Mapping the New Miramar

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!

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.