Strong reaction to Sonoma County ag rules

Extensive new and updated rules for agricultural land in Sonoma County drew a packed audience Thursday at the county Planning Commission and dozens of speakers from across the political spectrum.

Some small-farm operators criticized new limits on commercial activities while real estate interests took aim at a proposed phase-out of ag-land vacation rentals. Others praised a change that would make the education and work-related visits known as farm stays more feasible.

Speakers were more focused and constructive in their comments than in a Jan. 20 hearing on same issue. Since then, county planners have worked to persuade landowners that the new rules permit more activities, such as food processing on small ag parcels, that are currently banned.

Still, a group of property rights activists Thursday continued their campaign to paint the rules as part of a worldwide, United Nations-driven conspiracy threatening landowners. Off-agenda comments by one of their speakers prompted a brief recess of the hearing.

Later, after more than two hours of public comment, commissioners decided to continue their deliberations at an April 21 hearing that will be closed to public comment.

Any final decision rests with the Board of Supervisors. “You'll have a whole other chance to share your concerns with them,” Chairman Komron Shahhosseini told the crowd.

One set of rules would more strictly define the size and types of properties and activities qualifying for enrollment in the Williamson Act, a state program that offers owners tax breaks in exchange for maintaining agriculture and open space land.

Going forward, schools, churches and non-farm airstrips would be banned on those properties.

Those state-driven changes would eliminate the land available for new churches, said Bret Avlakeotes, pastor of Spring Hills Community Church in Fulton.

“I don't like the feeling the county is bowing to the state,” he said.

A higher per-acre production value for Williamson properties — proposed at $800, up from $200 — and other size and land-use changes could drop more farmers from the program, critics said.

The second set of rules, for county-zoned ag lands, prompted a wider-ranging litany of complaints and suggestions. Real estate-backers lobbied for legalizing vacation rentals on ag lands. Building-size restrictions on parcels of five acres or less prompted a protest from a small south county vintner.

And several landowners in northwest Sonoma County alleged that a complicated change in private road access was a gift to Preservation Ranch, the proposed 1,800-acre forest-to-vineyard conversion project on nearly 20,000 acres outside Annapolis.

The change would grant road access to farmworker housing through a use permit process, and would do away with another path requiring consent from all property owners.

County planners and legal advisors insisted the change corrected an inconsistency in the county's housing plans. It was not driven by backers of Preservation Ranch, they said.

But several landowners off Kelly Road who oppose its use for nearby Preservation Ranch weren't convinced.

“This is backdoor dealing at its worst,” said Dave Lewers, a landowner.