Print friendly
E-mail story
Contact an Editor
iPod friendly
Comments
Bookmark This
del.icio.us.
Digg!
furl
google
newsvine
reddit
technorati
Facebook
Yahoo!In January 2007, Los Angeles developer — and potential L.A. mayoral candidate — Rick Caruso bought the Miramar property in Montecito and began the rigorous process to remodel the historic hotel, a move that was quickly welcomed for the once iconic seaside hotel. Though a renovation project was already okayed for the site nearly a decade ago, its approval is several years old, and some residents believe Caruso’s current plans alter the footprint of the property and deviate far from what was approved. Because of these changes, some are arguing that a full environmental impact report must be done on the property. But that study, which costs plenty of both time and money, is something that Caruso has indicated he won’t pursue.
With so many opinions and so much money resting on the result, it’s not too surprising that there have been plenty of staff shake-ups in the halls of the County of Santa Barbara due to Caruso’s Miramar dream: planners have been taken off the controversial project, and one staff member even quit her job due to disagreements with superiors. Despite such changes, however, county officials-in-the-know have not offered any clear explanations; instead, they are bouncing all questions to county spokesperson William Boyer, who’s never shined much light on the subject. Since no one was talking, The Independent decided to look into the matter, and I spent a series of days sifting through all correspondence and information within the county regarding the Miramar.
One planner called the timeline “aggressive and unrealistic” and wrote that she was “opposed to creating a timeline that puts so much pressure on staff.”
Rick Caruso
Our newspaper wasn’t the first group to request a search of public records regarding the Miramar. Attorney Marco Gonzalez, whose Coast Law Group represents the Citizens Planning Association, also conducted a search, and released to the media some of his findings, much of which corroborated what I found. Gonzalez said much of the information reveals “just how far the project applicant and his representatives were able to override legitimate staff concerns with the environmental review for the project.” Most of what we both read through was correspondence among county staff, featuring a lot of communication with Matt Middlebrook, Caruso’s vice president for governmental relations, and various consultants. Very little documentation of physical meetings and conference calls was available, other than those that were planned to occur. But here — just two days before Caruso’s Miramar application goes before the Montecito Planning Commission in an all-day hearing on Wednesday, July 16, beginning at 9 a.m. — is a result of some of our findings.
Pressure Drop
My investigation was chiefly prompted by the largely unexplained exit of county planner Michelle Gibbs. As reported in June, Gibbs, who took over as Miramar project manager in October, asked to be taken off the project, and then quit her job entirely, giving a two-week notice to end on June 2. But she was asked to leave, with pay, on May 28, and was escorted from the building.
Gibbs’s emails to her bosses clearly indicate disputes. Before her departure, Gibbs raised concerns about the Miramar project’s process and, on April 16, she asked Planning and Development Deputy Director Dave Ward if she could be taken off the project. “I do not feel that I can adequately explain or defend our environmental impact analysis or policy consistency analysis to members of the public, or to decision-makers in a hearing,” Gibbs wrote. She felt rushed in what she was being asked to do, and suggested in her letter that Ward even changed one alternative from “feasible” to “infeasible.” Gibbs also indicated that she didn’t want to sign her name to the environmental report.
Even before then, Gibbs sent an email on March 28 to Ward discussing a CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) guideline regarding the county’s decision to use an addendum procedure in its environmental review. “Again, as I completely disagree with this finding,” she wrote, “it is your call on how this text is written.”
Later, on May 7, Gibbs emailed planner Anne Almy to say, “As I understand from you, I need to discuss some things that I need to improve on in my self evaluation.” Almy responded by telling her to “put in writing your thoughts on the Miramar-related events and work challenges that have occurred over the past while. I think you need to reflect back on the meeting held on April 16, 2008, between [Planning and Development Assistant Director] Dianne [Black], Dave, you, and me wherein conduct, interpersonal relationships, and performance were discussed.”
Of Gibbs's predecessor, Julie Harris, supervising planner Dave Ward wrote, “Here are my edits so you can see where Julie [Harris] still remains a bit off our collegial team expectation. She made two comments regarding applicant effort late Friday that made me cringe. I’d say Julie is probably at about 70 percent where we want her. I remain concerned.”
Gibbs’ “performance” as planner had also taken a hit just days earlier from Ward, who wrote a scathing email due to an uncompleted assignment. “I continue to be dismayed that this task remains incomplete,” Ward wrote. “Unacceptable. This is not an insignificant administrative task — it has direct purpose … Immediately have a secretary drive around to collect signatures.”
J'Amy Brown
Caruso Affiliated meets with Montecito Board of Architectural Review in December 2007.
To that, Gibbs responded, “I’m sorry, but you never once indicated that you wanted me to ask administrative staff to drive the charter around to get signatures.” She explained that she wasn’t the original planner, so had no way of knowing that move was necessary. “Since our meeting with [SEIU union representative] George Greene,” wrote Gibbs, “you have done nothing but harass me on this case and this email is just another example.”
But Gibbs was not the first planner to have trepidations about Caruso’s Miramar. She took over as Miramar project manager for county planner Julie Harris, who also had many issues with the applicant’s procedure and ethics. In a June 19, 2007, email, Harris points to a Montecito Journal article that mentioned a yet-to-be-scheduled Montecito Planning Commission meeting, and wrote, “The applicant is trying to lock us into something that cannot be set at this time.” Harris expressed concern on the Miramar timeline draft in a long July 17, 2007, email, explaining to planner June Pujo and Deputy Director Ward that “I have much wrong with it. As I have already raised several times, I am opposed to giving the applicant unrealistic expectations.” Harris called the timeline “aggressive and unrealistic” and wrote that she was “opposed to creating a timeline that puts so much pressure on staff.” She later opined that the project was “a nearly impossible situation to work with and I have never had to deal with this on any other project.”
“ Is there any way she can be tuned before Rick complains about the dismissive treatment he feels he’s getting?” asked one Miramar neighbor of a county planner. “You, me, and the public want this to succeed and if Julie [Harris] is already pulling this crap on them, it’s gonna be a problem.” Less than two months later, Harris was pulled from the project.
Pressure, however, was apparently being put on Harris whether she knew it or not, as the planner was already the cause of worries for county staff and Montecito residents. In an August 18 email, Deputy Director Ward sent some of his “edits” of Harris’s analysis to planner Pujo, in anticipation of the upcoming Montecito Board of Architectural Review and Planning Commission hearings. Ward explained, “Here are my edits so you can see where Julie [Harris] still remains a bit off our collegial team expectation. We talked some regarding this and also her current review of applicant plans. She made two comments regarding applicant effort late Friday that made me cringe. I’d say Julie is probably at about 70 percent where we want her. I remain concerned.”
Around that same time, resident Greg Huglin sent an email to Derek Johnson, deputy director of the county's Office of Long Range Planning, explaining that he had received a call from an upset Caruso, who indicated Harris only gave Caruso an hour to meet, and at the end told him, “Time’s up!”
“Pretty fuckin’ arrogant of her, in my opinion,” wrote Huglin. “She perhaps forgets who she is working for. Is there any way she can be tuned before Rick complains about the dismissive treatment he feels he’s getting? You, me, and the public want this to succeed and if Julie [Harris] is already pulling this crap on them, it’s gonna be a problem.” Less than two months later, Harris was pulled from the project.
Email Trail
Being rushed was not just a figment of Harris’s imagination for many emails from various county staff also indicate concerns about a fast-tracked Miramar, oftentimes referencing Caruso’s people as pushing a way-too-speedy timeline. Here are a few:
• Dale Weber, a former development engineer with the county’s flood control district, called the case a high-profile one with “an applicant who has an unrealistic timeline.”
• Ray Ketzel, a member of the Montecito Board of Architectural Review (MBAR), wrote in September that Caruso needs to “slow down and not try to throw too much at the county at one time.”
• County planner Laura Bridley, in a January 2008 email to Pujo and P&D assistant director Black, said she fielded a call from Ty Warner representative Greg Rice, who had “some complaints about why he thought the Miramar was getting an easier time of it than Ty Warner did.”
• In a March 19 email to 1st District Supervisor Salud Carbajal and the county’s CEO Mike Brown, Planning and Development Director John Baker said, “Our goal all along has been to provide the path for approval that will not have obstacles that will result in lengthy delays.”
• CEO Brown’s assistant sent an email in March explaining that, at the direction of Carbajal, a meeting involving county staff, Middlebrook, and Caruso would be set up to “discuss unacceptable delays.”
• Jon Frye, flood control engineering manager, said in November that Brown had the project on his radar to “get the bed tax going.”
While some of the heat was no doubt coming from CEO Brown, some of it was also coming from Caruso. Frye notes that consultant Craig Steward from Penfield and Smith, which was doing work for Caruso on a drainage report, told him that he was directed by the developer not to put anything down in writing. Reports indicate a similar edict was given to county staff after CPA’s attorney Gonzalez made his public records request in May.
Paul Wellman
Matt Middlebrook
Also, as indicated in a March 20 email from Middlebrook to Black following a conference call: “Just want to acknowledge that I know you and the staff are working very hard to finish the documents and did not intend to imply otherwise.” Ward responds to Black, saying, “I think Matt [Midddlebrook] is sincere. Pressure remains on all sides.”
Fears of Flood
And then there’s the flood issue. County emails document many scheduled meetings between staff and the applicant, as well as among staffers, to discuss potential issues with a floodplain on the Miramar property. Residents and groups monitoring the project also have shared concerns about the floodplain.
“I don’t want to review the study quite frankly,” wrote a county flood engineer. “I prefer to have absolutely no comment to this study for the very reason that I haven’t looked at it and I haven’t looked at it because my boss did not direct me to look at it. That way, no matter who gets hold of me, I have nothing to say, good bad or indifferent.”
Engineering expert Frye seems to lead the charge in questioning the site’s ability to handle flooding, or at least the sufficiency of Caruso team’s analysis. Caruso had Penfield & Smith do a drainage study, and Frye indicated the study is “light” on the impacts of the project to Oak Creek, and also doesn’t address overflows from San Ysidro Creek should it become plugged. Despite warnings about the issue from Frye, Middlebrook informed Gibbs, “[I]t is our belief that our analysis of the flood hazard area as submitted with out application in November is sufficient.”
In February, a civil engineering associate with the county’s flood control district pointed out “a fatal flaw assumption in the modeling approach” that Penfield & Smith took, according to Frye, giving him “even less confidence” in the work completed. The associate, Candice Constantine, noted, “[T]hey aren’t going to like the results, hence the resistance.” Frye indicates in a later email they haven’t come to a conclusion on whether there is a potential adverse impact because of the report, but that it needs looking into.
“The Caruso team has developed a great plan for the Miramar,” the published letter states. “It is the right plan. It fits into Montecito. It brings back the elegance and charm of the old Miramar while creating something fresh and new.”
A newer Penfield & Smith report concludes the “impacts are indeed minimal, if at all.” That’s from a March 14 email sent by Tom Fayram, deputy Public Works director, which reversed an email from three days prior, when he explained that any more filling of the floodplain wouldn’t be allowed.
J'Amy Brown
Developer Rick Caruso stands behind, from left, MBAR's Anne Almy, Ray Ketzel, and Tony Spann.
Three days later, Gibbs asked Frye if he concurred with Fayram’s analysis. Frye, in turn, responded directly to Fayram, explaining, “I don’t want to review the study quite frankly. As you said this morning, it’s the project engineer’s responsibility to do the details correctly, and you have already reviewed the bigger picture stuff. From another perspective, I prefer to have absolutely no comment to this study for the very reason that I haven’t looked at it and I haven’t looked at it because my boss did not direct me to look at it. That way, no matter who gets hold of me, I have nothing to say, good bad or indifferent.”
Caruso’s Community Cronies
Most anyone, whether they are for a full environmental review or not, are tired of a rat-infested eyesore just off Highway 101 in a highly visible part of town. From Caruso’s side, Middlebrook has claimed overwhelming support for the project, and disregards these allegations as coming from a small group of people who are trying to keep any project from being built. In chorus with that assumption, various newspapers over the past few weeks have featured full-page advertisements from “Friends of Montecito” — including Gene Montesano, Bob and Catherine Remak, Nina Terzian, Mary Belle Snow, Bob Hazard, and others — urging their neighbors to support the project.
“The Caruso team has developed a great plan for the Miramar,” the published letter states. “It is the right plan. It fits into Montecito. It brings back the elegance and charm of the old Miramar while creating something fresh and new.”
On Wednesday, the validity of those sentiments will be publicly aired once again.
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
Looks like the out of town lawyers working for the shadowy "Miramar Opponents' are combing the emails at the County Planning Department looking to show that there is some kind of conspiracy to subvert the planning process.
Ask yourself who is paying for these lawyers and why?
Why don't the opponents show up at the meetings and speak for themselves?
Do they want to ram their minority opinion down the throats of the vast majority of us locals who want the Miramar to be rebuilt?
Is this a democracy of the majority or a tyranny of the minority?
I wrote the above quoted email to my surfing buddy Derek who happens to work for the County. Rick Caruso had called me and told me that they he an appointment with Julie Harris so they drove up from HellA to meet with her .
After an hour, Rick said Julie told him the meeting was over. I would be pretty angry if I drove 2 hours thru traffic just to be shut down after an hour.
I live on the beach 60' from the Western end of the MIramar. My dad bought the house my family and I live in for $24,500 in 1964.
I've seen both Schrager and Warner bail from the project and leave us with an eyesore.
I was initially skeptical of the Rick Caruso because he's rich, handsome, from Los Angeles and wears tailored suits. After spending a fair bit of time with him and seeing how what kind of person he is, I fully support him and personally like him even though he don't surf.
If any of you opponents, paid lawyer/shills or naysayers have a better plan for the Miramar, come out with it. But so far I think you're a bunch of spoiled crybabies who just want to stop the project for your own selfish reasons.
Not one of the public opponents live within a mile of the Miramar. All the Montecito Homeowners Associations support the Caruso plan. 99% of the locals do as well.
Put up your plan, stand up and tell us who you really are or please just shut up.
Hiding behind lawyers and sneaking thru county emails is slimy and in my opinion shows more about you opponents than the process you claim to endorse. This is America folks and majority rules.
Greg Huglin
President
Miramar Beach Homeowners Association
greghuglin (anonymous profile)
July 14, 2008 at 7:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I have been weighing in heavily in support of this project. As a beachfront resident in Montecito - this is LONG overdue.
I have recently sent additional emails off to Salud in support of this project and encourage you to do the same.
BeachLivin (anonymous profile)
July 14, 2008 at 9:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
99% of the locals support the Caruso plan as it exists today? BS. I am a public opponent of the project as it's currently designed and I live well within a mile of the project.
I don't care about your specific property values, or the existing eyesore. I care about the property being developed in the best possible way, with as little negative environmental and aesthetic impacts as possible.
If you didn't live next door, and hadn't let the snake charm you, you'd care more about the details of the project and less about inconveniencing a sophisticated businessperson who clearly sees the community's desire to maintain its high levels of environmental scrutiny as a cost of doing business. There is no rush.
If the existing condition of the Miramar, hidden behind walls, bothers you so much, ask Mr. Caruso to clean the site.
Further, I resent having my point of view, and that of MY neighbors, characterized as "tyranny." You fear that opponents of the project (in its current form) are "shadowy" and hire "out of town lawyers" ostensibly to harass your beloved "out of town developer." I have no problem with Mr. Caruso, nor with a hotel project being built at the old Miramar property as long as it is not too big, too tall, and doesn't create new or exacerbate existing environmental problems.
I have written letters of concern to the appropriate agencies and I will appear at hearings. If I believe there is cause, I will hire legal counsel, from here or "out of town" to represent my interests. I have standing in this matter both legally, because of the proximity of my residence to the development, and as a member of this community who could potentially suffer from environmental impacts which could and should be mitigated. That is your right and Mr. Caruso's right as well.
Open your mind, and your ears Mr. Huglin. Ranting that well meaning opposition to certain aspects of the project is tyranny of the minority is neither persuasive nor accurate, and does nothing more than eloquently illuminate your obvious self interest.
This is a very large project in a very sensitive location. We should be grateful that the enormous value and potential profits of the development justify the highest levels of diligence on the part of the developer and the community.
scottsmigel (anonymous profile)
July 14, 2008 at 9:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
One of the beauties (?) of the CA land use process is that any minority interest, no matter how tiny, can block a project almost indefinitely at almost no cost to themselves while the developer, in this case, spends over $1 million a month in carrying costs and staff costs while trying to get the project approved. And, please, no "he can afford it" BS - that is NOT the point. I'd like to see the law changed so the those who delay beyond the completion and approval of necessary studies pay the developer's costs for the delay. Staff has recommended approval - the disagreement of Gibbs notwithstanding. The MA has recommended approval. Assuming the MPC agrees and the BoS does not override, then the costs of carrying the battle further should be on the objectors - ALL the costs.
RCMeltzer (anonymous profile)
July 14, 2008 at 10:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"spoiled crybabies" ???
Bwahahaha...How about sharing how much you pay in property taxes you self absorbed spoiled brat. Maybe if you paid your fair share, the county wouldn't be jonesing for more taxes to pay off the overbloated inefficient beaurocratic empires they've created.
When's the last time we've gotten a project that the whole community can enjoy? Ever notice that just about everything in this town revolves around building shyte for people who aren't living here?
sa1 (anonymous profile)
July 14, 2008 at 10:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
sa1, right on. Mr. Huglin would regain some credibility if he'd volunteer to reassess his property at current market values.
It is never cheaper to try to evade honest evaluation of impacts. The flood control study just needs to be done right.
Mike Brown, the County CEO doesn't know squat about how to do that, nor does Dave Ward nor Dianne Black nor does John Baker; especially troubling is Carbajal's email. Delays are part of a reality-driven process, where real knowledge enters.
All those folks just know how to put pressure on ethical underlings to get goodies for their friends.
When the ethical underlings start to actually implement their ethics, they get bad personnel evaluations and eventually resign.
I hope Brown, Black, Ward, Carbajal, and Baker all consider their options, and have all their pensions revoked. They've been showed to be unethical.
Wonderful that the Indy uncovered all this (with help from others, of course). Pretty much every project in this County is covered with slime.
sevendolphins (anonymous profile)
July 14, 2008 at 12:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The Planning and Development department has turned into the Development department as result of Mike Brown and his three pro growth backers on the Board of Supervisors, Gray, Centeno and Firestone. I ultimately don't much care what you folks in Montecito do but the law is the law. If the Miramar doesn't follow county regulations and CEQA and ends up jeopardizing a creek and thus the ocean all citizens pay the price, not just Montecito residents. This pressure to cram through projects without adequate environmental review and with county staff virtually acting as or being pressured to act as advocates for the project is getting pretty sickening. It won't change until Firestone is gone and a new direction is taken. I would like to see where Salud Carbajal stands on this. Normally I consider him a pro-environmental supervisor who is at the same time not anti-development as long as the project complies with state and county rules.
Noletaman (anonymous profile)
July 14, 2008 at 12:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What does the amount of property taxes I pay have anything to do with the Miramar project? Is this 'class warfare'? The renters vs. owners? Long time residents vs. recent transplants? Buying a home always seems expensive until you look back 40 years later and then it looks cheap.
FYI, My family has paid property taxes in Montecito for 84 years. How about you?
In addition, I tore down the house we live in after it was damaged by a flood in 1994 and when I built the current structure, it was reassessed at the going rate in 1996.
I went thru the nightmare County building process to get demo and rebuilding permits just like everyone else.
Try addressing the issues publicly by showing up at the meetings instead of hiding and whining anonymously.
Yes, it is in the interests of me personally and the Association that I am elected to represent to get the Caruso/Miramar plan approved before he leaves in disgust. Opponents, what is your plan, exactly?
Caruso is the third guy to step up to the plate and if he leaves, who else is crazy enough to try?
Greg Huglin
President
Miramar Beach Homeowners Association
greghuglin (anonymous profile)
July 14, 2008 at 1:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
John_Locke (anonymous profile)
July 14, 2008 at 3:01 p.m.
Sure, Mr. Huglin, sure. Did you reassess you land too, or just the improvements?
The plan is simple: do a proper and honest flood control assessment, not one that is compromised by all the pressure from Mike Brown, or Huglin, or LA Lawyers.
Let competent and ethical underlings go about their job in an honest way.
It is Caruso and Huglin who are whining and not honestly facing reality.
Reality presents its own obstacles. To blame those obstacles on the County or the process is the real whining.
sevendolphins (anonymous profile)
July 14, 2008 at 4:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why do Julie Harris and Michelle Gibbs hate America?
David_Pritchett (anonymous profile)
July 14, 2008 at 5:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Do I understand you correctly, sevendolphins? The "competent and ethical underlings" are by definition correct, while the managers responsible for their decisions (Brown, Black, Ward, Carbajal, and Baker, judging from your prior post) have all been showed to be unethical. Any proof of an ethical lapse, other than your disagreement with the recommendation of P&D? Are you a flood control expert? Do you know, in the legal sense, not in the sense of your personal conviction, that any of the required studies are incomplete or flawed? Gibbs being overridden by her management is not an indictment of anyone's ethics; it's the prerogative of management - that's why it's called "management".
RCMeltzer (anonymous profile)
July 14, 2008 at 6:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Folks, enough name calling.
Those of us who want this project to be of the highest quality are not the minority. I am a developer myself and have more than once been "dragged over the coals" by a concerned and involved community.
There is a process here, and I will be heard along with every interested and effected party, perhaps not in this vulgar media screaming match, but in the public hearings and discussions intended to flush out both public opinion and issues of importance regarding proposed development.
As for you who insist on blindly supporting a project merely because your perceive it as your only chance to preserve an inherited lifestyle, and see every thoughtful, legal, and measured response to that project as a threat, I'm sorry. Surf's up.
PS: I have total confidence in the County staff and our elected representatives to weigh each and every aspect of this complicated development and to work with the developer, Mr. Caruso, to create a project from which both he and the community will reap profits from for years to come.
scottsmigel (anonymous profile)
July 14, 2008 at 9:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
RCMeltzer... Management sure can decide pigs can fly, or that gravity points upward, or that the Moon is made of green cheese, or that you can get AIDS from a toilet seat. And the public can note the absurdity of these proclamations in forums like this one and beat the drum for the ouster of such ignoramuses.
Evidence? Here you go...
``In February, a civil engineering associate with the county’s flood control district pointed out “a fatal flaw assumption in the modeling approach” that Penfield & Smith took, according to Frye, giving him “even less confidence” in the work completed.''
Of course bigshots like Caruso and others want to squelch little people who just happen to know the truth. That's how you make money in this country, and then you use that money to feather the nests of management. Likely Ward, Brown, Black, Carbajal, and Baker have a nice delayed trust set up for them by Caruso that will trigger a few years after they leave their management positions. That is, the trust will kick in only if they successfully suppress the honest underlings who just want the truth to be in the EIR.
And in the end, if there are injuries and deaths due to flooding, Caruso will dump the cost on the taxpayer. Don't believe it? Go read about the Savings and Loan bailout of the 1980's, or the bailouts now underway for the housing industry. Or all the defense contractors who have successfully screwed the overseers of Iraq war procurement.
Our County is no different. Anyone who argues that the process delays them is simply shilling for a ripoff of taxpayers.
sevendolphins (anonymous profile)
July 14, 2008 at 11:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
A civil engineering "associate"? Was this individual a California-certified Registered Professional Engineer or does "associate" mean a junior level position? I'll stipulate that there were and should have been debates on the content of the reports, but, like it or not, management makes the final decisions. If you have proof of trust funds or other nefarious activities, then put it out there. Otherwise, you might want to think about the laws surrounding libel and slander. That you BL?
RCMeltzer (anonymous profile)
July 15, 2008 at 8:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Since many of us are chiming in with our "local credentials" here go mine:
My grandfather's first job in Santa Barbara was as a maintenance man at the Miramar, and I grew up on that beach and as a member of the tennis club. Haley Fiske taught me to play Backgammon on the deck there, and I taught Jacques--the Vichy "security guard"--how to swim the butterfly. We've owned property creekside on North Jameson since 1960 (sorry, property taxes are still low). And, yeah, I'm a surfer too.
I was at Butterfly Beach yesterday, and as I walked down the street looking at all the crazy, huge, ugly construction going on, I asked myself "How does all this s*** get approved?"
Don't get me wrong: the Miramar site is a dump. Hell, we all kind of thought that as we watched it decay before the Gawzners sold. Something needs to happen. But whatever happens there, it needs to follow the correct procedures...procedures that *everyone* is subjected to equally. Slick, rich LA developer or decidedly middle class homeowner.
After the rains of 1998 our a**es were held over the fire by County Planning, Coastal Commission et al. just for trying to get the creekside portion of our property stable so the house wouldn't fall down into it! Sounds like things would've been a touch easier if Caruso was our friend during that process.
How sad.
lokelyokel (anonymous profile)
July 15, 2008 at 9:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The `associate' has a Ph.D. in Geology, focusing on the modeling of water flows, RCMeltzer.
The greedy and venal behavior of the top levels of our County management is legend. It is probable that they profit in numerous manners (delayed trusts, master leases, gifts to family members) that are just barely under the radar of all the usual disclosure.
Additionally, the tip the balances of all the EIRs in favor of their patrons by giving bad personnel reviews to honest underlings. This is well known, and anyone who conducts and honest review is risking their career and their livelihood.
sevendolphins (anonymous profile)
July 15, 2008 at 2:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
But is this PhD certified as a Registered Professional Engineer by the State of CA? And when was the PhD granted? And how many years has this PhD been practicing his/her speciality? That state certification means something very specific, well beyond the degree. And do you have ANY proof of these allegations of yours regarding our "greedy and venal management" or does "everyone just know they're true"? Kinda like "everyone knows Bush lied"? Really? Everyone? You've polled everyone? Or do you just mean everyone who thinks like you?
RCMeltzer (anonymous profile)
July 15, 2008 at 3:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ph. D. granted in 2006 from UCSB's Geology Department. Who the deuce cares if they are a Registered Professional Engineer; the modeling of water flows and erosion are not engineering.
The proof of the pressure from above is in the e-mails, pressure without regard for the truth and the facts and the data in this case. Just heavyweight managers trying to intimidate their far better educated staff.
sevendolphins (anonymous profile)
July 15, 2008 at 3:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Since Noletaman noted CEQA, let me provide the basic reason for having CEQA.
"The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was adopted in 1970 and incorporated in the Public Resources Code §§21000-21177. Its basic purposes are to: inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential significant environmental effects of proposed activities; identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced; require changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when feasible; and disclose to the public the reasons why a project was approved if significant environmental effects are involved. CEQA applies to projects undertaken, funded or requiring an issuance of a permit by a public agency. The analysis of a project required by CEQA usually takes the form of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Negative Declaration (ND), or Environmental Assessment (EA)."
CEQA today is being used by opponents of development to DELAY or STOP projects. CEQA's original intent is clear, "inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential significant environmental effects of proposed activities." There is nothing in CEQA that says a project can't move forward even if a project has an environmental "impact". Most people are familar with the term CEQA, but not many really understand that CEQA guidelines are very general in nature. CEQA allows the "Lead Agency" to set and determine project impact criteria and thresholds. What the general public feels is an impact usually is not a criteria listed by the CEQA guidelines. The dirty secret about CEQA is that because it's so general, case law is becoming the guidelines for environmental review.
DarNel (anonymous profile)
July 15, 2008 at 4:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The parking situation doesn't appear to be adequate with this plan unless the surrounding neighborhoods don't mind employee parking on their streets.
Georgy (anonymous profile)
July 15, 2008 at 6:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Seven dolphins: A PhD in 2006? With all due respect to the individual in question s/he is a a mere child in terms of professional practice. You place far too much faith in the merit of "Piled higher and Deeper". Who cares about registration? Do you know what RPE means? The safety of the population depends on the engineering performed by RPE's, including flooding. Get a clue.
RCMeltzer (anonymous profile)
July 15, 2008 at 7:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Not flooding due to issues of terrain and erosion. The right expertise for the right job, and this associate has it. Funny how you were accusing them of being some sort of junior clark a minute ago, RCM. Pretty much you are going to object to whatever knowledge the associate has. But they have far, far more knowledge than the pinheads at the top like Mike Brown, David Ward, and Salud Carbajal, who all probably can be bought for a few thousand dollars donation to their in-laws.
sevendolphins (anonymous profile)
July 15, 2008 at 9:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The 'human being', created in the 'image of God', has high potential; while it is not 'easy' to 'realize' this potentiality, it is possible...
GoletaResident (anonymous profile)
July 16, 2008 at 12:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Seems sorta obvious that Mr. Meltzer's disputatious discrediting of the credentials of the civil engineering associate who pointed out a "fatal flaw" is a little beside the point.
Either there's a flaw or there isn't. When you look at the emails regarding the issue, there's a whistling sound as Mr. Frye, who had earlier been forthright, walks rapidly backwards out of the line of fire, saying his boss didn't ask him to look into it. Why not, boss?
Georgy raises a good question. The Caruso folks say that a TOTAL of 102 employees will be on site at any one time, including shift changes, reservations, front desk, concierges, maid service, restaurant hosts, cooks, wait staff (for the 600-person weddings), retail clerks (there's FOUR THOUSAND square feet of retail in the plan), gardeners, maintenance, etc etc. You believe that? A five star joint like the Biltmore typically has a one-to-one ratio of staff to guest. With 202 rooms, many with couples or families, how many staff will really be there? And where will they park?
And the one thing I don't hear anyone talking about is the whopping TWENTY FEET of so-called horizontal beach access they're promising along the entire frontage of the hotel. That's a pathway only twenty feet from the waves. Don't bring a beach chair.
You're probably thinking what about the Mean High Tide line? Rick's Matt wrote me saying this was a good deal for us beach-goers. Sometimes the tide's higher than the mean, he said, so where would we be?
Well, if they weren't claiming sixty feet from the seawall as theirs, we'd be fine. That's sixty feet that have never been claimed in the history of Miramar Beach. Why should they get it?
chubbco (anonymous profile)
July 16, 2008 at 2:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
sevendolphins, please read my post again, carefully. At no time did I accuse anyone of being "some sort of junior clark [sic]". The term "associate" that you used in an earlier post is often used as a title for a junior staff member in an organization, PhD or not. And "flooding due to issues of terrain and erosion" is in fact a discipline of Civil Engineering. And the RPE designation goes beyond educational credentials to ensure that those who practice do indeed have "the right expertise for the right job". I am not at all "objecting to whatever knowledge the associate has"; I am questioning whether the associate has been certified by the State to pass judgement on the matters at hand. And once again, if you think our officials are corrupt, put the evidence out there, and I'll help you bring them down. If not, then you're just slinging sleaze.
RCMeltzer (anonymous profile)
July 16, 2008 at 8:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
RCM I am at a disadvantage as to your qualifications to dispute qualifications of any PhD. yet alone this PhD? I feel you might be the best person to answer your own questions and report back on the facts to substantiate your stance rather dissecting personal and professional characteristics. I understand your position on recently graduated students as it might possibly relate to hiring in some fields (more to A.A's and B.A's)......I feel you've stepped in something warm in this particular instance.
Mr Huglin....Are looking for support from the community or maintaining a militia of Montecito Homeowners? Put up or shut...are those fighting words? You've run up against people who want the hoi polloi informed and involved. Continue to support Mr. Caruso and your cause but realize he knows a good many things that have put him among the tops in his field. He knows what it takes and calculates the risk to time to profit ratio .....and.....knows when to hold'em and knows when to fold'em ....not your call.
It is America and processes are provided that attempt to allow the majority and hopefully the informed to rule.
Scottsmigel...GoletaResident.....DarNel Thanks for your thoughts and regards.
DavidPritchett.......?
Ken (anonymous profile)
July 16, 2008 at 10:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Once again, then I give up. The purpose of the RPE certification is to have one's abilities vouchsafed by a state-sanctioned board of experts in a particular field, in this case in matters of subsidence and flood control. I am not qualified to judge this individual's qualifications, nor, I suspect, are you. Once again, that is the point of RPE.
RCMeltzer (anonymous profile)
July 16, 2008 at 12:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why don't the "authorities" bulldoze the site of the former Miramar eye sore and sell it to the highest bidder? Who cares?
saulcooper (anonymous profile)
July 16, 2008 at 2:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"BLUE ROOFS OR BUST"
lordleadbetter (anonymous profile)
July 16, 2008 at 5:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Once again, facing always backwards, march.
RCMeltzer (anonymous profile)
July 16, 2008 at 8:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
My dad bought the house my family and I live in for $24,500 in 1964.
I've seen both Schrager and Warner bail from the project and leave us with an eyesore.
I was initially skeptical of the Rick Caruso because he's rich, handsome, from Los Angeles and wears tailored suits. After spending a fair bit of time with him and seeing how what kind of person he is, I fully support him and personally like him even though he don't surf.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Look at the mess the out of town developers have made. Bacara is the best example. Excess, elitism, consumption and exclusion are the signs held up at the check point. Caruso can still grease the palms in L.A., but he’s not on the team here yet. Warner’s got a first down and going long. What Caruso’s got to do is find the judge who helped side step CEQA at the Coral Casino, then the environmental rules, established for all of us (a bunch of spoiled crybabies) can be massaged to fit the needed outcome.
Time and time again, whether in the City or County, environmental safeguards put in place have been ignored or misrepresented at government level. What are the consequences if an EIR is done? Why sidestep the remaining process if clarity and transparency are the desired out come? Losing Schrager and Warner might best be seen as opportunities for a land use project that fits the neighborhood, sustaining resources consumption to a minimum not maximum.
Knowingly, once a out of town project developer like Caruso gets the green light, the long arm to exclude public access goes up, letting in only those worthy of the $500. / Night minimum user fee. What we have in place at the moment is signs of Carbajal with his hand in the cookie jar. By in large, good reporting by the Independent has helped us locals stay informed. They say “follow the money”. Our Planners who were fired, or who quit knew enough to keep this a democracy, how about the next tear up? Anyone with good vision knows that above the ground floor it’s all about not rocking the boat, legacy, or big fat pensions in the circle game. The hypocrites need to come down to earth.
easternpacific (anonymous profile)
July 17, 2008 at 8:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
So seriously, there is good reason Schrager and Warner sold out this project. It’s the reason why we are at where we are now in this point in time. It’s the problems with resources. Whether it’s the sights historical drainage problems and the potential for worse flooding with this proposal, or water usage and allotments. These things need to get worked out before anything is built.
If Caruso’s project get built due to the current PR campaign of entitlement, then flooding happens in the future, the public tax payer’s money get pulled out to fix the issues. That’s Immoral, and is one tactic used in resent times. The use of eyesore, run down, blight that slights the process. As building sights become scarcer, and with the trend of dwindling open space and denser projects, we have to look at these projects with more scrutiny and greater vision.
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o156/...
easternpacific (anonymous profile)
July 17, 2008 at 1:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
And RPE is not necessarily the appropriate qualification for developing and judging the models used to estimate flooding danger. The models are not always developed by engineers, but are sometimes developed by scientists. After all, Isaac Newton was not an engineer and didn't have an RPE. However, an RPE definitely employs Newton's laws. But all this beating up on this person's qualifications is BS. As a Ph.D. in a very highly relevant field their view should be respected, and their points should be addressed on their scientific merits. Attacking credentials is a totally rancid screen for evading a scientific discussion.
Now I happen to have a fair amount of experience in SB County approval, and I can tell you, Frank Frost's catching of a briber trying to develop More Mesa was no fluke. The modern bribers now how to stay one micron outside the law. And so do all the highups in this County. It is all but assured that Caruso has the pertinent folks in his pocket.
sevendolphins (anonymous profile)
July 18, 2008 at 6:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Chubbco, you asked a question:
"...if they weren't claiming sixty feet from the seawall as theirs, we'd be fine. That's sixty feet that have never been claimed in the history of Miramar Beach. Why should they get it?"
And here's the answer:
"It’s one of only five hotel properties that go down to the beach, so we basically own the beach.” Rick J. Caruso, March 2007
http://www.icsc.org/srch/sct/sct0307/com...
Grace (anonymous profile)
July 19, 2008 at 1:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
To beach residents who support this project, please read the following report from a neighbor who experienced a fraction of the pile driving proposed for the entire beach front as well as the other side of the property. Read it all so you'll know how to prepare yourself, your families, your houses & cars before construction begins. I've left out some names to protect the resident who shared this. It will continue in my next post...
"....Pile driving: the two main issues we faced at _____ are not even mentioned in your attachment: the oil and the shaking. The pile driver sprays a continuous stream of black oil as a lubricant on the driver as it goes up and down the shaft. This is not a little trickle, think garden hose with your thumb over the nozzle. Anyway, if the pile driver is to the NORTH or WEST of your house during the windy days, the black oil will indubitably end up all over the side of your house and on your stucco and windows and sky lights, etc. This is a big deal if you have any solar panels or plastic sky lights.
What happened at _______ is this: when lot X was built out (the neighbor on my ___ side), the pile driver oil spray got all over our pool house, a Historical Society protected building. We had a real problem getting the oil off from BEHIND the iron grill work and the structure had to be totally repainted. The reason that the homes downwind of the pile driving were not hurt was just because the wind wasn't blowing in that direction on those days. I think it was 4 days.
(continued)
Grace (anonymous profile)
July 19, 2008 at 1:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Pile driving continued:
So, then when lot number X (on my ___ side) was to be built, we raised a big stink and the owners had to wrap our house totally in a termite protection type of covering to protect all surfaces during the drilling. We were not home – thankfully.
However, the President of the _____ Association at that time, a big SB lawyer named______ ……a brilliant land-use expert, decided that we had to be concerned with the vibrations from the driver.
I am not sure how he decided that, but we are happy he did. He decided that the vibrations would damage our stucco carvings on our house and would shake and crack the walls of the pool house....
So, dear Mr._____, all on his own basically, issued a stop-work order and the sheriff was called to meet the flatbed truck as it was delivering the piles to _____. Lot X was built on poured caissons and life goes on.
A foot note: the owner of lot X with his approvals for pile driving in hand from County and the ______ Architectural Associations, together with his big bill for the custom-made unused piles went to court, sued _______and evidently won a settlement. No one is talking about the $ amount. He claimed that he was baited and switched. He was.
If I were you, I'd …… find out what sort of geological data on shaking he reviewed to issue his initial stop-work order. There must be something. He is a very calm and reasoned guy.
Second, I would look at the wind patterns and what is in the path of the blow corridor for the oil overspray. Maybe your part of the beach is different from ours, but we get a pretty consistent West to East blow; with sundowners it is maybe more North to South. Any and all planting materials are at risk as well as any plastics. Anything with a paint job will have to be re-painted. All cars will need to be garaged, etc. Very traumatic. Much nicer to use caissons, but more expensive and not as strong.
Grace (anonymous profile)
July 19, 2008 at 1:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
And another thing: who started the rumor that the project that's before the Planning Commission is green? It's as far from green as you can get.
If you hear that rumor, ask for specifics. And post them here.
Grace (anonymous profile)
July 20, 2008 at 12:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Post a comment