The San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors will meet tomorrow, starting at 8:30 in the morning. Among other important items, the Board is going to consider several ordinances that would impose a plumbing fixtures “retrofit” requirement in connection with additions, remodels and new development of residential, commercial and other structures.

Usually, local governments impose conditions relating to building standards at the time that a structure is initially built. If you are building a new house today, you’ll have to meet what are sometimes called “Title 24” energy efficiency standards that require construction techniques that minimize energy use. Twenty years ago, the standards you had to follow were much less stringent. However, if you have an existing, older structure, the general rule is that you can continue to occupy and use it, and you don’t need to “upgrade” it to meet the current standard as standards change.

A “retrofit” requirement modifies that general rule. The San Luis Obispo County proposal, for instance, is that those who have an existing structure must “upgrade” its plumbing fixtures, to be more water efficient, when the structure is remodeled or sold to a new owner. This approach, which will cost the property owner money, represents a serious commitment to water use efficiency, which also translates to energy efficiency. If you want to weigh in, check out the meeting tomorrow. There’s information below.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

San Luis Obispo County Website
http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/site4.aspx

Board of Supervisors Agenda
http://slocounty.granicus.com/
ViewPublisher.php?view_id=2

Staff Reports on plumbing retrofit items
http://slocounty.granicus.com/MetaViewer
.php?view_id=2&event_id=25&meta_id=94558

http://slocounty.granicus.com/MetaViewer.
php?view_id=2&event_id=25&meta_id=94561

If you’d like to mark your calendars ahead, then please be aware that the City of Santa Cruz Planning Commission is currently scheduled to review and discuss General Plan goals, policies, and actions relating to “Mobility” and “Economic Development” at their May 1st meeting. The meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m., a week from this coming Thursday, and will be held at the Santa Cruz City Council Chambers in downtown Santa Cruz. I’m giving KUSP listeners lots of time to plan their schedules, so they can actually be in attendance at one of the meetings that will help define the 2030 General Plan that will guide the City’s future, once ultimately adopted by the City Council.

The City of Santa Cruz is proposing to call its required “Circulation” Element the “Mobility” Element. Traffic, transportation, and street and highway widening issues are some of the issues that the City will address in this part of its proposed new General Plan. One proposed policy reads as follows:

Accept a lower level of service and higher congestion at major regional intersections if necessary improvements would be too costly or result in significant environmental impacts.

This policy sort of says, “people and their pocketbooks come first, before cars.” If you think that’s a good idea, or a bad one, you might want to take in the Planning Commission meeting on May 1st. The “Economic Development” Element has similarly important policy proposals.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

City of Santa Cruz Website
http://www.ci.santa-cruz.ca.us/

The full text of the General Plan, and access to the agenda of the City Planning Commission, are all available on the City’s website, but the City’s website design does not allow me to provide individual links to the relevant documents.

Frequent listeners will remember my past references to Rancho San Juan, which would have been the single largest development project in the history of Monterey County. Rancho San Juan would have had truly mammoth impacts in North Monterey County, an area already facing major water overdraft and traffic congestion. To be able to approve Rancho San Juan, which it did, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors had to make major changes to the existing General Plan, eliminating environmental protection provisions.

The Board’s initial approval of Rancho San Juan was attacked in court by the City of Salinas, CALTRANS, LandWatch Monterey County, and by the Rancho San Juan Opposition Coalition. In addition, a voter referendum overturned the development approval. Not daunted by the widespread opposition to the project, the Board of Supervisors voted to approve an amended version of the development the day before the referendum vote that overturned the initial approval. Another referendum vote overturned the second Board approval. Then, the developers sued the County, claiming a constitutional right to develop.

That developers’ lawsuit has now been settled, and the settlement does provide for some future development. That development, however, is very much scaled back, and has some real affordable housing benefits. One lesson that could be drawn is that public engagement to reject bad development deals will pay off for the community!

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Californian article on settlement
http://www.thecalifornian.com/apps/pbcs.dll/
article?AID=/20080409/NEWS01/804090317

Follow up Californian article on settlement
http://www.thecalifornian.com/apps/pbcs.dll/
article?AID=/20080410/NEWS01/804100305

Monterey County article on settlement
http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/
archives/2008/2008-Apr-10/monterey-county
-developer-and-opponents-reach-agreement-on-
controversial-subdivision/1/@@index

Monterey County Weekly Op-Ed on settlement
http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/
archives/2008/2008-Apr-17/longcontentious
-butterfly-village-project-shows-some-hope/1/@@index

LandWatch Monterey County statement on settlement
http://www.landwatch.org/pages/issuesactions/
northcounty/041408hyh.html

“Inclusionary housing” ordinances require developers to sell a certain percentage of the housing units they construct at a price that can be afforded by persons with an average or below average income. The key to an effective inclusionary housing program is a provision for “resale restrictions.” Such “resale restrictions” make sure that subsequent sales of the housing unit by the initial purchaser will also be to a person or family in the same affordable housing category. Without such a “resale restriction,” the initial purchaser (who must be a person with an average or below average income, as specified in the ordinance) could sell at the market price, and that usually means that the housing unit would not be sold to a person with an average or below average income, and the subsequent sale would thus remove the affordability of the housing unit.

Monterey County, and the City of Salinas, have both taken action, within the last year or so, to amend their inclusionary housing ordinances to weaken “resale restrictions,” thus eliminating future affordable housing opportunities. I’ve reported on this before. Today, let me alert you to another affordable housing giveaway by the County of Monterey. It’s not a done deal yet, since the Board of Supervisors has yet to take final action, but the County Planning Commission has voted to let a politically connected developer off the hook entirely, because the housing market is currently “down.” There’s more information below.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Californian article on affordable housing concessions
http://www.thecalifornian.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?
AID=/20080417/NEWS01/804170303/1002

Residents in the City of Salinas have a big opportunity to participate in the complete renewal and revitalization of their downtown area. Much of the downtown core is land actually owned by the City of Salinas itself, and the City has now entered into an agreement to negotiate for a sweeping redevelopment of the City’s lands by a New York-based development group called “Widewaters.” You can get a link to an article discussing this proposal by clicking on the Land Use Report icon on the KUSP website, and tracking down the written transcript for today’s Land Use Report.

The City of Salinas, in effect, is going to try to increase the value of its under-utilized downtown properties, and to stimulate the economy of the downtown by developing these City-owned properties with economically vital new projects. That’s where public participation comes in, or should come in. The asset value of the City’s lands, and any new economic benefits from the redevelopment of those lands, are in fact assets owned by the community as a whole. Yet, it’s quite common for such City redevelopment schemes to provide benefits only to the developers, and to a rather narrow set of well connected interest groups.

Affordable housing and social service advocacy groups should be looking at this proposed downtown Salinas redevelopment project as a way to generate the funds needed to address critically-important community priorities.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Salinas Californian article on Salinas redevelopment proposal
http://www.thecalifornian.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?
AID=/20080416/NEWS01/804160301/1002