acres - and would need to come to the Planning Commission or the Board of Supervisors for rezoning under a change McGuire and Gorin backed.

It would safeguard viewsheds and wildlands that otherwise could be jeopardized, McGuire said.

"One mistake can have a generation of negative impacts," he said.

Carrillo, on edge throughout the board's deliberation, barely contained his frustration.

"I find some of the conversations here rather amusing, but I won't focus my comments on that," he said. "I cannot support the recommendations."

He urged Rabbitt, the chairman, to delay a formal vote so the full board could weigh in later.

That leaves all eyes on Zane, a strong advocate of the county power plan but also an ally of conservation groups. She could find herself in the middle of a shifting board when it returns to the issue Aug. 6

.

By that time, a formal vote on an initial power supply contract for the public agency could be just days away.

The power venture and land protection measures don't have to be mutually exclusive, conservation officials and power agency advocates say.

"You can support the landscape protections we're asking for - and that the Planning Commission backed - and still get what you need for the power plan," said Rosatti, the Conservation Action leader.

Zane's stance could be key to how that balance tips, he predicted.