HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/06/1997, Agenda wV
COUNCIL READING FILE'
MAY 691997 MEETING
66gDC" ITEM
council M..dmD�
A,k_-,Co.20 t 9 9
2A aGEnoa izEpout
CITY OF SAN LU I S O B I S P O
0
FROM: Arnold B. Jonas,_ Ommunity Development Director
Prepared By: Glen Matteson, ssociate Planner GM
SUBJECT: Transfer of Development Credit (TDC) Code Amendments
CAO RECOMMENDATION
1. Introduce an ordinance to approve a negative declaration of environmental impact, to add
enabling provisions for TDC to the City's Zoning Regulations and Subdivision Regulations, and
to authorize printing the ordinance in summary form for public notice.
2. Direct staff to review the final sample TDC easement forms to be developed by County staff,
for consistency with the City's part of the TDC program, and to report back to Council if
inconsistencies are apparent.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission has recommended adoption of the attached code additions.
REPORT IN BRIEF
The General Plan calls for a TDC program, as one of several tools to help protect open space.
With TDC, recorded easements permanently reduce or eliminate development potential on sending
sites, while receiving sites absorb the development potential by allowing credits to be used for
more development than otherwise would be possible. The transfers are accomplished through the
sale and purchase of development credits among willing sellers and buyers.
The City's TDC program is being developed in conjunction with the County, because much of the
open space which could include sending sites is outside the city limits, and it is not feasible for
the City to annex all of it. Most of the land with potential for additional development, which
could serve as receiving sites, is within the City or the areas which the City plans to annex. The
County is considering a package of amendments to the County's general plan and development
regulations to enable TDC. City staff has prepared a package of additions to San Luis Obispo's
zoning and subdivision regulations to implement the City's part of the program. The additions
cover the mechanics of allowing higher density with receipt of transferred development credits in
locations identified by the General Plan: the downtown core and identified residential expansion
areas. The City's General Plan can accommodate about 500 additional dwellings with TDC, in
the urban area (about two percent of the build-out capacity).
Council Agenda Report - TDC Code Additions
Page 2
The Council is being asked to determine if the recommended additions to the City's code are a
clear and effective way to enable receiving sites in the city. This is also an opportunity for the
Council to review the whole proposed program and provide comments to the County on the
aspects which the County will be primarily responsible for.
The following three major concerns have emerged during public discussion of the TDC program.
• Effective protection for sending cites Will the protection be permanent? Will it be
complete? The details depend on conservation easements that owners of sending sites will
grant to the County or other eligible parties. Current drafts of the County-prepared
easement forms would permanently remove residential development potential, but could
allow some types of nonresidential development. City staff provided a letter to the County
concerning this issue (attached). At the August 6 Board of Supervisors meeting, County
staff indicated that the concern could be addressed by having standard easement forms for
use with transfers to the City, reflecting the recommendation of the City's letter. The
Board did not provide specific direction on this aspect.
• Additional build-out capacity Will TDC increase the amount of development that can
occur in the San Luis Obispo area? The method for determining the number of credits
available from a sending site implies a large but not precisely predictable increase. The
limiting factor will be availability of receiving sites. The City's residential build-out
would increase by about two percent with TDC. The County could designate additional
receiving sites in unincorporated areas, but has not yet done so.
• Receiving site impacts What will be the impacts on and near receiving sites? Impacts,
addressed in the Environmental Impact Report for the 1994 Land Use Element update, are
expected to be acceptable. Projects receiving TDC credits would be subject to the City's
development standards and review procedures.
DISCUSSION
What is TDC?
Transfer of Development Credit, referred to by its initials"TDC," is a way to permanently reduce
or eliminate development potential on land in one location, which is referred to as a "sending site."
This is done by recognizing development credits that can be sold separately from the land, and
used to build more than would otherwise be possible at a "receiving site." The initial buyer of the
credits compensates the owner of the sending site for its lowered development potential. The
credits can be sold and bought any number of times, but they can be used only once. There need
not be a correspondence between sending and receiving sites (for example, multiple credits from
one sending site could be used at several receiving sites, and a receiving site might use credits
from several sending sites).
Council Agenda Report - TDC Code Additions
Page 3
The program proposed for San Luis Obispo County and City would be voluntary. Use of TDC
would not be required to develop a site as allowed by its zoning, nor would participation in TDC
be required to apply for a rezoning. Transfer of credits would be among willing sellers and
buyers. The program is to be incentive-based and market-driven.
For the City-County program, regardless of the type and amount of development potential
removed from a sending site, each resulting development credit would enable one additional
dwelling at a receiving site. In unincorporated areas, a credit would typically be good for an
additional lot in a subdivision. The City can stipulate what form the additional dwellings would
take within its jurisdiction. The City's recommended code additions would allow additional
single-family lots, secondary dwellings, or multifamily dwellings (apartments or condominiums).
No potential for transfer of nonresidential credits is proposed. Nonresidential credits were
seen as overly complicated for this initial experiment with TDC.
The key advantages of TDC are:
(1) It can remove development potential from existing, buildable parcels within areas
which local government plans designate for little or no future development;
(2) Once an easement restricts use of the sending site, changes in the site's zoning would
not increase the development that could occur on it;
(3) Compensation to the owner of the sending site does not depend on public funds (though
a public agency or private conservation organization could acquire credits and not resell
them).
However, TDC alone cannot be expected to secure the City's desired greenbelt. In some cases,
TDC will provide an incentive sufficiently strong that an owner will choose to sell credits rather
than pursue a development project for currently or prospectively allowed development. In other
cases, high land values or expected ease of development approvals will make TDC a less attractive
option. TDC is one of several tools for open space protection which the City is pursuing. Others
are growth management policies, consistent land use designations over time by the City and the
County, development approvals tied to on-site open space protection, and acquisition of land and
easements through gift or purchase.
Environmental Determination
The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 1994 Land Use Element Update addressed the
overall impacts of additional development in the urban area that would be enabled by TDC. In
certifying the EIR, Council required certain mitigation measures and made certain findings of
overriding considerations, related to build-out capacity including TDC. Any further potential for
additional dwellings as a result of TDC would be addressed in the environmental review for the
necessary amendments to the City's General Plan, or for the approval of specific plans or
development plans involving such additional dwellings.
Council Agenda Report - TDC Code Additions
Page 4
For the recommended additions to the City code, on June 14, 1996, the Community Development
Director approved a negative declaration for public review. No comments have been received.
The City Council will make the environmental determination before adopting the amendments.
(Initial study attached.)
The County has processed a separate environmental determination for its package of TDC-related
amendments (Appendix A of County TDC booklet, in Council reading file). The County Board
of Supervisors is expected to approve a negative declaration concurrently with adopting the
County's amendments (initial hearing conducted August 6 and action scheduled for October 8,
1996).
Action Deadline
State law does not set a deadline for this legislative act.
Situation & Previous Review
The Land Use Element and Open Space Element of the City's General Plan, adopted by the
Council in 1994, call for a TDC program to help protect land designated as open space (excerpts
attached). Much of the land which City policies say should be protected as open space, including
hillsides, peaks, and agricultural land within the greenbelt, is under County jurisdiction. It will
not be feasible for the City to annex all of this area to bring it under City jurisdiction and to
control land use. So, most sending sites will be in the unincorporated area. Most of the land with
potential for additional development, which would serve as receiving sites, is within the City or
the areas which the City plans to annex. The City's land use designations and availability of
utilities will make these areas suitable for additional development. Therefore, the City's TDC
program is being developed in conjunction with the County of San Luis Obispo.
The County sees TDC primarily as a way to implement its "Settlement Pattern Strategy," an effort
to direct development away from open lands in remote or environmentally sensitive areas, and to
urban and village areas. TDC can be a particularly useful tool for areas where existing lots of
record would allow more development than would land divisions meeting current standards. In
our region, TDC has been used in Cambria for several years to help protect parts of the pine forest
which were subdivided into small lots many years ago.
About two years ago, the County contracted with the S.L.O. County Land Conservancy and
convened a Technical Advisory Committee to help draft a TDC program. The technical advisory
committee, which included representatives of a wide range of interests, has made its
recommendation. The County Board of Supervisors has received progress reports and provided
general direction as the Technical Advisory Committee, Land Conservancy staff, and County staff
worked through the many necessary details of a TDC program. City planning staff has been
involved in this effort, through attending some of the advisory committee meetings, commenting
on draft County documents, and providing draft City documents for County staff review. The
1
Council Agenda Report - TDC Code Additions
Page 5
County is now considering amendments to its Land Use Element, its San Luis Obispo Area Plan,
and its Land Use Ordinance to enable TDC. On July 27, the County Planning Commission
recommend to the Board of Supervisors the County's proposed package of amendments. The
Board of Supervisors considered the package on August 6. At that meeting, the Board voted four
to one to introduced the amendments as recommended, scheduled an additional hearing for
September 17 to consider specific issues raised by the public and Board members, and scheduled
a hearing for final action for October 8. The dissenting Board member had expressed a desire to
approve the package more quickly.
The City's Land Use Element already identifies the in-city locations and annexation areas which
are eligible to receive transferred development credit, in the form of more dwellings than
otherwise would be allowed (excerpts attached). A relatively small, but not precisely predictable,
number of additional dwellings could result within the Central Commercial area. According to
the adopted Land Use Element, up to 100 more dwellings could be built in the Margarita area and
up to 200 more could be built in the Orcutt area, with transfer of development credit. Assuming
that the central area and expansion areas other than Margarita and Orcutt could in total
accommodate about 200 additional dwellings with TDC, the overall total increase in dwellings
resulting from use of TDC in the city would be about 500. This would be about three percent of
the current 18,400 dwellings, or about two percent of the 24,300 dwellings expected at build-out.
Under the recommended zoning text changes, the additional density due to TDC in the Central
Commercial zone would be allowed by right (all new commercial and multifamily buildings would
continue to be subject to architectural review). For TDC dwellings in expansion areas, the overall
allowed increase and the type of any additional required approval would be spelled out in the
required development plan or specific plan. All future specific plans and development plans under
PD zoning will come before the Council.
Once the County's package of amendments is adopted, the County would determine the number
of credits which could be sent from sites under its jurisdiction, using the standards of the County
plan and code. Under the program, the County would appoint an administrator to verify actual
transactions involving TDC. The County's TDC program is proposed to be available throughout
unincorporated areas, and within cities which have compatible rules. Certain basic aspects, such
as the method of figuring credits, would be consistent countywide (except for Cambria's
established program, which would have been difficult to integrate with the current proposal).
Other aspects could be modified for individual planning areas or communities. The current
proposal would allow transfers of development credit from sites within three miles of the receiving
site, or if that is not possible, within the San Luis Obispo Planning Area and the San Luis Bay
Planning Area, but not between those planning areas and other planning areas (such as the
northern or eastern parts of the county).
The City needs to add certain provisions to its Zoning Regulations and Subdivision Regulations
to enable receiving sites in the city. Sending sites in the city are not proposed at this time,
through they may be considered in the future. . City staff has tried to make the additional
provisions simple and direct, while anticipating the questions about standards and procedures
Council Agenda Report - TDC Code Additions
Page 6
raised by potential for transferred development credits. Staff has also outlined typical
requirements for specific plans to address TDC, which are attached for information. The Council
need not act on the specific plan guidelines.
Issues Discussion
Introduction
Opinion surveys and workshops, among others measures, have shown broad public support for
protecting open land around the city. While TDC is one of several tools to do this, it is a new
concept to many people. Some people have difficulty with the idea of separating development
potential from land ownership, which is at the heart of TDC. Actually, land use potential is part
of the "bundle of rights" of land ownership, and it often has been voluntarily restricted through
means such as easements or separate ownership of, for example, "air rights" or mineral rights.
Just as with land ownership, transfer of development credits depends on a stable and predictable
system for recognizing, transacting, and recording evidence of ownership. TDC has the added
complication of being closely tied, mainly at the receiving sites, to local government's authority
to regulate land use. In response to landowner concerns from throughout the county, the
voluntary, incentive-based nature of the program has been emphasized throughout the County's
meetings.
As noted above, the County's proposed package of amendments would set up the standards and
administrative procedures for transferring development credits, and the City can employ those
mechanisms largely by referring to the County's part of the program. Of course, this means
relying on the County to carry out its part of the program in a way that meets the County's
original stated objectives and the City's objectives. If the City determined that the County's
program would not meet the City's objectives, despite City requests for changes, the City's only
recourse would be to not participate.
The following issues in particular have prompted some concerns with TDC.
Effective protection for sending sites
To be effective, TDC must permanently remove from sending sites all potential for uses that
would be incompatible with open space protection. Since recorded easements are the vehicle to
restrict future use, they are the key to effectiveness. The County's package of amendments refers
to such easements, and the County has prepared draft standard easements (Appendix B, at the back
of the County TDC booklet, which is in the Council reading file). There has been concern
whether the owner of a sending site could in the future simply ask the County to relax or abandon
the easement, and whether a future Board of Supervisors might approve.
The easement would be granted and accepted, "and it shall remain in perpetuity" (easement form,
part 7). "All provisions of[the easement] shall run with the land ... and shall be binding on the
Council Agenda Report - TDC Code Additions
Page 7
[original parties] and their heirs, assigns, and successors in interest" (part 9). The County's
package of amendments refers to the State's Open Space Easement Act and to the Conservation
Easement Act (TDC booklet, page 32, item A). However, the standard easement forms are
conservation easements (IDC booklet, Appendix B). State law does not identify a procedure for
modifying or abandoning conservation easements (Civil Code, Section 815). Open space
easements as recognized by state law (such as the one which covered the Ferrini open space area
before it was granted in fee) can be abandoned by the governing agency which accepted them,
upon making required findings (Government Code Section 51070 and following).
Enforcement of the easement provisions (part 11) would be through court action brought by the
beneficiary of the easement. While the beneficiary is expected to be the County, it could be any
qualifying nonprofit organization designated by the owner of the sending site. The City would
have standing to enforce the terms of an easement only if the City is the beneficiary. Where the
City is not the beneficiary, the City would have to ask the County or other grantee to enforce an
easement.
There also has been concern about the uses that would be allowed on sending sites. The County's
draft standard easements list the following as allowed, in addition to agricultural uses that do not
appear to be of concern: farm equipment and supplies (sales and service as a principle use);
libraries and museums; membership organization facilities; schools - specialized education and
training; wholesaling and distribution (part 1). City staff had previously commented to County
staff that these uses did not appear to be consistent with the intent of the program, to "relocate
development from environmentally sensitive land, land with agricultural capability, or antiquated
subdivisions to more suitable areas" (County TDC booklet, page 30). However, these uses were
included at the request of agricultural representatives. The listed, allowed uses would be subject
to the definitions and requirements of the County Land Use Element and Land Use Ordinance.
All of the uses named immediately above would be subject to discretionary review by the County,
though public hearings would not be required in all cases. All the listed uses would be limited
to activities associated with agriculture (for example, a country club could not be allowed as a
"membership organization," but a grange hall could be; an antique car museum could not be
allowed, but an antique tractor museum could be). The easement, by referring to the County's
plan and code (but not as they existed on a certain date) ties the use limits to documents which cari
be amended. As a result, future County plan or code amendments could deliberately or
inadvertently undermine the objectives of TDC.
In a recent letter to the County (attached), City staff pointed out this shortcoming and
recommended changes to make the easement more effective. This concern was acknowledged in
comments by a Supervisor during the August 6 Board meeting. County staff said the issue could
be addressed by preparing a different standard easement form for transfers where receiving sites
would be under City jurisdiction, reflecting the City's desires. The Board did not object to this
approach, but did not give explicit direction on this item. During public comments, the County
Farm Bureau representative did not object to this approach for the San Luis Obispo area, but said
that it should not apply countywide.
City staff will review the revised easement forms that are expected to be made available at the
start of the program, and return to Council if further communication with the County is needed.
Council Agenda Report - TDC Code Additions
Page 8
Another concern has been partial use restriction on a property, in the sense of transferring away
part of the residential development potential but leaving some at the sending site. The proposed
County rules would allow a landowner to transfer away all of the residential development potential
from part of contiguously owned land, but to retain it on the rest. The boundary between land
restricted by a TDC easement and land not restricted by a TDC easement could follow existing
or new, legally created parcel boundaries, but it would not need to. Encumbering part of a parcel
with a TDC easement would not divide that parcel. This allowance may be necessary to enlist
willing senders. While it would be possible to not have complete protection on commonly owned
property, some more protection would better than no more protection.
Additional build-out capacity
Another general area of concern has been the increase in the overall number of dwellings within
the planning area that could result from TDC. Several environmental impacts and public service
demands occur in proportion to the number of people living in the area, which depends directly
on the number of dwellings. TDC could increase the number of residents in comparison with
what would happen without TDC. The increase would result from the way the credit is proposed
to be determined.
A sending site's development value (in dollars, usually as determined by an appraisal) would be
divided by a specified amount, to determine the number of credits (additional dwellings) that could
be developed at receiving sites. The proposed, specified amount is $10,000. (This is not
necessarily the value which the market will give to a development credit.) As a result, for
example, a sending site with an appraised development value of $100,0000 would have ten
development credits. ($100,000 divided by $10,000 equals 10.) The ten development credits
would result regardless of the number of dwellings allowed by current land use rules, which could
be more or fewer. Since rural home sites in the San Luis Obispo area typically have dollar values
of more than $10,000 each —even allowing for land division and development costs-- the number
of dwellings (credits) produced by sending sites is likely to be higher than the number of dwellings
which would have been built on sending sites. Also, bonus credits could be approved if the owner
of a sending site accepted more than the basic use restrictions. The County's proposed rules
would allow a ten percent bonus for each type of special resource protected, up to a combined
bonus of 50 percent. Special resources include wetlands, the habitat of endangered species, areas
of high fire hazard, and contiguous areas of at least 1000 acres.
A majority of the Technical Advisory Committee believed that the relatively high number of
dwellings resulting from the$10,000 divisor was a necessary level of incentive or inducement for
landowners to permanently forego development potential they might already have or might expect
to obtain. It was also recognized that a dwelling at a receiving site would probably have a much
lower market value than a dwelling at a sending site. For example, for transfers involving San
Luis Obispo's planning area, the dwelling "eliminated" by the transfer is likely to be a custom
home on a large parcel, perhaps a hillside, while the dwelling enabled by the transfer is likely to
be a condominium, apartment, or other modest dwelling in the downtown or in an identified
residential expansion area.
Council Agenda Report - TDC Code Additions
Page 9
The total increase in the number of dwellings within the San Luis Obispo planning area cannot be
predicted. The capacity of receiving sites is expected to be the limiting factor. Here is why: As
noted above, the City's General Plan explicitly recognizes the potential for 300 additional
dwellings if transferred development credits are received by identified residential expansion areas.
The General Plan also enables additional dwellings through TDC in the Central Commercial area,
and does not prohibit use of TDC in other expansion areas. A generous "guesstimate" for citywide
capacity is 500 dwellings, which would avoid having 50 to 100 dwellings in the greenbelt,
assuming dwelling site values in the greenbelt of$50,000 to $100,000 each. A 1991 preliminary
survey by County planning staff of areas outside the urban reserve line found a potential for up
to 500 dwellings in sensitive locations. Using the assumed dwelling site value range, those 500
dwellings that could be avoided through TDC would equate to 2,500 to 5,000 dwellings at
receiving sites (without sending site bonuses). Even with some receiving sites outside the City's
jurisdiction, there is not likely to be enough capacity at receiving sites to offset all the sending
potential, so it would not be used. However, not all property owners are expected to participate
in this voluntary program. In addition, receiver site capacity will be needed over time. Future
City General Plan updates may increase receiver site potential in the urban area.
Receiving Site Impacts
Another issue is the impact of additional dwellings--higher density-- at specific receiving sites and
their neighborhoods. Possible receiving sites can be considered in the following five groups. It
is important to keep in mind that any additional dwellings on sites in the city which are enabled
by TDC would have to be consistent with the density limits set in the City's General Plan.
• Existing city neighborhoods. Additional dwellings are not proposed to be developed within
existing San Luis Obispo residential neighborhoods as a result of TDC.
• New planned city neighborhoods.
The Margarita Area could have up to nine percent more dwellings with TDC. The City
must adopt a specific plan for this area before development can begin. A draft specific
plan has been under preparation for several years. The specific plan will say what form
the additional dwellings could take and where within the specific plan area they could be
built. Any additional impacts to adjacent, currently developed areas would be minimal,
considering the modest overall allowed increase and the anticipated location and design
standards. The specific plan will be a public document. By consulting the specific plan,
prospective residents, property buyers, and business operators will be able to understand
the potential for TDC in the Margarita Area and how it may affect their concerns.
The Orcutt Area could have up to 40 percent more dwellings with TDC. The City must
adopt a specific plan for this area before development can begin. Preparation of the
specific plan has not started. The specific plan will say what form the additional dwellings
could take and where within the specific plan area they could be built. Specific additional
impacts to adjacent, currently developed areas will be addressed in further environmental
review when the specific plan is prepared.
Council Agenda Report - TDC Code Additions
Page 10
The recommended zoning text changes include the Planned Development Zone. Some
residential expansion areas identified in the General Plan are not required to have specific
plans. Generally, they are seen more as expansions of existing neighborhoods. They are
expected to have development plans under PD zoning as part of annexation. With the
recommended approach, TDC density increases of up to 25 percent could be considered
in these areas (the same increase now allowed subject to "planned development"), but
without the specific findings now listed in the PD section of the Zoning Regulations. Note
that for the following areas the Land Use Element does not identify different residential
capacities with TDC and without TDC (and for the Irish Hills area identifies the same
capacity, implying no potential for receiving development credits).
- The northern part of the Irish Hills expansion area (also referred to as the DeVaul
Ranch), at the southwest corner of Madonna Road and Los Osos Valley Road;
- The Los Osos Valley Road "gap" (Madonna property), on the east side of Los Osos
Valley Road between Pacific Beach School and Auto Park Way car dealerships;
- Part of the Dalidio property shown as Medium-Density Residential, on the easterly
side of Madonna Road between the Post Office and the Oceanaire Drive houses;
- The Maino property on the lower flank of San Luis Mountain, northwest of the
Highway 101-Marsh Street interchange;
- The Foothill saddle, immediately west of La Loma Court;
- The Miossi property,just north of the entry to Cuesta Park.
• Other new city neighborhoods. During the Land Use Element update hearings, potential
additional residential expansion areas were discussed. The adopted plan does not show
them, so they could be receiving sites only if future amendments to the General Plan are
adopted.
• Downtown. The proposed code changes would allow a 50 percent density bonus for
projects in the Central Commercial Zone that include TDC. The additional dwellings are
not expected to have significant impacts on building mass, because: there are no coverage
or setback limits for this zone; the building height limits would not change with TDC; all
projects will be subject to architectural review and policies on protecting views and
sunlight. However, in order to accommodate a higher number of dwellings, the buildings
containing them almost certainly will have more volume than if TDC was not used. (Most
recently built downtown commercial buildings have not occupied the full space allowed
by zoning.) The additional residents are not expected to have noticeable impacts in
relation to the number of people who already work in or visit downtown. Despite City
policies encouraging more housing in the downtown commercial area, there have been few
proposals and no new construction. The additional density enabled by TDC may be an
Council Agenda Report - TDC Code Additions
Page 11
inducement for such construction. Also, downtown's attractive appearance, convenient
walking routes and public transportation, and safety may make it a desirable living place
for the expected increasing numbers of students and retirees in the area.
• Sites outside the city limits. The County could designate receiving sites near the city. The
County's draft area plan update which has been under review for several years discusses
this potential. Possibilities include new rural residential areas, and higher density in
existing rural residential area (such as making the O'Connor Way area more like the Los
Ranchos area). In the San Luis Obispo area, no specific receiving sites which would be
under County jurisdiction have.been designated, and none are proposed as part of the
County's current package of code changes to enable TDC.
If residential densities are increased within the City's greenbelt, the result could be more
urban type development near the City. The City's General Plan says allowed densities
should not be increased, except for certain types of cluster projects which permanently
protect large portions of their sites as open space.
Advisory Body Review
The Planning Commission on July 10, 1996, voted six to one to recommend the attached package
of code amendments. The dissenting Commissioner did not specifically object to the proposed
package of City code amendments, but thought the County's part of the program was too general
and subject to change in ways that would not meet City objectives for open space protection.
Commission concerns expressed at that meeting are addressed in the Issues Discussion above.
Public Comment
No public testimony was presented at the Planning Commission hearing. The staff director of the
Land Conservancy answered questions from Commissioners concerning several aspects of the
proposed program. No correspondence has been received.
FISCAL RVIPACT
There are no fiscal impacts associated with the recommended action.
CONCURRENCES
The Natural Resources Manager concurs with the recommendation.
Council Agenda Report - TDC Code Additions
Page 12
ALTERNATIVES
The Council may introduce the ordinance with different provisions from those recommended.
Substantial changes to the proposed regulations may need additional staff work or environmental
review, so continuation with direction would be appropriate.
Council rejection of any code changes to implement TDC would result in the need to delete from
the General Plan those policies and programs which call for TDC. Such amendments would have
to be considered at a future hearing.
The Council may continue action.
Attachments
Draft ordinance amending zoning and subdivision regulations
Legislative draft of code changes
Draft ordinance synopsis
Initial Environmental Study
General Plan excerpts --adopted policies related to TDC
Staff letter to County concerning easements
Draft specific plan guidelines for TDC
Council Reading File
County TDC booklet "Transfer of Development Credits ... Public Hearing Draft"
CAR-820.TDC
��Il�lhlllllnlll�lllll���! �IIIIIIIIIIII
cityO S�►1'11�,11S oBispo
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1 . Project Title: TDC Code Amendments (ER 85-96)
2. Lead Agency: City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street -
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3.. Contact Person and Phone Number: Glen Matteson; 805 781-7165
4. Project Location: San Luis Obispo
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: same as lead agency
6. General Plan Designation: not applicable
7. Zoning: not applicable
8. Description of the Project:
The City's General Plan Land Use Element and Open Space Element call for a
"Transfer of Development Credit" (TDC) program, to help preserve land
designated for open space uses. The intent is to have allowed development
occur where it will have the least impact on open space resources and public
services. Under a TDC program, development potential can be permanently
reduced or eliminated on a sending site and moved to a receiving site which is
designated as being eligible for additional development. The transfer can be
accomplished through the sale and purchase of development credits. Unlike
some other techniques for locating development to protect open space, the
sending and receiving areas need not be owned by the same party. Participation
in the TDC program would be voluntary, involving willing sellers and buyers.
Much of the land which City policies say should be protected as open space
(including land with agricultural value) is under County jurisdiction, and is not
likely to be annexed by the City. Therefore, most sending sites will be in the
unincorporated area. Most of the land with potential for additional development,
which would serve as receiver sites, is within the City or the areas which the
City plans to annex. Therefore, the City's TDC program is being developed in
conjunction with the County of San Luis Obispo.
it t I The Citv of San Luis Obisoo is committed to include the bisabled in all of its services_ mmnrams anrl art v roo
The County is considering amendments to its Land Use Element, its San Luis
Obispo Area Plan, and its Land Use Ordinance to enable TDC. The County has
prepared an initial environmental study and negative declaration (ED 96-001,
dated May 3, 1996). No impacts are expected to result from reduced
development potential on sites under County jurisdiction.
The City's Land Use Element already identifies the few in-city locations and
annexation areas which are eligible to receive transferred development credit, in
the form of more dwellings than otherwise would be allowed. A relatively small,
but not precisely predictable, number of additional dwellings could result within
the central commercial area. According to the adopted Land Use Element, up to
100 more dwellings could be built in the Margarita Area and up to 200 more
could be built in the Orcutt Area, with transfer of development credit. The City
currently has about 18,400 dwellings. At build-out, it is expected to have about
24,300 dwellings.
The potential impacts of the additional dwellings enabled by TDC under City
jurisdiction have been addressed in the 1994 Environmental Impact Report for the
Land Use and Circulation Element Update. Any further potential for additional
dwellings to increase receiver site capacity in the city would be addressed in the
environmental review for amendments to the City's General Plan, or for the
approval of specific plans or development plans involving such additional
dwellings. No potential for transfer of nonresidential credits is proposed.
The project that is the subject of this environmental evaluation consists of
additions to the City's Municipal Code, including Zoning Regulations and
Subdivision Regulations, which would provide the details of receiving and using
transferred development credits. A copy of the proposed code changes is
available at the Community Development Department in City Hall, 990 Palm
Street, San Luis Obispo.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
Item 8 above provides an overview of the context for the TDC program.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (such as permits, financing
approval, or participation agreement):
The County of San Luis Obispo is expected to adopt amendments to its plan and
code to enable transfer of development credits. Once the program is operating,
the County would determine the number of credits which could be sent from
sites under its jurisdiction. Under the proposed code, the County would appoint
an administrator to verify actual transactions involving TDC.
2
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by
the checklist on the following pages.
Land use and Planning Biological Resources Aesthetics
X Population and Housing Energy and Mineral Cultural Resources
Resources
Geological Problems Hazards Recreation
Water Noise Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Air Quality Public Services
Transportation and Utilities and Service
Circulation Systems
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and X
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATIVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION will
be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least
one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as
described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must
analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1) have
been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon the proposed project.
3
Signature: Date: (9
ado
Jo r
andeville, Long Range Planning Manager For: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Dir.
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question.
A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the
impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault
rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific
factors as well as general standards (e. g, the project will not expose sensitive receptors to
pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that.an effect is
significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is
made, an EIR is required.
4) "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant
Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they
reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier
Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an
effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (3) (D).
Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or
outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the
statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
4
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoningl x
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies X
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? X
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to X
soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land
uses)?
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an X
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)?
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population X
projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or X
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or
major infrastructure?
As discussed under"Project Description"above, additional dwellings and population in areas under City jurisdiction which
may receive transferred credits have been generally addressed in the Land Use Element update EIR. Also, density
increases for any future land development project in the City would be subject to separate environmental review.
Two aspects of the overall TDC program pose issues of growth inducement.
[continued next page]
5
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
First, TDC is expected to increase the potential total number of dwellings within the planning area (and the County as
a whole). .The increase would result from the way the credit is proposed to be determined. A sending site's
development value (in dollars) would be divided by a specified amount, to determine the number of credits (additional
dwellings) that could be developed at receiving sites. The specified amount is $10,000. (This is not necessarily the
value which the market will give to a development credit.) As a result, for example, a sending site with an appraised
development value of 5100,0000 would have ten development credits. The ten development credits would result
regardless of the number of dwellings allowed by current land use rules, which could be more or fewer. Since rural
home sites in the San Luis Obispo area typically have dollar values of more than $10,000 each —even allowing for land
division and development costs—the number of dwellings (credits) produced by sending sites is likely to be higher than
the number of dwellings which would have been built on sending sites. The likely increase within the San Luis Obispo
planning area cannot be predicted at this time.
Second, if the County designates receiver sites within the City's greenbelt, receiver sites not under City jurisdiction
could result in more urban type development near the City. Such designations are not proposed as part of the County
code changes.
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? . X
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? X
b) Seismic ground shaking? X
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? X
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? X
e) Landslides or mudflows? X
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions X
from excavation, grading or fill?
g) Subsidence of the land? X
6
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
h) Expansive soils? X
1) Unique geologic or physical features? X
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the X
rate and amount of surface runoff?
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards X
such as flooding?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of X
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen
or turbidity?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water X
body?
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water X
movements?
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through X
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of
an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial
loss of groundwater recharge capability?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? X
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? X
7
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
1) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater X
otherwise available for public water supplies?
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an X
existing or projected air quality violation (Compliance with
APCD Environmental Guidelines)?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? X
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause X
any change in climate?
d) Create objectionable odors? X
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? X
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves X
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.
farm equipment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? X
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? X
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? X
8
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative X
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts (e.g. compatibility X
with San Luis Obispo Co. Airport Land Use Plan)?
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal affect:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats X
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals
or birds)?
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? X
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, X
coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool? X
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? X
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? X
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient X
manner?
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral X
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State?
9
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous X
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or X
emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health X
hazard?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health X
hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass X
or trees?
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increase in existing noise levels? X
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fre protection? X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
10
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? x
e) Other governmental services? x
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations.to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? x
b) Communications systems? x
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? x
d) Sewer or septic tanks? x
e) Storm water drainage? x
f) Solid waste disposal? x
g) Local or regional water supplies? x
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? X
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? x
c) Create light or glare? x
11
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources. Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources) x
b) Disturb archaeological resources? x
c) Affect historical resources? x
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which x
would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the x
potential impact area?
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks x
or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? x
12
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality X
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, X
to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, X
but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects)
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will X
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
13
17. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (3) (D). In this case a discussion should
identify the following items:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
Final Environmental Impact Report for the Land Use and Circulation Elements Update (August 1994; State
Clearinghouse #92101006), which is available at the Community Development Department in City Hall, 990 Palm
Street, San Luis Obispo.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed
by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
The overall capacity of the urban area for dwellings and population (including TDC), and resulting impacts and service
demands, were addressed in the previous EIR.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation
measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions of the project.
Not applicable.
Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087.
Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3, 21093, 321094,
21151; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988);Leonofff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222
Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990).
18. SOURCE REFERENCES
None.
19. Mff1GATION MEASURES/MONITORING PROGRAM
None required.
IES.TDC GM 5-31-96
14
City of San Luis Obispo
ADOPTED TDC POLICIES
Land Use Element
Growth Management Policies
1.7.1 Open Space Protection Within the City's planning area and outside the urban
reserve line, undeveloped land should be kept open... Scenic lands, sensitive wildlife
habitat, and undeveloped prime agricultural land should be permanently protected as
open space.
1.7.4 Parcel Sizes & Density The City will encourage the County to create no new
parcels within the greenbelt, with the exception of those permitted under the following
cluster incentive. Outside of clusters, allowed parcel sizes within the greenbelt should
be no smaller, and the number of dwellings allowed on a parcel should be no more,
than designated by the 1989 San Luis Obispo County Land Use Element.
1.8.2 Prime Agricultural Land Development of prime agricultural land [within the
urban reserve line] may be permitted, if the development contributes to the protection
of agricultural land in the urban reserve or greenbelt by one or more of the following
methods, or an equally effective method: acting as a receiver site for transfer of
development credit from prime agricultural land of equal quantity; ....
Growth Management Programs
1.17.1 Means of Protection The City will pursue a wide range of means to protect
the surrounding open lands, including: ...transfer of development credits...
Residential Policies
2.3.4 Transfer of Development Credits For each major expansion area, Table 3
[immediately below] indicates a low capacity which may be developed without transfer
of development credits and a high capacity which may be used with transfer of
development credits. Development credits would be transferred from areas in the City,
the urban reserve, or the greenbelt where development would be less appropriate,
generally those designated Open Space or, on the County's map, Agriculture or Rural
Lands.
l�uzSfIIwelli�;i's<
4"4:�ii::4ji:�i�v
:i:4i::i:<4:Cii......:
t.9.` :.:.::::it
}
Irish Hills 500 500
LMar1,100 1,200
Orcutt 500 700
2.4.2 Density Bonuses The City may approve a density bonus for a project which
will:
A. Be a receiving site, within expansion areas or the downtown commercial
core only, for development credit transferred to protect open space;
3.1 General Retail
3.1.6 Building Intensity The ratio of building floor area to site area shall not exceed
3.0, except that downtown sites which receive transfers of development credits for open
space protection shall not exceed 4.0...
4.2 Downtown Residential
4.2.1 Existing and New Dwellings Downtown residential .... Commercial core
properties may serve as receiver sites for transfer of development credits, thereby
having higher residential densities than otherwise allowed.
6.2 Hillside Policies
6.2.4 Development Credit Transfer Any residential development credit obtained
from Open Space designations outside the urban reserve line or development limit line
should be transferred to land inside the lines.
6.2.6 Hillside Planning Areas Hillside policies apply to all hills in and around the
City. Specific policies to address particular concerns for the areas as shown on Figure
6 [are] listed below. For each of these areas, land above the development limit line
should be secured as permanent open space.
B. The Woodland Drive area includes vacant land where residential
development may occur in the vicinity of the high school ... Before
further subdivision or development of any of certain vacant land near
Woodland Drive (Figure 7) a specific plan or development plan should
be approved. This plan should address the following, in addition to
relevant items as noted in policy 2.3.1.
(6) A program for transferring development potential, consistent with
these hillside planning policies;
6.3 Hillside Programs
6.3.2 Transfer of Development Credits The City will add a "development transfer"
section in its Zoning Regulations, to encourage the transfer of residential development
allowed on land outside the urban reserve line to suitable land within the line,
regardless of land ownership.
Airport Area Programs
7.14 Open Space Dedication and In-lieu Fees
Airport Area properties..., to help maintain the greenbelt, shall also secure open
space protection for any contiguous, commonly owned land outside the urban reserve.
If it is not feasible to directly obtain protection for such land, fees in lieu of dedication
shall be paid when the property is developed, to help secure the greenbelt in the area
south of the City's southerly urban reserve line...
Open Space Element
General Programs
1.F Work with the State and County to jointly develop and adopt a transfer of development
credit (TDC) program. This program should target as sender sites: (1) agricultural
lands within the greenbelt which are experiencing or will likely experience conversion .
pressures, (2) hill and mountain areas, and (3) other areas considered appropriate to a
TDC program. Receiver sites should be designated within the City and appropriate
County areas within the greenbelt and Outer Planning Area.
Agricultural Policies
1.A.3 Consider a transfer of commercial development potential from the Dalidio site's
commercial area to the Madonna Plaza and Central Coast Plaza sites. Such a program
could (A) form one viable shopping center versus three largely independent centers,
and (B) allow additional prime farmland to be preserved as agriculture.
1.13 Work with Cal Poly to determine if the Orchard area should be preserved as
agricultural land and as an entry into the City (see site #13, Site Map). If appropriate,
examine the possibility of a transfer of development credit between the Orchard area
and the Dalidio open space area.
Definitions
"Transfer of Development Credit" is a program that allows a landowner (located in the City,
the greenbelt, or Outer Planning Area) to transfer a property's development potential to
another property located within the City, the greenbelt, or Outer Planning Area where
development is encouraged. Such a program transfers development from a site where
development is discouraged (sender site) to a site where development is encouraged (receiver
site).
ADOFFML.TDC
��►���������►►►i��i►►►IIIIlIIIIIIIII�►►a����i�� 1111CItY ® S�1'1 lollS OBISPO®
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
July 18, 1996
Board of Supervisors
County Government Center
San Luis Obispo, CA 93408
Subject: Proposed Transfer of Development Credit (TDC) amendments (August 6,
1996, agenda item)
Honorable Board Members:
The City of San Luis Obispo supports the establishment of a transfer of development credit
(IDC) program. TDC can be an effective tool to shift development from land containing sensitive
or agriculturally valuable resources to areas designated for development. The City's General Plan
calls for preparation of a TDC program, and identifies several potential "receiving sites" within
the city limits and the areas designated for annexation. The San Luis Obispo City Council is
scheduled on August 20 to consider a package of amendments to the City's zoning and subdivision
regulations to enable TDC, as recommended by City staff and the City Planning Commission.
The City's package refers to, and depends on, adoption and effective implementation of your
program.
The package of amendments before you is a necessary and reasonable first step. City planning
staff have been working with your staff on the specific features of a TDC program. The current
draft ordinance responds to our comments on a previous draft. Refinements to the ordinance can
be considered after the County and the City have some experience with it.
We are concerned with one aspect of the program. The draft standard TDC easements (Appendix
B of the May 1996 public hearing draft TDC booklet) contain lists of allowed uses, some of which
appear not to be consistent with the intent to transfer development to more appropriate locations,
and the objective of land resource protection. We are aware that they were included at the request
of certain land owners earlier in the process of preparing the TDC program, and that in some
cases land owners may be willing to preclude such uses in the easements they grant. However,
we recommend that the "model" easement agreements not include the following in their lists of
allowed uses:
Farm Equipment and Supplies (sales and servicing as a principle use)
Libraries and Museums
Membership Organization Facilities
Schools - Specialized Education and Training
Wholesaling and Distribution
1 F I The Cif,,of Cen 1.na f h;d ie nn ilferl !n inrLvlo Iho riicnMai in .11 of ife ..nA.ne nrnn.�...� .....� .....:..:.:....
\ r
TDC Amendments
Page 2
The draft easement forms refer to the County Land Use Element (LUE) and Land Use Ordinance
(LUO) definitions of, and requirements for, the allowed uses. One of the purported advantages
of TDC is that it removes future changes in a sending site's development potential from the realm
of zoning changes. The referenced documents can be changed, thereby changing the use
limitations for permanent easements. Even if the current draft listing of uses is determined to be
consistent with the purposes of TDC, a future change to the LUE or LUO could open TDC
sending sites to uses that are not consistent with the stated intent of TDC to "relocate development
from environmentally sensitive land, land with agricultural capability, or antiquated subdivisions
to more suitable areas."
If any of the uses named above are to remain on the easements' lists of allowed uses, the basic
limitations on them should also be spelled out in the easement forms. Adding the following would
help address the City's concerns.
"The following uses can be permitted if the Planning Commission approves a development
plan which it finds to be consistent with the purposes of the TDC program, and provided
that the facility is directly related to an agricultural activity conducted on the site."
Thank you for considering our comments.
Sinerely,)
Arnold Jon
Community Development Director
copies: John Dunn, City of S.L.O. CAO
Neil Havlik, City of S.L.O. Natural Resource Manager lm
466�i Mandeville, Long Range Planning Manager