Should solar go here?

Local officials have voiced concerns over a commercial-scale solar array proposed for a piece of grazing land just outside Petaluma's city limits - placing the city in the middle of a county-wide debate over what kinds of land should be used for renewable energy.

The County Board of Supervisors recently began discussing a plan to allow certain agricultural lands to be used for large-scale green energy installations. The plan has been in the works for two years, but it comes before the Board of Supervisors as the county is pushing to create an alternative power agency that would source much of its power from clean, local sources.

The proposal to change county zoning regulations on certain types of agricultural lands could help pave the way for a 22-acre solar farm at the corner of Frates and Adobe roads that has been proposed by Coldwell Solar of Rocklin. This hay field, directly across from the PG&E substation, is just a portion of more than 70,000 acres of agricultural land - mostly located in southern Sonoma County - that would be affected by the zoning change.

The land in question is currently designated for grazing by livestock. The proposed large-scale installation, which calls for 6,430 solar panels, promises to bring in much more revenue per acre than grazing.

While Petaluma officials applaud the effort to increase renewable energy production in Sonoma County, they worry about allowing commercial installations on land historically used for agriculture.

"I am totally opposed to changing any agricultural zoning to allow industrial-grade &‘anything' on agricultural land, even if it's not considered prime cropland," said Councilwoman Teresa Barrett. "That's really going to send the wrong message to our (agricultural) base, which is really starting to take off as a niche market in the food industry."

In addition to the agricultural concerns, officials also worry about the visual impacts of changing the landscape leading into town. Councilmember Mike Healy pointed out that Petalumans have consistently voted for an urban growth boundary that is meant to protect the open spaces surrounding the city. He said he hopes county supervisors will take that fact into account when they make their decision on the proposal.

"There may be an opportunity to strike a balance on where you put these types of installations, allowing for more, but not putting them in open spaces on the very edge of town," said Healy.

Barrett added that large-scale industrial energy arrays placed along the edge of the city would ruin the view for those traveling into town.

Echoing similar sentiments, city planners recently wrote a letter to the county raising concerns about the proposed changes to the Frates Road property. Heather Hines, planning manager for the City of Petaluma, wrote that the loss of locally important farmland raises concerns for the city. She also took issue with other aspects of the proposed project, including damage to wetlands on the property and negative visual impacts to a "gateway" of Petaluma.

David Rabbitt, Petaluma representative on the county Board of Supervisors, said that while he can see the benefit of generating more renewable energy locally, he wants to proceed with caution.

"You can't tell me that just because the crop and agricultural value is less, the land has a lower intrinsic value to the community," said Rabbitt. "We've done such a great job building green belts and urban boundaries around our town that to have solar panels surrounding it is something we really need to think about."

The debate has also pitted against each other two agricultural groups that normally see eye to eye on matters regarding land and zoning ordinances.

While the Farm Bureau has come out against the proposed zoning changes, the United Winegrowers of Sonoma County has voiced support.

The grape growers say that allowing large-scale renewable energy projects will enhance Sonoma County's status as a tourist destination. The group even threatened to pull its support of the county's proposed power agency if it does not change the zoning regulations.

The Board of Supervisors heard public comment on the proposed zoning changes and postponed its vote until Aug. 6. An informal vote showed three of the five supervisors leaning towards keeping current zoning regulations intact, including Rabbitt.

(Contact Janelle Wetzstein at janelle.wetzstein@arguscourier.com)