Area Plan History and Development Trends in Sonoma County

Transcription

1 County of Sonoma, Permit and Resource Management Department Area Plan History and Development Trends in Sonoma County A Study Related to Streamlining Place-Based Development Guidelines and the Development Code Update Denise Peter, AICP

2 Table of Contents Introduction/Purpose of Study... 3 Area Plan History... 4 Area Plan Status... 4 Active Area Plan Parcel Numbers, Acreage, Units... 5 Area Plan Vacant/Developed Land... 7 General Plan History... 7 Development Code (Zoning Code) Comprehensive Revision... 8 Development Trends... 8 Summary... 8 Dwelling Unit Construction... 8 Total Dwelling Units Gained (40 year history)... 9 Location of Units Constructed (30 year history) Type of Units Constructed Countywide (20 year history) Type of Units Constructed Rural Areas (20 year history) Type of Units Constructed Urban Areas (20 year history) Planning Permit Applications (17 year history) Summary Planning Permits by Urban Service Area, Rural Area or Planning Area Planning Permits by Area Plan Discretionary Permits Discretionary Permits, Non-residential Uses Ministerial Permits Assigned Ministerial Permits Counter/Quick Approvals Non-Dwelling Unit Construction (13 Year History) Types of Construction Other than Dwelling Units Location of All Construction Other than Dwelling Units Location of Commercial Alterations/Additions and New Commercial Buildings Location of Miscellaneous Buildings Location of Winery Buildings Conclusion Attachments PRMD Area ID Map PRMD Planning Area Map and Areas with Public Sewer and/or Water Area Plan Boundary Map Scenic Landscape Unit/Community Separator Boundary Map Local Area Development Guidelines Boundary Map Page 2

3 Introduction/Purpose of Study This report is prepared to provide data and factual analysis of development in the unincorporated portions of Sonoma County in order to inform decisions regarding simplifying and streamlining the development review process. Streamlining includes the future repeal of obsolete Area Plans and/or their conversion to Local Area Development Guidelines as called for in the General Plan, and the current proposal to rescind the SD (Scenic Design) combining zone which implements Area Plans. The current General Plan (GP2020) and the 1989 General Plan were based upon the land uses and intensities of Area Plans prepared in the early 1970 s and 1980 s and have incorporated many of their policies. Many portions of Area Plans are now redundant with General Plan and Zoning regulations. Detailed review of the policy language in the Area Plans has found that much of the language is ambiguous and subject to interpretation. Development activity is significantly less in the County in the 1990 s to present, as compared with the rapid growth of the 1970 s and 1980 s that resulted in the development of communities such as Windsor, Larkfield, and in the Urban Service Areas of Sonoma Valley (Agua Caliente, Boyes Hot Springs, and El Verano). The 1970 s saw an average of nearly 1,500 dwelling units per year added, while growth in the last ten years has averaged less than 150 units per year. This report documents the rate, location and type of development activity occurring in the County for consideration in prioritizing future PRMD efforts to align planning regulations with the type of development that is occurring and is projected to occur. The first phase of simplifying and streamlining the development review process includes rescinding the SD (Scenic Design) combining zone which implements Area Plans, and adding a new combining zone, the LG (Local Area Development Guidelines) combining zone to better implement existing zoning code regulations for eight specific areas of the County. Page 3

4 Area Plan History In the past there were nearly 30 Area Plans prepared for unincorporated areas of the County. Currently there are 17 active Area Plans that represent 65% of the parcels in the unincorporated County. These Area Plans are now largely redundant with the policies and standards of the General Plan and Zoning Code. The General Plan and Zoning Code were based on and have evolved over time to incorporate the land use and open space designations and policies of the Area Plans. Area Plan Status The 27 Area Plans developed in the 1970 s and 1980 s provided the planning analysis and legal basis for establishing land uses and densities and provided the foundation for today s General Plan land use and open space maps and parcel-specific zonings. The table below lists the various Plans that have been used in the County and their current status: County of Sonoma Plans and Status Title Original Revision Date Date GP2020 Status Airport Industrial Area Specific Plan continue to use South Santa Rosa Area Plan , 2008 continue to use Bennett Valley Area Plan , 2008 continue to use Sonoma Mountain Area Plan , 2008 continue to use West Petaluma Area Plan , 2008 continue to use Petaluma Dairy Belt Area Plan , 2008 continue to use Penngrove Area Plan , 2008 continue to use Franz Valley Area Plan , 2008 continue to use North Santa Rosa Plan 1983 repeal, consider conversion to LADG West Santa Rosa Plan 1982 repeal, consider conversion to LADG North Sonoma Valley Plan 1980 repeal, consider conversion to LADG South Sonoma Area 1 Plan 1975 repeal, consider conversion to LADG South Sonoma Area 2 Plan 1975 repeal, consider conversion to LADG Lower River Plan 1982 repeal, consider conversion to LADG Hessel Plan 1979 repeal, consider conversion to LADG Russian River Area Study 1978 repeal, consider conversion to LADG West Sebastopol Plan 1979 repeal, consider conversion to LADG Aggregate Resources Management use to establish areas, policies & procedures for mineral extraction Local Coastal Plan update, guides land use and development in Coastal Zone Windsor Specific Plan Repealed 2008 Larkfield-Wikiup Specific Plan Repealed 2008 Geyserville Plan 1978 Repealed 1989 South Sonoma Area 3 Plan 1980 Repealed 1989 South Sonoma Area 4 Plan 1980 Repealed 1989 Barnett Valley Plan 1975 Repealed 1989 Forestville Plan 1975 Repealed 1989 Green Valley Plan 1978 Repealed 1989 Harrison Grade Plan 1975 Repealed 1989 Commercial Industrial Study 1970 s Repealed 1989 Page 4

5 The Area Plans contain an in-depth analysis of the demographic, environmental and infrastructure characteristics. This background information is now between 30 and 40 years old. The land uses and densities established initially by these 1970 s and 1980 s era plans created the opportunity for new development and growth in places such as Windsor, Larkfield-Wikiup, Forestville, Graton, Penngrove, Geyserville, rural communities near Occidental, the Russian River, the Sonoma Valley, and unincorporated lands surrounding Sebastopol and Petaluma. The last Area Plan was adopted in As lands within Area Plan boundaries were proposed for new development, they were reviewed for consistency with the Area Plan policies. Most of the Area Plan areas are now nearly subdivided out or built out with a primary use such as the primary dwelling unit or business, and their original purpose to establish the land use mix and intensity and guide the physical appearance of new development has mostly been accomplished. Active Area Plan Parcel Numbers, Acreage, Units The three following tables illustrate the number of parcels, acreage and Assessor Department reported units for the active Area Plans. Note that the Assessor s data for the number of units is currently the best available data but is subject to discrepancy. However, the Assessor s data is somewhat useful to give an approximation of the number of units per Area Plan. The Assessor uses the number of units in their database for property tax purposes. Page 5

6 Page 6

7 Area Plan Vacant/Developed Land The table below shows parcels (in active Area Plans) that are reported by the Assessor s office as being vacant or having an agricultural or resource use with no residence as compared to the number of parcels that are developed or government land. The Assessor uses this land use data for property tax purposes. This data is subject to some discrepancy, but still gives a general picture of the percentage of parcels in Area Plans that do not have structures. The table below shows that most Area Plans have a relatively low percentage of vacant land. While development opportunities remain for expansion of existing uses or the addition of accessory structures or uses, there is little development potential for the creation of new parcels and new primary uses. Vacant lots are scarce and the rate of subdivision applications Countywide is low. The Area Plans have for the most part fulfilled their purpose and the General Plan s direction for repealing the Area Plans is timely. General Plan History The General Plan provides the legal authority for land uses, densities and intensities, and the Zoning Code provides refined standards for the construction of the land uses, densities and intensities established by the General Plan. The General Plan and Zoning code now perform most of the regulatory functions that the Area Plans were originally prepared for. The creation of the first comprehensive General Plan with an Open Space Element in the 1970 s relied heavily on the Area Plans, as did the 1989 General Plan which incorporated many of the Area Plan s land use and open space mapping designations and policies. The current General Plan, GP2020, adopted in 2008 resulted primarily in a fine tuning of the 1989 General Plan and the addition of a new Water Resources Element. GP2020 did not alter the land use map with the exception of individual property owner requests. GP2020 authorized minor expansions to Scenic Landscape Units and expanded Page 7

8 protection of riparian corridors to all USGS streams. GP2020 continues to support the preservation of open space, agriculture, scenic resources and compact growth policies calling for new housing and nonagricultural employment to be located in the Cities or in County Urban Service Area with sewer and water. Development Code (Zoning Code) Comprehensive Revision Zoning is the primary tool for implementing General Plans. A comprehensive rewrite of the 1960 s era zoning code is currently underway with public hearings to begin in The zoning code is the first place that most property owners and applicants look to determine applicable development regulations. The draft Development Code will be a more user friendly document and carries forward existing regulatory standards as well as new language that is intended to provide clarity in what is required of new development to streamline the approval process. The Development Code update will provide the best opportunity for continued streamlining and simplification of the development review process. The Development Code will carry forward existing Local Area Development Guidelines (applicable to eight areas) that are now contained in the Zoning Code. Local Area Development Guidelines are additional standards that apply to development in specific areas, but do not affect the allowed land use, intensity or density of the base zoning district. The draft Development Code will be amended in subsequent phases to implement the Urban Design and Rural Character Guidelines implementation programs of the General Plan, and to add additional Special Use Regulations to streamline the review process. Development Trends Summary Over the last 30 to 40 years development within the various Area Plan boundaries has occurred under the established land use intensities and policies of those plans. The majority of Area Plan land use intensities and development policies have since been incorporated into the General Plan and/or zoning code. These Area Plans established the location and amount of growth in the County from the 1970 s forward. Housing unit growth rate in the unincorporated area has steadily decreased: from a high of 1,500 units/year average in the 1970 s (Census data) to 1,000 units/year average in the 1980 s (Census and Permits Plus data) to 600 units/year average in the 1990 s to 350 units/year average in the 2000 s (DOF and Permits Plus data) In more recent years, the average has been less than 150 net units/year (DOF data). Growth rates following the recession are similar to the future growth projections of the Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG) for unincorporated Sonoma County through 2040 is 180 units/year averaged between 2010 and The County s most recent state Regional Housing Needs Allocation is 117 units/year between 2014 and Dwelling Unit Construction New housing unit construction is a standard indicator of growth. New housing stimulates the growth of other land uses that serve the needs of residential communities such as retail, restaurants, recreation, and offices. The County has seen a substantial decline in residential growth since the 1970 s, but appears to have stabilized over the last decade and is projected to continue at a low level of approximately 150 to 200 units per year through Page 8

9 Total Dwelling Units Gained (40 year history) The chart below uses three sources of housing unit growth to illustrate the past rate of growth in the unincorporated area. This 40 year span shows the high growth rate of the 1970 s through 1990 s that was associated with the Area Plans. This growth occurred in unincorporated communities served by public sewer and water such as Windsor, Larkfield, and The Springs; as well as rural ranchette development served by individual wells and septic systems in the Sebastopol, Petaluma, and Sonoma Valley areas. Past residential growth trends over the last 40 years show the rise and fall of growth in the County and support the conclusion that land within Area Plan boundaries is largely built out in terms of primary residential units allowed by the current General Plan. The repeal of obsolete Area Plans and the elimination of the Scenic Design (SD) used to implement them is timely. Page 9

10 Location of Units Constructed (30 year history) The charts in this section show detail on the location of unincorporated growth in the last 30 years. This is an important time period because it illustrates the impact of the 1989 General Plan with respect to compact growth and agricultural and open space preservation policies. The 1989 General Plan included a comprehensive amendment of the land use map to reduce rural development potential and shift growth to Urban Service Areas (unincorporated land with public sewer and water systems) or to cities. The charts illustrate the spikes in growth through the 1980 s related to the rapid construction of unincorporated communities such as Windsor (which incorporated as a Town in 1992), Larkfield, The Sea Ranch, Bodega Harbour in Bodega Bay, unincorporated land using the City of Santa Rosa sewer system (including Roseland and the Mooreland Avenue area), and the northern Sonoma Valley communities of Agua Caliente, Boyes Hot Springs, Fetters Hot Springs and El Verano (collectively called The Springs ). All of these areas were planned for and developed in accordance with the Area Plans adopted by the County. The charts suggest that in spite of the recession in the early 1990 s, the policies of the 1989 General Plan prevented the return of the rapid growth rates the County saw in the 1970 s through 1980 s. Also of note, is that although there is a spike in growth in the mid-2000 s (correlating to national and state peak housing unit production), this peak for the County is largely attributed to single 230 unit apartment project near the Sonoma County Airport and an increase in second dwelling unit production following the 2005 adoption of onsite affordable housing unit requirements. The 2005 affordable housing unit requirements called for either the production of a second dwelling unit concurrently with the construction of a new primary dwelling unit or the payment of a substantial in-lieu affordable housing fee. It appears that the housing boom and bust cycle of the last decade was fairly negligible in the unincorporated area - possibly due to a scarcity of vacant lots. Another indicator of a scarcity of vacant land is the increase of replacement dwelling units (demolishing and replacing an older smaller unit with a new housing unit). In the last ten years, replacement units accounted for 25% of housing units constructed. Page 10

11 The chart below graphs the steep decline in housing unit construction following the peak year of 1989, and provides detail on the number of units constructed by year and location in a specific Urban Service Area or the rural area. Housing unit construction in rural areas where public sewer and water is not available is shown as the last row of the chart below. Page 11

12 The next two charts below show relative percentages of units constructed by: 1) Rural or Urban Service Area location; 2) type of housing unit. Page 12

13 As the charts show, with the exception of a few large apartment projects built in the Airport Urban Service Area and the Guerneville Urban Service Area, the general trend since the adoption of the 1989 General Plan has been for an increasing percentage of total housing units constructed in rural areas. The majority of housing in the County had been overwhelmingly single family residential - until the mid s when more of a mix of housing types appeared. Also of note is the increasing percentage of second dwelling units constructed since the mid-1990 s and particularly after the 2005 affordable housing fee program was adopted. The 2005 affordable housing fee required the construction of a second dwelling unit onsite or payment of an in-lieu affordable housing fee. The bulk of the multifamily units in the last decade were provided by non-profit developers. The high percentage of multifamily units constructed in 2006 and 2007 is the result of a single 230 unit for profit apartment complex near the Sonoma County Airport. Similarly, in 2012, an approximately 50 unit apartment complex was built Guerneville which accounted for about 30% of that year s housing unit growth. Page 13

14 The next three charts show growth by distribution in each of the General Plan s nine Planning Areas by: 1) all areas, 2) rural areas only, 3) Urban Service Areas only. The Planning Areas have been used in the General Plan since the 1989 General Plan and are important because the Land Use Element contains Planning Area Policies unique to each Planning Area. Planner caseload is also often assigned by Planning Area. Planning Areas also roughly align with Census and ABAG geographic boundaries. Page 14

15 The charts above show that with regard to growth in general for the Planning Areas, the largest bands of growth occurred in the years of 1983 through 1994 for the Planning Areas of Healdsburg (Windsor growth), Santa Rosa (Larkfield growth), and the Sonoma Valley. With regard to differences in rural versus urban growth rates, the charts show a somewhat steady rate of construction of units in rural areas since 1995 of 100 to 200 units/year; in contrast to a steep decline in the construction of dwelling units in Urban Service Areas after 1995 (except for the spike in 2006/2007 resulting from a single 230 unit apartment project, and the 50 unit affordable housing project built in Guerneville in 2012). Page 15

16 Type of Units Constructed Countywide (20 year history) The charts in this section provide detail for the types of housing units constructed in the last 20 years for both rural and urban areas. The majority of growth in the unincorporated County is in the form of single family dwellings. The charts below show unit type by year for the following types of units and include replacement units ; whereas the charts in the prior section ( ) excluded replacement units in order to demonstrate the net dwelling unit gain over time. PRMD s Permits Plus permit database contains the following codes to track dwelling unit types: SREP: Replacement units (replace older or damaged unit with newer) MNEW: Multifamily new unit SAGE: Agricultural Employee unit, detached MAGE: Agricultural Employee unit, mobile home MIXD: Mixed use project dwelling unit SNW2: Second dwelling unit, new attached M2ND: Second dwelling unit, mobile home S2ND: Second dwelling unit, detached MHOM: Mobile Home SNEW: Single family detached The charts in this section illustrate that most of the growth in the last 20 years has occurred in rural areas in the form of single family dwellings and second dwelling units. Another trend displayed is an increasing percentage of housing units being built in rural versus urban areas. Page 16

17 These trends relate to the consideration of repealing Area Plans (and the SD district which implements Area Plans), because most single family development and second dwelling units are considered ministerial and would not be subject to review for conformance with Area Plans. In urban areas, the Santa Rosa Urban Service Area saw the most growth, followed by Sonoma Valley, Sea Ranch, Larkfield, and the Airport Urban Service Area. Growth in the Airport Urban Service Area consisted entirely of one large apartment complex near the Highway 101/Airport Boulevard interchange. The relatively low growth rates shown in the charts below for urban areas don t necessarily justify the preparation of separate Urban Design Guidelines for each area as called for in the General Plan. Replacement units are shown to illustrate the increasing percentage of replacement units in the total housing mix, which may reflect a declining supply of vacant land for the construction of new homes. In the last ten years, replacement units accounted for 25% of the housing units constructed. Replacement units are not counted in State Department of Finance or Census Bureau reports as housing units gained or in Census housing unit counts. Type of Units Constructed Rural Areas (20 year history) The chart below shows the types of housing units built by year for rural areas only. What is notable is the increased percentage of the rural housing mix as replacement single family dwellings and second dwelling units. In the last ten years, replacement units and second dwelling units comprised 39% of the building permits finaled in rural areas. Page 17

18 Type of Units Constructed Urban Areas (20 year history) The chart below shows the types of housing units built by year for urban areas only. As expected, this chart shows the vast majority of multifamily units being built in urban areas that have public sewer and water. The majority of multifamily units in the unincorporated County have been built by non-profit affordable housing corporations (ex: ~50 unit Burbank Housing project built in 2012 in Guerneville). The exception is the privately funded ~230 unit apartment complex built at the Highway 101/Airport Boulevard interchange during 2006 and 2007 which accounted for most of those years growth. This chart shows a marked decline in single family home construction in urban areas in the last five years with an average of 35 units/year. Page 18

19 Planning Permit Applications (17 year history) Summary The charts in this section illustrate trends in planning permits issued (by year of issuance) by location and type of permit from 1996 through A total of 16,500 planning permits were applied for in this 17 year study period. Planning permits include use permits, design review, rezoning, zoning permits, subdivisions, etc. Where a planning permit is required, it precedes any related building permit. Three permit types (i.e. Permits Plus data base code for permit type) are excluded from these charts: C-CPP. The first is C-CPP which indicates concurrent processing for more than one planning permit on the same property at the same time (for example a Use Permit and Design Review, or 5 Administrative Certificate of Compliance applications bundled together). In the case of C-CPP project (concurrent processing projects), these charts would include the Use Permit and Design Review, but would not include the C-CPP as an additional permit. The C-CPP permit type is primarily used as a master permit number for purposes of file management and fee billing. (ORD) BOS. Also excluded were (ORD) BOS permit types, as the use of this permit type in the Permits Plus database serves primarily as a convenient tracking device to locate by address the actual Board date of approval and adopted ordinance number for rezonings that are also tracked by the C-ZCE permit type. Including both would double count rezonings. AB-ZPE CM12. Finally, zoning permits for Vacation Rentals (540 permits) were excluded because this was part of a program initiated in 2011 to register and establish criteria for the use of dwellings for temporary vacation rentals. An intern processed the bulk of these applications in a short time period as a part of a special project. A separate chart is included in the ministerial permit (counter/quick approvals) section showing the location by Area Plan of Vacation Rental Zoning Permits. These permits are ministerial and handled primarily now by one planner. They were excluded from the overall charts because of the unusual amount of high permit activity in a short period of time that will not continue. Page 19

20 The charts in this section include permits at all stages of the permit process from application submittal date through the approval phase except for voided permits. Permits that had a status of VOID (~1% of total) were the only permits excluded from these charts, as these permits were cancelled before processing began. Note that some of these permits take years to approve, and some may be denied or withdrawn. Permits are categorized by the year of application submittal. The major trends reflected in this 1996 and 2012 planning permit data are: Three quarters of planning permits occur in rural areas (i.e. outside of Urban Service Areas that have public sewer and water. The 5 most active Urban Service Areas are Sonoma Valley (8% of total planning permits), Santa Rosa (4%), Guerneville (4%), Larkfield (1.6%) and Bodega Bay (1.4%). Planning Areas with the most permit activity were: Sonoma Valley (22%), Santa Rosa (18%), and Russian River (11%). 67% of planning permits are occurring within Area Plan boundaries; however about 65% of the parcels in unincorporated Sonoma County are within old Area Plan boundaries. The Area Plans with the most planning permit activity are: o North Sonoma Valley (10% of total) o Lower River Area (9%) o West Sebastopol (9%) o South Sonoma Valley Area 1 (6%) o South Santa Rosa (5%). Because most Area Plans are only applicable to discretionary planning permits, charts distinguishing between discretionary and ministerial planning permits were prepared. Discretionary planning permits are always assigned to a specific planner for processing and accounted for 36% of the total of 16,500 planning permits over the 17 year time period. Conditions of approval may be added at the planner s discretion to ensure the project is compatible with the surroundings and the intensity is appropriate for environmental conditions. Use permits and design review permits are the most common type of planning permit and would require conformance with Area Plans. Discretionary permits applied for in the last 17 years consisted of: Use permits C-USE (~2,300) Design Review AB-ADR by staff (~1,600) Design Review by Committee with hearing C-DRH (~290) Coastal permits, hearing C-CPH (~200) Coastal permits, no hearing B-CPN (~200) Subdivisions, minor C-MNS (~510) Subdivisions, major C-MJS (~120) Certificates of subdivision map modification C-CMO (~130) Conditional certificates of compliance C-CCC(~80) Rezonings C-ZCE (~460) General Plan amendments C-GPA (~240) Specific and Area Plan amendments C-SPA (~91) In contrast, ministerial planning permits (64% of total planning permits) are reviewed only for conformance with adopted standards where the exercise of judgment is not required to determine whether or not the use or building conforms to the adopted standards. Ministerial permits include those that are permitted without a Conditional Use Permit in the base zoning district, as well as permits which fall under the subdivision regulations such as property boundary changes where no additional lots are created (lot line adjustments and voluntary mergers), and verifying the whether or not certain vacant land constitutes a separate legal lot (administrative certificates of compliance). About half of the ministerial permits are Page 20

21 assigned to a planner for review over a matter of days to weeks or months, and the other half are quick approvals with review conducted at the planning counter or in a matter of days. In the last 17 years, zoning permits that are assigned to a planner because they require a more lengthy review period included: Administrative certificates of compliance B-ACC (~2,100) Lot line adjustments, minor B-LLA (~1,200) Lot line adjustments, major C-LLA (~300) Zoning permits with public notice (~800) Ag preserve contracts (~600) Ordinance determinations/interpretations (~200) Zoning permits with environmental review (~100) Variances (~50) In the last 17 years, the top ten most frequently issued ministerial permits that are approved at the counter or are quick approvals included: Zoning permits - home occupation (~1,200) Zoning permits - single family related (ex: setback reductions) (~800) Zoning permits - second units (~700) Dwelling unit allotments growth management program (~700) Voluntary lot mergers (~500) Zoning permits - non-conforming status determination (~195) Zoning permits - ag employee unit (~180) Zoning permits - antenna tower/pole (~70) Zoning permits - horse related (~69) Zoning permits special event not posted (~35) Page 21

22 The chart below shows the relative proportions of planning permits by permit type and year applied. The permit types are ranked by the most permits applied for in the 17 year period. For example, Administrative Zoning Permits (AB-ZPE) are the most common type of planning permit, followed by Use Permits (C-USE). Page 22

23 Planning Permits by Urban Service Area, Rural Area or Planning Area Approximately 75% of planning permits (both discretionary and ministerial) are in rural areas. Of the Urban Service Areas, the following three areas see the most planning permit activity: Sonoma Valley USA Santa Rosa USA Guerneville USA With regard to Planning Areas, Sonoma Valley, Santa Rosa and the Russian River have the most activity. Page 23

24 Page 24

25 Page 25

26 Planning Permits by Area Plan This section provides charts that compare the amount of planning permit activity by property location in an Area Plan or not, and by year. About two thirds of planning permits occurred in Area Plan boundaries. The Area Plans with the most activity were: North Sonoma Valley West Sebastopol Lower Russian River South Sonoma Valley Area 1 South Santa Rosa However, all five of the above Area Plans were the five top ranking Area Plan with regard to the number of properties in their boundaries. Page 26

27 Page 27

28 Discretionary Permits Current practice is to review only discretionary planning permits for compliance with Area Plans. Approximately 6,100 discretionary planning permits were applied for in the unincorporated County, with about 2/3 occurring within Area Plan boundaries. Area Plans with the most discretionary Planning Permit activity were: North Sonoma Valley South Santa Rosa West Sebastopol Lower River South Sonoma Valley Area 2 The charts below show all discretionary permit activity in the last 17 years for all areas by year, for all areas with permit subtype, and for Area Plans only by year. Use Permits (90/year average) and staff level Design Review (70 year/average) are the most common types of discretionary applications processed. Subdivisions are becoming increasingly uncommon in the County. In the last 3 years, an average of one major subdivision was applied for per year for all of the Area Plans combined. For minor subdivisions for all the Area Plans combined, the average has been 6 per year for the last few years. Page 28

29 Page 29

30 Page 30

31 Discretionary Permits, Non-residential Uses The charts below show only non-residential discretionary permit activity by rural or urban areas. The low level of planning permit activity in these charts supports repealing Area Plans. Page 31

32 Ministerial Permits Assigned Area Plans do not generally apply to ministerial planning permits, which instead are typically only reviewed by planners for conformance with adopted standards in the zoning code. (An exception is when an ADR is required because an otherwise ministerial use, such as a single family residence, is located in a General Plan Scenic Landscape Unit or Community Separator in which case the use is then considered discretionary and Area Plan policies are applied (such as for the Bennett Valley Area Plan.) Ministerial permits which are assigned to a planner typically require referral to other PRMD divisions to ensure the application complies with all adopted standards such as building, drainage, and well and septic codes. Assigned ministerial permits may also require review by persons with technical or legal expertise such as for administrative certificates of compliance and agricultural preserve contracts. The following charts illustrate the range and relative proportion of assigned ministerial permits by Area Plan. Assigned ministerial permits in this category by order of the most common include: Administrative Certificates of Compliance Minor and Major Lot Line Adjustments Posted Zoning Permits (primarily special event permits and requests for setback modifications) Agricultural Preserve Contracts Non-conforming status determinations It should be noted that most of the assigned ministerial permits listed above already have clear adopted standards. Conversion of Area Plan policies into the Local Area Development Guidelines section of the zoning code would not provide a practical regulatory benefit for these types of ministerial permits. Likewise, the repeal of the Area Plans would likely have little effect on the review and approval process for assigned ministerial permits. Page 32

33 Page 33

34 Ministerial Permits Counter/Quick Approvals Ministerial permits that are approved over the counter or have very quick turnaround times do not lend themselves to a process that requires concurrent review for Area Plan conformance. As discussed previously, most of the Area Plan policies are ambiguous and subject to interpretation. The following charts illustrate the range and relative proportion of assigned ministerial permits by Area Plan. The most commonly occurring ministerial permits that are approved over the counter or within a matter of days (often concurrently with building permit application) are: Home occupation zoning permits Single family dwelling related Second dwelling units Voluntary parcel mergers Nonconforming status determinations Horse boarding facilities Ag employee dwelling units The most practical and streamlined approval process for ministerial permits that call for quick turnaround times is the establishment of special use regulations that apply Countywide. The zoning code currently has such standards for home occupations, second dwelling units and ag employee units. Additional special use regulations should be developed to help streamline the approval process for ministerial permits. The following charts show the type and location of ministerial permits (counter/quick approvals) by type and location. The recently enacted zoning permit program for Vacation Rentals is shown separately because this new program resulted in an unusually high amount of permit activity in the first two years. These zoning permits were processed by an intern and the high volume received in 2011 and 2012 will not continue. Page 34

35 Page 35

36 Page 36

37 Page 37

38 Page 38

39 Non-Dwelling Unit Construction (13 Year History) This section summarizes the quantity, value, and location of development activity other than dwelling units in the unincorporated area between 2000 and The permits reflected in this section, resulted in structures that actually were built similar to the analysis at the beginning of this report that summarized dwelling units actually built. This section summarizes B-BLD building permits (those that require plans) as opposed to A-BLD permits that represent a streamlined process for minor construction work without formal plan review such as water heater replacement, plumbing work, electrical work, re-roofing and siding, limited repair, etc. The subtypes reflected in these charts represent the following B-BLD building permit subtypes, and in combination with the dwelling unit analysis at the beginning of the report, reflect almost all the above ground development occurring in the unincorporated County: MISC: CWIN: CNEW: CALT: Miscellaneous structures (not residential units or commercial (barns, garages, workshops, residential accessory structures, decks) Winery related (winery processing facilities and tasting rooms) Non-residential new commercial/industrial/institutional (new retail, office, industrial, institutional) Non-residential addition/remodel (includes expansions as well as remodels) 6,066 B-BLD buildings permits were finaled over the 13 year period for the following types of non-dwelling unit construction: CALT: 1,994 CNEW: 613 CWIN: 139 MISC: 3,320 Over the 13 year period, valuation (construction cost estimate) per permit averaged: CALT: ~$79,000 CNEW: ~$396,000 CWIN: ~$304,000 MISC: ~$41,000 Square footage per permit over the 13 year period averaged: CALT: 1,746 CNEW: 8,235 CWIN: 6,933 MISC: 1,026 The charts in this section are organized by: Year PRMD Area ID (Attachment 1 shows a map of the PRMD ID areas) The charts are also configured to compare building permit activity in terms of: Numbers of permits Square footage associated with permits Valuation (construction cost estimates) associated with permits Page 39

40 Types of Construction Other than Dwelling Units The charts below reflect the year the building permit received the final inspection and was ready for occupancy and provide detailed information by year and permit subtype. Of particular note is the correlation between the recession of 2008 and the steady decline of building permit project cost (valuation) following. Page 40

41 Location of All Construction Other than Dwelling Units The charts below summarize development activity by PRMD Area ID. This data is intended to inform the decision making process with regard to simplifying and improving place-based development regulations. This data is important in considering how to prioritize future planning work with regard to the repeal of obsolete Area Plans or their replacement with Local Area Development Guidelines or Countywide Rural/Urban Design Guidelines. These charts provide information on where money is being invested, and where the most square footage is being constructed that may affect an area s visual character. Page 41

42 Page 42

43 Page 43

44 Location of Commercial Alterations/Additions and New Commercial Buildings These charts show that the Santa Rosa PRMD Area (including the Airport Urban Service Area and the Santa Rosa Urban Service Area) outpaced all the other PRMD areas in terms of square footage and valuation of commercial/industrial additions/alterations (CALT permit subtype) and new commercial/industrial buildings (CNEW permit subtype). The Sonoma area was second with regard to CALT and CNEW permit subtypes. Geyserville and Bellevue were almost tied for third place. Page 44

45 Location of Miscellaneous Buildings The miscellaneous permit subtype (MISC) includes everything besides dwelling units and commercial/industrial/institutional buildings. As the chart below illustrates these areas had the most activity: Twin Hills, Sonoma, Santa Rosa, Graton, Petaluma and Windsor. Although the number of MISC permit subtypes is comparatively high, the valuation and square footage of this permit subtype tends to be much lower than for CALT, CNEW and CWIN permit subtypes. MISC permit subtypes include structures such as barns, storage buildings, garages, carports, decks, and other accessory structures. Page 45

46 Location of Winery Buildings The winery permit subtype (CWIN) occurs most often in the Geyserville area, followed by Sonoma, Santa Rosa, Forestville and Windsor. A total of 139 CWIN permit subtypes (resulting in almost one million square feet of winery construction) were finaled between 2000 and The following is a ranking of the top five areas: Geyserville (40) Sonoma (16) Santa Rosa (14) Forestville (12) Windsor (11) This data can be used to determine where to focus efforts in repealing obsolete Area Plans or considering whether to convert some to Local Area Development Guidelines. The data can also be used in consideration of Urban and Rural Character Design Guidelines that target the most frequently occurring building types in urban or rural areas. Page 46

47 Conclusion Development activity in the unincorporated County can be classified as pre-1989 General Plan and post General Plan. Growth prior to the adoption of the 1989 General Plan was based on approximately 30 Area Plans adopted in the 1970 s and 80 s that have now largely been built out and are obsolete. Housing unit growth in the last ten years is approximately 10% of the growth that occurred in the 1970 s - when an average of nearly 1,500 dwelling were added each year. Development in the County is guided by implementation of a General Plan which calls for compact growth in areas near public sewer and water systems and preservation of agricultural and open space lands. The transition to simpler and more consolidated development regulations which apply Countywide and fewer place-based development guidelines (i.e. Area Plans and Local Area Development Guidelines) should be considered. This report suggests the following points be considered to consolidate and streamline the development review process: Currently, there are 25 separate place-based development regulation plans or guidelines (i.e. Area Plans and Local Area Development Guidelines) that are applicable to an estimated 100 to 120 non-residential discretionary planning permits per year and a small fraction of the 180 residential units/year projected through 2040 that would require discretionary review. Most Area Plans and many Local Area Development Guidelines only apply to discretionary review. Area Plans are mostly obsolete and should be repealed with a few exceptions where they are still being used to condition projects (example: Bennett Valley Plan, Franz Valley Plan, South Santa Rosa Plan). The development of additional Local Area Development Guidelines should be minimized to reduce redundancy and simplify the review process. New and revised zoning special use standards that apply Countywide should be developed which provide clear standards for the approval of ministerial and discretionary planning permits for the most common land uses being applied for in the County. New and revised Countywide Urban and Rural zoning design guidelines with illustrations (as called for in the General Plan), should be developed which address site planning and aesthetics for the types of development that are most applied for. In Urban Service Areas, the document should focus on enhancing existing Urban Service Areas through the use of good infill design prototypes and building placement and orientation guidelines. In rural areas the focus should be on guidelines for ensuring the type of discretionary development (rural subdivision, wineries, industrial or resource uses) is compatible and blends in with the character of the landscape (hillsides, agricultural land, flat rural land, etc.). Residential development is projected to continue to remain low or decline according to State and Regional reports. The majority of housing that has been built is single family residential or second dwelling units that are primarily a ministerial counter or quick approval. The State s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for unincorporated Sonoma County is 117 units/year ( ). The Association of Bay Area Governments projects 180 units/year through Discretionary non-residential permit activity is relatively low (average of ~120 permits/year Countywide over the last 17 years). There is a declining trend in the number of non-residential discretionary planning permits and the value of construction of non-residential building permits. Residential and non-residential development trends suggest that a more consolidated development review process with Countywide standards should be considered. Page 47

48 Attachments 1. PRMD Area ID Map 2. PRMD Planning Area Map and Areas with Public Sewer and/or Water 3. Area Plan Boundary Map 4. Scenic Landscape Unit/Community Separator Boundary Map 5. Local Area Development Guidelines Boundary Map Page 48

49 AçE Black Oaks PRMD Area ID Map Index Cloverdale CL R iver Rd Asti Rd CLO CLO Asti SEA Stewarts Point Annapolis ANN Las Lomas GEY Geyservil Canyon Rd Dry Creek Rd le Ave Geyersville W Dry Creek Rd Lytton Healdsburg GEY AçE TIM?ÔE FTR Fort Ross King Ridge Rd Fort Ross Rd JEN Jenner Cazadero Cazadero Hwy AÜE HEA GUE Guerneville FOR Moscow Rd Monte Rio AÜE MRO Duncans Mills GRA CAM Graton Occidental OCC Graton Rd Riv er Rd HE KÍ Sebastopol SE Carmet TWI BBY Bodega Valley Bay Ford BLO Bloomfield Bodega Hwy Westside Rd Eastside Rd Geysers Rd Area IDs AGU (Agua Caliente) LAK (Lakeville) Fall Creek Rd ANN (Annapolis) BBY (Bodega Bay) BEL (Bellevue) BEN (Bennett Valley) BLO (Bloomfield) CAM (Camp Meeker) MRO (Monte Rio) MWS (Mark West Spings) OCC (Occidental) PE (Petaluma) PEN (Penngrove) PET (Petaluma) Ê 0 6 Miles 1:380,160 Kruse Ranch Rd P A C I F I C O C E A N Map Scale and Reproduction methods limit precision in physical features displayed. This map is for illustrative purpose only, and is not suitable for parcel-specific decision making. Site-specific studies are required to draw parcel-specific conclusions. Windsor Rd Arata Ln Windsor WIN WI Skylane Blvd SRO Guerneville Rd Hall Rd Occidental Rd Valley Ford R d Old Redwood Hwy Fulton Piner Rd?ÝE BEL MWS SR Oakmont Kenwood BEN BEL Rohnert Park RP Cotati CO SEB COT Roblar Rd PET RIN KEN TWO PET Two Rock Faught Rd Sebastopol Rd Todd Rd Lone Pine Rd Stony Point Rd Pepper Rd Mark West Springs Santa Rosa Bellevue Ave Bodega Ave Spring Hill Rd Purvine Rd Porter Creek Rd Wallace Rd Petaluma Hill Rd Bennett Valley Rd Penngrove Chileno Valley Rd D St St Helena Rd Ely Rd Pressley Rd Petaluma Blvd N Sonoma Mountain Rd PE?ÝE GLE Glen Ellen Agua Caliente PEN Boyes Hot Springs AGU El Verano Sonoma SO Adobe Rd Ely Blvd S Arnold Dr Petaluma Lakeville LAK AÜE Big Bend Sears AàE Point?È 8th St E Napa Rd SON Ra mal Rd CL (Cloverdale) CLO (Cloverdale) CO (Cotati) COT (Cotati) FOR (Forestville) FTR (Fort Ross) GEY (Geyserville) GLE (Glen Ellen) GRA (Graton) GUE (Guerneville) HE (Healdsburg) HEA (Healdsburg) JEN (Jenner) KEN (Kenwood) RIN (Rincon Valley) RP (Rohnert Park) SE (Sebastopol) SEA (Sea Ranch) SEB (Sebastopol) SO (Sonoma) SON (Sonoma) SR (Santa Rosa) SRO (Santa Rosa) TIM (Timber Cove) TWI (Twin Hills) TWO (Two Rock) WI (Windsor) WIN (Windsor) Base Data City Limit Highway Main Arterial Road Note: As of January 2007, PRMD Area ID's (formerly known as "Community Codes") were realigned to coincide with PRMD inspector areas so as to reflect changes made in the Permits Plus System. Therefore, the realignment of ID s are not based on any subdivision, census or any other geographical data or boundary. Permit and Resource Management Department No part of this map may be copied, reproduced, or transmitted in any form or by any means without written permission from the Permit and Resource Management Department (PRMD),County of Sonoma, California. Maps contained in a planning document published by PRMD can be photocopied by members of the public for review and comment purposes V e n t u r a A v e n u e, S a n t a R o s a, C a l i f o r n i a FAX Author: PRMD Cartography: S. Bianchi-Williamson File: S:\GIS-DATA\PRMD_BASE\Index Maps\PRMD Area IDs - B Size.mxd Date: 11/05/2010 S A N P A B L O B A Y

50 Sea Ranch Base Map Data!< Planning Areas City Boundaries Highways Roads Planning Areas Planning Area 1 Sonoma Coast / Gualala Basin Planning Area 2 Cloverdale / N.E. County Planning Area 3 Healdsburg and Environs Planning Area 4 Russian River Area Planning Area 5 Santa Rosa and Environs Planning Area 6 Sebastopol and Environs Planning Area 7 Rohnert Park - Cotati and Environs Planning Area 8 Petaluma and Environs Planning Area 9 Sonoma Valley?Ô Note: Map Scale and Reproduction methods limit precision in physical features displayed. This map is for illustrative purpose only. 4 Monte Rio Bodega Bay Author: PRMD Cartography: S.Mason File Number: S:\GIS-DATA\PRMD_BASE\PRMD Department Projects\Comprhensive Planning\General Plan 2020\GP figure PF-1.mxd\ GP figure PF-1 Date: 09/23/ Aç Cloverdale!<!<!< 3 Camp Meeker Occidental!< Guerneville AÜ!<!< 2 Geyserville!< Healdsburg! KÍ Graton Windsor Aç!< Forestville 5 Sebastopol 6?Ý Airport-Larkfield-Wikiup!< 7 Santa Rosa Penngrove South Park Rohnert Park Cotati 8!< Petaluma Glen Ellen Eldrige Agua Caliente!<!<!< 8th Street East AÜ?Ý 9 Sonoma Aà?`!< Figure PF-1 Sewer and Water Services in Unincorporated Communities Miles Ê1:316,800 Sonoma County General Plan 2020 Public Facilities & Services Element Permit and Resource Management Department V e n t u r a A v e n u e, S a n t a R o s a, C a l i f o r n i a FAX Sonoma County General Plan Sewer Only Sewer and Water Services!!<