Tomorrow, the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors will be holding a public hearing focused on the federal Community Development Block Grant program. This program was established in federal law by the Department of Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. It’s usually called the CDBG program. Federal law allows the states to administer the program for smaller counties and cities, and in California, state oversight is provided by the State Department of Housing and Community Development.

The primary objective of the CDBG program is the development of viable urban communities by providing for quality housing in a suitable living environment, and by expanding economic opportunities for low and moderate-income individuals and households. In order to be eligible for CDBG program, local jurisdictions are required to have a certified housing element. Fingers crossed, it appears that Santa Cruz County will probably be able to qualify this year, and this would be something new. As you may recall, the County has been in a longstanding dispute with the State HCD, which has only recently certified the County’s housing element. With luck, there may be some new money available for housing and community development related efforts.

You can give the Board your ideas tomorrow, at the public hearing, and if you’d like an advance briefing, the staff report is online, and explains pretty well what’s going on.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Santa Cruz County Website
http://www.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/

Agenda, January 29, 2008 Board Meeting
http://sccounty01.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/
bds/Govstream/ASP/Display/
SCCB_AgendaDisplayWeb.asp?MeetingDate=1/29/2008

Agenda Materials on CDBG Program
http://sccounty01.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/
bds/Govstream/BDSvData/non_legacy/
agendas/2008/20080129/PDF/043.pdf

Global warming is real. And we need to do something about it. Californians can be proud that our state is leading the nation in setting out an active agenda on global warming (thanks to the passage of AB 32, the “Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006”). We can’t assume, however, that the simple administration of this new law will accomplish everything we need to do to solve the global warming crisis. Far from it. We need to make both individual and community changes in the way we live, and the transformations required must truly be fundamental.

This Thursday, there is a nationwide “teach in” on global warming, involving about 1,300 schools nationwide. Locally, CSUMB is holding a daylong series of educational presentations, starting at 9:00 a.m. and continuing until 4:00 p.m. The teach-in on Thursday will take place at the CSUMB University Center. There is full information in the transcript for today’s Land Use Report.

You might also want to view a webcast on Wednesday evening, beginning at 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time (or 5:00 p.m. our time). Speakers on the webcast include Ed Norton, Jr., Climatologist Stephen Schneider, Governors Crist of Florida and Napolitano of Arizona, Larry Schweiger, the CEO of the National Wildlife Federation, and others. Again, you can find out how to access the webcast by tracking down the transcript of today’s Land Use Report on the KUSP website.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Focus The Nation
http://www.focusthenation.org/nationalteachin.php

List of participating schools
http://www.focusthenation.org/actionmap/

Website for the CSUMB Focus The Nation Program
http://csumb.edu/site/x21051.xml

Program of CSUMB Activities
http://csumb.edu/site/x21052.xml

Webcast
www.earthdaytv.net (log in at 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time, on January 31st)

The San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors met yesterday. The Board didn’t take action on any major land use policy item, but it did receive a report on such an item. I want to give you a reference to that report, and a bit of a “heads up” about forthcoming actions. My “unhidden agenda” is to try to stimulate your personal engagement in an issue that will have profound impacts on the future of San Luis Obispo County.

As item F-1 on its agenda yesterday, the Board considered a “Report on Growth Management Ordinance changes, related growth management strategies and Countywide Rural Plan concept.” The report is available online, and I’ve placed a link to it in the written transcript for today’s Land Use Report. If you are a resident of San Luis Obispo County, my advice is to get a copy of this report, read it, and then get engaged. You can expect that the Board may be taking real action to change its Growth Management Ordinance within the next four months or so. To be effective, in influencing what the government that represents you does, early participation is essential. You’ve got time to make a real difference in the debate and discussion about what sort of growth management policies should govern the future of San Luis Obispo County.

The staff seems to want to tighten up standards to prevent increased rural sprawl. If you care about that issue, you should be involved.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

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

Agenda, January 29, 2008 Board of Supervisors Meeting
http://slocounty.granicus.com/
AgendaViewer.php?view_id=2&event_id=25

Staff Report on Growth Management Ordinance
http://slocounty.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?
view_id=2&event_id=25&meta_id=83118

An article recently published in the Monterey County Herald had this headline: “Impact fee, sales tax link rejected.”

The issue here is whether proposed local transportation impact fees should be linked to a proposed sales tax increase for transportation improvements. The proposed sales tax increase is being sponsored by the Transportation Agency for Monterey County, or TAMC. If approved by the voters, the general public would pay the new sales tax increase. One of the reasons that the public has been reluctant to increase their sales taxes is that the developers haven’t been paying their fair share. Obviously, new developments do generate new traffic, which is why a regional traffic impact fee seems reasonable. However, many cities don’t have them.

Various cities are now considering the enactment of a regional traffic impact fee, at least partly to respond to this public criticism. The developers though, have suddenly said that they won’t support the ballot measure unless any fees they have to pay are linked to approval of the proposed sales tax increase. So far, TAMC has rejected that demand, but the story’s not over.

As a modest suggestion, and by way of “linkage,” why doesn’t TAMC include a provision in the sales tax measure that would deny the money to any city or other local agency that doesn’t have its own traffic impact fee? That would make the linkage a protection for the public, instead of a protection for developers.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Monterey Herald Article
http://www.montereyherald.com/
ci_8063016?nclick_check=1

TAMC Website
http://www.tamcmonterey.org/

TAMC “Investment Plan” (if a sales tax increase is approved)
http://www.tamcmonterey.org/
programs/plan/index.html

Monterey City Staff Report on traffic impact fees
http://www.monterey.org/ccncl/
packets/2008/080123/1.pdf

Upcoming TAMC public outreach meetings on their proposed sales tax increase:

• Thursday, January 31st at the Lions Hall, Acacia and Park Streets in Soledad
• Tuesday, February 12th at the Seaside Community Center in Seaside

Herald Article: TAMC Chief Pitches Sales Tax Increase
http://www.montereyherald.com/
opinion/ci_8092125

AB 32, the “Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006,” requires the State Air Resources Board to set up a system to roll back greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels, and to achieve that rollback by 2020. The regulations to achieve the required rollback are to take effect, for the most part, in 2012. Between now and 2012, in other words, we’re going to be working towards a solution, but won’t really be changing our activities very much. In the meantime, we’re continuing with new developments that increase greenhouse gas emissions. That’s not good. Anything we add new is just “digging the hole deeper,” and makes it significantly more difficult to achieve the rollback that AB 32 requires.

To get out of a hole, the first rule is always to “stop digging.” This means, where global warming is concerned, that the state and local communities should be finding ways to make sure that new developments don’t add any new greenhouse gas emissions. New developments need to be “carbon neutral.” The California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, actually requires that, to the extent it’s feasible, and it usually is!

If you’d like to learn more, check the transcript for today’s Land Use Report. Particularly note the work of the Planning and Conservation League, and check out the global warming website maintained by Attorney General Jerry Brown, who is making this a priority!

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Attorney General Jerry Brown’s Global Warming Website
http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/

PCL Website
www.pcl.org

The Planning and Conservation League Foundation is holding a number of workshops around the state that will focus on the CEQA-Global Warming link, and help local residents to become effective in combating global warming within their local communities. For more information, contact Global Warming Program Manager Matt Vander Sluis at mvander@pcl.org.