Veronica Meadows Discussion
Good point, let's take this discussion about housing and Veronica Springs over here.
posted by Sara De la Guerra | 7/23/2006 01:31:00 PM
Our Community Guidelines ask that you use the Blogger/Open ID login or the
more private Name/URL option when making comments. Comments using "Anonymous" will not be published. For more info, see choosing an identity.
14 Comments:
i'm lost... were is the Veronica Springs discusion coming from?
BTW, the proposed project is entitled "Veronica Meadows" not "Springs". The actual Veronica Springs is an ecologically interesting wetland swirting out the hillside between Elings Park and up the road towards Modoc Rd. Hence, Veronica Springs Road is the name of that road nearby.
At the Daily Sound blog-forum, I posted a comment on their news article and to expand on the arroyo restoration project potential and why the 100-ft. setback was supported through 3 votes of Santa Barbara City Creeks Committee and most recently on 11 July by City Park Commission.
The Daily Sound stuff is here:
http://forum.santabarbarafree.com/
That posting says enough for now and I shall not comment further here nor in any other blog or public forum about this proposed project. That is why the City has its own government meetings.
Enterprising people can look up those meeting minutes or video recordings.
1:42 pm -- This is a continuation from a discussion David Pritchett was having with a commenter in the Robe Lowe, HDP post below that didn't really go there.
David -- thanks for kepping on with it!
Edited the name out -- sorry 'bout that.
Sure, the 100 ft setback is good. However, I think maintaining the 100 ft setback there is not nearly as important as maintaining the Goleta Slough and its drainage.
The Goleta Slough was once the biggest wetland and estuary on the South Coast, and a good portion of it is in the City of Santa Barbara... the airport is on fill of the Slough. What is the Santa Barbara City Creeks plan for the remaining Slough and the creeks that flow into it? A whole lot of work just happened on San Pedro/Las Vegas creek, within Santa Barbara Jurisdiction... a new bridge for Deckers and it looks like a second bridge is going in. Zero creek restoration so far... still a muddy pit with ugly nearly vertical banks. 100 ft setback there? None at all, as far as I know. Shouldn't the City obey the 100 foot rules for its own development? I'm not trying to help Mark Lee, BTW, just trying to get some help for the Slough.
The most unconsionable actions are now in the City of Goleta... portions of Slough fill that are still undeveloped are zoned for commercial development... big asphalt parking lots. And the concrete channel that is called San Jose Creek... once a fabulous steelhead habitat... has received no attention at all; the City has planned to replace it with a new concrete channel with more vertical sides.
Personally, I think the Goleta Slough is way more valuable than Veronica Springs (not that Veronica Springs is without value). But the Goleta Slough suffers from an out-of-sight, out-of-mind problem.
So why is this suddenly a false choice that EITHER Goleta Slough OR Arroyo Burro are the only options? Why not both in good time?
As far as I know, no such thing as a "100-foot rule" for a creekside setback.
A 100-foot rule would effectively be a development ban, and there's no scientific reason for such an arbitrarily large number. While a big buffer might make sense for a rural, meandering creek, it certainly does not make sense for Arroyo Burro. Isn't the standard for Mission Creek just 25 feet, and the standard for the county creeks 50 feet? It seems like rather than choosing an arbitrary number, we should worry about whether runoff is controlled, whether the creek banks are stable, and whether wildlife has room to move.
News-Press flap doesn't matter. A 2-bit paper in a 1-horse town. It will continue downhill even if bought by someone with some journo sense.
Apparently this subject makes David Prichett squirm - when has he ever been reticent on a blog?
Lucas Els must have hit a soft spot pointing out the hidden no-growth agenda behind supposed "creek" policy.
What else could explain the hurdles Mark Lee is going through in order to use his own money for a multi-million dollar creek restoration that the City could never pull-off on its own?
I'm fine with fighting for Arroyo Burro, but I personally think the Goleta Slough is way, way more important. I don't think I implied an either-or stance. But the truth is that the Slough has suffered from an either-or stance the other way... no-one fights for most portions of the Slough, and no-one has cared about San Pedro creek, which again, is way more important ecologically than Arroyo Burro.
7:40, I see your point but you are missing the irony: the only one fighting to restore Arroyo Burro is a developer (who is putting his money where his mouth is to do the right thing), while those like Pritchett (who you would expect to embace restoration) are stonewalling the fix of the creek because they are against a few new homes that are farther away from the creek than anything that has ever been proposed in the county. Of course, this is all at the same time, as you point out so well, that other important watersheds are being ignored!
Hey Pritchett--
I went to the link you gave, but didn't have the time to swim through the posts looking for your comments. Could you please be more specific about how we can find out about your views on this project?
Thank you.
Mr. Pritchett?
Helllooooooooooo...?
Mike Pinto says:
David Pritchett has more important things to worry about than creeks and this nonsensical blather. David, stay true to the enlightened resistance -- creeks don't have anything to do with our cause. Viva la!
Post a Comment
<< Home