 |
 |
An expanse of land west of Petaluma Hill Road between Santa Rosa and Rohnert Park that currently is at risk of development, according to a new report by the Greenbelt Alliance. (Kent Porter / PD)
Sonoma County 3rd highest in protected acres in Bay Area, but has most land threatened by potential development, report says
By BRETT WILKISON
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
Sonoma County has the third-highest tally of protected open space in the nine-county Bay Area.
But more land in the county also remains threatened by development than in any other part of the bay region, according to a new report from the Greenbelt Alliance, an open space preservation group.
About 115,000 acres — an area more than four times the size of Santa Rosa — could be transformed by development within the next three decades, the group said.
That’s more than a third of the 322,000 acres across the Bay Area likely to be threatened by development over the next 30 years, the report said.
The environmental group, which has produced the report every six years since the late 1980s, said it provides a snapshot of the mix of building pressure and open space protection throughout the 4.5-million-acre Bay Area.
Open space advocates and government officials said it serves as a useful report card for growth and land-use issues.
“It reminds everybody what’s at risk and what we need to do,” said Ralph Benson, executive director of the Sonoma Land Trust, a private nonprofit organization that has protected about 25,000 acres in Sonoma County.
A local building industry leader, however, said it appears to overstate development pressure that has hardly existed since the recession.
That dropoff, combined with the county’s low population growth in the past decade, government zoning and subdivision restrictions and public and private land protection efforts, have stemmed any risk of overdevelopment, said Keith Woods, chief executive officer of the North Coast Builders Exchange.
“The threat doesn’t seem real to me,” Woods said.
Because of Sonoma County’s size — at just over 1 million acres, it is the largest county in the Bay Area — open space leaders and building representatives said they were not surprised it ranked at the top of the group’s list for acreage that could face future development pressure.
The county’s tally is higher than the combined acreage identified as at risk in Santa Clara, Alameda and San Mateo counties, three of the region’s largest by population, but with a far smaller store of open land.
Rural lands at low risk of development still make up the widest swath of Sonoma County — about 649,200 acres, or almost two-thirds of the total acreage.
The area protected in parks, open space and farmland, meanwhile, has grown by 28 percent since 2006, to 171,200 acres, or 16.9 percent of the county. Across the Bay Area, 1.1 million acres are protected and an additional 2.2 million are at low risk for development.
Work by Sonoma County’s tax-supported Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District, which has set aside more than 85,000 acres since 1990, has been a main factor fueling the increase of protected land locally.
Other factors include the voter-approved urban growth boundaries now ringing all nine cities in the county. Most date from the mid- to late 1990s and government planners say their effect has been to contain most development to urban areas.
Subdivision limits and rules to protect open land between cities, called “community separators,” have also been a factor in the unincorporated area, said Jennifer Barrett, the county’s deputy planning director.
“Most development now follows the urban corridor,” she said.
But a quarter of the county still has little protection from urban sprawl or rural subdivision, according to the Greenbelt Alliance. The highest-risk parcels, representing 13,800 acres, could be transformed into houses and other uses in the next 10 years, the report said.
Lands the group said were at risk encircle the county’s three largest cities — Santa Rosa, Petaluma and Rohnert Park — and ring Sonoma and Sebastopol. They were selected based on zoning rules, planning documents and interviews with sources, said Amanda Bornstein, a Santa Rosa-based senior field representative with the group.
Other parcels in Sonoma Valley, Healdsburg and Cloverdale show up because of development proposals that have either been approved or are in the pipeline, Bornstein said.
Preservation Ranch, the large timber-to-vineyard conversion project proposed in rural northwestern Sonoma County, makes the list because its latest proposal includes the potential for a number of homesites, she said.
She said stronger coordination in other areas between cities and counties has helped those jurisdictions limit the threat of sprawl.
“Sonoma County has done a great job, but there’s still more work to do,” Bornstein said.
Much of the development potential put forward by the group is in an indefinite holding pattern or may never materialize, said Woods, the builders’ exchange executive.
“The marketplace is dictating that it will be a serious long time before big development will take place and most of that development is going to be within urban-growth boundaries,” he said.
But conservation officials said the report could help them with decisions in the interim about where to steer the now-diminished amount of public open space dollars.
“We all know that everything is cyclical,” said Bill Keene, general manager of the county Open Space District. “The next boom is around the corner. Will it be like past booms? Maybe not. But you want to be prepared. Things can change very quickly.”
In Sonoma County, the largest Bay Area county:
171,200 acres:
Permanently protected, third in Bay Area counties
115,500 acres:
At high-to-medium risk of development in next 30 years, first among Bay Area counties
649,200 acres:
At low risk of development
You can reach Staff Writer Brett Wilkison at 521-5295 or brett.wilkison@pressdemocrat.com.
Subscribe by Email
Follow us on Twitter
Much of the open space is being developed into tilly agg (vineyards). This pro-development guy makes sure they get Federal subsidies and free water:
‘Jake Mackenzie is on his 16th year on the Rohnert Park City Council and is Mayor for the fourth time. A retired pesticide regulator (30 years with U.S. EPA), he currently occupies his retirement years chairing and serving on regional water, transportation, open space, sustainable growth and climate protection bodies such as the North Coast Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, Sonoma County Water Agency, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Sonoma County Transportation Authority, Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit board, Local Government Commission and the Regional Climate Protection Authority.’
Something fishy has been going on…now the public is beginning to see the real picture of where the money is really going. The next time you see a Rancher driving a 20yr old truck its because he has the new Mercedes in the garage!
As for Paul Kelly-another unnecessary contracting out by the county. Don’t we already have advisement boards and managers within county employ who are paid to interact with agriculture interests in the community? Sounds like nepotism to me. Why is the county paying managers (way too many-the ratio of managers to the rank and file is about 1:6 and that’s an abyssimal number if you think about it) AND CONTRACTING OUT? Why is the county contracting out AT ALL with the number of managers already employed?
I’m for more rank and file to service the people of Sonoma County. I’ll bet the public sees it that way too.
I keep seeing the words “danger of developement” or “no danger of development” being bandied about. I don’t see open space as either. I want open space. I’ve lived in Sonoma County since 1969 and trust me, we’ve lost open space. Imwalle’s Gardens used to be on the OUTSKIRTS of Santa Rosa, now is in the middle of town. I hope and pray, Imwalle’s never sells their land.
Open space is a precious resource for the future whether currently used by the public or not. It preserves wildlife of all kinds.
As for cap and trade-the most STUPIDEST idea ever. For a corporation to barter for “credits” from open space so they can continue to pollute our planet makes NO SENSE. We should be giving the corporations credits TO REDUCE THEIR OWN POLLUTION. Give them tax incentives for adding pollution control technology NOT trade forest land credits which will never be developed anyway. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Correction, meant to use ‘carbon credits’ as an example more than ‘cap ‘ trade’.
An inventory control over everything.
Land/real property being at the top of the list.
Have any friends that live way out in the sticks?
Talk to them. They will tell about all the recent excuses to prohibit access to man.
Incrementally.
Is there really any substantial evidence that the ag community and the Sonoma Farm Bureau’s agenda hasn’t already been well served by SCAPOSD’s expenditures? Can we get more trails and public access to these lands? Will the Board of Supes (directors of SCAPOSD) still try to use lands with purchased “forever” open space easements for developers’ mitigations after the fact?
Do we really need to be spending $30,000 for Paul Kelley to ‘advise’ the District on agriculture’s interests?
Hell no! PD: please let us know if Kelley is still going to get yet another check from the county for unneeded “services”.
The Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District has always been little more than a slush fund for wealthy landowners. They have done a fraction of the good that they could have. They have paid inflated amounts for protection of land in no danger of development that nobody but the owners can go on. Sonoma County ranks next to last (only in front of San Francisco) in amount per person of publicly accessible open space and park lands. Marin County, with an Open Space District whose sole purpose is buying open access park land, is at the top of that list.
Greenbelt protection has never been high on the priority list for the APOSD. We have nobody to blame but the Board of Stupidvisors who pull their strings. But then, we don’t have enough drinking water to supply all that we have developed in the county as it stands right now.
The land that is being protected is not necessarily buildable land. Show me the water, the utilities, the access that is needed to build before we pledge public money to private landowners. Ranch owners are making out like bandits, selling their pastures for millions while the public will never be able to access the protected land. The ranchers get the money, their taxes are drastically reduced as the land is now “public” and no one, ever, can walk, touch or enjoy the protected space.
@Ken Munson
A thoughtful reply.
But things in the real (political) world are more complicated. Take the “Preservation” Ranch proposal. How would we define the group of affected property owners that should be allowed to vote on this? Even if you could draw a good line, wouldn’t those property owners have to think “if I vote for this, then maybe I can do it too?”
Together, the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance set limits on private property rights. Limits that consider issues such as water supply, septic suitability of soils, impacts on neighbors, slope stability and vehicle access.
But to change all that, it only takes a 3-vote majority of the BOS.
That’s why the Open Space District is a critical element of land preservation.
They buy development rights that may be allowed by the General Plan and Zoning. They limit future land use – generally to what is already there, but sometimes including limited development. They compensate landowners and the terms generally are permanent.
That would mean that future Boards can’t change things – no matter who donates to their campaigns.
This is the absolute best thing Sonoma County has ever done to preserve its rural character. It is among the best efforts at preservation in the entire US.
Do you not understand that you live in a blessed place?
If anyone is somehow against this, remember it was approved by the voters TWICE. Anyone wishing to turn Sonoma County into Santa Clara County should probably look elsewhere. Texas?
I’m so thankful to Greenbelt Alliance for publishing this report, and for all the research and time that went into it. Thank you so much!
I love rural Sonoma County and our Agricultural foundation. To preserve it, Zoning should govern the use and it’s development potential. The use (zoning) of large parcels of land should only be allowed to change by a vote of the people.
When I go to the County Offices to inquire about a client’s desire to build a second home on their 2-10 acre parcel, we are told, “No, you can’t do it. It’s not allowed in that zoning”. Usually, a zoning change for the parcel would be too time and cost prohibitive to the individual property owner.
When a developer goes to the County Offices regarding 40-1,000 acres of Agricultural land, they are told that they would need to get the zoning changed to build their desired project. For them, the cost to do so is a part of doing business as the potential for profit is worth the risk.
Why are we paying millions of our taxpayer dollars to buy development rights on rural property (often without public access) when the base zoning does not allow such development?
Improve the Law(s). Let a vote of the people affected by such land-use changes decide whether to allow the development of these large parcels. If the community votes in support of the zoning change, so be it. If they don’t support it, leave it (and preserve it) at its base zoning, Agriculture. We need that too! I’m sure we can think of alternative/better ways to spend our tax dollars. How about better funding for our schools and some road maintenance/pot hole repairs to start with?
Ridiculous; show me even one property they “protected” that was ripe for development.
If development means perhaps one house per 10 acres in the boonies then I’m afraid this whole sham is an expensive over reaction.
With crumbling County roads the “threat” to far flung rural areas for “development” are truly infinitesimal.
At least it provides a decent little gig for the 26 employees the Open Space District had in 2009, (the latest year where data is available), with an average pay of about $70k per year who can retire at 60 with a retirement vesting at 3%/year.
All of these ‘conservencies’, ‘trusts’,
‘coalitions’, and and alphabet of other NGOs are inadvertantly sponsored by the United Nations.
You could fill half a page listing them.
The UN’s goal is to own all of the land.
That’s right, all of it.
Inventory all resources, all energy, reduce all of our actions to a kind of commodity (cap ‘n trade), all to be granted by and reconciled through…them.
The United Nations is UN-American.
UN-humanity actually.
Your local government is on the ‘Program’.
ICLEI provides the blueprint to implement the Agenda, completely.
A complete plan for complete control.
The Agenda for the 21st Century.
UN Agenda 21 Sustainable Development.
What if we stood together as a County,
set an example for our Country, for Free People everywhere and said NO!
What if our Sheriff said no.
What if we all recognized where that fishy smell is coming from?
IF is the biggest word in the dictionary.
Instead of questioning all the fishy symptoms, why not address the big stinky rotten fish and ask THE ICLEI QUESTION.
People all over are. Look:
http://americanfreedomwatchradio.com/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/05/5-3-12-State-County-City-Legislation-Concerning-Agenda-21-+-ICLEI-4.pdf
….Work by Sonoma County’s tax-supported Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District, which has set aside more than 85,000 acres since 1990, has been a main factor fueling the increase of protected land locally. Thank you, Thank you.