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

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

Paul Wellman (file)

Naples: Planners Approve Transfer Ordinance

Critics Worry Voluntary Measure Will Lack Teeth


Saturday, July 26, 2008
By Ethan Stewart (Contact)
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Contact an Editor
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!

Arguably one of the biggest central issues in the Naples development debate — the transfer of development rights (TDR) — finally made some real progress this week as the Santa Barbara Planning Commission, after years of working on the subject, approved an actual TDR ordinance on Wednesday afternoon. The TDR, which essentially creates a system for the development of rural open spaces to be “transferred” to established urban areas in such a way that developers on both ends get fairly compensated, had long been considered a potential means of salvation for those opposed to Matt Osgood’s plan to build several dozen mansions on the eastern Gaviota Coast ranch.

Trying to get a large building project approved on the Gaviota Coast is a complex and unpopular process. Just ask Orange County-based developer Matt Osgood (pictured), who has been playing the development approval chess game at his Naples property for almost 10 years now.
Click to enlarge photo

Paul Wellman

Trying to get a large building project approved on the Gaviota Coast is a complex and unpopular process. Just ask Orange County-based developer Matt Osgood (pictured), who has been playing the development approval chess game at his Naples property for almost 10 years now.

However, commissioners ultimately approved an ordinance that, due to its voluntary nature, was deemed “destined to be ineffective and largely toothless” by Environmental Defense Center lawyer Nathan Alley, who represents Surfrider in the fight against Naples construction.

Spurred by a Naples-specific wrinkle in County Coastal Code — which says that in order for the agriculturally zoned Naples property to be rezoned, the county must first deem a TDR infeasible — county staff has been trying to craft an ordinance that fleshes out the specifics of the complex TDR process. This week they did just that and planning commissioners approved, with a 4-1 vote, the specifics of an ordinance that basically allows residential developers to voluntarily pay into a “TDR bank” in order to buy increased density for their building projects in urban areas. Their fees would then be stored, waiting to be used for rural lots that the general public presumably doesn’t want built upon. In early incarnations of the ordinance, urban developers’ participation in a TDR was going to be mandatory if they wished to increase the density of their project — a move that no doubt would have led to a more cash-flush bank.

Ironically, even though the commission abandoned this notion with their final vote this week, a majority of the commissioners — specifically Mike Cooney, who was the lone dissenting vote, and to a lesser degree Cecilia Brown and C.J. Jackson — all expressed concerns about the final ordinance ever being useful due to its voluntary nature. But it was a desire, at least in lip service, to move the process along to the Board of Supervisors sooner rather than later that won out over spending more time on crafting a better program. Lamenting that she “thinks in order for this program to be effective we have to cast the widest net,” Brown defended her vote, calling the ordinance “the only mechanism we have” before adding, “I don’t think not voting for it is going to further the [public’s] interests.” The contradiction of their feelings and their votes was not lost on Alley, who speculated in the aftermath of the hearing that, “I think it is hard to deny the fact that the commissioners are sick and tired of Naples.”

For his part, and also a big indicator of the general direction of the recent six-week run of Naples hearings at the Planning Commission, Osgood said this week, “We are very pleased with the way things are going … This is as good a commission as I’ve ever seen. There haven’t been any decisions that I disagree with.” In addition to approving the developer-friendly TDR ordinance, the commission also voted at a hearing earlier this week, on July 21, to find three of the residences proposed for the hills east of Highway 101 to be in compliance with county land-use codes despite the fact that they are sited in the view shed and potentially intrude in the area’s currently pristine skyline.

Taking a few weeks off to no doubt catch their breath, the Planning Commission will once again be back on the Naples topic on August 13, with hopes of making final recommendations to the Board of Supervisors after their August 27 meeting. Also of note, the County Board of Supervisors will hold a special hearing on August 18 to discuss all things Gaviota — an ambitious talk that will no doubt include substantial Naples discussion.

Story Help (Click-ability)
Double-clicking on any word or phrase in this story will open a reference window with definitions and links to other reference material.

Comments

Discussion Guidelines

Cop Out To Da Max! I would have hoped for a serious TDR program but the Commissioners, gutless lapdogs to the development process that they are just rolled over. I don't believe the hollow shell of a TDR program that they propose approving fulfills either the spirit or the letter of the law (LCP2-13). This ain't over yet!

Noletaman (anonymous profile)
July 28, 2008 at 6:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It is not the volunteer nature of the receiving sites that makes this a sham. It is the sending sites that Osgood owns and that he can dictate the value of. The only lots that Osgood will sell via TDR are lots that he cannot use for one reason or another. The County has bent over backwards with Osgood to avoid his pending lawsuits against the County. But alas the County will be sued anyway.

gaviotamilitia (anonymous profile)
July 28, 2008 at 7:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

By rook or crook...

The smarmy smile on Osgood's face tells the whole story. This is just a game for him. One to feed his ego and keep him amused. Obviously like Caruso et al these guys don't need the money. They're just playing one-upsmanship for bragging rights.

That fact they permanently scar the land to provide for the luxury obssesed crowd is really disgusting. We have enough pampared trust fund babies in this town.

sa1 (anonymous profile)
July 28, 2008 at 7:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I like the concept of the Transfer of Development Rights. And aside from the astute comments above, one critical question looms. Where are the receiver sites? The City of Santa Barbara, which is also discouraging development and density, seems set to oppose offering any receiver opportunities. What's that leave? Goleta? Noleta? Carpinteria? Bueller? Anybody?

elpesto (anonymous profile)
July 28, 2008 at 10:55 a.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:
57.0°
Wind:
3 ENE

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
  • Tea Fire 2008
  • The Brief but Violent Life of the Tea Fire
  • Nonprofit Steps in When County Stops Sea Sampling
  • Homeless to Move Along
  • Anti-Gang Action in Santa Barbara
  • Little Dragon Makes Big Return to Santa Barbara
  • Westmont Soccer Scores Big Despite Being Burned Out of House and Home
  1. Tea Fire Cause Is Determined
  2. Tea Fire Appears Close to an End
  3. Plumber Fills Firefighters’ Tanks Using Undocumented Hookup
  4. Dear Prop. 8 Supporters
  5. First List Of Homes
    Lost in Tea Fire
  6. The Unusual History of the Tea Fire’s Point of Origin
  • 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.