• CREATE AN ACCOUNT
  • LOG.IN
  • CONTENTS
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • ARCHIVE
  • INFO | ADVERTISING | CONTACT US

  • Home
  • News
    • Business
    • NewsFlash
  • A&E
    • Movie Times
    • TV Listings
    • A&E Blog
    • Art Galleries
    • Best Bets
  • Opinion
    • Columns
    • Voices
    • Letters
    • In Memoriam
  • Events
    • Today
    • Search
    • Submit
    • Best Bets
  • Living
    • Travel
    • Sports
    • Peeps
  • Food & Drink
    • All Restaurants
    • Delivery
    • All Bars & Clubs
    • Drink Specials
    • Open Now
  • Outdoors
    • Outside Insider
    • Spotlight On
    • Features
  • Classifieds
    • Real Estate
    • Jobs
    • Autos
  • Personals
  • Obits

    Gaviota


    Transfer of Development Rights Is the Key to Naples Preservation

    The Future Is Now for Gaviota Coast


    Thursday, November 1, 2007
    By Phil McKenna, president of the Naples Coalition.
    Article Tools
    Print friendly
    E-mail story
    Tip Us Off
    iPod friendly
    Comments
    Bookmark This
    del.icio.us. del.icio.us.
    Digg! Digg!
    furl furl
    google google
    newsvine newsvine
    reddit reddit
    technorati technorati
    Facebook Facebook
    Yahoo! My Web 2.0 Yahoo!

    For those of you unfamiliar with Naples, it is a 485-acre parcel of rural land located approximately two miles west of Goleta’s western urban limit line, occupying both sides of Highway 101. The current owner of the majority of the Naples property — Orange County-based developer Vintage Communities —proposes to build as many as seventy-two 8,000- to 13,000-square-foot homes on land that has historically been used for grazing, row crops, and orchards. This is the land that was once the site of two large Chumash villages, which were located near the mouth of Dos Pueblos Creek.

    The County Planning Commission will hold a hearing on a program for transferring this development from the Naples property to appropriate urban areas in the county. If approved, several cities may participate. The rationale for this Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program follows the county’s Local Coastal Policy 2-13 — enacted in 1982 — which states that the county shall discourage residential development specifically at Naples, and shall facilitate moving proposed development there to urban areas in the county which are suitable for development.

    The idea is to build where it is appropriate — not in agricultural or environmentally sensitive areas. Our agricultural land is a scarce and valuable resource. Building houses at Naples would fragment and degrade the agricultural potential of the property. The rural Gaviota Coast is special because it is the largest remnant of pristine coastline in Southern California. Importing Orange County-style urban sprawl to the Gaviota Coast would turn the extraordinary into the ordinary. Furthermore, the environmental heritage of the Gaviota Coast is irreplaceable, so building a subdivision there — where many imperiled and threatened species live and thrive — is the road to habitat destruction.

    Designing an effective TDR program for Naples is a complicated undertaking, but the underlying concept is fairly direct. Say a developer in an urban area wants to build “X-plus” units on a property, but zoning regulations only allow the construction of “X” units. If the jurisdiction is participating in the Naples TDR program and agrees to increase the density — allowing the “-plus” units to be built — then the developer pays into the Naples TDR bank for the privilege of building at a higher density than current zoning allows. The TDR bank uses the revenues from increasing the density (up-zoning) to buy and extinguish development rights at Naples, as well as funding community improvements in the receiving neighborhood.

    Communities grow as population expands. This growth implies new development. As the general plan and zoning of the community changes to accommodate this growth, a portion of the windfall benefit gained by urban developers from up-zoning can be captured by communities participating voluntarily in the TDR program. Then it can be utilized by the TDR bank to buy development rights at Naples, therefore preserving precious open space forever.

    This process does not increase the cost of development; instead, it captures a significant portion of the economic benefit of up-zoning for the community’s use, rather than the developer’s profit. Additionally, the Naples TDR program is a voluntary process where transactions occur at market rates, respecting the economic interest of property owners.

    The design and implementation of an effective Naples TDR program will take time and broad-based community support. Increases in density within urban boundaries might be met by people protesting with a loud “Not in My Back Yard!” However, the approach should be: Naples Is My Back Yard. We all benefit when we save the Gaviota Coast for future generations. Fourth District Supervisor Joni Gray understood this when she said her constituents consider the Gaviota Coast to be “their beach.” Third District Supervisor Brooks Firestone — who represents residents of the Santa Ynez Valley and Gaviota Coast — was very vocal about making the preservation of the Gaviota Coast his central concern. Fifth District Supervisor Joe Centeno from Santa Maria was born on the Naples property, making him a real local.

    A TDR program at Naples can be fair, effective, and achievable. It is not the only tool we will need to preserve Naples, but it is first on the political table and deserves the active support of all of our County Planning commissioners and supervisors. The Santa Barbara County Planning Commission will hold a second hearing on the Naples TDR program on Wednesday, November 7, at 9:30 a.m. at the Commission Hearing Room on the first floor of the County Administration Building, located on the corner of Anacapa and Anapamu streets.

    Comments

    Discussion Guidelines

    That is all nice, but the "X-plus" bonus density already is claimed by other interests, such as X-plus for truly affordable housing within the city (and only one city is interested in TDRs).

    Another issue is that X-plus needs to be for the maximal X-dollars to offset the entitlement value of the Transfered Development Rights.

    Therefore, TDRs are in direct competition with increased density as a way to provide for truly affordable housing. Why would the cities or county support TDRs if they lead to increased density, above current zoning, and also compete with sites suitable for truly affordable housing?

    Higher density not allowed under zoning that also is high-priced luxury housing seems to be the formula for failure that these TDRs are going to encourage.

    FirstDistrictStreetfighter (anonymous profile)
    November 1, 2007 at 7:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

    Having lived on the Gaviota Coast for 50 years, I wholeheartedly endorse the TDR Program as a sensible alternative to building housing in the rural area of Naples. My viewpoint has nothing to do with "right to build" issues. Rather, I see this option as allowing the County of SB and its city governments to save a pristine coastline area from development without compromising the developer's bottom line. As for allowing denser building in urban areas to offset saving undeveloped coastline, it just makes more sense for our environment and economy... 72 more homes on the Gaviota Coast translates into more need for fire protection (to protect those costly new ranchettes from the sort of disaster we've seen in the San Diego areas where building was allowed in high fire danger areas); more auto fuel consumption and air pollution attributed to homeowners who do not have mass transit available as an alternative mode of transportation to and from work and services; and it does nothing to address the issue of affordable housing (has the developer noticed the trend, nationwide, toward building smaller, more energy efficient homes instead of "castles" that use more than their share of our limited resources?!) Granted, allowing more density when building in already developed urban areas poses issues to be sensitive to, such as parking space availability, concerns from NIMBY groups, and preserving open space within the urban environment, but those can be addressed more readily than issues that surface when encroaching on undeveloped space. I hope the TDR Program becomes a viable alternative to building in the Naples area.

    wedmore (anonymous profile)
    November 1, 2007 at 9:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

    Wedmore offers a nice generic pitch here about smart growth etc., but so what.

    However, the basic problem that TDRs still fail to address is that the "X-plus" places already may be or should be intended for other housing projects that would provide truly affordable housing, instead of the same places allocated for the most extremely high priced housing possible in order generate money to buy down the development rights and entitlements at the Naples site.

    If the urban sites promoted by wedmore are going to be developed into housing above and beyond what the zoning allows, those sites should be for truly affordable housing and not more mondo-condos.

    That is the unavoidable problem and seems to be why Goleta and other jurisdictions are not interested in TDRs. Every possible place for more housing already is already zoned for housing to the max anyway, especially in Santa Barbara.

    FirstDistrictStreetfighter (anonymous profile)
    November 1, 2007 at 9:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

    Yes, it is very hard to find money in low income housing that can purchase high income residential property. And to seek to do so would be folly and immoral. Yet Osgood has no development rights at present. The County, in fear of lawsuits, gave away 233 Naples lots as *legal lots* in 1995. Yet, are they buildable into MacMansions as Osgood hopes? Highly unlikely. Osgood needs a whole lot of permits before he starts pushing dirt. The County in it's rush to MacMansion the coast and suck in the new property taxes may go along. But will the California Coastal Commission? Not a chance in hell. The battle for Naples shapes up as the greatest David vs Goliath in modern California coastal development history. As another story in todays edition spotlighted Selma Rubin for saving El Capitan Ranch please help a modern day saving of another key coastal property from developer greed. Naples development into mansions for the very wealthy is just not acceptable. Build them in Montecito or Hope Ranch. We haven't been saving the Gaviota Coast (thanks Selma and all) all these years so Orange County developers can market it to the very wealthy as *pristine coastal view shed property*.

    gaviotamilitia (anonymous profile)
    November 2, 2007 at 5:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

    Post a comment

    Username:
    Password: (Forgotten your password?)

    Comment:

    EVENT CALENDAR

    Previous Month | Next Month

    Today's Events Best Bets Submit an Event

    Local Weather

    Currently:
    Clear Sky
    Temperature:
    64.0°
    Wind:
    3 W

    Surf Report
    • Specials
    • InPrint
    • Top Emails
    • Blue Green Guide 2008
    • Summer Camp Guide 2008
    • Wedding Guide 2008
    • SBIFF 2008 All Access
    • 2008 Election Coverage
    • Best of Reader's Poll 2007
    • Calendar of Fundraisers
    • Local Bands
    • Kid's Mother's Day Issue
    • Made in Santa Barbara
    • Zaca Fire 2007
    • How a Group of Ex-Catholic Nuns Saved Their Famous Montecito Retreat Center
    • What Dems Are Doing in Denver While Republicans Ready for St. Paul
    • Runner Killed by Alleged DUI Driver
    • To Err Is Human, to Forgive Is Canine
    • Brian Wilson’s That Lucky Old Sun Tour Rises at the Lobero
    • S.B. Police Chief Wants Cops to Learn from Holocaust Survivors
    1. Drunk Driving Death on Las Positas Road
    2. County Flood Preparation Work Begins Following Gap Fire
    3. H2Oprah
    4. Radiohead Mesmerizes Santa Barbara
    5. Miramar Gets Green Light
    6. Gregory Doan Charged in Las Positas Road Runover
    • CREATE AN ACCOUNT
    • LOG.IN
    • CONTENTS
    • CLASSIFIEDS
    • ARCHIVE
    • INFO | ADVERTISING | CONTACT US
    Google
     
    Independent.com Web
    Copyright ©2008 Santa Barbara Independent, Inc. Reproduction of material from any Independent.com pages without written permission is strictly prohibited. If you believe an Independent.com user or any material appearing on Independent.com is copyrighted material used without proper permission, please click here.
    This is our Privacy Policy.