Citizens are confused and concerned about development and construction projects that have started but then stall out and sit largely unattended for months, or even years. When buildings have been razed, parcels graded and construction work has commenced, the public assumes, sometimes incorrectly, that the work will be completed in a reasonable period, and that the construction site will not become an unattractive, public nuisance.
Good examples of projects of concern are the relocated Granice House on the north side of East Napa Street in Sonoma, which has never been fully restored and has been fenced-off for many years; and the Highway 12, Boyes Hot Springs site on which the Lanning Structures buildings were demolished, leaving nothing but a rubble-strewn parcel in their place.
A review of both City of Sonoma and County of Sonoma development codes governing permits and the expiration of permits reveals the legal basis for construction timetables, what constitutes abandonment of a project, and the process of permit revocation.
While there are variations between city and county code provisions, the underlying principles are consistent. Essentially, once a construction permit is issued, its validity remains in place if work continues. Importantly, the pace of that work is not a determining factor, nor is its scope. The primary determining factors are that work proceeds and is inspected in accordance with administrative requirements of the law.
This article pertains to the ministerial permits issued administratively after deliberative bodies such as the Planning Commission, City Council, or Board of Supervisors have met and approved discretionary entitlements.
County of Sonoma Regulations
Projects in the County of Sonoma can be permitted simply, or in accordance with a development agreement. Simple permits do have time limits associated with their commencement, but do not regulate how long a project is permitted for completion.
“Unless otherwise authorized, every permit issued by the Permit and Resource Management Department under the provisions of this section shall remain valid if the work on the site authorized by that permit is commenced within 12 months after the permit issuance, unless the permittee has abandoned the work authorized by the permit.
“A permittee may request an extension of a permit. The chief building official may grant, in writing, one or more extensions of time for periods of not more than 180 days per extension. The permittee shall request an extension pursuant to this subdivision in writing and demonstrate justifiable cause for the extension.”
Abandonment of a project, however, is addressed in County codes:
“Abandonment” shall mean if, after two and one-half (2½) years from the date of permit issuance, there is any continuous 180-day period without an approved inspection including partial approvals, the project is considered abandoned and therefore expired.”
Development agreements, unlike simple permits, are mutually negotiated contracts between developers and the County and customarily include provisions about permitted construction fees, commencement, timing, and expiration. Development agreements are not required, but when negotiated serve to satisfy commitments and expectations between the parties. Large or significant applications are appropriate for the creation of development agreements and help satisfy the public’s expectations. Such agreements provide a higher degree of monitoring and compliance.
“The developer or their successor shall have the burden of demonstrating good faith compliance with the terms of the development agreement and shall provide such information and documents as the Director deems reasonably necessary to ascertain compliance. The developer shall bear the costs of the periodic review, including without limitation the costs of notice of any public hearings held in connection with the periodic review.
“If the director determines, based on substantial evidence, that the developer has not complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of the development agreement, the director shall set a public hearing before the planning commission, noticed in accordance with the procedures for noticing a public hearing to consider approval of a development agreement as outlined in Section 26-100-050 of this Article, at which the developer shall be given an opportunity to demonstrate good faith compliance.”
City of Sonoma Regulations
The City of Sonoma’s Municipal Code provides for the issuance of “fee simple” permits, only; however, according to David Storer, Sonoma’s Planning Director, “nothing prevents applicants and the city from mutually choosing to enter into a development agreement contract detailing fees, construction plans, and other project related matters.”
Permits for construction are required in the City of Sonoma, and time limitations and expirations are provided in Sections 106.1 and 106.5 of the city’s Municipal Code:
“Any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish or change the occupancy or use of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system or component thereof or any accessible feature, element or component, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first obtain the required permit.
“Expiration. Every permit issued shall become invalid after 4 years from the date of issuance. Every permit issued shall become invalid unless the work authorized by such permit is commenced within 1 year after its issuance, or if the work authorized by such permit is suspended or abandoned for a period of 180 days after the time the work is commenced. Work shall be considered commenced if a regular inspection has been requested by the permittee and a required inspection of work performed has been conducted by a City building inspector within 1 year after the issuance of the building permit. Work shall be considered abandoned if no required inspection has been conducted by a City building inspector within a 180-day period after work has commenced. The building official is authorized to grant, in writing, one or more extensions of time, for periods not more than 180 days each. The extension shall be requested by the permittee in writing and justifiable cause demonstrated.”
Thus, although public perception about the pace and nature of a development project may be negative, laws governing permits and their expiration are ultimately determined by legal compliance. Citizens can initiate nuisance complaints about site conditions and dangers, but as to the length of time it takes for any permitted project to be completed, such matters are subject to the provisions of the law, not public opinion.
I am sure the Mattsons are doing the minimum required by the county to keep their endless permits in place, while these properties rot here in the Springs. Maybe the county needs to tighten things up as these properties are in reality simply abandoned. The Mattsons will clean up trash and unsightly debris if a member of the public contacts them or calls them out on social media or in the press. But, beyond that they do nothing. Maybe a tax or penalty should be put in place for these endless, bogus permits.