Montecito Planning Commission Punts On Miramar Hotel Decision
Despite a string of approvals, developer Rick Caruso is rebuffed by skeptical commissioners, who put off a decision until Aug. 6.
After a grueling 10-hour meeting, the Montecito Planning Commission on Wednesday postponed making a decision on the fate of an emotionally charged proposal to revive the abandoned Miramar Hotel alongside Highway 101, due largely to the issue’s complexity. It will take up the matter again on Aug. 6.
Although the proposal for a new five-star hotel at 1555 S. Jameson Lane has received the blessings of Santa Barbara County staff, the Montecito Board of Architectural Review and the Montecito Association, the Planning Commission did not give developer Rick Caruso an easy time.
Caruso — a developer of high-end shopping centers and a potential Los Angeles mayoral candidate — has threatened to abandon his proposed 204-room hotel if he is required to conduct a full EIR, saying it is not necessary and would be cost-prohibitive.
Among the commission’s concerns was a technical question that Caruso found galling: Whether he had under-calculated the square footage of the buildings’ net floor area.
Commission chairman Bob Bierig questioned, for instance, why two-thirds of the ballroom building was not accounted for in the square footage amount listed in staff reports for the structure.
“I’m concerned that massive amounts of building are being considered as nonbuilding,” he said. “I’ve never seen a project before us that interpreted our regulations that way.”
This matters, Bierig said, because current code does not allow for the total interior square footage to be much larger than the amounts currently given.
The Caruso camp replied by saying that hallways and corridors need not be counted. They added that the plans have undergone nearly 18 months of scrutiny from the county staff.
Ultimately, Bierig was not completely satisfied with the answer, and asked staff to re-examine the matter before the Aug. 6 meeting.
The proposal for the project to bulldoze the ghost town of a hotel that closed in 2000 and rebuild it has wide-ranging implications for many. Neighbors worry about its size and scale on the one hand but the blight of the rat-infested ruins of the abandoned project on the other. Other locals are worried about the traffic implications, but drawn to the developer’s stated intentions to provide public pathways to the beach and more public parking to the area. The county, meanwhile, is in the midst of a financial crisis, and could really use the hotel bed tax dollars.
In general, supporters say the blight needs to go, and they credit Caruso as an able developer who has a shot at building something that will be economically viable and aesthetically pleasing. Critics say the project is too large, pointing out that it fails to meet zoning requirements on matters such as height, setbacks and parking. They add that it is among the largest developments ever proposed in Montecito — “the size of three Home Depots,” according to one witness — and so should be subject to an EIR.
Wednesday’s hearing was a colorful one, featuring the nattily dressed Caruso, who was accompanied by a bevy of similarly suited-up aides and interns. To the roaring delight of supporters, Caruso showed a video touting, through documentary-style interviews of locals, the benefits of reviving the hotel.
The subsequent cheering prompted a scolding from Bierig, who threatened to clear the room if decorum was not met.
“This is not a love fest,” Bierig said. “This is a hearing.”
Also present was Seinfeld actress Julia Louis-Dreyfus, a neighbor of the project and a fervent critic of its size. She and her husband, TV writer and producer Brad Hall, are among a group of opponents calling for an EIR because the project is significantly larger than the one proposed by the previous owner, Studio 54 co-founder Ian Schrager.
In a moment of levity, Louis-Dreyfus seemed to invoke a widely recognized line from Seinfeld in calling for project “shrinkage.”
“Nobody is more desperate than I am to see the Miramar Hotel return,” she said. “I have to drive through that dilapidated, rat-infested disaster every day to get to my house.” But, she added, “this would be far and away the largest building in Montecito. It would also be hugely bigger than the old Miramar, which by the way wasn’t small. This desperately needs shrinkage. Mr. Chair, please give us shrinkage, and that is no joke.”
One supporter, Vern Langdon, derided what he viewed to be the commission’s over-attention to detail.
“Are there enough closets?” he asked. “How many spigots are in the fountains? … Will there be leather bar stools? … I’ve eaten a lot of cottage cheese in my day, but I’ve never listened to so much.”
Commissioner Michael Phillips was most critical of the staff conclusion that no EIR is necessary because it is substantially similar to Schrager’s approved-but-shelved plans.
The projects would create roughly the same amount of noise, traffic and restaurant business, and Caruso’s plan actually has more parking — although less than what is required by code. However, it is larger, and, unlike Schrager’s plan, would not involve remaking the new hotel in the historic “blue-rooftop” image of the old.
“I can’t imagine a project more substantially changed from Schrager to Caruso,” Phillips said. “It’s such a different project.”
However, the explanation for the staff’s recommendation given by county counsel Ed Yates seemed to ease Phillips’ concern to some degree.
Schrager’s project did not receive a full EIR, either, but instead was approved after undergoing a mitigated negative declaration.
Yates said that under California Environmental Quality Act laws, (known as CEQA), Caruso would have to undergo a full EIR only if it was determined that his project would cause significantly larger impacts to the environment than Schrager’s. Staff decided that the added impacts were relatively minor – stating, for instance, that the difference in the level of noise on the freeway reflected off the sound walls would be inaudible to the human ear. As such, he said, staff legally had the option to merely file an addendum, which they did.
To this, Phillips replied, “I hope you’re right,” but later said he might be able to suspend disbelief on the “CEQA stuff.”
Phillips was also critical of the 48-foot height of the hotel’s tallest portion. That’s 10 feet higher than what is allowed by zoning code. Caruso said the building needs to stretch that high to accommodate the two subterranean parking structures. He added that he has taken down the height in response to the requests of officials.
Commissioner Claire Gottsdanker questioned the staff’s characterization of the Montecito Board of Architectural Review’s comments on the project. Although MBAR did not officially recommend the project, staff members said their comments at a December meeting were overwhelmingly positive. But Gottsdanker said she was at the meeting, and the minutes do not reflect all the comments that were made.
Commissioners also worried that Caruso substantially underestimated the number of employees he will need. In addition, they questioned the historic appropriateness of the “plantation-style” buildings and asked staff to put together more information on how compatible the new Miramar would be with the surrounding neighborhood.
Noozhawk staff writer Rob Kuznia can be reached at .
» wrote on 07/17/08 @ 06:23 AM
The MPC is at it again. After driving the costs of the rehabilitation of the Coral Casino up by millions of dollars for no reason other than their belief in their power to do so...they are again going against the wisdom of every other organization.
Why is it our County Supervisors continue to justify their existance by funding them? MPC is a perfect example of why less government is better.
Can anyone give us a single example of where the MPC has actually added value to the process?
Oh yes...and if MPC is a good idea, why doesn’t every other unincorporated community in Santa Barbara County have the same “benefit” of irrelevant government?
» wrote on 07/17/08 @ 07:12 AM
Hopefully, all those new employees needed will live in Montecito so there won’t be additional freeway traffic. Good argument for some affordable workers’ housing in Montecito under the RHNA requirements that Montecito has skipped this time around.
» wrote on 07/17/08 @ 07:32 AM
If I were Caruso I would run as far away as I could from this project and let the opposers deal with looking at a delapidated piece of land for the rest of their lives.
» wrote on 07/17/08 @ 07:32 AM
It is hard to know where to start on this inexact story: First, the MBAR did NOT “approve” the project, as the Commissioners noted repeatedly yesterday. The design body took a courtesy peek in December 2007, long before the plan that is on the table now was even brought forward. Last December MBAR members made some positive comments, a few made some negative comments. That fact was brought up yesterday, but not made clear in this story, thus perpetuating Caruso’s spin that everyone has approved the project. Second, the MPC told the Caruso team there would be a second hearing weeks ago, Caruso even forcing the date to be pushed back to August to meet his vacation schedule. That fact was announced publicly a month ago, but perhaps Caruso forgot to tell his mini-mob of supporters, perhaps fearing they would shun yesterday’s pointless “social” event. Third, where did the reporter get the “fact” a certain number of speaker-slips favored the project or did not, and what does that mean? The number of slips filled out is unimportant, because any fool could stand in the back of the room filling out fake names on a slip and, come to think of it, there sure were a lot of “no shows” at the microphone? Generally, at a land use hearing, it is not about quantity but quality, and what counts is the number of actual speakers and the relevance of their comments. From what I could tell, there were about a dozen more speakers in favor of the project and many of those people wasted everyone’s time by just saying they wanted to get the project built. Most proponents did not offer solid arguments on land use issues like why Montecito would want to encumber residential streets with employee parking because Caruso’s plan lacks hundreds of parking spaces. Noozhawk, you are a fledgling news source--get the facts right, and without bias, or your even your most ardent fans will fly away.
[Editor’s note: We stand by the accuracy — and fairness — of our story, but appreciate your comments.]
» wrote on 07/17/08 @ 08:06 AM
Doug---you can’t really be this naive. MPC is being much gentler than the County PC would be on this travesty of a staff report and conclusion from P&D;. Could have been avoided early on with a simple direction to complete an EIR for this SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGED project. The ability to see apples and oranges when comparing the Schraeger plan with the Caruso three ring circus “plan”. And the tacky, crass, anti-santa barbara ring to all of the Caruso-orchestrated PR surrounding the MPC hearing yesterday is a microchosm of what the community would be faced with if this project is allowed to go forward. Caruso’s team ignored basic respect for much-hallowed equal access traditions in a public building---his minions demanding signatures and button wearing to obtain free coffee and snacks on public property--and apparently being sanctioned to do so by those in charge of the County. Just imagine how much respect they’d have for zoning compliance.
MPC: JUST SAY NO
» wrote on 07/17/08 @ 09:36 AM
“Nobody is more desperate than I am to see the Miramar Hotel return,” she said. “I have to drive through that dilapidated, rat-infested disaster every day to get to my house.”
Well, it looks like Julia is going to have to keep sight-seeing on her way home for a while longer.
I wouldn’t blame Caruso if he bailed like all the other previous developers. At what point does a sane man leave the crazies behind? Then we, the people, get to go through this all over again, while the Miramar rots in repose.
Enough, already.
» wrote on 07/17/08 @ 09:41 AM
Awwww, did someone not get his snackie-poo at yesterday’s marathon meeting? Did that mean old Rick Caruso not share his juice? Don’t worry, the bullies on the MPC will beat him up after school.
» wrote on 07/17/08 @ 10:42 AM
If I’m not mistaken, the number of speaker slips for and against were counted and announced by an MPC staffer - 140 in favor and 20 against. And yes, just as anyone can theoretically post comments online under a variety of names and thereby give a particular impression (not that anyone would do that, except for the anti-Miramar person who posted under a variety of names but with the same errors in grammar a few weeks ago), so could one theoretically fill out many speaker slips to give a particular impression. Funny thing is, when a large number of speakers supports a land use project, the number somehow becomes irrelevant, but when the numbers support the antibuilding crowd, THEN the numbers are important. Lets move on.
» wrote on 07/17/08 @ 03:04 PM
I heard that Caruso is complaining that it cost him $1,000,000 per month just to carry the project.
Well I got news for him!
This project is likely to be appealed at every single opportunity and there are many.
Each appeal takes 3 months to be scheduled and heard. count em up:
1. Appeal of Montecito Planning Commission to County Board of Supervisors
2. Appeal of coastal permit to State Coastal Commission
3. Appeal of BAR preliminary approval to Board of Supervisors
4. Appeal of final BAR approval to Board of Supervisors
5. Appeal of building permit to State Coastal Commission
6. plus the CEQUA lawsuit, for not complying with CEQA and providing a full EIR ( this lawsuit alone will add 2 or 3 years to final resolution, plus the 1 year to prepare the full EIR that the Judge is surely to require.
It is going to be at least 5 years before he can get a building permit. Lets see at $1,000,000 per month thats yet another $60,000,000 more before construction can even start.
Read it and weep Caruso---"DON’T MESS WITH SANTA BARBARA”
Don’t you wish now that you had prepared a full EIR? If not, you will!
» wrote on 07/17/08 @ 05:16 PM
Somewhere Ty Warner is have a quiet drink and a grin.
» wrote on 07/17/08 @ 06:38 PM
I like Frank Sinatra, Jeanine’s scones and coffee, and pretty colorful forties-style renditions of the Miramar. Its just, well, I LOVE the public process even more.......and I LOVE the fact that Santa Barbara has a tradition of respecting the process.....
» wrote on 07/17/08 @ 08:41 PM
Afraid “Drag It Out” is correct. The opponents here have plenty of horsepower and the fuel (money and competent lawyers) to pursue that approach. What Julia Louis Dreyfus makes in a month of Seinfeld residuals would fund what Drag It Out outlines. Caruso should have gotten good local advice, scrupulously followed the Montecito Comm. Plan and had a perfect EIR done. He may have shot himself in the foot with the approach he has taken. Unfortunate. I have been looking forward to drinks and oysters at the bar on the beach for way too many years already.
» wrote on 07/18/08 @ 05:53 AM
Why not make this another Wilcox property? Let those who oppose raise enough money to buy the property and preserve it forever as a park - sans the current wreckage and rats.
» wrote on 07/18/08 @ 09:36 AM
“Drag it out” is very perceptive. Thats exactly what will most likely happen in the event Caruso doesn’t get some smarts and wise up.
I have never seen any developer so cocky, pushy, and aggogant in my life. Just who does he think he is?
Did you here him when he asked the Planning Commission if they were questioning staffs “approval” of the project. If that is all that is needed what is the planning Commission for? This arrogance of his is going to come back to bit him---big time.
If i was on the planning Commission I would tell him in no uncertain terms to take one friggin story off the parking garage under the main building to lower the building. (Like they already asked him to do over and over but he just ignored them as if they don’t mater---well maybe they don’t matter much, to him, since he has the senior staff in his pocket)
Someone needs to take him down a couple of pegs and Santa Barbara is just the town to do it.
» wrote on 07/18/08 @ 11:00 AM
It’s little wonder that “Perceptive” thinks “Drag It Out” is such a brilliant writer. I’ll bet you a lunch at the new Miramar Hotel that they’re the same person. The writing style is too similar to be anything but.
It’s not surprising, however, since the Miramar opponents—all half-dozen of them—never fail to claim they’re speaking for all of Montecito.
» wrote on 07/18/08 @ 01:24 PM
reply to perception challenged.
You got “me”. There actually is only one Miramar opponent, and they’re all “me”.
And yes we all ("me") speak for all of Montecito. ( or is it for the good of Montecito that we speak?). And I bet you don’t think I even live in Montecito. How presumptuous of me to oppose you. Please pardon me.
But you fail to realize one important fact: It only takes one person ( “me” again) to drag out this project for 5 years and
It only takes one person,"me", to call attention to the serious flaws in this project’s EIR and to comment on the apparent arrogance of Caruso. Or is this project perfect and not in need of public input?
Are there any more of “me” out there?
» wrote on 07/18/08 @ 02:26 PM
“Perception” brilliantly points out the major flaw (one of many) in the planning “process”, specifically “It only takes one person ( “me” again) to drag out this project for 5 years”. Talk about presumptuous. Apparently this is Democracy, California style - the will of the many subverted by the opinion of the one (or six, perhaps). Don’t kid yourself - this is not about CEQA or any other noble-sounding goal - your own posting makes it clearly about personal power and the ability of one so small to stymie someone clearly more wealthy and successful.
» wrote on 07/18/08 @ 06:59 PM
Oh, I get it, thanks to John Locke
A project of dubious merit and with environmental concerns proposed by someone who is clearly more wealthy and successful is not supposed to be opposed by one who is less wealthy and successful.
Maybe we should all bow down and kiss his feet.
» wrote on 07/19/08 @ 05:53 AM
Perhaps Mr. Crawford should move to Orcutt?
» wrote on 07/19/08 @ 08:12 AM
No, you don’t get it at all.
» wrote on 07/19/08 @ 08:16 AM
whether or not this ill-planned shopping-mall-esque creation ever gets built, the land use process and County protocols have already been subverted. If you doubt this, talk to anyone who was in the County building on Wednesday, and/or watch a replay of the MPC hearing. grotesque.
» wrote on 07/19/08 @ 09:13 AM
Perhaps a little review is in order:
§ 21002.1 (CEQA): “Each public agency shall mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment of projects that it carries out or approves whenever it is feasible to do so.”
“Significant effects on the environment” includes a number of impacts such as water, traffic, parking, sewer, grading, etc. That said, approval may be difficult for the County given the currently proposed project. The impacts of the Schraeger plan would appear to be far less than those of the currently proposed plan.
» wrote on 07/19/08 @ 10:25 AM
The majority of us of us want a nice hotel built there as soon as possible.
But, at the same time, the majority also want a full EIR prepared, as a tool to determine the best mitigation measures to address the negative impacts.
Sure Caruso can build a nice project but he also can sure afford to prepare a full EIR to protect the community and to make his project even better.
What I can’t get is why some folks are willing to trade environmental protection just to get the hotel built 6 months sooner. The fallacy in this thinking is that it forces a lengthy lawsuit and then the EIR has to be done anyway and then the delay is 12 months instead of 6 months. So the bottom line is that advocating for no EIR is in fact causing more delay in the project, so is counter productive to our common goal of getting it built as soon as possible.
» wrote on 07/19/08 @ 07:32 PM
Support an EIR does not speak for the majority, as measured by the proportion of speakers at the MPC hearing. And somehow Schrager didn’t have to complete a full EIR, but now his plan is being worshipped by some as the Holy Grail? And Caruso, who wants to build a hotel with fewer rooms, should complete a full EIR? How does that work? Funny how some people can always judge what the other guy can afford. If Caruso is smart, he is at this very moment looking for a greater fool to take this project off his hands and let them pour more years and endless expense into what today’s LA Times appropriately called Santa Barbara’s dysfunctional political process…
» wrote on 07/20/08 @ 10:46 AM
Bob, perhaps before moving here from the midwest a couple years ago you did not fully read the California constitution, CEQA, or basic history of development in our state. The need for an EIR is not triggered by how many people wear blue buttons at a public hearing held during the middle of a week on a workday (that is-workday for most working class-middle class Santa Barbarians); the ability to lounge around and eat scones and Jeanine’s sandwiches on public property if one commits to speaking in favor of an ill-prepared project does not equate with the need for an EIR or even community sentiment. Hopefully, Salud knows this, P&D;knows this, but most importantly----the MPC, BOS and ultimately Superior Court judges know this. But keep tryin’, Bob, I know you’re one of those starstruck newly arrived out-of-staters who just wants to be on Caruso’s “A-list” at the new Mirarmar....you’ll get over it and in about ten years you’ll “get it”.
» wrote on 07/20/08 @ 03:19 PM
Just because a majority of the speakers at the hearing were supporters of the project does not mean that a majority of the residents in the community don’t support a full EIR being required for this project. This is because Caruso put in huge PR effort to get supporters to this meeting. If he had not put forth such a huge effort it is likely that there would have only been 6 supporters show up on their own at this hearing.
Also, the fact that Schraders project did not have an EIR has nothing to do with whether or not this Caruso project should have an EIR. The fact is that these projects are quite different. yes, there are similarities bit it is a fact that there are huge differences. Anyone who thinks they are essentially the same project is just plain mistaken and is saying that in an attempt to not have an EIR be required. And what a weak argument it is.
Even if it is the opinion of a few supporters certainly does not make it so. Just like just because it is the opinion of the project opponents does not make it so.
This is most certainly going to court in the event the County does not require a full EIR, almost a sure thing, and the judge will determine whether or not an EIR is required, based on the CEQA law. And CEQa law is very clear that this project needs to have a full EIR. PERIOD--end of discussion.
» wrote on 07/20/08 @ 06:15 PM
Meltzer, Schrager cut a deal back in ‘98—he glibly seduced the community into overlooking an EIR, on the promise he would build fast and get the hotel back on the county dole fast. That deal didn’t work out so well, did it? So now we get a second chance to do an EIR on the largest single commercial property ever proposed for Montecito because Slick-Rick has come to town with an enormous plan just to proves his is bigger than Ty’s. With a project three times the size of the Schrager plan, will the community be gullible again or play by the CEQA’s rules? We also learned another lesson from Schrager--just because the community approves developer’s project, it doesn’t mean it has to be built. In this community-stampede to give Caruso a hall pass, have you considered he might just flip the property at higher price with all his scone-bought new entitlements? Developers do that, you know.
» wrote on 07/20/08 @ 06:17 PM
Robert, your “majority rules” thing is just ridiculous. Retake civics 101. A lynch mob runs by “majority rules,” but in a democracy, citizens vote for elected representatives, who, in turn, vote on legislation. Our elected officials, the Board of Supervisors, legislated a community plan in 1992 and authorized a planning commission in 2003 to watchdog it. It is not a popularity contest, Robert, it is the LAW! What you are asking for is that we break, or overlook, or misinterpret the laws that are on the books and as one planning commissioner pointed out, Caruso’s Plan, “violates nearly every zoning ordinance we have.” In a Democracy mob rule does NOT prevail and I hope your and your pals consistent naiveté does not hang our community plan and/or destroy our community.
» wrote on 07/20/08 @ 07:31 PM
Caruso has dumped lots of money into GOP coffers over the past few years; no wonder the bluebloods of Montecito are beside themselves drooling at the possibility of rubbing elbows with some of Caruso’s buddies.
http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neighbors.php?type=name&lname=CARUSO&fname=RICK
» wrote on 07/21/08 @ 12:12 AM
Those who spoke in favor of the proposed project needed a cheat-sheet, which the developer’s people handed out at a table in the lobby along with MIRAMAR NOW! buttons. These people--mostly women!--knew so little about the project, aside from slick PR lines handed out like chocolates at Caruso coffee parties, that they needed to be handed lines. Here’s the cheat-sheet. Does it sound to you as if they’ve replaced the Montecito Community Plan with the Caruso Community Plan? Why didn’t someone just say so and spare us all the effort of rereading the Montecito plan?
When speaking, please be brief, as there will be many Public Speakers and the County Commissioners and staff recommend that short comments are best to keep the day moving.
Speaking points for project supporters:
Caruso’s outreach and work with the community the last 17 months has been extensive and has produced what is actually our community’s plan for the Miramar.
This blight has been an eyesore far too long and Montecito deserves better, we deserve to bring back the Miramar and Caruso’s plan does so with style.
It is time for the Miramar to once again become a vital productive business in our community. Tales tax, bed tax, new jobs for construction and long term employment for people in the hospitality industry need to begin as soon as possible.
Caruso’s plan for the Miramar will provide a wonderful amenity for the entire Montecito community.
It is time to approve the Miramar now; it is time to approve the Miramar today!
» wrote on 07/21/08 @ 07:59 PM
Oh, Spike you anti-feminista!
Mine’s bigger: 3 times the size of the Schrager plan? Who writes your stuff, Brad Hall?
And “Meltzer is the one..”: Sounds to me like George and BL and maybe Colleen have rallied up their own lynch mob. Guys, when ya say things in your postings that few people know, ya kinda indicate who you are, in spite of hiding behind anonymous postings. Self-righteous true believers have always made me nervous. Look into the history of your people, guys, and see what I mean.
And again, isn’t it funny how when the majority of the speakers at a public meeting support a certain view, they are heroes, but when they support the opposing view they are trained stooges. Please…
As I’ve said b4, let’s cut the crap and get to the lawsuit stage. We all know the planning process is a dysfunctional mess, each in our own opinion, and a lawsuit is inevitable. In the meantime, we can all enjoy rats and rubble.
» wrote on 07/21/08 @ 08:10 PM
Damn! Some folks actually understand the difference between a constitutional republic and a democracy! I’ve seen the D word so often in these blogs that I just began to assume no one knew the difference. And of course, Gimme is right. Majority does not rule on specific issues - elected representatives rule. And hopefully, those elected representatives are intelligent and knowledgable (two very different concepts) enough to take all facets of the argument into account when making their decision and not be swayed by the emotional outpourings of a few bloggers. And yet, so many bloggers (or maybe a few posting under many names) seem to believe that our elected representatives are or can be bought and paid for by the Caruso forces. What is one to believe? I guess that if the Miramar goes forward it’s because our elected reps are either stupid, uninformed, or bought off?