Yes on Y Campaign Kicks Off

"The proposal has inspired an unlikely truce between pro-development forces and environmentalists."

They aren't kidding. Never thought I'd see Marty Blum, Grant House, Dan Secord, and Dale Francisco all supporting the same thing.

Glad to know the city leadership can unite when they see a good project like Measure Y.

What a breath of fresh air. A published article that states the facts instead of crying "wolf!"

Mr. Fastman I appreciate your straight-forward approach to laying out the facts.

The fact is, Yes on Y is good for the city and great for those of us who live and play near the Las Positas valley. We get a trail and a park so that we can also get the creek cleaned up.

What I haven't seen covered, in the paper or the ads, is what benefit this will mean to the developer -- they will build a dozen or more homes and a park. Will the park have parking spaces for those who don't live there? Approximately what profit will be made by the developer? Taxes paid? The coverage seems only to focus on the issues of the creek cleanup and pathway. I'm not against this, but it would interesting to understand all the forces and motivations involved.

"Jeff Gorrell, an architect who lives in Bel Air Knolls off of Las Positas said, “I cringe every time [my kids] go to Hendry’s Beach and cross Las Positas Road. "

So we need to tear up all that natural habitat? Isn't there already a light and crosswalk? If that isn't sufficient should your children be unattended?

Y is a lie.

Las Positas has no crosswalk from Elings Park. There is one a decent bit from the area, but no sidewalks to get there. In the 10 minutes it takes to walk it, cars get up to 65mph. Then, once you make it there, you get to walk it again on the other side of the street.

The pedestrian and bike path Measure Y will create is a great idea for the bike community, for Santa Barbara beach goers and for the neighbors.

What happened to the pedestrian/sk8/bike path? I've walked and skateboarded it many times. Add a crosswalk and light, bingo! Millions saved AND the environment.

And why is this topic the only topic that inspires your participation on these pages Mr. Lee/GoGauchos?

You keep on saying I'm Mr Lee, but I'm not. Don't have the patience he has shown dealing with all you h8ters ;)

Why I don't blog about everything is because I don't have the time or desire to share my thoughts about everything. Between the creek restoration, the bike path, the park, and the open space this is something that seems too good an idea to let pass us by, hence my activity on this issue.

It's funny Mark Lee's biography reads amazingly like your's that you've shared on these pages before.

I am voting NO.

Twenty-five (25) houses, give me a break. All one has to do is climb up to the cellular antennas at Elings South and look down. Look at the hillside which will have to be cut and observe the natural slide that exists. This project is a recipe for disaster.

Build two Estates on the flat, accessed by Alan Road and leave the hillside alone.

I know it is more than Mayor Chicago and the rest of the Gringos to understand but California Coastal Hillsides are Unstable.

Why do you think that PCH in Malibu and houses all around, slide all the time.

Houses in IV than had to be moved back from the bluff.

Houses on the Santa Barbara Mesa that will be forced soon to be moved back from the bluff.

Landslide at Shoreline Park, and several other landslides this last winter on the bluffs. People need to get out more often and walk the beach and look up.

Float a Bond Issue if you want a Beach Path but this is a Crystal Clear Example of People that do not know the History, making very bad choices.

We do not need our very own La Conchita. My Grandfather who was born in 1889, California, told my Father as a child that La Conchita was not safe, they built there anyway. We know the results.

Really, Indy?
You did not even ask the vote-no side of the issue for any comment.
Swallowing such spin requires quite the oral dexterity!
The Newspress article on this was unusually ten times better.

The glossy mailer I received at my home was disingenuous and misleading, no mention of the 25 homes for Mark Lee's group [aka GoGauchos]. When I see Marty Blum, Grant House, Dan Secord, and Dale Francisco all supporting the same thing then I know this is messed-up! Didn't Marty get in there and really help out SBCC and then they got an official reprimand for interfering governance (Marty).
NO on Y.

I don't read the Newspress J_A. Convince me to vote no on Y. Whats the argument?

HGWMV has some good ideas that I agree with. But the bond issue isn't happening and it would be considered a tax and nobody wants to pay taxes anymore; especially to clean up our ailing creeks. An estate or two (sounds fabulous) but that option doesn't pencil out in our capitalist states of Amerika. Access from Alan Rd could be the best route but think of the culture shock; like when Moneycitoans use Alston to APS and finally dumping off into the Eastside. I've noticed the potential for slides also but we're all hills around here. Fire dangers abound too.

If horsetrading a cleanup of the Arroyo Burro creek for the ability to develop 25+ luxury homes is such a good idea, why does the Santa Barbara Urban Creeks Council oppose Measure Y?

Seems like those opposed are hard pressed to find a real argument.

So let's review:

Veronica Meadows is approved by city and Coastal Commission - true.

Measure Y allows a bridge - a nice bridge to respect neighbors (instead of using their street). Property owner pays.

Measure Y ensures the dirty creek is cleaned up naturally - a 6 acre park is created from horrible land.

Bridge and trail gets people off Los Positas, and away from cars driving 40 - 50 mph.

This all cost tax payers nothing.

Community leaders, including environmentalist and business leaders, join neighbors in support.

And all I read here is questioning the legitimacy of others people's right to post, who disagree.

Marc my words - Y will pass.

The News-press has a balanced article on Measure Y with both sides represented.

Opponents of Measure Y say,

"On June 5, Santa Barbara voters can decide whether the city should give away a part of its park land along Arroyo Burro Creek to allow a private developer to build a bridge and a road off Las Positas Road near Cliff Drive. The bridge and the road, to be maintained for ever by the city’s tax payers, would provide the principal access to developer Mark Lee’s controversial Veronica Meadows project of more than twenty luxury homes.

Understandably enough, Mr. Lee’s recent 8-page mailer to thousands of city voters is very one-sided. The colorful document in favor of Measure Y downplays the upscale housing project as the actual purpose for the proposed bridge. It also fails to mention the project’s numerous environmental impacts, some of which cannot be mitigated. As summed up in the ballot argument against Measure Y:

“The city’s environmental analysis concluded that the bridge over Arroyo Burro Creek will cause permanent negative impacts to creek habitat, kill large oak and sycamore trees and interfere with wildlife movement. Even after the developer’s proposed creek restoration, Arroyo Burro Creek would be permanently damaged by this project. This development would also worsen traffic all along Las Positas Road between Highway 101 and Cliff Drive, and increase congestion on impacted local roadways, especially during emergency evacuations.”

It is hardly surprising that several members of both the Planning Commission and City Council had strong reservations about the project and opposed its approval. Over the last few years, Councilmembers opposing the project have included Assemblymember Das Williams, Mayor Helene Schneider, Councilmember Bendy White, and newly elected Councilmember Cathy Murillo. Other officials and staff members in turn sided with the developer, and it took two rounds of litigation by the Citizens Planning Association and the Santa Barbara Urban Creeks Council to secure court-ordered compliance with the City Charter’s requirement for voter approval before gifts of City parkland might be allowed.

Thanks to the successful litigation, we the voters may now write the final chapter of this multi-year saga. If we approve the land grant, a dangerous precedent will be established for other developers to use City lands to enable over-sized private developments. If we disapprove it, an environmentally harmful over-development will be stopped in the precious Las Positas Valley."

Basically Mark Lee is trying to disguise an unwanted development as a creek improvement project. The project will permanently damage the creek though with the construction of a new bridge that has to go in or he can't develop 25 homes on City park land that he got as a gift from the taxpayers. How he got the land would make an interesting article.

This is from Citizens Planning Commission,

Measure Y and Why it Should be Defeated on June 5th

Citizens Planning Association of Santa Barbara County
April, 2012

On June 5, Santa Barbara voters will decide whether the city should give away a part of its park land along Arroyo Burro Creek to allow a private developer to build a bridge and a road off Las Positas Road near Cliff Drive. The bridge and the road, to be maintained forever by the city’s taxpayers, would provide the principal access to developer Mark Lee’s controversial Veronica Meadows project of 25 luxury homes.
The Environmental Impact Report has pointed out the project’s numerous adverse effects, some of which cannot be mitigated. As summed up in the ballot argument against Measure Y:
“The city’s environmental analysis concluded that the bridge over Arroyo Burro Creek will cause permanent negative impacts to creek habitat, kill large oak and sycamore trees and interfere with wildlife movement. Even after the developer’s proposed creek restoration, Arroyo Burro Creek would be permanently damaged by this proj- ect. This development would also worsen traffic all along Las Positas Road between Highway 101 and Cliff Drive, and increase congestion on impacted local roadways, especially during emer- gency evacuations.”
Several members of the Planning Commission and City Council had strong reservations about the project and opposed its approval.
Councilmembers opposing the project have included Assemblymember Das Williams, Mayor Helene Schneider, Councilmember Bendy White, and newly elected Councilmember Cathy Murillo. City staff, in turn, aligned themselves with the developer, and it took two rounds of litigation by the Citizens Planning Association and the Santa Barbara Urban Creeks Council to secure com- pliance with CEQA and with the City Charter’s requirement for voter approval before gifts of City parkland could be allowed.
The City acquired the lands along Arroyo Burro Creek in 1998 for park purposes, and voters authorized Measure B that allocates funding for restoring and preserving these lands. By contrast, the developer’s token creek restoration project is inadequate and fails to ensure the protection of the precious resources of Arroyo Burro Creek.
In short, the impacts of the proposed overdevel- opment are great, and the precedent for other developers to use City lands to enable oversized development is dangerous. Thanks to the suc- cessful litigation, coordinated by local environ- mental attorney Marc Chytilo, we the voters may now write the final chapter of this multiyear saga.
CPA urges city residents to vote No on Measure Y and stop this overdevelopment in the Las Positas Valley!

Ken, I'm sorry we disagree. I respect your opinion and your right to that opinion. Please respect mine.

You disagree that a bridge over a dirty, collapsing creek on a small piece of land is a benefit and it leading to the creation of a safe bike and pedestrian trail is a good thing.

You disagree that cleaning up that creek and fixing that horrible land by creating a restored creek and a new public park is a good thing.

Others think taxpayers should pay instead of taking this gift. I like the gift. We don't have the money. And the $1 million cost would take years of unallocated Measure B funds, which I'm sure you remember me reminding you before.

It's weird that the approved 25 homes on land that was developed for decades is such an issue that people are fighting the benefits.

Has it come to the point that even sound environmental projects must be opposed? Have we as a community sunk so low?

Y is good. Proof is that smart and caring people from every political party and point of view support it. City leaders support it. Neighbors support it. Lawyer Marc Chytilo and a handful oppose.

Don McDermott,

I look at places like the :

Laguna Beach Landslide (2005)

http://www.bootnetworks.com/laguna-be...

La Jolla Landslide (2007)

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontr...

Oceanside (205)

http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/oce...

You play cut and fill with Coastal Hillside, add 25 homes, Irrigation, Pools, at some point leaks from water pipes and sewers and the end result is the above. It will not happen today but over time.

The Developer made his money, the Politicos are long gone and forgotten but the damage is Done.

La Conchita was cut by the Railroad to stop the nuisance of slides on the tracks. At some point some brainless people without any understanding of the issue allowed building in the cut.

I view Veronica Meadows as the same kind of project.

Go over to South Elings after a good rain, the road from the Top to Cliff Drive is etched and that is after they dumped all the untreated asphalt base from the Las Positas repayment project, to protect the earth base.

The Government and their minions OK'ed La Conchita, so what a bunch of Commissions think means nothing to me.

Common Sense tells me the project will be a disaster.

Coastal Hillsides always crumble and are always moving. I was out at Santa Catalina Island sometime in the early 90's and remarked at all the landslides on the Eastside of the Island. We had a couple of back-to-back hot years that made the soil crumble.

Strip off all the vegetation that is now on the Veronica Springs hillside and you will be asking for it the next Winter, PCH in Malibu comes to mind.

Full Disclosure : My GG Grandfather built the first structure on the Malibu in 1857 and the Family owned it until 1945. Historically we have a little knowledge about living on the Coast.

"It's weird that the approved 25 homes on land that was developed for decades is such an issue that people are fighting the benefits."
-- GoGauchos122

That land certainly is not developed. I was just there last weekend and its mostly oak trees and natural vegetation.

GoGauchos asks us to respect his opinion. The problem is what he has to say is more propaganda than anything else.

I just got another slick mailer from developer Mark Lee. It's obvious Lee doesn't want us voters to know Measure Y is really a referendum on his development. Just like his first mailer, the second fails to mention his ability to build all those luxury homes depends on Measure Y passing.

That's like a guy selling you a used car who fails to disclose it's a Hurricane Katrina car.

Looking at the little flyer I got in the mail today, there is an area marked "44 acres of Permanant Open Space" ....

That area is the hillside behind the Stone Creek condos. It is obviously not a desirable site to develop on because it is the scrub-filled slope under that giant estate with the long palm-tree lined driveway (the one purported to be owned by relatives of the Shah of Iran).

And it's not as if those 44 acres are anything the public can use.

The flyer says the developer will keep those 44 acres open at his expense. How much do you think Lee has spent upkeeping that slope in the last 10 years (probably nothing)?

More propaganda.

The Developer's trolls here are so obvious. Bonus offensiveness by them to attack the individuals who oppose this ruse.

Should the vote-no side start pointing out the fail-the-smell-test hypocrisy of Francisco, Secord, Bartlett, and (OMG!) Addison Thompson now promoting an alleged environmentally friendly project when they have been the most environmentally destructive council members or planning commissioners ever?

John_Adams I can agree with you somewhat regarding the hypocrites mentioned above but they are no reason to stop a beneficial development.

HGWMVs' slide concern may be overstated. But assuming that all good things will come to an end; one day all of Santa Barbara could burn to the ground. We'll get up and rebuild.

I am not sure why those wanting to develop their properties while offering up some public benefit is such a bad idea. 44 acres of this parcel will remain open space. An alternative route for walking and biking away from busy Las Positas would be very generous as is the creek restoration. There will be financial benefits with assessment values fairly high for these new environmentally green homes.

I seem to recall that originally this developer wanted to use Alan Road for ingress and egress. Neighbors objected so that is how some of this 'horsetrading' started. Again inhabitants will gain many improvements that fit in for city goals and objectives i.e. the open space, safe route bike and pedestrian path, creek restoration,m etc. Its better than nothing, which is what we often get.

If we're going to demand that property owners give us their properties for "open space" when they want to develop and earn a profit, then maybe they should be compensated similar to eminent domain takings. The profit motive is valid as many single family dwelling owners who earn equity by just sitting on their homes and often multiple properties or even illegal dwellings. Consider offering open space property owners 'transfer of development rights' into the downtown core and still require the community benefits. Make it a win-win.

And so what if the city must maintain the new public facilities that are part of this project. We will be the benefactors. The new homes will be paying property taxes and other taxes. So still that is no reason to deny a property right to develop.

The additional traffic may actually be negligible but you can help out by not being such big babies and consider alternatives to your own motorized transportation now and again. This project may make that easier for some to walk and ride occasionally. The community could improve transit that already exists. I'm not holding my breath but I just don't buy the Lodge/Arias era environmentalism that denies property rights based on a community and its' bad transportation choices.

Would you approve of a heliport at Veronica Meadows?

I'll be voting yes. So far any anti-Y arguments I've heard have been unconvincing and sometimes disingenuous. If you think voting "no" will prevent the development from happening in any way then you are delusional. Y will give something back to the community that is much needed and will restore a section of mismanaged creek watershed that is far from "natural habitat" in its current state.

Ken_Volok; I doubt a heliport would be desired in the Las Positas Valley either. Doesn't seem to be a compatible location.

Lee hired Davies Communications to help sell the project to city voters. Most of the Yes commenters first registered on the Indy page in July 2009 and commented in favor of another ill-conceived project that was extensively green-washed by Davies - the Santa Barbara Botanic Garden’s expansion plan. Jfitz, Num1ofAn fit this category. GoGouchos122 registered for the Veronica Meadows project and clearly is another Davies/Lee stooge. All other commenters are familiar names that, not surprisingly, all find fault with the City giveaway of parkland for this private developer. Too bad the reporter didn’t take the time to cover the issue, only the press conference. If he had, he would have reported that the bridge on city parkland will cause a permanent negative impact to the creek, even with Lee’s “restoration benefits.” People would realize that the trail will encourage pedestrians and bikes to cross a 55 mph roadway with only a crosswalk - that’s not safe! This project builds the wrong kind of housing in the wrong place - sensitive coastal creek habitat. Santa Barbara knows better - Vote No on Y!

Davies Communication is a U.S. public relations astroturfing company with five areas of specialization: Pharma/Biotech, Energy, Mining, Real Estate & Crisis.

A list of their clients include:

California Central Coast Clients:

Business First National Bank
City of Oxnard
City of Port Hueneme
City of Santa Barbara
City of Santa Barbara Police and Fire Department

Bacara Resort & Spa
The Baldwin Company
Bohannon Development
Aramco Services Company
BP ARCO
Chevron USA
Exxon Mobil
Pacific Gas and Electric Company

Nonprofit:

Braille Institute
Santa Barbara Botanic Garden
Santa Barbara Chamber of Commerce

From Brian Siano's 1999 book "The PR Industry and the Real War on Science"
"Davies Communications is another specialist in astroturf support. Mailing lists and computer databases put the firm in touch with receptive citizens, who are asked to write letters to their representatives. And if they don’t have the time, Davies Communications offers to write the letter for them, adding their signature under their consent.
“We hand write it out on ‘little kitty cat stationery’ if it’s a little old lady,” says John Davies. “If it’s a business we take it over to be photocopied on someone’s letterhead. [We] use different stamps, different envelopes... Getting a pile of personalized letters that have a different look to them is what you want to strive for."

That def seems like some (not all) of the Pro-Y comments here. They need better writers.

After all the above posts, anyone who can read and decode baloney will even more NO on Y! In particular, and in addition to the obviously intentional misleading, there's evidence the bridge on city parkland will cause a permanent negative impact to the creek. Further, just leave the creek area there alone. Finally, I just don't want my City to aid private developers in construction of more deluxe homes anywhere.
After considering the issues, vote NO on Y.