By Lara Cooper, Noozhawk Staff Writer | @laraanncooper | Published on 04.05.2012 by Noozhawk

Habitat for Humanity Looking for Qualified Homeowners for Eastside Project

March 23rd, 11:45 am, Planning Ethics. 323 East Cabrillo Blvd., Santa Barbara CA (Casa Las Palmas in Chase Palm Park). Public training FREE for APA members and $25 for non-members. The speaker, Ms. Carol D. Barrett, FAICP, is a planner with thirty years of experience. She has been writing and teaching ethics for planners and planning students. Please RSVP by noon of March 21 to Renee Brooke, AICP. Optional lunch order is $7 for (veggie or turkey) sandwich and chips. This event announcement can also be found here.

Goodland Coalition Launches Goleta Heritage Farmlands Initiative

Story by Matt Kettman of the SB Independent, Originally Published on February 22, 2012

LINKS TO FULL STORY BELOW, AND FURTHER RESOURCES ON BALLOT BOX PLANNINGBY APA AND OTHERS

As it stands today, it’s not particularly easy to build new housing in Goleta, which incorporated as a city 10 years ago in order to better throttle the region’s growth. But if a group of slow-growth activists get their way, that process is certain to become even more daunting, at least for those who’d want to turn large agricultural properties into suburbia.

That’s the thrust of the Goleta Heritage Farmlands Initiative, which was officially unveiled at Tuesday night’s city council meeting by Robert Wignot from the preservation-minded Goodland Coalition. The group, which formed to fight against the proposed development of Bishop Ranch last year, is now collecting the 1,600 valid signatures needed to put the initiative on the November 2012 ballot. If it passes, the city’s voters, via a simple majority of 50 percent plus one, would have the final say for developing any Goleta properties that are more than 10 acres and currently zoned for farming — and that citywide vote would come only after such proposals have successfully wound their way through the entire planning process, including an approval by the city council.

In an interview with The Santa Barbara Independent before Tuesday’s hearing, Wignot explained that his group was “heartened” by the council’s unanimous vote against developing Bishop Ranch last September, but that the nature of politics could make future decisions fall any which way. “Down the road, we may get a council that’s more amenable to rezoning some or all of these lands to another use,” said Wignot, who sits on the city’s Design Review Board. “That’s fine, as long as the community is in accord, but we think the voters should have the final say….Right now, with a simple majority, three votes on any given Tuesday can amend the General Plan.”

Hoping to preserve Goleta’s legacy as a land of orchards and rural open space, the initiative — which was developed with the legal help of the Environmental Defense Center in Santa Barbara and is following the template of a similar initiative that passed a couple years ago in Buellton— targets just six parcels: the 240-acre Bishop Ranch; two parcels on each side of Bishop Ranch; Fairview Gardens; a 23-acre chunk in Ellwood Canyon; and the Shelby property, which is located next to Glen Annie Golf Club. The latter property, however, is already moving through the planning process, said Wignot, and may be approved for development before this initiative is activated. Additionally, the initiative would also include any unincorporated lands that are annexed into the city down the road, and any changes to them would have to refer to today’s zoning.

FULL STORY HERE

Why Planning at the Ballot Box is a Bad Idea (A Collection of Points from Various APA, LGC and Resources)

While ballot measures provide an important check and balance to our representative form of government, they are also subject to abuse.  Many trade and non-profit groups may advocate for limited and discrete ballot box planning measures particularly related to public finance and even growth management.  However, proponents of ballot measures should consider that ballot box can be too crude for use as a land planning tool.

A ballot measure is inflexible once filed and it can over-simplify issues. It may unnecessarily make constitutional amendments out of statutory matters; generate unfunded mandates; become an arena for monied players, especially in the “business” of signature gathering; provide a forum for back-and-forth between certain interest groups instead of true and more varied democratic exchange; and lack accountability and explicit statements of the impacts and implications related to the ballot measure. (Seltzer and Rehberg, 2002).

Proponents of Growth Management at the Ballot Box should consider the following:

1. Ballot measures are typically an “all or nothing” proposal, leaving no room for a compromise or a discussion of alternatives.  The business of land use planning is a complex mix of trades, civic interests, and public and private finance.  Boiling diverse technical guidance and the continuum of public participation into a ballot measure is both parochial and exclusionary.  Ballot measures often propose inherently sweeping reform that may not be appropriate for all geographic areas or all situations. This “one-size-fits-all” approach causes barriers for community groups or neighborhoods to adopt their own vision.

2. Ballot measures do not typically give the voter an analysis of the potential impacts of the proposal.

3. Potential environmental impacts are not addressed; a cornerstone of progressive land use practice and the basis for California’s land use legal system.

4. Secondary or tertiary public fiscal impacts may not be included in ballot language.

5. Ballot measures put popularity over content; usually favoring immediate issues over comprehensive and long range decision making.  They are inherently short-sighted; disregarding potential impacts on, and input from, future generations.

6. Ballot measures put complex and technical land planning, real estate, architectural, civil engineering, and/or fiscal policy questions in the hand of voters who may not have said skills, experience or the time to become informed and engaged. Ballot measures therefore lead to a community’s further disenfranchisement.

7. Ballot measures are jurisdiction-centric and do not contemplate regional planning impacts. Fair housing and other civil rights issues often go disregarded.

8. Ballot measures only query voters.  Non-voters and/or minority groups may therefore have no input.

9. Ballot measures take land use decisions out of the hands of the public officials that were elected, in many cases, on some form of a land use platform.  Removing land use planning authority from elected officials also removes their accountability.  Ballot measures therefore lead to further distrust in government’s responsibility over land use decisions.

10. Ballot measures are expensive to run; there is no guarantee that one ballot measure won’t beget another ballot measure to correct, fine tune or unwind the preceding ballot measure. The expense of holding the referendum and the legal notices, ballot printing, and other associated election costs would need to be borne either by the government or by the petitioner. In any case, the cost of amendments would go up, favoring the better-financed petitioner. The underprivileged and less wealthy would be at a disadvantage.

11. Ballot measures are contemplated as a result of sound-bites and paid political advertisements within the confines of a ballot booth.  In contrast, the planning process provides a continuum wherein a diversity of constituents can make subtle or drastic changes to public policy, both of which are far less susceptible to the whims of instant gratification or private influence.

12. The planning process allows professionals to analyze projects for consistency with long-range and comprehensive public policy.  These policies are the prism under which projects and future policies are viewed and compared to economic trends, new technologies, natural disasters, actions or inactions of surrounding communities, new state or federal laws and other unforeseen opportunities.  This system of professional assessment has a very public check and balance – project and policy recommendations are forwarded to a legislative body of elected or appointed officials for decisions.

13. The planning process is the interface to vet development projects and policies with seemingly unrelated processes.  Planners continually measure projects and policy for impacts to urban design; historic preservation; food supply; public health; transportation; environmental protection; public services such as police, fire, library, parks, schools, child care, health care and social services; and public utilities such as water, sewer, telecommunications and energy.  After this analysis, a policy or project’s potential impacts to commercial, residential, industrial, agricultural sectors of a community can be deliberated and balanced over time.  As economies change, the continuum of adapted public policy follows.

14. The planning process includes all stakeholders so everyone can understand the many perspectives with a goal towards expanding a community’s knowledge base.  This is a two-say street between the citizenry and their elected representatives.  Policy makers and the public engage in a continuous dialogue where the public not only comes to understand policy issues, but informs policy makers of their value on what policy directions are important to them.

Want more resources on the history of California’s Ballot Box Planning?  More than you knew, or ever wanted to know is here… in a white paper on Growth Management Ballot Measures by Solimar Research Group for the Local Government Commission.

GROWTH MANAGEMENT IN CA 2002 BY SOLIMAR FOR LGC

The County of Santa Barbara is currently soliciting applications from the public to fill member appointments on the Successor Agency Oversight Boards of each of the (7) former Redevelopment Agencies throughout the County of Santa Barbara. Please contact Errin Briggs at 805-568-2047 for additional information. Applications including response to the questionnaire and a resume should be returned to the Office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors located in the County Administration Building, Fourth Floor, 105 East Anapamu Street, Room 407. The application deadline is March 7th. Late applications will not be accepted.

The County has 7 RDA’s, including the City of Buellton, City of Goleta, City of Guadalupe, City of Lompoc, City of Santa Barbara, City of Santa Maria and Isla Vista.  Each agency oversight board (one for each RDA) will have one member of the County (e.g., County CEO Chandra L. Wallar), one appointee by the City Mayor, one Special District appointee (e.g., fire, Flood, Water Conservation, etc. District), one County Superintendent of Education appointee, one Communjity College appointee, one RDA Union employee non-county appointee and one public at large appointee (by the County BOS).  Board members can sit on multiple boards provided that one member is not on more than 5.

More information here on the County’s website, including the application that needs to be filled out and turned in by March 7, and the supplemental questionnaire (also listed below):

Supplemental Questions for RDA Successor Agency Oversight Board “Public at Large” Member Recruitment

1. Which boards, commissions, committees, etc. related to public or governmental purposes have you served on?

2. What credentials or degree(s) do you possess related to public administration or public finance?

3. (a) Do you possess any other skills, knowledge or abilities that would qualify you to serve on this board, including knowledge of tax increment financing? – Or -
(b) What makes you qualified to sit on this board?

4. What type of experience do you have working with educational entities such as school boards, colleges and/or teacher associations or other entities such as unions and/or special districts?

5. Have you had dealings with any Redevelopment Agency or been involved in any development or redevelopment project activities?

6. Do you understand the responsibilities of this Oversight Board and its members and do you feel you can act in a fiduciary capacity for the benefit of all parties the Oversight Board is to represent and protect?

7. Do you live in the unincorporated area of the County or within the limits of which City?

Making a Case Against the Car

Marilyn K. Miller, AICP

On Christmas day my sister was hit by a car. She was bicycling on the Ojai Trail, crossing the highway on a green light. A car made a right turn in front of her and she was forced to stop in the middle of the intersection to avoid a collision. Before she could get out of the way the next car did the job. My sister’s injuries are fairly serious, but she will heal. This is the third time she’s been hit, the second time she’s been hurt and she will probably stop riding even though she’s been a dedicated cyclist all her life.

One of my first reactions after I knew that she would be okay was anger. I’m angry that my sister’s pain was caused by a careless driver and could have been avoided, angry that she will lose work and income over what is expected to be a six week or longer recovery, angry that she’ll be deprived of an activity, cycling, that she so enjoyed. But in a larger sense, I am angry that the car has become so important in our lives that we accept as inevitable the mayhem it creates. We readily exceed speed limits, text and talk on the phone while driving, drink and eat while driving, and even drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs because we have made the automobile a sacred right, when, in fact, it is a privilege that carries huge responsibility. We pave over millions of acres of land for roads to drive on, bifurcating and destroying neighborhoods and ecosystems in the process, all to get from one point to the next as fast as possible. Millions of pounds of pollution are created from the first bolt in the undercarriage to the day it’s smashed and thrown into a landfill and we’ve accepted the impact of this damage as if it were unavoidable. We have, in fact, reordered our world so that walking and bicycling as an option to the car is almost eliminated and we must drive to work, to shopping, to entertainment. We sacrifice our health and sanity by commuting more and more miles to work so that we can live in homes we have no time to enjoy.

Although cars are safer than they ever were, still 46,000 people die every year as a result of car accidents in this country. That’s like losing 150 jet airplanes, a statistic we would not tolerate in air travel. Car crashes are the leading cause of death for people age 6 to 27. Every year 600 to 900 bicyclists die by being hit by cars. Speeding is the number one factor in the cause of over 20% of the fatal crashes when a cause is reported. Also contributing to the cause of these accidents is failure to keep in the proper lane and driving under the influence.  Statistics like these are staggering when you consider that they are a result of a choice someone made when they got behind the wheel. They are all preventable.

Bicyclists and pedestrians are particularly vulnerable when they are hit by a vehicle, for obvious reasons. They have no protection from the metal and plastic that plows into them. In 2008, 4,378 pedestrians were killed by cars. In most cases, the driver was exceeding 40 miles per hour. The fact is obvious that chance of death from a car declines considerably when the car is driving slower, from 85% at 40 mph to 5% at 20 mph. Yet we insist on speeding even in residential neighborhoods where children are present.

It’s not just the human population that is impacted by the car. A million vertebrates a day(!) are killed by automobiles, from squirrels and opossums to deer and other large mammals. The carnage we inflict spreads to every living thing. There are 4 million miles of public roadways in the U.S. that allow us the privilege of traveling from one end of the continent to another, but all of them come with a cost.

There are engineers, planners, and legislators who are working so reduce the number of deaths and injuries that occur on our roadways and make traveling by car, bicycle and walking safer for everyone.  Divided bicycle lanes provide a safer separation between a car and a biker, but the roads should be available for all modes of transportation. Narrower streets are favored by neo-traditional planners, but resisted by Fire Departments, trash collectors and even residents. Emergency vehicles are large, trash truck drivers are in a hurry and residents equate wide streets with privacy from their neighbors. But wide streets encourage speeding cars. Traffic calming devices are installed in some neighborhoods to slow traffic.

These can include planters jutting into the roadway, parking on the street (imagine that!), speed humps, lit crosswalks, and roundabouts. The problem is that we’ve become used to accommodating the car at the expense of humans. Consider that for most of us, the garage, the place our cars are supposed to go, is the biggest room in our house! A rethinking of our attitude toward the automobile and our relationship to it is required if we want to make our communities safer and more humane places to live. We can’t afford any longer to ignore the cost of unrestricted accommodation of cars. We must make personal changes in our lifestyles and push for physical changes in our environment. Here are a few I’d like you to consider.

• 1.  Slow down, obey traffic laws and be courteous on the road, particularly in urban and residential areas. Watch out for bicycles pedestrians and other vehicles using the roadway. Drivers are required to yield the right-of-way to pedestrians crossing the street even when there is no crosswalk. Bicycles have a right to use the road and are subject to the same traffic laws and automobiles.

• 2.  Never get behind the wheel while impaired. Don’t text or use your cell phone while driving. Don’t engage in other distracting behavior while driving. I am astounded by the number of people I still see talking on their cell phone while driving even though it has been illegal in California for some time. The evidence is in: distracted drivers cause accidents – don’t do it!

• 3. Work out ways to avoid driving your car.  Telecommute one or two days. Carpool, ride a bike or walk to work. If you can’t do that, consider moving closer to work or getting a job closer to home. Move out of the suburbs and into a more urban environment where services are within walking distance. Do whatever you can to reduce the amount you drive.

• 4.  Support, donate money to and join a bicycle/pedestrian safety group. Educate people about the issue.

• 5.  Promote, advocate and even demand that your community or city install traffic calming devices and pedestrian safety devices, and that they make efforts to enforce traffic laws. The hue and cry against photo enforced traffic lights has caused some of the cities that have installed them to rethink their decisions, but failure to obey traffic lights causes over 6% of fatal crashes, a type of accident that usually does not inflate airbags. These measures improve safety and should be encouraged.

My sister’s accident has reminded me to be more careful behind the wheel. It has also increased my frustration and even outrage over the extent of our dependence on the automobile and the amount of carnage we are willing to tolerate for the convenience. Consider the statistics I’ve cited above and maybe you will be outraged too.

Resources:

NHTSA’s National Center for Statistics and Analysis, www.nhtsa.gov

Pedestrian Accident Statistics, www.legalcatch.wordpress.com

Pedestrian and Bicycling Information Center, www.bicyclinginfo.org

Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, www.saferoads.org

March 6, SB County Planning Commission Hearing Room (123 East Anapamu Street in Santa Barbara) and March 9 at the San Luis Obispo County Library (955 Palm Street in San Luis Obispo).

The workshops are designed to help consultants, regulators, applicants and industry professionals stay current on legal trends and other hot topics affecting the application of the Law and Guidelines.  The curriculum will focus on the following topics:

Legal decisions affecting the way environmental documents are written; Environmental Streamlining for infill development; Changes to Appendix G Guidelines; Cumulative Impacts Update; Roundtable discussion of legistative changes and proposed improvements to CEQA.

AICP CM credits available!

REGISTER ON LINE AT CALIFAEP.ORG.

Full flyer below with pricing, schedule and other locations.  (Select link to the PDF)

AEP_Spring_2012 PDF

Laura Vlk has left the City of Goleta Planning Department for a job with PXP (Plains Exploration and Production) in Los Angeles.  Her new title is Senior Environmental, Health & Safety Specialist.  Laura was with the City for over 6 years and was recently the City’s liason with the State Lands Commission on the Haskel’s Beach remnant oil production facility clean-up project.  Prior to working for the City of Goleta, Laura was an assistant planner with the City of Carpinteria and a lab assistant for the UC Santa Barbara Marine Sciences Institute.   She has a BA from UCSB in Environmental Studies. 

Laura’s colleague and former Section Board Member Dan Nemecheck has also left the City of Goleta, although there’s no telling yet where Dan may end up.  Some say it’s another public planning or administrative position on the Central Coast, considering he completed his Master’s in Public Administration (MPA).  Others wonder if he’ll go private.  Before the City of Goleta, where he as a planner for 4.5 years, Dan served at the County of San Luis Obispo and County of Santa Barbara as a planner.  He has a BS in Environmental Horticultural Science from Cal Poly SLO.

Last November, Derek Johnson resigned as the Capitola Planning Director and took the same position at the City of San Luis Obispo. Derek was in Capitola for 16 months. Previously, he was with the County of Santa Barbara in their Long Range Planning Division.   In his short time in the city, Johnson spearheaded or worked closely with many projects including the impending arrival of Target to the Capitola Mall, finding funding for the General Plan and the acquisition of a $250k grant for local hazard mitigation planning. “I’m pretty stoked. SLO is a great town,” he said. “They’ve embraced progressive thinking about planning. They have a strong commitment to resource protection. It’s a young, vibrant community, but they’ve got a lot of challenges, so I’m pretty excited.”  Johnson also hinted that the loss of RDA’s contributed to his move.

After 24 years with the City of Lompoc, Arleen Pelster, AICP, moved to Solvang, where she assumed the job of the City’s Planning & Economic Development Director.  Arleen replaces Laurie Tamura, who held the position as a contractor for several months, and Shelly Stahl who retired last year.  The City also hired Lisa Martin away from the County of Santa Barbara Planning Department.  Lisa is now the City’s Senior Planner.

Last Summer Peter Imhoff also left the County of Santa Barbara Long Range Planning Division for a leadership role with the Santa Barbara County Association of Government.  Peter was with the County for 10 years and prior to that, spent 2 years with the Coastal Commission as an analyst.  Before becoming a planner, Peter was an attorney and researcher.  He has Masters in City Planning from and a JD from UC Berkley and a BA in Philosphy from Princeton.

The City of Santa Barbara has hired a new transportation planner, Derek Bailey who started last year.  He has a B.Sc. in Civil Engineering from the University of Saskatchewan (Canada), M.E. in Civil Engineering (Traffic Specialty) from Texas A&M University.  His work history includes Kimley Horn & Associates (Phoenix, Arizona), where most of the projects he was involved with were traffic planning and design for new developments in the Phoenix area,  and the City of Mesa, Arizona, where he held two different positions; the first in the Traffic Studies group (signs and markings, residential traffic and parking, bike and pedestrian issues, crash mitigation), and second was managing the traffic signal section.   He’s  licensed as a Professional Civil Engineer and a Traffic Engineer in California.

Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck is pleased to announce that Dylan K. Johnson has joined the Santa Barbara office as an associate in the firm’s natural resources group. His practice focuses on land use and public law. Prior to joining Brownstein, Mr. Johnson was an extern for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), ORC, Region 5 in Chicago. His work for the EPA included writing memoranda for the federal and state implementation of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits, drafting final determination letters for violations of environmental statutes, and preparing reports regarding penalty variances in EPA administrative law courts. Mr. Johnson is conversational in Mandarin Chinese and used his language skills to teach middle school and professional students in Taizhou and Shanghai, China.  Mr. Johnson received his law degree from the Notre Dame Law School and his bachelor’s degree from Indiana University.

Katrina Rice Schmidt, AICP, resigned last summer from the City of Ojai after 9 years in the Planning Department.  She was replaced with interim Planning Director, Susan McGlaughlin who spent 13 years with the city of Ventura as senior planner. More recently, she worked as a special planner with the Santa Barbara Energy Division where she compiled a detailed report on offshore mineral management services.  At this time, the City is interviewing finalists for a permanent replacement for Katrina who will serve as the Community Development Director.  The City will collapse the duties of the Planning Director and the CDD.

Contact our editor with Planners on the Move stories at jay(at)openspace-cc.com

February 12, 2012, 6:28 p.m.

The bid to bring a large-scale desalination plant to Southern California cleared a major hurdle Friday when water regulators approved a permit for a Huntington Beach facility to turn seawater into drinking water.

Connecticut-based firm Poseidon Resources is proposing a seawater desalination plant on a 12-acre site next to a coastal power plant, which is adjacent to a popular state beach.

According to the company, it would be the largest such facility in the Western Hemisphere. The $350-million facility, they said, would supply 50 million gallons of drinking water a day — enough to supply 300,000 people.

Although local water agencies, lawmakers and the business community generally support building the plant, environmentalists say its ocean water intake system would kill fish, plankton larvae and other sea creatures, while spitting extra salty water known as “brine” back into the ocean. The discharged water would be tainted with iron and cleaning fluids, critics say.

Full Story:

January 26, 2012 story by the San Luis Obispo Tribune about Cambria’s possible desal plant.

January 17, 2012 story by the Monterey Herald about the Moss Landing desal plant, Cal Am’s withdrawal and the collapsed mediation.

Update on Carslbad Desal by the International Desalination and Water Reuse Quarterly

Full Graphic Below on the Desal Cycle by the City of Santa Cruz Water Department