Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-04-12 STAFF REPORTS 4A �o VPAM SA iy c u m k Oq<�FORe`P CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: April 19, 2006 UNFINISHED BUSINESS SUBJECT: INITIATION OF ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT ON HILLSIDE REGULATIONS FOR CHINO CONE AND ADJACENT HILLSIDE AREAS FROM: David H. Ready, City Manager BY: Planning Department SUMMARY This report presents a draft ordinance for zoning standards and regulations for Chino Cone and adjacent areas. Staff is seeking Council action to initiate a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment under Section 94.07.01.A.01.b and forward the draft ordinance for review by the Planning Commission in a public hearing. RECOMMENDATION: Approve by motion the initiation of a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment and associated environmental review for zoning standards and regulations for the Chino Cone and adjacent hillside areas. STAFF ANALYSIS: Background On February 8, 2006, the City Council discussed the general provisions of an ordinance for the regulation of development of the Chino Cone and adjacent areas (see attached staff report and meeting minutes). This discussion followed the presentation to the Council in January 2006 of the final recommendations of the Citizen Task Force for Mountain and Foothill Preservation. This report presents a draft ordinance for Council consideration based on its direction to staff provided at the February meeting, and seeks authorization to process a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment under the provisions set forth in the Zoning Code. Initiation of Zone Ordinance Text Amendment The Palm Springs Zoning Code establishes the procedure for its amendment, with the initiation of such amendments allowed, as follows: A Item No. 4. /�" . City Council Staff Report April 19, 2006 Initiation of Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment—Chino Cone Page 2 of 5 94.07.01 Zoning ordinance text amendment Any amendment to the text of this Zoning Code which imposes any regulation not theretofore imposed or removes or modifies any such regulation theretofore imposed shall be made according to the following procedure: A. Procedure. 1. Initiation. a. The planning commission may initiate proceedings by motion and then hold public hearings and make a recommendation as provided below. b. The city council may initiate proceedings by motion and then submit the matter to the commission for public hearings. Accordingly, staff is seeking Council initiation of the Zone Ordinance Text Amendment for the Chino Cone and adjacent areas, by adoption of such a motion. Following Council approval of a motion, the amendment would be scheduled for a noticed public hearing before the Planning Commission for its review and recommendation. The item would then return in a noticed public hearing for action by the City Council. Analysis—Proposed draft ordinance, "CC-SP Chino Cone Specific Plan Zone The attached draft ordinance is based on the direction provided by the City Council to establish permitted uses, maximum densities, and other provisions for regulating development of the Chino Cone and adjacent hillside areas. Highlights of the proposed ordinance include: 1. Creation of the "CC-SP — Chino Cone Specific Plan" Zone District 2. Base limit of 1 single family dwelling per 40 acres as the 'permitted use" 3. Requirement for a Specific Plan for any other proposed development, which would be limited to: a. Single-family dwellings, b. Multiple-family residential, c. Public parks, recreational areas, and open space, but not to include places of assembly, d. Resort hotels, condominiums, time-shares, including incidental or accessory commercial uses, and e. Accessory structures and uses 4. Development standards for "permitted uses" 5. Development standards for all other uses, including densities based on Planning Areas: a. #1 — 1 DU 140 Acres b. #2 — 2 DU /Acre c. #3 —2 DU /Acre d. #4 —2 DU /Acre e. #5 —4 DU /Acre f. #6 — 1.5 DU /Acre g. #7 — 1 DU 140 Acres h. #8 — 2 DU /Acre i. #9 — 1 DU /Acre City Council Staff Report April 19, 2006 Initiation of Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment—Chino Cone Page 3 of 5 6. Requirement for 80% open spaces, which may include: a. Vacant, undeveloped land, b. Hiking trails, c. Public parks, d. Recreational areas (not including places of public assembly), e. Golf courses, and f. Water reservoirs, lakes and water courses 7. Design Standards for all development proposals to include: a. Environmental Analysis b. View Analysis c. Street Design d. Site Design The draft ordinance provides more restrictive development regulations than either the current underlying zoning for the area or the interim zoning regulations contained in Urgency Ordinance No. 1664 enacted December 1, 2005. (At the meeting, staff will present a chart that compares many of the zone's regulatory provisions.) Analysis— Density Transfer A draft ordinance for density transfer requires additional research and discussion, and is not presented at this time. As previously indicated by staff, establishment of a density transfer mechanism demands a separate discussion of the program's purpose, objectives and provisions, including whether it is to be focused exclusively on the Chino Cone area or broadened to involve lands throughout the City. Further, staff maintains that the underlying zoning for the Chino Cone should be established in advance of any discussion of a density transfer program. Staff suggests a separate Study Session for consideration of this complex program, and has attached three articles that provide an overview of the density transfer concept, as follows: - "Transfer of Development Rights" — an overview of the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) concept - "Transfer of Development Rights Update" — a discussion of different cities' and counties' programs and experiences with TDR, and - "Transfer of Development Rights for Balanced Development" — a discussion of lessons learned and best practices related to TDR programs We have also attached a draft inventory of vacant lands within the City prepared for the General Plan Housing Element. This inventory could be the basis for a city-wide density transfer program, should the Council wish to move in that direction. Environmental Review The California Environmental Quality Act provides for legal and sufficient environmental review without the need for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). In light of the provisions of the proposed draft of the ordinance, staff believes two options are available. First is a determination that the "project" — adoption of the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment — is Categorically Exempt under CEQA and no further environmental i,Jrl City Council Staff Report April 19, 2006 Initiation of Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment—Chino Cone Page 4 of 5 review is required.' Staff believes that CEQA has been written to favor regulations that provide increased environmental protection and that the proposed draft ordinance meets this intent. Specifically, State CEQA Guidelines allow for the following Categorical Exemptions: Section 15307 — Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of Natural Resources Class 7 consists of actions taken by regulatory agencies as authorized by state law or local ordinance to assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of a natural resource where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment. Examples include but are not limited to wildlife preservation activities of the State Department of Fish and Game. Construction activities are not included in this exemption. Section 15308—Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment Class 8 consists of actions taken by regulator agencies, as authorized by state or local ordinance, to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement or protection of the environment where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment. Construction activities and relaxation of standards allowing environmental degradation are not included in this exemption. Staff believes that "Class 8" more directly fits the proposed draft ordinance, and staff would prepare an Initial Study to document that no "environmental degradation" would occur. Finally, staff believes that should the Council adopt an ordinance that is more permissive than the current rules, a Categorical Exemption would not be appropriate. As an alternative to using a Categorical Exemption, the City may prepare a Negative Declaration based on an Initial Study. A Negative Declaration is appropriate under CEQA when: "The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment." Section 15070(a), State CEQA Guidelines It is important to remember that pursuant to CEQA provisions, a "significant effect" is always a significant adverse effect, and that positive environmental outcomes are not a It is important to remember that the "project" is not any more or less than amending the zoning regulations and that the CEQA obligation is to disclose what adverse changes, if any, would occur to the environment if the new regulations replaced the old ones. The "project" does not include any future development plans or construction — only a change in the City's rules applicable to future deveiopment., In addition, the changes contemplated in the proposed ordinance are anticipated to be more restrictive and less permissive than otherwise allowed in the City's current adopted plans and policies. City Council Staff Report April 19, 2006 Initiation of Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment—Chino Cone Page 5 of 5 basis for higher CEQA review. Again, a more restrictive ordinance than the current regulations would easily qualify as having no adverse effect. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council provide direction on the provisions of the draft ordinance, "CC-SP — Chino Cone Specific Plan Zone" and initiate, by motion, a Zone Ordinance Text Amendment. Staff will proceed with environmental review and public hearing notification with the Planning Commission and, ultimately, the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT: Finance Director Review: No fiscal impact. "n a jo r�lc yCy4✓ing, ICP Thomas J. Wig on Dire or of annir g Services Assistant City Manager, Dev't Svcs David H. Ready ' City Manager , Attachments: 1. Draft Ordinance for "CC-SP — Chino Cone Specific Plan" Zone 2. Staff Report, "Discussion and Direction on Hillside Regulations, 2/8/06 3. City Council Meeting Minutes, 2/8/06 (excerpt) 4. "Transfer of Development Rights" — Ohio State University Extension 5. "Transfer of Development Rights Update" — 1999 APA Proceedings 6. "Transfer of Development Rights for Balanced Development" — Lincoln Institute of Land Policy 7. Inventory of Vacant Land, City of Palm Springs CITY OF PALM SPRINGS April 19, 2006 DRAFT ORDINANCE FOR CHINO CONE Page 1 92.xx.00 "CC-SP" Chino Cone Specific Plan Zone The CC-SP zone is intended to provide for the development of the Chino Cone and Highway 111 north entry corridor in a manner that will preserve the area's open, rural character by allowing development of large-lot dwellings ("ranchettes") and concentrated multiple family or resort projects. The purpose of the zone is to facilitate the preservation of open space via sensitive and appropriate uses, densities, distributions and design standards. 9;2.xx.01 Uses Permitted A. Uses Permitted. 1. Single-family dwellings, not to exceed one (1) unit per forty (40) net acres, excluding all lands with slopes in excess of thirty percent (30%). 2. Accessory buildings and uses customarily incidental to the permitted use when located on the same lot therewith. It is unlawful to construct, erect or locate any accessory building without a permitted main building. Servants quarters, guest houses and accessory living quarters may be erected in detached structures but shall not be provided with kitchen arrangements or other provisions for meal preparation. 3. Home occupations subject to the provisions of Chapter 5.22 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code. 4. Keeping of horses, in connection with the residential use of the property, subject to the following conditions: a. The lot area is not less than one (1) acre, b. The lot is not more than three-quarters (3/4) of a mile from a bridle trail existing or proposed on the general plan, c. There shall be not more than one (1) horse for each one-half (1/2) acre of lot area; however, not more than four (4) horses shall be kept on any one (1) lot, d. No stable, barn, pen or corral shall be within one hundred (100) feet of any lot line abutting a street, nor within fifty (50) feet of any property not within the R- 1-AH zone, nor within twenty-five (25) feet of any other property within the R- 1-AH zone, nor within fifty (50) feet of any dwelling or other building used for human habitation on the same or any adjacent lot. B. Uses Permitted by Specific Plan The following uses may be permitted subject to enactment of a Specific Plan by California Government Code Section 65450 et seq., as amended: 1. Single-family dwellings OF)717 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS April 19, 2006 DRAFT ORDINANCE FOR CHINO CONE Page 2 2. Multiple-family residential, 3. Public parks, recreational areas, and open space, but not to include places of assembly; 4. Resort hotels, condominiums, time-shares, including incidental or accessory commercial uses operated primarily for the convenience of residents and guests 5. Accessory structures and uses customarily incidental to the above uses, located on the same lot therewith, and designed as an integral part of any residential or hotel facility, including: a. Athletic, sport and recreation clubs; b. Country clubs, golf courses driving ranges, tennis and swimming clubs; c. Restaurants, not including drive-in, drive-through or fast-food establishments; d. Spas, subject to compliance with Chapter 5.34 of the Municipal Code. 92.xx.02 Uses prohibited All uses and structures not permitted in Section 92.xx.01 are deemed to be specifically prohibited. The following classifications of uses shall not be permitted in the zone by Commission determination: A. Commercial uses, excepting those otherwise provided for herein B. Industrial Uses C. Institutional Uses D. Mobile Home Parks 92;.xx.03 Property development standards — permitted uses The following property development standards shall apply to all land and buildings in the CC-SP zone for uses permitted under Section 92.xx.01.A, except that any lot created in compliance with applicable laws and ordinances in effect at the time of its creation may be used as a building site. A. Density The minimum lot area per dwelling unit shall be forty (40) acres. B. Lot Area Each lot shall have a minimum net lot area of twenty (20) acres. C. Lot Dimensions CITY OF PALM SPRINGS April 19, 2006 DRAFT ORDINANCE FOR CHINO CONE Page 3 All lots hereafter created shall comply with the following minimum standards and lots now held under separate ownership or of record shall not be reduced below these standards. 1. Each lot shall have a minimum width of five hundred (500) feet; 2. Each lot shall have a minimum depth of five hundred (500) feet. D. Building Height 1. Buildings and structures erected in this zone shall have a height not greater than eighteen (18) feet, and shall not exceed more than one (1) story in height. E. Yards 1. General Provisions. a. The provisions of Section 92.01.00 shall apply. 2. Front Yard. a. There shall be a front yard of not less than fifty (50) feet. 3. Side Yard. a. Each lot shall have a side yard on each side of not less than fifty (50) feet. 4. Rear Yard. a. Each lot shall have a rear yard of not less than fifty (50) feet. F. Lot Coverage Lot area covered by building or structures shall not exceed five thousand (5,000) square feet. G. Distance Between Buildings. The minimum distance between buildings shall be fifteen (15) feet except as otherwise provided in this section. H. Walls, Fences and Landscaping. The provisions of Section 93.02.00 shall apply, except that no more than one (1) acre of land per lot shall be enclosed by any wall, fence or landscape screen. I. Access. The provisions of Section 93.05.00 shall apply. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS April 19, 2006 DRAFT ORDINANCE FOR CHINO CONE Page 4 J. Off-street Parking. The provisions of Section 93.06.00 shall apply. K. Design Standards All development shall be designed to comply with the Design Standards for the Chino Cone / Highway 111 Entry Corridor, Section 94.xx.05 92.xx.04 Property development standards — uses subject to a Specific Plan The following property development standards shall apply to all land and buildings in the CC-SP zone for uses permitted under Section 92.xx.01.B. A. Density The following dwelling unit densities are established for the Planning Areas within the CC-SP zone: Planning Maximum Allowed Density Area 1 1 Dwelling Unit (DU) /40 Acres 2* 2 DU /Acre 3 2 DU /Acre 4 2 DU /Acre 5 4 DU /Acre 6 1.5 DU /Acre 7*r 1 DU /40 Acres 8 2 DU /Acre 9 1 DU /Acre *Planning Area 2 subject to Shadow Rock Specific Plan t Planning Area 7 defined by existing water course B. Lot Area, Lot Dimensions, Building Height, Yards, and Distance Between Buildings Development standards shall be as established by the applicable adopted Specific Plan. C. Lot Coverage. Development shall preserve open space no less than eighty percent (80%) of the subject property, excluding all lands with slopes in excess of thirty percent (30%). Open space shall be limited to: 1. Vacant, undeveloped land, 2. Hiking trails, CITY OF PALM SPRINGS April 19, 2006 DRAFT ORDINANCE FOR CHINO CONE Page 5 3. Public parks, 4. Recreational areas, not including places of public assembly 5. Golf courses 6. Water reservoirs, lakes and water courses D. Walls, Fences and Landscaping. The provisions of Section 93.02.00 shall apply. Development standards for walls, fences and landscaping shall be as established by the applicable adopted Specific Plan. E. Access. The provisions of Section 93.05.00 shall apply, except as may be modified by the applicable adopted Specific Plan. F. Off-street Parking. The provisions of Section 93.06.00 shall apply, except as may be modified by the applicable adopted Specific Plan. G. Design Standards All development shall be designed to comply with the Design Standards for the Chino Cone/ Highway 111 Entry Corridor, Section 94.xx.05 944.xx.05 Design Standards for the Chino Cone/ Highway 111 Entry Corridor The purpose of the Design Standards for the Chino Cone / Highway 111 Entry Corridor is to protect environmentally sensitive lands by establishing standards for the design, construction, operation and maintenance of development projects. A. Environmental Analysis Prior to submitting any proposed project application for a specific plan, tentative map or building permit application, an environmental analysis shall be prepared and submitted to the City. The analysis shall include a map and text which identify all major and minor environmental conditions on the subject site and surrounding area, including lands within 500 feet of the site, with the surrounding area subject to final determination by the Director of Planning Services. At a minimum, the analysis shall identify and describe the following subjects: 1. Geologic Conditions 2. Cultural Resources 3. Topographic Conditions CITY OF PALM SPRINGS April 19, 2006 DRAFT ORDINANCE FOR CHINO CONE Page 6 4. Unique Rock Formations and Mineral Deposits 5. Drainage Patterns and Local Watershed Boundaries 6. Minor and Major Water Channels 7. Flora and Fauna 8. Significant Plant Species 9. Significant Animal Species 10. Prior Development History 11. Existing Development The analysis provides the basis for project site planning, and the applicant shall locate proposed development to minimize impacts on environmental conditions. B. View Analysis Prior to submitting any proposed project application for a specific plan, tentative map or building permit application, a view analysis shall be prepared and submitted to the City. The analysis shall include a map, photos and text which identify views of the project site from the Highway 111 right-of-way and other viewpoints, with the actual viewpoints subject to final determination by the Director of Planning Services. At a minimum, the analysis shall address the following related to the selected viewpoints: 1. Areas of the subject site which are visible, 2. Areas of the site which may be screened or otherwise oriented so as not to be visible 3. Potential building envelopes (volumes) that would not be visible 4. Strategies for maintaining existing screening features 5. Strategies for implementing and maintaining proposed screening features The analysis provides the basis for establishing the locations and heights of structures and other support features, and the applicant shall locate proposed development to minimize off-site views of the project. C. Site Preparation The design and preparation of the site shall be have as their first objective the minimal disturbance of the underlying landforms, site topography and surface environment of the Chino Cone. The project shall introduce development which appears and functions as an integral part of the site's natural environment. The following principles for preparing the site shall be demonstrated on the project plans and application. 1. Grading CITY OF PALM SPRINGS April 19, 2006 DRAFT ORDINANCE FOR CHINO CONE Page 7 a. New development shall be designed to follow existing slopes and contours. b. Cut-and-fill techniques to create flat development pads shall be avoided. c. Slopes shall not exceed 1 '/2 to 1. d. Retaining walls are prohibited, with the following exceptions: 1. Retaining walls that are part of a building foundation and concealed from view 2. Transition retaining walls that taper from a maximum height of five (5) feet to zero, with a maximum overall length of twenty-five (25) feet. Screening from off-site view is required. e. Retaining elements composed of boulders, berms or other non-manufactured materials shall not appear as a wall, but provide variation in form and a natural appearance. 2. Drainage a. Project drainage shall follow best practices, while also maintaining the natural run-off and channel characteristics. b. Development shall not adversely impact drainage patterns and local watershed boundaries c. Drainage volumes in existing channels shall not be increased over natural levels d. Sedimentation characteristics of existing drainage channels shall be maintained. e. Natural, non-manufactured materials shall be used to assure the stability of drainage channels. f. The natural vegetation density and diversity of existing channels shall be maintained. g. Detention basins shall be designed as integral parts of site contours and terrain. h. No ponding of water shall be allowed above cut or fill slopes. i. Surface drainage interceptors shall be provided at the top of cut or fill slopes to prevent erosion of slopes and graded areas. j. All erosion control, and surface and sub-surface drainage facilities shall be designed to provide stable and long-term erosion protection. D. Street Design CITY OF PALM SPRINGS April 19, 2006 DRAFT ORDINANCE FOR CHINO CONE Page 8 The design and placement of street and roads shall be directed to minimize their appearance as long strips of pavement crossing natural slopes and contours. Their design and construction should minimize intrusions into local natural conditions. The following principles for roadways shall be demonstrated on the project plans and application. 1. Location of Streets and Roads a. Streets shall avoid the diversion or blockage of historical drainage patterns. b. Streets shall be contoured and aligned to direct drainage into historical drainage patterns. c. Significant habitat connections and view corridors shall not be interrupted by streets d. Curvilinear alignments and gently rolling profiles are encouraged to provide consistency with site topography. Excavations and embankments shall be avoided. e. Street alignments shall be located to avoid stands of vegetation, rock outcroppings and other significant natural features. 2. Street Design a. Additional rights-of-way may be required for cut or fill slopes, bike paths, trails, traffic control devices and other support features or facilities b. All roads shall have improved shoulders composed of large stones or rocks and clean, native topsoil. Compaction shall be at 90% of maximum density. c. Street intersections shall not be located within the alignment and floodplain of major or minor water channels nor within boulder clusters or other sensitive environmental features. d. Where roadway cross-slopes are used to control drainage, shoulder slopes should match pavement cross slope. e. Geotechnical reports shall be prepared for any cut and fill slopes. f. Maximum slope gradient within 10 feet of the roadway edge is 4:1 for fill slopes and 3:1 for cut slopes, unless otherwise approved by City Engineer g. Steeper slope gradient shall require use of guard rails or similar devices h. Maximum height of cut and fill slopes, including any retaining walls, is 8•feet, as measured vertically from the pavement surface to the natural grade at the toe or top of the constructed slope. Retaining walls shall be the minimum height necessary to meet this standard. i. Roadway slopes shall not create a continuous wall or cut/fill condition, but vary in height to create an undulating appearance consistent with the natural slope. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS April 19, 2006 DRAFT ORDINANCE FOR CHINO CONE Page 9 j. Slopes shall be rounded to blend into the existing terrain to produce a contoured transition. 3. Street lighting a. No street lighting shall be allowed. 4. Sidewalks a. No sidewalks shall be allowed. b. Shoulders may be used as pedestrian ways provided safety and full access are assured. E. Utilities 1. General Criteria a. Utilities shall be located to minimize any degradation to the key natural features identified on the Environmental Analysis b. Installation of utilities and utility corridors shall not result in slope movement or surface subsidence. c. Utility crossings shall not obstruct or constrict washes. d. Vegetation removed for utility construction or maintenance shall be replaced with appropriate native desert plants. e. Utility corridors requiring frequent maintenance shall not be located within significant riparian, vista or habitat corridors. f. All utilities shall be located underground or screened from public view in a manner that represents natural desert landscaping. 2. Water Distribution Lines a. All water lines located in public or private street rights-of-way shall be located within the pavement sections. b. Water lines located outside of rights-of-way shall require waterline easements. c. Water meters shall be located adjacent to driveways and shall minimize impacts on environmental conditions. d. Water lines shall only cross water channels within street rights-of-way. 3. Water Storage Facilities a. Water storage facilities shall be located underground or shall minimize impacts on the surrounding environment. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS April 19, 2006 DRAFT ORDINANCE FOR CHINO CONE Page 10 b. Any visible portion of a water storage facility shall have an exterior color to match surrounding native stone, rock or soil color. c. Tanks shall not be located on slopes greater than 3:1, unless approved by the Director of Public Works 4. Wastewater Collection Lines a. All wastewater lines, including force mains, located in public or private street rights-of-way shall be located within the pavement sections. b. Wastewater lines located outside of rights-of-way shall require sewer line easements. c. Wastewater lines shall not be located within areas subject to inundation by a 100-year storm flow, unless approved by the Director of Public Works. d. Wastewater lines shall only cross water channels within street rights-of-way, and only when no other viable solution is available. 5. Other utilities a. All utility lines shall be located within public or private street rights-of-way, but may be located outside of pavement areas. F. Site Planning and Design 1. General Criteria The following elements shall be preserved in the site plan to the maximum extent feasible: a. Natural features and environmental functions, as determined by the Environmental Analysis b. View corridors, as determined by View Analysis c. Natural topography d. Natural vegetation e. Water channels and natural drainage ways f. Significant visual features, such as peaks, ridgelines, rock outcrops, boulder fields, and significant stands of vegetation. 2. Design Guidelines a. All exterior colors, materials and finishes shall blend with the color and texture of surrounding stone, rock or soil. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS April 19, 2006 DRAFT ORDINANCE FOR CHINO CONE Page 11 b. Reflective building materials shall not be used. c. Recessed window and entry openings and deep roof overhangs are encouraged and expected. d. All improvements shall be located below the ridgelines of significant topographic features, as viewed from the View Analysis, as well as nearby public roads. e. The forms of buildings, structures and other improvements shall match the forms of the surrounding landscape. f. Stepped elevations shall be used to avoid massive building forms and wall surfaces. g. All exterior mechanical equipment shall be screened with material that complements the surrounding structures and environment. 3. Walls and Fences a. Perimeter or property boundary walls and fences are prohibited. b. Site walls and fences shall enclose the minimum area necessary to provide privacy or code compliance (swimming pools, etc.) c. Walls shall not cross significant desert vegetation, water channels or significant topographic features d. Walls shall be designed to avoid unbroken lines, using undulations, notches and similar features. e. Walls and fences shall include openings for continued growth of nearby desert vegetation and for passage of wildlife, where required. f. Fences shall be designed to minimize environmental and visual impacts. g. Fences which cross water or drainage channels shall be located and designed to maintain storm flows, avoid debris collection and provide for the passage of wildlife. 4. Lighting a. Exterior lighting fixtures shall be recessed and shielded to eliminate from off-site views any direct light source. All building-mounted lighting shall be directed downward. b. Maximum height for any exterior lighting fixture is sixteen (16) feet. 5. Landscaping a. The plant palette for any project shall be limited to plants native to the immediate vicinity, except as may be approved within a Specific Plan. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS April 19, 2006 DRAFT ORDINANCE FOR CHINO CONE Page 12 b. Hydroseeding shall not be allowed. c. Landscape lighting shall not be allowed, except as may be approved within a Specific Plan. d. Irrigation shall be by drip system only. e. Lawns shall not be allowed, except as may be approved within a Specific Plan. f. Swimming pool filtration systems shall be designed and installed so that no flows shall enter any off-site drainage system, public or private. �OQ?pLM S,0 .y e V N tOA14 C�</FORa�P CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: February 8, 2006 SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION ON HILLSIDE REGULATIONS FROM: David H. Ready, City Manager BY: Planning Department SUMMARY This memo present options for regulating future development of Chino Cone and adjacent areas. RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff to prepare draft hillside regulations for the Chino Cone and adjacent hillside areas based on the issues outlined in this memo. STAFF ANALYSIS: Background On December 14, 2005, the City Council received the final recommendations of the Citizen Task Force for Mountain and Foothill Preservation. At that meeting, the Council directed staff to return with an initial recommendation for establishing development regulations for the Chino Cone and other undeveloped hillsides. This memo summarizes the basic issues surrounding the creation of new hillside regulations and offers a recommendation for further action. A public hearing has not been noticed for this item. Regulatory Context Existing policies governing hillside development are contained in the Palm Springs General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The General Plan sets the basic tone for future development, and states the following about the Chino Cone: Nowhere in this country is there a site with the abrupt transition from desert to mountain so spectacularly defined. Chino Cone offers an unparalleled dimension in recreation and resort living potential. Recognizing the dynamics of the Tram itself, the recommended land uses are those which should complement the Tram and stimulate City Council Staff Report February 8, 2006 Hillside Regulations— Discussion and Direction Page 2 of 9 development of the highest quality. (Palm Springs General Plan, p. 1-21, see attached). The General Plan Land Use Map currently identifies the less steeply sloping areas (under 30%) of the Chino Cone with a range of uses and densities — from Very Low Density Residential (L-1 / One Unit per Acre) to High Density Residential (H 43121 — Forty-three Hotel Rooms or Twenty-one Dwelling Units per Acre). An excerpt of the General Plan Land Use Map is attached to this memo. In addition, the General Plan establishes an "Area Plan overlay" in the Chino Cone, as well as other sensitive areas. This overlay is intended to address, "...environmental sensitivity, delivery of service questions, avoidance of premature subdivision or prospects for special development of destination resort facilities." The General Plan gives specific attention to the Area Plan for Chino Cone, requiring that it address: ■ Roadway alignment on Tram Way ■ Environmental Impact Report on: o Infrastructure o Biology o Visual and cultural resources o Drainage o Wildfire Hazards ■ Specific Plan or Planned Development District is required for individual projects ■ Targeted land uses: o High-end residential, o Large-scale destination resorts o Commercial recreation The Zoning Map and Ordinance establishes Multiple Family Residential, Single Family Residential, Urban Reserve and Open Space zones in the Chino Cone similar to the designations in the General Plan. Other more recent actions related to the Chino Cone are summarized, as follows: ■ Urgency Ordinance — In response to new interest in the development of Chino Cone, the City Council adopted an urgency ordinance in October, 2004, directing that new regulations be prepared for the Chino Cone and adjacent areas. The urgency ordinance was extended in December 2004 and September 2005, and will expire in October 2006 with no further extensions available. While the urgency ordinance is in effect, development may only occur with the approval of a Specific Plan. ■ Measures B — A ballot measure was placed before the voters in March, 2005 proposing a maximum residential development density in the Chino Cone of one unit per 40 acres. The measure failed.2 ■ Citizens Task Force — Following the actions on Measures B and C, a citizens task force (CTF) formed with the stated aim of, "...seeking common ground for the Other Area Plan Overlay districts are Canyon Park, Palm Hills, Palm Springs Classic and Smoke Tree. 2 A companion measure to rescind a specific project in the Palm Hills area was passed (Measure C). City Council Staff Report February 8, 2006 Hillside Regulations— Discussion and Direction Page 3 of 9 development of land use policies for the areas subject to Measures B and C..." The CTF received City Council support with the inclusion of two Council members on the Task Force and the resources to hire an attorney. The CTF conducted meetings and workshops resulting in a final report presented to the City Council on December 14, 2005. The Task Force's recommendations include residential densities ranging from 1 unit per 40 acres to 6 units per acre and a limited set of commercial development opportunities.3 Establishing Regulatory New Controls While the City has long-established policies for regulating hillside development, recent attention from developers has spurred a renewed interest regarding the appropriateness of the current regulatory scheme. In response, the Council adopted the Urgency Ordinance, supported the efforts of the Citizen Task Force and is considering new directions for the use and development of the Chino Cone and adjacent areas. There is a wide range of potential options for how the City might regulate undeveloped hillside land. The correct choice may be difficult to discern, but it is possible to create a framework for evaluating which choices make more sense or best fulfill the community's values and expectations. Such a framework would be based on three basic elements of land use control (with two additional elements requiring separate discussion). The three elements are: 1. Types of land use — These are the activities that people conduct on land. In their most simple form, they are best-known as "residential", "commercial", "industrial", "institutional", etc. However, variations abound. • For the City's hillsides, staff believes the range of choices can be narrowed to: a, residential and quasi-residential uses, (including homes, condominiums, apartments and resorts), b, outdoor recreation (golf courses, trails) and c. open space. 2. Density or Intensity — This is the amount of activity that occurs and is usually expressed as a maximum allowed density / intensity. Density is associated with residential uses as units per acre, while commercial and other non-residential uses are expressed as Floor Area Ratio or similar formula. • For the City's hillsides, staff believes that a range of density options is already established at the low and high ends, with other choices in between, as follows: a. Low Build(One Dwelling Unit per 40 Acres) b. Citizen Task Force Recommendation 3 The Task Force also provided recommendations for the Palm Hills area, which is outside the scope of this report. City Council Staff Report February 8, 2006 Hillside Regulations—Discussion and Direction Page 4 of 9 c. One Unit perAcre d. Current General Plan Less 20% e. High End: Current General Plan 3. Distribution — This is how uses are physically laid out on the land. Uses may be dispersed evenly across the land or concentrated in one corner or clustered in response to unique or site-specific conditions. Examples of different distribution schemes are shown below: s fa s ,n c� EVENLY DISPERSED CLUSTERED CONCENTRATED (SINGLE FAMILY HQM ES) (CONDOMINIUMS) (RESORT) EXAMPLES OF DISTRIBUTION OPTIONS • For the City's hillsides, staff believes that the range of distribution choices — from dispersion, to clustering, to concentration — is wide open. By considering the issues of use type, density and distribution, the Council can more clearly determine its preferences for what would be acceptable development on the hillsides, if any. It may then develop and adopt regulations that will successfully fulfill these objectives. Staff has prepared the following chart to help integrate these three elements. On the vertical axis (left margin) the range of density / intensity options is shown, with low density at the bottom. On the horizontal axis (bottom margin) the range of distribution options is presented, with dispersion at the left. By choosing a set of density / distribution pairs, the most feasible land use is identified. Alternatively, a preferred land use will suggest the type of density and distribution that would work best. City Council Staff Report February 8, 2006 Hillside Regulations— Discussion and Direction Page 5 of 9 HIGH 20 PER ACRE Resorts ConaorH�HiRrHs 10 PER ACRE I) Can�oHtiniRnrs Resorts �p S PER ACRE �f f I 2 PER .sinrgte FAn[1�y coHdo"dKiRms i ACRE EioHtes 1 ACRE MIN. 5in9�e FaHti�y Honrea St ACRE RAHC�ettea ]L.OW MIN. I ismRsUo CONCIr lI 0 I) ISTRI8UTI0N MATRIX OF RESIDENITIAL LAND USES DENISITY BY ❑ISTRIBUTIONI 4. Site Design Objectives — The fourth element comprises the site and design objectives the City wishes to achieve for new development. These can include both City-wide and site-specific issues, including the natural environment (e.g., geologic hazards, habitat preservation, air quality), esthetics (view impacts, architectural style), public services (police, fire, parks and recreation) and quality of life (traffic, site amenities, historic preservation). Many of these issues are routinely addressed through mandatory environmental clearances; those that are unique to sub-areas of the City can be highlighted in applicable regulations. • For the City's hillsides, staff believes that specific regulations should address how development is sited to maximize the preservation of open space, minimize land disturbance (especially as related to boulders) and minimize off-site views of new construction and roads. City Council Staff Report February 8, 2006 Hillside Regulations— Discussion and Direction Page 6 of 9 5, Implementation — The fifth element to establishing hillside regulations is how the City's development preferences are realized; that is, the implementation tools used to achieve the Council's goals. These are not neutral choices — political implications, legal limitations, administrative requirements or costs to the developer make regulatory mechanisms a key part of the Council's overall decision regarding hillside development. Staff has identified the following implementation options for the Chino Cone and adjacent areas: • General Plan and Zoning Regulations via a Specific Plan — The General Plan and zoning ordinance set the permitted land uses, density limits, development rules and methods for project review. The City Council may amend the current policies to reset the rules for hillside development, including the adoption of a Specific Plan, as called for in the 1993 General Plan. Such an amendment is also what the Council called for in the 2004 urgency ordinance. The Specific Plan can contain both General Plan policies and site-specific development standards, and therefore include everything from overall goals to the details of landscape, lighting and signage. • Developers' Specific Plans — An alternative to the City preparing an overall specific plan is to have property owners prepare specific plans for their own project for review and approval by the City. With this approach, the City sets overall land use goals, but the developer proposes the zoning standards for a specific project. The advantages of this approach are: o Plans and standards are tailored to specific properties, o The owner's timing needs are taken into account, o Greater planning flexibility is possible in response to market conditions, and o Costs to prepare the plans are directly borne by property owners • Density Transfer — A more ambitious development control is the adoption of a density transfer mechanism that encourages the distribution of development rights between properties. The City, in effect, creates a market where the development rights from properties the City wishes to preserve as open space are sold to other properties the City deems more suitable for development. This is a complex process and must not be considered without an unwavering commitment to creating a successful transfer market. The features of density transfer include: o May be used within hillside areas or more broadly (e.g., City-wide), o Requires General Plan determination of land uses and density limits to establish market values o City must be firm in holding to density limits over time to preserve integrity of the market ■ Acquisition of Open Space — In order permanently preserve open space, the City may either acquire the development rights or purchase the land outright: o Sources of funds include the City's General Fund, tax-supported bonds, City Council Staff Report February 8, 2006 Hillside Regulations-Discussion and Direction Page 7 of 9 third-party grants and donations. o City General Plan must establish permitted land uses and density limits so that property values may be estimated. Actual Conditions The 2004 Urgency Ordinance established nine planning areas within and around the Chino Cone. The Citizens Task Force report provides the following numbers on these areas (all are approximate; see chart below): Total acres considered developable: 1921 Area No. 2 has about 360 acres with entitlements (Shadowrock) Area No. 3 contains about 340 acres, and is subject to Agua Caliente Band sovereignty • About 1220 acres remain as subject to new hillside regulations PA's Total Acres Developable Acres City jurisdiction / no permits 1, 4 - 9 2392 1218 City jurisdiction /with permits (Shadowrock) 2 360 360 Outside City jurisdiction /Tribal land 3 415 343 TOTAL --- 3167 1921 Staff notes that development of Planning Areas 2 and 3 will have a significant effect on planning for the areas 4 through 6 since the provision of public services (streets, drainage, water, sewer, etc.) to Shadowrock and the tribal lands will facilitate development of properties at lower elevations. Based on the acreage information above, staff has calculated an approximate total of residential units from the five density schemes identified on page 2 of this report: Low Build Citizen Task Large Lot Exist. GP Less Existing Gen? Force Dev't 20% Plan Density 1 unit/40 Varies 1 unit/ acre Varies Varies acres Maximum Dwelling Units 30 745 1218 1309 1637 Shadowrock and 1406 1406 1406 1413 1766 Tribal Units TOTAL 1436 2151 2624 2722 3403 Selecting a Preferred Regulatory Scheme The regulatory options described above provide a way to allow noteworthy development in the City's hillside areas - as envisioned by the General Plan - while preserving City Council Staff Report February 8, 2006 Hillside Regulations— Discussion and Direction Page 8 of 9 substantial open space. Specifically, staff believes two approaches should be considered — either separately or in combination: 1. Concentrated, Dense Development, such as condominiums and resorts. 2. Dispersed, Low-density Development, such as large-lot single family and ranchettes (two to five acre lots). These land uses would apply to the central portion of Chino Cone; that is, Planning Areas 4, 5 and 6. Planning Areas 8 and 9 are not directly within the Cone, but would also yield significant open space through similar strategies. The benefits from either approach are economic as well as environmental — allowing for the investment needed to plan and develop high-quality projects and supporting infrastructure, while assuring that the least amount of land is disturbed. In summary, staff believes that the City should allow residential and resort development at the densities recommended by the Citizens Task Force, as 1) concentrated resorts / condos, 2) sparse, highly-dispersed ranchettes, or 3) a combination of the two. Staff also recommends the creation of site-specific design standards that reduce environmental impacts, land disturbances and off-site views of development. Finally, staff believes specific plans initiated by the property owners are the appropriate implementation tool for development of the Chino Cone and adjacent areas. (In the meantime, development should be restricted to one unit per 20 acres to encourage the regulated specific plan approach.) a� ReCCSh+Ih+ 9NDE'D LANE) Us» CONCEPT Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Council direct staff to prepare an ordinance based on the discussion outlined above. Staff supports the following elements in a future ordinance: 1. Base land use development is residential at 1 unit per 20 acres, 2. Development in excess of the base limits may only be accomplished by preparation and adoption of a Specific Plan, and City Council Staff Report February 8, 2006 Hillside Regulations— Discussion and Direction Page 9 of 9 3. Development within any Specific Plan would be subject to the following requirements: a. Land uses limited to open space, residential and resort uses, with ancillary outdoor recreation. b. Development densities are as proposed by the Citizens Task Force c. Distribution of development within any Specific Plan may be concentrated or widely dispersed, but only on 20% of developable lands (having less than 30% slope). Open space shall comprise 80% of developable lands. d. Site planning requirements that minimize environmental effects, including grading, views, public services. FISCAL IMPACT: Finance Director Review: No direct fiscal impact is anticipated at this time. Based on Council direction, fiscal impacts of revenues versus expenditures for public services may vary. Craig A. Ewing, AICP Thomas J. Wilson Director of Planning Services Assistant City Manager, Dev't Svcs David H. Ready City Manager Attachments: 1. Excerpt from Palm Springs General Plan 2. Excerpt from Palm Springs General Plan Land Use Map Area Plans The Land Use Map delineates several areas in the City' s planning area for Area Plans. This designation, overlaying generalized land uses, circulation systems, and the like, is established in order to direct additional research prior to development of a property or a related group of properties . The reasons for the Area Plan overlay may include environmental sensitivity, delivery of service questions, avoidance of premature subdivision or prospects for special development of destination resort facilities . The underlying Land Use is established as a baseline for environmental analysis and may be altered upon completion of the specific planning required for the area. The area plan may take the form of either a Specific Plan or a Planned Development District as required. However, where the area plan is intended to be processed and adopted as a General Plan Amendment, a Specific Plan shall also be required. A Specific Plan is a development plan which may further refine the 0,neial Plan . Specific Plans often provide detailed design and ,innlysis of complex mixed-use projects, and indicate specific land us(r locations and design. A Specific Plan contains text, exhibits .and diagrams indicating the distribution, location and intensity of proposed land uses and the necessary public and private urban support systems pursuant to California Government Code Sec. 65450- 65457 . Such plans shall be adopted prior to any development in the specified areas . Each Specific Plan also defines the standards and criteria for development, open space and, where applicable, conservation programs . Additionally, the Specific Plan provides a program of implementation measures and financing necessary to carry out the project . Planned Development Districts (PDDs) are designed to provide for various types of land use to be combined in compatible relationship with each other. It is the intent of a PDD to be in compliance with ih(• General Plan and good zoning practices while allowing certain departures from the strict provisions of the specific z��ni• rl ,r:;5ifications . D(•vf� lopment areas within areas designated with an Area Plan Overlay on Lhe General Plan Land Use Map, or described in the text of the General Plan, cannot proceed until a Specific Plan or a Planned Development District has been prepared and adopted by the City Council for the entire plan area. In areas where the plan encompasses more than one property, the Plan must be completed and adopted prior to development on any affected property. Either the City or the property owners may initiate the required plan. U3/93 I-20 3.2.2. Potential developable areas of 300 acres or larger (or a portion of such area) shall be subject to the approval of an area plan prior to development. Such plan may lake the form of either a Planned Development District or Specific Plan. Proposals for each planning area shall be designed as a total unit prior to the approval of any partial development within that unit; individual structures or land uses which may interfere with proper development of a planning area should not be approved. 3.2.3. Prior to the adoption of the required Area Plan, non-intrusive, self-contained and -serviced uses may be allowed where infrastructure development is not necessary. This allowance may include such uses as caretaker's residences, limited agriculture, primitive campgrounds, excursions and very-low-density residential on lots of record of 160 acres or greater. Requirements for certain areas are outlined as follows: Canyon Park A specific plan (Specific Plan NI) has haera approved to construct it destination ucsort, known as Canyon Pail, Resort & Spa, which will include a guard-gated residential enclave with estate homes; a resort hotel, including a spa and fitness complex; an IS-hole championship golf course and clubhouse; and accessory recreational and commercial facilities. The site comprises 746 acres on S. Palm Canyon Drive, southerly of Murray Canyon Dr. For detailed information, refer to the files for Specific Plan W1 in the Department of planning& Zoning- Chino Cone Nowhere in this country is lherc a site with the abrupt transition from desert to mountain so spectacularly defined. Chino Cone offers an unparalleled dimension in recreational and resort living potential. Recognizing Ilue dynamics of the Tram itself, the recommended land uses are those which should complement the Tram and stimulate development of the highest quality. Further included as an integral part of This general Plan is the firm recommendation that all development to lake place in this magnificent area be required to respect and cunfonn to the special characteristics of the site and the total Palm Springs environment. Requirements for Area Plan: 1. A roadway alignment study of Tram Way which addresses the permitted density of development and safely. Plans for a special roadway section within a 100-fool right of way shall be developed 2. A full lanvirrnnnmtal Impact Report with locus on 1) infrastructure development (including circulation) and its impacts, 2) biological concerns including, but not limited to, threatened, rare and endangered plant and animal species, 3) visual and cultural resources, 4) drainage, and 5) wildfire hazards. 3. Either a Specific Plan or a Planned Development District may be submitted. 'Be requirements outlined above must address the relationship with the entire area. 4. Target land uses include high-end residential, large-scale destination resorts and commercial recreation. t/1/41 I ? q�»r� - _� �R.4Ma�JlW��>•K L4 LJ ------- LSR ,C` MIS Y.c Mr5 1yy 6t W/vR C MIS MIS �C L6 i 'l Mrs ------ pSGC 66 i H4s12f \ .L4 46 ^,� r `. - ^z��///r4G r'IJ// i�` •%/ 1rSRr r L6 Cie Mrs G _ pAi W/PR ; L2 i ...i0 '`• r l Ip1Y�i�di' - 23 N LI iR 11 1 L ' \' tt W 1P ru{glnl LT. uu\h - C �1 � 6S 1\ All(I� 'Oh '..�Jfv ' G r/'�inifl\�� //n�/ll\IIH\`� %`\�\C � e4@Wunpfilll�\hlllKllHfn{fiV`�\\p ryl°i L2 d. .- \ Y o L3 I riA—tntt-+in > ` I 14 L3 g - � Imo. .K - - ' �\p1tNNhll11171111� 'nlhilQ\\ 3 I PALM SPRINGS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2006 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Oden called the meeting to order at 6:10 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Councilmember McCulloch led the Pledge. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Councilmember McCulloch, Councilmember Mills, Councilmember Pougnet, Mayor Pro Tern Foat, and Mayor Oden. ABSENT: None. ALSO PRESENT: City Manager Ready, City Attorney Holland, and City Clerk Thompson. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: ACTION: Accept the Agenda as Presented. Motion Councilmember Mills, seconded by Councilmember McCulloch and carried on a roll call vote. PRESENTATIONS: (Mayor Oden and the City Council presented a Certificate of Appreciation to City (Employee Dirk Voss, Community Preservation Coordinator, for his service to the City of Palm Springs. REPORT OF CLOSED SESSION: City Attorney Holland reported that at 5:00 P.M. Mayor Oden called the meeting to order and the City Council recessed into Closed Session to discuss matters on the posted Closed Session Agenda. No reportable actions were taken. PUBLIC COMMENT: HAROLD STONE, Palm Springs, commented on the Airport sound wall to be installed, and airport noise from military and/or from other sources. MICHAEL GRANT, Riverside, Century Vintage Homes, commented on Item 1.A. regarding Hillside development; and requested Century Vintage Homes be included in the process and further negotiations. JEFFREY MORGAN, commented on Item 1.A. regarding Hillside Regulations in the Chino Code area, and recommended one home per 40-acres. City Council Minutes February 8, 2006 Page 2 CODY STOUGHTON, Palm Springs, read a letter from Peter Moruzzi, Palm Springs Modern Committee, regarding Item I.A. Hillside development and in support of open space conservation in planning area 5.A and S.B. VIC GAINER, Palm Springs, commented on Item 1.A. regarding Hillside development and spoke in support of the two ordinances recommended by the Citizens Task Force. GREG DAY, Palm Springs, commented on Item 1.A. regarding Hillside regulations, and in support of open space conservation. SHERYL HAMLIN, commented on Item 1.A. regarding Hillside development and planning areas 5.A. and 5.B. LOBO VADENSCEARCEcommented on bicycle and pedestrian safety and the proposed relocation of Vons Grocery Store. GLADYS KRENEK, Palm Springs, commented on Item 1.A. regarding Hillside development and stated her support for the ordinances as recommended by the Citizens Task Force and proposed density transfer. CHUCK NISBET, commented on Item I.A. regarding Hillside development and recommended the City Council consider the recommendations of the General Plan Steering Committee. DANA STEWART, Palm Springs, stated her support of the MSHCP and stated her support for ordinances for density transfer as a protection of the Chino Canyon. JOAN MARTIN, Palm Springs, commented on Item 1.A. regarding Hillside development and stated her support for protecting the Chino Canyon area and for the City to purchase the land for open space. J'ONO HILDNER, Palm Springs, commented on Item 1.A. regarding Hillside development and requested a compromise approach regarding Measure B and the current Urgency Ordinance and in support of the recommendation of the General Plan Steering Committee. JAMES HAYTON, Palm Springs, commented on Item I.A. regarding Hillside development and in support of the proposed density transfer. APRIL HILDNER, commented on Item 1.A. regarding Hillside development and stated her support for one unit per 20-acres and open space acquisition. FLORENCE KLAASEN, commented on traffic signals and requested the Engineering Department review the timing of traffic signals for pedestrians. City Council Minutes February 8, 2006 Page 3 JOY MEREDITH, Palm Springs, commented on the General Plan Steering Committee and voting procedures with respect to the current Hillside development issue. DAVE BARON, Palm Springs, commented on Item 1.A. regarding Hillside development and the past partnerships developed between the nature conservancy and developers. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS AND REQUESTS: None. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT: City Manager Ready commented on the progress on the installation of the sound wall near the airport and airport noise. 1. STUDY SESSION: 1.A. DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION ON HILLSIDE REGULATIONS: Craig Ewing, Director of Planning Services, provided background information as outlined in the staff report dated February 8, 2006. Councilmember Pougnet requested clarification regarding the vote of the General Plan Steering Committee. Mayor Pro Tom Foat requested clarification and commented on the staff report regarding commercial land use in Planning Area 5.A., recommended low density land use, preparation of specific plans, the inclusion of design standards in the proposed ordinance, the amount of tribal land v. sovereign land, division of land by topography, and property acquisition information. Councilmember McCulloch requested clarification and commented on the timing of the urgency ordinance, outreach and/or comments received from the Tribe, staff recommendation as it relates to the Multi-Species Habitat Plan, density transfer near Ship Rock, density transfer as a concept and past practice with a current project. Councilmember Mills requested clarification and commented on the coordination and input from the Tribe, costs for acquisition, developable acres including tribal land and Shadowrock, development of Specific Plan and the inclusion of development standards, definition of open space, clustering concepts and areas for open space. Councilmember Pougnet requested clarification and commented on planning area boundaries, defining slope, density transfer and clustering for additional open space. Mayor Oden commented on Measures B and C and the process that got us this far, the goal of compromise, timeline for adoption, definition of habitat and open space, density transfer and other areas suitable for density transfer. City Council Minutes February 8, 2006 Page 4 Mayor Pro Tem Foat requested clarification on the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, and tribal land. Mayor Oden requested clarification from Councilmember Pougnet regarding the preparation of two ordinances and the content included in each. Councilmember Mills commented on slope and density transfer and a possible density bonus not be limited to the Chino Cone area. Mayor Pro Tern Foat commented on acquisition cost and possible assessment charges for a bond issue. Councilmember McCulloch requested staff comment on the impacts to Century Vintage Homes the use of averages when commenting on density, the use of berms, timeline and density transfer. The City Council recessed at 8:31 P.M. The City Council reconvened at 8:42 P.M. Councilmember Foat suggested that the City Council give staff direction to develop an ordinance for base land use of the Citizens Task Force recommendation rate less 20%. Councilmember Mills requested clarification on the Citizens Task Force calculation for the number of dwelling units. Councilmember Pougnet clarified the Citizens Task Force maximum dwelling Units of 745 and suggested the City Council use the Citizens Task Force recommendation for base land use. Councilmember Mills commented on the compromise with the current Urgency Ordinance and suggested using the Citizens Task Force recommendation. Councilmember Pougnet commented on the planning areas and stated he would support the Citizens Task Force recommendation. Councilmember McCulloch requested that Council not provide direction at this time. Councilmember Mills suggested the City Council use the Citizens Task Force Recommendation for base land use. Mayor Oden stated he was comfortable with the Citizens Task Force Recommendation for base land use. l City Council Minutes February 8, 2006 Page 5 Councilmember McCulloch noted his concerns and recommended the City Council not provide direction to staff at this time. Councilmember Mills commented on and provided further direction on density transfer. By consensus of at least three-members of the City Council, direct staff to prepare a draft zoning ordinance for the Chino Cone using the density numbers offered by the Citizens Task Force, as well as significant open space protections and design standards for environmental and view protection. 1.13. DOCKET REVIEW -- PRIORITIZE FUTURE AGENDA/STUDY SESSION TOPICS: City Manager Ready provided background information as outlined in the staff report dated February 8, 2006. Mayor Oden commented on the Cable Franchise Renewal Process and currently scheduled Study Sessions. Councilmember Pougnet commented on the Homeless Resource Center and requested a Study Session on April 12, 2006, regarding the Homeless Resource Center. Mayor Pro Tern Foat requested the Green Building Ordinance move forward. Councilmember Mills requested discussion regarding the Energy Commission and Co-Generation Plants be included with the Study Session on the Green Building Ordinance. Mayor Pro Tern Foat commented on the Miss. Teen Funding request and recommended the request be placed on a Regular Meeting Agenda. Councilmember Mills commented on the Airport Targeted Development Plan and the Joint Workshop with City Council, Planning Commission and Architectural Advisory Committee. Councilmember Pougnet commented on the So. Cal. Institute of Architects presentation, and recommended that staff move forward without a Study Session on Short Term Vacation rentals with interested parties. Mayor Oden commented on the development use plan for the Palm Springs Mall and the County Buildings across from City Hall. Councilmember McCulloch requested clarification on the Undergrounding Ordinance. o ^ Transfer of Development Rights, CDFS-1264-98 Page 1 of 5 dhtvllna 8q'ohlCw-5t8ts'sdu yauf Llryk to lnformatlon;Nubs, anti Education fact!"5heet Ohio State University Fact Sheet Community Development 700 Ackerman Road, Columbus, OH 43202-1578 Transfer of Development Rights CDFS-1264-98 Land Use Series Timothy J. Lawrence Current concern over the rapid and increasing loss of farm land has led to explorations of ways to protect our valuable land resources. One of several options being considered is called the transfer of development rights (TDR). Transfer of development rights refers to a method for protecting land by transferring the "rights to develop" from one area and giving them to another. What is actually occurring is a consensus to place conservation easements on property in agricultural areas while allowing for an increase in development densities or "bonuses" in other areas that are being developed. The costs of purchasing the easements are recovered from the developers who receive the building bonus. The transfer of development rights is not a new concept. TDRs have been used in other areas of the country for the preservation or protection of open space, natural resources, farmland, and urban areas of historical importance. TDRs also have been used to secure land for solid waste facilities and for the protection of golf courses. More than 20 states have enacted or amended statutes accommodating the TDR concept. Currently, seven states have TDR statutes specific to farmland protection. A brief explanation of the general principles of TDRs and their current use is essential to understanding how they could be used to protect Ohio farmland, natural resources, and open space. The Rights of Ownership Property ownership can be described as a bundle of individual rights. The ownership of land includes rights pertaining to minerals, timber, agriculture, riparian rights, surface and ground water, air, and development, to name the most common. Use of these rights is not absolute. Governmental entities do have the right to constrain, to a certain extent, a property owner's use of these rights and thus the economic value that the property owner can derive from the property. The most commonly used restraint has been on the exercise of the individual's use of development rights primarily through zoning. Development Rights Are Independent of Land Ownership The concept of TDRs provides for financial compensation to property owners while society imposes land-use regulations to control growth and development. This approach involves severing the right to develop an area that the http://ohioline.osu.edu/cd-fact/1264.htm1 (� 1 4/6/2006 Transfer of Development Rights, CDFS-1264-98 Page 2 of 5 public wishes to preserve in low density or open space and transferring those rights to another site where higher than normal density would be tolerated and desirable. The development right is independent of land ownership. The development,right becomes a separate article of private property and can be shifted from one area to another and can have economic value. Facilitating Land-Use Planning TDRs are regulatory tools designed to facilitate land-use planning. Unlike most community comprehensive plans,the transfer of development rights requires much more certainty of where development will happen and where it will not. TDR programs do more than preserve farmland, natural resources, and open space; they change the way development occurs in a community. However, TDR programs cannot be established in the absence of a comprehensive plan. Implementation of a TDR in the absence of true comprehensive planning represents a failure to recognize that development credit values depend on a stable and predictable real estate environment. Buying Development Rights TDRs are very similar to the more commonly known purchase of development rights (PDR) programs (see OSU Extension Fact Sheet CDFS 1263-98, Purchase of Development Rights. The value of the PDR or development easement is the difference between the agricultural or open space value and the development value. For example, if the value of the land for agriculture is $2,000 per acre and the developer would pay $6,000 to buy the property for development,the value of the easement or development right would be $4,000. However, market forces will determine the ultimate value of the development right. PDR programs require that a governmental agency or land trust purchase the development rights to a particular property. The development rights on the piece of property are then "retired" through deed restriction. The difference between a TDR and a PDR is that the TDR is done in more of a controlled setting where areas are predetermined as "sending" or "receiving" areas. Private developers or local goverrunents purchase the development rights from within the sending areas and transfer them to an area to be developed; this area is known as the "receiving" area. The owner of the preserved site retains existing use rights while receiving compensation for the development value of the land. As a result, the development potential of the property is, in effect, frozen. By lessening the economic impact of protectively zoned property and enabling the owner to recoup the economic value of the property's frozen potential, the TDR is designed to minimize the objections to such zoning. Buying and Selling Rights, Not Land Thus, TDR makes it possible for there to be a free exchange (buying and selling) of development rights without having to buy or sell land. The down zoning (changing of the allowed density to a higher number of acres per unit, i.e., going from one unit or home per five acres to one unit or home per 40 acres) a government entity may impose on a sending area does not necessarily reduce the economic value of the property within that area, because the development rights remain in the landowners' hands and can be used on other properties of the owner or sold to others for use elsewhere. Two Types of TDR Programs The most common TDR program allows the landowner to sell the development rights to a developer who then uses those development rights to increase the density of houses on another piece of property at another location (i.e., going from 1/4 acre per unit to 1/6 acre per unit). A variation of that type of a TDR would be a situation in which the developer transfers the development rights from one property to another property the developer owns. The higher density that developers are able to realize is the incentive for them to buy development rights. A second method allows a local government to establish a TDR Bank to transfer development rights. In this method, developers, who wish to develop at a higher density than current zoning allows, would purchase development rights from the local government. Again, the higher density is the incentive for the developer to purchase the development rights. The local government could then use these finds to purchase development rights of properties in areas that it http://ohioline.osu.edu/cd-fact/I264.html 4/6/2006 Transfer of Development Rights, CDFS-1264-98 Page 3 of 5 wants to protect from urban development. The receiving area could not increase in density higher than some maximum set within the comprehensive land-use plan. The difference between the density with or without the TAR credits would be the permitted "bonus" that the developer could realize. tirt�u;th'�.me nevelnpnstnt Rights Mr.1k.&�$NI� ff;"pTA'i✓'�'3rv2d'-�'! Rc diving Am4 &hliq AKA Figure 1.Tunsftr nrDnxdnpment Rights(Plait,NPA6) Figure 1. Transfer of Development Rights (Platt, 1996) Components of a TDR Program. There are four main elements of a TDR that must exist in all successful programs: 1. A designated preservation zone (the sending area, described earlier). 2. A designated growth area(the receiving area, described earlier). 3. A pool of development rights that are legally severable from the land. 4. A procedure by which development rights are transferred from one property to another. Without these: components, landowners will have trouble finding a buyer for their development rights. The lack of a market for landowners who are mandated to sell their development rights to realize the economic development value of their property could be grounds for legal action. Under a voluntary TDR program, the lack of a receiving area would result in development occti ring in the sending area just as before and with little land being protected. Incentives. It is essential that developers have an incentive to purchase development rights (i.e., a density bonus). As part of the comprehensive plan, a TDR program must provide incentive for the government to increase the building capacity within the receiving zones when TDRs are used. This extra.capacity is approved only after the developer transfers the development rights he or she may own, or purchases those rights from landowners in the sending areas, or from the TDR Batik. It is recommended that receiving areas should provide for about 30 to 50 percent more building units that the actual number of transferable rights would allow. This creates a competitive market among landowners wishing to sell development rights, and among developers needing to purchase those rights. It is important to note that receiving areas do not have to be contiguous to the sending area nor do they have to be in one large mass. However, wherever the receiving/sending areas are, the use of TDRs should be consistent with a community's comprehensive plan, future land-use map, zoning, and capital improvement program. Features of an Effective TDR Program TDR programs are very complex and can be very difficult to administer. They can be an effective tool in the preservation of farmland and natural resources; however, they are appropriate only in very limited areas and circumstances. Several features are important in determining the effectiveness of a TDR program. e Ease of understanding To be effective, a TDR program should be simple and easy for landowners and the public to understand. There must be a strong commitment to the TDR program by the political leadership of the community. A TDR program takes time to work and must be mandatory, rather than voluntary, for landowners in the sending area and for the higher density building in the receiving areas. Smart developers usually can gain extra density through variances or other means and will have little incentive to purchase development rights tmless the zoning process is relatively inflexible and incorruptible. Political pressure to change back to the old ways, before the program has had a chance to work, may be very strong. http://ohioline.osu.edti/cd-fact/1264.litml 4/6/2006 Transfer of Development Rights, CDFS-1264-98 Page 4 of 5 • Managed Growth The TDR program should be part of a growth-management program. The county, municipality, or regional planning area must have a solid comprehensive plan and tight zoning ordinances in order to support a TDR program. The ultimate purpose of a TDR program is to create more efficient growth patterns. However, it is just as important for there to be long-term growth expectations to assure landowners in the sending area that there is value in their development rights. TDRs will not work in very rural areas where there is little or no development pressure on the area to be preserved. Within the receiving areas, the county, municipality, or regional plan must include policies, zoning ordinances, and capital improvement programs that will assure communities in the designated growth areas that a public facility overload will not result from the TDR density bonus. • Adequate Incentives Farmers need adequate incentives to sell their development rights just as developers need adequate incentives to purchase the development rights. Also, the density bonus in the receiving areas must be attractive enough for developers to want to purchase the development rights. The value of the development rights should be predictable and should adequately reflect the true value of the development rights in order to encourage farmers to participate. The establishment of a TDR Bank can help keep a program active during slow economic times and provide a floor for TDR prices. In addition, developers may find it easier to purchase development rights from a governmental entity, rather than from individual landowners. • Careful Management Finally, a well-trained planning staff must carefully manage the program. Staff members must be well-skilled not only in the fundamentals of planning but also in public relations to explain the program to politicians, landowners, developers, and the public. Ups and Downs of TDRs Unfortunately, what works well in theory may not be effective in practice. While TDRs appear to be an effective method of preserving farmland, open space, and natural resources, the reality of the situation is that they have been primarily effective within urban settings. There are a few successful TDR programs in rural areas. Most notably Montgomery County, Maryland, and the Pinelands in New Jersey stand out as programs that have preserved thousands of acres. However, even within these success stories, the use of TDRs is not without problems or controversy. There must be clear sending and receiving areas. Where considerable sprawl exists within the sending area, it may be too late for a TDR program to be successful. Residents within the receiving areas may object to the higher density necessary for a TDR program. Tom Daniels, in his recent book on the subject, Holding Our Ground: Protecting American Farms and Farmland, notes that "Next to establishing effective agricultural zoning on the urban fringe and the political struggles that involves, TDR is the most difficult farmland preservation technique to establish." The distribution of development rights is the distribution of wealth, and distribution formulas raise equity issues at least as severe as those involved in rezoning. TDR programs may not provide the type of protection that a community might expect and may not provide the equitable distribution of the wealth that the landowners might expect. It has been argued that the only equitable basis for the distribution of development rights is in proportion to the losses landowners suffer due to change in land-use controls. Based on the current farmland TDR programs operating around the country, it is questionable if TDRs can satisfy those losses except in very limited and specific circumstances. Bibliography Criss, Jeremy V. Farmland Preservation Programs in Montgomery County, Maryland. Department of Economic Development: Rockville, MD. 1997. http://ohioline.osu.edu/ed-fact/1264.html 4/6/2006 Transfer of Development Rights, CDFS-1264-98 Page 5 of 5 Daniels, Tom and Deborah Bowers. Holding Our Ground: Protecting American Farms and Farmland. Island Press: Washington, D.C. 1997. James, Franklin J. and Dennis E. Gale. Zoning For Sale: A Critical Analysis of Transfer Development Rights Programs. Urban Institute; Land Use Series: Washington, D.C. 1997. Platt, Rutherford H. Land Use and Society Geography, Law, and Public Policy. Island Press: Washington, D.C. 1996. Stinson, Joseph D. Transferring Development Rights: Purpose, Problems, and Prospects in New York. Pace Law Review, 17. 1996. All educational programs conducted by Ohio State University Extension are available to clientele on a nondiscriminatory basis without regard to race, color,creed,religion,sexual orientation,national origin,gender,age, disability or Vietnam-era veteran states. Keith L. Smith,Associate Vice President for Ag.Adm. and Director, OSU Extension. TDD No. 800-589-8292(Ohio only)or 614-292-1868 Ohioline I Search I Fact Sheets I Bulletins n�,eve lnttp://ohioline.osu.edu/cd-fact/1264.html 4/6/2006 Transfer of Development Rights Update - 1999 APA Proceedings Page 1 of 7 AILLIENIMU ' iA� PPRt3ACHt1+IG THE NA'TI OVAL yiy y 46 x0E4 4iC-'E P J/« Transfer of Development Rights Update Rick Pruetz, AICP C& Author Info Abstract The author wrote a comprehensive book in 1997 on TDR entitled Saved By Development: Preserving Environmental Areas, Farmland and Historic Landmarks With Transfer Of Development Rights, After a simple definition of transfer of development rights,this paper presents new information on TDR which the author has uncovered in the last year: the discovery of 12 new TDR programs not described in Saved By Development and status reports on 23 TDR programs which were the subject of case studies in Saved By Development. TDR-- A Brief Description Transfer of development rights (TDR) is a market based technique that encourages the voluntary transfer of growth from places where a commrmity would like to see less development (called sending areas)to places where a community would like to see more development(called receiving areas). The sending areas can be environmentally- sensitive properties, open space, agricultural land, wildlife habitat, historic landmarks or any other places that are important to a community. The receiving areas should be places that the general public has agreed are appropriate for extra development because they are close to jobs, shopping, schools, transportation and other urban services. TDR is driven by the profit motive. Sending site owners permanently deed-restrict their properties because the TDR program makes it more profitable for them to sell their unused development rights than develop their land. Developers buy the development rights and use them to increase the density of receiving site projects; they do that because these larger projects are more profitable than the smaller projects allowed when development rights are not transferred. In addition to making property owners and developers happy, TDR solves a seemingly intractable dilemma for communities: it gives them a way to achieve critical land use goals using little or no public funding. Twelve New TDR Programs Found The author provided case studies of 112 TDR programs in the 436-page book Saved By Development: Preserving Environmental Areas, Farmland and Historic Landmarks With Transfer Of Development Rights. Since that book was published, in November 1997,the 12 additional TDR programs discussed below have been identified. None of the following 12 TDR programs are as successful as those of Montgomery County, Maryland,The New Jersey Pinelands, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency or many of the other 107 communities discussed in Saved By Development. In fact, transfers have been confirmed in only the first six communities listed below(in alphabetical order.)Nevertheless, all 12 case studies reconfirm the components needed to create a successful TDR program. Fremont County,ID,population 11,000, is located in eastern Idaho, bordered by Montana to the north and Wyoming to the east. About half of the County's land area consists of portions of Yellowstone National Park and Targhee National Forest. In 1992, the County adopted a TDR program aimed at preserving farmland and environmental areas. Sending sites must be parcels with productive farmland, wetlands, wildlife habitat, stream corridors or visually- sensitive areas. The allowable on-site density in sending areas varies from an average of one unit per 40 acres of http://www.asu..edtt/caed/proceedings99/PRUETZ/PRUETZ.HTM 4/6/2006 Transfer of Development Rights Update - 1999 APA Proceedings Page 2 of 7 farmland and one unit per 25 acres of wetland to one unit per ten acres of stream corridor or steeply-sloped land. When sending site owners use TDR, they can transfer twice the number of development rights that they could use to build on site, a transfer ratio of two-to-one. Using TDR, the density of receiving site projects can increase from one unit per 2.5 acres to a maximum of one unit per acre, a density bonus of 150 percent. The TDR program has been used twice, preserving over 80 acres of dry farmland. However, the program is somewhat constrained by the fact that there is strong demand in the County for 20-acre estate lots. Harford County,MD, population 182,000, lies 15 miles northeast of Baltimore,just south of the Pemisylvania border. In addition to saving farmland,the County's zoning protects agricultural activities by assuring fanners the right to operate farm machinery at any time. In the Agricultural District, on-site development is allowed at a density of one unit per ten acres. Development rights in this zone can be transferred between two lots in this zone if they are within 500 feet of each other. The transfer ratio is one -to-one and the maximum density allowed on the receiving site is one unit per acre. This 900-percent density bonus is exceeded only by one program examined in Saved By Development. The County's Chief of Comprehensive Planning reports that some subdivisions have used the current program and that the County may consider refining its TDR program in the future. Howard County,MD,population 187,000, lies 20 miles southwest of Baltimore and 30 miles north of Washington, D.C. The County encourages farmland preservation using programs known as the Density Exchange Option(DEO) and the Cluster Exchange Option(CEO). Sending sites .are zoned Rural Conservation, which allows an on-site density of one unit per 4.25 acres. When parcels at least 50 acres in size are permanently deed-restricted, development rights can be transferred at a one-to-one ratio under CEO or 1.4-to-one under DEO. Receiving sites umder the DEO must be less than 50 acres in size and adjacent to lots that are ten acres or less in size. Receiving site projects using transferred rights can increase from a baseline density of one unit per 4.25 acres to one unit per two acres, a density bonus of 112.5 percent. As of 1995, the DEO and CEO programs combined had permanently preserved 868 acres of farmland within at least five separate parcels. King County, WA,population 1.5 million, includes the Seattle metropolitan area on the west and the Cascade Mountains and Wenatchee National Forest on the east. The County currently uses two different transfer of residential density credit ordinances to encourage private property owners to preserve open space, wildlife habitat, woodlands, shoreline access, community separators, trails, historic landmarks, agricultural land and park sites. Under the original program, receiving sites are in several residential or commercial zones within the unincorprated portions of the County. A density bonus of up to 150 percent of the baseline zoning can be achieved through TDR. Unless a hearing is needed for some other component of project approval, the transfer is approved by conditional use permit. Connie L. Bhunen, TDR Planner for the King County Department of Natural Resources, reports that one transfer has occurred so far under the original ordinance, resulting in the preservation of a 1.25-acre sending site as a trail corridor. In 1998, King County approved a TDC bank. According to Kamuron Gurol former Senior Policy Analyst for King County, the bank is expected to begin buying credits in 1999 and selling them in the year 2000. In 1998, King Couuity also adopted a second TDR ordinance sometimes referred to as the "TDR Pilot Project Program". For a three-year trial period, this new ordinance allows transfers from rural portions of King County to incorporated cities within the County. For example, Seattle Mayor Paul Schell is promoting a pilot TDR program for Denny Triangle, a neighborhood in downtown Seattle. Under the current proposal, developers would be able to buy the right to build up to six extra floors of development at a cost of$120,000 per floor. Half of this amount, or$60,000 would be used to buy three development credits in rural King County. The other $60,000 would create improvements within Denny Triangle: such as transit enhancements,pocket parks and pedestrian/transit-friendly Green Streets. Amendments to the Denny Triangle Neighborhood Plan must be adopted before this pilot project can begin. Redmond, WA., located just outside of Seattle, has a TDR prograrn in which the sending areas are lands zoned htip://www.asu.edu/caed/proceedings99/PRUETZ/PRUETZ.HTM "71,1 4/6/2006 Transfer of Development Rights Update - 1999 APA Proceedings Page 3 of 7 Agriculture or Urban Recreation or lands classified as critical wildlife habitat. When a sending site is not classified as critical habitat, the transferable development is simply the amount of development allowed by the site's zoning once wetlands and other unbuild able areas have been excluded from the calculation. But when sending sites contain critical habitat, 13 separate transfer factors increase the transferable rights based on development potential as determined by the site's zoning. Receiving sites are parcels in any of seven zoning districts. TDRs can be used to add extra density, waive parkland requirements, increase impervious surface limitations, exceed building height limitations and surpass maximum parking space maximums. According to Tim Trobimovich, Comprehensive Planning Division Manager, the TDR program has experienced four transfers to date; in the largest transaction, 100 TDRs were used to allow a parking structure to exceed the maximum parking limits. Summit County, CO,population 13,000, surrounds the popular Breckenridge ski resort in central Colorado. The County offers TDR in four separate districts. In the Lower Blue and Ten Mile planning areas, TDR is designed to encourage the transfer of density from sending sites with development constraints to receiving sites with fewer constraints. Under this program, the density bonus is determined on a case-by-case basis depending on the receiving site's location, surroundings and planning designation. In the Snake River Planning Area, TDR is intended to encourage adopted land use patterns. In the Upper Blue Basin Planning Area, transfers are primarily designed to control traffic growth and, secondarily, to preserve environmental resources and scenic vistas. To achieve these goals, the County Board of Commissioners can approve rezonings that transfer development rights within, but not between, these two planning areas. Transfers have occurred under the Upper Blue Basin and Snake River programs. In addition, the County is now exploring a new TDR program, similar to one adopted by Pitkin County/Aspen, Colorado. This program would encourage owners to sever development rights from abandoned mining claims in remote, back country locations and transfer them to receiving sites either in the Town of Breckenridge or on comity land likely to be annexed by Breckenridge.. Douglas County, NV, population 28,000, extends from the shores of Lake Tahoe to the valley between the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California and the Wassuk Range of western Nevada. The portion of the County within the Lake Tahoe basin is regulated under the TDR program of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. In 1996, the County adopted its own TDR program for the eastern portion of the County designed to preserve forests, agricultural land, open space and rural character. Sending sites are allowed a maximrun on-site density of one residential unit per 19 acres. In the forest-protection zone, one development right can be transferred per 19 acres of land, or a transfer ratio of one-to-one. In the agricultural zone, transfer ratios of up to two-to-one can be achieved. The density bonuses allowed to projects that use TDRs vary according to the regulations of the receiving sites indicated in the 1996 master plan. Larimer County, CO,population 186,100, lies 80 miles north of Denver, bordering Wyoming. In September 1998, the County adopted a TDR program designed to preserve agriculture, rural open space, scenic vistas, natural features, recreation lands and environmental resources. The County allows transferable development units, or TDUs, to be transferred from sending sites at a basic rate of 114.5 percent of the density allowed on site by the underlying zone. However, the County Board can increase or decrease this base rate depending on the extent to which protection of the proposed sending site would achieve the goals of the program. For the first two years of the program, Larimer County also allows an additional transfer ratio in which 1.5 units are permitted at receiving sites for each TDU transferred. Lee,NH is located in eastern New Hampshire, twelve miles west of Portsmouth and 20 miles west of the Atlantic Coast. Its TDR ordinance is designed to preserve farmland, open space, forests, watershed and other significant natural resources as well as the Town's Waal character. The sending sites and receiving sites must be contiguous. The amount of density that can be transferred from a sending site is equal to the development rights allowed to that site under baseline zoning, a one-to-one transfer ratio. The amount of development allowed on the receiving site through TDR is the total density permitted on both the sending and receiving sites under the baseline zoning. The Planning Board has http://www.asu.edu/caed/proceedings99/PRUETZ/PRUETZ.HTM 4/6/2006 Transfer of Development Rights Update - 1999 APA Proceedings Page 4 of 7 the right to decide transfer applications on a case-by-case basis taking into consideration the specific natural characteristics and resource values of the two sites. Thurston County,WA, population 161,000, surrounds the Washington State Capital of Olympia at the southern end of Putget Sound. In 1995,the County adopted a TDR ordinance designed to preserve agricultural land. Similar to the Montgomery County, Maryland program, Thurston County down zoned land in its Long-Term Agricultural]District from a prior density of one unit per five acres to a new density of one unit per 20 acres. As compensation, development rights can be transferred from these sending sites at the rate of one TDR per five acres. The receiving sites are parcels in two residential zones. With the use of TDR, density is allowed to increase from five to six units per acre in one zone and from 15 units to 16 units per acre in the other zoning district. Townsend Township, MA, population 1,200, borders New Hampshire, 40 miles northwest of Boston. Its TDR program, adopted in 1991, is designed to preserve the banks of the Squannacook River, an aquifer recharge area and open space in general. Transferable development credits are assigned to the sending sites at the rate of 1.2 credits for each build able lot, or a transfer rate of 1.2 to 1. Receiving site projects incorporating TDCs must be approved in conjunction with a subdivision plan and a rezoning to a zoning district that allows exemptions from density, minimum lot frontage and minimum lot area as long as a substantial portion of the site is preserved as open space. . Whatcom County,WA, population 128,000, stretches from the Straight of Georgia to the Cascade Mountains just south of the Canadian border. Its TDR ordinance is designed to provide flexibility and implement land use goals, particularly the preservation of environmentally-sensitive areas and open space. The County allows severed development rights to be sold regardless of whether or not a receiving site has been identified;this feature facilitates transfers by allowing TDRs to be treated as a commodity. Through TDR,the density of a receiving site can be increased up to 25 percent. This TDR ordinance has not been used to date. However, TDR may play a more prominent role in a forthcoming plan that focuses on the protection of Lake Watcom, which provides the water supply for Bellingham, WA. Status Reports On Programs In Saved By Development Community representatives have reported additional transfers, amendments and overall status in the following 23 TDR programs originally studied in Saved By Development. These status reports are organized as they appear in that book. Boulder County, CO had used its infra jurisdictional TDR program five times between 1989 and 1997. In 1995, Boulder County adopted an inter jurisdictional program in which development rights are transferred from sending sites in unincorporated portions of the County to receiving sites in three incorporated cities within the County using inter- jurisdictional agreements. Saved By Development reported that no transfers had occurred as of 1997 under the inter- jurisdictional program. Since then, Planning Manager Peter Fogg reports that the County now has inter jurisdictional agreements with four more cities, allowing development rights to be transferred from County land to sites within seven incorporated cities. Furthermore, the inter jurisdictional program has now been used on four transfers and two more projects were in the review process as of the end of 1998. If these two projects are approved, between 2,730 and 3,470 acres will be permanently protected so far depending on whether or not the sending sites retain their water rights. Calvert County,MD has a TDR program that requires sending site owners to request a rezoning to the Agricultural Preservation District. Saved By Development reported that Calvert County had preserved 5,000 acres of farmland by 1997. Gregory A. Bowen, Deputy Planning Director, reports that the County has now permanently saved over 7,000 acres. http://www.asii.edu/caed/proceedings99/PRUETZ/PRUETZ.HTM 4/6/2006 Transfer of Development Rights Update - 1999 APA Proceedings Page 5 of 7 Long Island Pine Barrens,NY has a TDR program that allows transfers between three townships in Suffolk County. Since the program was only adopted in 1995,Saved By Development reported no transfers as of 1997. According to Jolm Bredin's PAS Memo for November 1998, 228 parcels in the core preservation area have now been awarded transferable development credits. Montgomery County,MD has the most successful TDR program in the country. In 1997,Saved By Development stated that the County had permanently preserved 29,000 acres of farmland using TDR. As reported by John.Bredin in the November 1998 PAS Memo, the County has now preserved over 38,000 acres. New Jersey Pinelands,NJ, adopted in 1980, is the most ambitious TDR program in the country, encompassing one million acres of land and allowing transfers between 60 different municipalities. In 1997, Saved By Development stated that the program had preserved 12,000 acres. John Stokes, Assistant Director of The Pinelands Commission, recently reported that the total area preserved through severance increased to 15,768 acres as of the end of 1997. Mr. Stokes also reports that Pinelands Development Credits (PDCs) are now being used in association with waivers and variances and that the Pinelands Commission has identified six additional ways of potentially enhancing PDC use. New York,NY became the first community in the United States to adopt TDR provisions when it approved its Landmarks Preservation Law in 1968. According to John Bredin, writing in the November 1998 issue of the PAS Memo, the City adopted a new TDR program in 1998 designed to prevent the demolition or conversion of live- performance theaters in the Broadway theater district. San Luis Obispo County, CA adopted a TDR program in 1986 which, after ten years, had preserved 230 substandard residential lots in an area that serves as habitat for the Cambria Pine. A second County-wide program was adopted in 1996 but immediately became the subject of a lawsuit. As recently reported by Kami Griffin, Senior Planner, in 1996, the County Supervisors will be considering various amendments to the County-wide ordinance including: more narrowly defining where sending credits can be obtained for specific,receiving sites, adding methods of determining numbers of sending site credits, clarifying the voluntary nature of the program and lowering the density bonus allowed on receiving sites. Seattle, WA allows the sale of TDRs from sending site projects that restore historic landmarks, provide low income housing or offer compatibly-scaled infrll development. The first transaction under the 1985 program occurred in 1986, when over 40,000 square feet of floor area were transferred to the Washington Mutual Tower. Since then, the City's TDR bank has facilitated all transactions. To date, the City's TDR bank has purchased development rights from eight sending sites, including the Paramount Theater and Eagles Auditorium projects discussed in Saved By Development. In addition,the City has approved the purchase of TDRs from two more sending sites. TDRs from the City's bank have been transferred to two projects, ( a hotel and the YMCA); a proposed mixed-use project would use another 218,000 square feet of banked rights. As of November 1998, the TDR bank balance was 24,960 square feet. Laura Hewitt Walker, Planning and development Specialist, adds that the City of Seattle also has 423,000 square feet of Major Performing Arts Facility TDRs which will be sold to finance the new Benaroya Symphony Hall located in downtown Seattle. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, CA/NV adopted four transfer mechanisms in 1987 designed to abate further degradation of Lake Tahoe's clarity. TRPA approves from 25 to 35 transfers per year, making it one of the most successful programs in the country. In October 1998, TRPA adopted three program amendments. Residential units can now be transferred between sensitive lands within community plan areas when there is a 1200 square foot per unit reduction in land coverage on the sending or receiving parcel. Secondly, the amendments allow for conversions of residential units to commercial floor area when such conversions would achieve important goals such as protection of sensitive lands or elimination of nonconforming uses. And, finally, TRPA now allows for the transfer of commercial floor area displaced by public service uses. Belmont, CA has a hillside residential ordinance that reduces the maximum floor area of homes based on the slope of the lot. To encourage preservation of these hillside properties, Belmont allows floor area to be transferred from lots that are either deed-restricted or merged with other lots. Saved By Development stated that eleven transfers had occurred under this program. Community Development Director Daniel Vanderpriem reports that TDR has recently been used to orr�n http://www.asu.edu/caed/proceedings99/PRUETZ/PRUETZ.HTM � C. 4/6/2006 Transfer of Development Rights Update - 1999 APA Proceedings Page 6 of 7 merge eight lots into four lots resulting in the preservation of another hillside acre. Irvine, CA adopted its first TDR program to encourage housing within its commercial core. A second TDR program, adopted in 1993, allows transfers of vehicle trips in order to allow appropriate developments to exceed the 0.25 FAR density limit while maintaining overall growth within the capacity of the transportation system. In 1998,two transactions were approved under the new program, transferring a total of 313 average daily vehicle trips. According to Sheri Vander Dussen, Director of Community Development, the City's TDR program is accomplishing its goal. Monroe County, FL, population 78,000, includes all of the Florida Keys and large portions of the Everglades National Park and Big Cypress National Preserve. Saved By Development stated that the Monroe County program had transferred the development rights for 25 homes. David Kyogle, Senior Comprehensive Planner, sent an update stating that the County had authorized 93.8 TDRs to date. Most of these TDRs came from environmentally-sensitive sending sites in the middle and lower Keys. These TDRs have primarily been used at receiving sites in the middle and upper keys for the expansion of a hotel and for platting single-family home sites that would not otherwise meet density limitations. Palm Beach County,FL, population 864,000, is located 60 miles north of Miami on Florida's Atlantic Coast. Saved By Development stated that the County had preserved 640 acres of environmentally-sensitive land under its 1980 TDR program but had not yet experienced transfers from its revised program, adopted in 1992. In a 1998 memo, Aimee Craig, Country Planner II, reported that the new program so far has resulted in the approval of transfers to five receiving site projects representing a total of 448 TDRs. These TDRs were purchased from the County's TDR bank which contains 6,400 TDRs acquired through the purchase and preservation of 2,321 acres of environmentally-sensitive land. Queen Anne's County,MD adopted a TDR program in 1987 with a one-to-one transfer ratio and amended that program in 1994 to offer a two-to-one ratio. Since Saved By Development was published, deed-restricted land increased from 1,480 to 1,509 acres in the Agriculture zone. Faith Elliott Rossing, Assistant Planner, also reports that the munber of TDRs lifted in the Countryside zone has increased from 36 to 62 TDRs, representing a total of 746 acres under permanent deed restriction. St. Petersburg, FL adopted TDR provisions in 1977 in conjunction with the creation of a Preservation zoning district for marshes, forests, mangrove swamps, hammocks, beaches and floodplains. Saved By Development reported that approximately 100 units had been transferred by 1997. David S. Goodwin, Planning Programs Manager, recently reported that another 50 units have been transferred in the past year. He added that the TDR program is hampered by the lack of suitable receiving parcels and the City is considering additional transfer opportunities related to reducing density in the coastal high hazard zone and providing density bonuses for redevelopment target areas. Talbot County,MD adopted a TDR program designed to preserve rural character. Saved By Development reported that one transfer had preserved 100 acres by 1997. Since then a second transfer has been approved saving another 480 acres. Frank Hall, Assistant Planning Officer, reports three reasons for the relatively slow rate of transfers in Talbot County: 1) little development pressure, 2) the need to install water and sewer service to use the density bonus allowed by TDR and 3)the fact that many property owners are initiating shoreline protection measures without using the TDR incentives. Brisbane, CAL uses TDR to encourage the preservation of the higher elevations of its hillside area. Tim Tune, Planning Director, reports that no transfers have occurred yet but that interest in developing the lower portions of the hillside has increased along with the improving economy. Claremont, CA has TDR provisions designed to protect sensitive hillside areas. To date, there have been no transfers. As recently explained by Lisa Prasse, City Planner,the hillside plan appears to be hampered by the fact that a market value has not been placed on the development credits. Douglas County, CO adopted a TDR ordinance in 1996 designed to preserve open space. Betty Allen, Assistant Director of Planning and Zoning, recently reported that receiving sites are scare since baseline zoning allows so much development that developers have no need to gain added density. The County will be considering refinements to its a, http://www.asu.edu>/caed/proceedings99/PRUETZ/PRUETZ.HTM 4/6/2006 Transfer of Development Rights Update - 1999 APA Proceedings Page 7 of 7 program in early 1999. Oakland, CA has a TDR program designed primarily, but not exclusively, to promote historic preservation. When Saved By Development went to print, Oakland city planners were exploring amendments to the TDR ordinance largely in response to the adoption of a historic preservation element that recommended further use of TDR to protect landmarks, particularly in the downtown. According to Debra Diamond, adoption of TDR ordinance amendments have been superseded by a comprehensive zoning code overhaul designed to make the zoning code consistent with the newly-adopted land use/transportation element. Since the City is now just starting what is expected to be a three-year project, it is too early to tell whether or not the TDR provisions will be expanded or altered in the zoning code amendments which finally get adopted. St. Mary's County, MD adopted a TDR ordinance in 1990 to preserve farmland and resource protection areas. Mike Paone, Planning Director, recently noted that the County's first transfer has saved 160 acres. The County is also considering proposed code amendments which would expand the number of zoning districts which can serve as sending and receiving areas. Teton County, WY adopted a provision in about 1985 that allowed the density to be transferred between non- contiguous properties. In 1994, the Town of Jackson and Teton County adopted new provisions that again allowed non- contiguous parcels to be developed as one project with transfers of density at a one-to-one basis. Teresa deGroh, Senior Planner, reports that the first transaction has occurred, resulting in the transfer of 21 units and the preservation of 211 acres of canyon land for wildlife habitat, scenic views and recreation. Windsor, CT,population 28,000, was one of the 107 communities studied in Saved By Development. Mario Zavarella, Town Planner, recently called to report that the Town has experienced its first transfer. The sending site is a 4.5-acre parcel of land along the Connecticut River which the Town will use for a future riverfront walking trail and other recreation. In return for this transfer, the owners of an existing industry were allowed to exceed the density limits normally allowed on this receiving site. Copyright 1999 by Author, All rights reserved Rick Pruetz, AICP Chief Assistant Community Development Director/City Planner City of Burbank, California http://www.asu.edu/caed/proceedings99/PRUETZ/PRUETZ.HTM 4/6/2006 Lincoln Institute of Land Policy ' Publications Page lof4 � ���� ��� �� �������V ��� ��&1��� ��&��� INSTITUTE �/ &� L :�� ]� �� �& �Q {� ]� �� �/ I �� �� / ' — ----- / ��� � EDUCATION AND RESEARCH ABOUT uwCucwINSTITUTE TOPICS [Please Select One _ _ Overview Books Policy Focus Reports Working Papers , Vduu^e 1.0,8uudu:c 2 Land Lines Transfer of Development Rights for Balanced Development Newsletter Multimedia AptMor(m): Lane, Robert Publication Date; March, 1998; English Article ATDRParable: It's simple. You just go to the farmer whose land you're trying to preserve and tell hirnthathooan'[ dnvo|ophiu |andbocauseitioa 'Sendingarea" foryournem TranyfornfDeve|oprnentsRights (T[}R) p,ograno. Atf|rst, he'sabitupnet. Butas town planner you assure him that everything iy0K because you've found a developer who will pay him for the development potential of his property in order to build a block of new houses on small lots in the quaint village center nearby. Everybody wins! It's easy, isn't it? Well, not really. The farmer has been offered a lot more money by another developer who wants to build the kind of low-density gated community that professional refugees from the city really want. The farmer decides to sue you and the town, claiming that by depriving him of the right to develop his land there has been "taking." Also, the villagers have decided that their community is dense enough and they would like you Lo find a different "receiving area," Meanwhile, the original developer has figured out that he can use his development rights to build a new strip mall on a greenfield site outside of town. This was a site you had hoped he Would not use, although you had to include it as a receiving area in order to be sure the farmer's development rights had somewhere to go. This parable is clearly an oversimplification, but it illustrates many of the challenges that TDR programs face. The allure of the TDR model is its seemingly simple ability to accomplish in one transaction two complementary goals: open space preservation and compact, centered development, However, the promise of TDR has been stalled bya variety of political, economic and administrative obstacles. The Lincoln Institute and Regional Plan Association (RPA) cosponsored a two-day conference in October 1997 to explore the potential and the limitations of using TDR programs. While the conference addressed a number of legal and planning issues, one of the central questions asked by the group was, "How can TDR programs be used to influence settlement patterns, not only to protect open space, but also to promote compact deve|opnocnt?" A presentation of research by the American Farmland Trust revealed that the use of TDR has expanded tremendously, and many programs are considered successful even though the overall picture is ambiguous. The list of success stories is still dominated by such well-known programs aa Montgomery County, Maryland (1980) andtheNovv ]ecsayP|ne|ands (198l). Anvnoberofrnorerocentprogranosshovxing early potential are the Long Island Central Pine Barrens, New York (1995), Bucks County, Pennsylvania (1994) and Dade County, Florida, where TDRs are helping to 1-ittp:/hfvrn/.liUoo}ui8oLudii/»ubo/»nb`detui}.uSp?id=424 4/6/7006 Lincoln Institute of Land Policy - Publications Page 2 of 4 preserve more than 100,000 acres of everglades ecosystems outside of the Everglades National Park. Obstacles and Opportunities Regardless of how many programs may be considered successful, the conference revealed that there are still many obstacles to establishing a working TDR program. Among them are: • finding communities that will locate receiving areas for higher-density development; • calibrating values for development rights in sending and receiving areas to insure a market for the rights; • creating a program that is simple enough to understand and administer, but complex enough to be fair; developing community support to insure that the program is used; avoiding litigation and evasion; Building on the considerable experience of the participants and using an outline provided for the discussion by James Tripp of the Environmental Defense Fund, (1) the conference identified several components of successful TDR programs. • TDR programs can avoid legal challenges by ensuring that the principles, definitions and language of the program conform with existing local regulations. Because the legal issues of TDR are not going to be resolved any time soon (as some who followed Suitum v Tahoe (2) had hoped), conformance will provide the timeliness and certainty the community needs. • A credit bank, clearinghouse or other financial institution can be extremely effective in promoting the program, facilitating transactions and providing interested parties with hard information about the dollar value of the rights. The "real value" of the rights helps support the legitimacy of the program. • Effective state enabling legislation may be important in establishing the clear legal authority of the administrating agency. The legislation should be specific enough to provide guidance and clarity, but broad enough to enable localities to tailor their programs to their own circumstances. • The "takings issue" can be ameliorated by providing multiple options to the landowner (e.g., hardship exemption or outright purchase) and by preserving residual use for the land. However, the issue of preserving land versus the activity on it can also be problematic. How are the uses defined? Is "farming" the traditional "family farm" or an industrial-scale operation? At least in the short term, preserving productive activity on the land may be both politically valuable and necessary. Impacts on Receiving Areas The first half of the TDR equation (agreement on the resource to be protected) is generally not difficult. However, the second half (agreement on where the transferred development is to go and how it should be configured) has been extremely problematic. Conference participants acknowledged that while the goal of transferring density away from preservation areas and into growth areas was being accomplished by a number of TDR programs, the programs have not been effective in influencing the design and character of development in the receiving areas. Local municipalities are, or at least should be, obligated to identify sites for increased density, but the use of that density may not be constrained beyond the existing town zoning bylaws. The unfortunate result is that the increased density is as likely to be used for a suburban strip development as for compact, centered development, thus creating localized sprawl within the receiving area. http://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/pub-detail.asp?id=424 4/6/2006 Lincoln Institute of Land Policy - Publications Page 3 of 4 In the case of the Long Island Pine Barrens, some towns intentionally spread out their receiving areas to avoid the political fallout of higher-density development. When the TDR program was being developed, the Pine Barrens Commission was working on design guidelines meant to promote compact town planning. However, this layer of complexity and restriction was too burdensome to be incorporated into each of the local town plans. While there is broad agreement that controlling the character of development in receiving areas is a desirable idea, it also raises a number of questions. First, the administrating agency may not be able to deal with the additional complexity that design controls would bring. Second, the market for new development in the receiving areas may not be strong enough to support the additional burden of cluster design. The need to guarantee a market for the transfer rights also works against the creation of controls that would concentrate development. An advantageous ratio of receiving areas to sending areas (as high as 2.5:1) tends to create large receiving areas. Conference participants from around the country also confirmed what they perceive as a knee-jerk reaction against higher density. Despite the influences of New Urbanism and neo-traditional planning, the general public and the marketplace do not value centered development. Residents of fast-growing communities might be more receptive to clustered residential designs if they could understand what different types of development would look like by reviewing three-dimensional representations in drawings and models. Land use attorney Charles Siemon suggested that many town planners seem to want compact, centered development, but are not willing to acknowledge that it can be more expensive to private developers. Perhaps another approach, one that is outside of the TDR marketplace, is needed, such as a fund that buys the development rights and agrees to sell them to developers at a discount if they build in town centers. Lexington, Kentucky, is experimenting with this kind of arrangement. Evaluating TDR How do you measure the success of a TDR program? By the amount of open space preserved? The number of acres kept in farming? The number of transactions? The quality of development in the receiving areas? And, over what time period? Charles Siemon suggested that a TDR program might be considered a success even if no transactions take place. How? Because, in the context of a larger land use plan, the TDR program can make a preservation program more palatable by providing the landowner with additional options. It became clear during the conference that the perceived success or failure of TDR programs was colored by excessive expectations. The notion that a TDR program would, by itself, protect open space, preserve activities such as farming, help create appealing village centers, and do all of this simply by offering a mechanism for moving development around is simply not realistic. Some participants asked, "Why should a TDR program be expected to accomplish more than any other single land use tool, such as zoning?" This question reflected the most fundamental conclusion of the conference: TDR programs work only when they are part of a larger, long-term land use plan that has the commitment and political will of the community behind it. This commitment to the larger goals of the plan and to the particular resource being protected is the real answer to legal and other challenges. A comprehensive plan is more likely to accommodate multiple avenues of relief for landowners who feel unfairly treated. TDR programs that are created within the context of a comprehensive plan are much more likely to be tailored to the specific political, economic and geographic circumstances of their location. Finally, in terms of creating balanced and centered littp://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/pub-detail.asp?id=424 4/6/2006 Lincoln Institute of Land Policy - Publications Page 4 of 4 development, it is within a land use plan that the design guidelines and other controls that result in the best town planning principles may reside. Robert Lane is director of the Regional Design Program at the Regional Plan Association in New York. Contact: lane@rpa.org. Notes: 1. James Tripp and Daniel J. Dudek, "Institutional Guidelines for Designing Successful Transferable Rights Programs," Yale Journal on Regulation (Summer 1989). 2. In the summer of 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court heard Suitum v Tahoe, a challenge to a TDR program. Although some of the justices took the opportunity to talk about various legal dimensions of TDR, the case did not address the fundamental legality of TDR. Instead, it focused on the "ripeness issue." Did Mrs. Suitum have to try to sell her rights through the program before challenging its legitimacy? The Court ruled that she did not. The conference participants felt that in the short term the case may create pressure for TDR programs to assign real dollar values to the rights or credits that are being transferred. This is consistent with the finding that a TDR bank, capable of assigning Such values, can play an important role in the success of a TDR program. Home I Education and Research I Publications I Topics I About Lincoln Institute I Calendar I Register/Order I My Profile Help I Contact Us I Login I Privacy Policy © 2002 Lincoln Institute of Land Policy littp://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/pub-detail.asp?id=424 ��p^ 4/6/2006