Mapping the New Miramar

Rick Caruso Unveils Plans; Plus, Music Academy Money, Arts News, and J’Amy’s Biking Ways

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

By J'Amy Brown

Article Tools

Print friendly

E-mail story

Tip Us Off

Comments

Back in January, Rick “The Kid” Caruso strode into town boasting that he could tame the Miramar, Montecito’s dilapidated, abandoned beachfront hotel. He’d have a plan by June, the newcomer crowed. But given the trail-of-tears created by the difficult-to-develop resort - which shrugged off Ian Schrager and toyed with Ty Warner - locals stroked their muzzles, musing this L.A. tenderfoot would have a thing or two to learn about getting things done in Montecito.

By J'Amy Brown

The Miramar as it is today, blue, white, and dilapidated.

But the skeptics did not deter Caruso, so precisely at 3 p.m on June 7, his posse climbed the stairs at the county’s Planning and Development Department to deliver a permit application, making good on his timeframe claim. And the plan isn’t short on detail - it takes nearly a four-inch binder to articulate Caruso’s detailed concept for reorganizing the Miramar Hotel and Bungalows.

With the ball - or binder, as it were - in their court, the county now has 30 days to deem Caruso’s application complete. With some unusual optimism, they have tentatively reserved time for Miramar design feedback on the July 30 Montecito Board of Architectural Review agenda. County departments - flood, building, fire, air pollution, environment, among others - will also take an initial look at the development, which explains why Caruso had to deliver a reported nine boxes of binders to the county. Senior planner Julie Harris has been assigned the project and county planner Nicole Mashore will assist her.

Caruso, we’re told, plays to an on-target-timetable, and his team burned the midnight oil to get the application in on the dime. It’s rumored he intends to have permits in place and ground broken by January 1, 2008. While this would be lightning speed and normally laughable for a Montecito project, with his application delivered on time, doubters are becoming believers. Quick-Draw Caruso could be the big gun to get astonishing things done.

Not chancing a neighborhood grumble to cause a halting stumble, the Caruso team met with Miramar’s closest neighbors simultaneously with the application’s delivery. At 3:05 p.m. on June 7, Caruso’s Bill Reich, vice president of hotels and resorts, and Rick Lemmo, vice president of community relations, sat down for to reveal the project to inner-circle Miramar neighbors Steve Traxler (president of the Seaside Homeowners Group), Mimi and Michael DeGruy, and Mike and Laura Lodato. And rather than the standard Montecito anti-modification moan, this courtesy review group greeted the plan with cheery “Here’s to the New Year!” toasts.

Steve Traxler

“It’s nothing but good and positive,” said Traxler after the meeting. “Caruso asked for our input and then he listened. Whatever was suggested was not ignored. This plan is better than before.”

Traxler said one unique aspect of the plan, and one that requires strong neighborhood support, will be to vacate the Miramar Avenue, which currently splits the hotel property in two segments. “Caruso is working closely with us to make that (road abandonment) happen,” Traxler said.

He said one initial neighborhood concern was safety and fire truck access to the hotel and houses behind the hotel. Traxler said Caruso has designed emergency access via a unique hardscape that looks like grass but is wide enough and strong enough allow for easy fire truck right access through the property. “The road is really still there,” Traxler said. He added he did not know of any neighbors opposed to the abandonment of Miramar Avenue. “Actually they like it because they end up with a cul-de-sac on their road and that adds to property values.”

The look proposed by Rick Caruso for the remodeled Miramar bungalows.

The Caruso plan proposes to bulldoze all current structures. They will be replaced with 209 guest rooms (down from the 213 previously approved for Schrager). The design calls for shingle-sided bungalows to dot the property. The current blue roofs are to be has-beens; the new cottages will sport cedar-colored roofs. And, if the drought does not cause water to become an issue, Caruso envisions a lush tropical look, with leggy palms lining meandering paths and tropical flowering plants decorating expansive lawns.

Other proposed features include an ocean-view restaurant, a poolside cafe, and a beachfront bar. The Miramar will have a conference center, banquet faculties, a spa, two pools, and mostly underground parking, providing 575 stalls - over 100 more spots than the previously approved Schrager plan. There will be a private beach club for 300 members (up from Schrager’s 140 allotment), juxtapositioning the four units dedicated to affordable employee housing. A sound barrier hedge is planned along South Jameson Lane and 62 public parking spots will be designated on South Jameson and Eucalyptus Lane.

Neighbor Laura Lodato summed up what seems to be the initial neighborhood response to the newly revealed plan: “I am very picky, but there is nothing so far that I would want to change. I am really very pleased. They have bent over backwards to embrace the community. The plan is perfect!” And with those words ringing in his ears, Caruso can, for now, ride off into the Montecito sunset singing “Yippee-ki-yea-ki-yea!”

CULTURAL TIES: Long summer nights and poppy-colored sunsets have

brought a round of cultural arts activities to Montecito calendars. Last Friday, the Music Academy of the West hosted an update event to show off renderings of their soon-to-be under construction $15.2 million recital hall.

By J'Amy Brown

Nancy Hunter and Diane Sullivan, capital contribution co-chairs for the Music Academy of the West.

With August 16 as the expected shovel-to-dirt beginning of construction, Nancy Hunter and Diane Sullivan, the renaissance committee’s capital campaign chairs, reviewed the project and renewed donor enthusiasm. The new hall will seat an audience of more than 300 in theater-style, raked seating and feature a dropped acoustic ceiling. A new ticket box, with more convenient access, and student practice rooms below the stage level will be part the new building design.

Hunter said the academy has financing in place to cover the cost of the upcoming construction - a fully subscribed bond 30-year bond. But, she added, there is need for an additional $8.25 million to ultimately cover the costs. “There are ample naming opportunities left,” she noted.

The Music Academy will be a topic of conversation at the Montecito Planning Commission meeting on June 20, when they submit their Parking and Traffic Plan for approval. It’s part of their building permit conditions and construction can’t begin until it is sorted out.

Several neighbors have voiced concern the plan does not go far enough to curb the traffic cutting through their neighborhood from Cabrillo to Butterfly Beach. One simple solution that has certainly curbed Montage’s enthusiasm for cutting through - just closing the academy’s big iron gate. My humbling return to the main drag after being greeted by the shut iron gates has indelibly cast a waste-of-time image in my short cut brain.

ART IN SCHOOLS: The Arts Fund is hosting their 13th Annual Teen Art Mentorship Show.

By J'Amy Brown

Lyndsey Harrington on her graduation day.

This program provides mentorship to aspiring high school artists, allowing the students to work closely with professional artists to develop technical skills. The show runs until June 23 at 205 Santa Barbara Street. Mentors are Rafael Perea de la Cabada in contemporary painting and photographer Nell Campbell in documentary photography.

The students displaying works in the contemporary art category are Rosalee Pfeffer, Einar Birnir, Alexis Keramaris, Lauren Parsons, and Mireya Avila. The photography artists are Lily Trotter, Keenan Hunt, Lyndsey Harrington, David Herschorn, and Christopher McDermut. One of Nell’s students, Lyndsey Harrington, took several artistic photographs in Montecito, ranging from the foothills to the flats.

Don’t miss this show, it will let you know why we need art in our schools - these students have formidable talent that should be showcased. Thanks to the Arts Fund, the professionals, and the teachers who created this opportunity for art to show and glow!

By J'Amy Brown

Lily Sanders

MONTECITO WATERCOLORS: Few places lend themselves to being painted as perfectly as Montecito and few artists captured that beauty as well as watercolorist Lily Sanders. Sanders often produces the images featured in Montecito Magazine and she was a featured artist in the San Ysidro Ranch show and the Music Academy of the West’s Wine Auction Show. Sanders has a light touch, keen compositional eye, and luscious pallet choice that showcases Montecito’s unique colors and discreet light. Gallery 113 is located in La Arcada Court #8, 1114 State Street, and Lily’s show runs until June 30.

SCHOOL DAYS: Renowned architect Jeff Shelton has done some renderings of “Safe Route to School” on display at Cold Spring School until June 14.

Jeff Shelton’s rendering of Cold Spring School.

Jeff uses his whimsical style to showcase in a delightful manner a pedestrian route that could be semi-rural and functional. Montage particularly likes the dog trough, as sometimes Montage wonders if, indeed, Montecito hasn’t gone to the dogs!

NO FOOL LIKE AN OLD FOOL: Montage has found herself as part of The Independent‘s 2007 Traffic Solutions Team Bike Challenge, from June 1 to June 30! Don’t ask how this happened, but my team is known as The Inkspillers, which will give you some clue.

Paul Lucey

J’Amy Brown on her fancy red bicycle.

Given Montage has not been on a bike in years, the crew at Santa Barbara Electric Bicycles fixed me up just fine to keep up with the flat bellies at The Indy, so I am zooming around Montecito garnering miles and attention - and thinking it is pretty fun to be older and smarter as I electric myself along!

The contest runs for the entire month of June, and teams the number of utilitarian trips taken by bike in June. Go to TeamBikeChallenge.com to sign up!

Comments

Independent Discussion Guidelines

Great report, J'Amy. But the tiny, but loud, minority is at it again, trying to delay the MAW's parking and traffic plan. MAW has gone out of its way for 7 years to accomodate everything imaginable and spent nearly $2.5 million on planning. Enough already. How many people may be affected by the MAW's traffic plan and by how much? Compared to how many people benefit and by how much. Let democracy rule!

RCMeltzer (anonymous profile)
June 13, 2007 at 8:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Here's a bit more information on the MAW traffic plan: When the MAW renovation plan was approved in 2004, one of the conditions (Condition 30) required MAW file a traffic pass through reduction plan before starting construction.

What the MPC will review on June 20 is that newly created plan, not been seen by public up until now. This is the neighbors' and community's first and only chance to comment. Given MAW agreed to this condition in 2004, seems fair to allow public input now.

Also, community discussion can yield creative results. I understand at last week's Mont. Assoc. meeting an alternative MAW-construction-traffic route, through the Montecito Sanitary District property, was re-introduced. The idea was nixed by MSD in 2004, but now it appears they may be having a change of heart.

And, by the way, while next week's MPC meeting will be a forum for discussion, the Comish themselves will not vote to approve, amend or discard the traffic plan. They, like other members of the public, are invited to comment, but the final OK on this item will be left up to county staff.

JAMY (J'Amy Brown)
June 14, 2007 at 6:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hi, J'Amy. I'll respond in public, since no one else appears to want to do so, now that the cloak of anonymity has been lifted.

The MAW has spent 7 years and nearly $2.5 million getting community input. Enough is way more than enough. Nothing less than full approval is appropriate at this point.

And why are the commissioners abrogating their responsibilities to "staff". In my view, staff should have no decision power, only recommendation power. Commissioners are appointed to be the decision makers. If they don't want to make decisions, then perhaps we need new commissioners.

RCMeltzer (anonymous profile)
June 15, 2007 at 3:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And another thing! If the same idea that was nixed in 2004 is now approved, it is further glaring evidence of a broken process. Complete lack of objective criteria and adherence to same.

RCMeltzer (anonymous profile)
June 15, 2007 at 4:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hi Robert --The condition states: Please present a traffic plan before you begin digging, or something like that. There was no traffic plan to nix in 2004, MAW is just now coming to the table with this piece of unfinished business.

As to your other point, I agree, it does seem odd that the MPC has little role in approving this?

JAMY (J'Amy Brown)
June 15, 2007 at 5:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If the MAW was required to present a traffic plan at some earlier step in this 7 year process, I have to wonder why they did not do so. Was a traffic plan always a requirement? Is it a requirement for every project? How is the applicant to know?

RCMeltzer (anonymous profile)
June 15, 2007 at 9:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

When you file a major development application you are given a to-do list. It usually includes a construction traffic plan. Also, the Music Academy had a problem with traffic taking a short cut through their property. After hearing neighbor's complaints, MPC asked MAW to nip this convenient cut through outlet in the bud. (247 cars a day!) Both construction routes and "pass through" reduction traffic plans are what will be presented to MPC next Wednesday, and neither has come as a surprise to MAW.

I imagine MAW wisely waited to develop their traffic plan, so traffic counts could reflect lowered neighborhood construction burden, now finally dwindling at Ty Warner's nearby home re-do and also occurring because Butterfly Beach is now alcohol free.

I further suspect MAW did not file their construction and cut through traffic plan earlier because they were in a fund raising mode for a spell, and just recently selected which parts of the master plan they wanted to tackle. Until that path was determined, a traffic plan would not be able to reflect changes to the plan and specifics like excavations, and/or dirt removal trips.

The MAW plan was approved, I think, in May 2004, and any delay in construction has been through MAW's choice. My memory is shaky on exact dates, but as I recall a final plan was submitted in October, 2003 and a final approval given MPC in April or May, 2004. I am unclear on where you are getting your seven year stalled-process figure?

JAMY (J'Amy Brown)
June 16, 2007 at 3:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks, J'Amy. Lots of good info here. I wonder if anyone reads this stuff besides you and me :-) Strangely enough, we haven't heard any jeering from 'Sonny' since the cloak of anonymity was lifted - wonder why? -- DUH.

Regarding traffic, my source and my observation tells me that MAW has been keeping its gates closed (except in case of scheduled events) for some time now (can't remember the exact number of months) to reduce traffic flow caused by Montecito residents (ironic, that) and others that use MAW as a short cut as you indicated. In fact there was a recent article in the media to that effect (Journal? Independent? another dead brain cell on my part) and how frustrating it was to encounter the locked gate and how that discouraged the writer from ever trying that route again... Seems like a simple enough process that should not require a 'traffic plan'.

Construction traffic is another matter and seems to me could be resolved once and for all for all future projects simply by virtue of an ordinance, similar to what is done in some high rent parts of Orange County (or is that a redundant phrase?), that says construction traffic is limited to 8 AM to 4PM 5 days a week or else BIG fines AND requires construction damage to the roads repaired by the project owner after construction is complete. Then we don't need to waste time, energy, and money on a traffic plan for every project. Remember that planning, however good it may be, is a pure real co$t that is eventually paid by the community in some form or other - the benefits may be there, but can be awfully hard to measure. More later.

RCMeltzer (anonymous profile)
June 17, 2007 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Must run over the word limit - here's the rest.

Regarding dates, my source at MAW indicated that they started the process in March of 2000 and that the approval you refer to included many (over 100) conditions - in my view that hardly constitutes approval (more like death by 100 cuts) as it could take years (not to mention $$$) to modify the submitted plan so as to recognize all the conditions and almost certainly will require resubmittal and/or encounter appeals.

Is the 'final plan' you are referring to a plan that included comments from MA and other interested parties and was then submitted to county? If so, then that may explain the difference in our dates. According to my source, the MA was a major roadblock for quite some time, possibly 3 or 4 years. BTW, I define major roadblock as the serial process of providing 'helpful commentary' (sometimes contradictory and ever-changing) over a period of time (months or years), as opposed to a one-time list of all suggestions gathered through a highly public one-time process (e.g. publish notice in the Journal, set a time frame (30 days?) to submit comments, hold a public meeting, provide the comments to the applicant, end of story - then let the applicants and the MPC sort out the contradictory comments and the Commissioners (not "staff") make a decision that will satisfy the majority, not just the tiny, but loud, minority). If there is an appeal to BoS, fine, but then the appelant should pay cost of delay if the appeal is denied.

RCMeltzer (anonymous profile)
June 17, 2007 at 10:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

With the Miramar, and the County's treatment of its latest owner, the pendulum is swinging yet, how far in the other direction will we allow it to go?

I don't want to be the guy that rains on the parade with the declaration that the Emperor may be missing some essential items of apparel, but I think that it's imperative that in the enthusiasm to have "anything" done with the Miramar, we don't forfeit standards that have ensured the beauty and esteem of our community.

The momentum to embrace Mr. Caruso has reached such a fevered pitch, that I am forced to pose my critiques anonymously. However, I have a feeling that others may share in my timidity in expressing true opinions for fear of being labeled another crazy "obstructionist", which is why I am presenting questions in this public forum.

• Bahamas-inspired "Plantation" theme? Is this design really consistent with Montecito? This is not a rhetorical inquiry; I am really asking the question. In my own subjective opinion, the elevations I see here are more reminiscent of a high-end, Cape Cod residential subdivision. If I'm alone in this theory, I'll willingly surrender to the majority (read: I'm not an obstructionist).

• Where does the current design connect with the illustrious history of the Miramar? Mr. Caruso was very kind to collect stories of the Miramar's past (my wife provided a few of our family's experiences), but I am curious as to how those stories have been reflected in this design?

• Destroying designated historic cottages because they're old? By witnessing other local entitlement debacles we have learned that it was the responsibility of the owner to preserve that which is technically deemed "historic". Where are all the local preservation gurus that forced Ty Warner to preserve a cement bench at the beach club? Not that the historic restrictions applied on other projects were necessarily fair or appropriate - but the inconsistency of those charged with protecting our historic resources and community aesthetics is suspect, to say the least.

• "Drop-off" public beach parking? Isn't that an oxymoron? And has anyone considered the traffic numbers? The resort being elevated to a 5-Star destination will entail significant increase in the number of employees. Mr. Caruso also mentioned that he plans to double the number of beach club members, all while decommissioning a street.

• Does this qualify as substantial conformity? My calculations may be off but according to media reports, Caruso is planning on adding another 20,000-30,000 square feet beyond that which is entitled. Again, this is not rhetorical:I really want to know, all of these changes are allowed under the current permits?

To emphasize, I am not interested in stonewalling or delaying this project, but as Mr. Caruso works through his own formal review, we do have the opportunity to make the Miramar plan better for our community. First, we may need to remove the rose-tinted glasses.

montecito3rdgen (anonymous profile)
June 18, 2007 at 11:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Mapping the New Miramar

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Article Tools

Comments

Log in to comment

Sign up

LL Cool J, Public Enemy and De La Soul

ALSO TODAY