AnonymousBy Julia Laraway
I am writing to you in desperation and at the last minute regarding the development of the San Marcos Foothills West property that is set to begin this year by the Chadmar Group out of Los Angeles.
I am wondering if the fires burning up and down the state of California are giving you pause as you think of the fact the County okayed the development of a property where fire ravaged the landscape a mere ten months ago in November of 2019? Without a doubt, you know that those hills have burned or were threatened before last year in 2018, 2014, 2013 and 2009. Five times in one decade alone! How can you continue to be complicit in allowing the development of land where there is such a great chance of it burning again?
Does the fact that water is scarce already in Santa Barbara make you wonder at all whether the building of excessively large homes which will undoubtably utilize more water than is needful is appropriate?
After the heat waves of the past weeks when the temperature got to an easy 109 degrees at the Foothills, and was probably hotter, do you still think 9 gargantuan homes gulping up the electricity to cool 3000 to 5000 square feet of living space is a good idea?
I recognize that this deal was made long ago, and that it is coming to fruition on your watch. I know that you do think about the impact this development will have on the community. My heart is broken for the animals that already live there and the loss of habitat this development will entail, and I know in my bones that what is planned is an abomination. Do you know how many people take solace from the landscape as it is now? The climate is changing, and heat waves and fires will only get worse in Santa Barbara. You must have the will to stop development of places that will burn again and again in the coming years.
My family and I have donated to Channel Islands Restoration Project, which is spearheading an effort to buy the property, but when I last checked there is not a chance that the 5 million dollars will be raised by September 15 of this year. There must be something that could be done to make sure that this property stays in its present state in perpetuity.
Do you have an opinion on something local? Share it with us at ed@edhat.com. The views and opinions expressed in Op-Ed articles are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of edhat.
In case you weren’t aware, the west property being developed is accessible via the bridge to nowhere. I find it interesting that my points about re-occurring fires, lack of water and heat waves don’t seem to have made an impression on your opinion. I am hoping that CIR can buy it at the fair market price and I am hoping the community is willing to do for the San Marcos Foothills what they did for the Douglas Preserve…i.e. buy it.
In case you weren’t aware, the west property being developed is accessible via the bridge to nowhere. I find it interesting that my points about re-occurring fires, lack of water and heat waves don’t seem to have made an impression on your opinion. I am hoping that CIR can buy it at the fair market price and I am hoping the community is willing to do for the San Marcos Foothills what they did for the Douglas Preserve…i.e. buy it.
It was an epic battle to keep part of that land as open space (San Marcos Foothills Preserve, as earlier commenter stated). Allowing even part of that land to be developed was heartbreaking. Protection of the Savannah sparrow/its habitat was, I believe, what drove many birders and preservationists to join in the fight. At this point in time, the only hope would be to convince some deep pockets person such as Oprah or Degeneres or Katy Perry or —— any ideas? —— to step up (a la The Sperlings or Kirk Douglas) and donate the money needed to purchase the land.
It was an epic battle to keep part of that land as open space (San Marcos Foothills Preserve, as earlier commenter stated). Allowing even part of that land to be developed was heartbreaking. Protection of the Savannah sparrow/its habitat was, I believe, what drove many birders and preservationists to join in the fight. At this point in time, the only hope would be to convince some deep pockets person such as Oprah or Degeneres or Katy Perry or —— any ideas? —— to step up (a la The Sperlings or Kirk Douglas) and donate the money needed to purchase the land.
At some point we all need to understand that our community has reached its maximum carrying capacity. Lake Cachuma cannot provide water to an infinite number of showers, toilets and kitchen sinks. Rolling blackouts are becoming more frequent because there’s just not enough electricity to meet the ever-increasing demand. Our roads are increasing in congestion. We’re all asked to conserve energy and water, yet our politicians keep approving more and more development. This makes no sense.
At some point we all need to understand that our community has reached its maximum carrying capacity. Lake Cachuma cannot provide water to an infinite number of showers, toilets and kitchen sinks. Rolling blackouts are becoming more frequent because there’s just not enough electricity to meet the ever-increasing demand. Our roads are increasing in congestion. We’re all asked to conserve energy and water, yet our politicians keep approving more and more development. This makes no sense.
I’m with you in the sense that I’d love to see it bought and made completely into a preserve. And when I looked at the map, we’re talking about the West property, which would be these 8 houses, right? So they have good access (via the bridge to nowhere). As for water? It’s 8 houses on what was 100’s of acres of private property! I’m totally with you in that I would love if this could be purchased and kept, but if an owner makes every concession on a developable lot of this size, trying to add a moral argument to this seems wrong. What do heat waves have to do with building houses? As for fire, adding roads and fire hydrants will add a nice accessible spot for fires to be fought…buys a nice line of defense for everyone on San Antonio Creek Road and Via Chapparal. I get the sense you probably live right next to this and don’t want to see “your backyard” changed at all…but this property has literally been “preserved” for all of Santa Barbara. But again, I hope the money is raised and it is purchased as that would I guess make it slightly more awesome…the fact is though it’s already been preserved…the huge development was shot down decades ago. It’s OK to let a few things be built in this town…in fact we need it!
I’m with you in the sense that I’d love to see it bought and made completely into a preserve. And when I looked at the map, we’re talking about the West property, which would be these 8 houses, right? So they have good access (via the bridge to nowhere). As for water? It’s 8 houses on what was 100’s of acres of private property! I’m totally with you in that I would love if this could be purchased and kept, but if an owner makes every concession on a developable lot of this size, trying to add a moral argument to this seems wrong. What do heat waves have to do with building houses? As for fire, adding roads and fire hydrants will add a nice accessible spot for fires to be fought…buys a nice line of defense for everyone on San Antonio Creek Road and Via Chapparal. I get the sense you probably live right next to this and don’t want to see “your backyard” changed at all…but this property has literally been “preserved” for all of Santa Barbara. But again, I hope the money is raised and it is purchased as that would I guess make it slightly more awesome…the fact is though it’s already been preserved…the huge development was shot down decades ago. It’s OK to let a few things be built in this town…in fact we need it!
Absolutely agree.
Absolutely agree.
I sympathize with the sentiment but the post- and appeal for money- are very misleading.
This project and these homes were approved in 2005. There is nothing pending, no proposal= they are approved; the recession delayed the construction [as it did for many developments] but the appeal period is long gone. All of the pertinent documents can be found on the County website, search “preserve at San Marcos”.
I sympathize with the sentiment but the post- and appeal for money- are very misleading.
This project and these homes were approved in 2005. There is nothing pending, no proposal= they are approved; the recession delayed the construction [as it did for many developments] but the appeal period is long gone. All of the pertinent documents can be found on the County website, search “preserve at San Marcos”.
praying for a benefactor..please..this is a beautiful area with expansive views. Santa Barbara deserves open spaces. I agree..we do need more housing…AFFORDABLE housing closer to down town. I have walked there many times and have observed all kinds of wild life. Begging some one, one of our billionaire/millionaire friends/neighbors to help the community out here. Five million dollars can save this space…there is no other space like it … it is beautiful and unique. do we really need more multi million dollar mansions for outsiders to come in and buy? I am hoping for a solution,, please
I agree with you JoeG!
I agree with you JoeG!
Joe – It’s 8 houses!!!! Seriously… 8 houses! Get annoyed if you must about the 4 story monstrosity downtown… but this is 8 houses on a massive property that was zoned for quite a few more. Not letting them build the 8 would be akin to seizure. Raise the money (or the county step in) but they seemingly jumped through every hoop…
Joe – It’s 8 houses!!!! Seriously… 8 houses! Get annoyed if you must about the 4 story monstrosity downtown… but this is 8 houses on a massive property that was zoned for quite a few more. Not letting them build the 8 would be akin to seizure. Raise the money (or the county step in) but they seemingly jumped through every hoop…
Also, in addition to giving the land to create the preserve, they had to build at least two maybe more low to mid income houses.
Also, in addition to giving the land to create the preserve, they had to build at least two maybe more low to mid income houses.
Everyone cry’s about loss of habitat and using resources. No one here is volunteering to move to stack and pack housing, tear down there house and restore the land to its original habitat. This one is over.
Everyone cry’s about loss of habitat and using resources. No one here is volunteering to move to stack and pack housing, tear down there house and restore the land to its original habitat. This one is over.
No, we just want fewer people. Or at least the number we currently have, and no more. And anyway, eight or nine fancy houses isn’t going to do a lot for the housing crisis.
No, we just want fewer people. Or at least the number we currently have, and no more. And anyway, eight or nine fancy houses isn’t going to do a lot for the housing crisis.
That’s the “buy as a preserve price”… not a buy to build price. And the houses don’t appear to have much fencing if any as the place is remaining a preserve… just with a few houses. Seems like a huge win for sb… they got the preserve and are “giving” a few houses on a property that at one point was going to have a lot more. This isn’t a water issue, density issue or ISSUE at all unless you just hate seeing anything built anywhere, which OK… but we have property rights and whoever owns this deserves after satisfying every requirement to build something and maybe make some money (big maybe there… building anything in sb is brutally expensive)
That’s the “buy as a preserve price”… not a buy to build price. And the houses don’t appear to have much fencing if any as the place is remaining a preserve… just with a few houses. Seems like a huge win for sb… they got the preserve and are “giving” a few houses on a property that at one point was going to have a lot more. This isn’t a water issue, density issue or ISSUE at all unless you just hate seeing anything built anywhere, which OK… but we have property rights and whoever owns this deserves after satisfying every requirement to build something and maybe make some money (big maybe there… building anything in sb is brutally expensive)
They tried to build several hundred here back in the 70’s and 80’s…you already got the win…don’t be a sore winner! It’s 8 houses on over 100 acres (and while that is counting the 80 acres they’ve already given to the public, that’s not counting the 200 acres they did to get the project going). They have great access via the “bridge to nowhere”…taking the fight to the last 8 houses seems petty. Raising money to try and buy it, great…but being upset about a developer developing the land in just about as minimal of a way as possible is crazy…
They tried to build several hundred here back in the 70’s and 80’s…you already got the win…don’t be a sore winner! It’s 8 houses on over 100 acres (and while that is counting the 80 acres they’ve already given to the public, that’s not counting the 200 acres they did to get the project going). They have great access via the “bridge to nowhere”…taking the fight to the last 8 houses seems petty. Raising money to try and buy it, great…but being upset about a developer developing the land in just about as minimal of a way as possible is crazy…
The state rations us to 55 gallons per person per day – stop bringing new residents in!
I understand your concerns, I was part of “Goleta Now” 20+ years ago to stop runaway growth. This project your concerned about went through all the reviews and was scaled back, donated substantial free space to meet the concerns of residents and local government. Time to find the next battle. Maybe water hungry weed and grapes in the Santa Ynez Valley?
“The state rations us….” Huh?
After having read through the comment section, and taken a walk on the property in question this morning, I keep coming back to the “It’s only 8 homes,” “We have a right to develop” and “Move to pack and stack and tear down your house,” comments. It IS only 8 homes. Someone has mowed the grass up there so one can get a sense of where the houses might sit. They are far apart, and they all have beautiful views, which is truly the point of building up there, and I understand that desire. Yet, those eight homes might burn or need to be evacuated at least once in the next five years based on what has happened over the past ten years, and there will be taxpayer money spent for the protection of those homes. Those 8 beautiful homes will require water for their sinks, toilets, showers and landscaping in a city that lurches from drought to drought trying to conserve water endlessly. (“Gold is the New Green,” anyone?) And those eight large homes will be running their air-conditioning for a good long while, sucking energy from an already stretched thin grid if the heat waves that we are now experiencing get worse. Yes, you absolutely have the right to build on property that you own, and I recognize that the Los Positas neighborhood in which I live was once wild land on the outskirts of Santa Barbara. I also recognize that long term thinking dictates a measure of restraint going forward that has not been a part of the way our building practices have worked in the past. I understand I have no real say in the matter, as I am not the owner of the property, nor do I have the means to buy it from them on my own. But in my opinion, and it really is only an opinion, this is a choice between short term gain for a very few, and long term thinking that could benefit many. If you have read to this point, take a moment and watch the video embedded in the op-ed piece in orange text. The San Marcos Foothills West property is a gem, and while it IS only eight homes, they would be yet another sign that humans think primarily in terms of short-term gain. I am in the process of coming to terms with that fact.
11:27, a lot of the people that used to post thoughtful comments no longer do so, and I think it is because Byzan and Factotum and the others made the experience less enjoyable and productive. If you read the comments here you would struggle to understand who Mayor Murillo got elected to City Council so many times. But the reality is- she has. So Edhat must not be very representative of SB.
The 8 houses take up a fraction of the preserve that EXISTS because the owners gave it as a condition to build something! The preserve would no exist without that! The OP was looking for donations to completely save it. That is honest, noble and good. But the people who bemoan the evil developers for trying to build a few houses on land they own that’s zoned for the houses (and were zoned at various points for many MANY more) are ridiculous.
Is anyone/everyone that disagrees with you a neocon?
Pitmix assumes everyone is a conservative if they disagree with him.
How come the majority of con comments here show the same level of ignorance of constitutional law, economics, civics, epidemiology, mathematics, and general science, plus make the same spelling and grammar errors? Is that vast population of reactionaries a set of sociopathic clones?
“Rationing” water use by large rate increases over a certain level – 55 gallons. De facto self-rationing. Virtually the same thing.
People building mansions in the foothill- fire insurance is not a big concern for them.
Fake news.
Sail380, your post minimizing her points and directing her to other battles does not indicate that you actually understand her concerns. Great job on stopping growth in Goleta, by the way. But at least that growth has been in their urban core areas and they have kept their mitts off of the undeveloped land on the foothill side of the 101, so far.
Julie, the people that post the most on Edhat are not typical of the average SBian. I apprecite the info that you provided and am glad you are willing to endure the slings and arrows of the the neocons in our community.
Yeah, Byzan. Co-opting liberal speech doesn’t make you a majority. Edhat comments are consistently more conservative and anti-incumbent than the town as a whole, which is why we keep re-electing them and have a super majority in the CA legislature. Must be really irritating to you. But keep up your comments in this little con bubble that you’ve created because I enjoy seeing your attempts to alter reality.
It’s a real shame to see beautiful natural open space developed for the sake of some luxury view homes. Any time new development like this on unspoiled land is approved the people and future generations lose If time.
I think I understand her concern’s. What we don’t know is why suddenly this project is important to her. Does the OP have a track record of opposition to other development? The Comstock project on the bluffs next to Sandpiper Golf Course? The Barcara? The Mirimar? How about the Tree Farm tract on Patterson Rd? Does this project interfere with her view from higher up the hill?
Pitmix, the only thing I disagree with is the number of conservative commenters here. It’s almost always Byzantium being anonymous or a handful of other squeaky wheels, definitely not the majority. The rest of us just get too annoyed to argue with the other side. Can’t reason with them.
Here’s the deal= back in 2004-2006 the epic battle to preserve the bulk of this property was a huge win- and the Trust for Public Lands deeded over to the County. For “environmentalists” to now do a “bait and switch” and fight the small amount of homes allowed in the agreement will only dampen possible future land trust opportunities in other places- such as More Mesa- which truly needs the protection NOW as there is a wide swatch of development possibility there. Enjoy the open space/preserve in the meantime.
What a certain number of people don’t seem to realize is that the preserve was created OUT of the development, and not vice versa.