The Carlsbad Chamber is-well respected on a number of fronts. Our size, certainly, commands respect. We are the 10th-largest chamber in the state and the second-largest in San Diego County, with more members than all but the San Diego Regional Chamber. Also, because we put on more events than any other Chamber in the county, our members have access to more information, seminars, networking opportunities and social gatherings than any Chamber in the region. That earns a lot of respect.
Another thing that builds respect is establishing relationships with city officials and elected representatives. Our CEO, Ted Owen, has built these relationships over time by working collaboratively to understand the city's needs and positions while educating city staff and elected officials on what our members need and want. Rarely, but occasionally, the Chamber has taken positions contrary to the city's position. The key is respectful dialogue.
But how are the Chamber's policies developed? Who gets to decide? Generally, the Chambers policies have been developed over time with study from staff and our Government Affairs Committee. Their findings are presented to our Board of Directors, who ratifies the position. The Chamber has developed a Public Policy Manual that guides our staff's ability to weigh in on various matters, whether it is a letter to a public agency or voicing the business community's opinion at a City Council meeting.
Two recent policy examples come to mind. Each illustrates how the Chamber arrives at its policies.
Our sustainability committee recently requested that the Board submit a letter to the California Public Utilities Commission on a fairly complex issue regarding decentralized renewable energy and Feed In Tariffs (FIT's). We brought in Chamber member SDG&E to discuss the issue and see if we could reach a consensus on appropriate language that the Chamber Board could support.
We also wanted to value the ideas developed in the Sustainability Committee and the input from SDG&E. Although, unknown at the time, the Sustainability Committee originally put a draft letter together, SDG&E now has a Feed In Tariff whereby, business customers can have renewable energy projects on their property and sell it to SDG&E.
Several key questions remain. Is the price high enough to encourage decentralized renewable energy projects? If, SDG&E were to pay a higher price, is there an appetite among rate payers to pay more for their electricity given the benefits of decentralizing the production of energy and having to feed in to the supply locally?
The Board also supported a letter encouraging the CPUC to look further at this issue with a goal of promoting more decentralized renewable energy without increasing costs to ratepayers.
Another complex issue playing out right now is how to pay for state-mandated affordable housing.
Cities typically require home builders to build 15 of their project as affordable housing or pay an in lieu fee to have that housing built. This puts upward pressure on housing costs. At one time there was an affordable housing requirement in place for apartment buildings. That requirement was removed and now the city is seeking to add a similar requirement back.
The Building Industry Association (BIA) tells us that adding a proposed fee of $20 per square foot of apartment housing built raises their building costs and that those costs have to be passed along to the future occupant of the apartments being built. An average scenario means the future renter will be paying an additional $1,000 per year in rent to help pay for affordable housing.
It seems counter productive to me that someone renting an apartment is ultimately paying the freight for affordable housing that, in theory, benefits all of us. I believe we need to have a respectful public discussion on how to pay for affordable housing. The city has not determined what will go to Council for approval yet but they have hired a consultant whose output suggests that the city should impose such a fee.
Another thing that builds respect is establishing relationships with city officials and elected representatives. Our CEO, Ted Owen, has built these relationships over time by working collaboratively to understand the city's needs and positions while educating city staff and elected officials on what our members need and want. Rarely, but occasionally, the Chamber has taken positions contrary to the city's position. The key is respectful dialogue.
But how are the Chamber's policies developed? Who gets to decide? Generally, the Chambers policies have been developed over time with study from staff and our Government Affairs Committee. Their findings are presented to our Board of Directors, who ratifies the position. The Chamber has developed a Public Policy Manual that guides our staff's ability to weigh in on various matters, whether it is a letter to a public agency or voicing the business community's opinion at a City Council meeting.
Two recent policy examples come to mind. Each illustrates how the Chamber arrives at its policies.
Our sustainability committee recently requested that the Board submit a letter to the California Public Utilities Commission on a fairly complex issue regarding decentralized renewable energy and Feed In Tariffs (FIT's). We brought in Chamber member SDG&E to discuss the issue and see if we could reach a consensus on appropriate language that the Chamber Board could support.
We also wanted to value the ideas developed in the Sustainability Committee and the input from SDG&E. Although, unknown at the time, the Sustainability Committee originally put a draft letter together, SDG&E now has a Feed In Tariff whereby, business customers can have renewable energy projects on their property and sell it to SDG&E.
Several key questions remain. Is the price high enough to encourage decentralized renewable energy projects? If, SDG&E were to pay a higher price, is there an appetite among rate payers to pay more for their electricity given the benefits of decentralizing the production of energy and having to feed in to the supply locally?
The Board also supported a letter encouraging the CPUC to look further at this issue with a goal of promoting more decentralized renewable energy without increasing costs to ratepayers.
Another complex issue playing out right now is how to pay for state-mandated affordable housing.
Cities typically require home builders to build 15 of their project as affordable housing or pay an in lieu fee to have that housing built. This puts upward pressure on housing costs. At one time there was an affordable housing requirement in place for apartment buildings. That requirement was removed and now the city is seeking to add a similar requirement back.
The Building Industry Association (BIA) tells us that adding a proposed fee of $20 per square foot of apartment housing built raises their building costs and that those costs have to be passed along to the future occupant of the apartments being built. An average scenario means the future renter will be paying an additional $1,000 per year in rent to help pay for affordable housing.
It seems counter productive to me that someone renting an apartment is ultimately paying the freight for affordable housing that, in theory, benefits all of us. I believe we need to have a respectful public discussion on how to pay for affordable housing. The city has not determined what will go to Council for approval yet but they have hired a consultant whose output suggests that the city should impose such a fee.