 |
Sonoma County Home | Site Index | Contact Us | Search |
GP 2020
SONOMA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
STATUS REPORT ON THE 1989 GENERAL PLAN
The purpose of this report is to provide the community and decision makers with the background and context necessary to formulate a scope of work for the next Update of the Sonoma County General Plan. The report provides a glimpse of the 12 year history of the current Plan, identifies issues that have arisen over that period, and suggests specific areas which might be considered in the Update. This report was presented to the Board of Supervisors on March 13, 2001 at which time the Board approved an issue-focused update of all Elements of the 1989 General Plan. The report is now being circulated to the public in preparation for a series of community workshops where comments and suggestions can be heard. The results of the workshops will be brought back to the Board for potential refinement of the work program.
As a starting point it is useful to recognize that, over the last twelve years, Sonoma County has experienced a number of significant events that have affected and will continue to affect land use and development. These include:
- A booming economy in the late 1980s and late 1990s and population, housing, and job growth that has exceeded projections
- The incorporation of the Town of Windsor
- A sequence of major floods in the Russian and Petaluma River Basins
- Listing of salmonids as endangered or threatened species
- Litigation over the Housing Element
- The successful creation of the Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District and accompanying funding measure
- The temporary municipal water supply impairment and longer term questions regarding the availability of water from the Eel River and Russian River Basin
- Regional and local wastewater system capacity problems
- Major reorganization of County Government, particularly the consolidation of permitting services at PRMD
In spite of these events, the report concludes that the land use policy framework established in the current General Plan has generally been effective and widely accepted by the community as the appropriate "constitution for land use" that should guide the County's approach to resolving issues. As a result, a major overhaul of the Plan's goals and objectives is not needed. Instead, the work program for the Update can be limited to a "Policy Review" and structured, or focused, around a list of key issues. The issues which appear to be the most significant are listed at the end of the report, but two are primary drivers of the work program. The primary technical and policy issue which forms the basis of this update is the selection of new population, housing, and job projections for year 2020 utilizing the 2000 census as a baseline. The other major focus will be the update of the Circulation and Transit Element and its linkage to land use, air quality, and noise.
The current General Plan was adopted in 1989 after three and a half years of work and over two years of public hearings. Direct participation in the development of the Plan by two appointed citizen committees and extensive public involvement through workshops and public hearings resulted in a Plan that achieved the best possible balance among the many and diverse competing community interests. Of particular note were an Agricultural Element that forthrightly expressed a commitment to the business of agriculture, a land use pattern that clearly guided future growth to urban areas, strong protection for open space between and around urban areas, and a corridor transportation system based upon eventual use of the NWP rail line. Now, after the passage of 12 years since that adoption, it is time for the community to look forward to the future; to examine the Plan and decide what portions remain valuable and effective and what needs to be reevaluated and replaced. It's time to plan for 2020.
One of the key factors that should be considered in any general plan update is the extent to which the community at large accepts the basic premise of the current plan. Do the goals upon which the Plan is founded continue to reflect broader community interests? If so, an update that addresses specific issues within the existing plan framework may be all that is needed. If not, a broader re-evaluation of the goals would be necessary.
It appears that, for the most part, the General Plan enjoys broad based support and acceptance among the diverse interests of the county. With the planned growth that has taken place, and the significant social, political, and environmental changes that have occurred in Sonoma County and Cities, the underlying principles expressed in the County General Plan remain largely viable and effective as the constitution for land use in the unincorporated area.
Nonetheless, significant concerns regarding a number of issues have been expressed by the public, particularly in recent years. In addition to the ongoing frustration over traffic congestion, the debate during the last election over the proposed Rural Heritage Initiative demonstrated a significant difference of opinion whether or not the County General Plan will be as effective in the future in protecting agricultural and rural areas from the pressures of development. While many view the success of the wine industry as a positive sign that existing agricultural land use policies are succeeding, a small but vocal constituency is concerned about recent vineyard and winery expansion. Due to the recent escalation in job growth and consequent increase in housing costs, affordable housing advocates are increasingly expressing concerns over the lack of available high density housing sites and are recommending that the County increase its inventory of such sites in the unincorporated Urban Service Areas.
Notwithstanding these and other concerns, it appears that the update can be one which focuses on specific policy areas that need refinement. In that light, this report provides an assessment of the Plan to stimulate further discussion in the community and to provide policy makers with a firm basis for scoping the work program.
The only time that the citizens of the County and its Cities have the opportunity to look at land use planning issues from a countywide perspective occurs when the County updates its General Plan. In order to provide for the necessary coordination among the General Plans of all of the jurisdictions, it is important to assure that City interests are expressed and considered in the planning process. City input during the 1989 Update was provided primarily by City management and staff. The adopted Plan policies supported the County's pro-active involvement in working with Cities primarily to avoid development outside of designated urban service areas, to protect Community Separators, and to encourage countywide approaches to provision of public services and infrastructure.
Over the course of the last 12 years, a number of programs providing more formal countywide coordination over land use issues have taken place. In addition to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo), the Sonoma County Transportation Authority is another subregional body which is responsible for prioritizing transportation improvements. A Subregional Issues Report sponsored by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) was jointly prepared and adopted by the County and Cities in 1995. Recently, a City of Santa Rosa initiative to conduct a countywide workforce housing study was joined by other Cities and the County.
In discussing the forthcoming Update over the last several months with the City Planning Directors, the consistent message has been that the Cities desire to be kept informed of the progress of the Plan and to have the opportunity for more direct participation when relevant issues are being considered. Several Cities expressed a willingness to participate on a more formal basis. For instance, Rohnert Park and Cotati say they would participate in a south county group to resolve subregional transportation or other issues affecting their jurisdictions. None of the City representatives expressed a desire to commit to a formal City/County Committee. If the Councils are kept abreast of Plan progress on a regular basis, then the opportunities for more direct involvement can be considered and accommodated when needed.
A useful method for determining the success of the General Plan is to evaluate the basic land use framework that is the underpinning of all of the land use designations and other policies. The framework consists of nine general goals that are set forth in the Land Use Element and are briefly evaluated below.
- Accommodate growth in a manner consistent with environmental constraints, high quality of life, and public service capacities.
For the most part, the policies in the plan have contributed to better environmental quality of both private and public development projects. However, it should also be recognized that the General Plan EIR concluded that the planned growth could not be accommodated without some environmental impacts and reduction in the quality of life. Certainly, such indicators as traffic congestion, scenic quality, and air quality have deteriorated as the population has increased. But without the benefits of the policies in effect, the environmental quality and character of the county would not be as good as it is.
Public service and infrastructure capacities have not always kept pace with planned growth. There is no better example of this than the difficulty in finding the revenue to support the planned capacity improvements for Highway 101. Wastewater system capacities have also struggled to keep pace with service demands due to additional growth and the need to meet increasingly rigorous environmental standards. The combination of aging facilities, increased cost of operation and maintenance, limited federal and state funding, and a small user base has made it extremely difficult to accommodate planned growth in unincorporated communities that are dependent upon public sewer and water. Potential impairment of future water supplies to both incorporated and unincorporated area contractors and agricultural users resulting from the listing of fish species in the Eel and Russian River basins may also affect the County's service capacities.
- Locate major share of growth in the cities and unincorporated communities with urban services.
To the extent that the County can influence the location of future growth through its permitting of development, the General Plan has been very successful in steering growth into the urban areas. This has been accomplished primarily by ongoing support for the continued viability of agriculture, by maintaining lower residential densities in rural areas, and by approval of residential, commercial, and industrial development in designated urban areas with available public services.
- Maintain compact city and community boundaries.
The General Plan has been instrumental in avoiding urban sprawl and further expansion of rural residential development. Policies limiting public sewer and water extension outside of designated urban service areas have generally been followed. Very few land use amendments adding new rural residential areas or increasing existing rural residential densities have been approved. The County has been proactive in maintaining adopted urban service areas in its interactions with LAFCo, the cities, and special districts regarding sphere of influence or annexation proposals. Voter approval of Urban Growth Boundaries by most of the cities, while not directly a result of the County General Plan, was certainly supportive of County growth policies.
- Phase growth with availability of services.
The unincorporated area experienced a growth rate in the late 1980s and early 1990s that exceeded its projected growth. Housing construction was substantial in Windsor prior to its incorporation, but was also higher than projected in the Sonoma Valley and Sebastopol Planning Areas during this period. In all three of these areas, growth management programs were put in place in order to manage the pace of construction. These efforts were somewhat successful, but overall the phasing policies were not adequate to avoid some service and infrastructure deficiencies, particularly capacity related circulation improvements, wastewater system upgrades, and park and recreation facilities.
- Maintain largely open or natural character of open space areas between cities and communities.
One of the most successful aspects of the General Plan has been its protection of designated Community Separator areas. Thanks in large measure to voter approval of several ballot measures, including the agricultural preservation and open space sales tax measure and two community separator measures, both regulatory policies and financial incentives are in place that have helped avoid development in these areas. In addition, scenic resource protection standards have helped screen homes and other structures that are built in these areas.
- Provide a diversity of residential development types and densities.
While the land use designations and densities have provided a good mix of rural housing opportunities, the urban areas have been designated primarily in the low to medium density range. The Plan has been very successful in providing opportunities for affordable agricultural housing, although more farmworker units are needed. In urban areas, densities greater than 12 units per acre were relatively rare. However, the unincorporated communities were planned long before the current general plan and this planning was based primarily upon the traditional patterns of suburban single family detached homes or lower density rural villages. Most of the higher density sites were located in places like South Santa Rosa, Larkfield/Wikiup, and Windsor. The Windsor sites were incorporated with the Town and many of the others have been developed, thereby reducing the availability of lower income housing opportunities.
- Avoid unnecessary public exposure to environmental hazards and limit development in sensitive areas.
In general, environmental risks have been avoided or minimized in the approval of new development. The combination of General Plan standards, lower densities in hazardous areas, new zoning controls, and the environmental review process has resulted in developments that are more sensitive to risks from geologic hazards, wildland fire, and flooding. However, the ability to extend similar protection to existing lots and past development is mostly beyond the reach of the General Plan, to the extent that existing development is in harm's way. There has been some progress in reducing flood hazards for communities along the Russian River with the construction of Warm Springs Dam, the flood elevation program, and a forthcoming program to buy out homes that are located directly in the floodway.
- Protect agricultural land and operations.
One of the most successful aspects of the General Plan has been its value in protecting agricultural lands, not only by maintaining low residential densities and avoiding urban and suburban sprawl, but also by maintaining the economic viability of farming through the allowance of compatible support facilities and related visitor serving uses. The success of the wine grape industry, Farm Trails, and other agricultural endeavors is likely contributing to a substantial increase in "agritourism" uses that would further boost the economic viability of agriculture. However, these uses appear to be less directly related to the underlying production activity and, in some cases, raise issues of compatibility, traffic, and commercial land use in agricultural areas.
- Assure that land uses are consistent with preservation of biotic resources and scenic features.
The General Plan standards for development in environmentally sensitive areas such as riparian corridors and critical habitats have been successful in limiting development in areas that are specifically designated on the Open Space maps. There has been criticism that some undesignated tributary habitats should be included. However, the Plan's designations and standards have not been sufficient to address endangered species issues that have come to prominence during the 1990s, particularly the listing of several fish species as threatened or endangered. The County's efforts to address these issues have been focused primarily upon working with the federal and state agencies to assist them in determining what actions are necessary to restore the habitats of the affected species. This effort has primarily been carried out by the Sonoma County Water Agency as part of its focus on maintaining and increasing its water supplies from the Russian River Basin. Once these agencies have determined the appropriate development policies and standards needed to protect habitat areas, the County will need to address how it will comply.
The scenic resource protection standards have been somewhat successful in reducing the visibility of structures on new lots in scenic areas, but have been less effective when building is proposed on existing lots or as part of farming operations.
IV. ASSESSMENT OF TECHNICAL ISSUES AND PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
A. Land Use Element and Development Issues
1. Population, Housing, and Employment Projections
The 1989 General Plan was based upon a projected year 2005 population of 464,500, with 147,000 people planned for the unincorporated area. The Department of Finance population estimate for year 2000 is 450,057 and includes 153,012 people in the unincorporated area. Current trends indicate that the year 2005 population will exceed the countywide projection prior to 2005. The unincorporated area projection has already been surpassed. The growth rates in the late 1980s and early 1990s were primarily responsible for the unanticipated population levels, but the fact that it was necessary for the County to rely upon five year old census population and housing data in the 1989 General Plan meant that some of the projections were based upon underestimates of existing population. The 1989 Plan also assumed that city annexations within Spheres of Influence would reduce the unincorporated population. That these annexations did not occur to the extent that they were projected also contributed to a higher than expected unincorporated area population.
Growth management programs were instituted in the Sonoma and Sebastopol planning areas as a result of concerns over the county's ability to keep up with public services. After Windsor incorporated in 1990, growth rates in the unincorporated area declined substantially, from over 1000 units per year to around 300 per year. As a result, the relative disparity between projected and actual growth lessened.
The County today is experiencing higher job growth than expected and this carries with it increased pressure for additional housing. The General Plan projected countywide employment to be 171,900 jobs in 2000, but the State Employment development Department estimated employment as of November 2000 at 195,900 jobs. The above experience illustrates the importance of a new set of projections that are based upon a more accurate assessment of the baseline condition. By focusing the work plan around the release of the 2000 census data, many of the problems encountered in the 1989 update can be avoided.
The results of these programs have been mixed. Both the Sonoma Valley and Sebastopol (Area #6) programs are important to their respective communities, and the growth rates that have occurred since they were adopted have slowed significantly. However, it is likely that economic factors and density restrictions have had a greater impact on growth rates. The housing unit allocation formulae will need to be re-evaluated once new projections are developed and it would also be appropriate to consider streamlining the rather complex Sonoma Valley system.
There have been 173 General Plan Amendments considered since the adoption of the Plan in March, 1989. Of these, 28 were denied, 25 were necessary to reflect lot line adjustments, 23 accommodated various public service and infrastructure projects, and 38 were related to miscellaneous text amendments and the like that had no new development implications. The remaining 59 amendments can be described as follows. There were 23 projects adding residential development with a net gain of 116 units (64 of these new units were included in 4 affordable housing projects). The remaining 36 projects included 10 which involved agricultural support uses and 26 which involved expansion of commercial or industrial uses. Very few of these amendments are considered to be significant departures from the General Plan. Over a 12 year period, this record demonstrates a commitment by county decision-makers to the policies of city centered growth in the day to day implementation of the General Plan.
The fact that relatively few significant amendments have been approved suggests that it may be appropriate to limit consideration of land use map changes that might be requested by property owners during the course of the Update. During the 1989 Update, there were over 1200 individual property owner requests that were processed, analyzed, and individually heard and decided. These requests were appropriate at that time due to the extent of land use map changes that were being proposed by the County. For this update, however, land use changes would not appear to be needed as a general rule, other than those necessary to accommodate related policy issues such as housing, urban boundaries, or parks.
The recognition of poorly designed older lots through the certificate of compliance process has long been a problem for the County due to the resulting proliferation of rural lots distant from public services. For the most part, state law limits what the County can do to minimize this problem. However, there may some opportunities to regulate the development of certificate parcels and/or effectuate merger of some lots that should be evaluated as part of the update.
5. Administration of a Parcel-Specific Plan
One of the key features of the 1989 General Plan was the specificity of the various land use and open space categories on the land use maps. A parcel-based land use map enabled both a precise determination of the designated uses on each property as well as clear delineation of the boundaries between uses. While this specificity served its primary purpose and ended years of procedural delays determining the general plan's intent with respect to individual properties, it has had less desirable consequences as well.
Generally, greater specificity has meant somewhat less flexibility in Plan implementation. For instance, a Lot Line Adjustment that would move a lot line underlying a land use or density boundary raises the question whether or not a General Plan Amendment is required to adjust the affected boundary, regardless whether or not the amendment raises serious land use issues.
Another example is a public project involving acquisition of most or all of a parcel. At what point does such an acquisition require an amendment to the Public/Quasi-Public category or raise issues that bear review at the general plan level? The county has developed internal procedures which have simplified some of these administration issues, but further streamlining may be possible with the addition of supporting policies or standards which would avoid amendments that do not really merit the attention.
The County completed a number of revisions to the Local Coastal Plan (LCP), Zoning Ordinance, and other coastal regulations in June 1999. The Coastal Commission staff has proposed several modifications that are still in the process of being evaluated by the County. While that process is underway, a number of other issues have arisen that could be addressed as part of the General Plan Update, including provisions for public access and housing opportunities. It may also be desirable to include any programs or policies that are mandated as part of the current review by the Coastal Commission. Grant monies are potentially available to the County to offset the costs of LCP revisions.
7. Land Use Implementation Programs
There are seven programs in this element. Three of the four programs, updating zoning maps, zoning text, and Area and Specific Plans, involved bringing these regulations into conformance with the General Plan and were completed. The fourth, updating of the Subdivision Ordinance, is to be accomplished as part of the Integrated Development Code. Development Activity Monitoring and Growth Management have been carried out, although the existing monitoring system will need to be linked to the emerging GIS database. The only program that has not been accomplished is the Transferable Development Rights Report.
The Housing Element was last updated in 1992 and, despite numerous attempts, the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) determined that the Element was not adequate to meet the requirements of State Law. Subsequent amendments in 1996 also failed to achieve certification. In 1998, the County was sued over the adequacy of the Element by a consortium of housing advocacy groups. The Court, in December 2000, found the Element inadequate in four specific areas and directed the County to adopt a new Element by August, 2001. A moratorium on approval of new subdivisions and rezonings was imposed on properties within Urban Service Areas that are larger than one acre until such time that the Court determines that the Element has complied with its order. At this writing, a full scale update of the Housing Element is in progress. Once it is adopted, it will be reviewed again in conjunction with rest of the General Plan Update in order to assure internal consistency.
Since 1990, the county has approved 5960 net new dwelling units, consisting primarily of single family detached homes. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, market conditions and production rates, particularly in Windsor, enabled many of these units to be initially sold at a moderate income level. However, since the mid 1990s, market rate units affordable to households at moderate income or below have virtually disappeared. In addition, the units originally sold at moderate income levels have appreciated in value to the point that they no longer can be considered "affordable".
As is the case for most local jurisdictions in California, regardless of the degree to which there is community, financial and/or policy support for affordable housing programs, the needs of very low and low income households have been the least served. Not only has it been difficult to resolve infrastructure and siting issues, but more importantly, these households most frequently depend upon public subsidies that are generally not as available. Of the 5960 units, 1614 have been approved in the unincorporated area under various County affordability programs. These are comprised of 403 units with resale or rent controls, 338 second dwelling units, 317 manufactured homes, and housing for 556 farmworkers.
The County has also contributed to maintaining affordability of the existing housing stock. 1349 units received housing preservation assistance from the Community Development Commission (CDC) between 1990 and 2000 and CDC programs provide tenant-based rental assistance for another 2458 households.
The General Plan contains a number of programs which allow for and encourage developers to build affordable housing units by increasing permitted residential density above the mapped density. These include Housing Opportunity Types A and C and Density Bonus Programs, Second Units, Farmworker Housing, and Infill Development. Other incentives are designed to reduce housing costs, including fee deferral and alternative development standards. Mixed commercial and residential use projects were allowed in commercial zones for the first time in the 1989 Plan. As noted above, these programs have contributed to the stock of affordable units, but not to the degree that was desired.
The General Plan also describes the funding and assistance programs for housing that are administered by the Community Development Commission. These include the Community Development Block Grant Program, the Section 8 Rent Subsidy Program and others. Since the Commission provides services not only to the County, but also to most of the cities, its housing assistance is spread among many jurisdictions. The Commission is therefore an effective partner in helping to meet affordable housing goals in a manner that implements the goal of city-centered growth. Since 1992, the Commission has assisted in the construction of 563 units of affordable housing within the incorporated cities.
Since the available sources of federal and state funds are increasingly scarce and the lower income households are the most dependent upon assistance, a reevaluation of the potential for additional sources of revenue is warranted as part of the forthcoming update of the Housing Element.
4. Housing Element Implementation Programs
The Element contains 40 programs. Twenty-nine (29) of these programs have been or are being implemented by the County or the Community Development Commission. Another six programs are anticipated to be accomplished in conjunction with the next update of the General Plan and Housing Element. These include programs that involve analysis of projected growth, farmworker housing needs, public services, and available housing sites. The remaining five programs, including Industrial Employee Housing, Commercial-Industrial Density Bonus, Revised Road Standards, Countywide Housing Plan, and Standard Plans for Farmworker Housing have not been initiated.
Scenic Resource protection policies were significantly revised in the 1989 General Plan Open Space Element. Although Community Separators, Scenic Areas, and Scenic Highways were included in the 1978 plan, and subsequent Specific Plans typically included appropriate policies for each community, the 1989 plan provided countywide standards for Community Separators, Scenic Landscape Units and Scenic Corridors. Each of the Specific Plans retained more restrictive standards to the extent that they were in effect prior to 1989. In general, these polices and standards provided the appropriate balance between the desire to maintain scenic character and the rights of property owners. However, review of these policies and standards is needed to address some specific issues.
The policies allowing additional development in Community Separators and Scenic Landscape Units (OS-1c and OS-2c) have rarely been utilized and appear to be of limited value. In many cases, these proposals have met with significant opposition from the neighboring community. With the availability of funding from the Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District, they often result in pressure on the District to provide the open space directly rather than through a project approval. Only two projects have been approved using these policies. If these policies are retained, consideration should be given to establishing specific guidelines for determining what public benefits would be considered as sufficient to favorably consider a project.
Criteria for design review approval in Scenic Landscape Units and along Scenic Corridors are also needed, perhaps similar to the criteria adopted for the Taylor Mountain/Sonoma Mountain area. Guidelines for hillside development on the eastern side of Sonoma Valley are presently being considered as part of the update of the Development Code. In addition, most of the Scenic Corridors which pass through urban areas do not yet have specific design criteria appropriate for urban development.
The 1989 Plan established the first countywide riparian corridor protection standard for all of the major rivers and streams in the unincorporated area. It also for the first time designated Critical Habitats on a countywide basis, including such features as serpentine soil areas and wetlands. For the most part, these policies have been effective in protecting habitat from development that is subject to permit approval, but they were less effective where the activity was a land use allowed by right. For instance, removal of riparian cover to accommodate agricultural cultivation appears to be a continuing practice generating an increasing number of complaints. In 1996, the County's Fish and Wildlife Advisory Board proposed that additional fish bearing streams be designated as Riparian Corridors in the General Plan and regulated accordingly. The proposal was ultimately denied, primarily because the same issue had been debated at length and decided during the 1989 General Plan Update. The County determined that the appropriate time to consider the issue would be during the next Update. As a result, a review of the designations, standards and permit procedures would now be warranted.
For the most part, the General Plan Critical Habitat protection standards apply only to discretionary projects within specific geographical areas identified on the Open Space Maps. When the General Plan was in process in the late 1980s, federal and state standards for wetland definition and endangered species preservation were in flux. Because it was unclear what the regulatory agencies would require in order to address these issues, the General Plan policies primarily relied upon project compliance with state and federal law. In the 1990's, an ambitious attempt to develop common federal, state, and local standards and permit procedures for development in low quality vernal pool areas failed so badly that it has inhibited future discussions of joint federal, state, and local habitat planning initiatives.
As a result, applicants alone have been responsible for compliance with federal or state agency permit requirements for development in wetland or other habitat areas. Mitigation for federal approvals often differs considerably from county requirements, especially when applied on a project by project basis, although significant efforts are made through the permit process to incorporate State Fish and Game requirements.
Since the federal and state agencies have yet to adopt species recovery plans and/or standard mitigation requirements for most of the endangered species present in Sonoma County, it may not be practical for the county to undertake formal habitat planning as part of this Update. However, at such time that recovery plans and mitigation standards are adopted, or the regulatory agencies are ready to provide both funding and committed participation, the County should be prepared to participate in joint planning and protection efforts. In the meantime, the Update should include updated biotic resource maps that show the verifiable locations of important habitats and it should also consider broader policies and/or programs to address habitat protection and enhancement in future years.
The 1989 General Plan relied largely upon the Regional Parks Department staff to identify potential park and trail needs, but also included facilities and sites from the 1978 General Plan and several of the Specific Plans. Several years ago, Regional Parks, the Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District, and the Water Agency joined together in an effort to develop a comprehensive recreation plan in cooperation with a citizen's committee and substantial public involvement. The product of that effort was intended to become part of the General Plan once it had been reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.
The Draft Outdoor Recreation Plan (ORP) has been through several iterations over the last five years and is still in flux at this time. Since the ORP has had considerable public input and is nearing the public hearing stage, it does not seem appropriate to delay the plan further or to subject it to another round of review in the context of the General Plan Update. However, it should be noted that the needs assessment for the ORP is based upon the year 2010. As a result, the 2020 horizon of the Update suggests that a new needs assessment and possibly additional recreational facilities should be included in this Update. Fortunately, the ORP identified more potential recreational sites than are currently proposed, so to the extent that more sites are needed, some of these can be reconsidered as part of the Update.
In 1995, County Transit and PRMD cooperated in the preparation of a new Bikeways Plan that was coordinated with similar city plans. The Plan was approved by the Board and relevant policies were integrated into the General Plan. The Bikeways Plan appears to be functioning well and does not need reevaluation unless necessary to reflect changes in either the Outdoor Recreation Plan or the Circulation Element.
5. Open Space Implementation Programs
There are eight implementation programs set forth in the Open Space Element. Three have been or are being completed; the establishment of the Open Space District, the Open Space Zoning Amendments, and the ongoing acquisition of land for trails. One (Boyes Hot Springs Regional Park study) is being addressed as part of the Outdoor Recreation Plan and another (open space provisions within subdivisions) is to be addressed as part of the Update of the Subdivision Ordinance. The remaining three have not been initiated. However, the need for the latter three programs, State Scenic Highway Status for Highways 1 and 37, Community Separator Implementation Plan, and Scenic Landscape Unit Visual Study, should be reconsidered as part of this update since there has been little or no interest expressed in pursuing them.
D. Agricultural Resources Element Issues
1. Agricultural Production, Processing, and Support Services
In many ways, the Agricultural Resources Element has been the most successful element of the 1989 General Plan. As the primary foundation for reducing residential intrusion and increasing agricultural support uses, this element has been effective in settling prior long standing debates regarding residential development in rural areas. In recent years, the economic success of the wine business has led to rapid increases in planted acreage and processing facilities, contributing not only to the overall well-being of farmers but also to reduced pressure for residential development in rural areas. However, some have questioned the benefits of increased planting of vineyards, citing the reduced crop diversity, pesticide use, and loss of soils and habitat as undesirable impacts. In part, this debate led to the establishment of the new vineyard ordinance in 1999 which focuses on reducing soil erosion from new plantings. While there may be a need to address some of these other issues in the future, the basic production and processing policies in the Agricultural Resources Element do not appear to need reevaluation
In recent years, some in the agricultural industry have expressed interest in the County allowing additional support services in agricultural areas. While acknowledging the compatibility and land use issues associated with increased commercial uses in these areas, there may be some ways to address this issue without major revisions to the basic underpinnings of the Agricultural Resources Element.
The success of wine production has also led to an unanticipated demand for visitor serving uses such as weddings, special events, and retail sales of related, non-agricultural products. While many in the industry see increased visitor serving uses as adding agricultural value that supports continued farming, others see increased commercialization as a threat to the continued viability of the underlying agricultural production. Although a limited reevaluation of these uses on agricultural lands is being conducted as part of the new Development Code, a broader land use evaluation of potential locations, policies, and standards at the General Plan level may reveal more fundamental solutions to this dilemma.
The General Plan includes a farmworker housing program that provides a streamlined "over-the-counter" permit process for construction of both temporary and year-round units on agricultural lands. As noted in the discussion of the Housing Element, this innovative program has resulted in the construction of accommodations for 556 seasonal and year-round farmworkers. A new needs analysis encompassing farmworker units is anticipated as part of the Housing Element Update for 2001.
4. Agricultural Resources Element Implementation Programs
Three of the six programs have been completed, the Right to Farm Ordinance, the revisions of the Zoning Ordinance implementing the Element, and the aforementioned Farmworker Housing program. A fourth program to revise the Subdivision Ordinance is scheduled as part of the new Development Code. The remaining two programs, a Transfer of Development Rights proposal and establishment of an Agricultural Advisory Committee, have not been initiated to date and have not received much support when previously suggested. They should probably be dropped unless renewed interest is evident.
E. Resource Conservation Element Issues
Several sections of the Resource Conservation Element address natural resource issues which arise in the context of land use decisions. In general, the 1989 Plan included a number of policies designed to protect potentially affected resources. Soil, water, vegetation and wildlife, and fishery resource protection, in particular, is generally applied through the project review process to private development projects which require discretionary approval, such as a use permit or subdivision. Policies are applied to public projects undertaken by the County through its own internal environmental review and permitting procedures.
While there is little doubt that these policies have helped to reduce sedimentation, protect water supply and water quality, and minimize habitat loss resulting from individual development projects, they do not address resource protection at the watershed scale. In the last decade, state agencies responsible for water quality have focused on addressing non-point sources of pollution such as run-off from road surfaces and agricultural grading. Federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements for drainage and erosion control in the Santa Rosa Creek watershed were adopted by the County in response to a mandate from the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. The county also adopted a new vineyard sediment and erosion control ordinance partly in anticipation of future regulations that will mandate reduction in sediment loading of waterways.
Recent increases in vineyard planting, particularly in parts of the county previously thought to be infeasible for vineyard development, have given rise to neighborhood concerns over local groundwater supplies. General Plan policies address adequacy of groundwater for uses that require county permits, and the impact on surrounding properties from groundwater development for discretionary projects. However, a question has been raised regarding the need for a mechanism to address the potential impact of groundwater use for agricultural purposes or other uses allowed by right. The County has embarked on studies to determine the potential scope of this problem, so it may be appropriate to look at this issue as part of the update in the event that these studies indicate the need for additional policy or regulation.
The 1989 Plan included a set of policies addressing air quality, but for the most part, air quality problems resulting from the land uses allowed by the Plan were not projected to result in significant exceedences of state or federal standards. However, several factors have combined to raise air quality issues to the forefront of this Update, including increased automobile usage, lack of funding for road and highway improvements, new health concerns from ozone formation, fine grained particulates and diesel exhaust, and limited funding for transit and bikeways. Updated modeling of existing and projected circulation patterns and related air quality modeling will likely reveal a more significant problem and point to the need for additional mitigation to maintain or enhance air quality. It is anticipated that the General Plan will include policies and measures necessary to meet the applicable Clean Air Plans of the two air quality districts with jurisdiction over the County, as well as addressing diesel engine exhaust and particulate matter from dust and woodsmoke.
This element includes several sections which address resource development issues prevalent in Sonoma County. Geothermal energy production, timber harvesting, and mineral extraction are the three primary resource development activities. County policy for geothermal development is implemented through permitting of steam wells and power plants in the Known Geothermal Resource Area (KGRA) in the northeast corner of the County, but there has been little, if any, new energy development in the last 10 years. Unless production significantly increases as a result of the planned wastewater injection at the Geysers, the current policies do not appear to warrant reconsideration.
County policy generally relies upon the State Forest Practices Act mandates and the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection to properly regulate timber harvests. In 1996 the County petitioned the Board of Forestry to adopt local rules addressing a number of issues related to timber harvest in the county, including additional stream course protection, access road restoration, and limits on even-aged silvicultural techniques. The petition was rejected and, unless the State opens the door to local rulemaking, it would not appear to be productive to revise current policies in any significant way.
One issue that should be addressed in the update is the increasing conversion of timberland to agricultural cultivation, particularly land that is designated as Timberland Production Zone (TPZ). County policy has been to allow cultivation as a permitted use in TPZ, even if the cultivation amounts to a conversion of commercially viable timberland. However, this policy is being reviewed by County Counsel. It would be appropriate to evaluate whether or not productive timberlands should be off limits to incompatible agricultural uses, while continuing to allow compatible agricultural activities on marginal lands.
General Plan policy regarding surface mining issues is currently guided by the Aggregate Resources Management Plan. While mining issues continue to be controversial, the Plan provides a good balance between the need for resource extraction and the desire to protect neighboring communities, agricultural lands, and the environment. Phase out of terrace production is imminent and the permitting of replacement sources will be a major challenge. The major unsettled issue in the ARM program is the effect of instream mining operations on anadromous fish habitat. However, as discussed above under the Open Space and Resource Conservation Elements, since the federal and state regulatory agencies have not determined the appropriate standards for protection and restoration of these species, it would not be productive to include this issue in this update.
4. Resource Conservation Element Implementation Programs
There are four programs in this element and, while none have been completely implemented, progress has been made in several of them. The programs include an Erosion and Sediment Control Report; Resource Management Plans for geothermal development, energy resources, and fisheries; a Laguna de Santa Rosa Conservation Program, and a San Pablo Bay Conservation Program. The County has participated in several programs initiated by other agencies and community groups with similar objectives. The Regional Water Quality Control Board's NPDES program, and eventually, the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program will mandate and establish standards for erosion control. The County and Water Agency are participating in the current federal and state efforts to address anadromous fish habitat issues. The County is also a participant in the Bay Conservation and Development Commission's (BCDC) Northbay Wetlands Program, in part to address conservation issues in the San Pablo Bay margin.
F. Public Safety Element Issues
The Public Safety Element provides policy guidance intended to protect county residents from environmental hazards, specifically geologic hazards, flooding, fire, and hazardous materials. The policies rely upon current scientific standards and management techniques that can be applied through the development review process. These policies generally appear to have been successful in avoiding increased risk. However, damages from slope instability, fire, and flooding have continued to affect existing development that predated modern siting requirements. The Update should include a review of updated geologic, flooding, and fire safety data as well as any revised state policies and should include adjustments of Plan policies as appropriate. Specific issues include the high incidence of repetitive losses due to flooding along the Russian River and the potential flooding implications of increased rates of runoff in the developing watersheds.
2. Public Safety Element Implementation Programs
Two of the three programs have been completed, including the adoption of floodplain and geologic hazard zoning districts and ongoing monitoring of hazard information. The third program involving subdivision ordinance amendments for drainage, erosion control, and fire safety has not been completed, but a comprehensive fire safe ordinance has been adopted.
G. Circulation and Transit Element Issues
The 1989 Circulation and Transit Element recognized that projected growth and increasing reliance upon auto travel, combined with the high cost and reduced funding for improvements, would prove to be problematic. The overall strategy was based upon achieving the most efficient use of existing facilities and an aggressive approach to obtain funding. In the early 1990s, state law mandated the formation of a subregional transportation authority that could not only function as a clearinghouse for setting priorities but also as an arbiter of countywide circulation issues emanating from land use decisions. The Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) has fulfilled the former role in Sonoma County, but rejected the latter function as unduly interfering with local autonomy.
For the most part, the county has focused upon safety improvements to its local road system, transit system, and bikeway facilities. State and federal funding has been obtained for limited capacity improvements to major state and federal highways and the NWP rail line has been acquired for future use. However, in spite of the best efforts of the SCTA, the Cities, and the County, necessary funding has not been forthcoming for road, highway, and transit system improvements that were planned in order to keep pace with either the maintenance of the existing system or new growth.
2. Sales Tax for Highway 101 and/or Rail Corridor
In light of the difficulty in obtaining sufficient funding from traditional federal and state sources and the increasing need to match such funds with local dollars, the state legislature authorized local jurisdictions to seek approval of sales tax measures for needed improvements. Several measures were placed on the ballot and failed to win voter approval, primarily due to the super majority requirement and the difficulty reaching consensus among the diverse interests of business, environmental groups, taxpayer organizations, and local elected officials. Failure of the sales tax measures has been the most significant obstacle to widening Highway 101 and/or initiating commuter rail along the NWP.
3. Level of Service Objectives
The primary impact of the lack of needed improvements for travelers on the county's road and highway system has been the increased congestion and loss of mobility during peak travel periods. The impact has been particularly severe along various local roadways that function as reliever routes to Highway 101, such as Petaluma Hill Road, Stony Point Road, Fulton Road, Old Redwood Highway, and Lakeville Highway. Sonoma Valley has also been affected, particularly the developed Highway 12 corridor through Boyes Hot Springs where widening the highway is not feasible.
The General Plan's established Level of Service Objectives were based upon the completion of a network of improvements by 2005. Further exacerbating this congestion are apparent increases in vehicle miles traveled on a per capita basis, use of regional routes by city traffic, and unanticipated increases in weekend travel in rural areas. In many ways, an update of the Circulation and Transit Element may be the most important task in the General Plan Update. The County has not undertaken a comprehensive traffic modeling effort since 1986. The SCTA did some modeling for the Congestion Management Planning process in the mid 1990s and the recent Calthorpe Study included traffic modeling. An updated traffic model will provide a complete assessment of the existing levels of service, a baseline for reevaluation of needed improvements, and a basis for policy development. It has the potential to become the basis for, and contribute to, formulation of countywide, interjurisdictional coordination in transportation and land use planning.
In 1986, the County adopted the Airport/Industrial Area Specific Plan setting forth the potential development and standard conditions for industrial uses along the Airport Boulevard corridor. In recent years, as the rate of development has increased, it appears that the traffic mitigation measures required of industrial uses at that time are not sufficient to offset the traffic levels being generated. The Department of Transportation and Public Works will be performing a traffic study this year and it is expected that the General Plan Update will also include an update of the improvement needs and costs for this area.
5. Circulation and Transit Element Implementation Programs
Of the seven (7) programs implementing this element, six have been completed or are carried out on an ongoing basis. These include the establishment of traffic mitigation fees, a monitoring program, pursuit of a sales tax measure, use of the Capital Projects Plan as the priority setting mechanism for improvements, and maintenance of the County Transit Agency and Transportation Planning Council functions. The remaining program, which calls for new specific plans to contain detailed Circulation Elements, has not been initiated since there have been no new specific plans.
H. Air Transportation Element Issues
1. Air Transportation Policies
This element addresses a range of air transportation issues associated with the six public use airports located within the unincorporated county, including compatibility of surrounding uses, protection of adjacent communities, management of on-airport facilities, and provision of general aviation and commercial airline service. These policies have been effective and the airports have continued to operate with relatively few complaints. The land use policies of the county have generally been supportive of current and future airport usage, with potential conflicts resolved through regular consultation with the Airport Land Use Commission and compliance with the Airport Land Use Policy Plan. Airport usage has been well within the projections established in the element and, with one exception, reconsideration of the fundamental policy directives does not appear to be warranted.
2. ALUC Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP)
The ALUC has updated its Airport Land Use Policy Plan (called the CLUP) for the first time since 1981 and, in spite of considerable controversy regarding the potential effects of the draft plan on some neighboring jurisdictions, adopted a new plan in January, 2001. The Plan will likely necessitate amendment of the Air Transportation Element noise contours due to revisions in the projected air traffic patterns around the airports. Minor revisions to projected flight operations may also be needed.
3. Scheduled and Commuter Airline Service
The Sonoma County Airport has provided commuter service to Bay Area airports for many years and the Element established new policy and allocation system for a limited amount of scheduled service to Southern California and other more distant destinations. Early in the 1990s, there was considerable interest in expansion of this service and most of the slots were taken. However, the market has declined and scheduled services have fluctuated at times. Airport management wants to retain the policy support for additional service should the market improve and, although there is some opposition to this type of expansion, a reevaluation of the policy would not seem necessary.
4. Air Transportation Element Implementation Programs
There are five implementation programs in this Element. Three programs relevant to Sonoma County Airport, the Airport Master Plan, the standard Airline Operating Agreement, and the Noise Monitoring program have been completed. Amendments to the CLUP, as noted above, have been adopted. The only program that has not been completed is the Approach Protection Plan for Sonoma County Airport, although the Airport Division has been steadily acquiring strategically important properties under the runway approaches.
I. Public Facilities and Services Element Issues
This Element was added to the General Plan in 1989 for the first time and provided an assessment of a range of public services, including water, wastewater, parks, education, and solid waste, as well as goals and policies intended primarily to assure that public services were planned in accordance with projected growth. By and large, the policies have been effective for county sponsored public facilities because the affected county departments have coordinated with PRMD in the annual review of the Capital Projects Plan and in the detailed General Plan consistency review of individual projects. The policies are less effective for non-county agencies due to statutory limitations on the extent to which these agencies must adhere to the County General Plan.
Adoption of the 1989 Plan was based, in part, upon the determination that there would be an adequate supply of water to accommodate planned growth. This determination applied to rural areas dependent upon well water, to unincorporated communities with independent public water systems, and to the municipal contractors of the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA). With respect to the Agency's supply, the determination that adequate water would be available was based upon the assumption that future use of additional water stored in Lake Sonoma would be permitted by the State Water Resources Control Board. However, since the application for this permit was filed, several fish species have been listed as threatened and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is considering a reduction in diversion of water from the Eel River to Potter Valley.
Each of these occurrences could reduce the supplies available to the contractors by some yet unknown amount. The permit decision will ultimately determine the water supply for the affected contractors. An updated analysis of water supply issues will need to be made as part of the Update not only for SCWA contractors, but also for all water service providers responsible for serving the unincorporated area. Water supply is also affected by capacity of the delivery system. An impairment was recently declared by the Agency as a result of unanticipated delays in bringing an additional planned collector pump on line.
While there have not been any major issues associated with water supplies for communities on public water systems that rely upon local groundwater, these systems will also need to be reviewed and, if necessary, addressed as part of the update.
Wastewater system policies were established based upon the need to provide adequate treatment and disposal in planned "urban service areas" shown on the Land Use Maps. Most service providers have been successful in meeting demands within their districts. Only Windsor (prior to incorporation) and Sonoma Valley systems had to rely upon moratoria to buy time to increase capacity. The major wastewater issue in the unincorporated area has been the attempt to provide public sewer to a number of west county communities that have developed on older septic systems that are now failing. The county has recently completed construction of a sewer system serving Mirabel Heights, has approved a system for the Monte Rio area, and is struggling to upgrade the Occidental and Russian River systems. Policy regarding expansion of wastewater systems to these and other similar areas should be considered as part of the update of this element.
4. Public Facilities Designation and Development Process
As noted previously, the General Plan allows public facilities to be located in any land use category if they can be considered "minor" in nature. This is typically interpreted to apply where the public use will not be the primary use of the parcel. For larger facilities, a general plan amendment designating the property as "Public/Quasi-Public" may be required in order to develop the site for public use. In some cases, this policy has been viewed as being overly burdensome when new public facilities are being considered. On the other hand, public facilities can raise compatibility issues in a local community that may warrant a formal review process. In any case, a review of these policies and procedures is generally supported by county departments in order to explore other options.
5. Urban Service Area Policies
A fundamental growth management tool in this element are the policies pertaining to extension of sewer and water services outside of an urban service boundary. These extensions are prohibited except in limited cases where a failing septic system is located directly adjacent to the boundary. In 1998, the Board directed that these policies be revised to delete the requirement for a scenic easement and replace it with a condition establishing a B7 (frozen lot size) zoning on the property. This revision could readily be accommodated as part of the Update.
6. Public Facilities and Services Element Implementation Programs
The element contains six programs, each one at least partially completed. Radio Transmission Tower Siting and Design Criteria have been adopted. The program calling for a Fire Services Master Plan was essentially completed as part of the recent fire services reorganization and the adoption of countywide fire safe standards. Ordinances have been adopted requiring development fees for traffic and parks. The CPP is utilized by the SCWA and County departments for facility prioritizing. Public Facility Master Plans have been prepared for a number of SCWA and County systems. School facility planning assistance has been provided to several of the local districts.
A new Circulation and Transportation Element will necessitate new measurement of the noise generated by existing and future roads and highways and other transportation modes such as rail and airport operations. Major industrial facilities, mining operations, and other significant noise generating uses will also need to be reevaluated
2. Noise Standards and Ordinance
The 1989 General Plan established countywide noise standards for the first time for use in the review of projects and in the monitoring and enforcement of approved land uses. While these standards were generally effective in addressing noise issues and in reducing impacts, a number of issues have been raised regarding the applicability of the standards to certain cases or projects. For example, uses that may only generate significant noise levels on an temporary or infrequent basis, such as blasting and special events, are not specifically addressed in the current Element. Furthermore, a noise ordinance has not yet been adopted which might resolve some implementation issues. Reevaluation and updating of the standards to reflect current "state-of-the-art" technology and development of specific methodologies and procedures for implementation would improve effectiveness of the Element.
3. Noise Element Implementation Programs
There are two programs in the Noise Element. The program calling for incorporation of noise analysis into the permit review procedures has been implemented. The program to adopt a noise ordinance has not been initiated.
Based upon the above analysis, it appears that a full scale reconstruction of the General Plan is not necessary. Without diminishing the importance of many of the issues that would need to be addressed, GP 2020 can go forward without a lengthy evaluation of the land use policy framework established in the nine general goals. The major issues identified in this report which should be considered in the General Plan Update are presented in the March 13, 2001 Memorandum to the Board of Supervisors. This list has also been repeated, for convenience, as a separate attachment in this package.