At 7:00 p.m. tomorrow, the Santa Cruz City Council will discuss a proposed Citywide Rental Inspection Program. If you have an interest in this topic, from either the landlord or the tenant side, you should consider a visit to City Hall tomorrow evening.

The proposed new program is tied to the Comprehensive Settlement Agreement entered into between the City and the University of California. That agreement, signed by the City in August 2008, contains the following language, in Paragraph 2.7 c.:

“The City agrees to propose and enforce City-wide ordinance(s) or municipal code(s) to regulate residential rental properties …”

Though they don’t have to act in private, the state’s open meeting law does allow public agencies to make decisions about litigation in a “closed session,” and that’s what’s happened here. No public vote on the Comprehensive Settlement Agreement has ever been taken, and yet the Council has made binding promises to the University about this key public policy issue. The Settlement Agreement leaves open exactly what sort of regulation the Council needs to enact, but the Council does need to take some action by August of this year, or the University will be “off the hook” for some of the housing commitments that the University has made.

More information, including a link to the text of the proposed rental inspection ordinance, is found below.

More Information:

Gary Patton writes a daily blog, “Two Worlds / 365”
http://www.gapatton.net

City of Santa Cruz Website
http://www.cityofsantacruz.com/

City Council Agendas
http://www.cityofsantacruz.com
/index.aspx?page=752

Rental Inspection Ordinance
http://www.cityofsantacruz.com/Modules/
ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=15037

Comprehensive Settlement Agreement
http://www.cityofsantacruz.com/Modules/
ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=10818

Tonight, the Santa Cruz City Council will consider enacting a new “rental inspection and maintenance program.” The latest version of the proposed ordinance requires owners of multiple rental dwelling units to register their units with the City, and to pay an annual fee for each rental unit. Most owners will be given a choice; they can either have their units annually inspected by the City, or they can self-certify their own units. City Staff anticipates that most owners will apply for self-certification. Both landlords and tenants have a big stake in what happens, so consider attending the public hearing this evening. It’s scheduled for 7:00 p.m., at the Santa Cruz City Hall.

Another important Special Meeting is also coming up. Tomorrow at 9:00 o’clock in the morning, the Monterey County Planning Commission will consider various “flagged” items in the proposed General Plan Update. These items include the Cachagua Area Plan, the Central Salinas Valley Area Plan, the Greater Monterey Peninsula Area Plan, the Fort Ord Master Plan, and the Toro Area Plan. If you care about the land use policies that will govern the future growth and development of Monterey County, you really should consider speaking up tomorrow. Final action by the Commission will likely take place not tomorrow, but at the Planning Commission’s August 11th meeting. After that, GPU#5 will go to the Board of Supervisors.

There is more information on both items on the KUSP website.

More Information:

Gary Patton writes a daily blog, “Two Worlds / 365”
http://www.gapatton.net

City Council Agendas
http://www.cityofsantacruz.com/index.aspx?page=752

Rental Inspection Ordinance
http://www.cityofsantacruz.com/Modules/
ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=15037

Comprehensive Settlement Agreement
http://www.cityofsantacruz.com/Modules/
ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=10818

Monterey County General Plan (GPU #5)
http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/planning/
gpu/GPU_2007/gpu_2007.htm

Staff Report on “Flagged” Items in GPU#5
http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/planning/cca/pc/
2010/07-21-10/SRpc_PLN070525_7-21-10.pdf

Senate Bill 375, authored by State Senator Darrell Steinberg, is intended to provide inducements to developers and local governments that will change local land use policies and inaugurate a new era of “smart growth” in California. The legislation was prompted by the need to address the global warming crisis that is so profoundly challenging our past practices, including, of course, the way we’ve chosen to develop land.

Officially, Senate Bill 375 is called the “Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008.” It directs the California Air Resources Board (or ARB) to set regional CO2 reduction targets for most areas of the state by this September. In addition, the law calls on California's Metropolitan Planning Organizations to prepare a "sustainable communities strategy" that will dictate how land use, housing and transportation planning will be integrated to meet the emission reduction targets set by the ARB.

If you would like to get personally involved in this important public policy and planning process, I’ve put links to materials that will be of interest to you in the transcript of today’s Land Use Report. Specifically, the State Air Resources Board will be holding a series of regional workshops, including one today in Oakland. Many of the workshops will be webcast, too.

More Information:

Gary Patton writes a daily blog, “Two Worlds / 365”
http://www.gapatton.net

Text of SB 375
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0351-
0400/sb_375_bill_20080930_chaptered.pdf

ARB Workshop Notices
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/meetings/
072010/workshop_pubnotice0710.pdf

Workshop Agenda
http://arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/meetings/meetings.htm

Materials Used To Set Regional Targets
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/sb375.htm

Planning and Conservation League “Insider” Sign Up
http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5056/
t/1760/signUp.jsp?key=109

Cutting up land and creating new parcels (i.e., the subdivision process) is one of the most important actions that local governments take affecting land use. My own bias is “no more subdivision outside those areas already committed to development.” That is more or less the definition of “smart growth,” reduced to essentials, and it’s pretty much what the people of Santa Cruz County said, in 1978, when they adopted Measure J, establishing Santa Cruz County’s unique growth management system.

The “smart growth” mantra of “no new subdivision outside areas already committed to development” is not universally popular. Most of the “fight” about the proposed Monterey County General Plan Update, for instance, is really a “fight” about whether and where new subdivisions of agricultural and rural lands should be allowed. Naturally, I’ll keep you posted on how that process is going.

In Big Sur, where subdivisions are very tightly controlled by Coastal Act policies, creative property owners came up with the idea of cutting up “time,” as opposed to “space.” The Highlands Inn got permission to create a “timeshare” development, and one condition was to establish a “hostel” program, to provide low-cost visiting opportunities. That actually may happen. If you’d like to get involved, there is a contact telephone number below.

More Information:

Gary Patton writes a daily blog, “Two Worlds / 365”
http://www.gapatton.net

Jack Ellwanger and the recently christened Friends of Big Sur are attempting to put together a package that will include a hostel, and trail, and a Big Sur Community Center. The group held a meeting in Big Sur on July 19th. For more information call 831-667-2025.

I have recently become aware of what some are calling a “power struggle” in Santa Barbara County. A voluntary reformatting of the Santa Barbara County land use codes, first embarked upon nearly ten years ago, has now created what might be called a “contest of will” between the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors and the California Coastal Commission. The Coastal Commission is officially charged with protecting the coastal resources of the state, and the Commission’s mandate, under state law, is really to “second guess” what local governments might want to do, to make sure that local actions don’t undermine statewide coastal protection policies.

Inevitably, this can lead to conflict. In Santa Barbara County, one conflict that is emerging revolves around the kind of appeal power that the Commission should have over requests from agricultural landowners to “intensify” or change the nature of their agricultural operations. This is a “hot” item in Santa Barbara County. Farmers are mad, and the Board of Supervisors appears to resent possible Coastal Commission involvement in what they think of as a local decision. What struck me was how similar, in many ways, this is to a current controversy in Santa Cruz County, where the County Board of Supervisors seems to be claiming that the Commission should back off its involvement in subdivision decisions that the Board thinks should be made by “locals only.”

More Information

Gary Patton writes a daily blog, “Two Worlds / 365”
http://www.gapatton.net

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