Naples Issues and Talking Points
Lawsuit Filed!
The first round of litigation challenging the County's approval of the Naples project was filed on November 20, 2008. Click here to download a copy of the initial petition.
The County submitted the approval materials to the Coastal Commission, which was promptly rejected. Click here to see the Coastal Commission "Deficiency Notice." The Coastal Commission directed the County to more clearly identify the specific elements of the project, the permits involved, and how they can be appealed.
Once the County files an adequate submittal to the Coastal Commission, the Naples Coalition, Surfrider and EDC will file a series of appeals to the Coastal Commission.
ARCHIVED MATERIALS BELOW
Representatives from the Naples Coalition, Surfrider and the Environmental Defense Center have constantly monitored the County's processing of the Naples development, and developed a series of issue papers related to the development. These materials are developed for people wanting to know more about the project, be better informed for public hearings, and understand what issues the decisionmakers are grappling with.
Click on these links to view Issue Papers on the Naples project:
Major CEQA Inadequacies (Sept. 25, 2008)
SB Ranch Alternatives (Sept. 25, 2008)
Naples - Critique of CEQA “Confirming Analysis” (used to avoid recirculating the EIR) (Sept. 25, 2008)
Agricultural Issues (Sept. 25, 2008)
Coastal Trail and Access Issues (Sept. 25, 2008)
Naples Policy Consistency Analysis (PCA) and Issues (Sept. 25, 2008)
Separating Inland and Coastal Project (Oct. 6, 2008)
Risks to Santa Barbara County associated with Naples project (Oct. 5, 2008)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TDR (Transfer of Development Rights) in Santa Barbara
Kalon Kelley, PhD
Naples Coalition
The Santa Barbara Planning Commission is recommending adoption of a new TDR ordinance to the Board of Supervisors. The purpose of the ordinance is to provide the mechanism whereby potential residential development at the Naples Townsite on the Gaviota Coast is reduced or eliminated by payments made for density increases within urban areas.
In principle this is a good idea. It is generally accepted that development should occur within urban areas where the infrastructure to support people exists rather than in sensitive areas more suited to agriculture or open space. And in fact this tradeoff was codified as County Policy (LCP 2-13) that states, “the County shall discourage residential development of existing lots [at Naples]. The County shall encourage and assist the property owner(s) in transferring development rights from the Naples townsite to an appropriate site within a designated urban area which is suitable for residential development.”
So will the proposed ordinance do its job? Unfortunately, no. The approach the County has followed is to allow for the purchase of density increases within specified areas. And a consultant study recommended this approach PROVIDED THAT density increases were not otherwise made available. But the County has chosen to ignore the strong recommendation of their consultant and has made TDR only another way of increasing density, and has thereby greatly reduced or eliminated the ability of the ordinance to actually generate funds for purchase of development rights. If the County were serious about this ordinance they would have produced a feasibility study to estimate what funds might become available and thereby assess the viability of the ordinance in accomplishing the policy objective. But no such study was performed.
But this is just the beginning of the problems. The ordinance grants an entirely free hand to the developer at Naples, there being no obligation to sell development rights nor grant the County a right of first refusal. Rather, as drafted, the ordinance simply contemplates the County (if it were to generate money from its sale of TDR credits) standing in line with any other buyer of lots at Naples. In short, there is no obligation on the part of the developer to sell anything to the County. But it gets worse: what the County would be interested in purchasing are development rights at Naples, not the actual lots. Purchasing the right to develop a residence on a lot should cost less than purchasing the lot itself as the owner would retain the right to use the lot for other non-residential uses (e.g., agriculture). But as the developer will always choose to sell a lot with a home built on it over selling the development rights to the lot, even if the County could raise some money it would be trying to purchase something that really wasn’t for sale.
The general consensus is that to eliminate development at Naples will require a robust TDR ordinance; some participation by municipalities in terms of providing a few specific receiver sites; and funding both from the government, land conservation organizations and the public. But because it is contemplated that there be no obligation or commitment on the developer to sell any development rights at any price, the ability to raise funds will be virtually nonexistent. Government entities, organization or individual will question donating money to a fund when there is no certainty whatsoever that any funds raised can actually be used to accomplish the objective at Naples?
This ordinance could have been drafted in any number of ways that would have eliminated these problems, and in fact alternatives were put on the table when this subject was being reviewed. Why the County has chosen the direction it has is a question that should be addressed to the Planning Commission and the Planning and Development Department. It appears that a decision was made to create a completely ineffectual ordinance that might, nonetheless, be adequate to establish legal compliance with the aforementioned County Policy. No one expects this ordinance to work and it is unlikely that its responsibilities of LCP 2-13 have been met.
TDR is a planning tool that has been effectively used across the United States. Within our County, there are several jurisdictions (e.g., the City of Goleta, the City of Santa Barbara) that have expressed considerable interest in a workable TDR program. Unfortunately, if the County adopts the recommended ordinance -- and it works to accomplish nothing -- it will probably poison the interest of others in this tool for the foreseeable future.
It is to be hoped that the Board of Supervisors will choose not to further this charade, but remand the subject back to the Planning Commission with instructions that revisions be made to make this a viable ordinance that will accomplish the policy objective at the Naples townsite. That policy objective was important to the County when the policy was adopted and remains even more important today.