Don’t Suffer the Same Fate

I’ve lived in Pacific Palisades for 22 years, and lived through Caruso’s redevelopment of our downtown area into a modern shopping mall. He was clever in his approach – buying up and closing down local businesses for years so that when the time came to present his plans, much of our community supported it, because things had become so desolate downtown. I attended city council meetings where a handful of people pushed back on his plans, but they were largely ignored. Unfortunately, once the redevelopment was finished, many of their warnings came true – traffic in downtown is a disaster now, parking is scarce, and the mall itself is tacky and out of step with our town. As a native Santa Barbarian who grew up there in the 1970s and 80s, I would hate to see my hometown suffer the same fate. Make no mistake, the negative impacts on the Miramar neighborhood will be far greater than whatever positives Caruso’s team have promised.

Respectfully,
Chris Shiflett

Full Disclosure

In the 30 years I’ve owned real estate in Montecito, I’ve publicly weighed in on various local subjects, only to discover it’s like volunteering your photo for a giant bullseye. So, I promised myself I would not weigh in on the latest Caruso development project. I don’t live near the hotel, and I’m a member of the gorgeous club. So, I wanted to keep my head down and stay as far away from this controversy as possible. Besides, I live by the Biltmore, Coral Casino, and the Music Academy; better to save my self-serving opinion for something closer to home. But then I read last week’s MJ – plus other local papers, and I became so discouraged by the unsubstantiated attacks on the Montecito Planning Commission (MPC) and planning commissioner Sandy Stahl.

I’ve known Sandy, a local Montecito realtor, philanthropist, and longtime volunteer, for over 30 years. I know her professionally – she’s represented my interests in five real estate transactions – and I know her personally as a steadfast friend. If I had to provide four traits to describe Sandy’s character, I’d say: integrity, hard work, community service, loyalty.

In the time I’ve known Sandy, she has raised two children on her own, grown a successful business, and donated thousands – literally thousands – of hours to Santa Barbara community service. Sandy has done so much for our community that she could easily rest on her laurels, enjoying the Karma from a life of public service; instead, Sandy recently accepted an invitation to sit on the MPC – as a volunteer. This commission represents the Montecito community, which means asking tough and controversial questions. It’s a job that few people could do, and even fewer would be willing to do. 

I don’t know the ins and outs of the ‘Gotcha’ moment of last week’s MPC meeting when attorney Chris Robertson claimed that Stahl hadn’t disclosed a list of questions from the local church (sounds very sinful). Still, I suspect that Robertson could have brought this up at the beginning of the meeting when Stahl disclosed that she’d had discussions with various community members. Instead, Robertson waited for her very own Matlock moment. But I do know – beyond any certainty – that Sandy Stahl is one of those rare people who repeatedly shows up for her friends, family, and community again and again while asking for nothing in return. 

So, I’m writing to thank Sandy Stahl and all the MPC members for their service, and I hope that others will do the same. Otherwise, we will soon all have the kind of government and community leaders we deserve. 

Full disclosure: No one asked me to write this letter. 

Jane Walker Wood Orfalea

Correcting Caruso’s Inaccuracies

I would like to correct several inaccuracies floating around in the media, in this journal, and perpetuated by the Caruso team.

#1. This is not just a “church issue” with a few disgruntled local neighbors. There have been comments and letters from dozens of Montecito residents fully opposed to this project and all it represents. They only represent a handful of the hundreds of silent objectors. Many find this project a slap in the face of the Montecito Community Plan, from an L.A. developer and his gang of suits who claim to be so “neighborly.” Yet they don’t live here.

Likewise, it seems the vast majority of the Miramar vocal supporters do not live in the Miramar neighborhood at all. I did not invent the sticker “keep LA 100 miles away.”

I have had more than a dozen strangers approach me in Vons, on the street, in restaurants after meetings and hearings saying, “THANK YOU FOR SPEAKING UP!”

#2. People are AFRAID of confronting Caruso. Probably I am stupid, and I will pay the price. But I was raised to stand up when you see something you believe is wrong. What started as my concern for adherence to the MPC and the impact on our tiny neighborhood has evolved into whistle blowing.

If you drill deep into the facts of this application the numbers do not add up. You will find manipulation, partial truths and untruths. Caruso is skirting environmental review and it is wrong. The County is complicit, and this has been Caruso’s long-range plan for some time. Watch the remaining bungalows fall to retail shops next. At what point does this morph from a single apparel shop to a regional destination “experience?” Then the Miramar is 100% in violation of CEQA. Common sense says 22 is enough, but Caruso claims these shops are just to entertain his bored guests. Bored in Santa Barbara? That is sad.

#3. For each square foot of employee housing created he reaps more retail footage. There is a direct calculus. Do you really believe his “line cooks” earning 80k a year will live in those apartments? Do you really believe this project will DE-crease traffic when he’s building far more parking/traffic demand than he is providing for. He is claiming in his application that he needs 61 more employees just to cover the western end of the project, while also claiming the entire resort only has 102 employees. Does a remaining 41 employees, when it used to be “102” left to run the entire resort make any sense to you? READ THE TRAFFIC AND PARKING REPORTS – they are ridiculous, and NOT signed or stamped by a licensed Transportation Engineer.

#4. To Mr. Hazard: my house, and two of my neighbors’ has mountain views, and its eastern views will be obliterated by this project. (I understand that view is not legally protected.) But I object to your speaking on behalf of my home when you have never been inside.

#5. To Mr. McFayden, who said your “church has been swept away.” This accusation is insulting to your church and its leaders. Caruso hoodwinked the first vestry member into sending a letter of approval by selling affordable housing without ever producing a plan or elevation that would demonstrate its direct impact on the church.

#6. Caruso loves to say “we listened to the neighbors. We took the third story down.” The project’s walls are 33’. The average height of a story is 10’. Do the math. We still do not have story poles which he promised to me and others in person. Where are they? Why would you say this when you knew there will be none because they will expose the true scale of this project?

As for the driveway they took away, that would’ve never passed transportation and they knew it. It’s an age-old developer ploy, yet the Miramar aficionados foolishly continue to repeat this.

#7. Caruso is skirting environmental review by claiming parking code of “single apparel shop.” Does anyone believe 22 shops plus multiple restaurants with more to come is a single shop? And yet still, he must ask the county to waive his 200 plus parking place deficiency in the coastal zone.

#8. To Mr. Caruso, you claim to be a good neighbor with integrity. Oh how I wish this was my experience. Your team never contacted us, the most proximate residential neighbor, 31 feet away. Never invited us to your tea parties, we found out about this development from the Montecito Association agenda. I spoke up, and only then did we communicate. How hard would it have been to send a letter, someone to knock on the door or leave a note? That’s what good neighbors do. And please quit trying to promote the “she’s just a landlord.” That’s not true. We spend the majority of our time here, in my family home, which has been here for generations.

#9. To the Miramar aficionados and club members – I am happy for you that you love the Miramar and its beauty. We love it here too. No one is trying to take that away from you. But this proposed giant project is taking a lot away from us and the greater community. Just watch what happens to your own traffic and parking.

In the meantime, we know this will pass with the help of Das Williams’ appointed Director of Planning, through the Board of Supervisors. It’s after that that things get interesting. What will become of the Labor Union threatening to sue on environmental grounds? They have a strong case. Perhaps more to come at the Coastal Commission. What will the evacuation plan show? How will they stage this construction while operating an under-parked hotel? Who knows?

Page Robinson
Eucalyptus Lane

Slingshot P Back

As we enter the final days of the election season, those of us who oppose Measure P find ourselves the proverbial David against Goliath – but without even a slingshot. 

We face an opponent, the bond measure’s backers, who are well-heeled and positioned to benefit financially. Of the $191,200.00 raised [for political advertising] to date, over $175,000.00 comes from three sources:

$150,000.00 from the SBCC Foundation

$20,000.00 from LPA, a design firm

$5,287.14 from Deane & Company, a campaign finance company

For years now, Santa Barbara City College’s elected trustees and administration have irresponsibly overseen the school’s budget. Enrollment has declined by 40%. Online teaching has likewise skyrocketed since 2020. Empty classrooms are leased (for a low nominal rent) to Antioch. But the budget continues to skyrocket and run in the red. Year after year after year. 

I remember when classrooms across campus were full to capacity, every day and all day. By mid-morning, there were no spaces left in campus parking lots: east, west, or below along Cabrillo. Ten years ago, City College contracted with the city for parking spaces in the harbor area. Today, the college lots are maybe 2/3 full at prime teaching time, 10 am to 2 pm, only four days a week. 

Instead of adjusting for the dramatic enrollment declines, the college has continued business as usual. No reduction in staff, including top-heavy administrators and faculty with far-reduced workloads. No attempt to maintain those classrooms still being used. No attempt to adjust and plan as our student population has itself changed. That’s what good leadership does.

Instead, it depleted the funding reserved for building maintenance. “Build, baby, build” during a downturn in student population. And take the easy way out: play on the public’s natural inclination to say yes to education, yet again. And count on us not keeping oversight of our hard-earned tax dollars.

Celeste Barber

Support for Guy Walker

The County Board of Education is an important governing body for serving children. Guy Walker is running for a seat on the board to continue a long passion of service to our community. His talent for divergent thinking, creating partnerships, and common sense have guided his leadership as a former College School District Board President, and on many other non-profit boards.

Although most citizens know little about what the County Board does, everyone who knows Guy knows that his center of gravity is doing good. The County Board serves some of our county’s most vulnerable students by overseeing the county office-run juvenile court and county community schools. When serving on the Board, Guy will also consider charter school petitions, interdistrict transfer and expulsion appeals, and approval of the County Office of Education budget. 

Nearly 30 years ago Mr. Walker shook my hand when I walked across the graduation stage at Santa Ynez Elementary School, a school in the College School District. Because of Guy’s mentorship I now serve as President of the Board. When setting the board agenda, I often think “how would Guy handle this?” He has been a mentor to many others, particularly in his role as a Trustee of Dunn School. 

Guy’s voice on the County Board of Education will not just empower student success in my district – his leadership will reach across all of Santa Barbara County. 

Dr. Peter Wright
President of the Board, College School District

No on Prop 4

All is well and good for Prop 4 to protect California from “catastrophic fires.” If that was true, we’d endorse and vote for it, at least twice. But nowhere does Prop 4 describe what percentage of the bill will go to wildfire prevention and the latest equipment to put the fires out!

According to CalMatters, “Prop 4 will add $10 billion in bond debt — costing $400 million every year for 40 years to repay — for ambiguous, short-term, so-called “climate” programs.” 

Prop 4 gives the state of California a blank check to make costly mistakes!

Further, CalMatters describes another bond that seemed like a good idea at the time and “cost taxpayers $4.4 Billion in 2014 (10 years ago): the Sites Reservoir to add dams and store more water to send south. It is still years away from completion.” 

Gov. Gavin Newsom has already declared a budget emergency due to the state’s spending outpacing revenue. California faces a $62 billion deficit. We can’t afford additional debt to pay for questionable infrastructure programs. California is the most overtaxed state in the country. That’s why people who can afford it spend six months and one day out of the state to avoid taxes.

State Senator Brian Jones who represents California’s 40th Senate District asks why critical services, like wildfire prevention and safe drinking water, are not already a priority in the state’s General Fund budget?

Further, he writes, “Prop 4 will spend millions on so-called ‘infrastructure’ for farmers markets — things like pop-up tents, restrooms and hand-washing stations. It will also fund ‘workforce development’ to help ‘mitigate unemployment,’ which of course is completely unrelated to infrastructure and climate. To top it off, the bond also includes grants for exhibit galleries at zoos and museums.”

These are make-work projects for government agencies to justify their existence. Even the LA Times, which reluctantly recommended a “Yes” vote on Prop 4 calls it “a Christmas tree with environmental gifts to private and public interests across the state.”

Please vote NO on Prop 4!

Anne Ready

In Support of Measure P

For over 100 years Santa Barbara City College has been a vital asset to our community providing low-cost higher education, vocational training, and adult education to our community. I became a trustee for SBCC in 2022. The opinions expressed in this letter are my own—a long-term resident of Santa Barbara and a Mesa homeowner.

Much has been written both pro and con about Measure P, a bond measure that would extend the tax rate approved in 2008 until 2061, releasing funds for much needed facility repairs and replacement. I am in favor of Measure P. When I voted to put Measure P on the ballot as a tax extension (instead of a separate new bond) I did so, not to deceive voters, but rather as the least painful way for taxpayers to repay the debt.

Why do we need a bond extension? If you take a walk on any of our three campuses (Cliff Drive, Schott and Wake) it will become obvious that our facilities need attention. And if we ignore the problems now, they will only continue to deteriorate and become more costly to repair or replace. We need improvements on all three campuses; Measure P addresses urgent needs for plumbing, roofing, paving, electrical, heating, along with replacement of the physical sciences building and the physical education complex. Retrofitting and replacing buildings is very expensive, yet SBCC does not receive significant funding from the state of California to do this because the state expects districts to fund major facility projects through local bonds. Instead the state offers matching funds and both of these building replacement projects would qualify SBCC to receive as much as $100 million in matching funding.

Who benefits? We all do! Santa Barbara benefits from the well-trained workforce produced by community colleges. These graduates are our nurses, auto mechanics, dental hygienists, cosmetologists, fire fighters, etc. Our children, grandchildren, neighbors and friends can all take advantage of free or low-cost entry into higher education. And people all over our community benefit from classes that enrich our lives from painting to parent education (and everything in-between). 

Here are some facts about enrollment: In Fall 2023 SBCC had 13,427 students enrolled in credit classes. Of these students, about 55% were in-district students, about 38% were from districts elsewhere in California and about 7.5% were from out of state or international. Many community colleges specialize in specific areas; SBCC is known for its excellent programs in marine diving technology, culinary, nursing, and X-ray technology, to name a few. These programs attract students who wish to advance in these fields. Likewise, students from our area are welcome to enroll in community colleges throughout the state that offer the programs they seek, such as the fire academy at Alan Hancock Community College. In Fall 2023 SBCC also served almost 5,000 students in non-credit (adult education), offering a wide variety of classes that greatly enhance the quality of life in our community. 

Why now? There will not be a better time to pass this bond. Putting it off until sometime in the future will only increase the problems – costs will be higher and campus infrastructure will be in worse condition and more costly to repair. 

Bottom line: SBCC is coming out of fifteen years of administrative instability, leaving it with a budget deficit and an oversized campus. Fortunately, last year SBCC hired a strong and experienced president who is committed to leading the college as it realigns the budget and right-sizes the campus for the future. This is critical and hard work, but it’s not either/or. We can do both at the same time! With your investment in SBCC we can repair, rebuild, modernize and retrofit the facilities that so desperately need attention, while also balancing the budget and strengthening priorities.

Please support this valuable community asset and join me in voting YES for Measure P.

Ellen Stoddard, SBCC Trustee

P for Prosperity

I write in support of Measure P. It will provide a needed investment in Santa Barbara City College (SBCC), a vital resource to our community. 

For the past six years I have served on the SBCC Board of Trustees. I have twice been elected to the Board from SBCC Trustee Area 2 and twice elected as President of the Board. I have seen first-hand the deteriorating condition of our facilities. It has been my priority since 2019 to put forward to the voters a well thought out and narrowly focused bond proposal, I believe we have done that with Measure P.

The painful reality is that SBCC, like all California community colleges, has inadequate funding sources to properly maintain and repair its facilities. In some years the state provides a modest amount of funds for facility maintenance, but it is never near enough. Thus, each year the college falls further behind, and costs only go up.

The only available significant source of funds to protect the community’s investment is a local bond measure like Measure P. The reality is that SBCC has only had one successful bond since 1973, for $77 million in 2008. This is not nearly enough to properly maintain an excellent community college like SBCC. 

Measure P will provide $198 million for repairs, upgrades, improvements and modernization. For a few facilities it will be more cost effective to replace rather than repair, especially when the facilities qualify for state matching funds. We estimate that up to $100 million in state matching funds will be lost to other California community colleges if Measure P does not pass.

Measure P is a tax rate extension, which means that it will not increase the tax rate above the $8.50 per hundred thousand dollars of assessed value approved in 2008. We chose this unique, uncommon, option as a way to minimize costs to taxpayers while making an impactful investment in Santa Barbara City College.

Each year half of all graduating high school students from Goleta, Santa Barbara, Montecito, Summerland and Carpinteria choose SBCC for their college education and job training. And with the Promise program their tuition, books, and supplies are free. Many of them will graduate after two years and transfer to a college or university for their final two years toward a bachelor’s degree. Others will receive training and education that will qualify them for good paying jobs in our local economy. 

I urge a YES vote on Measure in support of the thousands of local students who depend on SBCC for their education.

Robert Miller
Goleta

Why I Am Voting YES on SBCC’s Measure P, and Why It Matters 

I am a first-generation college student who knows firsthand the value of community colleges in general and SBCC in particular. When I voted for Measure P as the vice president of Santa Barbara City College’s Board of Trustees for two terms, I knew very well about our college’s facilities. My support for Measure P is based on my service on SBCC’s publicly transparent budget and facilities committees. 

My 2020 election to the Board of Trustees was during the pandemic with our meetings conducted over Zoom for approximately two years. After returning to in-person meetings I saw with my own eyes that too many buildings were past their normal life expectancy. Also, I learned that our community values SBCC because many of you told me so!

As Trustee, I embrace SBCC beyond its essential role of educating our remarkable workforce. As a proud former community college student, I know how it creates upward mobility pathways for all students, first generation and otherwise.

Measure P should not be controversial for anyone believing in public education as a societal good. Yet, funding for California schools has not kept pace with their financial need. Such neglect equals disinvestment in public education. As an educator and a childless tax-paying homeowner, I am happy for my tax dollars to go to SBCC and our deserving students. If we value something, we invest in it. 

I love SBCC. I put my money where my mouth is. I hope you will too! Vote Yes on Measure P.  

Dr. Anna Everett, PhD
Vice President, SBCC Board of Trustees and Professor
Emeritus, UCSB