Last Friday, I noted that a recent Appellate Court case was going to make it more difficult for local governments to implement inclusionary housing programs aimed at increasing rental opportunities for lower income persons. “Inclusionary” programs require builders, when they construct new housing units, to “include” a certain percentage of those units that will be made available to average and below average income persons at a price they can afford. In other words, “inclusionary” housing ordinances impose some “price controls” in the area of housing.

Legally, local governments are not able to institute “price control” for housing units that already exist. It is legal, though, to impose “conditions” on the grant of permission to create new housing units, and one of those “conditions” can be that a percentage of the new units must be affordable. Full discretion for local governments to impose “inclusionary” housing requirements still exists, but only for units that will be “sold,” as opposed to units that will be “rented.”

Practically on the same day that the Palmer/Sixth Street Properties case came down, restricting the use of inclusionary housing programs for rental units, the California Coalition for Rural Housing published an extremely helpful Inclusionary Housing Database. It’s worth taking a look at. There’s a link below.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

CCRH Inclusionary Housing Database
http://www.calruralhousing.org/inclusionary-housing-database

Court Opinions Website
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/

A PDF version of Palmer/Sixth Street Properties case discussed in this Land Use Report can be found by looking at the cases listed for July 22, 2009

In California, local governments make most of the major land use decisions. There are both “pros” and “cons” to this “local control” approach, and the California Coastal Commission was created (initially by an initiative measure adopted by the people) in order to deal with some of the “cons,” where developments within the Coastal Zone were concerned.

Prior to 1972, local governments made project and policy decisions unconstrained by any statewide requirements about protecting coastal resources. Many local governments were inclined to let developers do whatever they wanted, and projects were being built right on the beach, cutting off public access, and destroying the fragile coastal environment. Thanks to the enactment of the Coastal Act, that’s no longer true.

Under the Coastal Act, city and county governments still have the major responsibility for land use, but the Coastal Commission now gets to supervise what local governments do within the Coastal Zone. Local governments sometimes get resentful of this supervisory role played by the Commission. The Commission, thus, tries to avoid being too heavy-handed, and on August 12th, there will be an example, as the Commission staff is recommending that a proposed change to Santa Cruz County’s rules on Planned Unit Developments be deemed “de minimis,” without the need for a full public hearing. There’s more information below.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information:

Coastal Commission Website
http://www.coastal.ca.gov/

Agenda for August Coastal Commission Meeting
http://www.coastal.ca.gov/mtgcurr.html

Santa Cruz County is proposing to change its rules for “Planned Unit Developments,” to give developers more flexibility about what can be done in various parts of the county, including within the Coastal Zone. Normally, the Coastal Commission would require a full public hearing on any such major policy proposal affecting the Coastal Zone, but because the County took lots of time to “do it right,” the Executive Director has reported to the Commission that he thinks the proposed changes are “de minimis,” and that no such full review will be necessary. If you want more information, check out the Agenda for the Commission’s upcoming meeting, which will be held in San Francisco. Receipt of the Executive Director’s report on these changes to the Santa Cruz County Planned Unit Development Ordinance is scheduled for August 12, 2009, and Commission Members could decide to override what the Executive Director is suggesting, and hold a full hearing after all.

The state’s recently adopted budget will mean less money for health care for poor kids, the closure of many State Parks, and further cutbacks to education. The State budget also takes lots of money away from local governments, which will then have to reduce their own programs even more than they already have.

The State’s Williamson Act program, which helps preserve agricultural land, has also been dramatically impacted by the budget, and specifically by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Under the Williamson Act, property owners who commit to maintain their land in agricultural use get reduced property taxes. The property owner’s commitment is enforced by a recorded “contract” between the property owner and the local government. Of course, by entering into a Williamson Act contract, the local government actually reduces its tax revenue. Since most local governments aren’t in a position to do that, the state has provided a “subvention” to local governments that establish a Williamson Act program. Those subventions offset local tax losses. The budget enacted by the Legislature continued Williamson Act subventions, but they were vetoed by the Governor. Monterey County and San Luis Obispo County will each lose about one million dollars next year because of the Governor’s veto.

In the long run, the Governor’s action undermines our ability to prevent the development of productive agricultural land. There’s more below.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information:

San Luis Obispo Tribune article on Williamson Act cuts
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/story/799273.html

Salinas Californian article on Williamson Act cuts
http://www.thecalifornian.com/article/20090731/NEWS01/
907310315/1002/Monterey-County-must-cover-losses-
as-state-drops-Williamson-Act

If you are interested in seeing exactly what state budget reductions will mean to your city or county, in terms of lost revenue for the upcoming fiscal year, check out the database maintained by the Sacramento Bee. You can get access to that database at
http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/
capitolalertlatest/024339.html

The Santa Cruz County Transportation Commission is meeting today. You can get a link to the Commission’s agenda in the transcript of today’s Land Use Report.

Today’s meeting includes a number of important items. I particularly recommend a review of Agenda Item #21, relating to a proposed 2010 Regional Transportation Plan for Santa Cruz County. The Regional Transportation Plan (or RTP) consists of three main sections: (1) a Policy Element; (2) an Action Element, and (3) a Financial Element. The Policy Element identifies goals, policies, and evaluation measures. The Action Element identifies projects, programs and actions necessary to implement the Policy Element, and the Financial Element identifies funds that the Commission staff believes will be available to the Region over the next twenty-five years. The Financial Element shows that $2.6 billion will be available for transportation projects in Santa Cruz County, including $400 million in revenues from a proposed one-half cent local sales tax.

Hadn’t heard about that tax? Well, check out the agenda! Effective local self-government really does require, as a minimum, that we know what our local governmental agencies are doing in our name, and on our behalf, which means that checking out the agenda for today’s Transportation Commission meeting would be a good idea.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Transportation Commission Website
http://www.sccrtc.org/

Agenda for August 6, 2009 Meeting
http://www.sccrtc.org/packet/2009/0908/TCAgenda0908.html

The Coastal Commission plays a key role in the land use decisions that so profoundly affect our future. The Commission meets essentially once each month, and the August meeting will start next Wednesday, and run through Friday, and be held in San Francisco. Monterey County Supervisor Dave Potter, who has been the Central Coast Representative on the Commission for twelve years, will not be able to participate, since his term in office has expired. He may be reappointed, or a new person may be appointed, but that will depend on the Speaker of the Assembly. Hopefully, the Speaker will make an appointment soon, so that our area can have an opportunity to influence what the Commission does.

I’ve provided a link to the Commission’s agenda in the transcript of today’s Land Use Report. I encourage you to review it. The very first item will be a “Public Workshop on Improving the Local Coastal Planning Process.” Local government officials and Coastal Commissioners will discuss how that might be done. Local governments can sometimes be resentful of how the Commission exercises its authority, so this is a “hot topic.” The workshop will be a moderated, public discussion and exchange of ideas about how to improve communication and make the Local Coastal Program process more effective, predictable and efficient for all stakeholders. Public comments will be included in the workshop. Background material is available on the Commission’s website.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Coastal Commission Website
http://www.coastal.ca.gov/

Agenda for August Coastal Commission Meeting
http://www.coastal.ca.gov/mtgcurr.html