Montecito Planning Commission Keeps Miramar Project Alive
The commission reverses its decision to require a partial Environmental Impact Review and approves the concept of the plan, but there will be at least one more hearing — on Oct. 8.
Three weeks after nearly taking Los Angeles developer Rick Caruso’s Miramar Hotel proposal to the brink of death, the Montecito Planning Commission on Thursday breathed new life into the renovation project by reversing its Aug. 6 decision requiring Caruso to conduct the kind of thorough study he has long said is unnecessary: a partial Environmental Impact Review.
Yet to Caruso’s mild chagrin, the game isn’t over.
Although the commission Thursday also cast a unanimous-but-nonbinding vote to approve the concept of Caruso’s plan to replace the rat-infested cluster of dilapidated cottages along Highway 101 with a five-star resort, the commission decided it needed more time to allow staff to review the revised plans, which Caruso altered to better conform to the commission’s Aug. 6 suggestions.
Caruso’s new plan has gotten smaller.
In an effort to better embrace the spirit of the old Miramar’s cottage style, his room count dropped to 192 from 204. The height of the main building has shrunk four feet, to 38 feet above the curb line, and the buffer separating the project from South Jameson Lane has been expanded.
Caruso also agreed to eliminate the tennis court lighting, which is one of many elements considered objectionable by the project’s most high-profile opponents, actress Julia Louis-Dreyfus and her husband, TV writer and producer Brad Hall, who live next to the property.
On Thursday, Caruso made it clear he remains committed to the project.
“Our goal through this whole process has been to bring back the great Miramar,” he said. “We want to listen carefully and learn.”
His words Thursday stood in stark contrast to his parting comments after the meeting Aug. 6, when the commission decided that a relatively new Montecito water shortage created the need for a more thorough study on the matter in the form of a partial EIR. At the time, Caruso begged for denial, saying it would better enable him to sell the property at 1555 S. Jameson Lane.
“Let me go, let me out,” he had said.
But the commission refused to deny the project, and instead scheduled Thursday’s hearing. In the intervening three weeks, Caruso met with individual commissioners, and apparently regained confidence.
Caruso — who has owned the property for 18 months — has said that a requirement to conduct any sort of EIR is a deal breaker, because such an analysis would be too costly and time-consuming.
Just holding the abandoned property, he says, costs $1 million a month, and a partial EIR, according to county staff members, would take six to nine months to complete. In addition, Caruso, the third man to make an attempt to revive the property that has been abandoned since 2000, believes all of the necessary studies already have occurred. A similar proposal under the first owner, Studio 54 co-founder Ian Schrager, already had received county clearance. As such, Caruso, along with county staff members, have argued that an EIR of any sort is unnecessary.
Caruso also has said that his project doesn’t need an EIR because, even under the 204-room proposal, it had slightly fewer rooms than Schrager’s.
Opponents have argued that because the project’s proposed net floor area was about 33,000 square feet larger than Schrager’s approved plan of 137,000 square feet, it should be subject to an EIR. (Caruso’s newest proposal shaved about 6,650 square feet off the design.)
On Thursday, Caruso reiterated his argument that a partial EIR on water was unnecessary because the general manager of the Montecito Water District had said the district, despite the water shortage, can and will serve the property. Plus, Caruso said, new information has further obviated the need for a partial EIR on water: About a week ago, the board of the Montecito Water District responded to the water crisis by adopting a tiered rate structure that discourages heavy use.
On Thursday, Montecito Water District general manager Tom Mosby spoke before the board mostly in agreement with Caruso, saying that in the context of Montecito’s total demand, the Miramar Hotel is just one customer with fractional needs.
In terms of the community’s wider water woes, Mosby added that the district was able to dodge a bullet this year by purchasing a large amount of excess water from elsewhere in the state. But he also said that that option might not be available next year, and that Montecito as a whole needs to better embrace conservation to avoid more problems.
“We can’t assure you that we’ll ever be out of the woods,” he said.
Mosby’s testimony was enough to persuade the commission to reverse course, despite the advice of the county’s legal counsel to the contrary.
“Three weeks ago, we were facing a critical water shortage, and I was never hearing where the water would come from,” said Michael Phillips, the commissioner who had made a motion Aug. 6 to require the partial EIR. “I think those questions have been addressed.”
With that, he moved to withdraw the requirement, saying that, as a result of what he heard at Thursday’s hearing, “there is not a new significant impact” that was not addressed in the original approval to the original plan submitted by Schrager. The Schrager plan never underwent an EIR because the county staff at the time determined it was unnecessary because of the lack of perceived substantial effects. In place of an EIR, the project received what is known as a “negative declaration.”
Immediately after the unanimous vote of approval, Commissioner Jack Overall admitted the issue still made him nervous.
“I had to swallow hard when I heard the language (in Phillips’ motion) that this was covered adequately in the negative declaration before,” he said. “I don’t know what to do about it, but I swallowed.”
One sticking point among neighbors of the project remains flooding. Caruso’s plan involves filling in a flood plain in the area. The county staff’s official position on the matter is that this move shouldn’t present a problem, but neighbors have hired a separate engineering firm that came to the opposite conclusion.
Moreover, a string of emails released by the county at the request of attorneys in the opposition camp have revealed that at least one member of the county staff had misgivings on this matter, saying that the plan to fill in the flood plan had a “fatal flaw,” said Naomi Kovacs, executive director of the Citizens Planning Association, which has taken the position that a full EIR should be conducted. She said that the county never included this detail in its final report.
The commission on Thursday addressed the matter briefly, but seemed to conclude that this portion of Caruso’s plan is OK.
“I don’t see any smoking guns,” said Commission Chairman Bob Bierig.
Some commissioners had kind words for Caruso.
“I really appreciate the fact that finally we’re at a hearing where there’s actually a dialogue,” Commissioner Claire Gottsdanker said. “I’m just really happy about this meeting today. I’m having so much fun.”
Noozhawk staff writer Rob Kuznia can be reached at .
» wrote on 08/29/08 @ 11:32 AM
The Caruso team’s latest plan, presented yesterday morning, provided all the MPC asked for and more. The only serious objections seem to be from a few folks who make their living litigating land use issues - conflict of interest, I’d say. The MPC was extremely professional and thoughtful in their deliberations and quite reasonably want to see fully coordinated plans for everything that Caruso has promised, although making the Caruso team wait another 6 weeks for (hopefully) formal approval, rather than call a special meeting in mid-to-late September, seems a bit like more punishment. One can hope that the process (finally) worked.
» wrote on 08/29/08 @ 03:14 PM
I’d be interested in knowing if other tennis courts--such as the one at the Four Seasons Biltmore--are lit. Does Caruso’s concession on this point put him in line with others? And did his concession change the mind of Louise-Dreyfus and Hall about the project? In other words, a little more context.
» wrote on 08/29/08 @ 06:47 PM
Dreyfuss and Hall didn’t appear to be there; no one commented either way about the tennis courts. Caruso had committed in the last MPC review to bag the lights, so this was not new news.
» wrote on 09/02/08 @ 01:39 PM
This project will only bring more polution, traffic and problems to S>B. Do not let the project move. Think wisely Supervisor. We need housing for our work force. If our work force has no housing this project is a waste of our local resorces.
» wrote on 09/02/08 @ 06:15 PM
This project will be appealed! Not once but over and over.
» wrote on 10/14/08 @ 09:47 AM
The concern is still there regarding the traffic issue when the miramar events are ending and streams of cars are leaving the hotel. They will be exiting on to the freeway on ramp and the rest will be heading to San Ysidro Road. Can you imagine the bottleneck? This is a two lane road Not sure how happy my neighbors will be when this occurs.