Wal-Mart Petition 1

[ Excerpt from: "Anti-Wal-Mart group does its job too well," By Marie Lakin, VENTURA COUNTY STAR, August 26, 2008 - Full text and many comments at: VCS: Wal-Mart Petition


THE STOP WAL-MART VENTURA COALITION has earned a place on the [Ventura] fall 2009 ballot for its anti-big box initiative and may have even collected enough signatures to trigger a special election at the beginning of next year...

Coalition organizer and Santa Barbara City Councilman Das Williams said he doubts a special election will be triggered.

"We do not believe that much more than two thirds are valid," Williams said. "It was a tough decision as to when we stopped gathering signatures. If we had turned in fewer, we would have risked not qualifying. We felt better erring on the side of more. The advantage of having 15 percent and a special election would be to have this law on the books before Wal-Mart can move in, but the disadvantage is the possible cost to the city. That's why we stopped the effort early, because we would rather save the city taxpayers some money."

A special election could potentially cost the city hundreds of thousands of dollars extra...

"12,875 signatures is something that we are very proud of, since it indicates the level of enmity Venturans have against Wal-Mart," Williams said.

BOS Votes for Offshore Drilling

[ Excerpt from: Santa Barbara Eyes Black Gold - Supes Ask Arnold to Lift Offshore Oil Ban," By Ethan Stewart, SB INDEPENDENT, August 27, 2008 - Full text and comments at: http://www.independent.com/news/2008/aug/27/santa-barbara-eyes-black-gold/


... the Santa Barbara County supervisors [voted to send a letter] urging Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to lift the state’s longstanding ban on new offshore oil leases. After enduring a nearly nine-hour hearing on the subject, complete with 85 public speakers and an exhaustive presentation by county staff, the board voted 3-2 ...

Though largely symbolic, as the supervisors have no real authority in approving new offshore drilling activity, the vote — which comes nearly 40 years after Union Oil’s Platform A hemorrhaged more than one million gallons of crude oil into the Santa Barbara Channel — marks a historic shift in a county that not only hangs its hat on being the birthplace of the modern environmental movement but also, as recently as just last year, has repeatedly taken an unflinching stand against new offshore oil exploration. “For us to send this letter flies in the face of reason and flies in the face of what I believe our community wants and stands for,” said a visibly emotional 2nd District Supervisor Wolf, mere moments before the fateful votes were cast...

Less than convinced by the promise of money, the possibility of cheaper prices at the pump, or the likelihood of a federal raid on our fossil fuel reserves, Santa Barbara’s environmental community turned out en masse on Tuesday to speak against lifting the moratoriums. Organizations like the Environmental Defense Center (EDC), Get Oil Out (GOO), and the Community Environmental Council (CEC) — all of which were formed in the immediate wake of the 1969 Unocal spill — urged the supervisors to hold the anti-drilling line despite mounting industry and partisan pressures. “The problem is not that oil is too expensive,” explained GOO president John Abraham Powell, “the problem is that we are addicted to oil. Everybody knows that when a junkie needs a fix, they are dangerous and don’t make good decisions.”

Many others reminded the supervisors of many devastating oil spills in the county both onshore and off in the years since 1969 — including the accident off Vandenberg in the late 1990s, Exxon’s flagrant PCB release off Platform Hondo, and, most recently, the rash of mishaps by Greka Energy. Others, including CEC Energy Specialist Tam Hunt, pointed to a report from the U.S. Energy Department that claims that lifting the moratoriums today still wouldn’t affect the marketplace for 20-plus years...

In the end, the pleas of the enviros and even other elected officials like Congressmember Lois Capps, Senator Barbara Boxer, State Assemblymember Pedro Nava, and Santa Barbara City Council members Helene Schneider and Das Williams fell on deaf ears with the majority of the supervisors...

----------------------------

A really right on comment included this observation:

"... the "historic shift" for those of us who live here is that Firestone is [soon] gone and his crony Smyser couldn't even make the runoff, good riddance! Local politics does matter and this vote and others particularly recently make it clear how important it is to our future and that of our children, that Firestone and Smyser and any others with their type of thinking have no place on the Board in that future. I don't expect Farr to face any real challenge from Pappas and then it will be vitally important to our quality of life and our childrens' futures that Farr has a long and successful tenure at the Board. This vote meant nothing practically but it shows how close we have come to losing what is vitally important to all of us who grew up here and hope our children stay and prosper and have the same quality of life we have been blessed with. Fortuantely Firestone is out to pasture and we on the South Coast must be dilligent to make sure that all future 3rd District Supervisors represent their constituents who live in Goleta, and those in the Valley who care about our environment and the natural quality of life!"- SBReader

4th of July Parade 3

Here's image 3 of 3 of Das during this year's Fourth of July Parade... He always has fun with it!

4th of July Parade 2

Here's image 2 of 3; more in keeping with Das' mode during parades... A bag of candy for the kids, always...

July 4th Parade 1

Here's the first of three images of Das during this year's Fourth Of July Parade. This photo is somewhat out-of-character cuz he's actually riding the bus, instead of running along with it!

"Building Height War"

[ Excerpt from "Let the Height Wars Begin," By Nick Welsh, SB Independent, August 17, 2008 - full text, pictures and comments at: SBI: Building Height War ]


Now it’s official: Former city planning commissioner Bill Mahan launched the first blow in what will soon evolve into the main event in the Santa Barbara height wars. He delivered a packet of petitions early Friday morning, August 15, signed by 11,252 people who want to limit all new buildings going up in downtown Santa Barbara to no more than 40 feet, and to limit structures elsewhere in the city to a maximum of 45 feet. The current height maximum for downtown -- El Pueblo Viejo -- is 60 feet...

In the meantime, it’s expected that the City Council will craft a new and less restrictive height limit -- one more flexible, for example, for affordable housing proposals -- and place that on next November’s ballot as well. In that instance, whichever measure garners the most votes will prevail...

Mahan may be very much the man-on-a-mission, but he’s hardly alone. Joining him Friday were Mayor Marty Blum, City Councilmember Dale Francisco, and Planning Commissioner Harwood White. Also present to lend her support was former mayor Sheila Lodge, who said that Harriet Miller, the mayor immediately preceding Blum, supported the initiative as well. One-time planning commissioner –- and now head of the Allied Neighborhood Association —- Judy Orias endorsed the measure, as did representatives from Citizens Planning Association, Santa Barbarans for Safe Streets, the League of Women Voters, and a smattering of prominent neighborhood preservationists, mostly from the upper East Side...

Opposing the proposed new height limit have been Santa Barbara’s architects, affordable housing advocates, developers, and green building advocates who contend that bigger buildings are more sustainable, especially from an energy consumption standpoint. They argue that the height limit would discourage developers from putting affordable units into their mixed-use development plans...

Privately, some of the people who accompanied Mahan to City Hall Friday morning admitted to preferring the interim ordinance the council is now working on to the charter amendment they’ve put forward. “It’s like using a scalpel instead of a ball-peen hammer,” said one. If the council does place a competing measure on next November’s ballot, the unity of the coalition now backing the new 40-foot height limit would be sorely tested...

In fact, Mahan himself seemed eager to embrace the provisions of the so-called interim ordinance earlier this spring, when he held a much publicized press conference declaring that a historic accord had been struck between Santa Barbara’s strict slow-growthers and the so-called smart-growthers who dislike the height restriction. Before the ink was dry, however, the terms of that peace treaty—brokered by council member Das Williams had been publicly disowned and disavowed by Mahan. His supporters from the Citizens Planning Association and the League of Women Voters had not participated in the discussions, and they objected that Mahan should have consulted with them first. The deal was dead on arrival.

Neither of the two members of the current council now preparing to run for Mayor next November -- Iya Falcone and Helene Schneider -- has embraced the initiative as proposed...

Building Height Initiative

[ Excerpt from: "Building-Height Initiative a Step Closer to Spot on Ballot," By Rob Kuznia, Noozhawk, 08/16/2008 - full text, photos, and some very good comments at: NOOZEHAWK: Building Height Initiative ]


... To the chagrin of at least one Santa Barbara City Council member, a coalition of slow-growth advocates submitted signatures Friday to put an initiative on the November ballot that would significantly lower building-height limits in Santa Barbara.

Standing amid a throng of about 30 coalition members on the steps of City Hall, Bill Mahan, chairman of the organization Save El Pueblo Viejo, said they had gathered 11,200 signatures. To qualify for the ballot, the group needs 6,480 credible signatures. Mahan said it could take up to a month for the city clerk to verify all of the names.

As it stands now, buildings in the commercial zones of Santa Barbara can be 60 feet high; the initiative calls for lowering the limit to 40 feet in the historic downtown area and 45 feet in the rest of the city.

“We feel very, very strongly that the charm and the character of Santa Barbara … are in danger,” said Mahan, a former planning commissioner. “We’re in danger of losing those qualities because of big buildings.”

The topic of building heights has emerged as a divisive debate as a spate of tall and bulky condominium complexes — most notably on Chapala Street — has sprung up in the past couple of years. Some believe that these buildings mark the beginning of the end of the city’s low-slung cosmopolitan distinctiveness.

However, affordable housing advocates fear that the proposed initiative would stifle development and produce the unintended consequence of further squeezing out the middle class, who are reportedly moving out of the city because of the out-of-reach cost of housing.

... in April... an improbable coalition of slow-growth advocates and affordable-housing activists announced they had struck an accord on height limits and affordable housing.

That coalition, led by Santa Barbara Councilman Das Williams, included many of the same slow-growth advocates, such as Mahan and former Mayor Sheila Lodge. The group had unveiled a proposed interim ordinance that would, for example, keep the proposed 40- and 45-foot height limits, but grant exceptions to developers who went well above and beyond standards for including affordable units. Such developers would be awarded with 12 extra feet.

On Friday, Councilman Das Williams said he was disappointed. “I’m saddened by the fact that they felt like they needed to continue with this overly simplistic measure,” he said. “I don’t think it will be in the best long-term interest of the citizens of Santa Barbara to pass it. But I do understand there is a legitimate concern about size, bulk and scale.”

However, he added, “The issue of size, bulk, scale and affordable housing cannot all be addressed by height.”

Williams’ compromise coalition formed shortly after Mahan started collecting signatures. It began to fall apart when Mahan refused to stop collecting signatures. At the time, the group had gathered about 3,000.

“It came into my heart that each one of those signatures is like a sacred trust, and we couldn’t just throw them away,” Mahan said Friday. “I think it’s fine for the City Council to put out an alternative initiative if it wants to. The people, then, could make the choice. This is all about the people making the choice.”

Meanwhile, the interim City Council ordinance isn’t dead. On Tuesday, it will be discussed by the city Ordinance Committee. Hypothetically, however, if both passed, the ballot initiative would trump the city ordinance, because the ballot initiative is an attempt to amend the city’s charter, which is akin to a local constitution, Mahan said.

Mahan added that he believes that the culprit in the affordable-housing debate isn’t building height but ceiling height. The ceilings in some of the new luxury condos reach heights of 13 feet, he said. If builders stuck to 8 feet, they could get more units inside smaller developments.

In addition to Mahan’s Save El Pueblo Viejo, four other groups — the League of Women Voters, the Citizens Planning Association, the Allied Neighborhoods Association and the Pearl Chase Society — are sponsoring the proposed ballot measure. During the course of the campaign, the group raised and spent about $35,000...

More Desal Study

[ Excerpt from: "Santa Barbara Council OKs Desalination Plant Study," By Rob Kuznia, Noozhawk, August 13, 2008 - full text at:
Noozhawk: Council OKs Study ]


... Foremost among [Das] Williams’ concerns was energy use. The plant, he said, is an energy hog, and although Williams agrees it needs to be analyzed, he said the city should first study ways to improve water conservation.

“We shouldn’t be looking at desal and then conservation, we should be looking at conservation and then desal,” he said.

Williams cited a report stating that the city has the potential, through greater conservation measures, to save up to 2,100 acre-feet of water annually. Currently, the city uses about 15,000 acre-feet every year. The desalination plant has the capacity to provide 3,125 acre-feet yearly. An acre-foot is the volume of water sufficient to cover an acre of land to a depth of one foot.

Williams also believes that in the event of a drought, the desalination plant would end up serving the surrounding communities, and so the water agencies there should be asked to chip in for the study...

[Dale] Francisco countered Williams’ main concern by saying he sees no reason why studies on conservation and desalination can’t occur concurrently.

“These things are not in opposition,” he said.

He added that the city has already spent $34 million building the plant...

On Tuesday, Williams sought to correct a notion brought up last week by Francisco, who had suggested the plant could also serve as a backup source of water in the event of a cataclysmic disaster, such as an earthquake.

Not so, said Williams, because it would take months to get it back online, whereas a major earthquake could conceivably block access to the city’s two largest water suppliers — Lake Cachuma and the Gibraltar Reservoir — immediately.

“That’s just a fantasy,” he said, adding that, in such an event, the city would turn to ground water.

Back when the desalination plant was first built in the early 1990s, the Montecito and Goleta water agencies each had a share in the project. But those agencies terminated their involvement at the end of a five-year contract.

Those two agencies’ portion of the plant, which made up a little more than half of the total capacity, was sold and shipped to a company in Saudi Arabia...

----------------------------

For more information about the Charles Meyer Desalination Plant, please view a City of Santa Barbara presentation about the plant done in 2004:
SB Desalination Plant, 2004 (pdf)

$122K To Study Desal Rehab

[ Excerpt of "City leaders agree to study desal rehabilitation," by Eric Lindberg, DAILY SOUND, August 13, 2008 - Full text at:
DS: Desal Rehab Study ]



(Image courtesy of the City of Santa Barbara)

After weighing in on a proposal to examine what it would take to rehabilitate the city’s desalination plant, which converts seawater into drinking water, Santa Barbara city leaders approved a $122,000 study to look into the cost, timeline and regulatory issues surrounding such an action...

“There seems to be a degree of confusion out there about what this is all about,” Councilmember Roger Horton said.

Devising a way to use the plant on a regular basis, despite its exorbitant costs and high energy usage, is not what the study is all about, he said.

“That’s not my understanding of what we’re trying to do today,” Horton said.

Rebecca Bjork, the city’s acting water resources manager, echoed those sentiments, calling the study a technical examination of the physical infrastructure that is necessary to update the city’s Long Term Water Supply Plan.

“We are not suggesting any changes to the way we use desal,” she said. “We need this information only for planning for future uses of our water supplies.”

The study consists of two stages — a preliminary look at the equipment, followed by detailed examination of any specific components that need further attention. A brief survey of technological advancements in the field of desalination is also planned.

Although Councilmember Helene Schneider said a baseline study of what it would take to get the facility up and running again is appropriate, she disagreed with the second phase of the project.

“This is one more step farther toward turning on the switch,” she said. “I want to be very careful about even getting any closer to turning on the switch.”

Councilmember Das Williams took his argument further, saying the city should vote down the study as a matter of principle.

“We should be fully vetting how much conservation is possible and what money that takes to achieve,” he said. “…We shouldn’t be looking at desal and then conservation. We should be looking at conservation and then desal.”

He also argued that the study should include a complete analysis of what it would take to build an alternative energy plant to supply power for the desalination facility. Running the facility with existing power supplies would destroy any progress the city has made toward sustainability, Williams said.

His final problem with the study related to other cities in the area, which he said would likely draw on Santa Barbara’s water supply in the event of a drought.

“If other agencies have an interest in desal, they should help us with the study cost,” he said.

But the remaining members of the council said the study is appropriate in the context of keeping the city’s long-term water supply plan updated...

Ultimately, the council approved the study with a four-vote majority; Schneider and Williams voted against the proposal.

Wal-Mart Petition

Two recent VENTURA COUNTY STAR articles about the initiative to keep Wal-Mart out of Ventura:



(Image courtesy of www.businessweek.com)



[ From "Wal-Mart initiative signatures submitted - Issue would go on November 2009 ballot; store could open before then," By Kevin Clerici, VENTURA COUNTY STAR, August 8, 2008 - Full text at:
VCS: Wal-Mart Petition ]


Ventura voters will likely decide whether Wal-Mart should be allowed in town — if the world's largest retailer doesn't open shop before voters get a chance to weigh in.

The Stop Wal-Mart Ventura Coalition on Thursday submitted nearly 13,000 signatures supporting the addition of an initiative to the ballot aimed at blocking Wal-Mart or any large grocery store from opening within city boundaries.

The group needs 5,936 valid signatures, or 10 percent of registered voters, to earn a spot on the November 2009 ballot. The county Elections Division has 30 working days to verify the signatures.

A more costly special election will be required if roughly 8,900 signatures are found valid, but the coalition doesn't believe it has that many, because people who sign petitions often are not registered to vote or don't live within city limits.

The initiative would ban any new store larger than 90,000 square feet that sells groceries. Big grocers also could face special conditions if they want to move into an existing vacant store. The measure also forbids "piece-mealing" — moving into an existing store and then expanding.

"The sheer number of signatures should make it clear to the city and to Wal-Mart itself that Venturans don't want Wal-Mart here," said coalition member Nan Waltman, chairwoman of the citizens group Livable Ventura.

Wal-Mart controls the shuttered Kmart store on Victoria Avenue, and coalition members say it's likely the retailer will make a move before voters have their say at the ballot box.

They say the city could go a long way toward preserving voters' rights by requiring Wal-Mart to abide by the initiative if it tries to open before November 2009 and the measure later passes.

"We call on the City Council to formally clarify to the company that they will be held to this new law, if the people of Ventura pass it," said Das Williams, a legislative analyst for the Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy.

Wal-Mart would have to get city approval to demolish the Kmart store and rebuild, the company's preference. But it would be virtually impossible to stop Wal-Mart from moving into the Kmart store if the retailer chooses not to make major physical changes to the building, said Nelson Hernandez, Ventura's development director...

The initiative specifically targets large grocery stores but not all big-box outlets. It would not ban a large electronics store like Fry's or Best Buy, or a department store.

The coalition supporting the measure includes the Tri-Counties Labor Foundation, United Food and Commercial Workers union, Stop Ventura Wal-Mart Coalition, Livable Ventura and the Ventura County Working People's Alliance.

---------------------------

[ From "Anti-Wal-Mart group submits signatures," By Marie Lakin. VENTURA COUNTY STAR, August 7, 2008 - Full text and comments at:
VCS: Wal-Mart Petition (con't)


AFTER A SIX-MONTH EFFORT, the Stop Wal-Mart Ventura Coalition submitted more than 11,000 signatures to Ventura's City Clerk today in support of an effort to keep a Wal-Mart Supercenter from being built on the site of the old K-Mart building on Victoria Avenue...

According to Stop Wal-Mart organizers, the initiative would be retroactive should the corporation decide to put in a store before the voters have a chance to decide on the issue in the fall of 2009. It would then be up to the courts to enforce it.

THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY the initiative could go before voters earlier. If at least 8,900 signatures are valid, it would trigger an early 2009 special election, but the coalition would prefer to avoid this because it would cost the city much more than placing it on the ballot in November 2009, the date of the next regular municipal election. The county is required to report within 30 working days the results of the signature verification.

... Wal-Mart does seem intent on building on the site, but hasn't made anything official yet. The Stop Wal-Mart group thinks a move is imminent.

"We have information that Wal-Mart will receive bids for construction this fall," said Livable Ventura staffer Das Williams...

Desalination Plant Study

Funding a study to determine how much it would cost to bring the Charles Meyer Desalination Plant online is currently under discussion at city hall. Below, please find some excerpts of what is being written about this issue:



(Image courtesy of http://www.sbwater.org/WaterSupply.htm


David Pritchett on the subject, at Edhat:
David Pritchett: Desalination Study

--------------------------------

[ From "Leaders table talks over desalination plant study," by Eric Lindberg, DAILY SOUND, 5 August 2008 - full text at:
DAILY SOUND: Desalination ]


After discussing the merits of studying what it would take to get the city’s desalination plant up and running again, Santa Barbara city leaders were forced to table the matter until next week due to a lack of a sufficient majority.

While Mayor Marty Blum joined Councilmembers Roger Horton and Dale Francisco to vote in favor of going forward with the $122,000 study, their three ayes fell short of the four-vote majority needed.

Councilmembers Helene Schneider and Das Williams voted against the proposal to examine rehabilitating the facility, which converts seawater into drinking water, while Councilmembers Iya Falcone and Grant House were absent...

Calling the study premature, Williams said a larger focus should be placed on conservation and recycled water programs.

“Desal has huge problems, not the least of which being its cost and not the least of which being its energy usage,” he said...

Built in the early 90’s as a response to the severe drought of the late 80s, the Charles Meyer Desalination Facility has been relegated to storage mode for the past 10 years.

... Williams said the city shouldn’t even look at the desalination plant until a drought is on the horizon.

“We have many emergency backup supplies,” he said. “We have groundwater, we have Gibraltar, we have Cachuma.”

He also expressed concerns about the potential increase in growth should the city augment its current water supply with an additional 3,125 acre-feet per year, the output capacity of the desalination facility...

Since the item involves an allocation of city funds, the council needed at least four votes in favor to approve the study, causing the 3-2 vote to fail. Ultimately the council voted 4-1 to continue the matter until next week, with Williams dissenting.

--------------------------------------

[ From "Santa Barbara Council Tables Decision on Desalination Plant," by Rob Kuznia, NOOZHAWK, 6 August 2008 - full text at:
NOOZHAWK: Desalination ]


... The Charles Meyer Desalination Facility, at 525 Yanonali St., was built in 1991 for $34 million — the equivalent of about $75 million in today’s dollars — after voter approval amid a local drought that lasted five years. It was constructed in less than a year, and had been in operation for just two weeks when a spell of rain finally put an end to the drought...

Speaking to the council on Tuesday, city Water Resources Supervisor Bill Ferguson said there are no plans to reactivate the desalination plant, but added that a study would look at what would need to be done if circumstances called for bringing it back online.

Specifically, the proposed study is broken down into two portions. A $74,000 phase-one study would assess the condition of the plant and investigate how much it would cost to fire it back up. A $48,000 phase two would be a more general study of the technological changes that desalination plants have undergone in recent years.

The debate on Tuesday centered on several issues. Most skeptical of the proposal was Councilman Das Williams, who, along with Helene Schneider, voted against bankrolling the entire study.

Williams said the study is premature, and cited as one of his concerns the large amount of energy required to operate a desalination plant.

“All of the efforts we have made in the last six years to reduce energy use could be wiped out overnight by getting that desalination plant online,” he said.

Instead, he advocated studying additional conservation and water recycling methods first, then possibly coming back to the desalination examination.

Williams also expressed concern that the plant might one day be used to accommodate the expansion of development. Williams said that although the stated intention has been to provide a backup supply of water in case of emergency, he has heard staff members toss around words such as “base-loading,” which is a technical term for increasing the total supply of water, ostensibly to accommodate a growing population.

Lastly, Williams argued that Santa Barbara already enjoys a healthy emergency reserve, noting that, in addition to Cachuma, the city receives water from the State Water Project, the Gibraltar Reservoir on the Santa Ynez River, groundwater and recycled water. Many of the surrounding agencies, he said, don’t have the same backup supplies.

“If we’re creating yet another backup source,” he said, “what we are really doing is creating a backup for somebody else, and the ratepayers for our agency in Santa Barbara end up paying for the cost, and I have a problem with that.”

... After it was discovered that the 3-2 vote wasn’t enough for approval, Williams suggested that the council consider Schneider’s idea: funding just the $74,000 portion of the study. Instead, the council voted 4-1 — with Williams again voting no — to postpone the item until next week...