SECTION 4.0 CONSISTENCY WITH PLANS AND POLICIES MOU PROJECT

Transcription

1 SECTION 4.0 CONSISTENCY WITH PLANS AND POLICIES MOU PROJECT 4.1 RELATIONSHIP TO CEQA Section 4.0 The following discussion of County policies and the preliminary determinations regarding the consistency of the MOU Project with these policies is presented for information purposes, and is not required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The obligation of a lead agency for conducting a policy consistency analysis under CEQA is limited to an examination of whether the project would be consistent with existing zoning, plans, and other applicable land use controls (Section 15063(d)(5) of the CEQA Guidelines). Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines also places emphasis on identifying conflicts between a proposed project and any applicable land use policy adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. This requirement is satisfied in Section 3.6 (Land Use). The broader policy consistency analysis which follows addresses many other types of policy statements, and is furnished for information purposes only and is not considered part of the Revised Draft EIR (RDEIR). The County of Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors (BOS) is responsible for deciding whether to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the proposed project. Among other considerations, and with the advice and recommendations of the County Planning Commission, the BOS will base its decision on the project s consistency with applicable plans and policies. A comprehensive assessment of the project s consistency with plans and policies has been prepared by County staff and consultants, and is provided below. This assessment is preliminary, and subject to change prior to the time that the project is acted upon by the decision makers. 4.2 PLANS AND APPROVAL AUTHORITIES For areas within the Coastal Zone, policies concerning land use, resources, services, and other issues are found in the County s Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP), which is a component of the County s Comprehensive Plan. The CLUP is implemented in large part by the County s Coastal Zoning Ordinance, which is Article II in the Zoning Code (recently reformatted starting as Section of the updated Land Use Development Code). These two documents the CLUP and Article II comprise the County s local coastal plan as required under the California Coastal Act. A local coastal plan is defined as a local government s land use plans, zoning ordinances, zoning district maps, and, within sensitive coastal resources areas, other implementing actions, which, when taken together, meet the requirements of, and implement the provisions and policies of [the Coastal Act] at the local level (PRC Section ). The land use plan is defined as the relevant portions of a local government s general plan, or local coastal element which are sufficiently detailed to indicate the kinds, location, and intensity of land uses, the applicable resource protection and development policies and, where necessary, a listing of implementing actions (PRC Section ). 4-1

2 Section 4.0 For areas outside of the Coastal Zone, also called inland areas, the applicable policies are in the County s Comprehensive Plan and these are implemented primarily through the inland portion of the County s Zoning Code (Article III, also recently reformatted into the Land Use Development Code). In determining consistency with plans and policies and approving project components within the inland area, the BOS decision is final. For project components within the Coastal Zone, however, the California Coastal Commission must certify the proposed Naples Planned Development (NPD) coastal land use designation and coastal zoning ordinance amendment as amendments to the local coastal plan and consistent with the California Coastal Act. In addition, the Coastal Commission may have final approval for land use entitlements that may be reviewed by the Commission on appeal. 4.3 SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY POLICY ANALYSIS To summarize the entire preliminary policy consistency analysis, the MOU Project is considered to be consistent with all applicable policies in the Coastal Act, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Comprehensive Plan with the following exceptions: Coastal Act 30251, which relates to maintaining visual compatibility with surrounding rural lands. Due to the overall change in visual character caused by the proposed MOU Project, and due to the specific alteration in view caused by the apparent massing of residences visible from southbound Highway 101 (KOP 5, representative of travelers along the Gaviota Coast on the US Highway 101, which is considered eligible for designation as a scenic highway), the MOU Project as proposed is potentially not consistent with this policy (Coastal Act 30251). Comprehensive Plan Visual Resource Policy 2 and CLUP Policy 4-3, which relate to overall visual compatibility and to preventing the effect of structures being visible against the skyline above ridgelines. Due to the overall change in visual character, the massing effect of residences visible from southbound Highway 101 (KOP 5, representative of travelers along the Gaviota Coast on the US Highway 101, which is considered eligible for designation as a scenic highway), and due to the protrusion of residential rooflines into the skyline visible from portions of Highway 101 and a proposed public trail corridor, the MOU Project as proposed is potentially not consistent with this policy (Comprehensive Plan Visual Resource Policy 2). Coastal Land Use Policy 1-4, which requires a general finding of consistency with all other applicable policies. Due to the potential inconsistencies listed above, the MOU Project as proposed is potentially not consistent with this policy (CLUP Policy 1-4). The following pages present a detailed review of all applicable policies from the Coastal Act, the County CLUP, and the County Comprehensive Plan. 4-2

3 4.4 CONSISTENCY OF CLUP AND ZONING AMENDMENTS WITH CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT Policy Background Section 4.0 The approach to policy consistency for this project is unique because the MOU Project area includes most of the Naples town site. This area, designated as rural and agricultural, contains a large number of legal non-conforming lots (i.e., 219 legal lots on 485 acres within the MOU Project area) that could result in development far exceeding the present CLUP land use designation of A-II-100, 100-acre parcels (i.e., up to 4 lots on 485 acres under the present designation). This discrepancy between the large number of existing legal lots and the very small number of residential units that would be allowable under the CLUP was indirectly acknowledged with the inclusion of Policy 2-13 in the CLUP. Policy 2-13 states: The existing town site of Naples is within a designated rural area and is remote from urban services. The County shall discourage residential development of existing lots. The County shall encourage and assist the property owner(s) in transferring development rights from the Naples town site to an appropriate site within a designated urban area which is suitable for residential development. If the County determines that transferring development rights is not feasible, the land use designation of AG-II-100 should be reevaluated. As discussed under Policy 2-13 in Section 4.6 below, in light of the lot density at Naples, reevaluation of the current A-II-100 land use designation is contemplated for the Naples town site in the event that the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program is infeasible. If the County Board of Supervisors finds that the TDR is infeasible, they can then consider the MOU Project, which would create and implement a new NPD land use designation and zoning district. This new designation would be specific to the Naples town site and would accommodate more residential development than the current A-II-100 designation, but far less than what development of the existing legal lots would otherwise yield. The County s re-evaluation of the existing A-II-100 land use designation, and consideration of the new NPD designation to allow a higher density of residential development, must be examined in the context of statewide policies adopted by the legislature in the California Coastal Act. The County s actions to (1) amend the CLUP by creating the new NPD designation, (2) to amend Article II of the Zoning Ordinance by creating a compatible zone, and (3) to apply the designation and zone to the project site, all must conform with state policy Coastal Act General Policy The California Coastal Act is contained in Division 20 of the state Public Resources Code. Policy statements regarding resources planning and management are contained in Chapter 3 beginning with Article 1, Section These policies shall constitute the standards by which the adequacy of local coastal programs and the permissibility of proposed developments are determined (Section 30200(a)). Most of the individual policy statements deal with the relationship between coastal resources and the effects of development that would be subject to 4-3

4 Section 4.0 the coastal act and would require a Coastal Development Permit. These types of developmentrelated policies are discussed below in Section 4.7 and later sections. Some of the policy statements in the Coastal Act are more general or comprehensive in nature, and deal with the broader issues to be addressed in regional planning and the composition of Local Coastal Plans. The broader policy statements that address plan development and comprehensive issues are addressed in the following paragraphs, with an emphasis on those which pose major issues in considering the MOU Project Coastal Act Public Access and Recreation, Marine Resources Chapter 3, Articles 2 and 3 of the California Coastal Act deal with public access and recreation. There are no major planning issues involving the proposed NPD designation and ordinance and these articles. Article 4 addresses the protection of marine resources. Again, there are no major planning issues or conflicts at the level of the proposed NPD designation and ordinance. Proposed Policy 2-31, which is part of the CLUP amendment, anticipates the provision of beach access within the NPD and discusses design measures intended to protect coastal resources. Project-level issues associated with actual development are addressed in Section 4.7 and later sections below. In general terms, the MOU Project would provide and maintain access to the coast, and provide a segment of the Coastal Trail through the SBR property. The proposed project, combined with recommended mitigation measures, would provide non-automobile circulation within the development (i.e., hiking, biking and equestrian trails) and adequate public parking facilities, taking into consideration the potential effects on sensitive resources (i.e., Naples Reef, nearby seal haul-out, native grassland, and other site resources). These features are responsive to Coastal Act policies related to improving public access to coastal resources, and to protecting marine resources Coastal Act Land Resources Chapter 3, Article 5 of the California Coastal Act addresses Land Resources and focuses on environmentally sensitive habitats (Section 30240), agricultural resources (Sections through 30242), timberlands (Section 30243, which does not relate to this area), and cultural resources (Section 30244). Larger environmentally sensitive habitat areas are identified on County resource maps and listed in the County s CLUP, and descriptions of specific habitat types that qualify but are too small or dispersed to be mapped are provided in the text of the CLUP (County of Santa Barbara 1982 CLUP:119 ff). The proposed NPD designation and ordinance make no changes to the definitions or policies related to environmentally sensitive habitat areas. Proposed Policy 2-25 in the NPD CLUP amendment recognizes the presence of environmentally sensitive habitats in the NPD area and requires the inclusion of an Open Space and Habitat Management Plan as part of the development approval process there. One of the major tools referenced in the Coastal Act policies for the preservation of agricultural lands in the Coastal Zone is the Urban/Rural boundary line (Section 30241(a)). Related policies address the conversion of agricultural lands to other uses (Section 30241(b and c)), and ensuring 4-4

5 that adjacent uses remain compatible with agriculture (Section 30241(d, e, and f)). The MOU Project s location outside of the Urban boundary poses some project-specific issues that are addressed below. The proposed NPD designation and zoning, however, do not alter the boundary and include agricultural as part of the balance of uses in the MOU Project area, as specified in the following proposed NPD policy language: Section 4.0 Policy 2-24 Development within the Naples Planned Development designation shall be compatible with the preservation of adjacent and adjoining agricultural lands through the establishment of conservation easements, buffer areas and similar measures that impede the conversion of agricultural lands elsewhere along the Gaviota coast. Policy 2-27 Development within the Naples Planned Development designation shall provide for the continuation of agricultural uses in those areas best suited for existing agricultural activities and where such activities are compatible with both adjoining residential uses and identified habitat and open space enhancement/restoration areas. The management of cultural resources is addressed at the development level, and the proposed NPD designation and zoning do not alter any policies or requirements related to these resources Coastal Act Development Article 6 of the Coastal Act is where potential land development is addressed, both in terms of overall policy direction and in terms of specific resources and how they are affected by projectlevel changes. As overall guidance, Section 30250(a) states: New residential, commercial, or industrial development, except as otherwise provided in this division, shall be located within, contiguous with, or in close proximity to, existing developed areas able to accommodate it or, where such areas are not able to accommodate it, in other areas with adequate public services and where it will not have significant adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources. In addition, land divisions, other than leases for agricultural uses, outside existing developed areas shall be permitted only where 50 percent of the usable parcels in the area have been developed and the created parcels would be no smaller than the average size of surrounding parcels. The MOU Project would not be located within, contiguous to, or in close proximity to, designated urban areas, but there is some development in the immediate vicinity and some public services are available. Existing developed areas near the project site include the residential and ranching compound of Dos Pueblos Ranch (DPR), the residential compound of the Morehart family, and worker housing located on both the north and south sides of US 101, generally west of the Santa Barbara Ranch (SBR) property. These properties are served by the developed water supply, treatment, and distribution system of the Naples Water Company (Morehart and SBR properties) and by the Goleta Water District (DPR property generally west of Dos Pueblos Creek). The MOU Project does not involve a division of land, so the 50 percent development and average lot size guidance does not apply. 4-5

6 Section 4.0 To the extent that the MOU Project proposes new development away from existing developed areas it is not consistent with the first statement in Section 30250, nor is it consistent with the minimum lot size prescription in the A-II-100 CLUP land use designation. The existing pattern of legal lots in the Naples town site, however, allows a substantially larger number of new residences than proposed. Each lot can be sold separately under present circumstances. The existing A-II-100 zoning allows for the construction of a single family residence on each lot. While some lots may not be developable due their very small size or other constraints, the County cannot unilaterally prohibit development without providing compensation to the owner. This fact is consistent with the legislative intent that recognizes this extent of property rights in the Coastal Act (Section 30010): The Legislature hereby finds and declares that this division is not intended, and shall not be construed as authorizing the commission or local government acting pursuant to this division to exercise their power to grant or deny a permit in a manner which will take or damage private property for public use, without the payment of just compensation therefore. This section is not intended to increase or decrease the rights of any owner of property under the Constitution of the State of California or the United States. Thus, a conflict exists between the intent of Section to limit new development in rural or agricultural areas and the recognition of private property owner rights associated with the existing legal lots in the Naples town site. The potential for conflicts was recognized at the time the Coastal Act was adopted, and is addressed in Section 30200(b): Where the commission or any local government in implementing the provisions of this division identifies a conflict between the policies of this chapter, Section shall be utilized to resolve the conflict and the resolution of such conflicts shall be supported by appropriate findings setting forth the basis for the resolution of identified policy conflicts. The referenced statement of legislative intent, Section is as follows: The Legislature further finds and recognizes that conflicts may occur between one or more policies of the division. The Legislature therefore declares that in carrying out the provisions of this division such conflicts be resolved in a manner which on balance is the most protective of significant coastal resources. In this context, the Legislature declares that broader policies may be more protective, overall, than specific wildlife habitat and other similar resource policies. Thus, the key in resolving conflicts in interpreting state Coastal Act policies lies in identifying the course of action that is most protective of significant coastal resources Policy 2-13 and the Coastal Act Given the circumstances surrounding the Naples town site, the County has determined that the most protective course of action involves proceeding in accordance with the CLUP Policy 2-13, described above. 4-6

7 Policy 2-13 provides that development shall be discouraged in the Naples area, which is consistent with Coastal Act The County has discouraged development in the Naples area by attempting to require lot mergers as conditions of other permits, and through other means, over the last 20 years. Section 4.0 Policy 2-13 states that the County shall encourage and assist the property owner(s) in transferring development rights from the Naples town site to an appropriate site within a designated urban area which is suitable for residential development. The County completed a TDR study in 2006, revised it in 2007, and prepared a draft Enabling Ordinance (County of Santa Barbara, September 26, 2007) for the program. Policy 2-13 states that if transferring development rights is not feasible, the land use designation of AG-II-100 should be re-evaluated. The TDR studies conclude that it is not feasible to transfer all development rights from the Naples town site to other areas, so the current land use designation should be re-evaluated. The re-evaluation has led the County to consider the NPD designation and ordinance, and the proposed MOU Project, as being the most appropriate way to resolve the discrepancy between the existing number of legal lots in the area and the allowed development density in the existing A-II-100 designation. The proposed NPD designation and ordinance provide the mechanism to reconcile this difference for the Naples town site area. The definition of the NPD designation proposed will restrict this solution to a defined area. Proposed Policies 2-29 and 2-30, also ensure that this mechanism restricts services to the minimum necessary to support the proposed limited development in NPD area. An alternate course of action, rejecting the NPD designation and ordinance and denying the MOU Project, would ultimately lead to a protracted series of lot-by-lot development proposals over the hundreds of lots within the Naples town site. The end result of this process would not be as protective of coastal resources and as responsive to Coastal Act policies as the proposed project. In addition to the NPD land use designation noted above, the MOU Project would include several design features and mitigation measures to reduce the potential for future land use conflicts to the maximum extent feasible given the limited potential for offsite transfer of development. Specifically, the project would: Reduce the amount of land conversion from agriculture to residential use as compared to the potential build-out of the existing legal lots; Increase the degree of protection afforded land to be used for agricultural purposes, since there is no easement or other mechanism in place on the SBR property to preserve agricultural land; Incorporate measures to minimize potential conflicts between residential and agricultural uses; 4-7

8 Section 4.0 Enhance agricultural production through capital improvements and professional management; and Incorporate various measures to increase public coastal access and reduce potential impacts to resources. These measures incorporated into the MOU Project help to fulfill other applicable Coastal Act policies, including Section 30241, which states: The maximum amount of prime agricultural land shall be maintained in agricultural production to assure the protection of the areas agricultural economy, and conflicts shall be minimized between agricultural and urban land uses ( ) 4.5 ORGANIZATION OF THE POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS This preliminary review of policy consistency addresses all of the applicable policies of the Coastal Act, Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP), and Comprehensive Plan. This preliminary review of policy consistency is arranged as follows: Section 4.6 discusses CLUP Policy 2-13, which reflects the County and Coastal Commission prior policy considerations of potential development on any portion of the Naples town site. This policy applies only to the Naples town site. This section also discusses potential consistency with CLUP, and Comprehensive Plan policies for which the basis of analysis is directly linked to the policy direction and intent of CLUP Policy These policies include: CLUP Policies 1-2, 1-3, and 1-4, which address overlapping policies, conflicting policies between the CLUP and the Comprehensive Plan, and overall consistency with adopted plans and policies, respectively. CLUP Policy 2-12 and Comprehensive Plan Land Use Development Policy 2, which address maximum allowable development densities in the Coastal Zone and inland areas, respectively. Coastal Act 30250, which requires that development be located contiguous with other developed areas. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Development Policy 3, Land Use Element Regional Goal for Urbanization, and Goleta Valley Area/Community Goal for Population. These policies address limitations on urban development beyond the urban/rural boundary; prevention of scattered urban development, and limitations on subdivisions and multiple-unit residential developments in prime agricultural lands and ranch lands. Coastal Act and CLUP Policy 8-2, which addresses conversion of agricultural land in the Coastal Zone. The remaining subsections discuss policies that have been grouped together by topic. This grouping is used because certain policies of the Coastal Act and CLUP cover essentially the same 4-8

9 requirements. In addition, many CLUP policies have identical or closely corresponding policies in the Comprehensive Plan. The remaining sections, and their general topics, are as follows: Section 4.7: Policies related to public services and limitations on the extension of services beyond the urban/rural boundary. These include Coastal Act 30254; CLUP Policies 2-1 through 2-11; Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Regional Goals for Environment and Open Lands; and Land Use Development Policy 4. Section 4.8: Policies related to coastal bluffs, protection structures and other physical hazards. Presents the applicable policies related to various resource constraints, including policies related to: Section 4.0 Coastal bluffs and physical hazards (including CLUP Policies 3-1 through 3-12; and Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Hillside and Watershed Protection Policies 1 through 8). Streams and Creeks Policy 1. Flood Hazard Area Policies 1 and 2; and Area/Community Goals for the Goleta Valley Land Use goals). Section 4.9: Policies related to grading, drainage and water quality (including Coastal Act 30231; CLUP Policies 3-13 through 3-19; Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Hillside and Watershed Protection policies 1 through 9; Streams and Creeks Policy 1; and Land Use Element Flood Hazard Area Policies 1 and 2). Section 4.10: Policies related to visual resources, aesthetics, and rural character (including Coastal Act 30251; CLUP Policies 4-2, 4-3, 4-6, 4-7, and 4-8; and Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Visual Resources Policies 2, 4, and 5). Section 4.11: Policies related to housing (including CLUP Policies 5-5 and 5-8). Section 4.12: Policies related to access and recreation (including Coastal Act Sections through 30214, and sections 30221, and 30252; CLUP Policies 7-1 through 7-3, 7-6, 7-13, 7-14, 7-17 through 7-19, and 7-25; and Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Parks and Recreation Policies 1 and 4). Section 4.13: Policies related to agriculture (including Comprehensive Plan Agricultural Element Goals I through VI; and agricultural goals of the Land Use Element Area/ Community Goals for the Goleta Valley). Section 4.14: Policies related to environmentally sensitive habitats (including Coastal Act 30240; CLUP Policies 9-1, 9-9 through 9-25, 9-30 through 33, and 9-35 through 9-43; and Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Area/Community Goals for the Goleta Valley). Section 4.15: Policies related to archaeological resources (including Coastal Act 30244; CLUP Policy 10-1 through 10-5; CLUP text pages ; and Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Historical and Archaeological Sites Policies 1 through 5). 4-9

10 Section 4.0 Section 4.16: Comprehensive Plan Noise Element standards. 4.6 CONSISTENCY WITH CLUP POLICY 2-13 AND OTHER RELATED LAND USE POLICIES CLUP Policy 2-13 CLUP Policy 2-13: The existing town site of Naples is within a designated rural area and is remote from urban services. The County shall discourage residential development of existing lots. The County shall encourage and assist the property owner(s) in transferring development rights from the Naples town site to an appropriate site within a designated urban area which is suitable for residential development. If the County determines that transferring development rights is not feasible, the land use designation of AG-II-100 should be re-evaluated. NPD Designation and Ordinance are Consistent. As discussed above, the steps that the County has taken prior to consideration of the NPD designation and ordinance have been consistent with this Policy. The County discouraged development within the Naples town site for over 20 years, but has not prevailed in litigation and has recognized the legality of over 200 lots within the MOU Project area. The County has completed (and revised) a TDR study that has determined (and confirmed) that it is not feasible to transfer development rights from all of the proposed (or existing) lots to other areas. The proposed NPD designation and ordinance provide the mechanism to re-evaluate the allowable density and the zoning of the Naples town site. MOU Project is Consistent. As discussed in Section 11.0, Alternatives, between 114 and 124 residential units could be built over time on the SBR property under the grid development scenario if no action is taken on the present application. This estimate is based on the number of legal Naples town site lots specific to the SBR property (219), adjusted downward due to the likely consolidation of certain lots based on County policy constraints and the number of small sliver lots that could not be individually developed. The major policy constraints include setbacks from coastal bluffs and other biological resources. The potential build-out under the grid development scenario exceeds the MOU Project development of 54 single family residences on the SBR property. Policy 2-13 reflects the Coastal Commission s and County s prior considerations of potential development on the Naples town site and the unique circumstances of the site s potential buildout over time of the existing legal non-conforming lots. Policy 2-13 applies only to the Naples town site and establishes a process to re-evaluate the present A-II-100 land use designation in the event that the County determines that transferring development rights in exchange for continued open space and agricultural uses within the Naples town site is not feasible. This policy contemplates the possibility that the present 100-acre agricultural land use designation could be changed to reflect a higher land use density. In compliance with CLUP Policy 2-13, Santa Barbara County completed a TDR Study (Solimar Research Group, 2006) for two development scenarios: the proposed project and Alternative

11 (proposed for review by the landowners at a project-level detail for purposes of evaluating alternatives under CEQA). The TDR study was prepared in parallel with this RDEIR and is available under separate cover. The study explained the methodology of a TDR program, necessary economics, and identified and evaluated potential receiver sites that would be suitable for residential development within designated urban and rural areas. In summary, the TDR process implemented a screening process to identify candidate receiver sites in several jurisdictions, including the unincorporated urban areas of the South Coast and North County, and the cities of Goleta, Santa Barbara, Carpinteria, Lompoc, and Buellton. The March 2006 TDR study indicates that most of the evaluated locations are not feasible as receiver sites for the following reasons: remoteness from the Naples town site, lack of common interest and issues between the Naples town site and potential receiver sites, and the disparity between very high land and development values on the Gaviota Coast when compared with inland urbanized areas. The March 2006 TDR study concludes that a full extinguishment of development rights is not feasible. An update to the TDR study was prepared in 2007 to consider transfer scenarios based on the value of the existing pattern of lots and the development potential described in this RDEIR as Alternative 3A, the No Project alternative resulting in a grid pattern of development using the existing legal lots. The updated findings of the TDR study confirmed that full extinguishment of development rights is not feasible, but that it may be possible to purchase some development rights in specific areas. The County staff report prepared in conjunction with the updated TDR study provides additional information, including a more detailed review of the County s compliance with Policy 2-13 (County of Santa Barbara 2007:14-18). Section 4.0 Given the limited potential for TDR, it is not feasible to transfer all of the density off of the SBR property and onto appropriate urban receiver sites. Therefore, in accordance with Policy 2-13, the County is re-evaluating the A-II-100 land use designation. The re-evaluation includes legislative changes and design features and that, with conclusions in the TDR study, are intended to address conflicts that could arise as a result of the potential build-out under the legal lot configuration and conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses. These legislative changes and design features include: Creation of a new NPD land use designation and implementing zoning ordinance that would establish low density residential development standards specific to the Naples town site lots. The NPD standards would apply to the Naples town site lots within SBR. Creation of a new Private Agricultural Conservation Easement (PACE) that would result in 161 acres of agricultural lands preserved for agriculture in perpetuity. Recommended mitigation requiring implementation of a Right-to-Farm buyer notification program; this program would ensure that lands converted to residential use would be compatible with continued agricultural use on surrounding lands. Other recommended mitigations and NPD standards such as fencing requirements and restrictions would further reduce land use conflicts between residential uses and agricultural operations. 4-11

12 Section 4.0 Public recreation and coastal access features would be provided, including vertical beach access and new trail segments for the California Coastal Trail (the federal Juan Bautista de Anza Historic Trial). These would have direct access off of agricultural areas. Other recommended mitigations would reduce the MOU Project s potential visual resources impacts; protect and enhance onsite biological resources and water quality; and address other resource constraints. An increase in agricultural capital expenditures and establishment of a professional agricultural management program on the SBR property. Each of these project features is discussed further in Sections 3.2 through 3.15 of this RDEIR. In summary, Policy 2-13 requires the preparation and implementation of a TDR program as a first step. Then, as a second step in the event that the TDR program is not feasible, Policy 2-13 contemplates a possible increase in the allowable density in order to resolve the discrepancy between the A-II-100 acre minimum lot size and the existing size and number of legal lots within the property. The measures described above would reduce the potential for future land use conflicts to the maximum extent feasible given the limited potential for offsite transfer of development. Specifically, the MOU Project would: Increase the amount of land that is to be kept in agricultural use in perpetuity as compared to the present condition in which no agricultural easement or Williamson Act contract exists Reduce the amount of land conversion from agriculture to residential use as compared to the potential build-out of the existing legal lots Incorporate measures to minimize potential conflicts between residential and agricultural uses Enhance agricultural production through capital improvements and professional management Incorporate various measures to increase public coastal access and reduce potential impacts to resources Incorporate development standards in accordance with the new NPD land use designation and implementing zoning ordinances Based on these factors, the MOU Project is consistent with Policy Policies that are Closely Linked to Policy 2-13 The following Coastal Act, CLUP, and Comprehensive Plan policies are discussed in the context of Policy 2-13, which provides guidance policy considerations related specifically to potential development on the Naples town site. CLUP Policy 1-2: Where policies within the land use plan overlap, the policy which is the most protective of coastal resources shall take precedence. 4-12

13 CLUP Policy 1-3: Where there are conflicts between the policies set forth in the coastal land use plan and those set forth in any element of the County s Comprehensive Plan or existing ordinances, the policies of the coastal land use plan shall take precedence. NPD Designation and Ordinance are Consistent. CLUP Policies 1-2 and 1-3 are general in nature and provide guidance on the approach to policy analysis. The following discussion summarizes the way in which these policies were considered when addressing the remainder of the applicable policies. Section 4.0 CLUP Policy 2-13 is uniquely applicable to the proposed project and it overlaps with certain other policies that address maximum allowed land use density in rural areas (e.g., Coastal Act 30250, CLUP 2-12, Comprehensive Plan Land Use Development Policies 2 and 3); conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses (e.g., Policy 8-2); and protection of visual resources (e.g., Coastal Act 30251, CLUP Policies 4-2 and 4-3). As discussed under each of these respective policies, the implementation of the proposed NPD designation and ordinance, and the anticipated development project in accordance with Policy 2-13, would be more protective of coastal resources compared to denying the proposed project by invoking other resource policies, thus leading to a lot-by-lot series of development projects following the grid pattern of the existing Naples town site. Another example of overlapping policies includes the requirements for coastal access (e.g., Coastal Act Sections through 30212, CLUP Policies 7-1 through 7-3, and 7-18) and requirements for protection of native habitats, including grasslands, wetlands, the sandy beach area, and Naples Reef (e.g., Coastal Act and CLUP Policies 7-19, 9-1, 9-24, 9-25, and 9-30 through 9-33). The overlap of these policies would be addressed through project design and recommended mitigation measures that would require implementation of an Open Space Management Plan (OSMP), as well as other education, monitoring and management programs, to ensure that impacts from public coastal access and trails would not result in significant adverse impacts to biological resources. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element, Agricultural Goal I encourages agricultural expansion and intensification. However other policy considerations and resource constraints would limit agricultural intensification on the site in order to minimize impacts to wildlife resources (e.g., CLUP Policies 9-16a, 9-17, 9-35, and 9-37 through 9-42). MOU Project is Consistent. As mentioned above, CLUP Policy 2-13 is uniquely applicable to the proposed project site and it overlaps with certain other policies that address maximum allowed land use density in rural areas; conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses; and protection of visual resources. Since Policy 2-13 is part of the CLUP, it takes precedence over any overlapping policies from other elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Based on these factors, the MOU Project is consistent with Policy 1-3. CLUP Policy 1-4: Prior to the issuance of a coastal development permit, the County shall make the finding that the development reasonably meets the standards set forth in all applicable land use plan policies. 4-13

14 Section 4.0 MOU Project is Potentially Consistent. The MOU Project would reasonably conform to the applicable land use policies related to land use density, conversion of agricultural land, and extension of urban services. This determination can be made based on a consideration of the project s consistency with Policy 2-13 as it applies to development of a portion of the Naples town site, and based on a consideration of other general land use policies, as discussed further in Section 4.6. In addition, the project would create the new NPD land use designation and ordinance, and the design of the project would be consistent with the standards specified in that new ordinance. As originally designed and submitted, the MOU Project would have had several potential impacts on environmentally sensitive habitats. The design was revised to avoid or minimize the potential effects. In particular, the agricultural support facility was removed from Lot 57 where it would have impacted native grassland habitat, and the access roadways and lot configuration for the equestrian village area south of Highway have been revised to provide better preservation and buffer areas for seasonal water bodies. Other minor changes in lot configuration provide larger setbacks from native grasslands and coastal scrub areas that will be preserved. Specific resource policies are addressed in Section 4.7 and later sections. The Board of Supervisors must make the ultimate determination of consistency with CLUP Policy 1-4 based on the project revisions and mitigation measures adopted and on their judgment about what is reasonable with respect to meeting the standards in other land use policies. The following two policies relate to maximum permitted density of development, and are addressed in a single response. CLUP Policy 2-12: The densities specified in the land use plan are maximums and shall be reduced if it is determined that such reduction is warranted by conditions specifically applicable to a site, such as topography, geologic or flood hazards, habitat areas, or steep slopes. However, density may be increased for affordable housing projects provided such projects are found consistent with all applicable policies and provisions of the Local Coastal Program. Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element, Land Use Development Policy 2: The densities specified in the Land Use Plan are maximums and may be reduced if it is determined that such reduction is warranted by conditions specifically applicable to a site, such as topography, geologic or flood hazards, habitat areas, or steep slopes. However, density may be increased under programs of the Housing Element. NPD Designation and Zoning are Consistent. The MOU Project presents a unique circumstance in which a rural agricultural area contains a large number of legal non-conforming lots (i.e., 219 legal lots on 485 acres) that could result in development far exceeding the present CLUP land use designation of A-II-100, 100-acre parcels (i.e., up to 4 lots on 495 acres under the present designation). As discussed under Policy 2-13 above, a different land use designation and permitted uses and higher land use density was contemplated for the Naples town site in the event that the TDR program is determined to be infeasible. Given the limited feasibility of the TDR program, the MOU Project would create and implement new NPD land use designations (coastal and inland). CLUP Policy 2-13 reconciles the fact that the existing density of legal lots exceeds that specified by the CLUP designation of A-II-100. The proposed NPD designation and zoning, by limiting development to that shown in the accompanying Development Plan, and 4-14

15 by limiting their application to the Naples town site, will establish a new limitation on development potential. The proposed NPD designation and zoning provides the mechanism to implement Policy 2-13 in a way that is more protective of significant coastal resources than taking no action or denying the MOU Project application leaving the existing pattern of legal lots intact. Section 4.0 MOU Project is Consistent. The new NPD designation would establish a new and increased maximum density specific to this portion of the Naples town site and any adjacent or adjoining lots that relocate potential development from this portion of the Naples town site. The number of allowable residential units would be limited by the overall project Development Plan and by the pattern of re-configured lots created by the proposed lot mergers and lot line adjustments. The resulting number of new single family residences, 54, would result in a higher density than defined by the current A-II-100 designation. The overall density would be lower, however, than that expected given the existing pattern of legal lots on the property. The purpose of the proposed NPD designations and implementing zoning ordinance would be to establish development standards that balance low density residential development with public access and recreational opportunities, open space, and habitat preservation while minimizing potential impacts to surrounding agricultural lands. Under these unique circumstances, the MOU Project would be consistent with the maximum density afforded under the proposed NPD designations. The following four policies and goals relate to restrictions on development beyond the urban/rural boundary, and are addressed in a single response. Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element, Land Use Development Policy 3: No urban development shall be permitted beyond boundaries of land designated for urban uses except in neighborhoods in rural areas. Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element, Regional Goal Urbanization: In order for the County to sustain a healthy economy in the urbanized areas and to allow for growth within its resources and within its ability to pay for necessary services, the County shall encourage infill, prevent scattered urban development, and encourage a balance between housing and jobs. Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element, Goleta Valley Area/Community Goals Population: In order to limit further urban sprawl and encourage specific planning within the urbanized area, a definite limit should be set on the area available for development. Urban uses (development denser than one residential unit per 40 acres) should be discouraged beyond the limit shown on the Goleta Valley Urban Boundary map. Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element, Goleta Valley Area/Community Goals Land Use: Forests, mountainous areas, prime agricultural lands, and ranch lands should be preserved by prohibiting subdivision and multiple-unit residential development in these areas. NPD Designation and Zoning are Consistent. As discussed under CLUP Policy 2-13, the County contemplated a possible increase in the present 100-acre density in order to balance 4-15

16 Section 4.0 the concerns over increased residential densities at this site, and thus resolve the long-standing dispute related to the Naples town site. A TDR study was conducted in order to determine the extent to which the proposed residential development density could be transferred to urban receiver sites. Based on the results of the TDR study, the development potential from a limited number of lots could be transferred to urban receiver sites. If this transfer of development is implemented, then although it would be limited in scope in comparison to the entire project, it would further the policy of preventing urban development beyond boundaries of land designated for urban uses, thus preventing scattered urban development, and encouraging a balance between housing and jobs. The remaining development to be located on the SBR property would be regulated in accordance with the new NPD land use designation and implementing ordinance. The purpose of the proposed NPD designation and implementing zoning ordinance would be to establish development standards that balance a higher density residential development (as compared to the present 100-acre requirement in the AG-II-100 zoning) with public access and recreational opportunities, open space, and habitat preservation, while minimizing potential impacts to surrounding agricultural lands. MOU Project is Consistent. The MOU Project as proposed does not involve urban densities or uses. Although the proposed density would be higher than the existing A-II-100 designation, the MOU Project overall density is equivalent to one unit per 9 acres. Water service already exists in the area, and will not be expanded beyond the existing service area of the Naples town site, SBR and DPR. Sewer service would be provided by onsite septic systems or a packaged treatment plant sized to serve only the development proposed. The MOU Project design contains substantial areas of open space and PACEs. Given the unique circumstances of the project site, the MOU Project, including creation of the NPD designation and other design features, legislative changes, and recommended mitigation measures would reduce the potential development that would be located beyond the urban boundary, compared to the potential grid build-out of the existing legal lots. The following two policies relate to changes in land use designations from agriculture to other uses, and are addressed in a single response. Section 4.10 below addresses policies related to agricultural activities. Coastal Act 30242: All other lands suitable for agricultural use shall not be converted to non-agricultural uses unless: (1) continued or renewed agricultural use is not feasible, or (2) such conversion would preserve prime agricultural land or concentrate development consistent with Section Any such permitted conversion shall be compatible with continued agricultural use on surrounding lands. CLUP Policy 8-2: If a parcel is designated for agricultural use and is located in a rural area not contiguous with the urban/rural boundary, conversion to non-agricultural use shall not be permitted unless such conversion of the entire parcel would allow for another priority use under the Coastal Act, e.g., coastal dependent industry, recreation and access, or protection of an environmentally sensitive habitat. Such conversion shall not be in conflict 4-16

17 with contiguous agricultural operations in the area, and shall be consistent with Section and of the Coastal Act. NPD Designation, Zoning and MOU Project are Consistent. The NPD designation and MOU Project propose a combination of residential, open space, and agricultural components that would result in a conversion of some agricultural land to residential use, and a concurrent dedication of 161 acres of agricultural land in perpetuity through the creation of a new PACE, in an area where there is presently no agricultural easement or Williamson Act contract. The proposed project would also allow for priority recreational uses and public access, and would protect environmentally sensitive habitat areas as provided in Policy 8-2. Section 4.0 More significantly, the project would implement Policy 2-13, which is more specific to Naples than Policy 8-2. As discussed under Policy 2-13, the TDR study has identified an opportunity to move some of the proposed project density from the project site. The MOU Project would also include design features, legislative changes, and recommended mitigation measures that, in combination with the partial transfer of density, would reduce the potential residential build-out of the site, as compared to the potential build-out of the existing legal lots. These measures would also address conflicts between ongoing agricultural operations and future residential uses. The legislative changes, design features, and recommended mitigations relevant to these agricultural compatibility policies include: Creation of a new NPD land use designation and implementing zoning ordinance that would establish rural residential development standards specific to the Naples town site lots. NPD development standards would address issues such as fencing requirements and restrictions to reduce land use conflicts between residential uses, open space restoration areas, and agricultural operations. A recommended mitigation measure would require implementation of a Right to Farm buyer notification program; this program would ensure that lands converted to residential use would be compatible with continued agricultural use on surrounding lands. Agricultural capital expenditures would be increased and a professional agricultural management program would be implemented on the SBR property. The proposed conversion of agricultural land would be compatible with continued agricultural use on surrounding lands, with implementation of the right-to-farm buyer notification mitigation measure. This notification would ensure that any buyer of the property would be informed that their property is located adjacent to property zoned for agriculture and is located in an area that has been planned for agricultural uses, therefore any inconvenience or discomfort from properly conducted agricultural operations, including noise, odors, dust, and chemicals, would not be deemed a nuisance. In summary, although the MOU Project would result in conversion of some existing agriculturally designated land to residential uses not regarded as a priority use under the Coastal Act beyond the urban/rural boundary, it would be accomplished through implementation of 4-17