Thanks to everyone who responded to the density survey.

Detailed results are here: BCPOA Density Survey A sample:

Comments are open on this post, which is probably the easiest place to discuss the results without putting too much traffic on this email list.

The spreadsheet of complete answers is here:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Arh9sK-JAE8NdE1BQ0tYYkRpYUVlNHJ

The short answer appears to be that 85% of you think the current density is 1 residence per 40 acres, and over 80% think it should stay that way or become less dense. The 19 respondents who reported owning more than 40 acres (up to a few hundred) were even more certain about this (approaching 95%) than the 51 owners with 40 or fewer acres. About 40% think density should be 1-in-40, period, while another 40% would permit density transfers. A smaller minority would provide a modest density bonus in exchange for good design, while only one person out of 85 expressed interest in a double-density bonus.

Several people commented to the effect of, “why does BCPOA want to fix what isn’t broken?” There are three answers to that.

First, a number of things are broken. There are many ambiguities in the drafting of the current regulation. Ambiguity leads to a lot of needless controversy in the permitting process. An example: the PUD regulation requires an applicant to have terrain and vegetation suitable for minimizing the visual impacts of homes, but the standards don’t require you to use that terrain and vegetation. Confronted with such ambiguity, the commission doesn’t make a sensible interpretation with the General Plan in mind; it instead grants a large density bonus with no discernible community benefit, which is why we have a few PUDs with homes on exposed slopes and ridgelines.

Second, the zoning can’t remain completely static, even if we want it to, because the county has set updates in motion. For example, the commission independently proposed a draft update to the administrative section of our zoning, which gutted our enforcement provisions (as if enforcement weren’t already problematic). Deflecting such initiatives, while responding to the county’s need for administrative consistency, is important.

Third, while 80% of you think that the density is and should be 1-in-40, that’s not current practice. The county has granted density in excess of 1-in-20 through PUDs, via a combination of density bonuses and even transfers off theoretical bits of land that aren’t legal parcels. Further, the commission has granted caretaker residences without restrictions, which in effect make every parcel a two-residence unit. Combining the two, the real potential density is up to four times 1-in-40.

This is not how things originally worked. In 1971, the zoning regulation provided underlying density of 1-in-40 acres, and a PUD density up to 1-in-20 acres. However, the higher PUD density was to be achieved through transfers from areas less suitable for development. The only mention of a density bonus was a modest 30% for development in areas deemed particularly suitable. There was no provision for caretakers (though there has always been agricultural employee housing). Unfortunately the drafting of the original regulation wasn’t crystal clear. Subsequent amendments and ongoing ambiguity led to the prevailing interpretation of PUD density as a bonus (almost a giveaway). The county quit keeping track of density transfers more than 15 years ago, as they no longer serve much purpose. (I would be interested to hear the stories of people who were around at the beginning or along the way; I wasn’t quite in diapers at the time, but have to rely on reading old documents.)

That’s why we need to know what people want. Do we codify the commission’s current practices, and change the vision in the General Plan to reflect the higher density, or do we try to improve the Zoning Regulation so that it better implements the Plan, restoring something closer to 1-in-40, with clear objective standards for any transfers or bonuses in PUDs?

Thanks again for all your input.

Detailed written comments are below the fold: Continue reading →