Paul Wellman
Left to right: Attorney Kim Kimbell, developer Jack Theimer, and real estate agent Stephen Hawkins at More Mesa (July 7, 2012)
Build to Save More Mesa?
New Development Proposal Promises to Preserve Most of More Mesa Forever
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
In the orchestra of urban open spaces serenading Santa Barbara, the blufftop expanse of grasslands known as More Mesa just might be the last one left to save. Though today a recreation hub for hikers and bikers, a natural paradise for birdwatchers and flower-lovers, and a well-used portal to the beaches below, the popular property remains privately owned, so the threat of future development floats above the vernal pools and white-tailed kites like a dark cloud.
But for the first time since Robert Earl Holding of Sinclair Oil bought the property for $6.7 million in the mid-1980s — a purchase that’s reportedly caused much consternation for the octogenarian’s family over the years, their private property trampled daily by us everyday citizens — the Holding family is actually endorsing a plan that would preserve 85 percent of the 265 acres they own. To get there, the community would have to get behind the development of 38 homes on 40 acres: 27 eco-minded, wellness-oriented, roughly 3,000-square-foot “casitas” clustered on a nine-acre parcel near today’s Mockingbird Lane, plus 11 mansion-ready parcels fringing the east and west borders of the landscape, with two reaching out closer to the western cliffs. The community would then have to raise money to buy the remaining 225 acres of open space, and while the final cost is yet to be determined, it is expected to be less than $10 million.
Map of More Mesa proposed development
Click here for a high-res version of the map above.
“This is an opportunity to legitimize More Mesa at a cost that nobody ever dreamed would be possible,” said Jack Theimer, the developer of Storke Ranch in Goleta, Ennisbrook in Montecito, and Beaver Creek in Colorado who has teamed with environmentally minded attorney Kim Kimbell and real estate agent Stephen Hawkins for the project. “We believe we can build a consensus that allows it to move forward,” explained Theimer, who’s been visiting homeowners associations, reaching out to politicians, and contacting conservation organizations for the past month, but has yet to consult a land use attorney, and has no intention of moving forward if it means a protracted legal battle. “I don’t have the stomach for a fight,” said Theimer, who’s ambitiously hoping for approval in two years and ground-breaking in four.
Leading whatever fight might come would probably be the More Mesa Preservation Coalition, although the 12-year-old, 1,100-member group has not yet taken a formal position. But the group’s leader, Valerie Olson, is sure that what she’s seen does not conform to current planning guidelines, and is already having to calm her worried neighbors. “This is not going to happen in two years,” said Olson, who is actively collecting feedback, holding meetings (with a possible public forum down the road), and investigating whether the community could raise the $45 million currently desired for the whole 265 acres. “It’s a long, community-vetted public process to make anything change on More Mesa.”
Paul Wellman
Left to right: Attorney Kim Kimbell, developer Jack Theimer, and real estate agent Stephen Hawkins at More Mesa (July 7, 2012)
A similar sentiment comes from the county’s 2nd District Supervisor Janet Wolf, who first heard of the plan last spring and encouraged the developers to start meeting with neighbors. “With the knowledge that More Mesa is currently zoned for some residential development, it has always been my hope that any development will allow for the greatest possible conservation of land for the public use and enjoyment,” said Wolf, urging that the Goleta Community Plan, Local Coastal Plan, and the 2010 biological study be respected. “I am confident that community members, neighbors, and other stakeholders will remain engaged in what I am sure will be a robust public process.”
At this early stage, both Olson and Wolf are choosing their statements carefully, but some neighbors are more outraged. “They’re not creating a park,” said Craig Cummings, referencing an erroneous headline from last Sunday’s daily paper atop a story that regurgitated the developer’s press release. “They’re destroying a natural habitat.”
The development team, however, believes the opposite, and thinks that, at the very least, they’ve done a lot of hard work to lower the Holding family’s expectations for they might earn from the property. Though once valued at $110 million, Theimer said the Holdings would likely take $35 million for the whole property today, and that if such an offer came at any point in the planning process, he’d “urge them to take it.” But with the state of the economy, Theimer finds that unlikely, and is also quick to point out that if this deal doesn’t go down, the alternatives might be worse: the land could be sold off in the six legal parcels that exist, whose new owners could erect fences and keep out the public, save for trail easements, or the next developer could pursue the 70 houses that current zoning allows for, without preserving the open space.
“If it’s all or nothing, the community loses,” said Theimer. “We took this on because we think it’s a legacy property in the community. It’s a chance to solve the More Mesa equation once and for all.”
Comments
Another ruse to scare people into panic mode, brought to us by Kim Kimbell, fresh off his debacle supporting Measure Y.
Drop the blufftop, mansion-ready parcels as an obviously fabricated bargaining point AND donate the rest of the property to the public. Then call it a deal.
John_Adams (anonymous profile)
July 10, 2012 at 11:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Seems like a reasonable and generous plan... but the NIMBY crowd will be out if force assuring that no one else can have what they have...
iamsomeguyinsb (anonymous profile)
July 10, 2012 at 12:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
John, I love how generous you are with other people's property. May we assume that you are prepare to gift your own as readily, and would you please provide us with your address so that homeless families may move in?
You are nothing but a selfish NIMBY masquerading as a community-minded environmentalist. You probably are among the folks who don't feel they need to respect stop signs or use turn signals because they drive a PRIUS.
If you want More Mesa to remain undeveloped forever, pull out your wallet, give til it hurts, and work to convince the community to join in the effort. If you are not prepared to do that, say thank you to the nice owners/developers for accepting a lower return on their investment than fair market value could command, and stop spewing nonsense.
blackpoodles (anonymous profile)
July 10, 2012 at 12:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This is going to be great circus
drdan93109 (anonymous profile)
July 10, 2012 at 1:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I do think the solution they are proposing sounds great. I mean it is privately owned property and not a national park for goodness sakes. I’m a big one for preserving open space and parks, but you have to look to the overall good and I think their plan sounds like a nice balance and good for the community.
JJBall (anonymous profile)
July 10, 2012 at 1:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Looks like Theimer isn't too popular. Quit trying to posture this land issue like its part of the script from the Descendants movie. Please. NO MORE DEVELOPMENT. Open land for responsible public use is the best option for the community obviously.
Why don't the rich and benevolent owners gift it to the community. Profits or not, development is a mistake and would totally wreck the area over time. Want proof? Just look how south Orange County has had development exploit it over the years! Perfect example Dana Point Bluff and its overblown mini mansions in the "Strands" development. Uggggh :(
bavarde (anonymous profile)
July 10, 2012 at 2:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Give them a financial offer they can't refuse. If I were made out of money, that's what I'd do, and if someone proposed to buy the property from Holding in order to preserve its status, I'll even cough up what little money I have. Otherwise, the saying "give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile" comes to mind.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
July 10, 2012 at 3:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't think John Adams believes in private property. Maybe we should take it away from the owners and donate it to the homeless?
Botany (anonymous profile)
July 10, 2012 at 3:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
when I saw this, I suspected there would be a mix of self serving uninformed ignorant people making pretzel logic comments, and intelligent opinionated people interested in our community. I didn't realize the ease of identity.
Apaddler (anonymous profile)
July 10, 2012 at 4:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey Janet Wolf- the people in your district don't want this to happen. How about listening to the people who you are supposed to represent? You were going to quietly jam up-zoning down our throats just a few months ago until the word got out and your constituents jammed your email and voice mail with howls and screams of protest. Our streets are crowded way past any safe level of traffic and we don't want more congestion. Can you hear your constituents or do you even know who we are?
reality_check (anonymous profile)
July 10, 2012 at 5:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I looked up Robert Earl Holding here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H...
Net worth is $3.1 Billion, ranked by Forbes as the 101st richest person in America.
Author Stephen Trimble has written a book partly about Holding called "Bargaining for Eden":
http://www.amazon.com/Bargaining-Eden...
And if you Google "Earl Holding Snowbasin", you can find articles about how Holding used his corporate and political contacts, including Senator Orin Hatch, to allow Holding to score big time with the Snowbasin ski resort in Utah.
Caveat emptor.
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
July 10, 2012 at 5:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Anybody know anything about the Pollard Family Trust? Is there more to the story than Theimer, Hawkins, and Kimball? Fact of the matter is that public access here has gone on for decades---possibly centuries. Ruins are marked on the site maps.
gsjoh (anonymous profile)
July 10, 2012 at 8:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm typically, opposed to development in coastal areas, but this is a good deal. It is similar to what went down in Ellwood. Remember that even Faust was redeemed in the end because his motivations were pure. Cut off the pinky to save the hand and preserve the bulk of More Mesa forever. These are the kind of deals that never happened in Orange County. I recommend that take this one an run with it.
Eckermann (anonymous profile)
July 10, 2012 at 9:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"“This is an opportunity to legitimize More Mesa at a cost that nobody ever dreamed would be possible,” said Jack Theimer,"
When was More Mesa illegitimate and how? It'd be practically criminal to destroy this area.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 11, 2012 at 9:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
easternpacific (anonymous profile)
July 11, 2012 at 12:28 p.m.
Who sold the property to Robert Earl Holding of Sinclair Oil for $6.7 million in the 1980s?
I am a big fan of private property ownership, but Sinclair oil has reaped billions in profits via the military industrial complex securing of stolen oil overseas which is funded by us everyday citizens.
I'd suggest that as long as the property was legitimately purchased (as the price seems a bit low to me) they build the mansions and donate the rest of the property, with the stipulation that it must remain open and free for public use. Everybody wins.
loonpt (anonymous profile)
July 11, 2012 at 12:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Looks like the property was purchased via war profiteering.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 11, 2012 at 12:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'd say the proposal is a good starting point for future negotiations. However the two huge parcels directly on the bluff ( south western portion I believe) have got to go as do the ones at the other corner ( south eastern portion I believe)right next to the vernal pool. Yes I know it is private property but that doesn't mean they can do whatever they want with it. I will gladly make a donation to save as much as possible and hopefully the community will rally to buy it all or as much as possible and the developers need to be told in no uncertain terms that this will be a long and costly battle if they don't lower their sights a bit, shrink the amount of development and lower the price to buy the undeveloped portion.
Noletaman (anonymous profile)
July 11, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
How much of More Mesa is already preservered? Isn't there already a large area preserved due to rare coastal botany? How much of the acreage is really in play here?
The proposals planned compromise is so blatently obvious. It would be nice if the proposal was honest from the start. These tactics have been used before. I don't think anybodys really fooled by them.
Georgy (anonymous profile)
July 11, 2012 at 2:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Excellent proposal - puts much land out of reach of development forever. But theh that was Osgood's plan for Gaviota and the objectionista killed it. Stay tuned.
And would someone find out if John_Adams owns anything and take it away from him, please - see how he likes his own policies when they're turned on him. Or her.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
July 12, 2012 at 9:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
To Eckermann's point ... I agree Ellwood turned out well. The sandstone homes were tucked into a corner of the property and you can't see them when walking along much of the mesa and bluffs.
The proposed plan for More Mesa looks different to me. I think the biggest difference are the 7 (of 11) "mansion ready" parcels along the west and south-east. I'm concerned they will have big visual impacts.
It looks like 8 of the 11 mansion parcels also encroach on some sort of special habitat zone?
I wish someone with the right GIS tools could make a Google Earth overlay of the proposed development. Would be easier to compare with Ellwood that way.
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
July 12, 2012 at 1:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Zoning happens. Deal with it.
John_Adams (anonymous profile)
July 12, 2012 at 9:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It turns out you can download the image of the proposed development (link is in the Indy's article) and easily overlay it on top of Google Earth!
Instructions are here:
http://www.google.com/earth/outreach/...
The trick is to use the outlines of the houses on the lower-left and upper-right of the image to align with Google Earth. Also use Mockingbird Way on the upper-right. Make sure to use the [shift] key to maintain scale when stretching a corner. It took me about 15 minutes to get it right.
I hope someone at www.moremesa.org can do this and make the overlay publically available on their site.
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
July 12, 2012 at 10:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Property rights are not absolute. They are always balanced against public planning and the resulting zoning laws.
I learned that playing Sim City :)
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
July 12, 2012 at 10:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
A group of tourists asked me yesterday what I love best about living here, and without even thinking the first answer that came to mind was "all the public lands where we can go play."
More Mesa is a special place. I think the current proposal is a good start to negotiations. Maybe we can use a good guy/bad guy approach, point out to the owner how beloved he could become for gifting at least part of the property, while pointing out that our evil twins could tie up the project in court for decades if he doesn't play nice.
blackpoodles (anonymous profile)
July 12, 2012 at 10:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
No, of course property rights are not absolute. But the playing field here is tilted WAY left, i.e. toward maximum public control and minimal private rights. No zoning is not a good thing, but when developers are offering to put significant chunks of their privately-owned land into public hands, the public should perhaps be a bit less objectionista and a bit more compromising.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
July 13, 2012 at 9:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
@blackpoodles - What part of 85% doesn't seem like enough for you?
@Georgy - Zero. The environmental scientists are the ones that defined the develop-able areas, not the developers.
Apaddler (anonymous profile)
July 13, 2012 at 10:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
BTW, which of you support the Chumash move to annex land to their reservation?
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
July 13, 2012 at 1:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm against it.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 13, 2012 at 3:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm a little taken back by the negativity when I see clearly, from what I know, that this is an unbelievable deal on many fronts. This looks to be a win-win for the preservationists, the conservationists, the beach goers, the open land/space lovers, and surely puts an end to decades and decades of the same old arguments and struggles.
What am I missing?
annettealex (anonymous profile)
July 13, 2012 at 6:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dear Annettealex..On the surface of it, wi.. wha..who...how..whe?? It's all great as long as cars, unenforced 2 hour parking, and driveways to no where are left out of the master plan. Yes, you are missing something!
gsjoh (anonymous profile)
July 13, 2012 at 8:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
@Ken: me, too. In my case because it takes the land off the tax rolls and out of any kind of planning control. I'm not totally against planning, just the vigilante kind.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
July 14, 2012 at 9:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Apadler, you misunderstood me. Check out my earlier comment.
I think 85% is more than fair, it is generous, but given the usual hostile attitude of local powers and the community towards developers, I suspect the proposal still contains some negotiable elements.
blackpoodles (anonymous profile)
July 15, 2012 at 10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Do we really need more empty McMansions?
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 16, 2012 at 8:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If the owners pay taxes at 1% of value but no one lives there, we get revenue and little associated cost. But your point is a good one - seems like there are already a lot of homes for sale in SB.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
July 16, 2012 at 9:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Well, I spent the day out @More Mesa on Sunday. I don't go out there very often, but I did learn to fly radio-controlled sailplanes off the bluffs when I was a little kid (great memories). Those gated luxury homes along Mockingbird Ln weren't there back then.
Compared to other open spaces like Ellwood and Naples, More Mesa just *feels* much bigger because of its rectangular shape and differences in elevation that affect sight lines. Even though much of the grasses have dried out, they are denser and stand taller than grasses at Ellwood and Naples. I suspect it's great habitat for the little critters the raptors feed on. Speaking of, I spotted a few hawks circling in the sky and a bunch of white-tailed kites - magnificent birds of prey! Also saw what looked to be white egrets up in the eucalyptus grove in the NW corner of the property. You don't see many birds like these in one place on the coast boys and girls!
I'm still up in the air on the latest development plan. But I have to say there are precious few places like More Mesa in SoCal anymore.
And I won't criticize the owner for what he wants to do (at least yet). He has a right to fight for what he wants so long as it's legal. But speaking for *myself* ... if I were an 85 year old man worth $3.1 billion, I can't see that making a few more tens of millions of dollars by developing More Mesa would matter to me. I'm just not that kind of person. But what a great legacy would I leave behind if I gave More Mesa to the City for future generations to enjoy? Preserving a place like that for others is my idea of what I'd want to leave behind.
I think families like the Sperlings, Elings, and Douglas' of the world would agree.
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
July 16, 2012 at 3:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
BTW, which of you support the Chumash move to annex land to their reservation?
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
July 13, 2012 at 1:42 p.m.
Given their impact on the community with crime, traffic, aggressive bus drivers who speed and tailgate, and Armenta's endless "Look at me, look at how much money I'm donating" approach, I'd say with the many millions of dollars they have (like the More Mesa owner) they've made enough money to pay the bills.
Let's also consider the impact on traffic these plans include.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
July 16, 2012 at 5:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)