|
Back to Calendar
Return
|
| |
Regular-Community Services # 29.
|
| Board of Supervisors |
|
|
|
|
| Subject |
Discussion of the concept of Transfer of Development Rights. (No general fund impact) (Echiburu/Parfrey)
|
| Recommended Action |
Accept report on the concept of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR). Staff recommends that no further action be taken to proceed with a TDR ordinance at this time.
|
| Strategic Plan Goal(s) |
Sustainable Environment
Flourishing Agriculture |
| Reason for Recommended Action/Background |
The Board last discussed Transfer of Development Rights in 2014 when the Clustered Agricultural Housing Ordinance was amended. At that time, the Board accepted the staff recommendation not to proceed with a TDR ordinance. Supervisor Provenza requested another discussion of TDR, so this follow-up staff report has been prepared. Following the discussion, staff recommends that no further action be taken to proceed with a TDR ordinance at this time, for the reasons outlined below.
BACKGROUND
Yolo County Policies
The Countywide 2030 General Plan contains policies that emphasize the concept of “clustering” housing in the agricultural areas, and the adoption of a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program, in order to reduce impacts to agricultural activities. Two of the key policies, and an action item, are underlined below.
Policy LU-2.3 Manage agricultural parcels of less than 20 acres, including antiquated subdivisions where appropriate, to create compatibility with surrounding agricultural uses to the greatest extent possible, including: 1) discourage residential development; 2) encourage lot mergers to achieve larger parcel sizes; 3) encourage clustering of units to preserve farmland and natural resources; 4) encourage transfers of development rights to areas where additional farm dwellings are desired (e.g. organic farms that are labor intensive); 5) encourage deed restrictions, site design and development themes that support the agricultural use of the land; and 6) aggressively limit the impact of residential development where it does occur.
Policy AG-3.6 Strongly encourage cities to share in the responsibility for providing adequate sites to accommodate farm labor housing.
Action AG-A25 Implement a voluntary Agricultural Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program to facilitate the creation of affordable farm worker housing. Such a program would allow for the transfer of existing rights to build farm dwellings from areas characterized by large-acreage farm operations to areas characterized by small farms and/or where labor needs are greater. Develop criteria for appropriate transfer and receiver locations that take into account factors such as labor needs, crop types and/or other relevant factors and that preclude nonagricultural related transfers. Allow a density bonus of up to 20 percent for participants. Projects in receiving areas of the TDR program would not be considered “residential subdivisions” and/or the “division of land for non-agricultural uses” for the purposes of this General Plan. (implements Policy AG-3.6)
To implement the “clustering” policy, the County adopted the Clustered Agricultural Housing Ordinance in 2010. The ordinance was significantly amended in 2014 to more specifically target the issue of antiquated subdivisions.
The Concept of Transfer of Development Rights
A Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program is usually structured to allow the transfer of housing credits from rural areas (“sending areas”) to locations within cities (“receiving areas”) where the credits can then be used by developers to increase the densities of proposed residential projects. In such a typical TDR program, a private developer buys the development rights from a rural agricultural landowner, who gives up his/her right to build a number of homes on the property. The developer then uses those development rights or credits to increase the density of a project within a nearby city.
This arrangement obviously works only if there is a formal agreement between the county and the cities to allow the sale of credits in the unincorporated area to be used in a city housing project. No such inter-agency agreements to support a TDR program currently exist between the County and any of the four cities, and none of the cities have expressed a desire to consider such a program with the County.
In other jurisdictions, cities have been reluctant to participate in TDR programs to allow for increased residential density. The reason is that California planning and zoning law already gives cities the legal ability to apply significant “density bonuses” (up to 30 percent) to residential projects that meet certain criteria, such as including affordable housing or other amenities. Also, increasing densities for residential projects beyond the maximum densities set forth in city zoning ordinances is often controversial and not often embraced by other cities. Finally, the incentives for developers to embrace a traditional TDR program may also be absent during this period of economic and housing recession. While the local economy is recovering, there does not appear to be a firm incentive for developers in cities to purchase additional density bonuses through a County TDR program.
Farmworker Housing
General Plan Policy AG-3.6 cited above encourages "cities to share in the responsibility for providing adequate sites to accommodate farm labor housing." Permitting for the construction of farmworker housing projects located on agriculture land is governed by a combination of State and local regulations.
In recent years, the State of California has adopted laws to make it easier for local landowners to develop farmworker housing, by exempting such housing from local regulations. Health and
Safety Code Section 17021.6 prohibits a local agency from requiring a Use Permit or “other zoning clearance” for any farmworker employee housing “consisting of no more than 36 beds in a group quarters or 12 units or spaces designed for use by a single family or household.” Thus, most farmworker housing is now a “by right” use that requires only a building permit from the County.
With the State pre-emption of local permitting, the lack of farmworker housing in rural areas cannot be traced to over-regulation by local agencies (or neighborhood opposition expressed at public hearings), but may have more to do with other regulations and requirements such as the cost of insurance and lack of bank financing for construction costs. Staff does not believe that adoption of a TDR program would result in significant incentives to construct more farmworker housing.
Interest in TDR by the Cities
In 2014, the Board requested that staff contact city representatives to determine if there was any interest in coordinating with the County on a joint TDR program. At that time, city representatives did not voice any support for such a program. More recently, staff again discussed potential coordination on TDR with the cities of Woodland and Davis and the response was similar. |
| Collaborations (including Board advisory groups and external partner agencies) |
The Office of the County Counsel has reviewed this report.
|
|
| Fiscal Impact |
|
|
| Source of Funds for this Expenditure |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|