Print friendly
E-mail story
Contact an Editor
iPod friendly
Comments
Bookmark This
del.icio.us.
Digg!
furl
google
newsvine
reddit
technorati
Facebook
Yahoo!The Miramar Hotel project has been taken off Monday’s Montecito Board of Architectural Review agenda after owner Rick Caruso informed county staff that certain members of his staff would be unable to attend on such short notice.
The drop means that the Montecito Planning Commission will be making its decision on the project without hearing again from the MBAR, despite requests from commissioners. The MPC, in the midst of its marathon July 15 meeting, requested that the project go back to MBAR for another review of the project’s size, bulk, and scale. Commissioners expressed concerns at their meeting about the height of some buildings, as well as the way square footage was calculated on the property.
The MPC, at the behest of Commissioner Claire Gottsdanker, asked county staff to put the Miramar on the MBAR agenda. It was on, until Wednesday, July 23. Instead, the commissioners will receive compact discs of the audiotape from the December 13, 2007 MBAR meeting.
Paul Wellman
Rick Caruso (left) and Matt Middlebrook
A full-page advertisement in today’s print edition of The Independent is encouraging people to write to project planner Erin Briggs with comments, and to attend the August 6th Montecito Planning Commission meeting “to demand the best and most appropriate project be approved.”
Gottsdanker’s primary concern was that the minutes from the December 13 meeting didn’t accurately reflect the extent of what had actually occurred, and she wanted to make sure her board was making informed decisions. Both Gottsdanker and Commissioner Michael Phillips, who had done the bulk of the questioning of county staff at the July 15 meeting, indicated they are content with the resolution of the MBAR matter.
Dave Ward, deputy director of the county Planning and Development department who has been an integral part overseeing the planning process for the hotel, said Caruso’s team informed him there wasn’t enough time for the architect and project manager to plan for the meeting.
Meanwhile, the Citizens Planning Association is ratcheting up its effort to encourage opposition to Caruso’s project as it stands now. A full-page advertisement in today’s print edition of The Independent is encouraging people to write to project planner Erin Briggs with comments, and to attend the upcoming Montecito Planning Commission meeting “to demand the best and most appropriate project be approved.” The ad calls the Caruso’s plan giant, and demanding “dozens of exceptions to the rules for: Height, Scale, Bulk, Design, and Set-Back regulations, and the elimination of a public street?”
Caruso’s next public hearing will be August 6 in front of the MPC, where it appears the commission could okay the project, but with a number of conditions.
Double-clicking on any word or phrase in this story will open a reference window with definitions and links to other reference material.
Previous Month
Comments
Discussion Guidelines
When will they ever learn? If Caruso had just not been so darn greedy and planned this thing to be so huge and to require so many exemptions he'd be 90% home free by now. I guess you don't get to be a rich developer without being a greedy power freak! Hey, from my point of view as long as thye don't pollute the creeks and the ocean and block public access they can make the ugliest monstrosity in the world down there in Montecito! I sure as hell won't be staying there. I do hope it gets built and takes lots of business away from that hideous escapee from Las Vegas the Bacara
Noletaman (anonymous profile)
July 24, 2008 at 5:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I keep trying to find data that shows how this project is so "huge" compared to the approved Schrager project. I know it's fewer rooms than Schrager. Can someone point to real data? Like in square feet?
RCMeltzer (anonymous profile)
July 25, 2008 at 1:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow! That is a great system for a developer applicant.
Just claim that some of your minions cannot make a review meeting, then the project no longer needs to be reviewed by that oversight board.
What is next when the Planning Commission schedules the review? Just say that more minions cannot be there, so then it skips Planning Commission and just goes directly to the Board of Supervisors??
David_Pritchett (David Pritchett)
July 25, 2008 at 3:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Interesting article in today's LA Times on Caruso's Santa Anita proposed mall project having its EIR rejected in a court case. Never a good strategy to skimp on CEQA when you have well funded opposition. I expect Caruso is in for a bitter lesson here.
sbreader (anonymous profile)
July 25, 2008 at 10:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ah, the ever disingenuous Mr. Meltzer is looking for square footage comparisons between Schrager and Caruso...
Try any number of documents available from the County... but these come from Appendix A of the SEIR:
item................................ Schrager.....Caruso
(and note that one of the concerns of the MPC commissioners was that the Caruso square footage calculations seemed to leave a lot of actual square footage not including due to definitional parsing that was deemed extraordinary)
(It's not easy to format a table in a comment, but I've tried to make this readable.)
Total Net Floor area..........137,711 ...170,150
main bldg ..............................6,076......37,759
retail ....................................... 896 .......3,902
(yes that's almost FOUR THOUSAND square feet of retail)
Height modifications from allowed heights under the current zoning:
Schrager: none
Caruso: Main Buiklding, Ballroom, Beach and Tennis Club.
The Main Building is almost FIFTY FEET tall.
And then there's the thought that Caruso will essentially FLATTEN the fifteen acres, scrape it like a big-box store lot:
grading: cut (cu. yards).......10,000......36,300
grading: fill.............................6,000......46,100
(By the way, the project engineer estimates that the net import of 10,000 cubic yards of fill will require ONE THOUSAND DUMP TRUCKS coming up the San Ysidro exit off the 101 along South Jameson and into the site)
Anyone can check these numbers. They're in the County's plan, the one that says there's not much difference between Caruso and Schrager, not enough to warrant a real environmental review instead of the once-over-lightly of the SEIR.
Yeah, right!
chubbco (anonymous profile)
July 26, 2008 at 9:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The king has no clothes on.
Georgy (anonymous profile)
July 26, 2008 at 10:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Totally Bogus!
lordleadbetter (anonymous profile)
July 26, 2008 at 5:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks chubbco. The pro-Caruso shills try to divert attentions from the real numbers, or to smear the folks who know the real numbers. Typical Goebbels-type propaganda.
sevendolphins (anonymous profile)
July 27, 2008 at 10:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks, chubbco, for the data. I did also get the numbers from another source. Very interesting to see facts instead of rant. And speaking of rant, I see sevendolphins is on her Nazi rant again. Ya see, seven..., publishing numbers is very different from claiming to know them while not revealing them, thus preserving one's self-delusion of "special knowledge". If you read my postings carefully, you'll find that I am not "smearing" anyone who presents factual information, only objecting to those who make claims regarding facts without presenting those facts. There are always many claims, esp by the anonymous, in the blogosphere, while facts, like identities, are in short supply. So, yes Caruso's plan is bigger. And Schrager couldn't get backing for his plan, perhaps because the financial types thought it was too small to survive?
RCMeltzer (anonymous profile)
July 27, 2008 at 12:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
RCMeltzer, why don't you do your own research on the finances of Miramar, instead of making slanted speculation?
sevendolphins (anonymous profile)
July 28, 2008 at 10:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Post a comment