1 miramar beach resort and bungalows project 2 - Santa Barbara ...

1 MIRAMAR BEACH RESORT AND BUNGALOWS PROJECT
2 MONTECITO PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14 WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 6, 2008
15 123 EAST ANAPAMU STREET
16 SANTA BARBARA COUNTY ENGINEERING BUILDING
17 SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 FILE NO. 080806AW
25 REPORTED BY AMANDA R. WOLFENSTEIN, C.S.R. NO. 13129
1

1 MONTECITO PLANNING COMMISSION:
2 ROBERT BIERIG - CHAIRMAN
3 CLAIRE GOTTSDANKER
4 JACK OVERALL
5 SUE BURROWS
6 MICHAEL PHILLIPS
7
8 SPEAKERS:
9 JASON MOORE
10 DIANNE BLACK
11 ERRIN BRIGGS
12 MICHAEL GHIZZONI
13 RICK CARUSO
14 MATT MIDDLEBROOK
15 MARY ANNE SLUTZKY
16 JERRY MITTERMILLER
17 JEFF HAVLIK
18 ANN ALMY
19 BRETT STEWART
20 TOM MOSBY
21 DIANE GABRIEL
22 JIM LANGHORNE
23 SHELIA LODGE
24 SUE ADAMS
25 TOM BOLLAY
2

1 SPEAKERS CONTINUED:
2 NICOLE MAYSHORE
3 TED BUERGEY
4 GIANNA MARCYAN
5 TODD BOEHR
6 MICHAEL MAGNEY
7 LEE MOLDAUER
8 BOB HAZARD
9 FREDDIE ROMERO
10 PETER MELNICK
11 GLORIA MONTANA
12 HILLARY HANSER
13 HARRY HOVEY
14 ROSS CAMPBELL
15 NINA TERZIAN
16 NAOMI KOVACS
17 MICHELLE TRESCOTT
18 DORINNE JOHNSON
19 RON PULICE
20 DAVID BLACK
21 STAN HARFENIST
22 RICHARD EILER
23 KAREN DROWN
24 STEPHEN ZOLDOS
25 SHELLY TOLLEN
3

1 SPEAKERS (CONTINUED):
2 BOB MELTZER
3 LARRY ARCHIBALD
4 VERNE LANGDON
5 ANN DUCENBERRY
6 BILL HOWARD
7 FRED MARSIC
8 JEFF SCHLOSSBERG
9 JULIA LOUIS-DREYFUS HALL
10 SALLY JORDON
11 BRETT BEAUVOIX
12 JOHN ERNEST
13 CANDICE BUERGEY
14 JEAN HARFENIST
15 STACEY PULICE
16 PAT YOKHAM
17 MICHAEL MC MANNIS
18 SCOTT SHELL
19 BRIAN PERKINS
20
21
22
23
24
25
4

1 SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA
2 WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 6, 2008; 9:04 A.M.
3
4 MR. BIERIG: I'd like to call to order the
5 August 6th special hearing for the Montecito Planning
6 Commission. Will you all rise for the pledge of
7 allegiance.
8 (Pledge of allegiance.)
9 MR. BIERIG: Mr. Moore, will you do the TV
10 coverage announcement and the roll call, please.
11 MR. MOORE: Montecito Planning Commission
12 hearings are televised live on County of Santa Barbara
13 Television, CSB TV Channel 20, at 9:00 A.M. in the South
14 Coast, Lompoc, Santa Ynez Valley, Santa Maria, and
15 Orcutt areas. Rebroadcasts of Montecito Planning
16 Commission hearings are on Fridays at 5:00 P.M. on CSB
17 TV Channel 20.
18 For the roll Commission Gottsdanker?
19 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Here.
20 MR. MOORE: Commissioner Overall?
21 MR. OVERALL: Here.
22 MR. MOORE: Commissioner Burrows?
23 MS. BURROWS: Here.
24 MR. MOORE: Commissioner Phillips?
25 MR. PHILLIPS: Here.
5

1 MR. MOORE: And Chairman Bierig?
2 MR. BIERIG: Here.
3 Now is the time for public comment since this
4 is a regular hearing for anything that's not on our
5 agenda today which is the Miramar item. If anybody
6 wishes to address an item that is not on the agenda, now
7 would be the time to do so.
8 Not seeing anyone, we will close the time for
9 public comment period, and we will go to the first item
10 on our agenda -- first and only item which is the
11 Miramar Hotel.
12 And Mr. Moore, would you read the item into
13 the record, please.
14 MR. MOORE: The following is the hearing on
15 the request of Caruso, BFC, Miramar, LLC, owner to
16 consider the approval of the following: 07RVP9
17 application filed on June 7, 2007, modifications to the
18 height, parking, setback ordinance requirements,
19 Article II coastal zoning requirements including
20 development standards in the Montecito Community Plan
21 district; 07CUP45 application filed on June 7th, 2007;
22 07CUP46 application filed on June 7, 2007; 07CUP47
23 application filed on June 7th, 2007; 08CUP5 application
24 filed December 13th, 2007; 08GOV17 application filed on
25 June 25th, 2008; and 08CUP54 application on May 1st,
6

1 2008; and to certify the subsequent environmental impact
2 report 08EIR3 including an addendum to negative
3 declaration 00ND3 pursuant to the state guidelines for
4 implementation of the California Environmental Quality
5 Act.
6 MR. BIERIG: Thank you very much. Now my
7 understanding of the procedure now is the staff is going
8 to make a presentation on their comments on the changes
9 that have been submitted in the few weeks and the
10 Applicant is also going to make some comments. I
11 understand these are going to be fairly -- fairly
12 concise. I won't say brief but concise and only apply
13 to changes that have been made in subsequent weeks.
14 And Mr. Briggs, are you going to handle that
15 presentation?
16 MR. BRIGGS: I am.
17 MS. BLACK: Before Mr. Briggs starts, I want
18 to point out to the Commission the material that you've
19 received for this hearing. You did receive a package
20 from us dated August 6th with quite a few attachments.
21 I would suggest that we try to really focus on the
22 material that was provided since your last hearing as we
23 take public testimony.
24 We have quite a few letters that we've
25 received since our Friday deadline for submittal of
7

1 letters that are over one page in length, and I have
2 those flagged, when the Commission wants to consider
3 whether or not you want to accept them into the record.
4 We can do that now or do that later.
5 We do have a court reporter here today. So I
6 would ask that everybody try to articulate and speak a
7 little bit maybe slower than you normally would just
8 because it's a bit difficult sometimes especially when
9 we have different speakers speaking.
10 And we do have a number of staff and agency
11 representatives here today as well from Montecito Water,
12 Montecito Sanitary District, public works, surveyors,
13 traffic, fire.
14 So I think you'll have the research you need
15 today to help you answer questions. I'm hoping that you
16 can do questions of staff and other agencies this
17 morning after we conclude this staff presentation and
18 the Applicant's presentation. So that's just business
19 material for you today.
20 MR. BIERIG: Good. I'm glad you mentioned
21 that. I think it's important for the members of the
22 audience to know we are -- following the presentation of
23 staff and the Applicant, we are going to then go to
24 questions we may have of county staff regarding these
25 items.
8

1 And following that we will take some public
2 comment, but I'm going to limit the public comment to
3 changes -- changes that have been submitted and new
4 items that have come up in the last two weeks and not to
5 a redo of the public comment period that we had before.
6 So it's going to be very limited. So if you
7 find me -- if you get up, I think it's important that
8 you plan that your remarks should be limited to new
9 material.
10 And the other thing is we have received a lot
11 of material in the last few days including -- I think I
12 got 60 pages about 6:00 o'clock last night. Now, that
13 material has not been -- I didn't read it last night,
14 and I doubt if the other Members of the Commission have
15 read that material.
16 So I won't be voting that material into the
17 record nor any of the stuff that was submitted today. I
18 may try at lunch to look at some of it, and if I think
19 something is germane, I'll bring it in, but you should
20 not assume that the material is part of the record at
21 least from my perspective. My fellow Commissioners may
22 decide they want to bring it in, but I don't plan to.
23 And with that Mr. Briggs, please proceed.
24 MR. BRIGGS: Good morning, Mr. Bierig,
25 Members of the Commission. This is our second hearing
9

1 to review the Miramar Beach Resort and Bungalows
2 Project. Just to refresh your memory, the project site
3 is located in the coastal area of Montecito.
4 During the July 16th hearing, the Commission
5 took public comment and posed numerous technical
6 questions to staff and the Applicant. This presentation
7 is intended to provide an update of the project and an
8 outline of the staff's research as directed by
9 Commission.
10 So basically I'm going to just walk you guys
11 through the bullet-point list on the first page of the
12 memo here point by point, and we'll answer questions
13 when I'm through.
14 Water district. The Miramar is -- the water
15 district considers the Miramar an existing customer.
16 There are five existing water meters on the site which
17 are functional and could be used to serve the new
18 project. In order to develop a realistic anticipated
19 water demand for the project, the district used
20 historical data from the Miramar property, historical
21 data from the Biltmore property, and the Interface Water
22 Demand Study and also took into account today's more
23 efficient water-conserving fixtures.
24 The results of their analysis as stated in
25 their July 29th letter is that the Montecito Water
10

1 District is committed to serving the project a base
2 allotment of 45 acre feet per year at the commercial
3 block-one rate. And you remember the 45 acre feet per
4 year number is down from 117 acre feet which was
5 originally proposed.
6 All water used by the project above 45 acre
7 feet per year will be billed at the block-two rate.
8 Quoting from the letter, "The district would serve
9 project demand above 45 acre feet per year to the extent
10 and consistent with the district's ability to serve all
11 other customers at the higher block water rate."
12 Caruso Affiliated also did their own
13 calculations for the projected water use of the project,
14 and their calculations came out to be 51.3.
15 The FAR calculations have been revised in
16 response to Commission concerns that the previous
17 methodolgy was incorrect. You now see elimination of
18 the internal corridors amongst other significant
19 changes. Staff verified that the revised calculations
20 are consistent with the Article II definitions and
21 intended methodolgy.
22 In response to the need to remove floor area,
23 the Applicant revised the spa building to shrink the
24 square footage and now be one story in height. Also the
25 porte cochere covering the valet area was removed. And
11

1 also an important note, when calculating the FAR's, the
2 size of Parcel 6, sand and beach parcel, remains
3 unchanged. The Applicant submitted documentation from
4 Penfield & Smith further explaining the methodolgy of
5 calculating the parcel size, and staff did review that
6 letter and also discussed that with the county surveyor,
7 and in general we do agree with the methodolgy that was
8 used to determine the parcel size of Parcel 6.
9 And here quickly just showing you the changes
10 in floor area since the July 16th hearing, you can see
11 that the total gross building area has decreased about
12 3,000 square feet or so. In response to correcting the
13 methodolgy in the FAR calculations, the net floor area
14 you can see has increased almost 2,000 square feet.
15 Total guest room area remains about the same, and
16 because of the removal of the porte cochere, the total
17 covered area was reduced about 8,000 square feet. And
18 you can see the new FAR calculation comes in at .2497
19 where as before they were at .2474.
20 So in order to help the Commission better
21 understand the Miramar Project, staff did some research
22 into the Biltmore, and we researched the historical
23 Biltmore/Coral Casino permits and spoke to Biltmore
24 management to get a better understanding how the
25 Biltmore property operates.
12

1 In general the two properties are similar in
2 terms of number of keys, 207 rooms at the Biltmore, 204
3 rooms proposed for the Miramar. They have a similar
4 assemblage of uses and size of the site is relatively
5 similar. The Biltmore/Coral Casino property is about
6 19 acres. The Miramar is about 16 acres.
7 However, Biltmore is more intense in terms of
8 number of employees onsite. At any one time the
9 Biltmore could have between 250 to 270 employees onsite
10 where the Miramar is proposing 100.
11 The Biltmore also has more restaurant seats
12 including the Coral Casino property. Total the Biltmore
13 and Coral Casino have 488 seats. The Miramar proposes
14 258. Conference and banquet space at the Biltmore is
15 larger, and the Coral Casino also has a larger beach
16 club, 600 members compared to the Miramar's proposed 300
17 members.
18 So the Commission was also interested in
19 further understanding the proposed parking for the
20 Miramar Project and staff also dove into some of the
21 details in the Biltmore. The Miramar Project continues
22 to propose 551 spaces unchanged from the previous
23 hearing. In their parking analysis, the consultant
24 identified a peak demand of 526 spaces.
25 Now, comparing the Miramar Project to the
13

1 Biltmore, even though some aspects of the Biltmore
2 property are more intense than the proposed Miramar, the
3 Biltmore operates with 455 spaces, and from speaking
4 with the management, they noted that they operate
5 adequately with those 455 spaces even during peak events
6 and that does include employee parking.
7 To give the Commission an additional level of
8 comfort, a tool for monitoring the project's parking
9 provisions, Condition No. 55 provides the Commission
10 with oversight of the project's parking conditions. So
11 the Miramar folks would return 6 to 12 months after
12 occupancy and give you guys a report on how the parking
13 provisions are operating.
14 With respect to traffic, the traffic
15 engineers were able to contact Caltrans since the last
16 hearing, and ATE, the traffic consultants, obtained new
17 trip count data from Caltrans for the San Ysidro 101
18 interchange. That data was taken from traffic counts on
19 April of 2008 during peak periods with local schools in
20 session.
21 Taking into account this recent data, the
22 project's net traffic addition to the interchange would
23 still not exceed the county's thresholds. Therefore,
24 the findings related to traffic impacts contained in the
25 negative declaration remain unchanged.
14

1 We also took a look at getting more details
2 on the beach and tennis club. Membership would be
3 limited to 300 families; however, guests and family
4 would likely not be limited. And in order to address
5 concerns related to parking, during busy weekends, the
6 Applicant proposes to actively manage the number of cars
7 driven to the site by beach club members. Parking
8 passes would be used to park in a private Miramar
9 parking lot, and one pass would be given out per
10 membership to ensure that only one car per membership
11 could attend special events during peak weekends.
12 Flushing out a little more detail on the
13 events that could occur on the Miramar property, normal
14 events, they're allowed to have 4.7 per day, I believe.
15 And those events are limited to 500 people onsite at any
16 given time. This could be one event of 500 people or an
17 aggregate number of small events which add up to 500
18 people total.
19 The Miramar is also allowed to have 12
20 special events in which 600 people are allowed, and that
21 would be 12 per year and also 30 beach events per year
22 with a maximum of 100 people on the beach at any one
23 time.
24 We wrestled with the cottage-style hotel
25 policy, and staff attempted to extend the policy
15

1 consistency discussion in Attachment A of the memo to
2 the Commission in order to more thoroughly explain the
3 project's consistency.
4 Sixteen of the twenty four or two thirds of
5 the structure devoted to guest rooms are single story in
6 height and would consist of four to six guest rooms
7 each. The intent and purpose of this policy appears to
8 be satisfied, and the project considered consistent.
9 Building 44, the Commission was concerned
10 that Building 44 read as four separate individual
11 structures and not as one structure. So in response to
12 that, the Applicant did revise Building 44 to meet the
13 Article II definition of a single building by enclosing
14 the ground floor walkways and ground floor areas between
15 the building segments.
16 Some other changes that were made -- the
17 Applicant revised the project description to include
18 statement that no project wells would be used to serve
19 project water demand, and they also included the details
20 that I mentioned regarding the beach and tennis club to
21 the project description.
22 Staff revised the findings at the request of
23 Commissioner Phillips to strengthen the development plan
24 modification findings. We also responded and revised
25 the water recourses findings in response to the new
16

1 Covina Water District -- or Montecito Water District
2 letter. We also strengthened the findings related to
3 historic recourses and the cottage-type hotel findings.
4 In addition to that, staff expanded the
5 policy consistency discussion as shown in the memo
6 related to water resources and the cottage-type hotel,
7 and then we updated the addendum to reflect the new
8 water district information.
9 In staff's research of the Biltmore/Coral
10 Casino permit conditions, we realized that there were a
11 couple of conditions in there that could be handy for
12 the Miramar Project, and staff is recommending two new
13 conditions. One would provide the Commission with event
14 oversight, and the Applicant would be required to
15 prepare an annual compliance report for special events
16 and provide detail as to how many people, what type of
17 events, and then they would report to P & D who then
18 would provide feedback to the Commission.
19 And in addition to that, we also recommend
20 adding a condition to require the Applicant to allow
21 relocation of the cottages prior to demolition. You may
22 recall the County did something similar for the
23 Santa Claus Lane property. When the Santa Claus was
24 proposed to be demolished, the Applicant offered the
25 Santa Claus up to someone who would provide it with a
17

1 good home, and staff thought it would be appropriate to
2 do the same for the Miramar cottages and poolside rooms.
3 That condition would allow someone at their own expense
4 to relocate those structures and preserve them.
5 Staff would like to clarify that, when taking
6 your action, please consider the findings contained in
7 the original July 16, 2008, staff report, the errata,
8 revised findings contained in today's staff report.
9 And staff's recommendation is to adopt the
10 revised findings including the revised findings for
11 modifications to the ordinance standards for setbacks,
12 height, and parking specified in Attachment A of the
13 staff report; certify the Subsequent Environmental
14 Impact Report, 08EIR No. 3; and approve the revised
15 addendum contained in Attachment C of the July 16th
16 staff report; and adopt the mitigation of the Montecito
17 program contained in the conditions of approval; and to
18 approve the project subject to the conditions included
19 as Attachment B including the recommended new
20 conditions; and then finally determine that the vacation
21 of a portion of Miramar Avenue is consistent with
22 --consistent with the requirement.
23 And that concludes staff's presentation.
24 MR. BIERIG: Thank you very much.
25 MS. BLACK: Mr. Chair, before going to the
18

1 Applicant's team, I think Mr. Ghizzoni from county
2 counsel's office would like to address the Commission as
3 well.
4 MR. GHIZZONI: Chairman Bierig,
5 Commissioners, I would like to make two corrections from
6 information that county counsel provided you at the
7 hearing of this matter on July 16.
8 First, as Attachment K to Planning and
9 Development Department's memo August 6th, you'll find a
10 letter from county counsel dated July 24th. In short,
11 that letter to your Commission retracts a statement by
12 one of our deputy county counsels from the hearing of
13 July 16th, in which the deputy inaccurately alleged that
14 a comment letter by Coast Law Group included a quote
15 from an appellate court decision that had been changed
16 by Coast Law Group to benefit that client.
17 That was not correct. We apologize to your
18 Commission for that inaccuracy and have separately
19 apologized to Coast Law Group.
20 In fairness to Coast Law Group and to your
21 Commission, we have also provided that as Attachment K
22 to the memo of August 6th; so it's part of your record.
23 The second correction I wanted to make clear was to
24 assure you that both Ms. Slutzky and I have read and
25 reread and rereread the mitigated negative declaration
19

1 adopted in 2000, and both sets of current environmental
2 document are before your Commission for consideration.
3 We're fully ready to answer your questions about those
4 documents. Thank you.
5 MR. BIERIG: Thank you very much.
6 Commissioners, I think rather than ask questions of
7 staff at this point we'll just go to the Applicant and
8 then do it all at the end if you don't mind.
9 So we're ready for your presentation.
10 MR. CARUSO: Good morning, Mr. Chair, Members
11 of the Commission. Thank you again for your time this
12 morning. I'm going to turn it over to Matt Middlebrook
13 who is the head of the project to make a brief
14 presentation.
15 MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Thank you for again all of
16 your time, all of the staff's time for -- I know there's
17 a lot of documents that have been submitted, and we've
18 all furiously been going through them. And I've been
19 furiously crossing out sections of my statement so I try
20 not to reiterate what was just submitted by staff.
21 I want to cover the new items. I also want
22 to specifically try to address some comments that were
23 raised at the last meeting by the Commissioners and some
24 of the community at the outset just to provide some of
25 that information.
20

1 So first, with respect to our setback
2 modifications -- with respect to setback modifications
3 we're requesting, I want to touch briefly on a few
4 points. As you are likely aware, Ian Schrager was
5 granted a modification for setbacks in the approved plan
6 on all the property lines where we are seeking a
7 modification as well as along Miramar Avenue which cut
8 through the property at that time.
9 The modifications we are seeking are either
10 similar or an improvement on an approved plan -- an
11 improvement upon the approved Schrager plan in that the
12 majority of our structures are farther away from the
13 property line. The modification we are seeking is
14 essentially the same as it has been since the inception
15 of our plan more than a year ago.
16 As an example along the property line by
17 All Saints Church, our proposed setback is uniformly
18 about 10 feet from the property line while Schrager was
19 granted a modification for buildings that are less than
20 three feet from the property line.
21 The church also sits well within the setback
22 limit, and the church and the hotel have coexisted
23 within the respected setbacks of each other for decades.
24 Along the property line in the southwest
25 corner, Schrager was granted a modification for his new
21

1 spa which placed it as close as 9 feet to the property
2 line while our building in that location will be a
3 minimum of 11.9 feet from the property line ranging up
4 to 22.2 feet from the property line.
5 We are not encroaching any closer to any
6 immediately adjacent residences than what is currently
7 approved or exists or onsite today. Moreover, our plan
8 is not a new use. We are building a hotel in roughly
9 the same setback location and for the same essential
10 purposes that has existed for nearly 100 years.
11 Also nearly every property abutting our
12 property severally encroaches into the setback area as
13 do many of the residential homes in the area. Both the
14 county staff and the Montecito Association have endorsed
15 our request for the setback modification because it will
16 help meet the project objectives and they are consistent
17 with or are better than what currently exist in nearly
18 all cases and are consistent with those in the immediate
19 vicinity.
20 We believe our request for a setback
21 modification is consistent with what has existed on the
22 site previously, it is consistent with the approved
23 plan, and it is consistent with how setbacks have been
24 treated in the immediate vicinity, and we request your
25 support for that modification.
22

1 With respect to the parking modification, the
2 intensity of the uses of the hotel is relatively the
3 same between the approved Schrager plan and the Caruso
4 plan. There will be the same number of restaurant
5 seats, the same cap of the number of attendees at
6 events, the same number of guest spaces at the spa, and
7 the proposed plan has few hotel rooms.
8 We will have more beach club members;
9 however, it should also be noted that attendees at beach
10 weddings were not counted towards the 600 person cap on
11 event attendees in the approved plan while ours are
12 included in the cap.
13 Our parking estimate for beach club members
14 was based on a conservative comparison of our beach club
15 to attendance of members and guests at Coral Casino on a
16 summer weekend; so we believe our analysis provides a
17 realistic picture of beach club parking demands.
18 And while the uses of the hotel are nearly
19 identical to the approved plan, the approved Schrager
20 plan had 416 onsite parking spaces, not including the 28
21 overflow parking spaces on the tennis court.
22 Our plan has 551 spaces, an increase of 145
23 spaces plus 25 overflow spaces if ever needed. The old
24 Miramar Hotel had even fewer spaces with only 342 onsite
25 parking spaces, 209 parking spaces fewer than what we
23

1 are proposing.
2 Also our underground parking is a vast
3 improvement for aesthetics and site design since it
4 allows for a tremendous amount of additional open space
5 without a field of asphalt for surface parking. If you
6 had an opportunity to listen to the December 7th MBAR
7 meeting, it was one of the features that received the
8 most favorable comments.
9 And as the staff report points out, our
10 proposed plan has 96 more parking spaces than the
11 Biltmore Four Seasons while having a similar or less
12 intense use.
13 The County recognized the parking industry
14 standard ULI's, Urban Land Institute, shared parking
15 analysis based upon parking demand and more specifically
16 on the reality that individual parking stalls
17 accommodate more than one use on a site, meaning shared
18 uses and the time periods of parking demand for all
19 hotel uses do not occur concurrently. We've used this
20 method for our parking analysis.
21 However, the County for purposes of its
22 parking ordinance does a straight-line analysis which
23 assumes no overlap in uses such as restaurant guests and
24 hotel guests. By this straight-line analysis, we are,
25 quote, "underparked" by 120 spaces and thus require a
24

1 modification.
2 But according to this same analysis,
3 Schrager, the approved plan, was underparked by 183 and
4 was granted a modification for the parking ordinance.
5 However, according to the park analysis conducted by
6 ATE, which has been submitted to you, a certified
7 traffic engineering firm, using the ULI shared parking
8 analysis, the proposed plan has excess parking even at
9 peak demand.
10 The analysis shows we will need 526 parking
11 spaces leaving 25 excess parking spaces at peak times.
12 I also want to note that our peak demand figure for
13 parking is based on a 600-person event happening onsite.
14 600-person events are limited to 12 times per year; so
15 the time when we will face peak demand are limited in
16 number.
17 By the ULI method of analysis, the approved
18 Schrager plan had a peak demand of 475 parking spaces,
19 which meant a parking deficit of 31 spaces or a 59-space
20 deficit if you exclude the overflow parking spaces.
21 So to reiterate, there will be a similar
22 operational need in terms of parking. We are providing
23 a 35 percent increase in parking over the approved plan
24 which was granted a modification to the parking
25 ordinance.
25

1 We also have significantly more parking than
2 the Biltmore, and the established methodolgy for parking
3 for this type of use indicates that we have plenty of
4 parking for the hotel. This is a clear improvement over
5 both the historic parking situation and the approved
6 parking plan, and thus, we believe our request for a
7 parking modification is justified, and we ask for your
8 support.
9 The height modification -- we are asking, as
10 you know, for a height modification for the main
11 building. As you know, the main building onsite sits
12 49 feet above existing grade. While the proposed plan
13 requires that we seek a height modification for the main
14 building, heights must be measured from the existing
15 grade.
16 The main building in part is proposed over a
17 portion of the site where the old pool was located,
18 which as a result creates a particularly low spot in the
19 property. While the building will be 49 feet above the
20 existing grade -- while the building will be 49 feet
21 above existing grade, the height of the main building
22 from the finished floor once constructed will be only
23 32 feet high, which is actually 6 feet lower than the
24 allowed community height limits.
25 In direct response to comments made by this
26

1 Commission at our January meeting, the building height
2 was reduced further by 3 1/2 feet to its current height.
3 The building is at this because it is built over a
4 two-level underground parking structure, something that
5 is very desirable to the community based upon extensive
6 input from local residents.
7 The underground parking garage cannot be
8 placed any lower than it is currently; otherwise, it
9 will begin to potentially intrude on the water table and
10 will place the first level of underground parking below
11 the flood plain, which is not allowed by code. And I'll
12 discuss this in a little more detail in a minute.
13 Additionally, the peak of the building is
14 76 feet from the curb line of South Jameson Lane,
15 thereby reducing the visual impact because of its
16 distance from the road. It was intentionally designed
17 to be perpendicular to minimize its potential visual
18 impact.
19 We believe that our efforts to minimize the
20 building's visual impact by turning the main building
21 perpendicular to Jameson, reducing the height an
22 additional 3 1/2 feet, keeping the height of the
23 building well below the community heights limits as
24 measured from the proposed grade, the significant
25 benefit of underground parking that is gained by placing
27

1 it under the main building, and our efforts to reduce
2 the heights of other buildings along Jameson Lane, which
3 I will discuss in a minute, justify our request for a
4 modification.
5 We're also asking for a modification for the
6 height of the beach and tennis club. This building is
7 internal to the property. It is not visible from
8 Jameson Lane or the beach and, if measured from the
9 proposed grade, is well below the allowed community
10 standards, and therefore, we believe a modification is
11 justified for that building as well.
12 Let me touch on the underground parking.
13 Following the January planning commission meeting, at
14 your request we reviewed the feasibility of moving some
15 of the underground parking in the main building to
16 another location on the property and found it was not
17 feasible for a number of reasons.
18 A memo I prepared was submitted to the County
19 in March discussing our review, and that was part of the
20 record submitted to you for the July 16th meeting. This
21 issue was raised again in our last meeting by
22 Commissioner Phillips, and I'd like to discuss it in a
23 little more detail.
24 In our community meetings, we've been told
25 repeatedly that the people see value in having
28

1 underground parking in order to increase the amount of
2 open space and reduce the amount of asphalt parking on
3 the site. That also reduces the amount of impermeable
4 surfaces in our proposed plan, which is reduce the
5 amount of storm water run off in our plan relative to
6 both the Schrager plan and the old Miramar.
7 To that end and a great expense, we have
8 designed an underground parking garage that in
9 combination with a few aboveground spaces can
10 comfortably accommodate all the necessary onsite parking
11 which we believe will be a great benefit to the
12 community.
13 As we understood it, the discussion at the
14 January meeting on the ability to either eliminate P1,
15 which is the upper level of the parking garage, or move
16 it in order to lower the grade and thereby reduce the
17 height of the main building, first, we cannot lower both
18 levels of the garage below the current level without
19 potentially infringing on the water table. We can't
20 just take both levels as designed and lower it further.
21 It is not feasible to move P1, the top level
22 of parking, without significantly altering the grading
23 of the properties since P1 is occupiable space. It
24 contains a kitchen and the laundry, and that must be two
25 feet above the flood plain.
29

1 The 100-year flood plain is at approximately
2 23 feet, and we have to build 2 feet above that. And
3 the finished floor of P1, the upper level of the parking
4 garage, is at 25 feet, 6 inches. And without altering
5 the grade of the property significantly to accommodate
6 two levels of parking, the alternative would be to
7 create one vast field of underground parking.
8 We've explored this, and we have found that
9 we cannot create nearly as efficient of a parking lot in
10 that configuration nor physical space on the site to
11 reasonably accommodate it.
12 Furthermore, it would also eliminate our
13 ability to have underground occupiable space which is
14 efficient for the operation of the hotel for our guests
15 and the visiting public.
16 Let me explain that. By having P1 as
17 occupiable space in its current location, we are able to
18 locate the kitchen there that is in close proximity to
19 the main dining room and the media rooms adjacent to the
20 main building. The kitchen in that location is also
21 adjacent to where the cars are parked so room service
22 can be dispatched from a central location on the
23 property. This cannot be accomplished if P1 did not
24 exist as occupiable space.
25 Additionally by having P1 at its current
30

1 level, we are able to have -- the cars arriving at the
2 ballroom here (indicating) are able to go directly
3 underneath into the garage through this entrance here
4 (indicating) without having to go back into Jameson in
5 order to access the garage.
6 Therefore, both a benefit to the community
7 and to the project, we find that the current
8 configuration is the only one that meets all of the
9 competing needs.
10 With respect to the cottage-style definition
11 which was discussed briefly but which I want to touch
12 on, We firmly believe that we have met the standards of
13 the community plan in this regard and would state that
14 16 of our guest room buildings or two thirds are one
15 story in height. 18 of our 24 guest room buildings have
16 six keys or less which is the standard for a cottage.
17 The old Miramar, the approved Schrager plan,
18 and the Biltmore Four Seasons, like our proposed hotel,
19 have a combination of two-story and one-story buildings.
20 MBAR's comments in December indicated that we
21 are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The
22 Montecito Association stated plainly in their
23 endorsement that our plan complied with the community
24 plan, and the staff has made that conclusion as well as
25 they just stated. There has also been very strong
31

1 community support for this plan.
2 While we clearly acknowledge that this policy
3 is at your discretion, we think it is important to note
4 that all the organizations that typically review plans
5 for compliance with the community plan or our task would
6 provide the guidance to this Commission have found our
7 plan to meet the intent and standards of the
8 Montecito Community Plan.
9 Building 44 -- in response to comments raised
10 by Commissioner Bierig at the last planning commission,
11 we have connected the first floor as it was discussed by
12 the staff, but I'd like to make a couple of additional
13 comments about Building 44, which is the lanai building
14 along the front of property.
15 In response to Commissioner Gottsdanker's
16 comments from the January meeting before the Commission,
17 we modified the roof eaves of the lanai building. They
18 were much more uniform in the previous plan, and we have
19 modified them subsequent to the January meeting and
20 buried the roof eaves greatly.
21 Also, in trying to respond to
22 Commissioner Bierig's comment from the January meeting
23 about the buildings being too, quote, "linear and
24 bulky," we moved the middle portion of the lanai
25 building back eight feet from the sound wall here
32

1 (indicating). This will allow for an additional layer
2 of landscaping between buildings and the sound wall
3 further softening the views along Jameson.
4 I want to discuss briefly the additional
5 changes we made along Jameson, the Jameson frontage. We
6 took the comments you made at your January hearing very
7 seriously and then made -- I'd like to focus on that.
8 There's no lights. Can we get the lights back up.
9 We took the comments you made at your January
10 hearing very seriously, and we made very significant
11 changes to our plan in direct response.
12 Those changes include the following: First,
13 we lowered the height of the main building by 3 1/2 feet
14 as I mentioned. We made the changes to Building 44 that
15 I just discussed. To address concerns about masking the
16 wall of Jameson and the wall -- in fact as
17 Commissioner Bierig called during the January meeting,
18 we removed a significant portion of the sound wall.
19 The red indicates where the buildings used to
20 be in various iterations of the design from the
21 beginning, and then the outline of the building is what
22 exists today. So the red indicates what used to be
23 there, and we removed a significant portion of the sound
24 wall along this section and replaced it with landscaping
25 dramatically opening up the front of the hotel and
33

1 softening its appearance.
2 We also reduced the height of roof line of
3 the administrative offices and meeting rooms immediately
4 along Jameson by 3 1/2 to 4 1/2 feet, which are here
5 (indicating). Those roof heights are the buildings
6 immediately facing Jameson. Those heights were reduced,
7 and we push out the windows on the employee housing
8 units by 2 feet in order to bury the face of that
9 building.
10 Additionally, in order to reallocate FAR in a
11 response to public input, particularly from the
12 Montecito Association, we have also eliminated the
13 second floor of the spa, which we think is a dramatic
14 change to this frontage thereby reducing the visual
15 impact of the hotel along Jameson.
16 We reduced the height of the spa building by
17 11 feet so the peak is now only 14.6 feet above the
18 existing grade, and we believe this is a very
19 significant and positive change to a high visibility
20 corner of the property.
21 Skip ahead to some sections. It's okay.
22 It's okay. This is all the stuff I cut out. The last
23 thing I want to discuss is public access. The proposed
24 plan is a dramatic improvement with respect to public
25 access, which is something that we've heard quite a bit
34

1 from the community.
2 We are providing, as we discussed before, 68
3 public parking spaces along Jameson -- here we are -- 68
4 public parking spaces along Jameson and Eucalyptus here,
5 here, and here (indicating). It's the same as existed
6 under the proposed plan including the parking on
7 Miramar Avenue.
8 We have also offered to dedicate two public
9 access easements through the site, one over roughly the
10 same route of the section of Miramar Avenue that will be
11 vacated and the second along the private road through
12 the property directly to the beach.
13 This is in addition to the two existing
14 public access points of Eucalyptus and Posilipo. We
15 will place signs at both outside the property and inside
16 to clearly direct the people to the nearest beach access
17 point. This is in addition to a lateral public beach
18 access route that already exists across the beachfront
19 of the hotel.
20 The approved plan, the approved Schrager plan
21 had no dedicated public access to the beach. The old
22 Miramar Hotel actually had no trespassing signs through
23 the property, which had to be removed as a mitigation
24 measure of the approved plan. Additionally we are
25 adding beach showers available to the public and
35

1 restrooms that would be available to the public, neither
2 of which were included as part of the approved plan.
3 Finally, we have committed to provide
4 $1 1/2 million to fund lower cost visitor services
5 overnight accommodations in Santa Barbara County, which
6 can be used to create new cabin, tent, or bicycle
7 campsites throughout Santa Barbara County. And that is
8 a condition of approval of the project.
9 Again, our proposed plan we believe is a
10 dramatic step forward in providing better beach access
11 to the public, something that we've heard repeatedly as
12 a priority to the community.
13 There's one other issue I just wanted to
14 touch on as I conclude. There has been discussion in
15 the press and by some of our critics that this project
16 has -- somehow in its processing and consideration by
17 the County has received special treatment.
18 And we would just like to state that we think
19 that is absurd. We think that that is an insult to this
20 Commission; to the Historic Landmarks Advisory
21 Commission, which has had it on its agenda three
22 different times; to the staff who has held our feet
23 tremendously to the fire throughout this process as you
24 can see by the thousands of pages of analysis that we
25 have submitted with respect to this project.
36

1 We have been in front of the
2 Montecito Association and their land use committee
3 probably a dozen times over the course of this process.
4 If anybody thinks that they can throw sort of a land use
5 fastball by members of this community, I think they
6 haven't done business here before.
7 So it is -- I think one of the reasons this
8 project is so attractive to us is because it is in
9 Montecito, and it is a challenging place to do business
10 because there are people who -- like those in the
11 audience and like yourselves who dedicate a tremendous
12 amount of time to reviewing these projects and holding
13 developers' like us feet to fire to ensure that the
14 projects meet the standards of the community, and that's
15 why Montecito remains such a special place.
16 There is no way -- if we have received
17 special treatment, God help the people who you've been
18 rough on. So we just think it's an absurd charge. It
19 does not do justice to the process that you have all put
20 us through. We've been at this for a year and a half,
21 and we just wanted to conclude with that. So thank you
22 for allowing us that time. We're available for
23 questions throughout the day.
24 MR. BIERIG: Thank you very much.
25 MS. BLACK: Mr. Chair, I need to make a
37

1 request.
2 MR. BIERIG: Please do.
3 MS. BLACK: A fairly strong request. People
4 need to take a seat, or you need to go into our
5 conference room which has the TV coverage of this
6 hearing on it, but you cannot stand in the room. Please
7 take a seat. There are still quite a few seats
8 available or go into the conference room.
9 MR. BIERIG: Thank you, Director Black for
10 mentioning that. I forgot about our fire issues here.
11 I'm also going to comment again -- we had a
12 little bit of applause here -- I'm not going to be able
13 to let you have demonstrations of emotional -- how you
14 feel emotionally about the project, either for or
15 against. It's really important that we keep our decorum
16 here. I appreciate everybody working on that last time.
17 I'd like your indulgence in continuing that this time.
18 Moving forward, we have various members of
19 staff here and agencies, and I'm not sure -- staff --
20 Director Black, I'm not sure which order you would
21 prefer to -- whether the surveyor or public works. In
22 your estimation -- if everybody's here, I think I might
23 prefer to start with the surveyor.
24 MS. BLACK: Okay. Can we have the
25 representative from the surveyor's office come up to the
38

1 staff table.
2 THE WITNESS: Hello, Jerry Mittermiller,
3 surveyor's office.
4 MR. BIERIG: Jerry, what was your last name
5 again?
6 MR. MITTERMILLER: Mittermiller.
7 MR. BIERIG: Mittermiller. I don't think
8 we've had you before our Commission before.
9 MR. MITTERMILLER: No, this is a first.
10 MR. BIERIG: Good. Appreciate having you
11 here today. I thought maybe we could start out and talk
12 about the -- there's been some controversy related to
13 the size of the project, and I was hoping you might be
14 able to give your perspective.
15 There is a letter that was submitted from
16 Penfield & Smith regarding the size of, I believe, it's
17 Lot 6 -- it might be 11 -- which is the beach lot, and
18 there's some analysis of how that is calculated, and I
19 was hoping you might be able to address that. I didn't
20 get a whole lot of information out of the information
21 that was in there.
22 MR. MITTERMILLER: This is --
23 MR. BIERIG: And I guess I should start out
24 with I went down and looked at it again yesterday, and
25 I'd say -- my understanding of mean high tide is that it
39

1 is kind of the seaweed line as it were. It's the
2 average of where the high tide ends up over the course
3 of the year, and I'd say yesterday it was a good solid
4 20 feet from the -- from the boardwalk.
5 MR. MITTERMILLER: I would say the seaweed
6 line is probably an incorrect way to describe it. It's
7 basically an average over an 18.6 year period of the low
8 highs and the high highs, and it also varies depending
9 on seasons. It's a moving target.
10 And what they've -- what Penfield and Smith
11 has done is they've calculated it from an aerial photo
12 taken in February 18, 1998, about ten years ago in
13 February. That's the wintertime.
14 What they've done is they've -- there's an
15 elevation of a mean high tide line. They've intersected
16 that line with the shore of the beach where it comes
17 down and hits the -- what they project the parcel lines
18 out and draw the line across the sand there and
19 calculated that area that way.
20 MR. BIERIG: Okay. I understand the
21 methodolgy. I'm just having trouble reconciling it from
22 what I see on the ground.
23 MR. MITTERMILLER: I don't know how to answer
24 that question.
25 MR. BIERIG: My calculation of what -- and
40

1 this is important for a couple of reasons. One is it
2 fits into the issue of access and ability for people to
3 get along the beach related to beach events, but more
4 importantly, it's part of the open space that's being
5 utilized for part of the project. So it's important we
6 get it right.
7 And the trouble I'm having is, if it's
8 significantly smaller, that area's not there. And I
9 just want to make sure we're not using area that doesn't
10 really exist, and I can't find it. I've spent a lot of
11 time on that beach, and it's -- 106 feet is
12 approximately the area that's needed of beach, and I've
13 rarely seen that.
14 MR. MITTERMILLER: Again, it's a calculated
15 position, and the position varies depending on, like I
16 say, the season. In the wintertime, when it was
17 calculated, it's probably more landward than it is in
18 the summertime where it may shift out. The access
19 you're talking about has also been addressed by an
20 easement. So I don't think access is going to be cut
21 off.
22 MR. BIERIG: Yes, I understand your point
23 relative to that. So it's a calculated method, and
24 you're comfortable the methodolgy used is accurate? Is
25 that what you're telling me? You've looked --
41

1 MR. MITTERMILLER: It's a moving target. At
2 this point in time, I believe the calculation was
3 correct.
4 MR. BIERIG: Thank you.
5 Commissioner Phillips, did you have a
6 question?
7 MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.
8 If it's a 18-year study -- did you say
9 18 years?
10 MR. MITTERMILLER: Yes, 18.6. Correct.
11 MR. PHILLIPS: -- why would Penfield & Smith
12 take a moment in time and use that? That would be --
13 it's counterintuitive. It's an average we're looking
14 at, not a moment in February.
15 MR. MITTERMILLER: That average is the
16 elevation. The moment in time is the sand moving back
17 and forth. They just -- the photo was taken at that
18 time. It wasn't Penfield & Smith. It was the prior
19 surveyor probably back in the Schrager -- I'm not sure
20 when -- who did it. They took an aerial photo, did some
21 photometric stuff, got the contours.
22 MR. PHILLIPS: But that's not controlling the
23 photo. The photo was not meant to identify mean high
24 tide. It's --
25 MR. MITTERMILLER: No. But they can get the
42

1 contours off the photo, and then they can find that
2 elevation and then do their calculation.
3 MR. PHILLIPS: Is there another way to
4 calculate this that's accepted in your world of
5 measurements?
6 MR. MITTERMILLER: Like I say, it's a moving
7 target. The mean high tide doesn't vary very much over
8 time. The variables are the artificial influences. The
9 seawalls, harbor, things such as that -- those were not
10 taken into account. Those are very difficult things to
11 incorporate into this. This is a fairly simple
12 calculation that they did.
13 MR. PHILLIPS: Is a more complicated
14 calculation a better calculations?
15 MR. MITTERMILLER: I really don't know. It
16 could be more or less the same. It's really a moving
17 target, and I'm not -- to tell you the truth, I'm not an
18 expert on this. This is a very difficult -- this is a
19 very difficult thing that we're doing here.
20 MR. PHILLIPS: Well, we're glad that you came
21 anyway.
22 MR. BIERIG: Thank you.
23 Mr. Briggs, please.
24 MR. BRIGGS: Just to add a quick statement to
25 clarify this, the "16-year" period that Jerry refers
43

1 to -- that was a period in which they measured every
2 single high tide and then took the average, and the
3 average comes out somewhere about 4.64 feet above mean
4 sea level. So your average high tide taken over
5 16 years is equal to 4.64.
6 Now, in order to apply that to the project,
7 you'd have to have a survey, and you point to the
8 survey, and you find the contour line of 4.64.
9 So when you say, "That one point in time in
10 1998, how did they pick that one point?" that was the
11 date of the survey, the aerial survey that Jerry
12 referred to. And using that "16-year" period average
13 high tide, they point on the map to 4.64, and that is
14 your contour. That's your elevations. That determines
15 the size of the parcel.
16 MR. PHILLIPS: Okay.
17 MR. BIERIG: One other question that I just
18 happened to notice yesterday, Parcel 11 -- and are you
19 familiar with the exhibits on this project?
20 MR. MITTERMILLER: No, I'm not familiar with
21 Parcel 11.
22 MR. BIERIG: Then we'll save that one. Thank
23 you very much.
24 I'm sorry. Unless there's other questions,
25 Commissioners?
44

1 Commissioner Burrows, please.
2 MS. BURROWS: Sir, do I understand correctly
3 that you're the surveyor for Santa Barbara County?
4 MR. MITTERMILLER: I'm the deputy county
5 surveyor. The surveyor is absent at this time.
6 MS. BURROWS: Well, we welcome you. I have a
7 question in regard to the material we have from the
8 Board of Supervisors. It looked like a motion or a
9 resolution or something.
10 This may be better addressed to counsel or to
11 the County to tell us the significance of this, and some
12 of it I can't read. If you could tell me exactly what
13 it says. It's dated September 2nd, 1930.
14 MR. BIERIG: Commissioner Burrows, I think
15 you're referring to one of the attachments to our staff
16 memorandum.
17 MS. BURROWS: Yes, exactly.
18 MS. BLACK: It's actually an attachment to
19 Attachment N identified as Exhibit V or 5.
20 MR. MITTERMILLER: Is that the one in the
21 matter of compiling assessor maps? Is that what you're
22 interested in?
23 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Yeah.
24 MR. MITTERMILLER: To tell you the truth, I'm
25 not sure why this is in here. This addresses assessor
45

1 maps, not surveyor maps. I think they just wanted to
2 try to show that there was no gap between the mean high
3 tide line and the property line on assessor maps. They
4 must have had a problem in 1930. It really has no
5 significance here as I see it.
6 MS. BURROWS: Well, it does say that "record
7 titles along shores of the Pacific ocean shall be
8 construed to reach mean high tide watermark," which I
9 think is what we're discussing here. So maybe that was
10 what we're addressing, that issue.
11 Does counsel or staff have anything to add on
12 the significance of this?
13 MS. SLUTZKY: Mr. Chair,
14 Commissioner Burrows, I'll look at this more carefully
15 and answer your question.
16 MR. BIERIG: Thank you, sir, for taking that
17 time -- oh, I'm sorry.
18 Commissioner Gottsdanker.
19 MS. GOTTSDANKER: And maybe you won't be able
20 to answer this. Maybe also this is a question of staff,
21 but given that you've stated that the mean high tide
22 line is a moving target, my question most probably is to
23 staff given your statement.
24 In the ND documents and specifically in the
25 attachments that -- to the ND document that had to do
46

1 with the Schrager project, we do not in that document,
2 as far as I can tell, have, as we have in the Caruso
3 documents, a listing of the parcel sizes that I could
4 find.
5 So here's my question: Given that our
6 surveyor has now told us that this mean high tide line
7 is a moving target can anybody tell me what the size of
8 the lot was in the Schrager calculations for Lot 6 as
9 opposed to what the lot size is that's now being
10 proposed in the Caruso project given that we're
11 basing -- a lot of our decisions are based on that this
12 project is a tag on or that there's no significant
13 changes or impacts with regards to CEQA.
14 So I just want to know what was the size of
15 the lot in 1998 or whenever this last time -- 2000, I
16 guess it would be. Do we know that?
17 MR. BIERIG: Commissioner Gottsdanker, they
18 didn't count any of it. It wasn't in.
19 MS. GOTTSDANKER: They did not count any of
20 it at that point?
21 MR. BIERIG: No.
22 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Thank you.
23 MR. BIERIG: You're welcome.
24 Let's see. Moving on unless there's other
25 questions of the surveyor.
47

1 MR. MITTERMILLER: Thank you.
2 MR. BIERIG: I think it would be nice if we
3 had the representative of the water district here.
4 MS. BLACK: Mr. Chair, I don't think the
5 water district or the sanitary district is here yet. I
6 think they are en route.
7 MR. BIERIG: But we do have parking.
8 MS. BLACK: We do. Public works is here;
9 real property agents is here as well in case you have
10 questions about the road abandonment.
11 MR. BIERIG: Oh, yes, please.
12 MS. BLACK: So we have both of those.
13 MR. BIERIG: Maybe we can start with real
14 property since you stated it.
15 MS. BLACK: Mr. Havlik is here.
16 MR. BIERIG: Sir, what is your name again?
17 MR. HAVLIK: Jeff Havlik, real property.
18 MR. BIERIG: Thank you, Mr. Havlik. Maybe
19 you can address the Miramar. This is -- or excuse me --
20 Miramar Avenue. This is an easement. County does not
21 own this in fee; is that correct?
22 MR. HAVLIK: That is correct.
23 MR. BIERIG: And do you know how many linear
24 feet that easement is? I tried to scale it off. It
25 looks like it's about 500 feet.
48

1 MR. HAVLIK: I never ran a tape, but you're
2 right. It's not significant. I mean it's not a long
3 chunk of road.
4 MR. BIERIG: And what's the county policy
5 related to abandonments of roads? Is there any
6 particular methodolgy used? In this case is there
7 anything different here than we would normally see? A
8 road that's no longer required -- is there any
9 particular circumstances that normally take place
10 related to the abandonment, or is it a fairly simple
11 process?
12 MR. HAVLIK: Two questions, Mr. Chair. Yes,
13 it is a standardized process, and yes, in this case we
14 will go through all the steps of a complete vacation as
15 compared to a summary vacation. The basic difference
16 there would be more public notification of the proposed
17 County action of vacating the easement.
18 The other difference between this event, this
19 road vacation, and many that I process, is that the road
20 today is in use. Normally we have what we term -- we
21 term -- excuse me -- a paper road where the right of way
22 and the pavement don't exist in the same location. So I
23 will have a right of way literally through somebody's
24 front yard. And the County would vacate only the
25 easement; the pavement would remain.
49

1 So in this case the pavement is in the right
2 of way, and we would not vacate the right of way until
3 and unless this project was approved, completely
4 approved, so that there would be no public impact by the
5 County action of vacating the road. Right now people
6 can park on it, I understand. In the future there will
7 be replacement parking provided, things like that.
8 MR. BIERIG: Your office isn't involved in
9 the analysis of the replacement parking portion of this,
10 is it?
11 MR. HAVLIK: That's correct. We are not.
12 MR. BIERIG: That's part of the planning
13 process, if I understand?
14 MR. HAVLIK: Yes.
15 MR. BIERIG: Okay. Commissioners, any
16 questions regarding this issue?
17 Thank you. It seems very straightforward.
18 MS. ALMY: Mr. Chair, I may just add one
19 little comment. This project is conditioned so that the
20 vacation of Miramar Avenue would happen concurrent with
21 the dedication of the two vertical public access
22 easements from Jameson to the beach. So there will be
23 no loss of public access because of that concurrency.
24 MR. BIERIG: Okay. Ms. Almy, who would I
25 address a question related to the loss of the public
50

1 parking on Miramar and how that is made up under the
2 plan that's before us today?
3 MS. ALMY: Mr. Chair, I believe that the
4 calculations for parking and how much is lost on the
5 north/south segment are indicated in your staff report
6 for the last hearing. In terms of the loss of parking
7 on the east/west segment, that's also addressed, I
8 think, in the errata.
9 I don't remember the exact numbers on the
10 north/south segment, but as I remember, they were fully
11 compensated by the proposed provision of the 68 public
12 parking spaces along Eucalyptus Lane and along
13 South Jameson Lane.
14 And I think that -- and I remember very
15 clearly actually that it's a wash on the spaces lost
16 along Miramar Avenue because, while the cul-de-sac will
17 take out probably two spaces, there's also proposed
18 closures of driveways, existing driveways, that would
19 recoup those spaces.
20 MR. BIERIG: Okay. The existing plan, what
21 we call the Schrager plan -- this abandonment was not
22 part of this plan; is that correct?
23 MS. ALMY: That is correct, sir.
24 MR. BIERIG: I'll want to get into this
25 later, but I'll put staff on notice it's something I'd
51

1 like to address at some point today. You know, when I
2 calculate -- and we might want to bring in -- if
3 Mr. Shell from ATE is here, whoever handled the parking
4 material.
5 When I calculated -- I'm looking at loss of
6 public access because I know we've addressed this public
7 access issue, but I'm sure, if we'd adequately addressed
8 the loss of parking for public access to the beach, it's
9 about 1,000 linear feet of parking, and it's calculated
10 down to 24 spaces under the various studies we have in
11 front of us, which is a little suspect in that that
12 should have been closer to 55 spaces just on a linear
13 basis. But I know there's driveways involved, but it
14 doesn't seem like it would be less than half based on
15 the driveways. I went out and looked again yesterday.
16 But where I'm going to is I don't see where
17 the replacement parking is. I only find 10 new spaces.
18 The rest of the spaces are already in the public right
19 of way and already exist. And so they're not really
20 replacement spaces for the ones that are being lost.
21 I don't have any problem with the abandonment
22 as part of it, but it does seem like we ought to be
23 replacing those spaces one for one. I know I'm
24 editorializing a little bit and getting ahead of myself.
25 But I would like to look at where those replacement
52

1 spaces are going to be found or if they are, in fact,
2 found.
3 MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chair.
4 MR. BIERIG: Commissioner Phillips.
5 MR. PHILLIPS: To back up even further,
6 Ms. Almy, can you explain to me how one creates a public
7 parking space. How do you do that? How is a public
8 parking space created by the Applicant? I think it's
9 represented that way. 68 new public parking spaces --
10 how do you do that? How do you create a public parking
11 space.
12 MS. ALMY: Mr. Chair, Commissioner, in the
13 instant case, what is occurring is that the Applicant is
14 dedicating a portion of the Miramar property to the
15 front ends, if you will, of the cars that are being
16 parked perpendicular to the roadway, and the spaces
17 along Eucalyptus Lane, I believe, are entirely within
18 the Miramar property. The spaces along South Jameson
19 Lane are partly within the public right of way, already
20 partly within the property.
21 But the existing spaces along South Jameson
22 Lane are, as I recall, parallel parked spaces, and there
23 are more spaces that are being provided by the
24 perpendicular parking arrangement that's being proposed.
25 MR. PHILLIPS: Some of the parking spaces are
53

1 within the public right of way, but because of the
2 perpendicularity --
3 MS. ALMY: I'm sure that's a word.
4 MR. PHILLIPS: -- it's now into the Miramar
5 private property, and that is dedicated to the space
6 allocation?
7 MS. ALMY: Yes, that's the intent, sir. And
8 Applicant has intended to devote those spaces only to
9 the public. There will be signage, and there will be
10 obviously the underground parking and the valet service
11 for the hotel guests that would incentivize hotel guests
12 to use that parking.
13 MR. PHILLIPS: No enforcement possibility
14 that would work that you can think of?
15 MS. ALMY: Enforcement would be difficult.
16 We have a condition of approval that asks the Applicant
17 to monitor those spaces and regularly report on how
18 those spaces are being used, but again, enforcement
19 would be by County Sheriff or CHP, and it's difficult to
20 get that enforcement going.
21 MR. BIERIG: Commissioner Burrows.
22 MS. BURROWS: Could you time limit those
23 spaces?
24 MS. ALMY: I'm sorry. I didn't hear you.
25 MS. BURROWS: Could you time limit the
54

1 spaces?
2 MS. ALMY: Mr. Chair, Commissioner, there's
3 going to be signage suggesting that there's a four-hour
4 time limit. I know that the Coastal Commission was
5 interested in that concept, but again, the issue of
6 enforcement of that time limit would be difficult.
7 It would be reported on by the Applicant
8 pursuant to the condition. If someone was there all
9 eight hours, we would know that ultimately upon annual
10 reports, but I think that, again, comes down to a
11 question of enforcement.
12 MR. BIERIG: We don't do parking enforcement
13 in Montecito jurisdiction, do we? It doesn't take place
14 other than around Westmont.
15 MS. ALMY: Westmont enforces its own parking,
16 yeah.
17 MS. BLACK: Mr. Chair, the difference between
18 this project and the Westmont project is Westmont was
19 controlling parking on their own campus.
20 MR. BIERIG: That's right. Thank you.
21 Commissioner Gottsdanker, you have a
22 question?
23 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Yeah, I wanted to go back
24 to the statement that was made that it's difficult to
25 enforce, and I think you began to hit on it because --
55

1 so I'm trying to think but in -- nowhere in Montecito do
2 we have "No Parking" signs or limited-time parking
3 signs?
4 MR. BIERIG: I believe --
5 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Is that accurate? I know
6 we have it on Coast Village Road, which I know is the
7 city, but now we're into kind of a commercial
8 development here. I'm just wondering whether we could
9 request enforcement. I don't know. We're having all
10 kinds of problems with the mikes today.
11 MS. BLACK: We will fix them at a break.
12 MR. BIERIG: One at a time apparently today.
13 MS. BLACK: But just to answer your question
14 about do we have parking enforcement in Montecito, I
15 want to be really clear. There are lots of areas that
16 are striped "No Parking," and those are monitored and
17 enforced by the Sheriff's department, CHP, depending on
18 where they're located. We do not have timed parking --
19 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Anywhere?
20 MS. BLACK: -- anywhere in the South Coast
21 that I'm aware of that the County manages.
22 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Got it. Okay.
23 MR. BIERIG: Okay. Thank you.
24 Yes, please.
25 MR. STEWART: I'm Brett Stewart with public
56

1 works. I was just going to say basically the same thing
2 Dianne said.
3 MR. BIERIG: Brett, give me your last name
4 again.
5 MR. STEWART: Brett Stewart.
6 MR. BIERIG: Stewart. Brett, are you
7 responsible for reviewing the traffic and parking
8 analysis that was prepared by the project applicant?
9 MR. STEWART: I'm taking that responsibility
10 today. Actually it's Will Robertson who's not available
11 today; so I'm filling that role.
12 MR. BIERIG: Have you reviewed these
13 materials?
14 MR. STEWART: We have, and we reviewed the
15 report that came out July 24th both for the new Caltrans
16 data and traffic analysis and the parking, and we're in
17 concurrence with the study.
18 MR. BIERIG: You find that the studies are
19 accurate?
20 MR. STEWART: Yes.
21 MR. BIERIG: What's your opinion on the use
22 of the ULI standards as opposed to county -- as opposed
23 to the -- I believe it was described as the linear
24 nature of the county code where you add up all the --
25 MR. STEWART: It's an additive, right. Of
57

1 course, if you're looking for absolute worst case -- and
2 it actually might apply to certain things where you have
3 very discrete uses lined up -- the linear method would
4 give you a worst case and maybe be accurate in some
5 cases.
6 The ULI is a much more realistic picture of
7 what tends to happens. It's based on, if you go through
8 hourly throughout a day, each use that might be on a
9 property will have its own peak, and if you go through
10 the hours of the day and add up those peaks for the
11 different uses, it will give you a more realistic
12 picture of what's going to happen on the property.
13 Nobody wants to see, you know, 40 percent more pavement
14 out there than you need just sitting empty all the time.
15 So for most projects the ULI is a good way to -- a
16 realistic way to assess your parking needs.
17 MR. BIERIG: In your estimation, does the
18 methodolgy that has been applied here by ATE accurately
19 reflect the type of project that's being proposed? I
20 know all hotels are not created equal.
21 MR. STEWART: Right, right.
22 MR. BIERIG: Motel 6 is going to have a
23 different parking pattern than a Hyatt hotel.
24 MR. STEWART: And I think that shows in their
25 numbers where they compare this project to four other
58

1 resort projects, and then this project was more than --
2 has more than twice the parking of those typical
3 resorts. Both this and the Biltmore are definitely in a
4 league of their own as far as the character of the area,
5 but I think the Biltmore comparison is a very good
6 indication.
7 MR. BIERIG: And you would say the type of
8 hotels they use for this cross-parking analysis is
9 reasonably indicative of what we have here?
10 MR. STEWART: Yes.
11 MR. BIERIG: Is there any analysis made of a
12 project such as this that's 100 percent valet parking?
13 Have you seen anything on how valet parking is -- might
14 differ from surface parking or, let's say, self-parking?
15 MR. STEWART: I personally haven't seen any
16 studies like that.
17 MR. BIERIG: Because it's much more of an
18 urban kind of parking methodolgy.
19 MR. STEWART: Yeah. You can get away with
20 probably 30 percent of the space because they stack cars
21 in a way that self-parking would never be able to do.
22 MR. BIERIG: I understand. You need a
23 smaller parking structure because of that.
24 MR. STEWART: Right, right.
25 MR. BIERIG: It seems like I had another
59

1 question here.
2 Commissioners, any -- oh, I'm sorry
3 Commissioner Phillips. Go ahead and ask a question.
4 MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
5 Ms. Almy, this is for you; it may be a
6 question of the Applicant. If I were to go to the
7 beach -- attempt to go to the beach and find the public
8 parking not available, could I be valet parked for a
9 price?
10 MS. ALMY: Mr. Chair, Commissioner, my
11 understanding is, yes, you could be parked by valet.
12 MR. PHILLIPS: I could be. Okay.
13 MS. BLACK: Mr. Chair, before we leave
14 Brett Stewart, I don't want to have the impression that
15 Brett's just a sub for Will and that you got something
16 less than you would normally have.
17 Brett actually used to serve in Will's job
18 and has moved on and really is a coordinator in public
19 works. He's been here with County, I think, almost as
20 long as I have or about the same amount of time. So
21 you've got a good substitute in Mr. Stewart. I know he
22 spent quite a bit of time reviewing this material.
23 MR. BIERIG: I appreciate you mentioning
24 that. It is useful because I know these -- the parking
25 and traffic issues are complicated. It takes a lot of
60

1 technical issues in how they're working.
2 MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chair, a quick questions
3 on parking.
4 MR. BIERIG: Yes, please.
5 MR. PHILLIPS: Sir, is our parking ordinance
6 broken? Is that why we're not using the number?
7 MR. STEWART: That's probably a question for
8 planning.
9 MS. BLACK: Mr. Chair, I would say our
10 parking ordinance is outdated. I'm not sure I would say
11 it's broken for every land use category, but it
12 certainly sometimes underestimates the amount of parking
13 a particular use needs, and it often overestimates on
14 commercial uses. We typically on shopping-center-type
15 uses encourage people to underpark according to the
16 ordinance because otherwise it would just be incredibly
17 overparked.
18 MR. PHILLIPS: If you were to change the
19 methodolgy, would you consider adopting the methodolgy
20 proffered by the Applicant?
21 MS. BLACK: Mr. Chair, and
22 Commissioner Phillips, I think the ULI methodolgy is a
23 very valid methodolgy. That's really what you're
24 asking. We haven't considered how we might change the
25 ordinance. So I really don't want to directly comment
61

1 on that, but I think it's a perfectly acceptable
2 methodolgy used for this type of use.
3 MR. BIERIG: Director Black, most communities
4 do accept this, as we do in this case, the alternative
5 traffic analysis methodolgy such as the ULI. So it's
6 only a question of how the -- how it's -- the factors
7 are put together. I guess that leads me to my next
8 thing. I notice one of the issues here is how much
9 cross over there is amongst the -- between uses.
10 You know, the devil is always in the details
11 on these things, and if 70 percent of your restaurant
12 use is coming from patrons, that's much different than
13 if 70 percent are coming from the outside. And are you
14 comfortable that the types -- that the percentages used
15 here are reasonably considerable?
16 MR. STEWART: I am. There is a good table
17 that's very small. You might have to put glasses on to
18 see it, but the very last page of the updated Associated
19 Transportation Engineers study breaks down the uses by
20 hour and comes up with numbers that are indicative of at
21 any hour what you might expect the parking demand to be,
22 and I think the numbers are conservative. They use the
23 worst case.
24 In other words, they use P.M. peak most of
25 the time throughout this whole study, which is the
62

1 afternoon peak which is the highest generation of most
2 of these uses, and their table is fairly easy to follow,
3 and we're comfortable with it that it's accurate.
4 MR. BIERIG: If you assume -- I'm going to go
5 back to a question I asked before. If we assume that
6 the analysis of parking demand is conservative and that
7 this project has dealt with the parking demand in an
8 adequate way, do you have any thoughts of your own
9 related to the 100 percent valet and how that might
10 affect the -- what happens in the neighborhood?
11 And I'll tell you why I'm asking. I think
12 about myself. You know, the difference between, if I
13 drive down to Los Angeles and park, I'm more than happy
14 to find a valet parking lot adjacent because where am I
15 going to go.
16 But that's not how most people park here and
17 especially in Montecito. They often don't like to give
18 up their cars, and they'll park across the street from a
19 valet. And I wonder what -- if you have any thoughts on
20 what we might see.
21 And the concern is is the neighborhood going
22 to be filled with people avoiding valet and walking into
23 the project as I might.
24 MR. STEWART: My only thoughts are I don't
25 know how it would affect the hotel's operations --
63

1 MR. BIERIG: That's not related to them.
2 This is related to --
3 MR. STEWART: You could definitely get away
4 with a lot smaller area that was dedicated to the hotel
5 parking because, like I said, they park -- they stack
6 the cars in three, four deep and you can get use the
7 space much more efficiently, and I guess that would free
8 up the other areas for public parking.
9 MR. BIERIG: You understand I'm asking
10 slightly a different question. It's really more the
11 psychology of the user and whether that factors into the
12 analysis of that or whether you've seen any studies on
13 that.
14 MR. STEWART: Yeah, I haven't seen any
15 studies, but generally, wherever we leave parking open
16 to the public, if they can park there than anywhere they
17 have to pay any money, they will do that. I think you
18 can see that happening there especially with the beach
19 access issue and then probably for hotel use also. Some
20 people that are going to be there a short time don't
21 like to use valet parking. So you'd probably see that.
22 MR. BIERIG: Okay. Thank you.
23 Commissioner Overall.
24 MR. OVERALL: Mr. Stewart, related to this
25 issue of stacked parking and valet parking, since I
64

1 think it's an open question as to how successful that's
2 going to be as 100 percent alternative for the property,
3 I wonder if any calculations have been made if at some
4 later date it's determined that a portion of the parking
5 needs to be converted to self-park rather than valet
6 park. How many spaces will be lost in the parking
7 structure because you can no longer tandem two across or
8 three across? How many parking spaces would be lost if
9 it were converted to self-park?
10 MR. STEWART: I haven't seen a calculation
11 for that, Commissioner Overall. I think you can
12 probably get where you might have a 25 percent, 20 to
13 25 percent, efficiency rate on a normal parking lot.
14 You can probably get closer to an 80 percent efficiency
15 in a valet-parked lot. That's the actual car area to
16 the total area, and you know, so you can do the math.
17 MR. OVERALL: I'd rather you do the math.
18 MR. STEWART: Well, if you had a 100-space
19 parking area and -- or let's say 100-square-foot parking
20 area that normally you could get 20 cars in, you might
21 get 80 cars in.
22 MR. OVERALL: With tandem.
23 MR. STEWART: With valet parking. Those
24 numbers are wrong, but the ratios are right.
25 MR. OVERALL: One other question related to
65

1 your testimony. You indicated that you thought the
2 hotels that were used for comparison purposes were
3 acceptable, valid, whatever the word was that you used.
4 I wonder if you could give us some insight as to what
5 the characteristics might be of those hotels. What are
6 the variables? Obviously you touched on one, valet
7 parking versus not valet parking.
8 You know, I think we've all stayed in enough
9 hotels over a period of time. There are a lot of
10 variety, and I'm just wondering what those variables
11 were in these four comparisons as contrasted to this
12 particular proposal.
13 MR. STEWART: Commissioner Overall, I only
14 know the details in the report. We just reviewed the
15 report. Mr. Shell or maybe somebody from Applicant can
16 give you details on that.
17 MR. BIERIG: Commissioner Burrows.
18 MS. BURROWS: Maybe this is -- Mr. Chairman,
19 I have some questions in regards to parking on the site.
20 Are we doing that now, or are we only doing impact to
21 public parking?
22 MR. BIERIG: If you think Mr. Stewart can
23 help you, you should ask, please.
24 MS. BURROWS: For example, I haven't seen any
25 provision for RV parking, tour bus parking, that kind of
66

1 thing. Where will that be? Do you know?
2 MS. ALMY: Mr. Chair, Commissioner, my
3 understanding is that the tour buses and any RV's that
4 may come to the Miramar would be parked in motor courts.
5 There's a provision made in the motor courts for that.
6 MR. BIERIG: By "motor courts" you mean the
7 area between the ballroom --
8 MS. ALMY: No. Primarily to the west of the
9 main building.
10 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Would that be the same
11 place where there's 22 parking spaces designated in that
12 area? Is that the area we're talking about?
13 MS. ALMY: Yes.
14 MS. GOTTSDANKER: It's where the porte
15 cochere was. There's 22 parking spaces in that motor
16 court right now.
17 MS. ALMY: Mr. Chair, just to clarify, there
18 may be parking for RV's as well between the ballroom and
19 the main building, but the primary spaces are where
20 Mr. Moore is marking at now.
21 MR. BIERIG: Thank you. Mr. Stewart, are you
22 comfortable -- I know we've addressed the issue of the
23 Biltmore, which I think is a very good one for us
24 because it's the same neighborhood, same people, same
25 everything. And I see they have significantly less
67

1 parking than is afforded to the Biltmore than is being
2 provided here based on the valet.
3 MR. STEWART: That's right. All their
4 operations are similar but larger, and they operate on
5 less parking.
6 MR. BIERIG: I did want to focus on that. We
7 have made some changes on the Biltmore. The Coral
8 Casino really isn't up to speed yet in terms of this
9 operation, and I just wonder if you're comfortable with
10 the time period in which the analysis was done because I
11 tend to look at the Biltmore as something that operates
12 reasonably efficiently, and we don't get a lot of
13 complaints from neighbors that that's not working.
14 But I don't know if we've seen the full
15 impact of the changes to the Coral Casino, and would you
16 be concerned that you have enough buffer in this that we
17 can handle that assuming we might find an increase of
18 use at the Biltmore over the next couple years as that
19 restaurant structure -- that increased restaurant and
20 bar area comes on line?
21 MR. STEWART: I am comfortable with the
22 information. There's quite a big buffer on this. I
23 think one of the indications here is, with the other
24 uses in use and a 600-person event, special event,
25 you're still down -- you're still 25 plus the 28
68

1 overflow roughly spaces. You have that many spaces as a
2 buffer still with a 600-person event. So I think that's
3 an indication that, even if everybody showed up to the
4 club at once, you've got a lot of a buffer built into
5 the parking plan.
6 MR. BIERIG: Okay. Thank you very much for
7 your help.
8 Excuse me. Commissioner Gottsdanker.
9 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Okay. I want to go back to
10 the public parking in the area of South Jameson. Okay.
11 And Mr. Stewart, back in April of '08, the County of
12 Santa Barbara Public Works Department issued policies
13 for encroachment permits, and we worked on that. I
14 actually was on that committee, and we worked on it
15 with Eric Pearson, and several other people have signed
16 this document that made it happen.
17 Has public works -- so it does appear from
18 all the site plans and various plans that I've looked at
19 a number of encroachment permits will need to be issued
20 to this project if it is approved as we have it today.
21 Has public works reviewed the plan in
22 alignment with the new encroachment policies which
23 literally are countywide, not just Montecito, although
24 we did push for them? So that's one question that I
25 had.
69

1 The other question is in relationship to that
2 because, as I look at the site plans, I have a very huge
3 concern about this diagonal parking and the safety of
4 the public who will be using those public parkings
5 because, as I read the plans, when you get out of your
6 car and you're headed for the beach, there is no public
7 sidewalk outside the sound wall that -- in fact, what it
8 looks like is that all the diagonal parking almost butts
9 up against the sound wall, and we've been told
10 repeatedly by the Applicant that that sound wall will be
11 heavily landscaped.
12 So I'm not quite sure what the public is
13 supposed to do here once they get out of their car with
14 their beach balls, their strollers, their dogs, and
15 their two or three children that are running in one
16 direction or another. I think that we are creating a
17 major safety problem given that this road,
18 South Jameson, is a freeway access road.
19 And on Sunday afternoons, as we all know,
20 every access road in Montecito is jammed with people,
21 and where are the residents of Montecito -- how are they
22 going to access the beach access? I don't see how
23 they're supposed to get their safely from these parking
24 spaces, and that's a public works issue.
25 MR. STEWART: Mr. Chair,
70

1 Commissioner Gottsdanker, your first question first,
2 everything on this plan, as is typically done, that's in
3 any public right of way will be handled under one
4 encroachment permit. So it will be one encroachment
5 permit for the whole project, and that will cover not
6 only the parking that's within the public right of way
7 but any utility work and repaving and whatever there
8 might be, you know, associated with the project,
9 including landscaping in the shoulder areas of the
10 project.
11 When this project goes through plan check,
12 we'll pay special attention to the angled parking.
13 We've had pretty good luck with angled parking in this
14 county in locations that, you know, do have some concern
15 at first, and we've seen them operate pretty well.
16 The biggest concern is actually bicycles, not
17 pedestrians. When you get a lot of activity and people
18 walking around and everything, everything tends to slow
19 down, and it's a congested area. So you don't get
20 traffic speeding through as if it was a free-flow
21 condition.
22 Bicycles riding behind angled parking is a
23 concern that we try to address and give them an
24 alternate route whenever we can. When this goes through
25 plan check, we'll look at the angled parking areas. We
71

1 don't anticipate a problem. There will be the
2 activities that you are concerned about, but usually we
3 don't end up seeing a problem with that. We don't end
4 up seeing accidents and, you know, people hit. But it
5 will be looked at in plan check before the permit is
6 issued.
7 MS. GOTTSDANKER: So in other words, you have
8 not -- my direct question, though, was you have not in
9 public works reviewed this plan that we have in front of
10 us inside the new encroachment permit policy?
11 MR. STEWART: The new policy -- I forgot
12 about that part. I was part of that committee too. I
13 sat in some of the meetings with Eric. That's a
14 development that goes through the intense review that
15 this was going through. That wasn't really the aim of
16 that policy. The policy is aimed at trying to keep
17 encroachment from happening mainly in the residential
18 areas.
19 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Montecito is a residential
20 area, sir.
21 MR. STEWART: -- of Montecito. Mostly
22 putting up walls and the big --
23 MS. GOTTSDANKER: I understand.
24 MR. STEWART: -- block mailboxes and not
25 leaving room for people to walk or equestrians --
72

1 MS. GOTTSDANKER: That's right. That's
2 exactly my point. I've worked on this same committee
3 for two years, and given we do not have sidewalks, that
4 was the point of this whole thing.
5 What I'm now saying is that, as I read the
6 plans today, this is not -- the safety of the public is
7 not being achieved, and that was why we sat down as
8 you're saying and we came up with these policies.
9 Now, I've got a set of plans that in my
10 interpretation do not comply with these policies because
11 we've got a wall -- just as you said, it's about getting
12 the walls out of the right of ways. That was one of the
13 whole points, the mailboxes, the rocks, everything that
14 gets put in the right of way. We now have a ten-foot
15 sound wall in the right of way with parking that comes
16 right up to it, and there's no place for pedestrians to
17 go as I read the plans.
18 And I see Mr. Middlebrook and Mr. Caruso; so
19 I'm sure they will address this issue at some point
20 also. But you've answered my question. You have not
21 reviewed it inside those new policies which was what
22 that question was.
23 MR. PHILLIPS: May I make
24 Commissioner Gottsdanker's point even worse?
25 MS. GOTTSDANKER: You better ask them over
73

1 there, not me.
2 MR. PHILLIPS: I'm going to an event, a
3 500-person event, and I -- this is my car back here
4 (indicating) waiting to be valeted, I think. I don't
5 know how quickly this clears, but I'm blocking the spots
6 that Claire is worried about. You can't get in there.
7 How is that going to be addressed? This looks like ten
8 cars maybe lined up in here (indicating). If we're all
9 coming at the same hour to the black tie event, how --
10 I'm sure I'm back here (indicating).
11 MR. BIERIG: Mr. Middlebrook, why don't -- I
12 think what we can do here is --
13 MR. MIDDLEBROOK: I'm happy if I can --
14 MR. BIERIG: I'm sure you'll be willing to
15 address these concerns. How about we let you think
16 about how you want to address them and come back with
17 suggestions as to how --
18 MR. MIDDLEBROOK: I'd be happy to address
19 that one now.
20 MR. BIERIG: Why don't we save that one? I
21 think it will save us some time.
22 Mr. Stewart, if I could continue on the
23 traffic thing or on the traffic issue, parking -- or
24 excuse me -- as it relates to the traffic study, the
25 methodolgy that's used in the ATE studies that analyze
74

1 seats as opposed to square footage on the restaurants,
2 is that typical?
3 MR. STEWART: Mr. Chair, it's done that way
4 very commonly.
5 MR. BIERIG: I'm used to seeing square
6 footage. The assumption is there will be seats if there
7 can be seats.
8 MR. STEWART: We're actually fairly
9 equivalent. Whichever independent variable you use, the
10 ITE trip generation rates are pretty consistent. You
11 know an average restaurant will have so many seats per
12 thousand square foot, and that's pretty consistent
13 across the board, and so it really doesn't matter to any
14 significant extent which you use, square footage or
15 seats.
16 MR. BIERIG: Okay. And as relates to -- you
17 know, there's some concern as to whether the number of
18 employees -- you know, there's a big difference here
19 between 100 -- it's almost 300 percent differential, at
20 least 270 percent.
21 If it turns out that the staffing
22 requirements here end up being significantly higher than
23 projected by the Applicant, how will that -- I saw on
24 the ATE report it indicates that that won't affect
25 parking or traffic significantly, but I wondered if you
75

1 could address that too.
2 MR. STEWART: That's correct. It's a low
3 portion of the percentage. If you double -- I'm doing
4 some quick numbers here. If you doubled the numbers of
5 employees -- let's say they were way off on the number
6 they needed, and you double them -- you would still be
7 overparked. You'd still have a buffer there. It would
8 add about 35 to 40 spaces that you would need
9 additional.
10 The other thing about employees is they
11 are -- there's a slight -- they generate slightly more
12 parking and traffic during the week which is actually a
13 lower generation time for the overall hotel and resort.
14 MR. BIERIG: Why? Because maintenance items
15 are happening weekdays versus weekends?
16 MR. STEWART: Maintenance and the
17 administrative staff don't come on weekends. So the
18 weekends actually are lower impact time for the
19 employees, and that gives you even a little bit more of
20 a buffer.
21 MR. BIERIG: Thank you very much for that.
22 Commissioner Overall.
23 MR. OVERALL: I'd like to have a follow-up
24 question on that. I don't know if you can answer it,
25 Mr. Stewart. But if I'm reading the documents provided
76

1 by Caruso Affiliated correctly, the administrative
2 personnel are going to be located in their offices in
3 Los Angeles, not here in Santa Barbara, Montecito.
4 Events typically would seem to be maybe more
5 frequent on the weekends. That's going to require
6 perhaps additional staff to service those. So I guess
7 I'd have to question the accuracy of the statement you
8 just made that it's going to be less of an impact on the
9 weekend. I think it would be just the opposite. I
10 think we might have more impact on the weekend when the
11 facility would be in heavier use. Is that a possibility
12 that could be a correct analysis?
13 MR. STEWART: That's certainly possible. I
14 was speaking in general. You know, ITE and the ULI
15 numbers for hotels in general tend to have less employee
16 impact on weekends.
17 If they have their administration somewhere
18 else, that could be that they would have more employees
19 on the weekends, but again, the 600 trip -- or the
20 600-person event that they use a worst case is on a
21 weekend, that scenario they set out, and there's
22 still -- even if the employees double, you would still
23 have enough parking.
24 MR. BIERIG: Thank you, Mr. Stewart. I think
25 that's it. I'd like to take about a -- unless --
77

1 Commissioner Overall, please, yes.
2 MR. OVERALL: Mr. Stewart, related to the
3 possibility that the employee count has been
4 significantly understated, certainly, if you're going to
5 use comparison with the Biltmore in other instances, it
6 might be appropriate to consider it here.
7 If the number of employees is underestimated,
8 has there been any analysis done related to the impacts
9 on traffic in the area. I know at one point we were
10 told that impacts -- I think it was 6 additional
11 peak-hour trips -- didn't rise to the threshold level of
12 requiring analysis of mitigation measures for traffic
13 impact.
14 But it seems to me, if you've got -- I'll use
15 your number -- 35 to 40 additional trips, presumably a
16 lot of them peak hours, that that has the potential to
17 raise the traffic counts past the point of reaching the
18 threshold. Am I missing something significant?
19 MR. STEWART: Commissioner Overall, I think
20 it would take a lot of employees to actually push those
21 numbers up. I'm looking for it here in the analysis.
22 MS. BLACK: Mr. Chair, rather than making
23 Brett answer this on the spot, maybe you want to just
24 give him the break to review the study in light of that
25 end.
78

1 MR. BIERIG: Makes sense to me. Let's take
2 seven minutes. We'll come back at ten to the hour.
3 (Whereupon a short recess was taken.)
4 MR. BIERIG: We're back in session on our
5 August 6th meeting on the Miramar, and I believe
6 Commissioner Overall had some continued questions of
7 Mr. Stewart on the traffic issue.
8 MR. OVERALL: Mr. Chair.
9 MR. BIERIG: I'm getting a lot of feedback
10 here today.
11 MR. MOORE: They came and checked it. Any
12 time there's more than one mike -- because of the
13 crowd --
14 MR. BIERIG: The volume's up.
15 MR. MOORE: So just one mike won't do it.
16 MS. BLACK: It's still doing it.
17 MR. OVERALL: Somebody has theirs on.
18 MR. BIERIG: We're having some serious
19 technical problems here.
20 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Yes, we are in more ways
21 than one.
22 MR. BIERIG: The ghost of Miramar.
23 MR. STEWART: Mr. Chair, let's try that. Is
24 that staying on? I had a chance to talk to Scott Shell
25 the engineer that prepared the traffic study for this
79

1 project on the break, and the answer to Mr. Overall's
2 question is that the employees are built into -- the
3 employee trip generation is built into the ITE -- the
4 ITE trip generation rate that was used.
5 So those are with the independent variable
6 being the room that includes ancillary trips that are
7 involved including the employees of the hotel. As far
8 as whether there's a possibility --
9 MR. BIERIG: Mr. Stewart, wait a second. Are
10 you saying that -- because I thought I saw this in one
11 of the traffic reports. The number of employees shown
12 on the project is generated from the room count using
13 the ULI analysis of how many employees are required for
14 a certain sized hotel.
15 MR. STEWART: I believe that's correct, yes.
16 MR. BIERIG: That's what I thought I saw. I
17 couldn't find it when I looked for it again.
18 MR. STEWART: Given that --
19 MR. BIERIG: So in other words, it doesn't
20 apply because we know it won't be that.
21 MR. STEWART: Right. The trips -- if you
22 doubled or tripled the number of employees, as far as
23 your impacts to the intersections that were the subject
24 of the question, you'd have to -- the intersections -- I
25 think, if you can see in the table, they're adding 0
80

1 trips; 1 trip; in one case, 4 trips. You would have to
2 be up to actually 16 trips to have significant impacts
3 at the impact of those intersections.
4 MR. BIERIG: And that would be peak hours.
5 MR. STEWART: That's peak hours for all of
6 the incremental increase in traffic. So either doubling
7 or tripling the number of employees would not get to
8 those numbers.
9 MR. BIERIG: Because they wouldn't all fall
10 in the peak hour no matter what?
11 MR. STEWART: Right.
12 MR. BIERIG: Got it.
13 Commissioner Overall.
14 MR. OVERALL: I guess come back to that. Let
15 me see if I understand what you just said. We have a
16 number in the analysis just done using the model that's
17 been applied for this calculation. You're saying we
18 could add 40 trips at peak hour of employees arriving
19 and it would make no difference in the traffic study.
20 Is that not what you're saying?
21 MR. STEWART: Not all arriving at peak hour
22 at once. I'm saying that the trip -- the trips
23 generated per hotel room include a component for
24 employees, and it's a small component that arrive or
25 leave at peak hour.
81

1 MR. OVERALL: Than what is the number of
2 total employees accounted for in this traffic study?
3 MR. STEWART: I believe -- I believe it's
4 100. I believe that's where that came from. I probably
5 need the Applicant's engineer to speak to that level of
6 detail, but it says 100.
7 MR. OVERALL: Someone will need to verify
8 this for me. I need to make sure I understand. The
9 model being used to calculate traffic's impact on
10 community says 100 employees.
11 If the number of employees that arrive at the
12 beginning of the work shift were to increase -- I
13 believe the number you said was 16. If it were 35 --
14 let's double the number because I think that's probably
15 closer to what it would be -- the model says there's no
16 traffic impact, but in fact, we know there is a traffic
17 impact. So how do we apply common sense to come up with
18 a number that reflects what we may experience on the
19 ground?
20 MR. STEWART: There is a traffic impact, but
21 to get to the point of a significant traffic impact
22 under the county's guidelines, you would have to get to
23 the 16-peak-hour-trip number at those locations.
24 MR. OVERALL: And those locations are only
25 one intersection; is that correct?
82

1 MR. STEWART: This is the interchange -- the
2 six different locations around the interchange of
3 San Ysidro.
4 MR. OVERALL: Am I -- I feel I'm correct. I
5 want you to verify that there were no other
6 intersections in Montecito studied for potential traffic
7 impacts; is that correct?
8 MR. STEWART: I believe that's right. They
9 may have looked at some and decided not to report them
10 because, when you're down at -- we're already down at
11 zero to -- on one trip and then on the other one to four
12 trips. If you get any further away from this project
13 than that, the data would not be meaningful. You get
14 down to such small numbers.
15 MR. OVERALL: Okay. To be continued.
16 MR. BIERIG: Commissioner Burrows.
17 MS. BURROWS: Sir, I assume those
18 calculations include service vehicles for the hotel?
19 Yes?
20 MR. STEWART: The studies that are done by
21 the Institute of Transportation Engineers take typical
22 land use designation such as a hotel or resort, and they
23 actually count all trips. So that includes mail
24 delivery, all their laundry, all their food delivery,
25 any kind of ancillary trip you can think of are included
83

1 in those trips.
2 MR. BIERIG: Director Black.
3 MS. BLACK: Mr. Chair, I don't know if this
4 is helpful or not, but if the Commission were to look on
5 page 42, 43, and 44 of the 15164 letter, I think it
6 indicates -- actually on page 44 indicates how trip
7 generation was calculated, and it really is based on the
8 number of rooms, the beach club membership, the spa, and
9 the employee units. So it isn't dependent on the number
10 of employees, per se. It's really a calculation based
11 upon the uses.
12 MR. OVERALL: But to the extent that might
13 underestimate the number of employees, that would be
14 rendered at least partially inaccurate; is that not
15 correct?
16 MS. BLACK: I think the way the trip
17 calculation generations operate they build in the number
18 of employees. ITE manual doesn't consider Caruso's 102.
19 MR. OVERALL: I understand, but I believe I
20 understood Mr. Stewart to say that the number of
21 employees that would be attributable based on the
22 application of this ITE standard would be 100.
23 MS. BLACK: No, I don't believe that's what
24 he said at all.
25 MR. OVERALL: Well, can somebody get us the
84

1 number as to what it is.
2 MS. BLACK: I don't know it is explicit as to
3 how many employees are assumed. We will look at that.
4 MR. BIERIG: Commissioner Gottsdanker.
5 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Yes, the statement was made
6 during the last session that in Montecito we do not have
7 any "No Parking" signs or timed parking signs. I just
8 would like to clarify that. I did have a call over the
9 break, and that is not an accurate statement.
10 We do have "No Parking" signs on Hill Road,
11 Channel, and Butterfly with timing. There is no parking
12 from 2:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M.
13 So it would be my question of Mr. Stewart,
14 given that information, would it be your view that it is
15 possible to put parking -- now, we don't know about how
16 it gets enforced, but we could literally condition the
17 project to have some sort of public parking signs along
18 South Jameson. Is that an accurate jump for me to make
19 there?
20 MS. BLACK: Mr. Chair, since I was the one
21 who made the statement, let me at least address what I
22 meant when I said that we didn't have timed parking. I
23 didn't mean that we didn't have signs that said you
24 can't park in certain areas or you can't park in certain
25 areas overnight.
85

1 What I was trying to indicate is we don't
2 have two-hour parking limits or three-hour parking
3 limits or four-hour parking limits that have to be
4 continually monitored. So that's what I meant when I
5 made that statement.
6 MS. GOTTSDANKER: As a deterrent to or a
7 direction, it would still be -- my question was would it
8 be possible to then have parking, you know, timed
9 parking, along that stretch of road?
10 I mean I understand that it's going to be
11 difficult to enforce because we don't have any sort of
12 parking meters and things like that, but generally human
13 being follows direction hopefully most of the time.
14 Sometimes we could say. So if we did have signs, you
15 know, somebody might say, "Oh, whoa. Look at my clock.
16 Okay. I've got four hours to park here," and
17 voluntarily do that.
18 MS. BLACK: Mr. Chair and
19 Commissioner Gottsdanker, yes, we could do that. I
20 wouldn't want the implication to be that anybody thought
21 we were actually actively monitoring timed parking,
22 though.
23 The similarities between the Biltmore and the
24 Miramar extend into this area as well. There is parking
25 on the opposite side of Channel Drive from the hotel,
86

1 and I don't think it's a problem. I don't think people
2 park in those spaces and visit the hotel on a routine
3 basis. I went there two weekends ago middle of the
4 weekend beautiful day, and I had no problem finding a
5 place to park. I was surprised.
6 So I think you can indicate it's for public
7 parking so that hotel guests don't park in that area.
8 You can say only it's only for four hours, but I just
9 don't want the Commission to be left with the impression
10 that that's something we can enforce on a very regular
11 basis.
12 MS. GOTTSDANKER: I understand.
13 MS. BLACK: Yeah.
14 MR. BIERIG: Commissioners, any other
15 questions on traffic?
16 Not seeing any, thank you, Mr. Stewart. I
17 really appreciate your testimony.
18 I would like to move on to water.
19 MR. MOSBY: Good morning, Commissioners.
20 MR. BIERIG: Thank you for joining us again
21 today.
22 MR. MOSBY: Absolutely. Better? Okay.
23 MR. BIERIG: So Mr. Mosby, I'll just start
24 out while everybody is organizing because I think water
25 is an issue that has come up a couple times.
87

1 Can you explain the well and how the well
2 figures into this whole project and why the well is an
3 issue. Its use or nonuse -- historically, there was a
4 well out there used for, as I understand, irrigation and
5 laundry, and the rooms were on domestic meter.
6 And the current proposal is that it all be on
7 domestic, and I know that's -- part of that was
8 negotiation with your district, and I just thought maybe
9 you could elucidate us, give us some insights.
10 MR. MOSBY: Well, if you look at the original
11 project description we have, originally the well was to
12 remain onsite, and it was going to be used for
13 nonpotable purposes.
14 And we estimated that the demand from that
15 will be somewhere between 12 to 20 acre feet for
16 nonpotable purposes which would be essentially
17 irrigation. So the well was removed from the site.
18 MR. BIERIG: Was that at your request?
19 MR. MOSBY: No. The district was not
20 necessarily consulted on that, but it was removed from
21 the site, and that is such that it came to us that
22 "Okay. At this point in time, what's that additional
23 land going to be?"
24 So we looked at it, and we have been speaking
25 with Caruso Affiliated and came up with means of
88

1 actually trying to supplement the supply for them, and
2 we've actually discussed it in a letter we sent to
3 Caruso Affiliated. It was dated July 29. So the well
4 we originally thought would be on the project, it would
5 be used for nonpotable use, and it was removed.
6 MR. BIERIG: And those issues related to the
7 deletion of the well did not have anything to do with a
8 request from your district.
9 MR. MOSBY: No, it didn't.
10 MR. BIERIG: Okay. Thank you. Thought I'd
11 make sure.
12 I did notice that you provided a table of the
13 historic use of the Miramar Hotel, and I don't remember
14 in all these documents where it is, but it struck me
15 that -- and I'm rounding -- the number that's being
16 proposed right now as a baseline number for the hotel is
17 around 45 acre feet of water per year. Is that
18 reasonably accurate?
19 MR. MOSBY: 45 acre feet is the baseline
20 that's calculated by the district.
21 MR. BIERIG: That seemed to differ pretty
22 substantial from the historic use that I saw in the
23 table that was shown, and it also differs a lot from
24 Biltmore current use, you know, which seems to be closer
25 to the 45 number.
89

1 MR. MOSBY: Actually the Biltmore uses
2 substantially more water than what we think Miramar
3 Hotel is going to use. When you look at the maximum,
4 the historical uses for the Miramar Hotel was about
5 42 acre feet. That was one year just before it shut
6 down. We took that number as the historical use, and
7 that's the number we were attempting to go to.
8 And we did a further analysis, and we spent
9 quite a bit of time looking at the numbers, and 45 acre
10 foot took into consideration the addition of -- they put
11 in the beach club, and they also -- there was some
12 laundry water.
13 We still believe, though, that the 45 acre
14 foot for interior use only is still a high figure. I
15 believe with conservation technology we have in place,
16 they're still going to come in under that figure and be
17 close to their historical use.
18 MR. BIERIG: You said interior use, but the
19 proposal here is to use it for irrigation and --
20 MR. MOSBY: Yes. There was an additional
21 demand that was placed on the district supply, which
22 then estimated actually in their documents somewhere
23 around 11.3 acre feet.
24 What we've done is we have said, "We're set
25 your base allotment at 45. Anything you use over that,
90

1 you will pay at a higher cost," based on a rate
2 structure that we're currently considering.
3 That higher cost is the water we purchase
4 from a different source, supplemental water, to serve
5 not just the Miramar but all our customers because usage
6 district wide is very, very high at the moment. And we
7 have to go out and find these supplemental sources.
8 MR. BIERIG: Why was the highest number used
9 as the baseline number?
10 MR. MOSBY: The highest number was used
11 because it reflected the typical use back then towards
12 the closure. And again, we've looked at the numbers at
13 the Biltmore; we've looked at the numbers at the
14 Miramar. And they've kind of creeped up a bit, and yet
15 at the same time, we're now seeing them starting to
16 backslide, at least at the Biltmore. So we used the
17 highest number reflected in usage for that moment. We
18 felt that that was in our best interest. We took that
19 into consideration and made a conservative estimate.
20 MR. BIERIG: You feel that that baseline
21 number is fair, and I use "fair" in a context of fair to
22 the other rate payers in your district.
23 MR. MOSBY: Absolutely, absolutely.
24 MR. BIERIG: Commissioner Gottsdanker.
25 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Mr. Mosby, you just made a
91

1 statement that led right into my question in that, when
2 you decided that the baseline number of 45 acre feet,
3 that was based on, I think I heard you say, a
4 supposition that the fixtures in the -- throughout the
5 interior of the hotel were going to be low-flow fixtures
6 and water-conserving fixtures.
7 Did you actually do the calculations from
8 knowing the number of fixtures that were going to be
9 installed? Did you have that information? Because we
10 don't have that information. So I'm wondering how you
11 could make a statement that says, "Well, we think it's
12 going to be 45 based on what we think they're going to
13 do."
14 But we don't have anything specific that says
15 they're going to do that yet other than we've got
16 conditions. So you know, I'm just wondering how you can
17 make that connection there, not knowing how many
18 fixtures there are, not knowing how many spa tubs there
19 are going to be in all these large bathrooms, not
20 knowing how many outdoor showers there's going to be on
21 these buildings, not knowing the actual use of the beach
22 club that's somewhere between 140 and 300 plus their
23 kids taking showers and all of whatever their guests are
24 doing.
25 MR. MOSBY: Are you done? Commissioner, the
92

1 way we came up with the number was we looked at typical
2 hotel use. We actually went to a couple planning
3 documents and a couple studies on water use and
4 analysis. And we looked at the interior use for a hotel
5 of this size. It was 200 -- what did we have? -- 204
6 rooms. We also looked at a study how they allocate
7 water use to room use also to other ancillary features
8 of the hotel, which would be the restaurant.
9 For us, we looked at the number that was
10 originally provided. We looked at the actual number
11 based upon installing conservation-oriented fixtures and
12 came up with a base per room number of about 94 gallons
13 per day.
14 MS. GOTTSDANKER: I saw that.
15 MR. MOSBY: That's where the number came
16 from. So there is verification, validation for that
17 number, and whether you have the fixtures or not, it's
18 based on the per capita usage and the type of fixtures
19 that you have installed. So there is a basis for the
20 number that we chose.
21 MS. GOTTSDANKER: And did that study include
22 the number of special events and dinners and the kitchen
23 use other than room use?
24 MR. MOSBY: Yes, it did. As a matter of
25 fact, on the study we looked at which is based upon
93

1 comparable hotels, you look at typically 60, 70 percent
2 of interior room use for a project like this. We use
3 60 percent as interior room use. 40 percent would be
4 the ancillary functions of the hotel. We apply that
5 number to come up with what we consider to be the fair
6 and reasonable base allotment.
7 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Great. Now, I still have
8 another question with regards to the acre feet that are
9 not inside the 40 -- we keep talking about 45, 46.
10 MR. MOSBY: Yes.
11 MS. GOTTSDANKER: But that's all interior
12 use. Now, we have a, quote, unquote, according to the
13 Applicant, "lushly landscaped project" here. So are
14 what you saying is that everything above -- that's used
15 by the project that's over and above the baseline number
16 will be delivered by the water district -- absolutely
17 delivered by the water district no matter how much it's
18 over and above that baseline for a fee?
19 MR. MOSBY: As with all our customers,
20 there's no ordinance in place to stop a customer from
21 using more water, for instance, in its base allotment.
22 Where we try to limit the using is, one, planning, which
23 we're doing with Caruso Affiliated right now and with
24 any of our other customers whereby we look at what the
25 project is. We say, "We know we can meet this goal.
94

1 You can meet this goal if you follow these certain
2 conditions."
3 And so in this case they can use more water,
4 and they will possibly, but they will pay for it. And
5 at the same time, as we move through this project, we
6 are going to plan to ensure that it uses the minimal
7 amount of water without detracting from the appearance
8 of the hotel.
9 So it's our goal to reach the base allotment,
10 provide whatever landscaping water is needed,
11 recognizing that we do have a water supply situation
12 here that we have to deal with, and they now know this,
13 and they are trying to be as aggressive as possible in
14 reducing the overall demand on their project.
15 MS. GOTTSDANKER: So then, if we continue in
16 the direction that we're going and we don't get any rain
17 and two years from now, you know, the state water is cut
18 off essentially because that's the direction our
19 Governor happens to be going right now, what's going to
20 happen -- I mean what do you foresee as the future here?
21 Here we have a hotel that's not even built
22 yet, and we're trying to come up with reasonable water
23 usage, but as you're saying, there's nothing on the
24 books right now that stops water usage at any level,
25 only financially, only whether any customer's willing to
95

1 overpay.
2 But what happens to all the customers who
3 aren't willing to overpay and they don't have water
4 because the overpayers -- and we all know -- we live in
5 Montecito -- that that is not really an issue in
6 Montecito, how much people have to pay for things.
7 Let's be really straight about that. You know, I mean
8 it really isn't. Most people in Montecito will pay for
9 what it is they need. And ultimately, if we keep going
10 to the same direction we're going, we're not going to
11 have water to service the district, only to those people
12 who will pay.
13 MR. MOSBY: Well, we actually know what this
14 community does during a water shortage emergency
15 situation or when we really need to change the
16 conditions in which we serve water to the community.
17 For instance, the Miramar during the last
18 drought, they were using somewhere around 17-, 18,000
19 units of water a year. And when we moved into the
20 second year of drought, same with the Biltmore, they
21 dropped to nearly half of what they were using in the
22 past. So each and every property in the Montecito does
23 respond when we do initiate a water shortage emergency
24 condition.
25 As an example, for the commercial rates back
96

1 in '89 and '90, they actually increased 530 percent.
2 They went up higher than just about anyone else. And
3 they actually responded and curtailed their water use,
4 which actually helped the district and maintained the
5 water supply we have available.
6 But it was the same also with our
7 single-family residential customers. Their rates
8 actually went up 500 percent. That's what happens in a
9 water shortage emergency. They get the message, and
10 they help us.
11 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Okay.
12 MR. BIERIG: Commissioner Overall, I think
13 you were next.
14 MR. OVERALL: Mr. Mosby, you made a statement
15 in terms of the evaluation that you did, "you" being the
16 water district, that used comparable hotels. This came
17 up earlier in a different context. I wonder if you have
18 a set of what the characteristics are of those, quote,
19 unquote, "comparable hotels."
20 MR. MOSBY: This is for the study we used to
21 determine what the actual base allotment would be?
22 MR. OVERALL: Right.
23 MR. MOSBY: The comparable hotels were hotels
24 that were situated in Montecito, Santa Barbara, Goleta,
25 and a portion of Ventura. They didn't list all the
97

1 hotels. I think there were a total of -- I think there
2 were 35 in the population that was studied. So that's
3 all the information I can give you on that.
4 MR. OVERALL: In your -- in the process of
5 doing the planning -- there are two statements here. Is
6 it customary for the water district to do this kind of
7 projection, or does the Applicant frequently do it?
8 MR. MOSBY: Well, you know, we -- our level
9 of effort in the function of the assistance the
10 Applicant may need or a homeowner may need -- typically
11 you would expect a lot of the homework to be done up
12 front.
13 And in essence, we got some numbers
14 initially, we looked at them further on, and then we
15 actually assisted the Applicant in understanding that
16 that probably will not be the water needs. That is not
17 the water needs. And so we took the extra level of
18 effort to go ahead and work with them and show what it
19 looks like. We do this with all our customers.
20 MR. OVERALL: Do you have any idea where the
21 170 acre feet came from?
22 MR. MOSBY: I don't know the origin of that
23 number, and I still don't know the origin. But again,
24 the water district will do what it's responsibly meant
25 to do, and that is look at the project and come up with
98

1 an estimate and based on knowledge we have in serving
2 our customers.
3 MR. OVERALL: I have one other question. I
4 think Mr. Middlebrook referred to this. It may not be
5 exactly this terminology, but there has been, I think,
6 indicated in the press and perhaps elsewhere there's
7 been some allegation about preferential treatment for
8 this project.
9 I want to have you clarify something. Let me
10 see what the date is in the staff report. The most
11 recent one -- there's a letter dated July 29th that has,
12 I believe, on the fourth page a chart that shows the
13 historical usage of Miramar, and unless I'm reading it
14 incorrectly, which is entirely possible, the 42 acre
15 feet per year number that you refer to occurred back in
16 1990. And every year after that, if I were to average
17 those out, that comes out -- it looks to me like they
18 come out much closer to 30 than 42 or 45.
19 I seem to recall discussion in one of the
20 documents from the water district unrelated to the
21 Miramar but related to the community and water service
22 to us as individuals that you would use -- if my
23 recollection is correct, you would use the average of
24 three years', three prior years', usage to determine
25 what our allotment would be. I may be a little
99

1 incorrect on that, but I know I read something akin to
2 that.
3 I'm having trouble making sure -- I want to
4 make sure the allegation for preferential treatment are
5 not validated by what's been done here in establishing
6 the 45 acre feet.
7 MR. MOSBY: Commissioner, that's a good
8 point. There is a three-year allocation period that
9 goes from '03/'04 to '05/'06. That's what we are using
10 with our current commercial classifications and our
11 institutional public classifications.
12 The Miramar, of course, shut down in 1999.
13 So we don't have that window to look at what their use
14 will be. So therefore, we have to go -- there's a point
15 in that we adopted Ordinance 89 specifically directed
16 actually towards projects like the Miramar. We look at
17 the actual usage of a comparable facility. We look at
18 how we can apply conservation. We look at my different
19 variables.
20 So you can't use the base allotment that was
21 established in Ordinance 89, or that's established in
22 part of our new proposal, and that's to the community as
23 far as our rates and structures.
24 So we looked at usage. We looked at usage
25 for a comparable site. We looked at the acre size and
100

1 the number of rooms, and we came up with that number
2 based upon our analysis.
3 So I know where you're going at and the thing
4 is we don't have that period in which to actually
5 determine that number. So we have to look elsewhere.
6 MR. BIERIG: Commissioner Burrows.
7 MS. BURROWS: If the drought should continue
8 and your water situation becomes more dire in Montecito,
9 it's my understanding that your water district can put
10 restrictors on all properties; is that true? And is it
11 done with commercial recreational the same as it would
12 be done with domestic?
13 MR. MOSBY: What happens during a water
14 shortage emergency, the district will actually ask for
15 mandatory 20, 30 percent reductions in water use. The
16 way they achieve that is by increasing rates to the
17 extent that it get's very expensive to use water outside
18 and allocations provided to properties.
19 In the event you get subsequent
20 month-after-month violations of that usage, what the
21 district does -- you write them a letter. You say,
22 "You've exceeded it for the last three months straight."
23 The district will place a restrictor in the meter which
24 will limit the amount of water that that customer will
25 get.
101

1 But in general we added, I think, during the
2 last drought -- I looked at the records. It was
3 somewhere about four or five restrictors were added to
4 customer meters for about a three- or four-month period,
5 and then it rained, and then that point, after it
6 rained, the water shortage was over. We ended it and
7 went back to normal.
8 MS. BURROWS: Follow-up question. I think
9 the concern the people of Montecito have is, while the
10 Applicant has agreed to not use the water well at this
11 point, there could be usage of the water well ten years
12 from now.
13 And at our last meeting, I believe staff said
14 that would be controlled by an administrative hearing.
15 I would be more comfortable if that could be a publicly
16 noticed public hearing if that is something we as a
17 Commission can do.
18 MS. GOTTSDANKER: That's for later.
19 MS. BLACK: Mr. Chair and
20 Commissioner Burrows, we've actually included the
21 prohibition on use of the well in the project
22 description. Mr. Caruso added that to his project
23 description, and in order to amend their project
24 description, they would actually have to come back to
25 the Montecito Planning Commission in a noticed public
102

1 hearing.
2 MR. BIERIG: Director Black, could you
3 discuss briefly why the well is out or, Mr. Briggs, if
4 that's appropriate.
5 MS. BLACK: Mr. Chair, I think Mr. Caruso
6 decided to remove the well from the project description
7 because there was so much concern locally about the need
8 to drill a new well in a different location and the
9 affect that that might have on other wells in the area.
10 It's just not an issue that had been fully studied; so I
11 believe that rather than leave that as an open question
12 he chose to eliminate that well use.
13 MR. BIERIG: Right. And you're saying that
14 conditions of the project will prohibit without
15 modification of the plan the reestablishment of the use
16 of well water for this project?
17 MS. BLACK: That's correct.
18 MR. BIERIG: Thank you.
19 MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chair.
20 MR. BIERIG: Commissioner Phillips.
21 MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, sir.
22 Mr. Mosby, I think what we're trying to get
23 at here is the impact on the community. Should the
24 projection of 45 acre feet be conservative and the
25 demand -- Miramar demand be significantly higher, am I
103

1 correct that the result is Miramar pays a higher fee in
2 the higher brackets, and what is the result to everyone
3 sitting here? What happens to the rest of us as a
4 result of significantly greater demand?
5 MR. MOSBY: Well, this is why we wished to
6 work with Miramar very early and plan this project very
7 carefully. What you're asking is, if there is no
8 oversight as the project is being built, then they're
9 going to use as much water as they wish. That is not
10 what the district wishes to occur. So it's our goal to
11 ensure that the hotel uses what they're given.
12 Your question alludes to the fact that they
13 will use as much water as they wish is kind of what the
14 community is doing right now. In fact, the community is
15 at a very, very high level of usage. I mean we live in
16 Montecito. We're using too much water, and we're trying
17 to address that with a rate structure.
18 We will be working with the Caruso group to
19 ensure that we don't get to that level of service that
20 requires a larger meter, that requires something other
21 than what they're able to receive right now, and they're
22 aware of this, and they're fully aware that they have a
23 responsibility also to the community, and they're going
24 to do their part.
25 MR. PHILLIPS: Can you supply everything they
104

1 need going forward?
2 MR. MOSBY: Yes, we can. Based on the base
3 allotment and the projections that we've got now, we can
4 provide that. They've been a customer since 1924. They
5 picked up a meter '24, 1930. They've been here a long
6 time.
7 And it's almost like you're saying to us,
8 "Well, can you provide them with water?" when, in
9 essence, someone leaves town for ten years and they come
10 back, we can't say, "No. We can't provide you with
11 water." It's not fair. We have to provide all our
12 customers with water. And in this case we're planning
13 on setting a base allotment so we know how much water
14 they will be using.
15 MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, you can meet their
16 demand. Does it impact the rest of the community in
17 that we will have less to use?
18 MR. MOSBY: The way we are currently
19 operating the district we are picking spa purchases on
20 the state market as you may know. We just purchased
21 1,000 foot of water from a dry-year water program versus
22 going into a water shortage emergency which could have
23 happened next week. We're now going to end the water
24 year with a lot more water, nearly 800 acre foot of
25 carryover, and we did in the preceding years.
105

1 So we're managing the water supplies. We're
2 using the water that's available. We can provide the
3 project with water.
4 MR. PHILLIPS: And my rate does not go up no
5 matter how much demand the Miramar has?
6 MR. MOSBY: You are a single-family
7 residential customer. You are in a different
8 classification than the Miramar Hotel. The Miramar
9 Hotel is commercial. They will not affect your usage.
10 If you're a single-family residential
11 customer and you're using water at comparable levels
12 significantly higher than 70 percent of the rest of the
13 single-family residential customers, yes, you will pay
14 more.
15 MR. PHILLIPS: So if Miramar can pay the
16 price, you can serve them?
17 MR. MOSBY: As with all our customers that
18 we're currently serving.
19 MR. PHILLIPS: Okay. Good.
20 MR. BIERIG: Commissioner Overall.
21 MR. OVERALL: Mr. Mosby, I think you made
22 reference to -- and it's in the document at some
23 point -- a discussion about a proposal Caruso Affiliated
24 related to an alternative well should it become
25 necessary. Can you tell us a little bit about what the
106

1 status of that is.
2 MR. MOSBY: Yes. What we've actually said to
3 Caruso Affiliated is we do have a standby well source
4 that's located east of the area that would be impacted
5 by the area that they would pump, and it's currently not
6 being used. We actually have two wells in that area
7 that are on standby.
8 The actual safe yield of that zone is
9 somewhere around 480 acre feet per year. We have a well
10 specifically that we're thinking of possibly
11 reactivating, and if we have participation from
12 Caruso Affiliated, then we can actually look at that
13 production source, and if they wish to participate, they
14 can go ahead and participate and provide financial
15 support to provide additional amount of water for the
16 hotel.
17 But again, everything to the hotel is based
18 on the 45 base allotment and the additional component
19 irrigation not to go outside of that, and that is still
20 our goal to make sure that they hold to that.
21 MR. OVERALL: Just a follow-up question. I
22 like the choice of word "participation." I think just
23 in interest of full disclosures so somebody doesn't end
24 up with a problem somewhere down the line. Have
25 specific dollar amounts -- I don't want to know what
107

1 they are, but have specific dollar amounts been
2 discussed and put in writing so nobody gets a wicked
3 surprise?
4 MR. MOSBY: No. There's actually no dollar
5 amount that's been established or set. There's nothing
6 in writing that has gone to Caruso Affiliated. The
7 document that you saw in front of you dated July 29th is
8 the document that is now in the public record and that
9 any other numbers are still subject to negotiation.
10 MR. OVERALL: Okay. Thank you.
11 MR. BIERIG: Mr. Mosby, there's been some
12 discussion about the parking garage and its relationship
13 to the groundwater and elevation. Can you address that
14 issue and how it impacts the district and the water
15 basin and whatever reference you use for it.
16 MR. MOSBY: I'm assuming because you're going
17 underground you may fear that there could be impact
18 associated with break up of the native material
19 aboveground and how it will infiltrate?
20 MR. BIERIG: I don't know if "fear" is
21 correct. I was just hoping you could address that
22 concern.
23 MR. MOSBY: I think what they have -- they
24 have mitigation measures in place when you actually do
25 excavation like that. What you do is you corner off the
108

1 area, and you're very careful not to allow a lot of
2 water to get into that area so that the water drains
3 away from that excavation, and I'm sure that's going to
4 be part of the conditions associated with building that
5 garage.
6 MR. BIERIG: Right. Have you seen conditions
7 structures were built -- is there a rule of thumb as to
8 how far above the water table construction should be?
9 MR. MOSBY: I have not seen conditions like
10 that.
11 MR. BIERIG: Okay. Thank you.
12 Commissioners?
13 Commissioner Burrows.
14 MS. BURROWS: Thank you. I think it's in our
15 report, but I want to address the issue of contamination
16 of the water by the lush gardens which sound absolutely
17 beautiful. I think that's been addressed in your
18 mitigation measures to use particular environmental
19 products. Is that --
20 MR. BIERIG: Are you talking about
21 pesticides?
22 MS. ALMY: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, yes,
23 there are conditions that speak to the types and
24 qualities of application materials that are going to be
25 going onto landscape that address the issue of
109

1 pollution.
2 MR. BIERIG: Mr. Mosby, I think you're done.
3 Thank you.
4 MR. MOSBY: Thank you very much. Have a good
5 afternoon.
6 MS. BLACK: Mr. Chair, I suggest we go to
7 sanitary service.
8 MR. BIERIG: Yes. Absolutely, please.
9 Please proceed. Actually you're not making a
10 presentation. I guess we should ask questions of you.
11 MS. GABRIEL: Dianne Gabriel, the general
12 manager and district engineer for Montecito Sanitary
13 District. Good morning.
14 MR. BIERIG: Dianne, I think the only thing I
15 saw of any particular note from me was just the fact
16 that there was some concern about the discrepancy
17 between flows you were projecting coming into your
18 district and the water usage that could have generated
19 the flows, and I take it you have resolved those
20 concerns, or maybe I should ask have you resolved those
21 concerns?
22 MS. GABRIEL: Yes, we have, and I believe
23 you're referring to the letter dated July 29th from the
24 sanitary district that was copied to the planning
25 commission --
110

1 MR. BIERIG: Yes, just found it. I was
2 looking for that one.
3 MS. GABRIEL: -- where we still were going on
4 the report that identified that over 82,000 gallons of
5 sewage a day on average would be draining to the sewer,
6 and that was not matching very well with -- you've just
7 been referring to water usage in terms of acre feet. In
8 sewage flows we talked about it in gallons per day or
9 million gallons per day.
10 So this 45 acre feet per year would really
11 only total up to 35,835 gallons per day. So we had a
12 little discrepancy there. We didn't see how we were
13 still generating so much sewage if there was only 35,000
14 gallons of water being provided for internal use.
15 And that was clarified to the sanitary
16 district in a letter from Caruso yesterday where they
17 explained that those were preliminary numbers back when
18 they were still estimating their water usage to be the
19 117 acre feet per year, and they have now reduced that
20 down to the 45 acre feet per year, and this will be
21 accomplished by using -- and I'm reading right here from
22 their letter -- "using fixtures, such as low-flow
23 fixtures, laundry water recycling, and offsite laundry
24 services as well as general water use management
25 practices."
111

1 MR. BIERIG: It's safe to say you have
2 capacity and facilities to serve this property as is?
3 MS. GABRIEL: That's correct. This reduction
4 in the flow of sewage actually helps that situation. I
5 know there were some questions at the last planning
6 commission hearing about our capacity, and I thought I
7 might take just a moment to state those facts for the
8 record.
9 Our plant capacity is 1.5 million gallons per
10 day, and even if we took that conservatively and said,
11 "Once we're at 75 percent of capacity, we should start
12 looking at plan expansion" -- well, if we look at past
13 four years' flows to the treatment plant, including wet
14 and dry weather, our flows on average are .96 million
15 gallons per day. So that's 960,000 gallons per day. If
16 we take the sewage flows proposed from the Caruso
17 project at 35,835 gallons per day, that only gets us to
18 995,000 gallons per day.
19 MR. BIERIG: And that's what percentage of
20 your capacity?
21 MS. GABRIEL: That leaves us with over
22 129,000 gallons of extra capacity before we even reach
23 75 percent.
24 MR. BIERIG: Okay. What has your historic or
25 your increases in your use -- excuse me -- in effluent
112

1 coming into your plant? What's been the pattern over
2 the last 10 or 20 years on an annual basis as a
3 percentage? I'm just looking for a --
4 MS. GABRIEL: I can probably just speak to
5 that just really over the last four years where four
6 years ago we were about right where we are right now at
7 .8 MGD, million gallons per day.
8 Then in wetter years, so in 2005, we were a
9 little over 1 million gallons per day. This is average
10 for the whole calendar year. It crept up a little bit
11 again in 2006, and then 2007 we're back down to .8
12 million gallons per day.
13 MR. BIERIG: I believe -- and aside from this
14 project, I don't believe it will be a problem here, but
15 are you still having troubles with increased flows
16 during storms?
17 MS. GABRIEL: We still experience an increase
18 in flows during rain events, and I'll take this as an
19 opportunity --
20 MR. BIERIG: Would that have an effect -- is
21 there anything where this project can have an effect on
22 that particular circumstance, which I think is unique to
23 Montecito?
24 MS. GABRIEL: In this case everything will be
25 new. The all new sewer piping for the site -- we know
113

1 it will be intact. We will make sure there are no
2 rainwater connections to the sewer. That's where the
3 big problem happens is when people have their roof
4 drains or their yard drains tied to sanitary sewer
5 system. We have almost an instantaneous increase of our
6 flows into the plant when it rains. This is from inflow
7 of rainwater, not from rainwater infiltrating into the
8 pipes underground over time.
9 MR. BIERIG: No, I understand what the issue
10 is, but because this is all new, you are anticipating no
11 issues there?
12 MS. GABRIEL: That's correct.
13 MR. BIERIG: Commissioners?
14 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Just to check because my --
15 boy, it's getting harder and harder to remember what I
16 read. Is the project conditioned that way at this point
17 that no -- that all the drain spouts and all the
18 drainage and all of that will not be flowing into the
19 sewer system? Do you have a condition that reads that
20 way? I don't know that you would be able to answer
21 that.
22 MR. BIERIG: Director Black, I believe that's
23 just the standard --
24 MS. BLACK: Mr. Chair, I think that's just a
25 building code requirement that's implemented on every
114

1 new project.
2 MR. BIERIG: Just somehow it doesn't get
3 implemented on --
4 MS. GOTTSDANKER: It doesn't get implemented
5 in reality. Let's put it that way.
6 MS. BLACK: I think, Mr. Chair -- and maybe
7 Ms. Gabriel can correct me, but I think the problem that
8 the sanity district is facing is from old construction.
9 MS. GOTTSDANKER: No, that's not accurate.
10 It comes from new construction. There are still
11 landscape contractors that put all their -- this is kind
12 of my world now we're in still. There are still
13 landscape contractors who still at the request of
14 property owners take their drain spouts, their roof
15 drain spouts, and other water and put it into the sewer
16 system.
17 You know, and I know that because we have a
18 restricted budget that there's no real way of actually
19 managing all that right now because nobody says
20 anything, but it does happen in reality throughout
21 Montecito that we have rainwater runoff going into the
22 sewer system. They can tell us that. I can tell you
23 that because I go in and correct those issues, you know,
24 in my business. So I know it happens all over the
25 place.
115

1 And I just want to make sure there's some
2 mechanism -- be it a condition -- that's going to be
3 monitored that gets put on this project that that
4 doesn't happen on this project. Absolutely no way does
5 that happen on this project, and it is left up to
6 building department and the building inspectors.
7 I have a real question whether that's
8 actually going to be implemented as it should be with no
9 overriding monitoring. That's all. And I'll get to it
10 when we get to the conditions.
11 MR. BIERIG: Thank you, Ms. Gabriel. I
12 appreciate your time.
13 Oh, I'm sorry. Commissioner Overall.
14 MR. OVERALL: I have one other question.
15 This will ramble a bit. I don't remember the specifics.
16 I remember -- I think I recall from the letter that was
17 provided to us by the folks from Heal the Ocean that
18 there was concern about making sure contaminants were
19 captured.
20 And given the state of the design for the
21 water system, I'm just wondering do you know whether
22 whatever that capture system is is included in the
23 numbers that you're dealing with? That may be too vague
24 but --
25 MS. GABRIEL: I do not have a copy of the
116

1 Heal the Ocean letter; so if we're talking contaminants,
2 such as grease, for example, the project will definitely
3 have a grease interceptor that will be maintained by the
4 owner on a regular basis with oversight from the
5 sanitary district to make sure that it's operating
6 properly. Other contaminants I don't know what they
7 might be referring to.
8 MR. OVERALL: Are those systems included in
9 the estimate of the flow to the plant?
10 MS. GABRIEL: All of the flows from the
11 restaurants would be filtered through the grease
12 interceptor or certain components from the kitchen and
13 the restaurant. They have to go through the grease
14 interceptors. So yes, those flows are included in the
15 calculations.
16 MR. OVERALL: Okay. Thank you.
17 MR. BIERIG: Thank you very much. We
18 appreciate your time.
19 MS. GABRIEL: Thanks.
20 MR. BIERIG: That's the end of the -- what I
21 have down here experts from agencies. I was just about
22 to say if there's any other agencies --
23 MS. BLACK: Mr. Chair, fire is -- a
24 representative from Montecito Fire is here, and we can
25 also make somebody available from Project Clean Water if
117

1 Commission has further questions about water quality
2 issues.
3 MR. BIERIG: Do any of the Commissioners have
4 questions of fire?
5 You do.
6 Then please, if you're available, please come
7 up, and again, as I mentioned, you said Clean Water, and
8 if one of the fellow Commissioners has a question on
9 that subject...
10 MR. LANGHORNE: Good morning, Commissioners.
11 I'm Jim Langhorne, Montecito Fire. I'm sweating like a
12 meatloaf this morning because I have a low-grade fever,
13 but I'm going to get through this.
14 MR. OVERALL: In that case we'll try to make
15 it quick and get you out of here. In reviewing the
16 broadcast of the July 16th hearing, in your testimony
17 before us at the latter part of it, one of the
18 Commissioners asked you a question do you feel
19 comfortable providing service.
20 And the response you gave was something like
21 the following: "If we have 1,500 gallons per minute
22 pressure, the answer was yes."
23 I was struck in reviewing it by the qualifier
24 of the word "if," which said to me that maybe there's
25 something here we don't know about the conditions, the
118

1 state of the design or whatever.
2 And I'd just like to have you address that.
3 Why did you use the word "if," and what does it relate
4 to specifically to the project?
5 MR. LANGHORNE: Well, I'll choose my words
6 carefully but 1,500 gallons per minute -- we're not
7 talking about acre feet; we're not talking about even
8 the dynamic needs that we talked about this morning.
9 But that 1,500 gallons per minute is a bare bottom, and
10 in Montecito it's hard to achieve, and it's generally
11 reserved for something like quarter million square foot
12 garage, ballroom, mixed-use type building.
13 So we did have some discovery in the last
14 month and a half or so that yielded the potential to
15 deliver that certain infrastructure to the improvements;
16 so that was the qualifier.
17 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Go on.
18 MR. OVERALL: Yeah, go on about
19 infrastructure improvements.
20 MR. LANGHORNE: There may be some offsite
21 infrastructure water to the infrastructure that has to
22 be improved to effect that kind of flow.
23 MS. GOTTSDANKER: So you don't have -- I'm
24 not at the mike.
25 MR. OVERALL: Who does that infrastructure
119

1 improvement? Is it the water district? Is it you? Is
2 it the Applicant?
3 MR. LANGHORNE: Well, it's going to be the
4 water district's infrastructure that would need to be
5 improved. Historically, when we have something like
6 this, whether it be the Westmont project, whether it be
7 the Biltmore, which was back in the '70s when that
8 actually occurred, it was the project applicant that had
9 to affect those improvements.
10 MR. OVERALL: Do you know the status of any
11 negotiation related to that in this case?
12 MR. LANGHORNE: Well, the flags been put up;
13 so they know it's there.
14 MR. OVERALL: Has there been any dollar
15 amount assigned to this?
16 MR. LANGHORNE: No.
17 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Do we know what the
18 existing capacity is today, what could be delivered
19 today?
20 MR. LANGHORNE: That information would best
21 be gained from the water district, but if I had to give
22 you an answer now, I would say that right now as things
23 stand we're looking at probably in the neighborhood of
24 about 1,000 gallons a minute.
25 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Are there any code
120

1 regulations that require you have the 15?
2 MR. LANGHORNE: Yes.
3 MS. GOTTSDANKER: There are?
4 MR. LANGHORNE: Oh, certainly.
5 MS. GOTTSDANKER: So in order for you to sign
6 off on this project, you would have to have 15?
7 MR. LANGHORNE: Yes.
8 MS. GOTTSDANKER: You don't have right now?
9 MR. LANGHORNE: My understanding is that
10 there is a design exercise or at least a survey of the
11 water infrastructure that suggest that they can improve
12 it to do this.
13 MR. BIERIG: Director Black, I think we can
14 save some time if you would address this.
15 MS. BLACK: Mr. Chair, I think my
16 recommendation would be to have Mr. Mosby to come back
17 to the mike and address the Commission because I think
18 the fire chief is really commenting on a need that the
19 fire district provides.
20 MR. BIERIG: But I guess --- and we can do
21 that, but I was headed in a different direction. This
22 is code. They have to -- you either meet the standard,
23 or you don't build your hotel; is that correct?
24 MS. BLACK: I think that's correct.
25 MR. BIERIG: It's as simple as that. They
121

1 either will, or they won't. If they don't, they won't
2 build the hotel.
3 MS. BLACK: That's correct.
4 MS. GOTTSDANKER: But we're charged with
5 approving a project that's, according to the community
6 plan, within the existing resources and also charged
7 with -- by CEQA for making findings that say that there
8 is no environmental impact.
9 Now, for me, if I'm now hearing that we don't
10 have -- the Montecito Water District does not have pipe
11 lines running down San Ysidro or wherever and they're
12 going to now have to be installed, that is to me both an
13 impact to the community and an impact to traffic, and I
14 can go on and on and on. And so this is a little bit of
15 a surprise that this is now coming out now.
16 MR. BIERIG: Fair enough. Maybe we'll have
17 Mr. Mosby come back on water.
18 MR. MOSBY: Thank you for allowing me to come
19 back to at least make a statement regarding the
20 infrastructure serving the Miramar Hotel, at least the
21 district's the public water system.
22 Actually a month ago the Applicant and their
23 consulting engineer came to Montecito Water District.
24 They provided us with a fee to test the fire hydrants
25 that are within boundaries of the Miramar Hotel. We
122

1 also have a hydraulic model that actually mirrors the
2 flows in that specific zone.
3 The flow test came back right around 1,500
4 GPM, and we can actually serve and get that water to
5 that property. We have some rather large infrastructure
6 that comes through the body mean area. We've got
7 12-inch pipeline coming in there. We've got 8-inch
8 pipelines coming down San Ysidro with a multiple of
9 feeds that actually services the Miramar as well as
10 services the Biltmore. So the infrastructure is in
11 place.
12 There is, though, going to be a condition by
13 the water district that they execute a water main
14 relocation or extension agreement because they are
15 affecting some of our public water system, and they are
16 going to have to replace in accordance with our
17 requirements.
18 So that's standard on all projects. For
19 instance -- I'll make this quick, but Miramar Hotel
20 actually back in 1991 was required by the fire district
21 to install eight-inch pipeline down South Jameson as
22 fire protection, and they did it.
23 So infrastructure is there in place. We have
24 done fire flow testing in that zone. We know what the
25 capacity of the hydrants are in that zone, and they can
123

1 meet what the fire district has actually indicated. And
2 the fire district was there. Jim wasn't there, but
3 there were other members of his department that were
4 there at the time we did that flow test. Hopefully that
5 clears that up.
6 MR. BIERIG: Thank you.
7 MR. MOSBY: You're welcome. Any other
8 questions?
9 MR. BIERIG: Thank you again.
10 Any additional questions Mr. Langhorne?
11 MR. BIERIG: Go take care of yourself.
12 MR. LANGHORNE: We've got water.
13 MR. BIERIG: Thank you for making it down for
14 that.
15 So that is the end of our questions unless
16 there's a question for -- we have -- what was the
17 other -- Clean Water.
18 MR. STEWART: Mr. Chair, we can get
19 Kathleen Garner from Project Clean Water down here if we
20 need to. We did have a chance to meet with her
21 yesterday, and she said the plan that was submitted is
22 adequate and, in fact, better than she receives from
23 most applicants. It includes the combination of
24 filters, small retention systems in the planners, and
25 pervious concrete to manage all the water in a best
124

1 management practices way onsite. If you have more
2 technical questions, we can get her to the hearing.
3 MR. BIERIG: I don't believe we do.
4 Mr. Stewart, you are going to stay with us
5 today.
6 MR. STEWART: I am.
7 MR. BIERIG: We will have questions of you,
8 but I don't think we need to bring her down. Thank you
9 very much.
10 MS. BLACK: Mr. Chair, do you think you're
11 going to need the water district representative here
12 anymore?
13 MR. BIERIG: I don't think so unless -- I
14 think everybody's gotten their questions out on the
15 table, and we're probably done with water and sewer. I
16 think we're finished.
17 Now would be the time we would normally take
18 public comment. So I think we're probably going to
19 start that. What I'd like to do is at least -- I think
20 there were a couple people that were hoping to address
21 us before lunch. So I'm going to try to take a few, but
22 we probably won't go more than about 40 minutes.
23 The concept here on public comment is new
24 issues, new information based on plans as they have been
25 modified, and I'm going to request of everyone that they
125

1 not try to speak unless they really have something to
2 address because I'd hate to have to -- I wish I had the
3 turn off mike switch up here like I did upstairs. That
4 was wonderful. I'd hate to use insults as a way to get
5 it done. So bear with me. Don't speak unless you have
6 something new to say. The cheering stuff or
7 deriding -- we're way past it. So with that, what have
8 we got?
9 Well, it's interesting that we have more
10 speaker slips that we have chairs. Is there a big crowd
11 out there? No, not a big crowd?
12 MS. GOTTSDANKER: How many people in the
13 overflow room?
14 MR. BIERIG: There's three in the overflow
15 room.
16 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Only three people. Who are
17 all the speaker slips for?
18 MR. BIERIG: I don't know. It's interesting.
19 I wonder who the speaker slips are for from the
20 nonexistent speakers. That's kind of an interesting --
21 it seems that there's a certain amount of theater going
22 on today. And it's really not appropriate to what we're
23 here to do. This is not a popularity contest and
24 filling out speaker slips for people that aren't here or
25 multiple speaker slips is just a waste of our time.
126

1 UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: Aren't you making an
2 assumption?
3 MR. BIERIG: Yeah, I don't think I'm making
4 an assumption.
5 UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: I think you are.
6 MR. BIERIG: Well, we'll see if they're here.
7 Let's see how many of these speaker slips actually show
8 up.
9 Sherry Stockwell.
10 UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: There's one.
11 MR. BIERIG: There's one.
12 UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: She was here.
13 MR. BIERIG: Shelia Lodge followed by
14 Sue Adams.
15 MS. LODGE: I'm Shelia Lodge here
16 representing CPA and myself in part. Mr. Chair, Members
17 of the Commission, CPA is very pleased the top floor of
18 the corner has been removed and that the porte cochere
19 has been removed. That's definitely an improvement.
20 However, a project on which the EIR was done
21 is still significantly different from the one that is
22 before you, and we still firmly believe that a full EIR
23 should be required.
24 A quick personal comment on the basis of some
25 comments made this morning. The Applicant says this
127

1 project is so attractive to their group because it is in
2 Montecito. That leaves me puzzled by the design.
3 Staff says it is consistent with a
4 cottage-type hotel. I have to say perhaps in the letter
5 of the requirement but certainly not in the spirit. The
6 old Miramar was friendly, charming, funky. The new
7 project is glitzy, imposing, more suited to
8 Beverly Hills than Montecito.
9 I believe Montecito deserves something
10 better, more compatible, a project which refers back to
11 the historic structures that were there. So I hope it
12 will go in that direction. Thank you.
13 MR. BIERIG: Thank you.
14 MS. ADAMS: Mr. Chairman and Members of the
15 Montecito Planning Commission, thank you for allowing me
16 to speak, and also I wish to thank the Caruso team for
17 their courtesy in providing HLAC, the county's Historic
18 Landmark Advisory Commission, with a site visit to the
19 project site.
20 It is true. Mr. Middlebrook suggested that
21 they did meet with us on three separate occasions. One
22 of those occasions, as I said, was at their site at
23 which point, when I commented on a bit of history that
24 still remained, the comment was "There is no history
25 here." I think all of us who have lived in this
128

1 community for such a very long time feels that the
2 Miramar is a part of our historic fabric.
3 On the last meeting we ran into a bit of a
4 stone wall. The Historic Landmarks Commission asked if
5 we could discuss with the Caruso team a possible salvage
6 of one or two of the historic Miramar cottages. There
7 were several on the site that were salvageable. We
8 could see that by the site visit, and the nod we got was
9 in that direction (indicating). So I felt that perhaps
10 there's still an opportunity to talk with his team on a
11 salvage of at least one or two of the cottages.
12 Both the Historic Landmark Advisory
13 Commission and the Pearl Chase Society have
14 appropriately proposed a middle-ground mitigation
15 measure that would result in a preservation or
16 reconstruction of a number of the Miramar cottages. As
17 a result of the site visit as I just described to you,
18 there are some salvageable cottages.
19 CEQA states that public agencies should not
20 approve projects as proposed if there are feasible
21 alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available
22 which would substantially lessen the significant
23 environmental impacts of a project of this size and
24 scale.
25 We continue to emphasize that retaining a
129

1 number of these cottages offers feasible mitigation or
2 feasible alternative measures which will avoid or
3 substantially lessen the significant impact of this
4 historic structure.
5 We value and appreciate the hard decision
6 that your Commission has made for the benefit of this
7 unique community. And we encourage you to evaluate the
8 Miramar's historic resources in the broader scope of a
9 comprehensive EIR. Thank you.
10 MR. BIERIG: Thank you.
11 Rosemary Looney followed by Tom Bollay.
12 Mr. Bollay, I guess you're next.
13 MR. BOLLAY: Thank you, Commissioners. I
14 want to speak on a few things I did not cover -- my
15 staff did not cover last time starting with FAR. We
16 talked about permanent roof structures. In my review of
17 the plans, the private porches covered on the project
18 are not included in the building square foot.
19 And the policy, as my understanding, for the
20 county is that enclosed on two or more sides it does
21 need to be included in the FAR. So there's a
22 discrepancy there.
23 Building setbacks -- I think there were some
24 very good comparisons with the Biltmore earlier. It
25 should be noted that all of the Biltmore buildings
130

1 except one historic building meet the current setbacks.
2 So I think the comparison of a new hotel here should not
3 be given differential treatment from what the Biltmore
4 had done when they were built.
5 When they talk about also public parking, I
6 think we pointed out that the diagonal parking up here
7 (indicating), although there was some at one time when
8 the Miramar was originally built, there's much more
9 traffic on that road at this time. And these, if they
10 were new spaces, certainly do not meet the county
11 requirement. You're not allowed to back out into a
12 street. You're also required to have a 20 feet
13 separation when you turn off a street into a parking
14 area, and they're meant to provide screening of cars
15 from the public road.
16 These new public spaces don't meet any of
17 those requirements. There's also real compromise in the
18 fact that the people that are meant to walk down
19 Eucalyptus Lane are going to be walking behind other
20 90-degree spaces. It's going to create a real safety
21 issue.
22 I think if something like this is to be used
23 it should be more on the level of Coast Village Road
24 where there's a separate parking lane and a separate
25 landscape median to screen the cars and also provide the
131

1 ability for those cars when they're exiting to turn
2 around.
3 Right now, as they exit, they'll be going
4 down Jameson Lane but have nowhere to go. It's very
5 difficult to turn around at the stop sign at the onramp,
6 and the way includes islands in their own entrances.
7 There's really no way to turn around. So we're creating
8 a real kind of gridlock issue and a sidewalk safety
9 issue.
10 I think that comes back to Miramar Avenue.
11 In fact, with Miramar Avenue, it really is a public open
12 space as you perceive as you drive by, as you park. So
13 I think, if Miramar is abandoned, there should be an
14 equal amount of square footage then contributed to the
15 parking along Jameson Lane to create larger setbacks and
16 more landscape areas for the cars and possibly a way to
17 turn around and return to the beach.
18 Also by the abandonment of Miramar Avenue,
19 the distance traveled and the elevation traveled is
20 significantly larger when coming from South Jameson down
21 to this area than when you started normally because of
22 the increased fill on the site. I don't think there's
23 also a very obvious method to get there.
24 Cottage style -- I think they have taken
25 advantage of some confusion in the current wording of
132

1 the ordinance. I was on many of the committees or
2 attended many of committees that were trying to draft
3 this.
4 And as read, it's confusing, but the intent
5 was clearly by decisionmakers at the time that
6 two thirds of the ruins should be in buildings of six
7 keys or less rather than separating the rooms in
8 one-story buildings.
9 Really it's hard for me to understand that a
10 cottage hotel can be one building with 200 rooms and two
11 cottages. That clearly does not make a cottage although
12 it would meet the definition of the way they split
13 requirements. So I think we should go back to requiring
14 that two thirds of the rooms should be cottages with six
15 keys or less. That was the original intent. It's very
16 simple. It was just muddled in its wording.
17 One last comment on the historic structure.
18 It's interesting to note, when the Biltmore was built,
19 there were a number of historic cottages in the same
20 location as the new main building. And in doing some
21 research, I discovered that, in fact, all of those
22 cottages were saved and they were all moved to the back
23 lots and used for either guests or personnel.
24 And I think we have an interesting
25 opportunity to do the same thing here. If they're in
133

1 the way of the new main building, let's save them, let's
2 move them, let's reuse them, rebuild them if we need to.
3 I think that's much closer to maintaining that scale.
4 Thank you very much.
5 MR. BIERIG: Mr. Bollay, I do have to stop
6 you there, but I do have a question for you if you don't
7 mind to the method of analysis of -- was it enclosed
8 porches? And where did you get your information?
9 MR. BOLLAY: The article guidelines, or as
10 staff has reviewed, residential structures. When they
11 have -- the FAR requirement for residential structures.
12 When they have a covered porch that's enclosed on two or
13 more sides, that square footage is now included in the
14 FAR analysis. So I don't know whether that's a staff
15 interpretation or ordinance, but that's been in effect
16 for many, many years now in Montecito for residential
17 structures.
18 MR. BIERIG: We have an exhibit. I've seen
19 various things. I've gotten Chairman Span from MBAR.
20 But I also notice that we have an exhibit in our current
21 package. I believe that's Attachment L, and it refers
22 to unenclosed porches and balconies are not included in
23 FAR, and what you're saying is the interpretation is
24 that, if it's enclosed on two sides of the roof --
25 MR. BOLLAY: Two sides or more it was then
134

1 determined to be included.
2 MR. BIERIG: To be enclosed?
3 MR. BOLLAY: Correct.
4 MR. BIERIG: That's the functional
5 definition.
6 MS. BLACK: For residences.
7 MR. BIERIG: For residences. Okay.
8 MR. BOLLAY: Again, we're mentioning
9 compatible to the size, block, and scale of a
10 residential neighborhood and should be counting it that
11 same way.
12 MR. BIERIG: We have a lot of information
13 here. I'm trying to make sure -- we do have analysis in
14 front of us of how the FAR would be provided -- would be
15 analyzed under the guidelines, but I'm not sure if that
16 also includes that.
17 MS. BLACK: Mr. Chair, Ms. Mayshore actually
18 did all this work. I ask her to address you on it.
19 MR. BIERIG: One last thing before you get
20 down. You're point about the parking is that, if
21 there's not a way to walk -- if there was a sidewalk in
22 front of the cars, wouldn't that resolve --
23 MR. BOLLAY: That would be much safer. Part
24 of the problem is when you're backing out of diagonal
25 spaces into a traffic lane --
135

1 MR. BIERIG: People can't see.
2 MR. BOLLAY: -- people can't see, and it
3 slows the traffic lane. Right now at 3:30 in the
4 afternoon, 4:00 o'clock, when people are coming back
5 from the beach and the exact same time that all of the
6 contractors and all the construction workers in
7 Montecito are heading towards Ventura and are going to
8 be using this exact same road -- so it's a real -- those
9 two uses will fall right on top of each other, and it's
10 just an unsafe situation and should be more like
11 Coast Village Road.
12 MR. BIERIG: Thank you.
13 MR. BOLLAY: Thank you.
14 MR. BIERIG: Ms. Mayshore?
15 Ah, there you are.
16 MS. MAYSHORE: Mr. Chair, Members of the
17 Commission. I think I can answer the question both to
18 the ordinance and to architectural guidelines. On floor
19 area net it specifically excludes unenclosed porches and
20 balconies, and we don't at this point in time interpret
21 that for commercial use or for residential use to be a
22 part of the net floor area.
23 MR. BIERIG: For either one?
24 MS. MAYSHORE: For either one at this --
25 currently that is not how staff interprets that, and
136

1 that's not the wording of the document either. And also
2 Montecito Architectural Guidelines, it says floor is
3 defined as the total area of all floors of the building
4 measured to the interior surface of exterior walls
5 including -- excluding unenclosed porches, balconies,
6 decks, et cetera.
7 So neither of those definitions include the
8 not completely enclosed porch, and that is reflected in
9 the information you've been provided.
10 MR. BIERIG: Is Exhibit L the standard under
11 which we should be operating?
12 MS. MAYSHORE: Yes.
13 MS. GOTTSDANKER: I'm confused. At the last
14 hearing, when I brought up the conversation around FAR's
15 and how to measure net and gross, staff said, as I
16 recall, that that condition of measuring net from wall
17 to wall, interior wall, was a residential way of
18 measuring.
19 MS. BLACK: That's what she just said.
20 MS. GOTTSDANKER: I'm wondering why it's
21 being brought up again in relationship to this. Either
22 we measure it or we don't measure it.
23 MS. BLACK: Mr. Chair and
24 Commissioner Gottsdanker, I think what Nicole was trying
25 to address is Mr. Bollay's comment in his testimony that
137

1 unenclosed porches are counted under the residential
2 guidelines, and what she just read you were, first, the
3 provisions that do apply to this project, and that's in
4 Attachment L, and then she read the provisions and the
5 guidelines that apply to residential.
6 MS. GOTTSDANKER: So what constitutes --
7 MS. BLACK: Porches are not included in
8 either.
9 MS. GOTTSDANKER: What distinguishes between
10 an unenclosed porch and an enclosed porch? Because what
11 I heard Mr. Bollay saying was is that there is a
12 distinction there, and it has to do with how many walls
13 enclose it or whatever it was that he said. See, we're
14 dealing with unenclosed porches. What's an enclosed
15 porch?
16 MS. BLACK: Wall.
17 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Walls and roof. A roof and
18 how many walls? Because if it's completely walled, then
19 it becomes a room. So you know, I get this is really
20 picky-icky, but it has a lot to do with FAR's, and
21 everybody knows that was kind of my thing last time. So
22 we really have to get this tied down. So we are not --
23 in this case none of the roofed, quote, unquote,
24 "enclosed" (sic) areas have been counted in the FAR?
25 MS. BLACK: Mr. Chair and Commissioner
138

1 Gottsdanker, they're not enclosed.
2 MS. GOTTSDANKER: That's what I said,
3 unenclosed.
4 MS. BLACK: Oh, I thought you said
5 "enclosed."
6 MS. GOTTSDANKER: No, I said "unenclosed."
7 MS. MAYSHORE: Mr. Chair,
8 Commissioner Gottsdanker, unless they were used for
9 service areas, they were not included. So unenclosed
10 porches and balconies, which it was open on any one
11 sides we consider it unenclosed, and that is a
12 consistent interpretation.
13 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Why was the porte cochere
14 removed?
15 MS. MAYSHORE: Areas that we consider
16 permanently roofed and used for service -- if you look
17 at the word "included" -- so under the definition of
18 floor area gross, it has as part of the floor area gross
19 "permanently roofed and either partially enclosed or
20 unenclosed building features used for sales, service,
21 and display."
22 So areas that we considered permanently
23 roofed and used for sale, service, or display -- we
24 considered the porte cochere for valet service, and some
25 of the outdoor restaurant areas that were permanently
139

1 roofed for food service, we included those in the floor
2 area ration. What we didn't include was unenclosed
3 porches and balconies that were not used for service
4 areas because they're specifically excluded under the
5 definition of "floor area net."
6 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Thank you.
7 MR. BIERIG: Thank you.
8 Let's see. Next?
9 Oh, excuse me.
10 MS. BURROWS: I have a question that
11 Ms. Adams and Mr. Bollay -- in regards to something that
12 both of them brought up. Do we want to address that
13 now? It's in regard to the cottages.
14 If one of the cottages were salvaged and
15 moved to some location on the site, is that calculated
16 into the FAR, or is that exempted?
17 MS. BLACK: Mr. Chair and
18 Commissioner Burrows, it would be calculated into the
19 FAR if it were a building that were used for -- I think
20 it would be calculated no matter what. It would be a
21 building.
22 MR. BIERIG: I've got a category here of
23 people that didn't check whether they're opposed or in
24 favor, but I think this is opposed, but I'll take
25 Robert "Buergey."
140

1 MR. BUERGEY: Buergey?
2 MR. BIERIG: Could be, but I'll accept your
3 pronunciation of it if you're more comfortable with it.
4 MR. BUERGEY: Hi. It's Ted Buergey if that's
5 the right slip.
6 MR. BIERIG: It's not, but you're here.
7 MR. BUERGEY: I did fill out a slip, and I am
8 here. I represent the Miramar Addition Improvement
9 Company and Private Water Well which is directly
10 opposite the Miramar Hotel. We've been around for a
11 long time. We were around before Montecito Water
12 District came into being.
13 Now, supposedly we don't have a water problem
14 right now. Now, we could have a water problem in the
15 future, but what I'm really concerned about is the
16 safety of our well and the aquifer and the entire ground
17 basin area.
18 Now, in the July 29th letter from Mr. Mosby
19 to the Caruso group, there has been an offer of them to
20 take advantage of a standby well they have that they
21 could use as extra water, and that's after the fact that
22 they had said that they would take the water well that
23 they were going to drill that would possibly damage the
24 ground basin water -- they say that they've taken that
25 off the table.
141

1 I don't necessarily believe that. It's too
2 easy to go back in, and I know we've talked about, yes,
3 there's going to be another hearing if they want to do
4 that, et cetera, et cetera. We all know how that works.
5 There will be four people there, and it will pass
6 through. We'll get a sign off, and it will be a done
7 deal, and that water well will get used and drilled, and
8 it could possibly put damage up.
9 And if that looks like it's going to happen,
10 then we'll be working with counsel, and we will
11 definitely come back to the Caruso Affiliated group and
12 go for a bond or something because we will be damaged
13 permanently if they do some damage to that groundwater
14 basin.
15 The problem is is that, if they do that, they
16 will not monitor. They say -- they will tell you they
17 will. But unless some outside agency actually monitors
18 that, monitors the effect that that well has on the
19 groundwater basin, there's no protection whatsoever.
20 In actuality that could destroy service to
21 around about 1,000 residents in the area that take water
22 out of that groundwater basin including Montecito Water
23 District.
24 During the process of discussions, the Caruso
25 group was asked that, if they want to use that well, why
142

1 don't they deed their water rights to the groundwater
2 that they have underneath their property now to the
3 Montecito Water District which is a common policy in
4 things like this. There's precedent for this in the
5 past.
6 They have refused to do so so far. I'd like
7 to know why they're refusing to deed over the
8 groundwater rights to the Montecito Water District, and
9 let the Montecito Water District work with them as they
10 claim they like working with them. Why won't they do
11 that? I'd like to know why. No one here can tell us
12 why so far. And I think you should want to know why
13 also.
14 So that's the impetus of us trying to protect
15 our portion of the groundwater basin and, therefore,
16 eliminating any possibility of damage to us. So there's
17 no reason why they can't deed those groundwater rights
18 over. Would you please push that issue.
19 MR. BIERIG: Thank you.
20 Richard Plunkett.
21 Gianna Marcyan (pronouncing). I'm not doing
22 a very good job on names.
23 MS. MARCYAN: My name is Gianna Marcyan.
24 MR. BIERIG: If I say anything that sounds
25 like your name, just come up.
143

1 MS. MARCYAN: My name is Gianna Marcyan, and
2 I live on Miramar Beach, and I just want to get a very
3 important legal point on record today regarding the two
4 levels of parking structures below Building 1 and 5.
5 I believe county planners have overlooked a
6 significant amount of floor space that should have been
7 considered in the FAR calculations. I was on the county
8 website the other night, and I'm sure you've looked at
9 these, but the orange highlight is above grade. That's
10 P1.
11 So the plans clearly show that the majority
12 of the two-story parking area is above grade. It cannot
13 be considered basement per the Coastal Zoning Ordinance
14 definition, which reads "A story partly or wholly
15 underground, a basement shall be counted as a story if
16 more than one half of its height is above the average
17 level of the adjoining ground."
18 So architects can try to hide space by
19 pushing dirt up around the sides of buildings and call
20 it basement. But I want you to practice oversight and
21 require that the planners recalculate the floor area
22 ratio adding the above-grade nonbasement parking area
23 which, from what I gather from the plans and elementary
24 mathematics, that leaves 60,000 square feet.
25 So I realize that this will force the
144

1 Applicant to make some difficult choices like height
2 versus net floor area, but in the end proper floor area
3 ratio calculations will ensure a reasonably sized
4 project. Thank you.
5 MR. BIERIG: Thank you.
6 Sharyn (pronouncing) Plunkett or Sharyn.
7 Might be Sharyn.
8 How are my Commissioners doing? You guys
9 want to take a break for lunch and come back? I think
10 we've gotten through the people that need to speak
11 immediately.
12 Maybe you guys can do me a favor. How many
13 people here would like to speak in favor, in favor?
14 We've got -- keep your hands up just so I can get a
15 rough count -- 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.
16 How many people are here that would like to
17 speak in opposition? About the same. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
18 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19. 19.
19 I've got -- 50, 60 -- 75 speaker slips. So
20 we've got a little bit of a discrepancy here. I think
21 what we're going to do is break for lunch. I just want
22 to make a point that, you know, 50 speaker slips for 12
23 people is ridiculous. It's ridiculous.
24 And please take your seat. Please take your
25 seat.
145

1 We're going to break for lunch right now and
2 come back at "12:15."
3 (Whereupon a lunch recess was taken.)
4 MR. BIERIG: Calling us back in order on our
5 meeting on the Miramar Montecito Planning Commission. I
6 think what we're going to do this afternoon is try to
7 move through the public comment period.
8 And so my suggestion is -- I don't know who
9 wishes to speak on this item, but my suggestion is the
10 following: Let's have people that are opposed to the
11 project on this side, my right, and against the project
12 on my side on the left -- excuse me. How about in favor
13 on the right or on my left side, your right? And if
14 you're in the middle, I don't know what to do with you.
15 And you don't necessarily have to stand in
16 line, but you can come up one at a time, you know, a
17 couple of you at a time, and maybe the ones that need to
18 get out of here the quickest can try to speak first.
19 So when you come up to the podium, if you
20 would give your name and where you live, your
21 relationship to the property.
22 And sir, you look like you're ready to go.
23 Why don't we start with you?
24 MR. BOEHR: Hello. My name is Todd Boehr,
25 and first off, I apologize for my appearance. I'm just
146

1 a working Joe. In defense of myself and others like me,
2 it's difficult to know what point throughout the day we
3 ought to appear and what point public comment will be
4 and so forth. So that's why I wasn't able to
5 necessarily be here earlier, and I'm sure that others
6 may be in that same situation.
7 I am a property owner at 1544 Miramar Beach,
8 and I'm actually a fifth generation Miramar Beach
9 neighborhood property owner, and I consider myself very
10 fortunate in that regard. When I was a couple weeks
11 old, my grandfather carried me proudly down onto the
12 beach for the first time much as I imagine that
13 grandfathers -- Native American grandfathers probably
14 did long ago.
15 MR. BIERIG: I'm going to caution you at this
16 point. We're really trying to just take testimony on
17 new material.
18 MR. BOEHR: I understand. There was an issue
19 that came up about the mean high tide, and I'm a little
20 unclear about that because I believe I've heard that the
21 property line officially is declared to end at 106 feet
22 from the edge of the boardwalk.
23 MR. BIERIG: It's actually about 116 feet.
24 MR. BOEHR: 16 feet. Excuse me. And I
25 believe one of the gentleman here, one of the staff,
147

1 earlier today indicated they estimated mean high tide
2 line over that long period of time to be about 4.66 or
3 so if my memory serves me correct.
4 That just doesn't jive at all with my
5 knowledge of the Miramar Beach. And like I said, I've
6 had a lifelong, that is to say, 35-year knowledge, of
7 that place down there, and I know this has bearing on
8 utilization in terms of the area that's being considered
9 as well as the beach-use area and the 60-foot use area
10 that they're claiming as their own.
11 I'm concerned about the impacts to the public
12 at large and their ability to continue to enjoy that
13 beach down there as well as the cumulative impacts when
14 you look at all the components together being
15 discussed -- the ballroom, the public at the beach on
16 weekends. The fact that many of these beach events,
17 which I guess can be as many 30 per year if I'm not
18 mistaken, that's an increase over the Schrager plan.
19 Previous owners of the Miramar never felt it
20 necessary at all to even use the beachfront for purposes
21 of weddings and cocktail parties, and I'm deeply
22 suspicious of the one-hour limit on that as well. I've
23 never been to a cocktail party that's lasted an hour. I
24 don't know if anyone here has, but it doesn't seem
25 realistic to me that that's not going to impose a big
148

1 impact on the public and the beach, that 60-foot usage
2 area, being curtailed to everyone else essentially
3 perhaps all throughout the summer months every single
4 weekend for hours on end. So I guess that's just to
5 boil down and end. Those are my main concerns aside
6 from architectural and size, bulk, and scale as well to
7 a degree. Thank you.
8 MR. BIERIG: Thank you for your comments.
9 MR. MAGNEY: Good afternoon. My name is
10 Michael Magney. I have no affiliation with the property
11 other than the fact that I'm looking forward to
12 something being built there. "Objective," free of any
13 bias or prejudice caused by personal feelings, based on
14 facts rather than thoughts or opinions.
15 Chairman, your disrespect to the Applicant
16 and to me personally, I would ask that you step down if
17 you cannot be objective.
18 MR. BIERIG: Fine. I will if I can't be
19 objective. I'll be glad to do so.
20 MR. MOLDAUER: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.
21 I'm Lee Moldauer, a long-time local resident. I was
22 actually going to thank you and the Commissioners and
23 the staff for holding such a laid back and focused
24 meeting under such a complex and stressful situation.
25 So I don't mind your ad libbing at all.
149

1 My connection with the Miramar goes back to
2 when I first met the Gauzners about 30 years ago. I
3 remember Grover Barnes very well. I remember going down
4 to have coffee or tea with George and Martha Clyde. So
5 I'm very, very familiar with this property.
6 I'd like to raise two points that I think
7 you're already generally aware of. I think it'd be good
8 to reiterate them. One is I'm sure you can't help
9 noticing the beautiful artist's watercolors in all the
10 newspapers the last couple weeks, the artist rendering
11 what the hotel would be.
12 And in terms of the discussion this morning
13 about water use, I can't help thinking that these lush
14 gardens remind me more of Bali rather than a natural
15 landscaping in a semi area coastal plain which we live
16 on. So I'm concerned about the water issue, and I think
17 the reason the watercolors are as pretty as they are of
18 course is the original pictures had a bird's eye view
19 over the channel, and the new one is within the
20 courtyard looking out through the flowers.
21 And they don't focus on the size, bulk, and
22 scale of their red buildings there which lead me to
23 reiterate, I think, what Former Mayor Lodge and
24 Mr. Bollay indicated this morning that, in terms of
25 adherence to the Montecito Community Plan and the
150

1 cottage nature of site, this appears to be quite a
2 divergence which this will be my last point.
3 I think that the Applicant has received
4 clever but bad advice in trying to go forward with a
5 project this big and complex in a mitigated negative
6 declaration. It's not that law won't accommodate
7 mitigated negative declaration. It's just as a tactical
8 measure it makes sense; it's cheaper; it saves time.
9 Strategically, as I'm sure the Commission
10 knows -- perhaps Ms. Slutzky can tell you as your able
11 legal advisor -- if the results are challenged in court,
12 with a full EIR, the entire burden of proof is on the
13 shoulders of those in the community who will challenge
14 findings.
15 With a mitigated negative declaration,
16 however, California case law under CEQA indicates the
17 entire burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt lays
18 with the County and with the Applicant to prove the
19 questions raised in court are not legitimate.
20 So if there's a reason why -- you wonder why
21 Bill Levy is no longer in the development business or
22 why Entrada has not yet been built, it was that shortcut
23 they took that was pennywise and very tomfoolish. SO
24 hope the Applicant and the Commission don't go that
25 route. Thank you.
151

1 MR. BIERIG: Thank you.
2 MR. HAZARD: My name is Bob Hazard, and I'm
3 here speaking on behalf of the executive committee and
4 200 members of the voices of Montecito who are all in
5 favor of the project. I and Bill Palladini from
6 Montecito Association, Ted Tedesco and the entire board
7 of the Montecito Association are among those people who
8 have been duped by Rick Caruso's slick presentations.
9 I believe and when you look at these facts
10 and you take all their objections as articulated in the
11 news press most of them are as thin as the broth made
12 from the shadow of a starving chicken.
13 The Miramar is too tall. Okay. You're a
14 12-foot man standing in the middle of Jameson, and
15 you're 12 feet tall, and you can't see the top of a
16 two-story lobby building, and the wall is 49 feet high
17 from the existing grade, but they're really asking for a
18 three-foot variance -- a three-foot variance on the
19 finished grade. I mean give me a break. I mean that's
20 not a height variance problem that should be any problem
21 particularly because it's caused by the underground
22 parking.
23 The setbacks and the variance for parking,
24 you cleared that this morning in great detail. Clearly
25 the setbacks on those two -- the variance on those
152

1 two were already granted to Ian Schrager. They conveyed
2 with the site. You heard this how he has 130 more
3 parking spaces. You heard how the setbacks were equally
4 good. So you can take that one off the table.
5 The tough one is the too much mass, bulk, and
6 scale because -- because that's judgmental, and you can
7 dismiss silly stuff which is the arguments it's bigger
8 than Home Depot. It's on 15 acres. That doesn't mean
9 anything. It meets the FAR requirement.
10 An editorial in the news press yesterday
11 called it a retail mall because of the shops. There's
12 4,000 square feet of shops down at the Biltmore. I mean
13 who's going to call this a retail mall. I would suggest
14 to you that opponents who cry too much mass, as a
15 hotelier, they don't their mass from a hole in the
16 ground. The other one is --
17 UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: Go back to your hole in
18 the ground.
19 MR. BIERIG: Excuse me. Excuse me.
20 MS. GOTTSDANKER: That was really
21 inappropriate.
22 MR. BIERIG: No, no. That's totally
23 inappropriate, and you know, you simply are not going to
24 make comments about a speaker from the background. That
25 is not going to happen. He has to live with what he
153

1 says, but it's his time. No one will speak while
2 someone else is speaking. No one.
3 MR. HAZARD: The coastal commission says no
4 full EIR. The County planning staff says no EIR is
5 needed. The Montecito Association board has said no EIR
6 is required, and that was a unanimous vote.
7 So the question becomes for you is this
8 really an attempt to get a full EIR or merely an attempt
9 to delay this project by a full year, 18 months,
10 $18 million to Caruso, and is it attempt to say, "Let's
11 let the project fail"?
12 The consistency argument with Montecito
13 Community Plan, this business about cottage-style
14 resort -- I attended your hearing in January. I
15 remember, Bob -- and you were supported by Claire and
16 some of the other people, And you said that the
17 two-story Biltmore hotel is a cottage-style resort and,
18 therefore, is consistent with the Montecito Community
19 Plan. So you should not have any problem with this
20 project.
21 And secondly, I mean, as a hotelier, you've
22 got cottage-style resorts, and you have high-rise
23 hotels. Anybody who argues this is a high-rise hotel or
24 a timeshare or a condo hotel is just barking up the
25 wrong tree.
154

1 The County planning staff say the Caruso
2 design is consistent with the community plan. The
3 Montecito Association who wrote the community plan says
4 it's consistent with the community plan, and in December
5 the Montecito Board of Architecture Review said that the
6 proposed project is appropriate for the area. So
7 there's really no issue here.
8 The news press keeps talking about blight and
9 how these guys haven't cleaned up the rats and ruins
10 there. The field mice are having a field day. And you
11 know and I know that they can't do that because they
12 can't touch buildings until they have permits.
13 I suggest news press knows far less about
14 this project than the people like the
15 Montecito Association and the staff that's studied it
16 for five years.
17 So finally my advice to you is, when in
18 doubt, do what's right. Revive the Miramar. Create the
19 new jobs and tax revenues. Don't get marred down and
20 too picky with details about how many screens are on the
21 side of balconies. That's absolutely crazy in the scope
22 of this project and what it means to this community.
23 Stop the nonsense and approve the Miramar today as fast
24 as you possibly can.
25 MR. BIERIG: Thank you, Mr. Hazard.
155

1 Next.
2 MR. BURLAP: Good afternoon Commission. My
3 name is Robert Burlap. I've been a 77-year resident of
4 Montecito, and I've heard some really interesting
5 things. I'll make this short. I hope I can keep it
6 under three minutes.
7 I just want to talk about the safety part of
8 it and get some answers into that like that. As far as
9 Jameson goes and Eucalyptus Lane, the Miramar not being
10 open at this time, Eucalyptus Lane still has many, many
11 traffic problems as does Jameson Lane.
12 Something I'd like to address is I'm trying
13 to get ahold of Montecito Fire Department,
14 Mr. Langhorne. I'm going to call the Sheriff's
15 Department and CHP to see if they have put any input
16 into this or made any type of a plan.
17 What I'm getting to there was a major fire,
18 as you all know, in Montecito in the '60s that burned
19 almost to East Valley Road. They talk a little bit
20 about water. I saw the water meters just trickling out
21 because people were using water on their own to put out
22 their roof fires and so forth.
23 I just somehow don't believe there's going to
24 be enough water, enough pressure, and so forth and --
25 into that water thing, but as far as safety goes, what
156

1 if there is another fire, another major fire, because
2 we're in -- it's hot out there right now, believe me.
3 And what if there is an earthquake? What is
4 that going to do for getting the people out of that
5 area, the Miramar people, the people in the hotel, and
6 the people in Montecito? Because San Ysidro and
7 Sheffield Drive and Hot Springs are corridors out of
8 there.
9 I saw before, and people act real different
10 than they normally do when there's a disaster. I saw
11 people trying to evacuate down Sheffield and so forth.
12 They had part of the freeway blocked off and this and
13 that.
14 What I'm basically saying is no discredit to
15 what Mr. Caruso wants to do. As far as a safety measure
16 goes -- and I haven't heard anybody put any input into
17 this from -- I've heard the fire department a little bit
18 about they can get in and out but nothing about a
19 disaster and nothing about if there is a major fire or
20 an earthquake. I thank you very much. I think you're
21 doing a great job.
22 MR. BIERIG: Thank you.
23 MR. ROMERO: My name is Freddie Romero. I'm
24 a culture preservation consultant for the Santa Ynez
25 Chumash Indian Tribe Elders Council. I'm not sure if
157

1 this is an appropriate time to interject this, but this
2 is -- I didn't know what other time to do this. I
3 figure we do it now.
4 The concern we have with this project -- we
5 don't oppose it; we're not in favor of it. Like you
6 said, we're one of the people you didn't know what to do
7 with.
8 Well, our concern are the sensitivity areas
9 that are on the property such as the two archeological
10 sites. My concern or the concern of the tribe is that
11 it was written into this document that there would be
12 monitoring, and we want to make sure that is still going
13 to be in effect. We wrote a letter May 13th. It came
14 out, and we said that in our letter, and we're
15 requesting that and be followed through.
16 MR. BIERIG: I can assure you that is one of
17 the conditions.
18 MR. ROMERO: One of the other conditions of
19 that I'd like to state is, given the size of the
20 project, that it not just be one monitor, that it be
21 multiple monitors because we don't know how much ground
22 they'll be covering. So we just want that in the
23 record. Thank you.
24 MR. BIERIG: Thank you.
25 MR. MELNICK: Hi. My name is Peter Melnick.
158

1 I'm a composer and 15-year resident of Montecito/Headrow
2 with my wife and two kids, a neighbor of whatever
3 happens at the Miramar Hotel site.
4 I share many of the concerns about the
5 project that other people have articulated, and I won't
6 take time discussing those now, but what we basically
7 have here is on the one hand a weighty list of concerns
8 and on the other hand some assurance.
9 And what's missing right now is any way to
10 evaluate and test those concerns and assurances, and the
11 standard way has always been the independent and
12 impartial process of an EIR.
13 Various assertions by Mr. Middlebrook and by
14 staffers for Mr. Caruso's team and the experts they've
15 brought in really do not -- do not adequately substitute
16 for the methodolgy of a formal EIR.
17 Normally an EIR is considered integral to
18 even a much smaller project than this one. Procedure
19 determines outcome to a large extent, and what's
20 happening right now -- there's significant pressure
21 being brought to bear to aggravate procedure here.
22 In light of some of the irregularities that
23 have already been associated with the project -- the
24 departure of certain county staffers from it, the
25 appearance of the irregularity in the cancellation of an
159

1 MBAR review that you all previously requested at the
2 last meeting, attempts to associate Mr. Caruso's project
3 with provisions and permissions given to the Ian
4 Schrager plan including associating with a negative
5 declaration, which incidentally is not an EIR but
6 sometimes considered one -- are inappropriate and
7 disturbing.
8 In that context, there's a real issue of
9 transparency here. And despite Mr. Middlebrook's quip
10 about land use fastballs, there really is a question
11 here of an aura of impropriety up until this point.
12 I think County erred in not requiring an EIR,
13 and it now falls to you all to correct that error. In a
14 very real way, what happens now is going to define all
15 of us. It's going to define Montecito in a great way
16 visually, physically. It's going to define a lot about
17 how Santa Barbara does business in the future, and it's
18 also going define you all as individuals and as member
19 of this decision-making body.
20 If you look to the future and you ask
21 yourself, if you were to allow this project to move
22 forward without requiring an EIR and if there were to be
23 a nightmare or several nightmares, if the parking turns
24 out to be our worst case fears or -- God forbid -- there
25 should be an accident on South Jameson, wouldn't you
160

1 have to ask yourself if things had been different if you
2 had compelled an EIR?
3 In concluding I really want to be clear that
4 with all these concerns I'm articulating I really would
5 like to see the project go forward, and I think
6 everybody on that side of the room shares the desire to
7 see something good happen there, and no one objects to
8 it being done by Mr. Caruso.
9 But it needs to be in pursuit of correct
10 procedure so that there is not an aura of impropriety
11 and that things are actually executed correctly.
12 I have the greatest respect for this body.
13 I'm winding up. I am very impressed with the way you've
14 conducted this meeting. So I feel like I'm preaching to
15 the choir. But I really want to go on record as urging
16 you to compel an EIR. Thank you.
17 MR. BIERIG: Thank you. I'm going to really
18 try to caution everyone again. Let's try to stick to
19 new information. We know there's passions for and
20 against the project, but a lot of the material we've
21 heard before.
22 On this side we'd really like to get to
23 discussing and deliberating about this project because
24 we haven't been able to do that. You can discuss it; we
25 can't. And the quicker we can move this along today,
161

1 the better chance we can move forward.
2 I'd ask to bear with us and try to keep your
3 remarks down to new information and -- please, and
4 that's not directed at one side or the other. So
5 please.
6 MS. MONTANA: Hello. I'm Gloria Montana, and
7 for the record, I am in favor of Rick Caruso and his
8 revised project. It's hard to imagine anyone not
9 recognizing the positive economic impact for our
10 community -- jobs, bed taxes, tourism, spending, et
11 cetera.
12 Calculations by Joe Scifers, my partner,
13 suggests that the hotel, as proposed, would bring in
14 more than $100 million to the community. My concern is
15 that Mr. Caruso might walk away from the project, and
16 that would be a tragedy to Santa Barbara. Thank you.
17 MS. HANSER: Commissioners, I'm
18 Hillary Hanser of Heal the Ocean. First, I'd want to
19 thank the Commission for asking the pertinent questions,
20 and we appreciate that you're doing this so that we can
21 get a clear idea what we have here. Heal the Ocean is
22 concerned just about two issues clearing up a couple of
23 things.
24 I'm sorry that Kathleen Garner didn't come
25 today because yesterday at 5:00 o'clock she was -- we
162

1 were in communication with her about the storm water
2 MPDS requirements and the SEIR for the Caruso Miramar
3 Project in case the development is 15.77 acres -- that's
4 page 4 of 64 -- whereas the December preliminary
5 drainage report indicates development requiring
6 treatment is 15.95 acres. That's page 3 of the
7 preliminary drainage report.
8 So Ms. Garner said that no matter what the
9 public works would not recommend approval of the project
10 until every inch of the property is accounted for and
11 the treatment control is satisfied. So I would love to
12 hear from staff if that's been resolved and how because
13 we haven't heard.
14 The next thing is the business of the water
15 because water in is water out which is the sewage --
16 Heal the Ocean has been working with Montecito Sanitary
17 District on a state-granted project at their outfall.
18 And so this water usage sheet that I gave
19 everybody is part of the staff report, and we've heard
20 today that the water granted or allotted to the hotel is
21 45 acre feet. The staff report indicates it's 51 acre
22 feet based on 71 percent occupancy and 68 percent use of
23 the spa and fitness center.
24 So the total gallons per day based on
25 51 percent -- 51 acre feet is 45,753 gallons a day. The
163

1 second page of the letter I sent that I've given you
2 shows a graph that we created the difference -- the
3 difference in what -- the water in and the water out.
4 Now, we understand from today's hearing that those are
5 based on 117 acre feet. But still the numbers are
6 just -- are not, you know, concrete, clear.
7 I was interested in the testimony from
8 Montecito Sanitary District that the waste water
9 treatment plant is treating .89 --
10 MR. BIERIG: I'm going to have to ask you to
11 start to wrap up your remarks.
12 MS. HANSER: Okay. The actual number is
13 1.1 million gallons per day. So even if you divide
14 Caruso's project added flow by three, you're at
15 75 percent dry weather flow. So we remain concerned
16 about -- at the specifics of what's going into the waste
17 water treatment plant, and we would like to see these
18 numbers in concrete before we go forward, and we
19 appreciate the Commission getting those numbers. Thank
20 you.
21 MR. BIERIG: Thank you for your comments.
22 MR. HOVEY: My name is Harry Hovey. I'm a
23 34-year resident of Montecito, and I'm also head of the
24 Wynnewood Neighborhood Association. I'd like to
25 announce today that there are approximately 30 members,
164

1 and every one of them is for the Miramar.
2 There are two things that have come up today
3 that have kind of bothered me. One is parking
4 especially when it comes to Miramar Avenue, and I've
5 heard people say we lost "X" number of parking spaces
6 because that is no longer there.
7 And when my kids were younger, we used to
8 take that road down there. Most of those parking spaces
9 especially on the weekend were taken by the residents of
10 the Miramar.
11 And the other thing is that there's been a
12 lot of talk about cottage, cottage. What is cottage? I
13 found out today that the Four Seasons now is no longer
14 Mediterranean, but it's cottage. This is not a joke,
15 but if the Montecito Community Plan, which I'm a staunch
16 supporter of, was issued in 1908, and they said we can
17 only have one horse with one buggy, would that still
18 apply? No. Because we have automobiles now; is that
19 correct?
20 So my point is is that, if the cottage-type
21 thing does not fit into, let's say, the economic and
22 financial needs of not only the Carusos of our
23 community, then we're going to have to have a little
24 more flexibility as to what we're going to put there
25 because currently this particular thing, as far as the
165

1 Schrager plan is concerned -- two people walked away
2 from it.
3 Schrager walked away from it because it was
4 economically unfeasible, and he couldn't get financing,
5 and I really don't know why our other friend walked away
6 from it, but obviously -- it was obviously going to be
7 too complicated like it is today.
8 I have another comment. My biggest concern
9 for this whole thing -- and I think you've heard me say
10 this before -- is the possibility of setting a
11 precedent, and I was at the July 16th meeting of the
12 Montecito Planning Commission, and county counsel stated
13 that new EIR was not and would be of no risk to a
14 precedent and it wouldn't be a precedent for future
15 developers or builders.
16 So my thought is, if county counsel says it's
17 not a problem, why are we concerned about it today? And
18 I want to finalize this by -- because my background
19 basically is economics and finance, our country is
20 currently in a recession with not much light at the end
21 of the tunnel -- foreclosures, bank failures,
22 Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and dire straits and
23 unemployment rising. It's getting more difficult to get
24 financing. The longer the Miramar's on hold, the higher
25 the financial risk will be.
166

1 MR. BIERIG: Harry, I'm going to have to --
2 MR. HOVEY: One more sentence.
3 MR. BIERIG: Fine.
4 MR. HOVEY: If the Miramar is curtailed to
5 the point that the project is not economically feasible,
6 financing will not be available. Again, time is of the
7 essence. I hope that the August 6th planning commission
8 will approve the Miramar proposal with a minimum of
9 additional conditions that could result in delays in the
10 project.
11 MR. BIERIG: Thank you, Harry.
12 MR. CAMPBELL: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair,
13 fellow Commissioners, Ross Campbell with Coast Law Group
14 here on behalf of Citizens Planning Association. I'd
15 like to thank you for the opportunity to speak today and
16 also for your hard work in reviewing the documentation
17 and records to date.
18 We have submitted a written comment letter.
19 I'm not going to go through it point by point. I will
20 keep it to the new issues, and I would like to do so by
21 starting with floor area ratio.
22 One of problems is it appears that the
23 lateral beach public access has been -- it's an
24 easement -- has been included in FAR calculations, and
25 that's, of course, ambulatory with the high tide line,
167

1 and what we've heard is that everything from that high
2 tide line as far as 116 feet has been included.
3 So at the last hearing this Commission
4 appropriately questioned whether or not the developer
5 could build within the railroad easement. That applies
6 with even greater force to the easement along the beach.
7 No development can occur within it, and that applies
8 even to temporary items like umbrellas and so forth. So
9 we would request that you would address that issue
10 before ruling on the final FAR determination.
11 Moving on to cottage style, I find it hard
12 for anyone to say with a straight face that the
13 structures associated with Building 44 constitute one
14 building. I think it's pretty clear under your code
15 that for two structures to count as one building they
16 need to be flush such that they're actually sharing five
17 feet of wall.
18 We haven't seen any elevations today. I
19 would ask you to look into that issue because, one, if
20 you don't interpret it properly, it could result in
21 absurd results and also set an incredibly bad precedent.
22 As far as results go, you could have two structures 300
23 yards apart connected with a catwalk and say it's one
24 building. Alternatively that's a bad precedent.
25 You could have residents come up and say,
168

1 "That's not an inappropriate guest house. That's part
2 of my home. I've got a catwalk just like everyone else
3 has a catwalk. Mr. Caruso has one, and it's appropriate
4 for me."
5 I think it's the same issues moving into
6 modification apply. The integrity of your land use
7 regulations are on the line today. Regulations should
8 not be thrown out the window simply because an applicant
9 wants a better project or will help a project.
10 We detailed some issues there in our letter.
11 If you have an opportunity, I would request that you
12 take a look, but by way of example, if you were to have
13 a situation as Schrager did where the setback
14 modification was based on providing an ability to keep
15 cottages onsite, that's an appropriate justification.
16 That provides a direct public benefit in the form of
17 historical resources.
18 That's not what's happening here. Here the
19 project is pushed outward to allow an additional
20 meandering of pathways. That's not how justifications
21 should operate.
22 Switching over into some of the CEQA issues,
23 I'd like to address the addendum. As we said all along,
24 the addendum has resulted in an improper segmentation of
25 the review process. And what I really mean by that is,
169

1 instead taking a hard look at this project up front,
2 looking at its impact from the outset in one cohesive
3 environmental document, we've gotten fragmented pieces
4 of information from the Applicant and from the County.
5 And instead of looking at those issues,
6 there's been waiting for the public to raise that issue,
7 waiting for sister agencies to raise those issues before
8 they're actually addressed.
9 And I think one of the most recent examples
10 of that is the water issue. How did we go from 117 acre
11 per year to 50 or whatever it is. You have one single
12 sheet of paper that was posted online. It's an estimate
13 arriving at these figures, and that's not adequate given
14 the significance of this issue and this community and
15 this area that can be fully evaluated in an EIR.
16 Moving on just real quickly, two more
17 issues --
18 MR. BIERIG: I'm going to have to ask you to
19 wrap it up.
20 UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: Can I give my time to
21 him?
22 MR. BIERIG: No.
23 MR. CAMPBELL: I'll leave it at this: The
24 noise impacts on the beach as a result of pile
25 driving -- it has not been studied. That needs to be
170

1 studied in the EIR. The conclusion from the Applicant
2 said construction won't be on the beach. That's not
3 adequate. You measure the impact at the receptor. Even
4 given the 116 feet mean high tide line, impacts at that
5 line will be significant. I appreciate your time.
6 MR. BIERIG: Thank you.
7 MS. TERZIAN: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair,
8 Montecito Planning Commission. My name is Nina Terzian.
9 Probably know that by now. I live on Miramar Beach.
10 Mr. Caruso the sole owner of the disgusting abandoned
11 rat-infested moldy Motel 6 for the termites has gone
12 above and beyond to accommodate and make everyone in
13 this community happy.
14 Obviously that's impossible because there are
15 a few people in this world who choose to live in a
16 negative state of mind. Myself and the majority of
17 people who live here in Santa Barbara prefer to think
18 positive and move forward, not backward. You've heard
19 that before, but on a recent issue for the people who
20 think the old hotel has historic value, I'm sure
21 Mr. Caruso will carefully disassemble them and deliver
22 them to your property so you can have your very own
23 piece of vintage. Thank you.
24 MR. BIERIG: Thank you.
25 MS. KOVACS: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair,
171

1 Naomi Kovacs, executive director of Citizen Planning
2 Association. It's been insinuated, even accused, that
3 CPA is here to stop the building of the Miramar and to
4 do whatever we can to halt the process so it will kill
5 the project.
6 That I am stating for the record is
7 absolutely incorrect. We join everybody who wants to
8 see the right project built on this property. To get
9 that, you need to have the proper review.
10 I was asked before the hearing today by many
11 people, "What's the bottom line? What's CPA asking of
12 the Commissioners at the hearing?" So let me make it
13 clear. First, even with the Applicant's new recent
14 adjustment to the proposed project, we are still asking
15 for you to not approve the project as proposed and to
16 require new and full EIR for the project.
17 Second, we want compliance with the Montecito
18 Community Plan, the Coastal Zoning Ordinance, and CEQA.
19 What are we asking more specifically? Well,
20 Ross Campbell our attorney at CLG outlined a lot of that
21 for you, but I'd just like to make a few more points.
22 The County needs to follow the community plan
23 for cottage-style architecture and floor area ratio.
24 The County needs to follow the regulations and not throw
25 them out the window by granting all of these requested
172

1 mods.
2 The County needs to apply an appropriate of
3 its land use regulations so that this project is in
4 compliance with those regulations. If the County
5 complies, some of the benefits would be a less massive
6 and tall project, one that wouldn't encroach into
7 setbacks and would be true cottage style.
8 The County needs to do a full EIR. No corner
9 cutting; no segmented piecemeal approach. You need to
10 truly and comprehensively address and properly evaluate
11 all of the issues. I'll outline a few of those issue
12 because time is tight.
13 Water. Water supply issues have to be
14 studied. When reviewing this proposal, you have to look
15 at the impacts on the current users and other properties
16 being served. Mr. Mosby says that Montecitans are --
17 and I quote him -- "using too much water already as it
18 is."
19 I'm also concerned about the potential for
20 fire services to be impeded in terms of water supply.
21 Do the calculations take into account hundred year
22 droughts, for example? And the statement that the
23 hydrant test came back with about 1,500 gallons per
24 minute does not match the required stern, staunch
25 minimum of 1,500. "About" is not the same as "equal."
173

1 Another issue is the noise impact on the
2 beach as Mr. Campbell said, and another is waste water.
3 Again, these are just a few of the unresolved issues
4 still facing us today. There's been a failure to look
5 at this project properly as required by CEQA. The
6 County needs to comply with what you're required to do.
7 I'd like to point out a few questions that I
8 have regarding the new information. We'd like to know
9 what will happen if a review of the parking after the
10 project is built shows problems. If it turns out that
11 actually the parking is underparked or the valet
12 situation doesn't work well, how would that be remedied
13 once the project is already built? And what about
14 emergency vehicles that need to go through the valet
15 backup area?
16 MR. BIERIG: I'm going to have to ask you
17 to --
18 MS. KOVACS: I have one more point, and you
19 have let a lot of other people go on, and I appreciate
20 it. I'm also representing a large group.
21 We also have questions about loss of public
22 access beach parking and replacement spaces and the fact
23 that, as it has been stated today, enforcement is very
24 difficult.
25 So questions still remain. This project is
174

1 not ready for approval today. It's time for you to help
2 and require a full EIR. Comply with the Montecito
3 Community Plan, the Coastal Zoning Ordinance, and CEQA.
4 Thank you.
5 MR. BIERIG: Thank you.
6 MR. HAWLEY: Hello. Excuse me. My name is
7 Ryan Hawley. I'm an intern here at Caruso. I've been
8 asked to speak on behalf of the issue that was brought
9 up earlier with the speaker cards. I'm a Catholic boy
10 from the University of Notre Dame. I don't believe in
11 lying. So I'll keep this brief, and I'll keep it
12 honest.
13 We have personally checked each and every
14 speaker card you have in front of you today. Each
15 person was here today. They did exactly what we asked
16 them to do. They showed up, checked in, and stayed as
17 long as they could. Many left at 10:30 wanting to stay
18 longer, but they planned their day around speaking at
19 9:00 o'clock. We understand how valuable their time is,
20 and I know you do.
21 Commissioner Bierig, I would stake whatever
22 credibility I may have in saying with complete
23 conviction that every single one of those speaker cards
24 represent people that appeared in this room today in
25 full support of the Miramar. Thank you.
175

1 MR. BIERIG: Thank you.
2 MS. TRESCOTT: Hi. I obviously haven't lived
3 in Montecito for 80 years, but I'll have to live with
4 whatever is built there for possibly 80 years.
5 MS. BLACK: Can you state your name for the
6 record, please.
7 MS. TRESCOTT: What?
8 MS. BLACK: Can you state your name for the
9 record, please.
10 MS. TRESCOTT: Michelle Trescott. So this
11 will be quick. I was sitting at a coffee shop downtown
12 this week, and I overheard a lot of conversations going
13 on about this project, and I heard Mr. Caruso's people
14 trying to garner support by offering up special perks
15 when the hotel is built.
16 And it really upset me because his way of
17 doing business completely cheapens the political process
18 which these things have to go through in order to get
19 approved. I would urge you not to approve this project
20 right now as it stands because there's obviously
21 something obviously wrong under the surface that needs
22 investigation.
23 If this proposal was good or right and the
24 project was something that resonated with the community
25 and was environmentally sound, there would be no need
176

1 for a massive PR campaign and no need for cocktail
2 parties, club memberships, business deals, and
3 everything that is going on behind the scenes of this.
4 So that's what I have. Thank you.
5 MR. BIERIG: Thank you.
6 MS. JOHNSON: Hi. My name is
7 Dorinne Johnson. I'm here again to support the Miramar
8 Hotel project. I want to thank all the planning
9 Commissioners for all of your hard work and dedication
10 and to serve our community. I also would like to thank
11 the Caruso team for their hard work in improving the
12 Miramar Project based on input from your board, the
13 outreach community meeting, the land use committee, the
14 Montecito Association, the review board, the water
15 district, and all the other support groups in our
16 community.
17 Just to give you background why I'm here
18 today in support of the Miramar Project, my husband and
19 I live in Montecito and Santa Monica. I have served on
20 the Santa Monica architectural review board for eight
21 years, and I would like to -- and also I'm an
22 architectural space planner.
23 I have reviewed quite a few hotel projects.
24 Santa Monica is one of the toughest cities to get any
25 projects through, especially hotels. That being said,
177

1 after reviewing the Miramar design concept and
2 schematics and hearing about the project, I feel the
3 Caruso team has come up with an exceptional project.
4 The architectural design works, and the articulation and
5 the demonstration of buildings are beautiful. I feel
6 that the Caruso Miramar Hotel project would be a huge
7 success here in our Montecito community.
8 I would like to see the MPC work together
9 with community support groups to help move this project
10 forward. I know that your board has worked hard to get
11 to this point. Let's bring the Miramar back to its
12 glory. Thank you.
13 MR. BIERIG: Thank you.
14 MR. PULICE: Mr. Chair, Commission, I'm
15 Ron Pulice. I have previously written you a six-page
16 letter for this Commission regarding the Caruso Miramar
17 Hotel violations of the Montecito Community Plan. In
18 30 years experience owning Ellwood Ranch in Santa
19 Barbara, I've encountered the permit process many times.
20 I think Mrs. Black's first project was mine. I think
21 yours is my latest. So I've been around the block with
22 permits.
23 While I just finished a three-year gauntlet
24 to get approval on a single-family home that's a mile
25 and a half from a public road, while the exhausting
178

1 process was exhausting, I'm grateful that it exists to
2 protect and maintain the integrity and character of our
3 community.
4 In my past 12 years, I've lived in Montecito
5 on Miramar Avenue in a 100-year-old home, and I've
6 watched with anticipation the transformation of this
7 historical hotel. In my career of 37 years, I've built
8 more freeway miles, sound abatement walls, bridges, and
9 infrastructure facilities than anyone in the southwest.
10 The 500 bridges and overpasses I have built
11 have given me a particular advantage when I analyze the
12 environmental documents from the county staff regarding
13 this proposed five-star hotel.
14 I know when the San Ysidro bridge was built.
15 It was built by a former employee of mine in 1952. It
16 was his first engineering project. He's long since
17 retired, but the bridge, as we all know, still stands.
18 Ted is now 80, and he was shocked when I told him this
19 old bridge was going to become the gateway to an
20 oversized resort hotel.
21 Now, the freeways and the bridges that serve
22 the Miramar will be enlarged and condemnation will
23 occur. Caltrans has not come forward. I don't know
24 why. But the parking you talked about this morning on
25 South Jameson will change. You will not have that
179

1 parking as it is.
2 They are not using all of their right of way.
3 They will. That bridge will be larger, and in fact,
4 that bridge will be a lot wider. So there's just
5 tremendous impact. This has not been looked at. I
6 don't know why, but it's crucial that you look at it.
7 I understand the development business. I've
8 constructed over 1,000 subdivisions. I've developed
9 property my whole life. I support responsible and
10 respectful developments which adhere to the wishes of
11 the community it serves.
12 To that point, I have to say this county
13 attorney that last month -- I wasn't here, but I watched
14 it on tape -- that, when you said that you believe a
15 negative declaration of environmental impact is probably
16 defensible, I think you're categorically wrong. And it
17 irritates me because I want this hotel built now. I
18 don't want to wait two and three years from now. That's
19 how long it's going to take because what's going to
20 happen is that people are going to have to raise money,
21 2- and $300,000 to look at this thing again and spend
22 time and a lawsuit. It's a waste of time.
23 We didn't get an EIR. Okay. But you need to
24 mitigate this situation so we get a hotel we can live
25 with and people will not sue.
180

1 Just let me finish. You know, I've spoken to
2 many architects, builders, and developers in this town,
3 and I must say they're quite dumbfounded. They do not
4 understand how you can get this project approved in this
5 method. It seems strange.
6 And finally I must be reminded by my favorite
7 poet T.S. Elliot, and he says, "We shall not cease from
8 exploration, and at the end of all our exploring, we
9 will arrive where we started and know the place for the
10 first time." Can we learn from these experiences? Will
11 we ignore the obvious? Will we instead always know that
12 an oversized badly engineered project was a product of
13 our blind eyes?
14 MR. BIERIG: You're going to have to --
15 MR. PULICE: Can't we simply acknowledge now
16 that it's not too late to slow down -- one more
17 sentence -- and get it right, or will we simply know the
18 truth much too late? Thank you.
19 MR. BIERIG: Thank you.
20 MR. BLACK: Hi. I'm David Black, and I'm a
21 local resident, 20-year resident of Montecito, belong to
22 Montecito Association, Sierra Club everything. I'm a
23 public works green builder in California and Texas.
24 But I want to speak to the water. I came in
25 earlier, and I heard about the water. I am one of the
181

1 original founders of We Want Water that brought state
2 water into Santa Barbara County.
3 First of all, I agree with you, Commissioner,
4 that we should recycle that roof water. A lot of it is
5 put into those drain because of the erosion concern, and
6 I've been thinking of that for years.
7 But actually we raised privately hundreds of
8 thousands of dollars to do studies on the water with all
9 the municipalities throughout the county, and in that --
10 I don't know specifically what the Miramar -- but the
11 Miramar water use is grandfathered into that deal. In
12 fact, you know -- again, I don't remember the numbers
13 but -- and the sewage too.
14 So if anything, there hasn't been any use of
15 the Miramar. And we may owe him ten years of water.
16 You can bill him for it. But you know, you may owe him
17 that water in a sense. I support the project, but I
18 just want the record clear the water has been allocated
19 over the years through the state water initiative that
20 we brought in.
21 And I think staff -- that water -- the
22 Montecito water guy's here. He should be able to
23 testify to that that there is water for the project and
24 I'm sure we'll use water-saving devices and so on like
25 that to help mitigate some of that stuff.
182

1 But the water is there. We need to use the
2 water to generate the revenue for Montecito district.
3 So I think you have to take some of that into
4 consideration, but I think you're doing a great job. I
5 thank you. I support the project. It looks good, you
6 know. Like I said before, I hope he does more of them
7 in this community because we need people like this that
8 are conscious and thinking of the community as they're
9 building projects because we need to build smart today.
10 Thank you again for your time.
11 MR. BIERIG: Thank you.
12 MR. HARFENIST: Mr. Commissioner, Chairman,
13 my name is Stan Harfenist. My wife and I have lived on
14 Miramar Beach for 14 years. We still feel like
15 newcomers, but we've been here a while. We want the new
16 Miramar Hotel. We live five houses east of the Miramar.
17 We see what all of my neighbors are talking about, this
18 blighted area, every day many times. But at times
19 nothing is better than something bad.
20 We supported the developer when he came in
21 until we discovered that he was going to fill in the
22 western portion of his property in the flood plain. The
23 fill will be over 12 feet high in some areas. It will
24 be above the railroad tracks. Picture it. And it will
25 be held in place by a 13 1/2 foot retaining wall.
183

1 That will prevent flood waters from Oak Creek
2 from encroaching on his property but not that -- but
3 none of those properties that are south of his
4 properties. In medicine they call it "do no harm." One
5 of your jobs is do no harm to those neighbors who live
6 adjacent to the Miramar Hotel.
7 When we saw this delay of the land, my wife
8 and I hired B & E Engineering Company, an international
9 engineering firm, to review the analysis done by the
10 developer's engineering firm. Their results have been
11 signed and stamped and are in the county files.
12 Their analysis cast a great deal of doubt on
13 the veracity of the engineering plan, flood plan,
14 submitted by the developer's engineering firm. So much
15 doubt that the manager of flood control of the county
16 created a memo to staff, which is in the files, in that
17 he picked up a great many of the issues that B & E
18 Engineering raised in their report to you. By the way,
19 he was subsequently removed from the project.
20 The fatal flaw he identified was with respect
21 to methodologies used by the engineering firm in
22 preparing the December, '07, flood report. The County
23 has refused to identify the fatal flaw or to explain how
24 it has been corrected in the March, '08, report. Almost
25 done.
184

1 I need not tell you that under CEQA the
2 County is required to provide good faith and reasoned
3 response. They have failed to do so. The only way to
4 find out what the truth is is to do an EIR.
5 MR. BIERIG: Thank you.
6 MR. EILER: Good afternoon, Chairman Bierig
7 and Commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to
8 speak today, and I thank you for your untiring service.
9 My name is Richard Eiler. I'm a Montecito resident for
10 the last 31 years. I live six blocks away from the
11 project.
12 I think, when we hear people talk about who
13 they represent and how many numbers they represent, I'm
14 going to be the winner because I represent all the
15 taxpayers of Santa Barbara County.
16 And in that regard, I would like to put an
17 economic question to us. We're looking at a tremendous
18 loss of revenue here by the fact this business has been
19 closed seven years.
20 Real estate tax is alone over $3 million a
21 year. Our county certainly could use the money. Sales
22 taxes on the restaurants and all the shops are going to
23 be another couple hundred thousand dollars. The bed tax
24 is going to be well over a million dollars.
25 Things like this are not small, and I notice
185

1 the, you know, very strong detail that we went into --
2 and we dealt with water, we dealt with the sanitary
3 district, we dealt with the fire department, we dealt
4 with traffic, we dealt with parking, but we haven't
5 dealt with economics.
6 For all the people that say, "We love the
7 project but. I'm in favor of this project but. We'd
8 like to see this thing built now but" -- and the "but"
9 always entails to some type of a very lengthy delay -- I
10 can remember several other projects that I've spoken to
11 before, and the strategy by opponents, well-meaning or
12 otherwise, is "What can we do to delay? Delay. Delay.
13 Let's refer it to a committee. Let's do another study.
14 We don't think the studies we have are adequate. Let's
15 do them again."
16 I know how development works. I was involved
17 in development in the Malibu area where we worked for
18 14 years to get a land use approved. We sold the
19 project after that because we were all tired. We just
20 couldn't go through any more. We had to buy a water
21 company to serve 300 customers to serve our property.
22 So I know what Mr. Caruso is going through as
23 he's going through all of the agonies responding to all
24 of the concerns and the contradictions and the
25 criticisms he's getting on this project.
186

1 We're looking at a beautiful project; we're
2 looking at something that everyone of us can be very,
3 very proud of; and we're looking at something that is
4 going to be an economic benefit to all of us, all of us.
5 It's going affect everybody in this county.
6 I urge you to approve this project. Give
7 Mr. Caruso a chance to perform. He has an impeccable
8 reputation, and he's not a developer that develops and
9 sells. He invests, and he keeps them. That's very
10 important. He's not a guy that builds and runs. So we
11 have an opportunity to partner with him and end up with
12 a beautiful, beautiful project. Thank you very much for
13 your time.
14 MR. BIERIG: Thank you.
15 MS. DROWN: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and
16 Commissioners. My name is Karen Drown, and I'm a
17 40-year resident of Montecito area and a long time
18 farmer who is currently using a well. So that makes me
19 a little bit nervous.
20 But the thing that made me more nervous than
21 anything -- and I decided to go ahead and speak was
22 being personally threatened by Mr. Rick Lemo, who said
23 that, if I spoke again, he would have me smeared in all
24 the newspapers.
25 Anyway I'm speaking about the historic
187

1 cottages. You the community have all been mislead. The
2 Miramar cottages are salvageable. In fact, I personally
3 went over to the site about four years ago when at that
4 time we had a local contractor involved, Melchiori, and
5 spoke to them about the cottages and the possibility of
6 bringing a cottage over to my small ranch as an employee
7 housing unit. So I know that they are salvageable.
8 What you've been fed is only Caruso biased
9 information. The structural commissions assessment was
10 performed by Holmes Skully, was hired and paid for by
11 Caruso. The county of Santa Barbara has not performed
12 an assessment yet.
13 I have toured all these in the past year,
14 though I missed seeing any rats. Surely there's better
15 food elsewhere. The cottages do need cosmetic work as
16 any historic structure would require over the years.
17 There's even new shingles, blue ones, sitting on the
18 property waiting for installation. They need some
19 fumigations, new siding, updated bathrooms and kitchens.
20 These absolutely would not have to be brought down to
21 the foundation as you've been told.
22 By destroying these cottages, this project is
23 not a restoration, renovation, or remodel. It is the
24 end. There's really no correlation between this
25 proposed plantation project and the historic Miramar
188

1 other than an address.
2 I beg to disagree that there's not a market
3 for the existing rooms. Caruso's comment regarding
4 bathroom size, neither Schrager nor Warner made this
5 claim. The cottages never were luxury and elegance
6 which is what's being promoted now. These are true
7 cottages that can be saved, not replacing them with
8 six-plex so-called oversized cottages.
9 Things can be done. The County of
10 Santa Barbara can hire an unbiased structural conditions
11 assessment report be done. They can enforce the
12 Montecito Community Plan.
13 Mr. Caruso, please respect the
14 Montecito Community Plan. Respect the history of the
15 Miramar. We want more than just photograph memories.
16 Incorporate the restored historic cottages into the new
17 development. Play by the rules, and let's get started.
18 And a special request from all of my six kids
19 is wouldn't it be wonderful if we could have the
20 railroad car back. I know it's maybe not space
21 efficient, but it certainly was a fun aspect of the old
22 Miramar Hotel. Thank you.
23 MR. BIERIG: Thank you.
24 MR. ZOLDOS: Hello, ladies and gentlemen. My
25 name is Stephen Zoldos.
189

1 MR. BIERIG: Mr. Zoldos, maybe you can lift
2 the microphone. Much better.
3 MR. ZOLDOS: My name is Stephen Zoldos, and I
4 have been an old time member of the Miramar for many
5 decades, four or five decades and at least three decades
6 in the beach and tennis club, and I'm even a member of
7 the polar bear club if you can visualize me jumping into
8 the ocean on the first of every year.
9 Because you, Mr. Chairman, suggested that we
10 don't talk about things that are repetitious, I have cut
11 out of the first paragraph that has to do with
12 sentimentality. So let's forget about that.
13 The beautiful Miramar could have been
14 revitalized years ago became a victim of physical
15 deterioration and difficult forces and factors. Some of
16 the new owners became frustrated with this ever
17 complicated and unrealistic permit process which
18 stimulates some people to sabotage legitimate plans of
19 investors and developers who are willing to cooperate
20 and make concessions and size reductions and
21 modifications of their plans to accommodate legitimate
22 concerns.
23 Yes, the sadly deteriorated Miramar site is
24 not the property of the handful of opponents. It is the
25 private property of Mr. Caruso, and I think we should
190

1 remember that. This is a free enterprise country. We
2 don't confiscate property.
3 And Rick Caruso is willing and able to turn
4 the new Miramar resort into an attractively designed
5 land and water state of the art facility. In these
6 economically challenging times, we cannot afford to let
7 this ready, willing, capable entrepreneur slip through
8 our fingers and prolong the Miramar's sorry status quo.
9 Please do your very best to approve the
10 application and help to rebuild, revitalize the Miramar
11 resort become a fitting welcoming symbol to our
12 beautiful Santa Barbara and vitally needed employment
13 creating and property tax payroll and transient
14 occupancy tax generating apparatus for our treasury.
15 This is so important. I believe an EIR --
16 and I've been involved developing economics. "E"
17 doesn't just stand "environment." It stands for so many
18 good things. It stands for "eating" too; right? But it
19 stands also for "economics."
20 The EIR should include economic impact, and
21 economic impact can only be productive, and if we wait
22 another three or four or five years, this city is going
23 to lose millions of dollars in revenue. And whose fault
24 would it be? Those people are trying to handicap this
25 man from completing a job he has every right to do.
191

1 Please I beg you. Remember the 11th
2 Commandment. I added a commandment to the
3 10 Commandments with God's permission. Thou shalt not
4 procrastinate, and I really appreciate all of you. God
5 bless you.
6 Save -- especially what I'd like to ask you,
7 discourage people who would like to spend other people's
8 money. All the opponents are very eager to tell you
9 what to do with somebody else's money, but they're not
10 spending their own money. They are taking advantage of
11 the fact that people are on the spot here. They cannot
12 get away from the permit process, and I don't even
13 suggest that.
14 What I suggest is that the permit process
15 should be mindful of individual needs and modify the
16 requirements to some extent because this man is going to
17 do a lot of good for this community. God bless you all,
18 and I hope to see you again, and I hope I hear or read
19 in the paper that you approve this project.
20 MR. BIERIG: Thank you.
21 MS. TOLLEN: Good afternoon, Commissioners,
22 and thank you for opening up to the public forum. It's
23 really the democratic way. So thank you. My name is
24 Shelly Tollen. I'm just going to talk about the highway
25 noise pollution.
192

1 The Headrow area on the north side of the
2 freeway opposite the Caruso project stands to be heavily
3 bombarded by reflected highway noise. We are already
4 well above the state standards for noise pollution, and
5 anything that exacerbates this condition is not
6 acceptable.
7 The Caruso team has circulated literature
8 suggesting that their proposed sound wall would only
9 contribute an inaudible one DB of reflected noise. This
10 may very well be true. However, this minimal sound
11 wall, which is set back from the freeway and will only
12 serve as a decorative fence to border the property, is
13 not an issue.
14 At the Santa Barbara Building Commission
15 Meeting, one of the architects admitted that the massive
16 facade of multistory buildings backing up to
17 South Jameson is positioned deliberately to act as a
18 primary sound barrier from the freeway, which I
19 understand you don't want noise in the building, but we
20 don't also want to have extra noise on the outside. Not
21 only are these buildings massive by their size, the
22 effect on sound reflection will be vastly accentuated by
23 the variances which is now allowing them to ignore the
24 mandated setbacks.
25 MR. BIERIG: Miss, can I interrupt you?
193

1 MS. TOLLEN: Sure.
2 MR. BIERIG: I don't think there's anything
3 new on noise.
4 MS. TOLLEN: You don't? All right.
5 MR. BIERIG: I appreciate your passion on
6 this.
7 MS. TOLLEN: That's okay. That's all right.
8 I'm just going to say one thing. I don't think I'm a
9 negative person, and I took exception to that. I think
10 I'm a really positive person. I just wanted to set the
11 record straight.
12 MR. BIERIG: Thank you.
13 MR. MELTZER: Chairman, Commissioners, I'm
14 Bob Meltzer. I moved to Montecito 11 years ago. I can
15 see the site of this project from my house. I think you
16 are holding a terrific hearing on a incredibly complex
17 issue. I would be bald and probably dead if I tried to
18 do this myself. I've learned a lot. I've heard answers
19 to a lot of questions that have been raised both
20 directly and by inference in a lot of different forums,
21 including the blogs and press around town. There have
22 been a lot of direct answers to those questions, and now
23 we're starting to hear actually people objecting to the
24 answers and asking the same questions again.
25 I was about to add the one thing I haven't
194

1 heard mentioning of was private property rights, but the
2 prior speaker from this side just did an excellent job
3 of raising that issue, which, frankly, having lived in
4 seven other states, I wonder if California actually
5 recognizes private property rights sometimes.
6 As to the concerns of the Caruso crew is
7 somehow behaving badly by running a public relations
8 campaign, I would observe that the Move On Dot Org
9 people, the Environmental Defense Center, CPA, Impeach
10 Bush -- practically any organization you can name --
11 does exactly the same thing to further their own cause.
12 And this is not somehow nefarious. This is, in fact,
13 part of the process.
14 I think Caruso has turned himself and his
15 organization inside out to redesign his plan a number of
16 times, has met many, many objections, and the time has
17 come to move forward with it. Thank you.
18 MR. BIERIG: Thank you.
19 MR. ARCHIBALD: Thank you, Chairman and
20 Commissioners. My name is Larry Archibald. I live
21 right next to Miramar on the beach. I have a few
22 comments on some of the things that have come up this
23 morning and in the staff report that proceeded this
24 meeting.
25 The parking spaces we've been talking about
195

1 on South Jameson are actually mostly on the county right
2 of way. Very little of those spaces is on Miramar land,
3 and it strikes me as odd they should be counted as a
4 gift from the Miramar given where they're actually
5 located.
6 The back of those parking spaces, if you
7 bring up the slide, is actually two to five feet from
8 the center line of South Jameson. They're very, very
9 close to the center line of South Jameson. It's really
10 hard for me to understand how those are even
11 legitimately considered parking spaces given that
12 proximity to the center line of the road and the dangers
13 you people raised in terms of backing into traffic which
14 travels down that road at 35 to 45 miles an hour.
15 I came across new information on noise during
16 construction in the staff report. It appears to be an
17 addendum to the previous report which was that the noise
18 would be 95 decibels to nearby residents, but then the
19 report currently shows that for immediately adjacent
20 residents to the east and west, the noise level during
21 construction will be between 100 decibels and 118
22 decibels.
23 105 decibels causes hearing loss -- hearing
24 damage within five minutes. 120 decibels causes hearing
25 damage instantaneously. I don't think this is a trivial
196

1 concern for the Commission to look at as a nonmitigated
2 significant impact, not to mention the impact for people
3 walking by on the beach.
4 With respect to water, I think the
5 Commissioners should require the Montecito Water
6 Authority to grant no more than 30 acre feet as the base
7 allocation. The difference of 15 acre feet simply comes
8 out of or makes closer the severe water shortage that's
9 coming the way of Montecito.
10 We know the Miramar will end up using all the
11 water it needs to grow its lush vegetation. All that
12 lowering the base amount does is put somewhat more
13 pressure on them to be more conservative. I think
14 that's -- otherwise, you're basically stealing water
15 from the rest of the community, and I don't see a
16 justification for that. That is their historical usage.
17 There was one issue that was answered by the
18 Applicant's attorney in their report to the Commission
19 at the last hearing but which wasn't raised as an issue,
20 and that has to do with the tennis court lighting.
21 The attorney said that the reason that the
22 tennis court lighting or the recreational court lighting
23 prohibition contained in the Montecito Community Plan
24 doesn't apply to the Miramar is that it isn't in a
25 residential neighborhood. It's a visitor serving
197

1 commercial establishment. That's its zoning.
2 But the claim that it's not in a residential
3 neighborhood is crazy. They're residences to the
4 immediate south, to the immediate east, to the immediate
5 west, and across the freeway to the north. I don't
6 think that's -- I don't even think that's a serious
7 incident, and that's it.
8 MR. BIERIG: Thank you.
9 MR. LANGDON: May I wait until the other
10 member returns? What I have to say applies to all of
11 you.
12 MR. BIERIG: Would you like to go next?
13 MS. DUCENBERRY: My name is Ann Ducenberry.
14 I live on San Leandro Lane for 12 years across the
15 freeway from the proposed project. I haven't heard this
16 mentioned today. So if it's redundant, I apologize. I
17 see it on the wall, but I need to speak.
18 How can the Caruso plan be compared with the
19 Schrager plan in any meaningful way when we're not
20 talking about the same piece of land? The Schrager plan
21 did not alter the topography. The Caruso plan would
22 scrape the land clean and level it 10,000 cubic yards of
23 land fill which would raise the entire plot of land
24 until it sits perfectly flat above the flood plain,
25 raising the main building over 59 feet in height, which
198

1 I know you people don't want to hear about that anymore,
2 but that concerns me.
3 All the references to piggybacking on
4 Mr. Schrager's EIR is a deception. Mr. Schrager had no
5 EIR because he wasn't supersizing the Miramar. He would
6 have left the footprint of the cottages as they
7 historically sat on the land. He would not have changed
8 the natural grace of the land. He did not propose
9 destroying the existing flood plain by levelling it.
10 Mr. Caruso could have simply gotten his EIR
11 like any other developer. He used his resources instead
12 to hire a great PR firm -- this is my opinion -- who
13 helped him woo the community into his web.
14 Please hold him to the same rules. They're
15 in place for all developers. I think Mr. Caruso no
16 doubt knew the size and scope of this proposed project
17 would fall short of an approval if an EIR were
18 performed.
19 Please, Commissioners, Montecito and
20 Santa Barbara have always held a simple elegance in
21 their stature. Don't allow Mr. Caruso to supersize the
22 Miramar. I know that economically it needs to have a
23 size and a scope that it didn't used to have, but there
24 could be a creative way to create a space that isn't
25 supersized. Thank you.
199

1 MR. BIERIG: Thank you.
2 MR. LANGDON: Mr. Chair and other chair
3 persons, my name is Verne Langdon. We met last time. I
4 was unfairly accused by Wendy McCaw's newsletter of
5 having "fun with you" at your expense. A, it wasn't
6 fun, and B, it cost you nothing. I didn't see any of
7 you offering to pay my $20 parking ticket.
8 I'm back again to talk to you about four
9 people I spoke with last night that totalled well over
10 $100 million. To say the dog ate my homework is better
11 than the excuses they conjured up. One informed me she
12 couldn't be here today because she was too involved in
13 other matters. Another was planning to go out of town
14 on Friday and was too busy with last minute
15 arrangements.
16 An investor acquaintance informed me, "I used
17 to be in favor," but the guys downtown have taken it
18 over and won't let him do anything. So this one just
19 lost interest, and besides, he has a stockholders'
20 meeting he had to attend today.
21 I spoke with still another who paid
22 $20-something million in cash for his Montecito home
23 three years ago. It's one of the ugliest homes you've
24 ever seen, and he thinks Mr. Caruso's project is ugly.
25 Well, money talks and fertilizer walks, and
200

1 here's my take of the situation. This whole mess isn't
2 about creek overflow or geological reports or too
3 big/too small theories. As a really loaded person once
4 informed me, there's a lot of money in Montecito, and
5 there is.
6 And you know what? I'm not sure Montecito
7 needs a Miramar Hotel. I have an uncle who was with one
8 of the largest cemetery corporations in America, and he
9 is very excited about talking to Mr. Caruso about
10 putting a cemetery on the property. I think it would be
11 great. I'm serious. It would be great because
12 Mr. Caruso could help him build it, construct it, and
13 maintain it and run it and he could get rid of all of
14 the rats in his crematories.
15 But the best idea for the Miramar is to leave
16 the cottages exactly the way they are, leave the
17 building exactly the way it is. It's not going to cost
18 more than $50,000 to repaint those structures, and let's
19 not make it hotel. Let's take the money that's in
20 Montecito and make it a lovely place where the homeless
21 can come live and rehabilitate themselves. Then we'll
22 be really creating something useful. Everybody will get
23 what they want. They'll get their cottages, and maybe
24 we'll have a little mom and pop coffee shop there. That
25 would be nice.
201

1 The Miramar isn't the only place the rats are
2 hanging out. Let's clear the rats out of here, and
3 let's get this thing going or just forget about it and
4 put in a mortuary, a cemetery, or a place for homeless
5 people. It would be nice, the Miramar Homeless Hotel.
6 Give that some thought.
7 MR. BIERIG: Thank you.
8 MR. HOWARD: Thank you. My name is
9 Bill Howard. I'm a 12-year resident. I live over in
10 Headrow area.
11 MR. BIERIG: Bill, would you hold on for just
12 a second. Anybody that's not going to speak, it would
13 be nice if we took our seats. I know there is issues
14 with fire and so forth. I've had a couple notes passed
15 to me asking to have everyone sit down that's not
16 getting ready to speak. If you could, thank you so
17 much.
18 MR. HOWARD: I wouldn't have expected to be
19 here, and I think there are a lot of people who trust in
20 the regulations, the codes, all the protections that our
21 community has.
22 And I'm only here because I've become aware
23 over the last week that so many of those regulations and
24 codes are having exemptions, exceptions, variances, that
25 a lot of numbers that are being looked at -- and I'm
202

1 encouraged today to hear this group really challenging
2 the numbers. I would have thought that wouldn't have
3 been your job, that the numbers that come before you
4 would have already careful due diligence.
5 So I'm concerned that collectively this
6 project has gotten too big, that it's out of scale for
7 the property, that it's out of scale when you paddle by
8 and you look back in at it. We're going to have
9 something bigger than we should have there.
10 And with that bigness comes impacts,
11 environmental impacts, and I just would concur with a
12 lot of other people. You ought to do the complete EIR
13 so that we have objective data to look at. Thanks.
14 MR. BIERIG: Thank you.
15 MR. MARSIC: My name is Fred Marsic. My wife
16 and I just moved to Santa Barbara 3 1/2 years ago. I've
17 been sitting here watching this show, and it reminds me
18 of the time I lived in Calabasas for 30 years, and I was
19 on Save the City down there when Caruso came in and
20 wanted to build a shopping center, and we worked with
21 him. We got what we wanted.
22 And if you've ever been down to the shopping
23 center in Calabasas, you'll see it's a pretty nice
24 place. I just -- this is like going back in time with
25 me because I look at you five out here, and I think of
203

1 you making the decision of what's going to happen here.
2 It seems to me -- I really don't have a dog
3 in this fight, but it seems to me that the developer,
4 Caruso, has certainly done everything that he possibly
5 can do -- took care of the water, took care of the
6 sewage, took care of the fire.
7 We've got a lot of people talking about
8 little ticky-tacky stuff, and you people ask questions
9 about doorways and buildings connected, all the stuff
10 that you've gone through. I've seen it before. How did
11 you vote -- or would you vote on the street lights when
12 they were trying to build the 101 through Santa Barbara?
13 Remember how long that took?
14 Go with the future for God sakes. You've got
15 an opportunity to get a beautiful place here. You can
16 make revisions on parking and things like that, but
17 don't hold it up.
18 What are you going to do with that property?
19 You just heard from a gentleman maybe a good cemetery
20 would do. Maybe he was right. Maybe that's what you
21 need here.
22 But I think you five people are going to make
23 the decision on this. The staff has done a great job.
24 This young lady and this one over here, real
25 knowledgeable people, and I don't know them from Adam,
204

1 but for God sakes don't hold up progress.
2 It is going to come, and the height of the
3 building, et cetera, et cetera -- you'll have a
4 beautiful place, believe me. Caruso does a good job.
5 We went through this whole thing with him. I was on
6 that side Save the City in Calabasas, but we worked it
7 out, and it's a nice shopping center down there. So do
8 your job, but remember the street lights. How would you
9 have voted on that?
10 MR. BIERIG: Thank you.
11 MR. SCHLOSSBERG: Mr. Chairman and
12 Commissioners, my name is Jeff Schlossberg. I live in
13 the Headrow on San Leandro. I've lived in the same
14 house over 20 years. I've been in Santa Barbara a
15 little longer than that, came from Santa Monica,
16 California, before that where I lived 33 years. So I
17 know a little bit Santa Monica and hotels there as well
18 and how difficult it may be to put them up on the street
19 like Ocean Avenue, which is an appropriate place for a
20 hotel, a big hotel, a high-rise hotel, a
21 community-serving hotel perhaps.
22 Why is there any dispute here? And I've read
23 every letter that's been written into the file that's
24 online. I've read every single one. And it seems to be
25 pretty simple. You have a bunch residents especially
205

1 people who live in the immediate community who are
2 having some issues with something in their backyard that
3 directly affects their quality of life.
4 Why? Because we love our neighborhood,
5 because we love Santa Barbara, we love Montecito. It's
6 a great place to live. We see a lot of Europeans in
7 Santa Barbara. Why do they come here? Because it's
8 unique. We don't have the strip malls. We don't have
9 the drive-throughs. We don't have all this ugliness.
10 Why? Because intelligent, tasteful people
11 such as yourselves have made good decisions over the
12 years to preserve this very special place. We don't
13 need to roll the clock back. We can't do that. We have
14 to move forward into the future and do the things that
15 make the most sense.
16 The people that seem to be most interested in
17 this project, there are commercial reasons for it. Hey,
18 we all need to make a living, but geography is all about
19 where something fits and what fits in that space.
20 So I urge you in your -- and I want to say
21 I've been so delighted to be here today. It's been so
22 much fun. Really I've enjoyed it. I took a day off
23 from work, and really it's like a movie. I love it, and
24 some of the characters that I've heard, it's better than
25 a movie.
206

1 In conclusion, like everybody I know, we want
2 a hotel there. We love the Miramar; it was a great
3 place to go. So you look at the speakers today, and you
4 look at the cards you got. The people who have a vested
5 personal interest through their families, through their
6 communities have one theme. The other folks have a
7 different theme. There's nothing wrong with it.
8 I don't think Mr. Caruso is Attila the Hun;
9 He's clearly not Gandhi either. We're all somewhere in
10 the middle. I bet he can do a bang up job that will
11 really fit our needs.
12 But we really have to be deliberate because,
13 once it's done, it's done. I don't want to be flooded
14 again like I was in '95. I thank you so much for your
15 service to the community.
16 MR. BIERIG: Thank you.
17 MS. HALL: Good afternoon. I'm
18 Julia Louis-Dreyfus Hall. I'm a 12-year resident of
19 Santa Barbara and a very close neighbor to the Miramar
20 Hotel. I'd like to say for the record I'm on the board
21 of Heal the Ocean in Los Angeles -- Heal the Ocean in
22 Santa Barbara, Heal the Bay in Los Angeles, and the
23 executive foreman of the National Resources Defense
24 Council.
25 The changes made to the project today move us
207

1 in the right direction, but far too many mysteries
2 remain. The main mystery is how can anyone say that
3 this plan is in any way equivalent to the Schrager plan.
4 Commission, please do not approve this until
5 it fully complies with the spirit and the letter of the
6 laws expressed in our Montecito Community Plan and a
7 full and rigorous environmental study is completed.
8 Anything less is a disservice to the community. Thank
9 you very much.
10 MR. BIERIG: Thank you.
11 MS. JORDON: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
12 I'm Sally Jordon speaking as an individual. I'm not
13 sure which side of this room I should have been on
14 because I do want the Caruso plan. I want the plan to
15 be built, but I have a reservation.
16 In January, 2007, had the Caruso Affiliated
17 proceeded on an EIR instead of a neg dec on top of a neg
18 dec, by now they would be well along in their
19 construction and ready to open their doors. I wish they
20 had; I wish those doors were open now.
21 Instead the Caruso team was done a terrible
22 disservice by the bad advice to pursue PR and schmooze
23 to develop the community interest and public pressure,
24 and Montecitans are not comfortable with being
25 schmoozed.
208

1 Montecitans know that the real security of
2 our little semirural jewel of a residential village is
3 in our sacrosanct community plan, our Bible. And for
4 this plan it stands between us and Orange
5 County-ization.
6 But our No. 1 concern -- and this is my
7 concern -- about any project is that a precedent will be
8 set, a precedent which lays our residential village
9 opened to unbridle development by others.
10 And if all these modifications, FAR, and the
11 variances are granted, then a precedent will have been
12 set, and the Montecito plan will be diluted and
13 eviscerated.
14 Your charge as the policy-making Montecito
15 Planning Commission is to protect and preserve this
16 community plan. Do you really want your legacy to be
17 that on your watch as guardians of our gate our
18 sacrosanct community plan was rendered helpless? I hope
19 not.
20 But there is still a way to cut through this
21 gordian knot. For us it is still a chance to have a
22 Caruso-built Miramar Project, and that's what we all
23 really want.
24 Requiring an EIR is the cleanest, most
25 transparent, most impartial, and honorable way to
209

1 proceed. I'm well aware that it takes several months.
2 But if we all work together it could be expedited and
3 that would be the best way filled with integrity that we
4 can proceed.
5 Failing that, at the very least the Caruso
6 team needs to come up with a project which unequivocally
7 meets the requirements of all three districts and is
8 within guideline of our community plan whose standards
9 must not be lowered.
10 We have every confidence that your Commission
11 will make the right decisions on this, and I salute you
12 for patience in the face of all of our remarks, and I
13 would like to add my comment to that darling man in the
14 pink shirt it is good theater.
15 MS. BEAUVOIX: Good afternoon and thank you,
16 Commissioners. I love the way you have held this
17 meeting. I love the questions that have been asked, and
18 I am a 39-year resident. My name is Brett Beauvoix, and
19 I have some concerns, some conflict.
20 The county's coastal overlay for Montecito
21 states all new structures should be limited to an
22 average of 16 feet above grade. Also the Biltmore,
23 San Ysidro Ranch, and Miramar Hotel have all been
24 designated as cottage-style hotels and mandated by law
25 to blend into the adjoining neighborhood.
210

1 Why then, as you leave Summerland, will you
2 be able to see the four-story main building of the
3 proposed Miramar Resort hotel? Why has this four-story
4 plantation-style hotel been allowed to disregard every
5 possible effort to blend into the surrounding
6 neighborhood?
7 Yes, Mr. Caruso did cut 3.5 feet away from
8 its height, but it is still four stories high and
9 screams to be seen. Without an EIR, this four-story
10 building will become the gateway to Santa Barbara and
11 the landmark logo for what used to be a semirural
12 coastal community.
13 There are tremendous potential traffic
14 hazards on Jameson. I know that other people have
15 spoken about it, but nonetheless, not only is the street
16 narrow, we have the diagonal parking that's supposed to
17 be for beach goers. Hotel guests, who do not want to
18 spend money for valet parking, are going to probably
19 park there. I'm not going to get into the parking --
20 about public parking for beach goers.
21 But that diagonal parking -- trying to back
22 out on that narrow street, that diagonal parking is
23 going to be a problem, and we have spoken about that
24 before.
25 This is the entrance to our main -- to my
211

1 main southbound freeway as well. There is -- the hotel
2 entrance is lorded over by valet parking. There is room
3 probably for ten cars. What is going to happen -- and
4 this was mentioned before. I'm just going to
5 reiterate -- when there are three conventions, 500
6 people per day, and they're waiting in line to get into
7 the hotel, find out it is valet parking, and they want
8 to back up or turn around and go look for parking
9 somewhere else? That's going to crowd our streets.
10 I called traffic control, the head of traffic
11 control, and he said they will probably need traffic
12 police to direct traffic at peak seasons or peak days.
13 He also said they would need signs in Montecito to limit
14 parking. I don't want to live like that. I didn't come
15 here to live like that, and I want an EIR to look into
16 that issue.
17 I am afraid of not only road hazards but
18 fatalities. That is a -- diagonal parking, parallel
19 parking, a narrow small entrance into the hotel, only
20 room for ten cars -- what is going to happen? Also the
21 parking. The parking, I've listened to everything that
22 everybody said --
23 MR. BIERIG: You're going to have to wrap it
24 up.
25 MS. BEAUVOIX: Can I just say it doesn't add
212

1 up. There is no room. If you just take 500 people at a
2 convention and the 204 people who are staying at the
3 hotel and the 258 people who are dining, where are they
4 going to park? Parking needs an EIR. Thank you.
5 MR. BIERIG: Thank you. I think we're going
6 to end public comment at 3:00 o'clock.
7 MR. ERNEST: I will be very, very brief.
8 This has been some conference, I must say. I couldn't
9 believe all different complexities and things and
10 wonderful questions that you've asked, and there's -- so
11 much weight must be on your shoulder to deal with all
12 those complexities and so on. So the only thing I can
13 say is thank you, thank you, thank you.
14 MS. BLACK: Say your name for the record,
15 please.
16 MR. ERNEST: John Ernest. And I can say
17 thank you, thank you, thank you. And the only other
18 request I would have is don't take an environmental
19 impact report off the table. That may be the only
20 reasonable way to deal with all those complexities that
21 we heard today. Thank you very much.
22 MS. BUERGEY: Good afternoon. Thank you guys
23 for all your hard work. It's a long day for you. This
24 morning the fire department expressed concerns about a
25 minimum of 1,500 gallons per minute as needed in code
213

1 issues.
2 MS. BLACK: Can you state name for the
3 record.
4 MS. BUERGEY: Candice Buergey.
5 Tom Mosby dismissed the issue by saying,
6 "Yeah, we have it." Does the MPC actually have it? Is
7 there a finished plan for you to approve for the
8 available water? If so, where is it? Is it close to
9 Jameson? Is it on the far side of the property, or is
10 it in the middle of the property?
11 If this doesn't exist, it's a secondary
12 project. A secondary project requires an EIR. If the
13 water is more than we need -- than the sanitation can
14 lift, it's a secondary project. It causes for -- it
15 calls for an EIR. Please protect our community plan and
16 our resources. Thank you.
17 MR. BIERIG: Thank you.
18 MS. HARFENIST: Hi. My name is
19 Jean Harfenist. I was going to talk about flooding, but
20 I realize that there's a serious safety issue that
21 hasn't been raised anywhere here although I have let the
22 County know about it and haven't heard anything back.
23 Ron talked about the bridge of the San Ysidro bridge and
24 the danger and the narrowness of that and the age of
25 that bridge.
214

1 I'd like to add that there are two other
2 bridges that are nearly adjacent to the Miramar
3 property, both of which have been discussed in legal
4 documents as being "structurally deficient" or nearly
5 structurally deficient.
6 Where the 101 crosses Oak Creek, that is
7 declared to be one of two state bridges that is -- I
8 think the term is structurally deficient, and I wrote to
9 the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments
10 about it, and apparently, if I understand correctly it's
11 within one point of completely structurally deficient.
12 And then add to that, South Jameson Lane
13 crosses Oak Creek. That bridge, I think, was built in
14 about 1946. It's identical twin was across the highway
15 on North Jameson Lane. That bridge was replaced in
16 2001, and according to the MNS engineering schedule at
17 that time, it was commissioned by the County that
18 bridge -- the primary reason it was replaced was because
19 it was built of a metal that is no longer in use and
20 it's not a very reliable metal and it was old and
21 structurally deficient.
22 Well, it's twin now sits on South Jameson
23 Lane which is that contorted ramp that leads to the 101.
24 So I don't see that anywhere in the SEIR or the
25 addendum, and I think it's a serious safety issue that
215

1 faces this community.
2 Can you imagine with construction trucks,
3 thousand of construction trucks, filled with landfill
4 going over that thing, and then if the hotel is
5 completed, the extra traffic could bring that bridge
6 down. I'm not an engineer, but that needs to be
7 investigated. Thank you very much, Commission.
8 MR. BIERIG: Thank you.
9 You're last.
10 MS. PULICE: My name is Stacey Pulice.
11 Bob Collector would have been here. He wanted to
12 attend, but he's out of town with his family. So he's
13 asked me to deliver his remarks.
14 "Esteemed Chair, Fellow Commissioners" --
15 MR. BIERIG: Stacey, could you do me a favor.
16 Would you -- we don't really allow people to read here;
17 so if you could paraphrase his remarks, that would be
18 great.
19 MS. PULICE: Paraphrase Bob's words? You
20 know Bob?
21 MR. BIERIG: We know Bob.
22 MS. GOTTSDANKER: We know Bob. Give it a
23 try. You can do it.
24 MS. PULICE: The gist of his letter talks
25 about his history with Mr. Caruso going over the plan
216

1 and having been -- he said the Montecito Community Plan
2 is, for want of a better description, our Holy Grail.
3 And he felt that Caruso was clear about that, felt good
4 about that, and was absolutely in accord with that.
5 After having met with Mr. Caruso and walking
6 the property, he, Bob, went to the association and
7 endorsed the project and invited Mr. Caruso into
8 people's homes to meet him where he gave slideshows and
9 photographs of a similar Caribbean-style resort that was
10 bungalow sized and seemed perfectly in accordance with
11 the Montecito Community Plan.
12 But at that point that's when communications
13 stopped and at that point is when the project began to
14 grow per Bob's experience. And that -- what it seems is
15 that the community plan's guidelines can be varied, but
16 just don't set precedence is what he emphasized to the
17 Caruso group, and that, again, seemed total in accord
18 and totally understood by their group. He feels that
19 it's both egregiously out of compliance and inadequate
20 with the Montecito Community Plan.
21 He says that the Schrager plan and the Caruso
22 plan bear little resemblance to one another, but as you
23 know, it's impossible to get 100 percent of Montecito to
24 agree on a project. The point is it needs to be the
25 right project, and judging from what he's seen of these
217

1 proceedings, he feels you agree this is not the right
2 project.
3 This project needs to be approved but with
4 strict conditions that bring it into compliance with the
5 community plan because it is unfair for any Applicant
6 for any reason to develop by a set of standards not
7 consistent with the Montecito Community Plan but not
8 available to every other Applicant who asks for similar
9 variance.
10 He feels that it may be arguable that the
11 discretion card could be played because of the nature of
12 this project, but he says that he feels that that would
13 be a serious mistake. He believes that, if we all work
14 collaboratively and without rancor, we can resolve this
15 issue quickly.
16 "I urge you as true stewards of our plan to
17 assist both the community and the Applicant by finding
18 the appropriate project that completely satisfies
19 neither party but is the definition of a great
20 compromise."
21 Thank you for your time and consideration.
22 MR. BIERIG: Thank you. Well, that concludes
23 the public portion of our meeting today, and I think
24 we'll take a break here and come back at 3:15.
25 (Whereupon a short recess was taken.)
218

1 MR. BIERIG: So I'm going to call us back
2 into order for the Miramar matter. Normally this would
3 be the time we would get into rebuttal from the
4 Applicant related to public comment. I'm sure you'll
5 have some.
6 I thought maybe we could save some time if we
7 did questions of staff and Applicant and anything that
8 we don't address because it may be that some stuff we
9 have questions on are the same things you'll want to
10 comment to us.
11 So I think it will save time if that's okay,
12 and then of course, anything you want to rebut when
13 we're finished if it hasn't gotten out, please have at
14 it.
15 So in no particular order does anybody have
16 anything they want to start with?
17 Claire, Commissioner Gottsdanker.
18 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Sure. Given I've lived
19 here 49 years, I'll go first. I would like to see from
20 staff a display of the parcel map only. I could not
21 find any document within the documents that I had which
22 only showed me parcel maps which made it very difficult
23 to determine where the parcel lines are.
24 MR. BIERIG: I've got one.
25 MS. GOTTSDANKER: You've got a parcel map.
219

1 How come I don't have a parcel map?
2 MR. BIERIG: It's hidden in Binder No. 3.
3 That was a guess.
4 MS. GOTTSDANKER: I will be happy if
5 Mr. Bierig gives me his parcel map. That's all I really
6 need. Somebody else can go while I'm looking at this,
7 by the way. It just was a question. I wanted to see
8 the parcel map.
9 MS. SLUTZKY: Mr. Chair, while they're
10 getting the map up, I thought I might respond to
11 Commissioner Burrows's question this morning if you
12 still want to hear an answer as to the 1930 board minute
13 order.
14 MS. BURROWS: That was related to EIR. I
15 think we agreed to do that later.
16 MR. BIERIG: Well, no, I think your question
17 was really related to FAR because it goes to the site --
18 MS. SLUTZKY: It was Lot 6 -- with respect to
19 Lot 6.
20 MS. BURROWS: If you don't mind, please.
21 MS. SLUTZKY: No. Yes, that minute order
22 from the board's 1930 hearing that refers to assessment
23 maps -- assessor's maps, rather, that is -- as
24 Mr. Mittermiller mentioned, that's really not relevant
25 here because that's for tax purposes. It doesn't really
220

1 confer title. It didn't establish anything really.
2 But the significant piece -- there were two
3 significant pieces of paper in that same Exhibit 4. The
4 first is the title and the title for Lot 6 -- and I'm
5 looking for that language now. I had to go get my
6 glasses to read this stuff.
7 But the title provides that Lot 6 goes south
8 more or less along the westerly line on the land to the
9 approximate high water mark, goes westerly, and follows
10 the meandering of the said high watermark. So the deed
11 for that Lot 6 established that it went to the main high
12 tide watermark.
13 Then the surveyor, the 2007 surveyor, looked
14 at the State Lands Commission Map, surveying the main
15 high tide, and on the note on that survey done in 1960,
16 it says "The mean high tide line is delineated at an
17 elevation of 2.02 feet above sea level."
18 The surveyor then converted that 2.02
19 elevation to that which Mr. Briggs mentioned, which is
20 an elevation using a different data but it's equivalent
21 of that which is used by the State Lands Commission to
22 4.06 or 64.
23 And then look at that elevation and determine
24 where the mean high tide line is so that the Lot 6
25 deed -- they can establish the main high tide. Does
221

1 that make sense? You go from the deed to the survey.
2 Then they updated the survey to use a different data.
3 It's an HB088 data. I don't understand that too much at
4 all, but maybe Errin might.
5 But it is the equivalent. Mr. Mittermiller
6 explained to me that that data is the same as was used.
7 It's the equivalent. So that's where they established
8 where the line was for the property.
9 MS. BURROWS: That supports the staff report
10 we have before us?
11 MS. SLUTZKY: Yes. Correct, correct.
12 MR. BIERIG: I have a question on that
13 because I -- you know, the trouble I'm finding here is
14 we have a theoretical calculation of mean high tide line
15 being used to generate the size of the parcel because it
16 is theoretical. It takes a slice in time. You don't
17 know how much sand's on the beach that day. It took a
18 slice in time.
19 I'll call it -- I won't call it anecdotal,
20 but I've been going to that beach for 30 years or more,
21 and I know what I see, and what I see doesn't conform
22 with a number. I can't tell you where it is, but it
23 does not conform with the number. So where do I go with
24 that?
25 MS. SLUTZKY: It's my understanding -- and I
222

1 think Errin knows more about this than I do -- it's not
2 a slice in time really. It is a mean over decades,
3 18 years.
4 MR. BIERIG: No, I understand that part, but
5 if it's being calculated by taking the elevation, it's
6 an elevation calculation. That means somewhere out
7 there there is an aerial survey that decided how high
8 the land was at that particular intersect point in the
9 tides.
10 MS. SLUTZKY: Based on 18 years data, though.
11 I know you weren't out there for 18 years, I'm sure.
12 MR. BIERIG: Am I going to believe the data,
13 or am I going to believe my own eyes?
14 MS. SLUTZKY: We do have the 1960 survey.
15 MR. BIERIG: I've dealt with surveys, but I
16 understand the -- maybe I don't understand. I'm still
17 struggling with how that calculates because what I just
18 heard is a theoretical calculation based on two feet
19 above sea level. So they've taken the sea level and
20 they've intersected with the slope of the beach and
21 decided where that happens.
22 MS. SLUTZKY: Yes.
23 MR. BIERIG: And as the beach changes, where
24 is that intersection?
25 MS. SLUTZKY: And that's why they have -- it
223

1 is a meandering.
2 MR. BIERIG: They didn't go out and measure
3 the beach. They just said two feet is where it
4 intersects.
5 MS. SLUTZKY: I think they measured the beach
6 for a period of 18 years.
7 MS. BLACK: Let's let Errin say something.
8 MR. BRIGGS: Chairman Bierig, we have the
9 surveyor from Penfield & Smith to talk about how they
10 came up with parcel size.
11 MR. BIERIG: Wonderful.
12 MR. YOKHAM: Mr. Chair, Members of the
13 Commission, my name is Pat Yokham of Penfield & Smith,
14 and after hearing the testimony this morning from the
15 surveyor staff and the county counsels comments, I'm in
16 agreement with how that calculation is made.
17 And to answer that question that in 1998 that
18 Somos, who is preparer of the base map and base topo --
19 that did run and independently confirm that calculation
20 for Parcel 6, and I agree with them in the methodolgy to
21 run it to the high water mark is that elevation of 2.0.
22 MR. BIERIG: So how do you determine where
23 2.20 intersects the beach?
24 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Where do you measure it
25 from?
224

1 MR. YOKHAM: That was done by an aerial
2 topographic method in 1998. So it's just running an
3 elevation. And today we could go out, and we could run
4 it, and a week from now run we could go out and run that
5 same elevation and perhaps maybe be within two or three
6 inches. And in the wintertime it might be in a
7 different position again by maybe a foot, maybe three
8 inches.
9 But we're always going to that same elevation
10 line which is the 2.0 feet, and that's where the title,
11 t-i-t-l-e, line runs to is to that mean high tide line,
12 and so it's a definitive boundary. It's certain. It
13 just -- over the 18.6 years that it's done, it is an
14 average.
15 MR. BIERIG: Right. I get all that. But
16 what happens when I take my tape measure and go down to
17 the beach and run it out 106 feet and I'm standing waist
18 deep in the water?
19 MR. YOKHAM: It depends on the tide. It
20 could be with a minus tide or a plus tide. If you'd
21 like to --
22 MR. BIERIG: Sure.
23 MR. PHILLIPS: Can he ever go out 116 feet on
24 any day and not be in the water?
25 MR. CARUSO: Right there (indicating).
225

1 MR. YOKHAM: Right what you're seeing in
2 front of you.
3 MR. BIERIG: So why don't you give us the
4 dimensions on those lines then?
5 MR. PHILLIPS: This is a photograph?
6 MR. YOKHAM: On the right-hand side, it's
7 shown as 104 feet, and then on the left-hand side it's
8 116. The date of that photo I presume is the same date
9 as when they did the topo which is 1998.
10 MR. BIERIG: Okay. And you're comfortable
11 this is accurate?
12 MR. YOKHAM: I'm comfortable. We
13 independently confirmed just taking the information the
14 other surveyor provided, and we reached the same
15 conclusion, and actually that would be the standard
16 methodolgy. You could ask another surveyor, and you'd
17 come up with the same answer.
18 MR. BIERIG: Okay. Good. Thank you. I
19 won't believe my eyes anymore.
20 Claire, did you want to ask questions on the
21 map?
22 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Yes. I do have a couple
23 questions on the map. I have another question
24 especially with regards to this issue here. So on this
25 parcel map here -- okay -- is Parcel 11 -- is that the
226

1 railroad parcel, or is that Mr. Caruso's parcel?
2 MR. BIERIG: Railroad.
3 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Parcel 11, the one that
4 runs either side is bisected by the -- bisected by the
5 railroad?
6 MR. BRIGGS: Mr. Chair,
7 Commissioner Gottsdanker, that is the railroad parcel.
8 MS. GOTTSDANKER: All of Parcel 11 is the
9 railroad parcel?
10 MR. BRIGGS: I believe so.
11 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Thank you. Parcel 11.
12 That's what I wanted to know.
13 Then this is a question for staff. And it
14 kind of takes us into maybe a little bit of the CEQA
15 issues and EIR's. My understanding from the documents
16 is that Parcel 6 or at least a portion of Parcel 6 was
17 not counted in the FAR net -- in the floor area ratio
18 calculations under the Schrager proposal. I mean that's
19 what the documents say. I can go right to -- let's see.
20 MS. ALMY: Mr. Chair, that's correct.
21 MS. GOTTSDANKER: It says "Exclude 60 feet of
22 beach easement." So there's a number of figures taken
23 out for the FAR calculations there. At least from --
24 and I'm not sure about this because in the Schrager
25 documents we don't have a list of the parcels per size
227

1 and per number in that document. So I have really no
2 way of knowing whether those were -- whether Parcel 11
3 was included in the Schrager thing.
4 So where I'm going here is that, if we are --
5 it's not. Okay. Thank you. If we are to then now say
6 that we are taking this project inside of CEQA and it is
7 comparable, my assertion is that it is not comparable,
8 and from staff or county counsel, how do I make it
9 comparable?
10 MR. PHILLIPS: Put it back in Schrager. Put
11 it into Schrager's plan.
12 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Put it into Schrager's plan
13 or take it out of this one?
14 MR. PHILLIPS: One or other.
15 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Given we're on questions
16 and answers, I think that maybe probably everybody knows
17 where I'm going; so I'll wait until we get to discussion
18 to bring up my --
19 MS. BLACK: Mr. Chair,
20 Commissioner Gottsdanker, I think, if I understand your
21 question -- I think there's kind of two questions in
22 there. One is are we comparing the same base parcel
23 when we calculate the FAR's? And the answer to that is
24 no.
25 MS. GOTTSDANKER: No.
228

1 MS. BLACK: That's clear. Did the Schrager
2 approval consider the development they proposed inside
3 of the railroad easement and any use of the beach? The
4 answer is yes. So yes, they did consider it. There's a
5 road crossing it. There was landscaping in the railroad
6 easement.
7 MS. GOTTSDANKER: But they did not count it
8 as part of the FAR calculations?
9 MS. BLACK: They did not count it as part of
10 their base parcel for FAR calculation. They did analyze
11 the effects of the use of those parcels in conjunction
12 with the hotel. So I think you were asking both those
13 questions.
14 MS. GOTTSDANKER: I was asking both those
15 questions. Thank you. And I just -- I'll wait until
16 later to say that.
17 MR. BIERIG: Commissioner Burrows.
18 MS. BURROWS: Before we leave the issue of
19 Parcel 6, of counsel I have a question. Would it be
20 correct to say that the methodolgy used by the surveyor
21 and by Penfield & Smith that is here today that resulted
22 in the 2.02 number -- is that a legally accepted
23 calculation -- methodolgy, I suppose?
24 MS. SLUTZKY: Mr. Chair,
25 Commissioner Burrows, yes, that's the methodolgy used by
229

1 the state lands to determine the boundary of those
2 properties along there. So that's -- they determine the
3 high watermark, and when a deed says it goes to that
4 mark --
5 MS. BURROWS: Then it goes to that mark.
6 MS. SLUTZKY: -- then it goes that mark that
7 has been established.
8 MR. BURROWS: So this body cannot dispute
9 that legal finding?
10 MS. SLUTZKY: Mr. Chair,
11 Commissioner Burrows, it would be very difficult for you
12 to counter the State Lands Commission survey. I can't
13 imagine how you might.
14 MS. BURROWS: Thank you.
15 MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chair, I want to follow up
16 on that. I will be done with it, or maybe I won't.
17 Assume if you would -- can anyone see that?
18 Assume that those cottages are fee simple. Mary Anne,
19 you own one of them. Can you draw a line straight down
20 to that mean high waterline and count it for FAR for
21 your new addition.
22 MS. SLUTZKY: One, they're on a different
23 parcel. They're on Parcel 4. So my property line will
24 only go to that boundary that's identified for
25 Parcel 4.
230

1 MR. PHILLIPS: You would never go -- I'm
2 talking about 6 and the cottages.
3 MS. SLUTZKY: The cottages are on a separate
4 parcel.
5 MR. PHILLIPS: Residential would be able
6 to -- I'm wondering why Schrager missed this.
7 MR. BIERIG: He didn't need it.
8 MS. BLACK: Mr. Chair, maybe I can answer
9 that question in a little bit of a different way. If
10 that -- if I had this parcel and my parcel boundary, my
11 legal title, went this far, yes, I could count the whole
12 thing.
13 MR. BIERIG: In other words, you could
14 resubsidize that and make those portions work.
15 Is the Penfield & Smith surveyor still here?
16 Could you get up another second? You don't by chance
17 have the parcel map, do you?
18 MR. YOKHAM: I do not.
19 MR. BIERIG: We've got it here. We can put
20 it on the overhead, and this is maybe partially for the
21 Applicant. You guys own an additional piece of
22 property. I shouldn't say "you guys." Parcel number --
23 and I can't tell what it is here.
24 Next to Parcel 4 there's a single-family home
25 that's outside the project boundary on the west, and one
231

1 thing I did notice was Parcel 11 extends in front of
2 that piece of property and is being included in the
3 area, but that parcel is not part of the project, and
4 it's a small amount. It really is kind of -- but it's
5 probably something we should clean up in terms of the
6 exhibit project discussion.
7 MS. BLACK: Are you talking about this area
8 right here (indicating)?
9 MR. BIERIG: Right. I'll just make that
10 note. It's so small I don't think it's material, but I
11 did remember that you guys own that piece next door, and
12 I'm not suggesting it needs to be merged anyway. I
13 think at least from a survey standpoint it was probably
14 an error.
15 MR. MIDDLEBROOK: We'd have to check. I
16 think it's part of Parcel 11. It just extends down. We
17 can check.
18 MR. BIERIG: I'm assuming it won't be used as
19 part of the landscaping. I know you're working on the
20 landscaping for the hotel, but you know, to the extent
21 we count Parcel 11 as part of the property, it seems
22 like it needs to be included as useable functional parts
23 of the development. Otherwise, you can just run it from
24 there to Los Angeles, and we won't have to worry about
25 this FAR stuff.
232

1 MR. MIDDLEBROOK: That's a good point. We'll
2 check that.
3 MR. BIERIG: Want to work on FAR's?
4 MS. GOTTSDANKER: I thought you wanted to
5 just do questions.
6 MR. BIERIG: We are. I'm picking topics.
7 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Do I have any more
8 questions on FAR? Let me check and see.
9 MR. BIERIG: I think the whole FAR discussion
10 relates -- we started off where we are. It seems to
11 me Parcel 6 and 11 is the only question mark. The only
12 thing I can see of any question is that little piece
13 there. I guess we have questions whether the
14 Miramar Avenue should be included. I don't know if
15 anybody wants to address anything on that.
16 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Well, Mr. Chairman, is the
17 question whether we're including or not including, or
18 are the questions about where they are and any questions
19 I might have about how they were defined?
20 MR. BIERIG: Right.
21 MS. GOTTSDANKER: You had indicated how you
22 wanted it to go right now was to have questions and a
23 period of questions. Now that's all I'm doing. I'm not
24 yet to the point of making any statements unless you
25 want me to start making statements as to how I think it
233

1 should go.
2 MR. BIERIG: No, please don't make any
3 statements.
4 MS. GOTTSDANKER: That's what I was trying to
5 find -- no, I don't have any other questions.
6 MR. BIERIG: I'm trying to come up with
7 categories for question.
8 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Okay. As to how FAR was
9 calculated and what was used and not used, I'm clear
10 what was used and not used now, and I have opinion
11 about --
12 MR. BIERIG: You'll understand my methodolgy
13 is to sort of start out with what's the project area and
14 then work back to -- the next related thing would be
15 what the FAR's are being calculated within that area.
16 MS. GOTTSDANKER: But that --
17 MR. BIERIG: Not calculation of them but
18 questions related to those. If you have questions on
19 them.
20 MS. GOTTSDANKER: No, I have no other
21 questions.
22 MS. BURROWS: In relation to the height of
23 walls, that's not FAR, I suppose.
24 MR. BIERIG: No. I do have a question related
25 to FAR's, and I have a note here, and frankly, I can't
234

1 remember, but code 35.10 -- and I think that's related
2 to P1, and maybe that's on the gross of the square
3 footage of the building.
4 I notice we have a -- we have a document
5 that's Exhibit L that refers to how to calculate net and
6 gross floor areas, and it seems to me that it's
7 different than the old exhibit that we have been given,
8 and I couldn't, when I went back, find the old exhibit.
9 But I did ask a question earlier today as to
10 whether L was the beginning and final determination of
11 how to determine FAR's within this zone district.
12 MS. BLACK: Mr. Chair, there's two --
13 MR. BIERIG: If there's something else we can
14 be looking at, maybe you can help me find it.
15 MS. BLACK: There's two sheets in Exhibit L
16 or Attachment L. The first one is the general
17 definitions of gross and net.
18 MR. BIERIG: Okay.
19 MS. BLACK: Then the next one might be what
20 you were thinking about which is in the Montecito
21 Community Plan overlay district. If you turn the page,
22 you should have the Montecito Community overlay district
23 in front of you. And that also includes the definition.
24 MR. BIERIG: Yes, I see. It looks like --
25 interesting. I seem to have the wrong number in my
235

1 notes. This is 35.202 is that definition.
2 This is where, I believe, the issue came up
3 exclusively for storage that I had raised. And what I
4 got from the memorandum is that's interpreted to mean --
5 maybe you can tell me how it's interpreted. You have
6 administrative interpretation that's different than the
7 language briefs here.
8 MS. BLACK: Mr. Chair, the way we interpret
9 it is any portion of the basement that is useable space,
10 habitable space -- in this case, I think it's a kitchen
11 and a laundry facility, a pretty small portion -- that
12 we simply exclude because the other result would be all
13 of the underground parking would count and it --
14 MR. BIERIG: Doesn't make sense.
15 MS. BLACK: -- seems like an absurd result.
16 MR. BIERIG: It was just such an definitive
17 that any exclusive --
18 MS. BLACK: I don't think that's the practice
19 we've held.
20 MR. BIERIG: That's countywide? That's how
21 you use it?
22 MS. BLACK: To the extent we have a
23 definition. We don't have floor area ratios in many
24 parts of the county but yes.
25 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Mr. Chair, maybe this would
236

1 be a place -- there was a public comment which a member
2 of the public said that in her estimation, because the
3 basement was out of the ground above grade, you know,
4 that it should be counted as a story.
5 You know, so we have not been counting this
6 as a story. I think we've actually counted it as a
7 basement, and because the Coastal -- I do believe the
8 Coastal code requires that buildings be two story, not
9 three, not four. I'm willing to give up No. 4.
10 But in order to get that clarified for
11 myself, given that what we're saying is a basement is
12 now above grade, even part of is above grading that's
13 being proposed, how do we make a determination that we
14 don't count that as a story?
15 MS. BLACK: That's a different question than
16 what I thought you were going to ask. I think what the
17 speaker said was it should count as FAR because -- and I
18 think that's just not correct. It's still a basement
19 whether --
20 MS. GOTTSDANKER: That's accurate. She did
21 tag on at the end of her statement the thing about
22 stories, and it also came up in some written
23 documentation we'd gotten in letters. I think it comes
24 up in the Coastal -- specifically in the Coastal Law
25 Group letter where they have -- I think it's in that
237

1 document where they have a similar question as to what
2 constitutes a story.
3 MR. BIERIG: I also,
4 Commissioner Gottsdanker, saw a reference in one of the
5 Montecito Association Commission's study papers that
6 they did early on that discussed maximum building
7 heights in Montecito and whether a story would count
8 the parking structure, and I don't know if that's
9 related to your question.
10 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Well, it is kind of because
11 in the Coastal Zoning we have ordinances that limit
12 buildings to two stories. We have height limits, and
13 then we have language that limits them to two stories.
14 So if this, quote, unquote, "basement" is
15 halfway out of the ground -- and you know, I don't know
16 how -- half? I don't know. At least on the inside of
17 the property, you know, it's considerably more than
18 halfway out of the ground. But certainly on Jameson,
19 there's a portion of it that's got windows in it. So
20 it's out of the ground. So does that constitute one
21 story of a building?
22 MR. BIERIG: Right. Depending on where you
23 measure it from, it's 100 percent out of the ground.
24 MS. GOTTSDANKER: That's accurate. So then
25 how can we -- then how do I -- I don't know what you
238

1 guys are going to do, but then how do I then say that
2 this is in compliance with our coastal ordinances given
3 that we now have identified, if we go that direction,
4 that we have a three-story building or a two-story
5 building?
6 MS. BLACK: Mr. Chair.
7 MR. BIERIG: Yes, please.
8 MS. BLACK: I've got to confess I'm not
9 exactly sure whether or not the speaker was factually
10 correct when I review the definition of a basement, and
11 maybe you can have the Applicant address this first, and
12 then we'll look into it. We're looking at it as well.
13 MR. BIERIG: We found a question staff
14 doesn't immediately know the answer to.
15 MS. BLACK: I don't see anyone jumping to the
16 mike.
17 MS. GOTTSDANKER: I'm really not interested
18 in the Applicant's definition. I'm sure the Applicant
19 has interpreted it a way that works for the Applicant.
20 I'm trying to get to what is staff's interpretation of
21 this, how has it been interpreted, and is it backed up
22 by county counsel?
23 That's all I'm trying to do. I'm trying to
24 figure out inside our ordinances to how this works. And
25 then I can question the Applicant on whether they
239

1 thought that it worked differently than the way I think
2 it works or the way you think it works.
3 MS. BLACK: Well, Mr. Chair, with all due
4 respect, if you want us to address it, then I'm going to
5 need a few minutes. If you'd like the Applicant to
6 address it and hear what they say --
7 MR. BIERIG: We can move on. I think one
8 thing that you might be able to tell us right now --
9 when we have things like this where we have the code
10 as -- the county code and when we have the Montecito
11 Community Overlay, the overlay takes precedent, does it
12 not?
13 I mean because I realize the language -- this
14 issue we've been dealing with forever where language is
15 different. I know we've a lot of time are trying to get
16 our language for the various codes in conformity.
17 But there's a great instance where the
18 definition on one is almost -- well, they're very
19 different. They may get to the same place, but they're
20 very different.
21 On FAR's I look here, and do I use the one
22 that says "Walkways and breezeways and plazas and
23 arcades all count as part of FAR"? Or do I use the one
24 that says they don't? Or is affordable housing in, or
25 is it out? I mean because we have the ability to
240

1 make -- I'm not saying we'll make any different
2 determination, but it would be nice to make sure
3 whatever we do here today lines up.
4 MS. BLACK: Mr. Chair, I think with respect
5 to FAR we read both definitions together.
6 MR. BIERIG: So you kind of merged them?
7 MS. BLACK: Uh-huh.
8 MR. BIERIG: Okay.
9 MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chair.
10 MR. BIERIG: I guess the only place I still
11 have a little discomfort with that -- and I think I'm
12 comfortable, but I struggle with some of the language
13 staff used to interpret it because I see things like
14 walkways and breezeways, and then I have corridors, and
15 one is in and one is out. I'm looking at Exhibit L.
16 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Page 367 or are you on a
17 previous page?
18 MR. BIERIG: I'm on Exhibit L in the staff
19 report, our memorandum.
20 MS. BLACK: Mr. Chair, I guess, when I look
21 at the definition of floor area ratio in the Montecito
22 overlay, it refers you to net floor area. So I go to
23 "net floor area" definition in the general Coastal
24 Zoning Ordinance because there is no definition here.
25 So I think that's how it weaves you back into the
241

1 general definition, and that's why.
2 MR. BIERIG: One of them has the gross of.
3 MS. BLACK: Right.
4 MR. BIERIG: Tells you what it should be.
5 MS. BLACK: Right.
6 MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chair, the Article II
7 issue is the distinct issue. How much of the basement
8 can be visible before it's a story? Something we
9 probably need to get to. If there's no direction, I
10 guess we just have to do a common-sense call, I guess.
11 MS. SLUTZKY: Mr. Chair, I'm going to get
12 Article II, and I hope I can provide you that direction.
13 Okay?
14 MS. ALMY: Mr. Chair, Commission, if I may
15 just read the definition of "basement," the definition
16 under Article II is "A basement is a story partly or
17 wholly underground. A basement shall be counted as a
18 story if more than one half of its height is above the
19 average level of the adjoining ground."
20 So it would be counted -- its definition it
21 says is inherently a story, but it's only counted as a
22 story if more than one half of it is aboveground.
23 MR. BIERIG: Can we --
24 MR. PHILLIPS: Fill a little bit more in.
25 MS. BLACK: So Mr. Chair, we have a section
242

1 that visually depicts a segment of this.
2 MR. BIERIG: How about Exhibit 5.03M? That
3 might be it. That's not the one. That one's not bad.
4 MR. BRIGGS: This is a good section used for
5 this discussion. This dashed line right here is the
6 existing grade.
7 MR. BIERIG: Right.
8 MS. GOTTSDANKER: So we have 50 percent above
9 existing grade.
10 MS. ALMY: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, I'll
11 import the fact that our height is now measured from
12 finished grade. You can see what finished grade is, and
13 it surrounds that garage area.
14 MS. BLACK: The definition doesn't talk about
15 existing grade. It's above the average level of the
16 adjoining ground. I think it's finished grade.
17 MR. BIERIG: I think it probably is as well.
18 Finished grade makes sense. But we can look at Jameson
19 as a potential method for measuring from since the rest
20 of it is fill because, if you put a building on top of a
21 hill, you can build it as tall as you want. Let's look
22 at 5.03M.
23 MS. BLACK: I do think it's important, while
24 looking at this, to realize that the definition says
25 "shall be counted as a story if more than one half of
243

1 its height is above the average level of the adjoining
2 ground." So I don't think we can just take one piece.
3 I think it's overall average.
4 MR. BIERIG: Right. We're being asked to
5 adjust what finished ground is as part of this project.
6 MR. PHILLIPS: That would be after grading.
7 MR. BIERIG: That would be after grading. So
8 we decide where the grades are, and we decide how high
9 it is.
10 MR. PHILLIPS: Is that garage right there,
11 the two windows?
12 MR. BIERIG: If we could pull back, I'm not
13 sure exactly what we're looking at here.
14 MS. GOTTSDANKER: We're looking at the top of
15 the sheet. We're looking without the main building in
16 this. We're looking at just the single story part of
17 the building.
18 Can you get us the whole elevation.
19 So the part that seems -- it's difficult to
20 read in reference to what you just said.
21 MR. BIERIG: You can't see the curb line.
22 MS. GOTTSDANKER: You can't see the curb line
23 on this, and it's there. That's what that little
24 writing is down at the bottom there.
25 MR. BIERIG: Do we have a pointer up here?
244

1 So I think that's about where it is down in
2 here (indicating). It's about the curb line of Jameson.
3 MR. PHILLIPS: What does that got to do with
4 it?
5 MR. BIERIG: Well, if you're standing on the
6 street in front of this.
7 MR. PHILLIPS: But Article II is about
8 elevation and visual impact, I think, and it's finished
9 grade that permits it. So he just has to cover -- make
10 sure half of it's covered, and that's it.
11 MR. BIERIG: Here's the issue I'm trying to
12 address. We can make finished grade whatever we want
13 to. We can build a mountain there, put a building on
14 top of it, and build it as high as you want. But that's
15 not a rational argument. So the only way I can come up
16 with to look at how to analyze this is from the street
17 as you're standing in front of it.
18 MR. PHILLIPS: That's not finished grade.
19 MR. BIERIG: What is?
20 MR. PHILLIPS: Finished grade is the result
21 of the project's grading, and I think Article II
22 visually shows 2 levels or 2 1/2 levels, I guess.
23 MR. BIERIG: Well, the finished grade on this
24 side is as a result of manipulation. That's a hard
25 word. It's got rational reasons, but I just want to
245

1 make sure we understand that what we're looking at here
2 on this side is 45 feet tall.
3 MS. ALMY: Mr. Chair, I can offer a little
4 information if you want, and again, I agree that
5 finished floor is a measure that we need to take into
6 consideration since our current ordinance does measure
7 height from finished grade -- finished grade into
8 consideration.
9 And I think that we all knew, when the new
10 height methodolgy was developed and adopted, that there
11 would be instances where this kind of banking would
12 occur.
13 But just for information purposes, the
14 finished floor of garage level P1 is 25.5 feet above
15 mean sea level. The roof is 37 feet. That's a little
16 lower than finished floor of the main lobby. The mid
17 point of the height of P1 31.25, and the average grade
18 around it is 33. So the mid point is 31, and the
19 average grade around it is 33. So the average grade
20 exceeds the mid point of that basement level.
21 MR. BIERIG: I'm not sure, Ms. Almy --
22 MS. ALMY: That didn't work out, did it?
23 MR. BIERIG: No, I'm not sure what you're
24 trying to tell me.
25 MS. ALMY: I think what I'm trying to look at
246

1 is is this a basement? Because I think we're talking
2 about a different thing.
3 MR. BIERIG: I think it's a basement. Yeah,
4 I think it's a basement.
5 MR. PHILLIPS: Is it an exposed basement? Is
6 it a story?
7 MR. BIERIG: I guess the question I'm asking
8 is a little different. Is it rational for the purpose
9 of measuring to start your zero point above that first
10 level of windows? Because that's the zero point for the
11 purpose of measuring. Well, that's the zero level on
12 that drawing.
13 MS. GOTTSDANKER: That's Level 1. That's the
14 finished floor.
15 MR. BIERIG: Level 0 is right there. So from
16 Jameson it's 15 feet in the air. So I'm not suggesting
17 we can't find a way to do this. I want to make sure we
18 all understand Level 1 on this building is 15 feet above
19 your head.
20 MR. PHILLIPS: And it could be higher.
21 MR. BIERIG: Well, if we allow them to pad it
22 up more, I'm suggesting it could be 100 feet higher. We
23 can make finished grade wherever we want to. So the
24 question is not where finished grade is. It's what's
25 rational and reasonable for us to allow as finished
247

1 grade?
2 I'm simply trying to look at it from the
3 perspective of, when somebody drives down the street,
4 does this building look 3 feet tall? 50 feet tall?
5 What's it going to look like? In this case it's going
6 to look 45 feet tall because that's how high it is above
7 your head. You can measure from wherever you want.
8 MR. PHILLIPS: We jumped over the grading
9 issue.
10 MS. GOTTSDANKER: We've gone another
11 direction then.
12 MR. BIERIG: Well, I sort of got talking.
13 I have a question for the Applicant on going
14 back to the issue of the FAR, and I realize you took out
15 the porte cochere, but I notice between this set of
16 plans and the last set of plans that the site coverage
17 for the main building went down by 46,000 feet.
18 MR. PHILLIPS: The spa went away too.
19 MR. BIERIG: No, this is just the main
20 building, and I think there may have been an error in
21 the measurement in the prior plan, but I just know the
22 porte cochere is at least part of it.
23 MR. MC MANNIS: Mr. Chairman and
24 Commissioners, my name is Michael McMannis with Caruso.
25 We updated the site lot coverage area and added two
248

1 additional sheets because, yes, the original calculation
2 of site coverage inappropriately suggested that the
3 entire footprint of the subbasement, this unit site
4 coverage -- none of it would be available for open
5 space.
6 MR. BIERIG: So you projected the basement up
7 to the surface.
8 MR. MC MANNIS: That's what we did
9 originally. Now we took on the two sheets, UCA002 and
10 003, I believe -- we analyzed per the definition of site
11 coverage and open space, what buildings cover, and what
12 structures cover and what's open space.
13 MR. BIERIG: Okay. That makes sense. Thank
14 you.
15 I still have lights messed up here.
16 Commissioner Gottsdanker.
17 Commissioner Phillips turned his light off.
18 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Do you have anywhere in our
19 documents or any -- and I think this would probably be
20 for Mr. Caruso's team -- any of the site plan grading,
21 wherever -- whatever you want to use that actually
22 locates the existing fire hydrants?
23 MR. MIDDLEBROOK: We have it as part of --
24 MS. GOTTSDANKER: It would be really great,
25 Matt, if it existed in this document because I'm getting
249

1 really old and my glasses don't work as well as they
2 used to. The bigger the document, the better I am.
3 MR. CARUSO: Why don't we look for it and get
4 back to you.
5 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Find it and -- thank you
6 very much.
7 MR. CARUSO: We'll get you the answer.
8 MR. BIERIG: Whatever you want to ask,
9 please.
10 MS. BURROWS: I have questions in regards to
11 the table 2.2, the site walls. Moving back to
12 All Saints Church, the western part of the property
13 between All Saints and sea -- the maximum wall height is
14 only three feet, eight inches, and the other one along
15 the southwestern property of All Saints is 2.1. It's a
16 step-over wall. These are the lowest -- have the least
17 height. Is there a reason why?
18 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Who are you asking the
19 question of, Sue?
20 MS. BURROWS: Whoever can answer it. The
21 Applicant maybe would be helpful, or no one knows?
22 MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Can you repeat that
23 question, please. I'm sorry.
24 MS. BURROWS: Yes. I'm on the site wall
25 table. The wall --
250

1 MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Are you looking at --
2 MS. BURROWS: I'm looking at this site wall
3 table, page B19.
4 MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Of the staff report?
5 MS. BURROWS: It has heights of the walls on
6 the site.
7 MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Is that page in the staff
8 report? If you could just direct me to where --
9 MS. BLACK: Original staff report.
10 MS. BURROWS: It fell out. I was reading it
11 last night, but it came in our most recent agenda. I'd
12 be happy to pass this to you.
13 MS. GOTTSDANKER: It came in the addendum
14 document.
15 MS. BURROWS: Page B19.
16 MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Okay.
17 MS. BURROWS: And I'm wondering why the walls
18 between the site -- the project and the church are lower
19 than the walls in any other part of the property?
20 MS. BLACK: This reference is in the original
21 staff report conditions of approval.
22 MS. BURROWS: Oh, it is. Oh, thank you.
23 MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Yeah, I believe it's simply
24 because of the grading at that juncture, and you know,
25 an even level wall -- and at that point the grade
251

1 changes. The church grade varies. Does that answer the
2 question?
3 MS. GOTTSDANKER: I think what
4 Commissioner Burrows may need here is that -- is that
5 that this is not actually a site wall like we have,
6 let's say, along Jameson where we've got the sound wall
7 that has a consistent top height. This actually is a
8 retaining wall because they're actually dropping that
9 end of the site and because the church property will not
10 be consistent and level with map --
11 MR. MIDDLEBROOK: With the proposed grade.
12 MS. GOTTSDANKER: -- with proposed grading.
13 Thank you, Matt -- with the proposed grading. It
14 actually is a wall that has a top height, but the bottom
15 height is actually changing as the grade changes.
16 So it's not like the six-foot wall,
17 Commissioner Burrows, between the church. It's actually
18 a low wall that just retains the soil for the church on
19 one side because Caruso Affiliated's property is
20 dropping on this side. So the church property is going
21 to be here (indicating), and Caruso property is going to
22 be here (indicating), wherever it is in relationship to
23 that.
24 Is that --
25 MR. MIDDLEBROOK: I couldn't have explained
252

1 it better. Yes, we're developing a relatively level
2 grade of about 38 feet on that edge of the property, and
3 so the retaining wall is exactly what the Commissioner
4 described.
5 MR. BIERIG: So that church ends up being
6 part of the cut? It drops down two feet, did you say?
7 MR. MIDDLEBROOK: The church grade doesn't
8 change. Our property changes.
9 MR. BIERIG: Excuse. I'm misspeaking.
10 You're property on your side?
11 MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Correct, correct. You can
12 sort of see it. It's attached to your final set plan,
13 the cut and fill map.
14 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Yeah, it's this one.
15 MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Correct.
16 MR. BIERIG: It's the last one.
17 MS. BURROWS: Mr. Chair, I have a number of
18 questions on CEQA for --
19 MR. BIERIG: I'd prefer to do that as a
20 wholly self-contained item. I know staff wishes to
21 address that. Maybe we can get out of the way any of
22 the physical -- make sure we understand the project,
23 first, before we jump into that.
24 Does anyone have any questions? I've got a
25 checklist of items here. Does anybody have any more
253

1 questions on FAR's?
2 Any questions that we need to determine on
3 setbacks?
4 MR. PHILLIPS: I have a question, an FAR
5 question, on Lot 11. As to methodolgy, is it that an
6 easement of any kind, a landscape easement, for
7 instance -- assume I had a landscape easement at my
8 home. My surrounding neighbors granted me the easement,
9 and I could keep it landscaped, and I want to build an
10 addition. Can I use that easement property for an FAR
11 calculation? Because I think that's what's happening
12 here.
13 MS. GOTTSDANKER: I don't think, I mean,
14 having sat on MBAR for as many years as I did. And you
15 know, county counsel may have something to say, but as I
16 recall, we never -- we would either deal with gross
17 square footage of the lot and net square footage of a
18 lot when we calculated the FAR calculations.
19 And the only difference that there was
20 between net and gross, as I remember how we operated
21 back then, was that because of the way our roads --
22 because in many cases our property lines go to the
23 center of our roads, that's what distinguishes the
24 difference between gross and net in most cases as far as
25 residential development is concerned.
254

1 And as far as how we would -- because it was
2 always a little wiggle room, we were more interested in
3 knowing what the net square footage of a lot was in
4 relationship to the numbers that are in our guidelines
5 because that was like -- we were after size, bulk, and
6 scale, and why would you count roads visually as part of
7 a lot because they're really not.
8 MR. PHILLIPS: So you wouldn't count the
9 landscape easement square footage?
10 MS. GOTTSDANKER: We would.
11 MR. PHILLIPS: For FAR?
12 MS. GOTTSDANKER: For FAR. We normally
13 would. Oh, not on an adjacent parcel. No, no, if a
14 single lot had --
15 MR. PHILLIPS: No, no, this would be --
16 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Somebody else's?
17 MR. PHILLIPS: Yeah.
18 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Oh, somebody else's?
19 MR. PHILLIPS: Assume it's the railroad, for
20 instance.
21 MS. GOTTSDANKER: No. So what you're
22 saying -- are you asking, though, if I've got this
23 neighbor and this neighbor and this neighbor has a view
24 easement or a landscape easement over a piece of
25 property that doesn't belong to him, would we count
255

1 that? No, we wouldn't. We would not count that.
2 MR. PHILLIPS: What if, within that planting
3 easement, landscape easement, I have the right to build
4 a shed on there for potting and shortage? Would that
5 change your view? Would you let me have that acreage or
6 square footage for FAR calculation?
7 MS. GOTTSDANKER: That's not in relationship
8 to FAR because sheds and whatever you're referring are
9 not part of residential FAR calculation. We don't use
10 it.
11 MR. PHILLIPS: Does it make my easement
12 different if I have the right to build on it?
13 MS. GOTTSDANKER: That's a county counsel
14 question. You'll have to go to her for that. That's a
15 legal issue.
16 MR. PHILLIPS: I think that's what's
17 happening here. I think we need to look to residential
18 for precedence because that's what we're comparing as
19 we're doing an FAR residential calculation.
20 MR. BIERIG: I don't think necessarily --
21 MS. BLACK: No, Mr. Chair, we're not doing a
22 residential FAR calculation. That's not what we are
23 doing. We provided that information in our memo because
24 Commissioner Gottsdanker asked for it for comparison
25 purposes. I'm not sure why.
256

1 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Because I wanted to know.
2 MS. BLACK: Because she wanted to know. But
3 that's not the calculation we're using, and it's not the
4 comparison we're making. We're making it based on
5 definitions in the Coastal Zoning Ordinance and the
6 overlay. So I think this is a matter of
7 interpretation --
8 MR. BIERIG: Would you remind us again of
9 the -- of how you achieved your interpretation using
10 Lot 11.
11 MS. BLACK: We included the portion -- well,
12 we included Lot 11 because Lot 11 excludes the railroad
13 proper because we found it to be an integral part of the
14 development, and it's subject to interpretation.
15 If you look at the definition of floor area
16 ratio, it says that you divide the square footage you
17 come up with under that definition by the sum of the net
18 lot area of all parcels included in the development
19 plan. Our interpretation was that's included in the
20 development plan. But I will not stand here and say to
21 you you couldn't make a different interpretation.
22 MR. BIERIG: So the analysis was this lot,
23 although not owned by the developer -- it's part of its
24 development plan and, therefore, could be calculated.
25 MS. BLACK: Because they're using it for
257

1 landscaping and other --
2 MR. BIERIG: Other interpretations.
3 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Well, you want to notice
4 Ms. Black used the word "net."
5 And this goes back to your question,
6 Commissioner Phillips. We're just going to have to
7 decide whether an easement is part of --
8 MR. BIERIG: I think we do. And the one
9 other place I can see -- and maybe staff can help me out
10 on this, but when we have a residential -- I'll just
11 refer to residential because that's most of what we
12 do -- we don't count any of the area that might be
13 landscaped as part of the project because it's actually
14 part of the street right of way.
15 MS. BLACK: Mr. Chair, the definition -- and
16 I don't know that this is going to really help you --
17 the definition of "net lot area" is "the gross lot area
18 minus any area lying within the public street."
19 MR. BIERIG: Read that to us again.
20 MS. BLACK: "Gross lot area minus any area
21 lying within a public street."
22 MR. PHILLIPS: That's it?
23 MS. BLACK: So that's what I'm saying.
24 MR. BIERIG: But lying within a public street
25 means within the right of way of the street?
258

1 MS. BLACK: Correct.
2 MR. BIERIG: It's not the paved section?
3 MS. BLACK: That's correct.
4 MR. BIERIG: Commissioner Overall.
5 MR. OVERALL: I would just like to clarify
6 the railroad easement areas are not zoned commercial in
7 the survey.
8 MS. BLACK: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Overall,
9 I believe they're zoned TC which is transportation
10 corridor.
11 MR. BIERIG: Commissioner Gottsdanker.
12 MS. GOTTSDANKER: I'm going to go to a simple
13 site plan question for Mr. Caruso and team. I know at
14 the last hearing I asked you where the ADA ramp is, and
15 you told me that it was there, and I actually did find
16 it.
17 But what I don't see either on the landscape
18 plan, which is where I've actually looked or any of the
19 pathway plans -- once someone -- and Mr. Middlebrook,
20 you indicated that, yes, there was an ADA ramp and what
21 it allows for was access to the boardwalk.
22 I don't get quite how that happens given that
23 the ADA ramp comes down off of the access road that goes
24 to that parking lot and then it kind of climbs down.
25 I'm assuming the ocean side of the railroad property --
259

1 and it appears to, at least as far as I can determine,
2 dead end at the back of the beachfront cottages, and I
3 see no access around the beachfront cottages that would
4 allow anybody in a wheelchair to get to the boardwalk.
5 Anybody clear what I'm talking about here?
6 I'm just -- it's right there. You know, you had it
7 right there. So that's my question. How would you
8 propose anybody in a wheelchair is going to get around
9 that building to get to the boardwalk?
10 MR. MIDDLEBROOK: We'll get right back to you
11 on that.
12 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Gee, they seem to not want
13 to talk to me, getting back to me on a lot of stuff.
14 Oh, while we're in that area -- and you
15 say -- the restrooms that are designated on your site
16 plan right at the foot of the ADA plan, those are the
17 public restrooms you've indicated are available to the
18 public.
19 MR. MIDDLEBROOK: That's correct.
20 MS. GOTTSDANKER: And is there going to be
21 any way of informing the public that comes along the
22 beach that there are going to be restrooms to use? I
23 mean they're kind of hidden. I would never think to
24 climb up onto your boardwalk and walk around the back of
25 your building looking for a public restroom.
260

1 And you've said that a number of times that
2 you're giving that to the community. So I'm just trying
3 to figure out how anybody in the community is going to
4 really know you can get there.
5 MR. CARUSO: Commissioner, we're happy to put
6 signage on the boardwalk if that's what you would like.
7 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Thank you. So nice to see
8 you today. You have not said very much today.
9 MR. CARUSO: I've got such a capable staff I
10 don't need to say very much. I'd also say on the ADA
11 ramp handicap access is a very important thing to us.
12 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Yeah, for me too.
13 MR. CARUSO: And obviously we have to comply
14 with ADA, which we do on all of our properties. So I
15 don't know the particular answer to this. We'll get it
16 for you, but we will make sure we're fully compliant
17 with the ADA, fully compliant with somebody who is in a
18 wheelchair or otherwise handicapped to be able to get
19 down to the boardwalk to enjoy it. That's our goal. So
20 the plan may not be as clear as it should, but I
21 certainly promise to you that it will be handled in the
22 appropriate manner.
23 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Great. I really get that.
24 Thank you.
25 This brings me to a question that I have sort
261

1 of -- I don't know. Anybody can answer it that wants to
2 answer it. This is a procedural question. We're being
3 asked to -- we've got a number of actions asked to take
4 today.
5 So if we move in the direction of approving a
6 project with the conditions and making the findings, are
7 we, in fact, approving written documents, or are we
8 approving as part of the project this (indicating)?
9 MS. BLACK: Mr. Chair and
10 Commissioner Gottsdanker, both. Both. You are
11 approving the project plans as you may request that they
12 be amended.
13 MS. GOTTSDANKER: That's the procedure then
14 is that I now go through, and everywhere where I have a
15 problem that these plans -- where I find inconsistencies
16 in the plans, like we just dealt with, where Mr. Caruso
17 stood and said -- okay. So then I don't have that on a
18 set of plans. So I can't approve this set of plans
19 today.
20 MS. BLACK: It's the plan -- sorry.
21 Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Gottsdanker, the plans as you
22 might amend them or request that they are corrected.
23 They don't have to come with the exact plan sheets for
24 you to approve. That's a very common practice.
25 MS. GOTTSDANKER: And then who assures that
262

1 that's going to actually happen?
2 MS. BLACK: We do. We follow through with
3 your action letter like we do with compliance with any
4 other condition of approval. It's what we do.
5 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Oh, I'm going to be nice.
6 MR. BIERIG: There's no requirement to have
7 final anything as long as we've given sufficient data
8 you understand what you're looking for.
9 MS. BLACK: As long as it's clear what you
10 are approving.
11 MS. GOTTSDANKER: I'm not going to be so
12 nice. Mr. Chair, I'm going to jump in here. I'm sorry.
13 I can't step over this at this point. I've had a
14 problem with the preparation of this project. I've had
15 a problem with determinations that have been made, and
16 I've had a huge problem as the way the information has
17 been delivered to us -- piecemeal, huge amounts of it,
18 inaccurate information, information that gets adjusted
19 at the public hearing when the questions are asked, like
20 where are fire hydrants after all of that whole thing
21 about water.
22 So I'm having a problem with the idea of
23 approving a project that's now going to be left up to
24 the Applicant and staff to say, "It's the way it's
25 supposed to be," because that hasn't been happening.
263

1 And it kind of puts me in a really awkward position. Do
2 I say at this point that I recommend all documents come
3 back to us before the final development permits are
4 issued? I really don't know.
5 But I can't step over the way this project
6 has been managed. I really can't at this point. I've
7 been trying for two hearings to do that, and I no longer
8 can step over it when I don't have anything to say about
9 what actually is -- what this document is going to look
10 like.
11 MR. BIERIG: Maybe we ought to save part of
12 this, and I feel your pain, having also waded through
13 all the stuff. But please don't make us read it before
14 the end.
15 MS. GOTTSDANKER: How can we do our job?
16 MS. BLACK: Mr. Chair, that's why I indicated
17 that the direction needs to be clear. If you don't
18 think you can get clear enough direction, fine. Ask for
19 revised plans.
20 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Okay. Fine.
21 MR. BIERIG: I think we can. I hope we can.
22 Why don't you jump in for whatever gets you
23 that you want to get into?
24 MR. OVERALL: There were some unanswered
25 questions from this morning. I asked the question about
264

1 what the variables were that were considered in the
2 prepared hotel in both ITE and "UIL" studies, and I
3 don't think we have an answer on that yet.
4 MR. CARUSO: Commissioner, we have our
5 traffic engineer here. If you would like, we can have
6 him answer that question for you.
7 MR. OVERALL: Yeah.
8 MR. CARUSO: We did submit the location of
9 fire hydrants to staff. That is in the book. Thank
10 you. Unfortunately not on a large sheet.
11 MS. GOTTSDANKER: It's okay. I can figure it
12 out. There's not too much else there.
13 MR. SHELL: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, good
14 afternoon. I'm Scott Shell with Associated
15 Transportation Engineers. I've got bunch of notes here
16 on traffic and parking. I'll start with
17 Commissioner Overall's question.
18 The ITE report was used for the traffic
19 analysis. So that's not to be confused with the ULI
20 shared parking subject. There are two different reports
21 that were used.
22 The ITE report contains studies of hotel
23 facilities that are similar to the Miramar. They have
24 restaurants and bars and conference facilities,
25 recreational facilities, such as pools and fitness
265

1 centers. They contain retail shops and so forth.
2 So the way the ITE report works is they study
3 those hotels, they count them, and then they develop a
4 rate per room. So we used that rate per room to, first,
5 analyze the Schrager proposal, and then we used it to
6 analyze the Caruso proposal, and then we compared the
7 two answers to see if there were any changes in the
8 traffic statistics.
9 MR. OVERALL: Mr. Shell, I understood that
10 before, but the indication was that there are some 35
11 hotels that were wrapped up in this study. What I'm
12 trying to get to is I'm trying to understand whether or
13 not the hotels you're comparing it with are actual
14 comparable hotels in comparable settings. So I'll ask
15 again I'd like to understand what the variables are that
16 separate one hotel from another.
17 MR. SHELL: As I stated, I gave you the
18 description right from ITE. I basically read it what
19 those hotel studies included. They included all of the
20 same kind of amenities. They also provide some
21 information on the number of employees. I know that was
22 a question that came up repeatedly.
23 The ITE report estimates that the hotel
24 industry and the hotels studied would have .9 employees
25 per room. If we apply that statistic to the Miramar
266

1 number of rooms, you get 100 and -- I have it written
2 down here somewhere -- 183 -- 184 employees.
3 So if you were to just say average ITE hotel,
4 what was its employee factor? We'd have 184. If you
5 said what kind of facilities does the average ITE hotel
6 have, I read those to you. It gives a little bit more
7 flavor to the data.
8 It says these are collected in predominantly
9 suburban areas so we don't go get urban hotels that have
10 a high significant number of taxi trips or something
11 like that. This is a sort of setting where people drive
12 to hotels.
13 That's about as much information as you can
14 get from the ITE resource document. It doesn't say, "We
15 studied this specific hotel in the resource materials."
16 You have to actually get online and do quite a bit of
17 research to find that out.
18 MR. OVERALL: Do you want to go on to the
19 "UIL"?
20 MR. SHELL: ULI, that's Urban Land Institute,
21 and they published the shared parking book. Their
22 reference materials indicate that they included four
23 resort hotels in the studies of parking. They state the
24 hotels are full-service facilities that contain the same
25 type of amenities as described in the ITE reports. So
267

1 they sort of go back and forth reference each other --
2 so conference facilities, restaurants, and bars, et
3 cetera.
4 They also indicate that their analysis
5 assumes a 100 percent drive worst case assumption plan
6 for guests. They don't assume any guests take a cab,
7 take a limo, take a train.
8 It also indicates they assume 100 percent
9 occupancy of all the rooms to do their assessment, and
10 they even state in the document that they consider a
11 worst case estimate of parking demands for the
12 facilities.
13 MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chair.
14 Mr. Shell, have you -- one of the things
15 we're looking at -- I think it was proposed in staff's
16 report -- was that we take a look at some of these
17 parking issues later, six months down the road, a year
18 down the road. You're involved -- in every major
19 project I've seen you've been the man, and I'm sure you
20 do this all over country.
21 Have you ever seen a planning commission have
22 any effective after-the-fact input on parking? Have you
23 ever seen it change dramatically and perhaps cure a
24 problem that maybe, not you overlooked, but was
25 overlooked somehow?
268

1 MR. SHELL: You know, I haven't been involved
2 in a project that had detailed parking monitoring
3 required by the planning commission. I'm doing one
4 right now for you, and we'll be bringing that
5 information to you sometime in the near future for
6 Music Academy.
7 MR. PHILLIPS: And Westmont.
8 MR. SHELL: We haven't started that, but the
9 Music Academy is up and operational, and we have done
10 the parking surveys.
11 MR. PHILLIPS: Remember the drive-through
12 study we were looking forward to getting? Remember
13 that?
14 MR. SHELL: I do. We will be bringing some
15 information to you, and you will have the opportunity to
16 look at that data and to initiate changes to submit on
17 that project, and I'm assuming that we can do the same
18 thing here. There are conditions that require
19 monitoring for the parking situation on this hotel.
20 MR. PHILLIPS: It was somewhat rhetorical.
21 Thank you.
22 MR. BIERIG: Commissioner Burrows.
23 MS. BURROWS: This morning we had a
24 discussion on that there might be a better way for the
25 public parking than backing up to Jameson now as
269

1 proposed that it's vertical. Is there a reason why or
2 would it work to make that parking horizontal so that it
3 would have a higher degree of safety in terms of the
4 cars coming south on Jameson and people walking behind
5 the cars?
6 MR. SHELL: Well, as we all know, the angled
7 parking has been present on South Jameson in front of
8 Miramar forever. The parking was approved as part of
9 the Schrager plan. It relied on that parking to provide
10 public access.
11 And the way that the engineers looked at that
12 and designed that was to, first, provide the parking
13 spaces and then to provide a buffer area behind the
14 parking spaces. And this is a common deign for angled
15 parking.
16 So what the buffer does is it gives, A, the
17 bicyclist and/or pedestrian room to travel and to be
18 seen by a motorist who is backing in and out. It also
19 provides an area so that the motorist, as he's backing
20 out, can look beyond a car next to him before he enters
21 the travel way.
22 So it's really the design of the road and
23 buffer area that allows those kinds of angled parking
24 spaces to work. I did quick measurements upstairs when
25 this item was being discussed this morning, and we have
270

1 about 32 feet that I measured behind the parking stall.
2 So that gives us an extra 10 feet of room
3 when you get out, about a 10- or 11-foot travel way
4 section for the two-lane road. So I think we have
5 enough room there to accommodate it, and it really has
6 been there forever and has worked fairly well.
7 The City of Santa Barbara is looking at some
8 new concepts of potentially using back-in angled
9 parking. County hasn't done any of that that I see yet.
10 I see Mr. Stewart here.
11 I think the County just initiated some angled
12 parking in Summerland, didn't we?
13 So it's something that we're doing. I can
14 tell you that Summerland carries quite of a bit more
15 traffic than the angled parking section than would
16 Jameson even with the hotel. Just some thoughts.
17 MS. BURROWS: So it's your opinion what's
18 proposed is the best way to handle the parking there on
19 Jameson?
20 MR. SHELL: It's certainly much more in the
21 way of supply than if you went to parallel parking, and
22 parallel parking -- if you think about it, when you
23 parallel park into a spot, you stop in the road. Just
24 going De La Vina I'd have somebody stop or Anacapa
25 Street.
271

1 So whether -- the angled person doesn't block
2 traffic when he gets in. So at least he's got that
3 going for you. He blocks when he gets out; the parallel
4 guy blocks when he gets in. So there's a trade off how
5 you provide that, but really you lose a lot of supply if
6 you go to straight parallel system, and I think that's
7 why the angles retained there.
8 MR. BIERIG: Commissioner Phillips.
9 MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
10 Mr. Shell, did you study the valet parking
11 issue? Was that part of your task?
12 MR. SHELL: No. We gave it quite a bit of
13 thought after the conference this morning. The key to
14 remember is that there are going to be two valet
15 entrances to the garage. So your concern about having
16 an event overwhelm the capacity of the entry and spill
17 traffic onto the road really wasn't considered in that
18 light. I don't have a laser here, but if we look at the
19 plan, we can see --
20 MR. PHILLIPS: Any studies on how quickly it
21 takes to clear 500 cars arriving?
22 MR. SHELL: So let me just finish that one
23 thought, and I'll get right to that. But we have valet
24 entrance here (indicating). We also have one back here.
25 So when the -- particularly when the banquet is being
272

1 used for the event, this is where the cars will be
2 directed, the back entrance (indicating).
3 MR. PHILLIPS: So you will direct them beyond
4 that first line, and all of them are going in the back
5 way?
6 MR. SHELL: You can use both.
7 MR. PHILLIPS: You can use both.
8 MR. SHELL: Yeah. So really there's going to
9 be valet service and a valet management plan that is
10 going to be put in place to manage the system. And I
11 kept sort of thinking -- people keep saying 500. Well,
12 that's 500 people. So when we convert that to cars, we
13 have to look at a couple factors. One, we say there's
14 going to be a certain portion of the event attendees who
15 are at the hotel. In our work we're pretty concerned
16 that we use the 30 percent interaction factor.
17 MR. PHILLIPS: Well, there's more than 500
18 people. There's 300 proposed for the beach club and
19 tennis club. That's memberships. Some families have
20 five cars. There's potentially 1,000 people arriving at
21 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon.
22 MR. SHELL: I believe for an event you can
23 have 600 --
24 MR. PHILLIPS: That's one event, but there's
25 other things happening, and everyone's being valeted.
273

1 MR. SHELL: So if I just we stick to the, we
2 say 600 people or 500 people. That equates to a couple
3 hundred cars, 200, 250. So that's what we would have to
4 handle for that event.
5 The double-valet system that's being proposed
6 would do that, I think, with ease. I think that that
7 level of arrival within a half-hour period can be
8 handled with the system that we're looking at here.
9 I guess, if you were to say all the beach
10 club members would also arrive at the same 10-minute,
11 15-, 20-minute period as the event and all the hotel
12 guests suddenly came back at the same time too, who's to
13 say -- that just doesn't sound like something that's
14 going to occur. We have events that are going to happen
15 at a pretty specific time. During that period you'll
16 have a smattering of other activity that's occurring.
17 MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you.
18 MR. BIERIG: Mr. Shell, I raised the issue
19 earlier today -- something you might address -- having
20 100 percent valet paid parking and how that might impact
21 the neighborhood, which I'm convinced it will. Can you
22 think of any way we can mitigate or help with that.
23 MR. SHELL: We've heard some discussions
24 about --
25 MR. BIERIG: I'm not relating this to the
274

1 number of spaces. I'm relating to people's reticence to
2 pay to park and give somebody their keys to their car
3 and all the other things that go on.
4 MR. SHELL: I'm almost going to defer to
5 Ms. Black. She had a pretty good answer this morning.
6 Sort of the anecdotal Biltmore, when I go for brunch, I
7 don't go park on Butterfly and walk over. I bring my
8 car up, and I go in. We haven't seen sort of the valet
9 operation there create the big spill over.
10 I think the management and the striping and
11 signing of the spaces, the public spaces, on
12 South Jameson is going to be the key to making it work.
13 The Coastal Commission has provided input and wanted
14 certain striping and restrictions and signing of those
15 spaces. So it really is signing and enforcement that
16 will make that -- and monitoring will make that work.
17 MR. BIERIG: Can you discuss the number of
18 spaces that are being removed on Miramar Avenue.
19 MR. SHELL: Just happen to have a note sheet
20 for that one.
21 MR. BIERIG: Was I correct about 1,000 linear
22 feet? I'm counting both sides.
23 MR. SHELL: Yeah. There's what -- we had
24 done and asked to do for the analysis was, again,
25 compare the public parking that was provided under the
275

1 Schrager plan with the public parking that was going to
2 be provided under the Caruso plan.
3 So for the Schrager plan, the way they had it
4 designed there was going to be 24 public parking spaces
5 on Miramar, and there was going to be 44 public parking
6 spaces on South Jameson Lane. So the total supply under
7 the Schrager plan 68 spaces.
8 Not one to have impact on public parking or
9 beach access, the current Caruso plan provides that same
10 number of spaces. They are oriented a little
11 differently. There's more on South Jameson and the ones
12 on Miramar were relocated to Eucalyptus. I have dug up
13 some plans from on the approved Schrager --
14 MR. BIERIG: I know there's a table. Can you
15 direct us where that table is of the parking spaces.
16 MR. SHELL: Sounds like a staff question.
17 MR. BIERIG: No, I think it's in your
18 material. I could be wrong. It could be in the staff
19 report. You know, we've got so many documents here.
20 It's hard to remember which report is in which piece of
21 paper, but I know I saw a comparison between Miramar
22 original, Schrager, and Caruso.
23 MS. BLACK: Yes. Mr. Chair, I think that's
24 in Attachment B1, page 23.
25 MR. BIERIG: Attachment B.
276

1 MS. BLACK: If that's -- the original staff
2 report. I'm sorry. In the conditions of approval
3 attached to the original staff report. Sorry. If
4 that's the table you're talking about. That's the full
5 comparison, and that particular page contains comparison
6 on parking.
7 MR. BIERIG: And that's B?
8 MS. BLACK: B1, dash, 23. So it's the first
9 set of conditions.
10 MR. BIERIG: It is here. I think it's
11 somewhere else as well, but this will work. So what I'm
12 looking at here is I've got the south side of Jameson.
13 So we've gone from 44 spaces to 58 spaces on Jameson,
14 south side, and then we've added another -- so that's
15 the 24. Is that how we're analyzing? Eucalyptus gives
16 us 10, and by redirecting the angled parking on
17 South Jameson, we come up with another 14. And between
18 the two, it equates to the 24. Is that the analysis
19 that we've come out even?
20 MS. BLACK: Mr. Chair, yes.
21 MR. SHELL: That's correct.
22 MR. BIERIG: And the -- I guess the start of
23 my -- is 24 a real number?
24 MS. BLACK: Lost spaces on Miramar Avenue.
25 MR. SHELL: I did quite a bit of research --
277

1 MR. BIERIG: 1,000 linear -- you know, on
2 average a 20-foot car -- and probably you don't set them
3 up that way. There's little cars, big cars -- that's 50
4 odd spaces, and where I'm getting to is just are we
5 going to have a commensurate amount of parking. Forget
6 where it's located. That's the end of my question.
7 MR. SHELL: That's a couple-part question.
8 So just for your information and -- the county's code
9 requirement for parking -- a parallel parking spot is
10 23 feet. So you were pretty close to that. So if you
11 were to go out and lay it out, you lay them out in
12 23-foot increments.
13 I've looked at several of the Schrager plans,
14 and I really couldn't figure out which of the ones that
15 I had on file was the one that ultimately got approved,
16 but several of the iterations of the Schrager plan
17 utilized a portion of the Miramar Avenue right of way
18 for private parking.
19 They had head-in stalls on a fairly good
20 portion of the road that they were using to count as
21 private spaces, and then they had maybe two thirds of
22 the road that was open for public parallel spots. It's
23 kind of accommodation looking. But of course, when you
24 have a driveway or curbs or anything like that -- you
25 have red zones too to provide site distance to fire
278

1 hydrants. So you lose some efficiency. Everything that
2 I put together came from the specifications of the
3 approval and approval documents that I had.
4 MR. BIERIG: One last item while you're here,
5 there's a concern that's been expressed a couple times
6 relative to the safety of walking behind those angled
7 parking spaces, not just for backing out the cars but
8 pedestrian safety.
9 And I know we have an exhibit that's been up
10 a number of times today showing the access through the
11 project, the dedicated access.
12 There we go. Okay. That's what I wanted to
13 see. So if there was the facility to add the safe
14 passage in front of the cars, they could still be able
15 to come through -- I'm worried about people coming
16 around on Eucalyptus. It's a long ways to go walking
17 down the middle of the street to get to the beach.
18 MR. MC MANNIS: Chair, Commissioners,
19 Michael Mc Mannis from Caruso. We would be prepared to
20 slide that wall slightly down to put a sidewalk on the
21 south side on those angled stalls if that's what you so
22 chose.
23 MR. BIERIG: To create more space. Is there
24 a particular reason why you direct -- and maybe we can
25 address this access issue. Is there a particular -- no,
279

1 go ahead.
2 MR. MIDDLEBROOK: The reason being is that
3 there is an existing public access point here to the
4 beach. And so what we've done -- this was an exhibit
5 that we actually prepared for the Coastal Commission
6 staff. It has to do with signage. So we would sign to
7 all the public access parking spaces, the different
8 routes to public access points on the beach.
9 We would just inform people that they could
10 go through the property or that there was a public
11 access point at the beach to direct them in that
12 direction. They can choose whichever way they wanted to
13 go.
14 But since there's an existing beach -- well,
15 also there's actually 13 additional public parking
16 spaces at this end of Jameson, which will be signed to
17 be able to either go through this public access route,
18 or we would sign that would direct them -- making them
19 aware there's a public access point on Posilipo. So it
20 would be up to them as to which way they wanted to go.
21 MR. BIERIG: Are these dedicated access? Is
22 that the concept? These are legally -- I mean it's a
23 practical matter. Once people come on there, they'll
24 wonder where they want to go. Hopefully not plop down
25 on your lounge chairs.
280

1 MR. MIDDLEBROOK: We've committed -- we've
2 actually submitted legal descriptions to the County in
3 response to comments of the Coastal Commission at their
4 request have committed to providing dedicated public
5 access pathways along both of those routes through the
6 property.
7 MR. BIERIG: Okay. Thank you. I think
8 Commissioner Gottsdanker had her light on first.
9 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Mr. Middlebrook, come back
10 up or anybody from over there. These are dedicated and
11 signed, but is there anything that once somebody comes
12 around the lanai building and gets to that first black
13 arrow after they leave your entrance driveway -- if
14 someone at that point --
15 MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Right there (indicating).
16 MR. GOTTSDANKER: Yeah, right. If somebody
17 at that point were to want to turn into the stores, the
18 shops, which are right there -- there's a little
19 cluster -- could they then come down that path and
20 through the shops and on through the rest of the site
21 and hook up with -- even though it's not signed and not
22 dedicated, anybody would still be able to do that;
23 right?
24 MR. SHELL: Yes.
25 MS. GOTTSDANKER: It's unobstructed. There's
281

1 no gates they have to go through or anything. I haven't
2 seen anything on the plans.
3 MR. SHELL: Correct. We also told the
4 Coastal Commission this area through here, though it
5 wouldn't be a dedicated access way, that it would be --
6 we would have signage letting people know the direction
7 to the beach.
8 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Given human nature, I can't
9 imagine that anybody isn't going to be attracted by the
10 little shops and would want to go there on their way.
11 MR. MIDDLEBROOK: One would hope.
12 MR. BIERIG: Commissioner Burrows.
13 MS. BURROWS: I wanted to move onto the beach
14 and tennis club. I don't know if we want to move there.
15 Are we ready for that? As I understand it --
16 MR. BIERIG: Thank you, Mr. Shell. By the
17 way, staff did mention -- I see it's getting on 5:00
18 o'clock, and I know some of your department people would
19 enjoy going home. If we have issues related to
20 drainage, we might want to do those now.
21 MS. BLACK: Mr. Chair, I think the only
22 person who needs to leave perhaps relatively soon is our
23 Clean Water person, but I still haven't heard anybody
24 have a lot of questions about that issue.
25 MR. BIERIG: It doesn't look like it. So the
282

1 drainage issues that come up later, we'll still have
2 somebody then?
3 MS. BLACK: Mr. Stewart will be here.
4 MR. BIERIG: Mr. Stewart, can you address
5 those issues as well?
6 MR. STEWART: The clean water issue?
7 MR. BIERIG: We've gotten tremendous amounts
8 of testimony regarding the creek.
9 MR. STEWART: I would have to repeat what
10 Tom Fayram has said previously that they accepted the
11 report and are satisfied with it. I don't have a lot of
12 new information on that.
13 MS. BLACK: Mr. Chair --
14 MR. BIERIG: I'm not suggesting there are
15 questions. I'd just hate to get down the road and have
16 somebody say --
17 MS. BLACK: -- I want to remind the
18 Commission at the last hearing we did have Mr. Fayram
19 testify. I don't think we received anything new of
20 substance. There is something in your packet for
21 today's hearing from, I think, Mr. Fayram.
22 MR. BIERIG: I did see something come in
23 today that I think was on the subject, but it's not part
24 of our record --
25 MS. BLACK: Not today; right?
283

1 MR. BIERIG: -- because it came in today.
2 I haven't read it.
3 MS. BLACK: At some point we need to discuss
4 that but --
5 MR. BIERIG: Okay. We can move on.
6 Please go ahead.
7 MS. BURROWS: No problem. I'd like to speak
8 about the beach and tennis club. I understand that
9 you're request increased the membership to 300 people.
10 That I would like to propose that we phase that in in
11 some way.
12 Another issue is, as I understand it, the
13 family and friends of the members will be welcomed. And
14 is there any limitation on the number? Could I go there
15 with my 12 kids, grandkids, and cousins? How are we
16 going to manage that? Because I can see the whole area
17 becoming very congested.
18 MR. MIDDLEBROOK: We haven't set those
19 policies clearly, but we would expect to have members be
20 allowed to bring guests. We've suggested in response to
21 concerns that were raised that on impacted weekends --
22 you know, July 4th and Memorial Day, whatever it
23 may be -- that one way to better manage that is that we
24 would actively send out parking permits to the members
25 so that they would be notified that on those weekends
284

1 they would be allowed to bring one car to the site for
2 that particular day to help manage those high volume
3 weekends.
4 But going back to our parking analysis, as
5 we've looked at it very carefully, we compared it to the
6 Coral Casino usage. I think we used a very conservative
7 ratio with respect to the Coral Casino usage, and we
8 don't think it would be an impact with respect to how
9 much parking we have onsite.
10 If you look at the comparison that we brought
11 up earlier with respect to the Biltmore property that
12 has 600 members at the Coral Casino also allowed to have
13 guests, there's actually -- in addition to the 600
14 members, there's, I believe, 50 additional slots for
15 guests of the hotel and 120 additional memberships for
16 reciprocal clubs that can come to the Coral Casino.
17 So you actually have potentially more than
18 700 members of Coral Casino. That's factored in, and
19 they park at the Biltmore as well, and that's managed
20 within the existing parking at the Biltmore.
21 So we think that, you know, given sort of
22 reasonable estimates on the attendance at the beach club
23 and efforts to manage it on high volume weekends, we can
24 accommodate within our existing parking field quite
25 reasonably.
285

1 MS. BURROWS: I do have one more question on
2 parking, and you mentioned parking passes. Are you
3 giving parking passes to your employees?
4 MR. MIDDLEBROOK: As part of the project
5 description, employees are allowed to park for free at
6 the property.
7 MR. BIERIG: Commissioner Overall.
8 MR. OVERALL: I'd like to ask some questions
9 of maybe Mr. Middlebrook. One question is there are a
10 lot of -- in the community there's a lot of perhaps
11 misinformation or assumptions or whatever. I'd just
12 like to make sure that somebody's on the record here,
13 and we understand. One question is is Caruso
14 Affiliated -- do they currently own and or operate any
15 hotels?
16 MR. MIDDLEBROOK: No.
17 MR. OVERALL: Have you ever built a hotel?
18 MR. MIDDLEBROOK: No.
19 MR. OVERALL: Is it correct -- am I reading
20 these documents correctly that it is your intent to
21 operate this hotel?
22 MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Correct, yes.
23 MR. OVERALL: The architect that has done the
24 work for you, have they ever designed a hotel?
25 MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Yes, a number of them.
286

1 MR. OVERALL: Can you give us any indication
2 where they might be?
3 MR. MIDDLEBROOK: This is Brian Perkins with
4 HKS Architects.
5 MR. PERKINS: Hi. I'm with HKS Hill Glazier.
6 We design hotels all over the world, to tell you the
7 truth. The closest one being -- Biltmore hotel is the
8 latest addition, The Montage in Laguna Nigel, the new
9 Montage in Beverly Hills as well. Oh, and Oceans Club
10 as well.
11 MR. BIERIG: I've been informed the court
12 reporter would like a break. I wouldn't mind one
13 myself.
14 MR. OVERALL: Can I ask two questions related
15 to this?
16 MR. BIERIG: I don't know. You'll have to
17 discuss it with her.
18 MR. OVERALL: I'll talk fast.
19 I'll talk slowly?
20 It has been bandied about that your intent is
21 to operate a five-star resort; is that a correct
22 representation of your intent?
23 MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Yes.
24 MR. OVERALL: Okay. I'll save my other
25 questions for later. Thank you, Matt.
287

1 MR. BIERIG: Why don't we take a ten-minute
2 break. Maybe when we come back, we can be looking to
3 kind of wrap up our questions, and let the Applicant
4 have a chance to respond to public comment.
5 (Whereupon a short recess was taken.)
6 MR. BIERIG: We're back on our Q and A of
7 staff and the Applicant on issues for the Miramar in our
8 August 6th meeting.
9 And back to the Commissioners, I'm not sure
10 what additional questions you have. Once we get through
11 our questions, we're going to let the Applicant respond
12 to anything that came up.
13 And Commissioner Overall you had more
14 questions.
15 MR. OVERALL: I did. I have questions for
16 the Applicant, and I don't know who wants to handle
17 this.
18 Maybe you, Matt; maybe somebody else. What
19 has concerned me for some time is the potential impacts
20 to the community on traffic and the parking requirement
21 related to what seems to be based on the research the
22 Caruso staff and the outside staff work on the
23 understatement of the employees.
24 I know you were questioned on this. You came
25 back with a breakdown that added up to 102 employees,
288

1 and when you begin to compare it as an example with
2 Montage and your architect in Laguna worked with, you
3 have an enormous understaffing if what has been
4 presented is accurate.
5 So I'd like you to address it. I don't
6 know -- if it weren't a five-star hotel, that would be
7 one condition, but why don't you address that concern.
8 MR. MIDDLEBROOK: I will. And Mr. Caruso
9 will speak to the employee count in one minute. I'd
10 also just like to go back. There's been -- I understand
11 that this -- the number of employees on our property
12 goes back to the issue of adequate parking.
13 And I think we have gone through in great
14 detail, and I can go through it again today sort of the
15 analysis we have onsite in terms of the adequacy of our
16 parking. I think it was a very important analysis that
17 was provided by staff in terms of relation to the
18 Biltmore and the fact that they have almost twice the
19 restaurant seating, more ballroom seating, more hotel
20 rooms, a beach club that is twice the size of ours, and
21 nearly 100 fewer parking spaces than we do and the
22 property still operates.
23 So we can speak to the employee issue, but
24 with respect to parking and that concern, I think under
25 any scenario the parking that we are proposing to
289

1 provide on the property is a very significant amount
2 that, you know, we believe can address almost any
3 scenario.
4 MR. CARUSO: Commissioner, in terms of the
5 aberrations of it, we believe -- and we've done a lot of
6 studies on this -- that we can operate a five-star hotel
7 with the level of employees. Here's the reason why, and
8 it's important in terms of the economics also.
9 The Four Season Biltmore that has a higher
10 employee count operated by the Four Seasons for the most
11 part is out of the control of the ownership.
12 Four Seasons makes those operational decisions and
13 staffing decisions.
14 With our own operation, we have a lot of own
15 operations set in within retail properties, which is
16 headquartered in Los Angeles at our headquarters. So
17 much of the operation can be centered there. We don't
18 need to duplicate it up here. So that cuts the employee
19 count down substantially.
20 Things like gardening staff, et cetera, the
21 way we operate our retail centers -- and as Commissioner
22 will tell you, we do a pretty good job on landscaping --
23 those are done by contract. They come in in the
24 morning, they're bussed in, they do their work, and they
25 leave the site.
290

1 So on our payroll count, the amount of people
2 that are coming and working on that property are
3 substantially reduced against a typical model that has a
4 management company operating it. So we're very
5 confident in that number.
6 But let's assume as Matt said that we're off.
7 The analysis that was done for traffic assumes embedded
8 in that number a much higher employee count. I think
9 it's about 183.
10 So even if our numbers are off and we default
11 to the traffic analysis count, we still have excess
12 capacity of parking, and the intersections still have
13 excess capacity in terms of the impact on the
14 intersection.
15 MR. OVERALL: Can you clarify or have
16 Mr. Shell clarify -- if I took the notes correctly, he
17 came up with 183 employees, and you have 204; is that
18 number correct?
19 MR. MIDDLEBROOK: 102 at any one time.
20 MR. OVERALL: His was not 183 at any one
21 time? It was 183 total based on that model.
22 MR. CARUSO: I -- go ahead, Dianne.
23 MS. BLACK: You might want to ask Mr. Shell
24 to clarify, but I'm pretty it was 183 at any time.
25 MR. OVERALL: He didn't say that.
291

1 MR. SHELL: Mr. Chair, Commissioners,
2 Scott Shell with Associated Transportation Engineers.
3 The number is 184. I think I might have mentioned 183
4 first.
5 MR. PHILLIPS: That's total? 100 at any one
6 time; is that correct? 102.
7 MR. SHELL: The ratios that I stated and the
8 books that I cited simply say that the hotel, when we
9 look at traffic and parking, assumes a employee ratio of
10 .9 per room. So it doesn't really give much more
11 guidance other than that sentence.
12 MR. OVERALL: Please continue.
13 MR. CARUSO: I don't know if that answers the
14 question or not. Our numbers at any one time, the max
15 is 102, and that's the way analysis is done. But even
16 within the analysis, I think is what staff has said, the
17 outside consultants have said. There is excess capacity
18 on the road system and excess capacity in the parking.
19 So I think it's clear from the fact that we do not
20 believe it's a problem at all even if we've misjudged
21 our numbers.
22 MR. OVERALL: I'll ask staff a question
23 related to that. It was my understanding from Brett's
24 testimony this morning that you were talking about -- I
25 think you said -- indicated 16 additional trips, peak
292

1 hour trips?
2 MR. STEWART: Mr. Chair,
3 Commissioner Overall, greater than 15 to a level of
4 Service D intersection is considered significant.
5 MR. BIERIG: Commissioner Phillips.
6 MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you.
7 I guess I'm directing this to you,
8 Mr. Caruso. I think you're handling these. I'm pretty
9 sure you're going to park your staff and your guests.
10 What I'm worried about is that the -- increasingly the
11 community is getting invested with the idea of using
12 your proposed facility. If you're underparked, none of
13 us are going anymore. That's what's going to happen.
14 MR. CARUSO: Uh-huh, that's right.
15 MR. PHILLIPS: I would rather have you
16 overparked up above. Take it away if you don't need it
17 in a year. Make a tennis court out of it. I just -- I
18 don't see what we're going to do to solve a parking
19 problem down the line, and the community is looking
20 forward to using this facility, and I don't know what to
21 do about that. It just seems a lot of people on your
22 site with 500-some spaces.
23 MR. CARUSO: Commissioner, I understand.
24 There is nobody in this room with a more greater
25 invested interest than myself to make sure our customer,
293

1 our guest, that goes on that property is happy.
2 And the worst thing that can happen in any
3 business, whether it's retail or hospitality, is having
4 a parking problem because that's the first experience,
5 the first experience and the last. So that's the
6 impression it's making.
7 That's why we've invested in underground
8 parking. That's why it's currently overparked
9 substantially. As Matt has said, 100 over the Biltmore
10 with more intense uses. I think we're fine. I really
11 do because we're investing a fortune in this hotel.
12 But you do also have the ability to come
13 back. I can't tell you all the things you may want to
14 do. But I'm going to be the first in line saying,
15 "We've got to change something in the operations," if
16 for some reason we're having a parking problem.
17 Valet goes a long way to helping that also
18 because we do have the ability to stack cars that you
19 can't in self-parking situation, and that's why we like
20 valet.
21 I will also tell you that sort of an
22 ancillary benefit just to get to a comment on ADD -- ADA
23 that I wanted to -- I think I've got ADD -- ADA that I
24 wanted to respond to.
25 One of the big drivers in the grading plan is
294

1 levelizing the site so that people can navigate across
2 it and we don't have to have stairwells, stairways, and
3 if somebody is handicapped, we don't have a problem with
4 that, and that's why part of the site is going so far
5 down, we're lifting up, and dealing with all the
6 parking. It's like one of those games where you hit one
7 and something else pops up. It's a tough balancing act.
8 But on the parking, I think we're very
9 comfortable with it. I really do, and my interests are
10 yours on that.
11 MR. BIERIG: Commissioner Gottsdanker.
12 MS. GOTTSDANKER: It's interesting you just
13 brought to my attention one of the questions I've got
14 somewhere in all my stickies. You mentioned gardeners,
15 and I did happen -- given that's my world, I did noticed
16 that that's not counted in your employee numbers, and
17 then you referred to that in your other operations you
18 bus your gardeners in. So given the extensive
19 landscaping, what do we think? You had no numbers
20 posted on your -- and how are you going to handle that?
21 MR. CARUSO: Well, just like that. It's a
22 contract. We typically on our properties -- our main
23 landscape contractor will be Valley Crest, which I know
24 does a lot of work up here currently, and they come in
25 their -- in the vehicles that they are using, and they
295

1 are in and out. So they are --
2 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Where do they park?
3 MR. CARUSO: Well, again, they come in a van.
4 They will be in the underground parking, the employee
5 parking, because you're talking about probably one van
6 coming in, maybe two, to carry the employees. We do
7 that on our retail centers.
8 MS. GOTTSDANKER: I'm sure there's ways of
9 handling it. It just was a question I had for a while
10 now especially after seeing the employee count and
11 going, "Whoa. Zero?" So then that means that you're
12 going to have all your equipment stored onsite?
13 MR. CARUSO: Yes.
14 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Because I know what it
15 takes to bring in equipment too, lawnmowers and all that
16 stuff. It gets more and more all the time.
17 MR. CARUSO: Equipment is onsite.
18 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Equipment's onsite. So
19 then you will literally just be bringing in a van or two
20 vans for whatever you need on any given day?
21 MR. CARUSO: Correct.
22 MS. GOTTSDANKER: And that's probably not on
23 weekends because they don't like working on weekends.
24 My guys don't like working on weekends. I know that.
25 Okay. Great.
296

1 MR. BIERIG: Commissioner Burrows.
2 MS. BURROWS: Yes. On the issue of
3 employees, is laundry done onsite, or is that contracted
4 out as well?
5 MR. CARUSO: The assumption now is that
6 laundry is moved offsite. There may be a small amount
7 done onsite for somebody who needs something done
8 quickly, but the majority is offsite.
9 MR. BIERIG: Thank you.
10 MR. CARUSO: Thank you, sir. If nobody else
11 has a question, I'd like to address a couple things.
12 Would somebody like to talk about the changes you guys
13 made on the spa building to take it down to one story?
14 Just verbally maybe you can discuss the height of that
15 building and how it will appear from the intersection at
16 this point.
17 MR. CARUSO: And I'll turn it over to
18 Michael McMannis, but just to preface it, in response to
19 a concern raised by the community, the
20 Montecito Association had raised that concern. We had
21 had discussions with Bill Palladini on it, and he
22 encouraged us to do that. In a meeting that we had with
23 All Saints about two weeks ago, we committed to them to
24 do that also. So basically we've just taken off the
25 second floor. So it's as simple as that.
297

1 MR. BIERIG: It's the same roof structure.
2 It just dropped it down?
3 MR. CARUSO: Yes.
4 Is that accurate?
5 MR. MC MANNIS: That's correct.
6 MR. BIERIG: What's the height of that
7 building? Do you know?
8 MR. MC MANNIS: 14.6 feet above the existing
9 grade. It used to be 12 1/2 feet higher than that.
10 MR. BIERIG: All right. That makes sense.
11 Thank you.
12 MS. GOTTSDANKER: So hang on a second, let's
13 be -- I would like to make a request then, when we talk
14 about building heights -- and I think we're going to
15 talk about that some more -- that when -- either staff
16 or any member of Mr. Caruso's team, give us two numbers,
17 the height above the existing grade, which you just
18 did -- but in fact, the grade is dropped somewhat at
19 that corner of the property.
20 So give -- my request is you give me two
21 numbers if I ask those questions. Maybe nobody else
22 cares. But I want to know about the existing grade, and
23 I want to know the total height of the building, and
24 then I can figure out how it sits on the property. I
25 can do --
298

1 MR. CARUSO: 18.6 feet above finished floor,
2 and above -- and it's 14.6 above existing grade.
3 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Okay. Great. Thanks.
4 MR. BIERIG: Could we also have a discussion
5 of the architecture of Building 44. I know you've
6 modified it, and I know when you went to the MBAR they
7 had some suggestions as to what they thought that
8 building should look like. I also saw the
9 Montecito Association had suggestions as to how they
10 thought it should be.
11 And I was looking to find my notes on that
12 subject and can't find them. So I thought maybe you
13 could address that -- the look, the height, the
14 articulation. I know you made a number of changes over
15 time.
16 And Commissioner Gottsdanker, I don't know if
17 you remember the -- I know you had a chance to review
18 the tapes of the MBAR and their comments related to the
19 look of the project from Jameson in particular on
20 Building 44. And I thought maybe we could have a
21 discussion looking at that as to what it was because it
22 seems like we got part way there, but I'm not sure if we
23 got all the way there.
24 MS. GOTTSDANKER: You want me to jump in now?
25 MR. BIERIG: Yeah, it would be great if you
299

1 could.
2 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Well, what MBAR said is
3 they wanted the ridge lines varied in height so it
4 appears more residential in character. So I understand,
5 from what Mr. Middlebrook said today, yes, they made
6 changes to that building. Absolutely. There's no
7 question that changes have been made, and there's been
8 articulations made in that building.
9 I'm not sure whether the work that has been
10 done would be what MBAR was looking for or not. That
11 was one of the reasons why I had requested it go back to
12 make sure that they -- what they had requested had been
13 met, and it didn't go back.
14 MR. BIERIG: What I saw -- that must not have
15 been right.
16 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Well, you can see it right
17 there. All the ridge heights are consistent. What I
18 think MBAR was asking for or at least what I heard them
19 asking for goes on the tape and, when I was there, would
20 be a variation of ridge heights.
21 And I think you can go back to my comments
22 that were made at the conceptual hearing that we had
23 where I actually tagged my comments to their comments.
24 So I don't know if we're there yet.
25 MR. BIERIG: These drawings aren't of the
300

1 same building.
2 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Yeah, they are. There's
3 the main building. You take that, and you attach it
4 over here, and you keep going on out.
5 MR. BIERIG: I'm looking at the lower -- you
6 know, of the spa; correct? With the second story
7 removed?
8 MR. MIDDLEBROOK: This is the spa here
9 (indicating). You can barely -- you can see mostly the
10 roof line now because the height is dropped. The spa is
11 not visible in this drawing. If the spa is here
12 (indicating), you can't see the windows now because --
13 MR. BIERIG: Okay. What's the building next
14 to it?
15 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Building 44.
16 MR. BRIGGS: This is Building 44.
17 MR. BIERIG: Right. I understand. I'm
18 looking at the angles on the roof. Some of these -- I
19 can't remember my architectural terms, but the very
20 first corner of the first building next to the spa, the
21 roof is not the same. Right there (indicating), that
22 feature -- isn't that a window?
23 MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Let me have Brian Perkins
24 talk about what we did to the roof lines, and we did
25 this following the March meeting -- I mean following the
301

1 January meeting.
2 MR. BIERIG: I'm looking at what's on the
3 lower plan, and it's not the same as what's on the -- or
4 maybe we've got the wrong slide up here.
5 MR. PERKINS: What you're seeing on the
6 second floor of the drawing on the wall is really just
7 the second level above what you would see here. So this
8 is all of it exposed you would see with the wall
9 removed.
10 What we've done is actually done projections,
11 which actually move the face of the wall out in two
12 locations on this building. This one actually has three
13 areas where they're pulled out.
14 What it does is it creates another hip that
15 projects out from the main roof. It's better in three
16 dimensions in a lot of ways than it is in just a two
17 dimensional drawing, but what you start to perceive --
18 and I think it does show up a little bit better here --
19 are the individual smaller roofs which break the mass
20 into separate ones.
21 MR. BIERIG: What's happening is that roof is
22 disappearing into a single mass, isn't it?
23 MR. PERKINS: Yeah, in the drawing here the
24 lines are going together (indicating).
25 MR. BIERIG: Because it makes it look like a
302

1 single mass.
2 MR. PERKINS: Right. They had to address the
3 ridge it sounds like, which we've actually let the ridge
4 recess back. It's the portions in the front that we
5 were concerned more about because those are the things
6 that you'll perceive up close. As you're driving along
7 the street there, you would actually see the pieces of
8 this (indicating). So they're broken up almost as if
9 they were hip dormers going back.
10 MR. BIERIG: Right. The lower one has that
11 look to it.
12 Commissioner Gottsdanker, the one issue that
13 wasn't addressed -- because this appears to address at
14 least part of that with the changes in the hip angle to
15 make it look more residential in style.
16 MR. PERKINS: Right. In some ways we address
17 the eave which is the piece just above the windows
18 because that's the piece you'll see and vary that a
19 little bit more versus the hip which is still in the
20 background, but you would see that beyond.
21 MR. BIERIG: Couldn't you also change the
22 heights of the ridge on these, vary that up and down to
23 provide what the MBAR was asking in term of articulating
24 this so it looks more residential in character rather
25 than a single ridge line across the top? Because it
303

1 really shows up on this other flat drawing where you see
2 the ridge lines are completely flat.
3 MR. PERKINS: Yeah. If we can go to sheet
4 A2.09L, that shows the roof plan. It shows -- the one
5 suggestion, it sounds like, from MBAR that was made was
6 discussing certain areas of it being a flat roof which
7 would allow you then to vary that ridge line.
8 We were doing that on the second level of the
9 spa before we took that off. So it was actually
10 something we were looking at doing, and it applied to
11 that. It could be applied to this as well to drop that
12 ridge.
13 MR. BIERIG: I know a number of suggestions
14 that it could be done and still have the same plate
15 heights interior-wise but look different exterior-wise.
16 MR. PERKINS: Correct.
17 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Well, it should be noted
18 that both the first floor and the second floor of these
19 buildings are -- have 12-foot plate heights.
20 MR. BIERIG: I understand.
21 MS. GOTTSDANKER: So it could be that, in
22 order to vary the height of those buildings, that some
23 of those buildings had ten-foot plate heights which
24 would then take out four feet of the total height of the
25 building which would then allow a play of roof forms.
304

1 That's another option that could take place.
2 MR. BIERIG: Right. I'm not sure if I'm
3 capable of articulating that as nice as you did. Yeah,
4 by varying the plate heights you have a lot more control
5 over making that look good.
6 And the height of this building is -- remind
7 me, either staff or -- I think staff.
8 MS. GOTTSDANKER: It's 24.
9 MR. BIERIG: We're within the height
10 limitation on Building 44, are we not?
11 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Yes, yes.
12 MR. BIERIG: Is that from -- that's from
13 finished grade?
14 MS. GOTTSDANKER: It's 24 to the plate height
15 and whatever it is to the roof height.
16 MR. BIERIG: And we've got the extra 3 feet
17 because of the Form 1 pitch.
18 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Yeah, yeah.
19 MR. BIERIG: I would like to see
20 Commissioner Gottsdanker, if we can try to articulate
21 something that would give direction to MBAR if this
22 continues to go through the process on how that could be
23 handled.
24 MR. MIDDLEBROOK: The height of that building
25 is roughly 28 1/2 feet above finished floor, and varying
305

1 both the grade, this ranges from 26 1/2 to 31 1/2 above
2 existing grade.
3 MR. BIERIG: Give me that again. Above
4 existing grade is 24?
5 MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Above existing grade it
6 ranges in height because of it's length and the change
7 in grade from varying phases 26 1/2 to 31 1/2 feet
8 above.
9 MR. BIERIG: Do you have a section on that
10 building in our plan set?
11 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Yeah, I'm looking for it.
12 MR. MIDDLEBROOK: It's 28 1/2 feet above --
13 MR. BIERIG: I concentrated more on the main
14 building and the ballroom.
15 Yeah, I see it here.
16 MS. GOTTSDANKER: You got what it is.
17 MR. BIERIG: It's in 5.13.
18 MS. GOTTSDANKER: 5.13. Oh, 5.13. There it
19 is.
20 MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chair, is this the time
21 for design direction, do you think, or is it still
22 questioning?
23 MR. BIERIG: Yeah, we're just trying to
24 figure it out. Are you ready for design direction?
25 MR. PHILLIPS: I don't want to miss an
306

1 opportunity.
2 MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Commissioner Chair, while
3 they're looking for that section, you were asking about
4 changes to Building 44. I touched on one before as
5 well, but I just wanted to reiterate. It is not
6 completely obvious from this building because we do not
7 fully landscape the elevation because -- this elevation
8 over here, we don't fully landscape that so you can
9 think it would be visible to you to show that.
10 But moving back this building eight feet --
11 one of the comments by MBAR is they wanted to add more
12 landscaping along the Jameson frontage. And by moving
13 this building back, this section of the building back,
14 eight feet, it allowed for an additional layer of
15 landscaping between the pathway and the building. So it
16 will really soften, which is not apparent in here
17 because we take the landscaping out so you can better
18 see the architectural layout of it. But in reality it
19 will really soften the landscape because of the
20 addition -- soften the frontage.
21 MR. BIERIG: Well, we'll never see the bottom
22 floors behind the wall.
23 MR. MIDDLEBROOK: What I'm saying is the
24 second floor of that one the walls will be softened
25 because of the ability to add landscaping in that
307

1 section.
2 MR. BIERIG: The section of that building
3 that we're looking at there, is the dashed line the
4 existing grade?
5 MR. PERKINS: Correct.
6 MR. BIERIG: That helps a lot. Thank you.
7 MS. BLACK: Mr. Chair, just for
8 clarification, I think one of the public commentors did
9 mention that they didn't think this building conformed
10 to the requirement of being considered one building.
11 And we did look at that very carefully, and
12 there is an appropriate attachment between each of those
13 buildings. It's not just a corridor space. We agree
14 you can't just attach by a corridor because we used to
15 get quite absurd results when we allowed that.
16 MR. BIERIG: Yeah, I noted that on the plans.
17 It does meet the technical requirement. Thank you.
18 MS. BLACK: We intentionally didn't suggest
19 Applicant attach at the second story. Obviously, they
20 could have, but we're working against ourselves by doing
21 that.
22 MR. BIERIG: I would rather they not as well.
23 I don't know if anybody else has any other
24 particular questions; so I'll jump in with a couple last
25 ones that I have.
308

1 Staff, would you mind commenting on the
2 mitigations related to the pile driving activities? One
3 of our public comments made a note of 120 decibel
4 instantaneous deafness. I mean I'm sure we've got --
5 I'd just like to hear it.
6 MS. BLACK: Mr. Chair, I can make a couple of
7 comments just recalling what we've heard. First of all,
8 I think we heard some say a mitigation to offer to
9 relocate people temporarily is not mitigation, and I can
10 tell you we've used that as a standard approach, and
11 that way people can choose to avoid exposure to noise or
12 not. I mean we're obviously not going to make someone
13 leave their home if they absolutely don't want to, but
14 we provide them that choice.
15 The other thing that I heard is that the pile
16 driving impacts on the beach should have been
17 considered, and I think what they meant was the noise
18 levels on the beach. And again, this is a very short
19 construction period, and people can avoid that.
20 The beach users are not considered to be
21 sensitive users. They're not residential; they're not
22 schools or churches or nursing homes or hospitals. So
23 they can avoid those periods, and it is very short term.
24 MR. BIERIG: Good. Those are mitigations
25 that you have used before in other places?
309

1 MS. BLACK: Yes, yes.
2 MR. BIERIG: Commissioner Burrows.
3 MS. BURROWS: Thank you. Is there an offer
4 to move the schoolchildren for the duration of this? I
5 know it's not near the school.
6 MS. BLACK: Mr. Chair and
7 Commissioner Burrows, I don't know that the pile driving
8 has a real direct effect on the school. I can say
9 overall the hotel was going to coordinate with the
10 school to reduce impacts to the school and church as
11 much as possibly can. So I think that's how we
12 addressed it.
13 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Fire hydrants. Mr. Briggs,
14 can I see the fire hydrants, please. I know you have
15 that information now.
16 MR. BRIGGS: Commissioner Gottsdanker, I
17 realize it's difficult to see. So I can point to them.
18 Did you have --
19 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Go ahead and point to them.
20 I want to know where they are.
21 MR. BRIGGS: So there appear to be -- one,
22 two, three, four, five -- five in the vicinity. Can you
23 see those in yellow?
24 MS. GOTTSDANKER: No, I cannot see those in
25 yellow.
310

1 MR. MIDDLEBROOK: They're here, here, here,
2 here, here (indicating).
3 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Okay. Would you run
4 through that one more time for me, Matt.
5 MR. MIDDLEBROOK: These are -- this is
6 Miramar Avenue. These are two generally long --
7 Miramar Avenue, one about halfway up, one at the corner,
8 one roughly out where we would have our -- out along
9 Jameson, one near the edge of our property getting --
10 the edge of our property as you approach -- going
11 towards Posilipo, and there's one located here, and then
12 there's one located behind the beachfront units.
13 MS. GOTTSDANKER: And those are all existing?
14 MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Those are all existing.
15 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Okay. And those have all
16 been tested?
17 MR. MIDDLEBROOK: They have all been tested,
18 and there was some wishy-washyness again earlier, and
19 all of them tested significant -- in excess of 1,500
20 gallons per minute -- you know, 1,800, 2,000 -- that
21 documentation was all submitted to the County -- 2,400
22 gallons per minute, 3,000 gallons per minute. So they
23 were all tested above the 1,500 the fire department
24 wanted.
25 MS. GOTTSDANKER: And you guys have that
311

1 information?
2 MR. MIDDLEBROOK: It was submitted in our
3 response to comments in the Montecito Fire Department
4 letter.
5 MS. GOTTSDANKER: So that's on the record?
6 Nobody on staff seems to know what I'm talking about.
7 MR. MIDDLEBROOK: I can submit it again.
8 MS. BLACK: I believe it's in Volume III of
9 the materials presented to you for the first hearing.
10 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Great. Thanks.
11 MR. BIERIG: Commissioner Burrows.
12 MS. BURROWS: I'd like to please move on to
13 the tennis courts. We've had a lot of public comment --
14 some public comment, and I've had a lot of calls and
15 e-mails in regards to the lights staying on until
16 10:00 P.M. It would seem to me maybe one hour after
17 sunset. I know in the winter that would be probably --
18 in the summer that would be -- it's different in winter
19 and summer, but that's one thing I would like to see
20 here.
21 The tennis courts, as you mentioned, are
22 carryover parking. It's my understanding that it's not
23 a good idea to park cars on tennis courts. Is that
24 science changing? I used to have a tennis court. We
25 would never let anyone park on our court.
312

1 MR. CARUSO: Commissioner, I would not want
2 anyone parking on our courts either, but it is just a
3 backup so in a worst, worst, worst case scenario where
4 we needed the additional parking we allow it to be on
5 the court. Schrager included the parking on the tennis
6 courts. We're not. It's a worst case scenario.
7 MS. BURROWS: It's a backup?
8 MR. CARUSO: Yeah.
9 MS. BURROWS: Thank you.
10 MR. CARUSO: Did you want me to respond to
11 the hours because I don't know if that's something you
12 want to be able to dispose of in terms of the lights?
13 MR. BIERIG: I think you had a suggestion
14 already.
15 MS. BURROWS: In regards to the tennis
16 courts?
17 MR. CARUSO: Yes, in terms of the time.
18 MS. BURROWS: Could you please give us your
19 thoughts on that. 10:00 seems a little late.
20 MR. CARUSO: If 9:00 P.M. is better, we'll
21 agree to 9:00 P.M. Does that sound fair?
22 MS. BURROWS: That sounds better.
23 MR. CARUSO: Then let's do that.
24 MS. BURROWS: I guess these are peanut
25 questions. I'll move back to the beach and tennis club
313

1 numbers. What I would like to propose is that we
2 increase the number to 200 immediately.
3 It's 150 now; right?
4 MR. PHILLIPS: 140.
5 MS. BURROWS: 140. Increase to 200
6 immediately and then phase in the others over the next
7 year over six-month intervals and give you your 300 at
8 the end of Year 1 of operation; right?
9 MR. CARUSO: Just so I understand so that we
10 would be able to start with 200 and within six months we
11 could add an additional 100?
12 MS. BURROWS: Additional 50 and then after --
13 MR. CARUSO: I see. So it would just sort of
14 be automatic, but it would stage it out.
15 MS. BURROWS: After one year you'd full --
16 you'd have a full 300.
17 MR. CARUSO: That's fine.
18 MS. BURROWS: Thank you.
19 MR. PHILLIPS: How about 205?
20 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Hold on a minute, though.
21 Mr. Chairman, we seem to be doing -- we seem to be
22 negotiating for conditions. If we're negotiating for
23 conditions --
24 MR. BIERIG: We're not. We're not.
25 MS. GOTTSDANKER: I didn't want to leave
314

1 Mr. Caruso with the idea that he was agreeing to
2 something that we were all in agreement with.
3 MR. BIERIG: I can't help what
4 Commissioner Burrows is doing.
5 MR. CARUSO: I was just agreeing with
6 Commissioner Burrows.
7 MS. GOTTSDANKER: I got that, but I wasn't.
8 That's what I'm saying.
9 MR. BIERIG: I don't think that's anywhere
10 near where I am or where I think we are as a Commission.
11 MS. BURROWS: That expresses my opinion and
12 not the agreement of the Commission.
13 MR. BIERIG: Commissioner Phillips.
14 MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chair, I wonder if the
15 Chairman could arrange for membership of the Commission
16 now, and I don't hear any 205 or anything like that.
17 MR. BIERIG: Questions? I don't think -- I
18 don't have any more questions on my list that I can find
19 right now, and we had indicated we were going to provide
20 you with an opportunity to rebut public comment and
21 anything that had come up during the time today.
22 MR. CARUSO: I think actually you have been,
23 along with staff, so comprehensive our rebuttal probably
24 is down to one issue. Just a clarification.
25 Matt?
315

1 MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Yeah.
2 MR. CARUSO: Okay. So probably only will be
3 one minute. Thank you.
4 MR. MIDDLEBROOK: They were all of the things
5 we wanted to cover earlier.
6 MR. BIERIG: Is this that real fast talking
7 part?
8 MR. MIDDLEBROOK: No. It will be very quick.
9 It will be like -- I can talk very slow because it's
10 very short. The one issue that came up that hasn't been
11 subsequently addressed was with respect to 101
12 improvements on the bridge. We inquired of Caltrans
13 about that. They do not have plans to do anything to
14 the bridge in the near future. And with respect to the
15 impact of 101 improvements, those will not have any
16 impact on the parking along Jameson.
17 How was that?
18 MR. BIERIG: Excellent.
19 MR. OVERALL: Since the design has not been
20 done, how can you make that statement?
21 MS. BLACK: On 101, Mr. Chair?
22 MR. OVERALL: Yeah.
23 MS. BLACK: I can make a statement.
24 MR. OVERALL: I'm listening.
25 MS. BLACK: Planning and development staff,
316

1 including me, have been working with Caltrans with
2 District 5's office on the 101 improvements, and we have
3 come to the conclusion mostly because of financial
4 considerations that all of the improvements to put in
5 the auxiliary lanes through this portion of Montecito
6 will have to occur within an existing right of way.
7 So really what we're talking about with
8 Caltrans for the entire length of this improvement,
9 which, I think, as the Commission knows, goes all the
10 way through the city of Carpinteria and then all the way
11 through to the city of Santa Barbara and then some --
12 we've been talking to them about whether improvement
13 should be made on the inside portion of 101, meaning
14 within the median, or whether it should occur by
15 expanding to the outer limits of the existing right of
16 way or some combination.
17 And there's some areas where there are
18 choices, and there are some areas where there just
19 really are not choices. The other thing we've been
20 discussing with Caltrans, which is not really a
21 discussion -- it's really information from Caltrans --
22 is where sound walls will be placed.
23 And there are a fairly significant number of
24 sound walls that will need to be installed as part of
25 this project unless the effected residences opt out of
317

1 sound walls, and that's a pretty difficult process to go
2 through.
3 I think we've definitely come to the
4 conclusion there really isn't the opportunity to expand
5 outside of the right of way. But the other -- the other
6 options are not set in concrete. Obviously they go
7 through a process, an environmental process. We'll be
8 coming to both your Commission and the County Planning
9 Commission to go over the options with you and sort of
10 the conceptual review phase, and then there will be a
11 permit phase as well.
12 MR. OVERALL: Ms. Black, if you remember --
13 may remember, I think, it was back in 1991, when
14 improvements were proposed then, one of the enormous
15 impacts that the community objected seriously to was the
16 removing of vegetative separation. This has not come
17 back out to the community yet. I can't imagine there
18 isn't going to be considerable discussion before that is
19 adopted.
20 MS. BLACK: Certainly will be.
21 MR. OVERALL: Do you have any estimate of
22 time frames? Maybe I should ask you for funding and
23 then --
24 MS. BLACK: Mr. Chair, it's funded assuming
25 the right of way acquisitions don't occur. I think that
318

1 the funding stream is pretty well in place. As far as
2 the time frame, I think we would expect to come to the
3 County Planning Commission and the Montecito Planning
4 Commission in the next six months at the longest in a
5 conceptual review framework.
6 Caltrans is at the very beginning stages of
7 preparing environmental documents. They're really doing
8 baseline studies right now to support their analysis and
9 also doing a lot of engineering work.
10 So I would suspect that that's a year to year
11 and a half away, but I don't have that time line
12 embedded in my memory. But yeah, I would expect that
13 it's going to be quite an interesting process. It
14 always is.
15 MR. BIERIG: Well, I think we're done on that
16 course of action.
17 So Director Black or Mr. Briggs, did you want
18 to rebut any of the public comment? I know you've had a
19 few items, but I wanted to give you the opportunity
20 right now.
21 MS. BLACK: Oh, yes. So Mr. Chair, I'll at
22 least start, and then if staff recall other things we
23 need to report on, we can do that. I know Mr. Ghizzoni
24 wants to provide you with some input on the CEQA review
25 and water issue.
319

1 MR. BIERIG: I was thinking, once you did
2 your rebuttal, we'd probably do CEQA, and then we'd get
3 into --
4 MS. BLACK: And then I'm going to force you
5 to make a decision on the letters.
6 MR. BIERIG: On what?
7 MS. BLACK: The letters, all of the letters.
8 The first thing is the structural report, and
9 I can't remember which speaker made a comment that the
10 Applicant's team had commissioned a report on the
11 structural integrity of the structures on the site and
12 that the County hadn't done any review of that, and
13 that's just not true.
14 We had the building official, not just the
15 building and safety staff person but the building
16 official, review that report, and he completely
17 concurred, and he's been out to the site. So I think we
18 more than adequately have reviewed that study.
19 One of the speakers also spoke about the
20 archeological monitoring condition and whether there
21 would be more than one monitor on the site, and I would
22 expect that, given the level of earth movement that's
23 going to be occurred as a result of this project,
24 assuming it's happening in different areas of this site
25 at the same time, there will definitely be more than one
320

1 monitor on the site.
2 So we'll make sure the resources and the
3 conditions requires -- or it's stated in the plural,
4 "monitors." So I think that speaker should rest assured
5 that there will be adequate monitoring during earth
6 movement for archeological resources.
7 I think we pretty much hit all the other
8 issues unless you see something else, Dave.
9 Maybe while we're just seeing if there's any
10 other things, now I'm going to go through the public
11 letters, and I'm just going to read those -- or identify
12 those letters that are more than a page that we've
13 received, and you don't even have all of them in front
14 of you. And we'll make them available to you if you
15 choose to.
16 We have letter dated August 5th, 2008, from
17 Hollister & Brace, and you don't have this one, I know
18 that. We have a two-page letter for Roy Handleman dated
19 August 5th, a multipage letter from Heal the Ocean dated
20 August 6th. We have a transmittal -- I can't find --
21 dated August 6th from Dudek with different attachments
22 to it, and it's pretty extensive.
23 We have a letter to Diane Gabriel with
24 attachments dated August 5th from Caruso Affiliated. We
25 have another e-mail from Jane Gray responding to a
321

1 portion of the Coast Law Group letter. We have an
2 e-mail from Stan Harfenist dated on August 5th. We have
3 an e-mail from Lou Weider dated August 5th, a letter
4 from Harry Hovey dated August -- it's not dated. I
5 think it came in today.
6 We have a letter from Robert Wells received
7 stamped August 4th; another e-mail from -- or an e-mail
8 from -- excuse me -- Raymond Stefani dated August 4th;
9 an e-mail from Ted Buergey dated August 4th; a letter or
10 an e-mail from Cotty Chubb dated Saturday, August 2nd;
11 an e-mail from Brad Hall, August 1st but afternoon;
12 Coast Law Group's letter, which we received August 5th
13 and is dated August 5th; and then a letter from
14 Matt Middlebrook with Caruso with some attachments dated
15 August 4th; and an e-mail from -- another e-mail from
16 Ted Buergey, August 4th. So that's what I have.
17 MR. BIERIG: Commissioner Phillips, looking
18 for a motion.
19 I don't know if I've read any of those
20 letters. I might have read some of them because some of
21 them were sent to me separately by e-mail.
22 MR. PHILLIPS: Do we move to have them read
23 into record?
24 MS. BLACK: Mr. Chair, I think the Commission
25 has to decide whether or not you want to accept those
322

1 into the record, and if you accept them into the record,
2 you're using them as a basis for your decision.
3 MR. BIERIG: For our decision. I can't do
4 that.
5 MS. BURROWS: I can't do that. I haven't
6 read them.
7 MR. OVERALL: I can do anything but the
8 4th -- after the 4th.
9 MS. GOTTSDANKER: The only one I read that
10 came personally by e-mail was the Coast Law Group.
11 That's the only one I've read of any of those, and I do
12 believe that other Commissioners hadn't read that
13 because they were asking me --
14 MR. PHILLIPS: What type of decision are we
15 talking about?
16 MR. BIERIG: Move to accept or not accept
17 them.
18 MR. PHILLIPS: Accept them in the record, but
19 the problem is, Dianne -- sorry -- Ms. Black, you were
20 saying you can't make a decision unless we read them?
21 MS. BLACK: No. Mr. Chair, just to be clear,
22 if you make a decision today and you include these in
23 your record, you're essentially -- you're essentially
24 including them in your record, and so you should have
25 considered the material in these.
323

1 If you don't include them in the record and
2 you make a decision today, they're just not a part of
3 the record, not a part of what you've considered and
4 been accepted as public testimony. And if you don't
5 make a decision today, you'll get them.
6 MS. GOTTSDANKER: We already have them.
7 Ultimately we already have them.
8 MS. BLACK: But if you do something today, it
9 would be, I think, awkward to accept them into the
10 record.
11 MS. SLUTZKY: Mr. Chair, may I ask
12 Commissioner Gottsdanker if any of her testimony or
13 comments today were based on her reading of the
14 Coast Law Group.
15 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Well, given I got a little
16 post --
17 MS. SLUTZKY: They did summarize, but there
18 may be aspects that they did not.
19 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Well, I haven't made any
20 decisions yet and then -- and I do not believe I took
21 any questions I had directly out of this document.
22 MS. SLUTZKY: All right. Thank you.
23 MR. BIERIG: I suggest we move not to accept
24 these letters.
25 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Excuse me. That's
324

1 incorrect. I need to correct something. The questions
2 that I was asking around Parcel 6 and the inclusion --
3 well, we haven't gotten quite there, but the public
4 lateral access easement and all of that was actually --
5 I was referencing some of the material that had been
6 included in that letter.
7 MS. SLUTZKY: Mr. Chair, I think to the
8 extent Commissioner Gottsdanker has read the letter and
9 relied on it to some extent and may -- actually it may
10 sway her opinion, that one should be included.
11 MR. PHILLIPS: Maybe Claire is not allowed to
12 decide anything.
13 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Good. Can I leave? Can I
14 go home?
15 MR. PHILLIPS: Can I go with you?
16 MR. BIERIG: I guess we can accept that one,
17 and then when we take our next break, each of us go
18 through that and make sure we're familiar with it. So
19 how about if we move to accept that letter and not the
20 balance of them? Will somebody make that motion?
21 MS. GOTTSDANKER: I'll make that motion. I
22 mean much of what was covered in the letter was also
23 covered in the public comment that was made, by the way.
24 MR. BIERIG: I'll second that motion. All in
25 favor say "ay," opposed "no."
325

1 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Ay.
2 MR. OVERALL: Ay.
3 MS. BURROWS: Ay.
4 MR. PHILLIPS: Ay.
5 MR. BIERIG: Ay.
6 We'll accept the single letter, and maybe we
7 can make sure we have copies of that when we take our
8 next break.
9 Anything else on the rebuttal? Was that
10 enough?
11 MR. WARD: Mr. Chair, Commission, I believe
12 it was Candice Buergey raised a few questions in regards
13 to the infrastructure for the water supply into the site
14 and on the roadway. And it was questioning whether
15 additional environmental review would be necessary to do
16 that.
17 The environmental analysis did include water
18 infrastructure that would relate to the relocation of
19 the Miramar Avenue especially anterior to the site and
20 along the roadway frontage. I just wanted to clarify
21 that for the record.
22 MR. BIERIG: That would conclude it. Good.
23 All right. Well, that being the case, I
24 think where we'll go next is CEQA.
25 I know you've been holding your breath there
326

1 hoping to address that.
2 And maybe I can start out just to jump start
3 us because I actually have a question of Director Black
4 before we start.
5 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Mr. Chair, we still have
6 Mr. Brett Stewart from public works, and I don't know if
7 any -- is it necessary they continue to stay?
8 MR. BIERIG: I don't believe it is.
9 MS. GOTTSDANKER: I mean I would just like to
10 let as many of these people go home as possible.
11 MR. BIERIG: You're right. Thank you for
12 pointing that out.
13 MR. MIDDLEBROOK: We also have some experts
14 here that if there was --
15 MR. BIERIG: I think we're done. I'm not
16 ready to close the public hearing because we still are
17 going to take testimony from counsel, but otherwise, I
18 think we're done as far as the project and consultants.
19 Anyone here uncomfortable with that?
20 Yeah, you can turn the meter off.
21 Director Black, I'm sorry. There was a
22 number of comment -- there's been a lot of comments
23 today about EIR, and I'm sure we'll have a discussion
24 about that subject -- following this, but some of them
25 just resolve around timing and how long it would take to
327

1 actually do an EIR, and I was wondering if you would
2 address that small issue. Given that we have a lot of
3 the work done, is that -- my own take on that is that is
4 not a small task; that is a big task. It's not
5 something we're going to just run through.
6 MS. BLACK: No.
7 MR. BIERIG: I'm not addressing whether we
8 need it or not. I'm just talking about what it takes to
9 do one.
10 MS. BLACK: Mr. Chair, it's hard because
11 we're kind of in the middle, and I think we've collected
12 most all of the information that we would include in an
13 EIR, but an EIR is not a small project to put together,
14 and there are --
15 MR. BIERIG: But it has various noticing
16 requirements. There are set time frames and so forth.
17 MS. BLACK: Right. We would have to do a
18 notice of preparation, and you do a notice of
19 preparation at least 30 days before you release a draft
20 environmental document, which is obviously the time that
21 it takes to prepare the draft.
22 And then there's a minimum 45-day public
23 review period on a draft, and you need to respond to all
24 the comments that are received. On this project it was
25 no small feat on the focused EIR that we did prepare.
328

1 And then you have the proposed final EIR and present it
2 to the decisionmaker.
3 MR. BIERIG: Nine months?
4 MS. BLACK: Pardon?
5 MR. BIERIG: Nine months?
6 MS. BLACK: Nine months would probably -- in
7 this case would probably be enough time. That's pretty
8 short for most projects.
9 MR. BIERIG: Just thought I'd ask. Okay.
10 Thank you.
11 I know you're waiting. Please.
12 MR. GHIZZONI: I'm not sure which
13 Commissioner's question you'd like me to respond to
14 first. Would you like me to address water or something
15 else?
16 MR. BIERIG: No, I was thinking you really
17 wanted to talk to us about the CEQA issue, and is it the
18 staging issues? I'm really getting more into --
19 MR. PHILLIPS: I have a question, Mr. Chair.
20 MR. BIERIG: Please.
21 MR. PHILLIPS: At the last hearing I asked
22 your colleague -- I don't recall his name -- Mr. Yates.
23 I asked him -- we were talking about CEQA, and he
24 allowed us how he "hadn't read the document but." And I
25 didn't pursue that.
329

1 And I'm assuming he meant that he doesn't
2 need to -- and I'm going to ask you some questions about
3 that -- but that the methodolgy was identified, and
4 that's all he needed. A different review than we have,
5 I assume. Let me stop there.
6 MR. GHIZZONI: Maybe I can just short circuit
7 the question by saying, whatever was said last time, I
8 have read all of the documents on this and am prepared
9 to answer your questions.
10 You know, I think the point he was making was
11 we don't actually read or grade environmental document
12 but tell you the factors you need to be looking at the
13 site to adopt document or not adopt the document. I
14 think that was the point he was trying to make. But
15 with that said, I'm prepared to go into a little more
16 detail on your questions.
17 MR. PHILLIPS: One needs to read it to know
18 whether the mitigation's appropriate and you have the
19 impact identified.
20 MR. GHIZZONI: I would say certainly you as
21 the decisionmakers need to have read and become familiar
22 with both the underlying 2000 mitigated negative
23 declaration and the current documents that are before
24 you so that you can go through and determine whether
25 there is or is not substantial evidence to back up the
330

1 decision you'll be making as well as compliance with the
2 procedural requirements of CEQA, and those are really
3 the two prongs that require decisions from you.
4 MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you.
5 MR. BIERIG: Let me ask a question in that
6 regard that's been brought up to me and, I think, some
7 of my other Commissioners here. If we modify some of
8 the conditions of the project today in a way that
9 differs from staff report and staff conclusions and
10 given that they are referencing the environmental
11 documents as making conclusions, do we run into a
12 problem with our environmental documentation at that
13 point?
14 Let's assume they're more restrictive rather
15 than less because it's been suggested to me that maybe
16 the documents themselves become a problem because they
17 reach a certain conclusion, and it wouldn't seem logical
18 to me, but I thought --
19 MR. GHIZZONI: Chairman and Commissioners, I
20 think the real risk would be that, in making additional
21 conditions or asserting new mitigation measures, you're
22 hoping that the spinoff environmental consequences of
23 those conditions or mitigation measures are actually
24 less than those studied in the environmental document,
25 which may not always be the case. The decision you make
331

1 here might have some unintended impacts even though
2 you've designed it as a mitigation measure, and that
3 would be the risk.
4 MR. BIERIG: Right. But otherwise, it's not
5 a risk and that the conclusion reached is supported a
6 different -- in that the document supported a different
7 conclusion it's not a problem as long -- as you said,
8 because the conclusion is more restrictive not less
9 restrictive.
10 MR. GHIZZONI: Chairman, again, as long the
11 environmental document provides a basis for your
12 decision for either of the conditions or mitigation
13 measures, that's correct.
14 MR. BIERIG: Okay. Good.
15 Commissioner Overall.
16 MR. OVERALL: Following on the same point,
17 I'm referring to a document Mr. Yates wrote in response
18 to that questions I posed to him. I believe all
19 Commissioners received a copy of it from Ms. Black.
20 His first response -- the question was
21 basically can the Montecito Planning Commission disagree
22 with conclusions in a CEQA document and still approve or
23 certify it, and his response was no. He goes on in --
24 do you have this document?
25 MR. GHIZZONI: Commissioner, yes, I do.
332

1 MR. OVERALL: And based on
2 Commissioner Bierig's questions to you just a second
3 ago, I'm having trouble resolving your answer to him
4 with what I'm reading here. If I'm reading Point No. 2,
5 it says -- has to be "and that the conclusions in the
6 documents are supported by substantial evidence,
7 period." That sounds like we have to agree with the
8 conclusions.
9 MR. GHIZZONI: Commissioner and
10 "Chairman" Overall, I think the distinction is -- the
11 question that I thought I was responding to from
12 Chairman Bierig was does your Commission have the
13 ability to apply different conditions or additional
14 mitigation or a different or additional mitigation
15 measures, not whether you were in agreement or not in
16 agreement with the conclusions of the environmental
17 document, which are two slightly different questions.
18 MR. OVERALL: I made a leap there that may
19 not have been.
20 MR. GHIZZONI: So if you were to find that
21 the conclusions within the environmental document were
22 not warranted or not supported by substantial evidence,
23 then, no, you should not be adopting that environmental
24 document or certifying it.
25 MR. OVERALL: So if we were to disagree with
333

1 a conclusion, we could not certify; is that correct?
2 MR. GHIZZONI: Let me add a few words to that
3 if I may. If you decide -- if you determine as a body
4 that the conclusions are not supported by documents and
5 the evidence, then you should not -- you cannot approve
6 the addendum or certify the supplemental EIR.
7 MR. BIERIG: Let's take this one step further
8 and make sure I've got it because I think -- I thought
9 he just asked the same question I asked, but that was a
10 different answer.
11 MR. OVERALL: What I think I heard him just
12 say is -- let me start over. If there is a conclusion
13 in the documents, it may have a rationale presented in
14 the documents, but if we disagree with a conclusion, can
15 we certify it, or do we have to change -- have that
16 conclusion changed in the documents in order to be able
17 to certify it?
18 MR. GHIZZONI: Chairman and Commissioner, the
19 short answer is you would need to change -- the document
20 would need to be changed to accurately reflect what you
21 had determined.
22 MR. OVERALL: Thank you.
23 MR. BIERIG: Commissioner Burrows.
24 MS. BURROWS: Some people in the community
25 still think that because the Caruso plan is different in
334

1 some regards to the Schrager plan that that makes a
2 requirement for a full EIR on this project.
3 Could you please discuss that, and also what
4 I think is applicable maybe or relevant is the Mani,
5 decision if you could review that for us, please.
6 MR. GHIZZONI: Chairman and
7 Commissioner Burrows, yes, in 2007 we received from the
8 court -- the State Court of Appeal and our appellate
9 district the Mani Brothers decision, Mani Brothers Real
10 Estate Group out of the Los Angeles area. And maybe it
11 would be helpful if I just very quickly go through that
12 case, and you'll see some parallels with our case.
13 That case involved in 1989 an environmental
14 impact report for an original project of 2.7 million
15 square feet and a mix of uses that included a hotel,
16 retail spaces, offices spaces, and a cultural center.
17 The project was approved in 1990, and then we
18 fast forward with no action until 2005 when a modified
19 project was proposed, and the change in that project or
20 changes in that project were primarily two: One, the
21 change in mix of uses -- they added 800 residential
22 units that did not exist before -- and the size of the
23 project increased from 2.7 million square to
24 3.29 million square feet.
25 And I think the size portion would be the
335

1 portion that you were commenting on that just because a
2 project increased in size doesn't necessarily mean that
3 a full EIR is required.
4 Let me get now to what the holding of the
5 case was after I give you more procedural details. The
6 2005 modified project was subject to a 390-page
7 addendum, and the City went on to approve the modified
8 project and to adopt -- excuse me -- with that addendum.
9 There was obviously litigation over that
10 approval, and the question that the trial court and the
11 court of appeal looked at was whether in the world of
12 environmental documents the 2005 addendum alone was
13 sufficient review of the modified project or whether
14 there should have been supplemental EIR as to one or
15 more topics or whether a full EIR was required.
16 And the court of appeal upheld the trial
17 court's decision to uphold the 2005 addendum except for
18 requiring a supplemental EIR as to one area, and that
19 was police services, the court finding that there was
20 not substantial evidence for not requiring a
21 supplemental EIR as to police services with the 800
22 additional residential units.
23 So the point out of this is you might have an
24 environmental document outcome of keeping the addendum
25 except for one particular topic. It is significant in
336

1 this opinion that the court explicitly stated that the
2 modified project, even though 500,000 square feet larger
3 with a different mix had fewer significant impacts than
4 the original project but for police services.
5 MR. PHILLIPS: How do they know?
6 MR. GHIZZONI: It's based on the 390-page --
7 so I think that the point out of Mani Brothers is bigger
8 alone does not mean EIR, but in that case, bigger but
9 with fewer significant impacts allowed an addendum on
10 only a one-topic supplemental EIR.
11 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Which, in your opinion,
12 would be parallel to exactly what's happened here is
13 that, although we have bigger -- more square footage in
14 the existing project, we've got taller buildings in the
15 proposed project than we had, it was determined by
16 staff and, I'm assuming, your office that we only needed
17 to prepare the historical EIR section or the addendum to
18 do -- to relate to just the historical issues?
19 So it's parallel in that way; correct? We've
20 got a bigger project, but that doesn't necessarily mean
21 that there's more environmental impacts, but because
22 this project was proposing to impact our
23 environmental -- or our historical fabric, that would be
24 parallel to the police situation with the Mani Brothers?
25 MR. GHIZZONI: Chairman Bierig,
337

1 Commissioner Gottsdanker --
2 MS. GOTTSDANKER: In process.
3 MR. GHIZZONI: -- I'm going to agree in part
4 with you and then add something to the end. I'll say
5 that the County's authority to require further
6 supplemental EIR or subsequent EIR is phrased negatively
7 by Public Resources code.
8 Basically the County may not require one of
9 those EIR's unless you determine an increased
10 significant environmental effect from the original
11 project from either, one, substantial changes in project
12 itself; two, substantial changes in the circumstances
13 under which the project would be built out today; or
14 three, new information of substantial importance.
15 So you're working in a limited world as to
16 your authority to require a further environmental
17 document and would require a finding -- a determination
18 by you increased significant environmental effects in
19 one of those three areas.
20 I said I was going to agree with you
21 partially. I'm going to add a wrinkle here, and that is
22 that I would like to talk with you a little bit about
23 water as to the environmental review, and I'm going to
24 use this as my platform.
25 Summarizing what we've read and heard, the
338

1 mitigated negative declaration that was adopted in
2 May -- there was a mitigated negative declaration
3 adopted in May, 2000. Since then the Montecito Water
4 District adopted, as you know, Ordinance 89 in April,
5 2008, including a finding that total demand for water
6 exceeded the district's reliable supply for water.
7 Likewise, you have correspondence -- or a
8 series of correspondence from the Montecito Water
9 District, including the letter of July 30, 2008,
10 stating, quote, "Water demand levels districtwide are
11 currently greater than its long-term reliable water
12 supply is based on previously identified water supplies
13 available to the district," end quote.
14 I'm going to use this example of water supply
15 under two categories of the three prongs I discussed
16 before. Talking about new information of substantial
17 importance, which is an actual clause out of our CEQA
18 guidelines and CEQA statutes, if your planning
19 commission determines that substantial evidence exists
20 in light of a whole record of new information of
21 substantial importance, which was not known in 2000 and
22 which could not be known in 2000 when the mitigated
23 negative declaration was adopted and which now shows
24 significant effects or certain mitigation measures more
25 severe than were studied in the 2000 document, then you
339

1 should require a subsequent EIR as to topics of impacts
2 on water supply.
3 Likewise, if you consider the material in
4 front of you as not new information of substantial
5 importance or maybe both new information of substantial
6 importance as well as a substantial change in the
7 circumstances under which the project would be
8 contracted today, i.e., a different water supply, if you
9 make that determination based on substantial evidence,
10 then you likewise should require a subsequent EIR as to
11 water supply.
12 On the other hand, you know, on the whole
13 record in front of you, if you determine that the record
14 provides a firm enough commitment for water supply and
15 enough analysis of water supply so that further
16 environmental review is not required, then that's the
17 determination you've made, and that would be studied
18 under a substantial evidence test by the review court.
19 There may be some follow-on questions from that.
20 MR. BIERIG: I'm being asked that we take a
21 break at this point. How about if we take --
22 MS. BURROWS: Five?
23 MR. BIERIG: We'll do a five-minute break.
24 I'm hoping to come back and close the public hearing
25 quickly.
340

1 (Whereupon a short recess was taken.)
2 MR. BIERIG: I'm calling us back into order
3 on the Miramar matter. Would you take your seats,
4 please.
5 Mr. Ghizzoni, would you mind sort of
6 summarizing and restating -- try us again on the last --
7 MS. BLACK: Mr. Chairman, before Mr. Ghizzoni
8 does that, I just want to let people in this room know
9 that, if you walk out of this building, you're going to
10 have a hard time getting back in.
11 MR. BIERIG: I thought that was the plan.
12 MS. BLACK: So if you need to leave and you
13 want to come back, just let somebody on my staff know,
14 and we'll try to accommodate it.
15 MR. BIERIG: Please.
16 MR. GHIZZONI: Chairman and Commissioners,
17 let me try to shorten this down a little bit since I've
18 been through it 1 1/2 times already. But the starting
19 point is, again, the County's authority to require a
20 further subsequent environmental impact report or
21 supplemental EIR is phrased negatively within the
22 Public Resources code and the guidelines.
23 And that is that you may require either a
24 one-topic EIR or two-topic EIR or full EIR only if you
25 determine an increased significant environmental effect.
341

1 I'm shortening this just a little bit because there's
2 another prong for mitigation measures, but I'm trying to
3 keep this a little bit short.
4 So we'll call it increased significant
5 environmental effect from one of three categories,
6 either substantial changes in the project itself that
7 would yield these increased significant environmental
8 effects, substantial changes in the circumstances under
9 which the project would be constructed today which would
10 yield these increased significant environmental effects,
11 or the third category, new information of substantial
12 importance not known back in 2000 when this was studied
13 within the mitigated negative declaration which would
14 likewise yield increased significant environmental
15 effects or -- again, I'm shortening that because there
16 are impacts on mitigation measures also.
17 So if you were to conclude that one or more
18 topics -- you had been talking about water, for
19 example -- either as a new information of this
20 Ordinance 89, if you felt that that was a critical piece
21 of new information, that it was of substantial
22 importance, or that it was part of the circumstances
23 today, the changed circumstances under which the project
24 would be constructed, either of those two categories, if
25 you determined that there would be increased significant
342

1 environmental effects from that topic area, then CEQA
2 and the cases tell you that you should require
3 additional environmental review in the form of either a
4 subsequent EIR or a supplemental EIR.
5 And I'm going to make a distinction there,
6 and that is, once you -- once you kind of go to that
7 quantum step of saying, "Yes, there was an increased
8 significant environmental effect from this area," then
9 you're no longer in the world of an addendum. So you
10 don't have an addendum with more meat added into it.
11 You're really talking about a one-topic or two-topic or
12 full EIR depending on what topics you feel have either
13 the new information of substantial importance or impact
14 the substantial changes and the circumstances under
15 which the project would be constructed.
16 MR. PHILLIPS: What would it be called? It
17 wouldn't be a subsequent EIR since we don't have one.
18 It would be a --
19 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Not supplemental either.
20 MR. PHILLIPS: It would be a one- or
21 two-topic EIR.
22 MR. GHIZZONI: Actually you already have --
23 the document that you have right now -- you have two
24 documents before you -- two 2008 documents before you, a
25 subsequent EIR as to one topic and an addendum. So you
343

1 could most likely phrase this as a subsequent EIR as to
2 this particular topic.
3 MR. PHILLIPS: You have no problem with a
4 subsequent EIR on top of a negative declaration legally?
5 MR. GHIZZONI: No.
6 MR. PHILLIPS: Okay. And the same reporting,
7 same notice requirements for the whole --
8 MR. GHIZZONI: Commissioner, that's correct.
9 MS. BURROWS: Same time line.
10 MR. GHIZZONI: Commissioner, if I may, I
11 would offer that -- again, it's always easy for me to
12 make the offer since it's Ms. Black staff that's doing
13 the work, but if her estimate was that a fast full EIR
14 was nine months, you would expect that, if it was a
15 one-topic or a two-topic EIR, that that would be either
16 more realistic or shorter estimate.
17 MS. BURROWS: Thank you. Could you please
18 review for us Ordinance 89.
19 MR. GHIZZONI: One moment while I grab it.
20 Chairman Bierig, Commissioner Burrows, I
21 believe that Ordinance 89 is actually part of your
22 package and at least one of the documents, but I have it
23 in loose form here today.
24 This was an ordinance of the Montecito Water
25 District that was adopted on April 15th of this year,
344

1 April 15th, 2008. And the point that I -- the part of
2 this I was referring to was the finding on page 1,
3 Finding A, quote, "In 2007 the total demand for water
4 exceeded the district's reliable supply of 5,700 acre
5 feet by approximately 600 acre feet," end quote. And
6 that's the example of what you might consider to be new
7 information of substantial importance or new -- excuse
8 me -- changed circumstances under which the project
9 would be constructed today, and that would be idea of a
10 delta between the supply the demand of water.
11 MR. BIERIG: Director Black, once we started
12 down that road of doing an EIR, wouldn't it be a lot
13 more defensible to do the whole thing? I mean it seems
14 like you're solving -- I'm just speculating. It's not
15 my decision.
16 MS. BLACK: Well, Mr. Chair, you're asking me
17 a legal question. I'm not going to answer it, but I
18 think the two attorneys sitting across from me would say
19 an EIR is always more defensible, but they're sitting
20 right cross from me.
21 MR. GHIZZONI: Chair Bierig, if I may, it's
22 probably a truism that an EIR is always more defensible.
23 There's also tension, though, under Public Resources
24 code 21166 and CEQA 15162, which, as I mentioned before,
25 negatively phrases your authority to require a
345

1 subsequent or supplemental EIR now that there is a 2000
2 mitigated negative declaration out there.
3 So you're not writing on a clean slate. You
4 would have to make the findings of these new
5 circumstances or new information of substantial
6 importance, and you might choose to do that topic by
7 topic. You might choose to do it full on, but you're
8 not writing on a clean slate. There is a significant --
9 there is a presumption for the Applicant that the
10 original document was adequate and that you have to make
11 these determinations on substantial evidence as to new
12 circumstances or new information of substantial
13 importance.
14 MR. BIERIG: Isn't that document already
15 adequate? Isn't it deemed adequate because it was done
16 and existed and was the basis for this one? It wasn't
17 challenged --
18 MR. GHIZZONI: Chairman, are you referring to
19 the 2000 mitigated negative declaration?
20 MR. BIERIG: Right.
21 MR. GHIZZONI: That's correct. Any
22 challenges to that document are time --
23 MR. BIERIG: So the information in there is
24 considered accurate and can be used for -- maybe not
25 accurate but can be used as a basis for future decision
346

1 making.
2 MR. GHIZZONI: So long as don't run afoul --
3 MR. BIERIG: So long as there's no new
4 information that contradicts it.
5 MR. GHIZZONI: Right.
6 MR. BIERIG: Got it.
7 Commissioners, anybody see any reason why we
8 can't close the public hearing and go to deliberation at
9 this point?
10 Staff?
11 Okay. Close the public hearing, and I'll
12 take it back to the Commission -- Commissioners here for
13 how to proceed. I'm not sure if you want to address
14 this environmental issue as the first topic of
15 discussion or the last topic of discussion.
16 MR. GHIZZONI: Chairman, if I may add one
17 more thing on my view of the environmental discussion,
18 and that would be that, as this process has gone
19 along -- and it has been a process -- my concerns about
20 water supply as a sample issue for your potential
21 decision of requiring further a environmental impact
22 report on that topic or one or more topics is really
23 very recent.
24 And that would be correspondence from
25 Montecito Water District addressing different pieces of
347

1 this memorializing a negative delta between supply and
2 demand, and that's all the material that's come in
3 essentially since July 29th, July 30th.
4 MR. BIERIG: Just before our last hearing.
5 MR. GHIZZONI: Just for context, this is new
6 information. Whether it's new information to you within
7 the context of CEQA, it's certainly new information to
8 us and staff as it's come in within the past week or so.
9 MR. BIERIG: I see. Which has -- what's
10 really changed the opinion process since -- is that
11 delta now being new information for us.
12 MR. GHIZZONI: Chairman Bierig, for me,
13 that's the time frame that I'm looking at. The
14 Ordinance 89 has been out there since April of this
15 year, but for me, going the next piece was the series of
16 letters from the Montecito Water District that discussed
17 water supply, water demands, shortages, and different
18 numbers in there, and that's why I think your discussion
19 to whether that is or is not new information of
20 substantial importance would be appropriate.
21 MR. BIERIG: Commissioners, I have a
22 suggestion as to how I think we might want to proceed.
23 I'm not sure how everybody's going to decide this issue,
24 the certification of the environmental document.
25 But regardless of whether we're going to
348

1 certify the environmental documents, we've spent
2 two days, two long days, not counting all the many, many
3 days of analyzing these plans. I think I would prefer
4 we went back to land use issues because, regardless of
5 what else we do, I think we should attempt to see what
6 kind of consenus we have on the board here related to
7 issues we're comfortable with, those that we might not
8 be, and make sure we have everything out on the table
9 regardless of what we do on the environmental side.
10 And I can hear hesitation about the
11 environmental certification, and I'm not sure how I feel
12 about it right now. I'm still looking forward to
13 discussing it amongst ourselves.
14 So I wonder if everybody would be interested
15 again in sort of ticking off the land use issues one at
16 a time and seeing which ones are important, not
17 important, which of the conditions and findings we can
18 live with, which we might struggle with.
19 I mean I guess somebody can make motion for
20 approval -- we can start out there -- or denial. I
21 think we're somewhere in the middle. Just guessing.
22 MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chair, I --
23 MR. BIERIG: I have a checklist so.
24 MR. PHILLIPS: I'm kind of looking at it at a
25 more general sense. I feel pretty strongly that this
349

1 project is more Monticello than Montecito. It's a
2 beautiful design, but it's far too formal for the
3 cottage.
4 The intent of the Montecito Community Plan is
5 cottage, and it's not as formal as this. And I don't
6 think this is going to affect your rooms and your keys,
7 and I'm not suggesting that it should. I think it needs
8 to look smaller somehow, and I think that's going to
9 drive setback issues and height issues. So I don't
10 really need to go there. Now I would like to see
11 something else, and that's pretty fundamental.
12 MR. BIERIG: I think we should go there. I
13 think that's exactly where we should go.
14 MR. PHILLIPS: Go where?
15 MR. BIERIG: Into each one of those --
16 heights, setbacks. If we need, we can do building by
17 building.
18 MR. PHILLIPS: We have some discretion when
19 we're wearing our zoning hat as to height, setback
20 issues, and things like that. I'm finding less
21 discussion with the community plan, and I've got to get
22 over this cottage callout. It's pretty specific. Look
23 at San Ysidro Ranch; look at the Biltmore.
24 I find this just different enough so it
25 doesn't work, and I want them to have design
350

1 flexibilities so that with this redesign, should we
2 agree on that, it may need to be in the setback or not,
3 and it may need to be -- on one part it may need to be
4 higher or not.
5 But I wouldn't want to say, "You can't be
6 there, and you can't be up here, and you have to
7 redesign it." I'd like to see what it would look like.
8 That's pretty vague, I know, and I'll let you guys fill
9 it in.
10 MR. OVERALL: Michael, let's have a
11 conversation. I think what you just said -- I share
12 some of those thoughts, but if I were sitting here as
13 the Applicant, I wouldn't have faintest clue what we're
14 really thinking.
15 So I think we have to get into the specifics.
16 We're not going to sit here and design this or redesign
17 it or massage the existing design, but we can give them
18 some guidance on the things that trouble us or that we
19 really like, and I think we should do that.
20 MR. PHILLIPS: I guess I'm trying to get
21 there. I'm not categorically opposed to higher or in
22 setbacks with a proper design. I think the design is
23 very important.
24 We've heard so many people claim that the
25 entrance into Montecito on 101 -- "it's too big. We
351

1 don't want to see it that big." And I think community
2 plan says "Don't yell at us." This has got to be
3 quieter and more cottagey looking. I'm not going to
4 design it. You don't want me to, but I think -- I think
5 there's a formality to this design that takes it away
6 from cottage, and it could be different and in that
7 context smaller and maybe not as often in setbacks. I
8 don't know, but I'll turn off my mike at this point.
9 You guy can --
10 MR. BIERIG: Maybe we should look at it this
11 way. You've sort of given us your philosophy of what
12 you think we should do. That could be the start of how
13 we get into this, but I'm determined to get this body to
14 the point of talking about, if it's too high, how high
15 is too high? And if it's too much in the setback, how
16 much of it is in too much of the setback? Not vaguely
17 wave our arms and say, "Change it."
18 Let's tell them what we want. Here's a
19 chance to do what we couldn't do the first time around.
20 We can take a straw vote if we want to figure out some
21 kind of agreement or not, and we've spent a lot of time
22 on it. Let's get it out on the table.
23 MS. GOTTSDANKER: I completely concur with
24 Chairman Bierig. I actually concur with
25 Chairman Phillips too. And I think at this point in the
352

1 process I think this community owes this to Mr. Caruso.
2 I think Mr. Caruso has not been served by this
3 community. I think he's been led in directions by both
4 staff and by the community at large, the
5 Montecito Association, that have been inappropriate
6 and -- inappropriate, completely inappropriate.
7 And what we now have is, as a result, a
8 project that I don't think -- at least there are two
9 members, and I actually believe there are more members
10 sitting up here, although we haven't said, who cannot
11 find consistency with the LUC Policy M.1.6, which says
12 "Improvements to visitor-resort-serving hotels shall be
13 designed to be consistent with existing historic
14 cottage-type hotel traditions of the early days."
15 It's very clear to me what that says. Now, I
16 think that's been manipulated to be interpreted as
17 being, "Okay. Six keys here in some rooms." We've got
18 Building 44 that maybe complies and maybe doesn't.
19 And you know, I think that it really is time,
20 as Chairman Bierig is saying, to let Mr. Caruso and his
21 team know what it is that we're going to be able to live
22 with. You know, I mean I'm totally prepared to say
23 that. I've been prepared to say that for a long time.
24 I've kept my mouth shut, but that's where I'm at.
25 And the first place I'm going to go with that
353

1 is that I do not think that Lot 11 can be included in
2 the FAR calculations, which immediately impacts the
3 project. I don't know whether all of Lot 6 should be
4 taken out or only the easement, the 60-foot-wide -- or
5 20-foot-wide easement that belongs to the public. It is
6 a coastal access. I think that has to be taken out of
7 the numbers.
8 And all of a sudden those two actions
9 alone -- I mean if we take out -- I actually did the
10 calculations. If we take out all of the -- the railroad
11 alone, we will then have am FAR of .267. That's not
12 going to comply with our community plan.
13 So we've got a redesign coming down the line
14 anyway if we decide to take that action. I'm going for
15 that action. And I think we have heard by many people
16 "too big." It's just too big.
17 So I can either sit here and chip away by the
18 actions that we decide to take, you know, or we can just
19 say to Caruso and team, "It's too big, and it's not
20 cottage style," and walk away, and we can all go home
21 and have a drink. But I don't think that's appropriate
22 to do at this time, and I really don't think it's
23 appropriate to leave the Applicant in that place.
24 MR. BIERIG: Let's take a straw vote on
25 whether Lot 18 should be in or out -- excuse me --
354

1 Lot 11.
2 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Lot 11 is the railroad
3 parcel.
4 MR. OVERALL: Mr. Chair, I think there's
5 actually a legal question involved.
6 MS. BURROWS: Yes, it is a legal question.
7 Absolutely. We have legal opinion on that.
8 MR. PHILLIPS: That's the determination of
9 the development plan.
10 MR. BIERIG: It's ours to decide.
11 MS. GOTTSDANKER: It's not even zoned.
12 Commercial visitor resort -- it's not even in the right
13 zoning.
14 MS. SLUTZKY: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, you
15 are the interpreters, and ultimately the board are the
16 interpreters of the community plan and the building
17 ordinance.
18 MR. PHILLIPS: I'd like to argue for 11.
19 MR. BIERIG: Which way?
20 MR. PHILLIPS: I would like to argue that the
21 Applicant has paid for the easement and he's developing
22 the easement. Landscape is a big part of the project.
23 I think -- I think he gets to count it.
24 MS. BURROWS: I agree, Mr. Chair. I can't
25 imagine what it would look like without the landscaping
355

1 there.
2 MS. GOTTSDANKER: I'm not saying he can't --
3 MR. BIERIG: It's not a question of whether
4 he landscapes it. The question is does it count for the
5 purposes of creating additional building mass on the
6 rest of the property.
7 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Is that consistent with how
8 any property owner in Montecito would be treated? No.
9 If you don't own the lot, you don't get to count it.
10 MR. PHILLIPS: It's development plan
11 language, isn't it, which is we don't get to have a
12 residential development? I guess we do.
13 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Our whole community plan is
14 based on residential development. It's a residential
15 community.
16 MR. PHILLIPS: It seems a necessary part of
17 this project, though. He needs to have it to cross it.
18 He's going to maintain it.
19 MS. GOTTSDANKER: But he doesn't need it in
20 relationship to his FAR.
21 MR. PHILLIPS: It's technical, and certainly
22 that's a legitimate view.
23 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Okay.
24 MR. PHILLIPS: The number of keys is
25 important for the stockholders or whoever for you, and
356

1 let's --
2 MS. GOTTSDANKER: It's not going to impact
3 the number of keys.
4 MR. OVERALL: Let's stay focused on the lot.
5 MR. BIERIG: Maybe philosophically we ought
6 to start out with something here is we want a hotel to
7 be built. We want the hotel. If we had a choice, we'd
8 get it tomorrow. So let's put it in perspective that
9 we'd like the guy to build the thing.
10 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Absolutely.
11 MR. BIERIG: So the question on something
12 like Lot 11 -- you know, I challenged the issue on Lot
13 6. I'm kind of comfortable now that, you know, it's
14 his. I haven't seen it, but I'm there. So I think we
15 ought to include Lot 6. I'll make that proposal that
16 Lot 6 is in. 11 is more of a judgment call, and as far
17 as open space, it's in the middle of the project, and
18 it's open. So maybe it should be included.
19 MS. BURROWS: Mr. Chairman, I would vote to
20 include that. I think it's a better project if it's
21 included.
22 MS. GOTTSDANKER: It's not going to --
23 everybody seems to think that I'm trying to take it away
24 from the project. I'm not try to take it away from the
25 project. What I'm trying to do is find a rational way
357

1 of getting the mass, bulk, and scale as measured by FAR
2 down.
3 I mean this project is 33,000 square feet
4 more than the Schrager project, 33,000 square feet more
5 than what was approved with the Schrager project.
6 MR. BIERIG: No, that's not correct. You're
7 not nearly high enough.
8 MR. GOTTSDANKER: Okay. Sorry. I got that
9 the net square footage of the Schrager project was 137
10 blah, blah, blah square feet and that the Caruso project
11 was 171,000 square feet, and the difference there would
12 be 33,800.
13 MR. BIERIG: I take it back. You may be
14 right because I'm looking at building footprint.
15 MS. GOTTSDANKER: No, I didn't do building
16 footprint. I went to the net square footage.
17 MR. BIERIG: If you look at land --
18 MS. GOTTSDANKER: That's the size of seven
19 5,000-square-foot houses. That's what we're battling
20 with.
21 MR. BIERIG: I understand your concern
22 because if you look at it from -- forget how we
23 calculate FAR. Just look at how many square feet out
24 there have a building on top of it. It's 190,000 feet.
25 It's a lot. Schrager was 113.
358

1 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Yeah, we're being -- at the
2 same time we're being asked to say that this project is
3 built on top of the negative declaration and that
4 there's no environmental impacts. It's got to give
5 somewhere. I don't know where everybody wants to have
6 it give.
7 But you're pointing to it that it has to be
8 more -- excuse me -- not you but Commissioner Phillips
9 is saying it has to be more consistent with cottage
10 style. Well, I can come up with a list of things that
11 will make it more consistent with what I consider
12 cottage style to be.
13 I already mentioned one today. I think the
14 plate height -- I don't think anybody would ever say in
15 the world of architecture that cottage style has
16 24-foot-high buildings with 12-foot plate heights.
17 Okay. You want to go in that direction? I don't know.
18 But anything we do is going to impact -- is
19 going to send -- I'm assuming is going to send
20 Mr. Caruso back to the drawing table for something. So
21 I just don't know where everybody else wants to go.
22 That was my first shot at it was reducing the FAR.
23 MR. OVERALL: I would like to point out that
24 neither Parcel 6 nor Parcel 11 -- neither Parcel 6 or
25 Parcel 11 is included in the Schrager plan for FAR. I
359

1 think, if we now suddenly make a change and we include
2 it here, we've changed circumstances. It's right back
3 in the CEQA question.
4 And I'm sure that Mr. Caruso had to be aware
5 of what he was buying when he bought this, and you know,
6 there's an implicit FAR limitation by excluding those
7 two properties, and I am absolutely in a position where
8 I say you've got to exclude them. Otherwise, we're
9 not -- the whole basis of the comparison of the Schrager
10 plan goes out the window.
11 MR. PHILLIPS: You're saying the CEQA
12 document could not be certifiable --
13 MS. GOTTSDANKER: That's accurate.
14 MR. PHILLIPS: -- based on that it's
15 inconsistent with the underlying --
16 MR. BIERIG: But we've heard testimony from
17 counsel that that's not true. We can have a larger
18 project and still use the same documentation. So I
19 don't think that's an accurate statement, and I don't
20 think it gets us to the bottom line as to should we
21 include it or not. It's really our decision. We can't
22 fall back on environmental -- we've got to look at what
23 we think is reasonable, and I'm not arguing --
24 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Except that they're all
25 interconnected.
360

1 MR. BIERIG: And I'm not suggesting that they
2 aren't, but maybe we should get it cottage style and
3 some of those issues -- I started out headed down that
4 road of FAR. That's where I started in the beginning on
5 this thing. So I'm not suggesting it isn't legitimate,
6 but I'm kind of convinced now that the beach property is
7 legitimately theirs. It is open space. That amenity is
8 being used. They own it. We should count it. Railroad
9 property I'm on the fence.
10 MS. GOTTSDANKER: I didn't bring up the beach
11 property.
12 MR. BIERIG: I'm trying to take issues off
13 the table here as well.
14 MS. GOTTSDANKER: I wasn't going to bring up
15 the beach property.
16 MR. BIERIG: I think we bring them all up.
17 MS. GOTTSDANKER: I want some square footage
18 out of this project. That's where I'm going. I don't
19 care how we get there. We can leave the railroad in
20 there, and then what I will say is "Okay. Reduce it by
21 'X' number of square footage." I don't know how we get
22 there. I think there's too much square footage here.
23 MR. PHILLIPS: I agree.
24 MR. GOTTSDANKER: You know, I don't care how
25 we get there.
361

1 MR. PHILLIPS: I think Mr. Caruso can
2 redesign this and bring down the square footage, bring
3 the look more cottagey, and still keep the FAR number.
4 MR. BIERIG: The percentage.
5 MR. PHILLIPS: He may need it. I don't know.
6 Maybe you can get cottagey and littler and still have
7 the same FAR.
8 MR. BIERIG: Without everybody sticking to
9 their votes, how about if I make a straw motion that we
10 not count 18 -- excuse me. I keep saying -- that's a
11 project of mine -- Lot 11. The railroad is out. It's
12 not part of the project for the calculation of FAR and
13 that 6 is in.
14 MS. BLACK: Do you want us to call roll?
15 MR. BIERIG: No, no, we don't need to be that
16 formal, I don't think.
17 MS. GOTTSDANKER: So we're taking a straw
18 vote to whether 11 is out?
19 MR. BIERIG: How about the beach? Should the
20 beach be included?
21 MR. PHILLIPS: Yes.
22 MS. BURROWS: Yes.
23 MR. BIERIG: Yes.
24 MR. OVERALL: No.
25 MR. BIERIG: We already have three yeses.
362

1 11, in or out?
2 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Out.
3 MR. OVERALL: Out.
4 MS. BURROWS: Are you in?
5 MR. BIERIG: I'm not sure. I'll defer to you
6 guys.
7 MR. PHILLIPS: I think it's in.
8 MS. BURROWS: In.
9 MR. BIERIG: Out. And the reason I went
10 there is not because I don't think it should be. I
11 think your comment about the total mass is too much, and
12 one of the ways for us to legitimately get there is
13 to --
14 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Great. Thank you very
15 much.
16 MR. BIERIG: You're welcome. Let's talk
17 about heights and setbacks.
18 MR. OVERALL: One at a time.
19 MR. BIERIG: My suggestion is let's look at
20 Jameson. We've got -- Jameson in particular we've got
21 buildings that are over -- well, according to my notes,
22 we are -- I'll throw out my suggestion. I'm not willing
23 to have any two-story buildings in the setback. No
24 two-story buildings in the setback.
25 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Okay. Let me look. Within
363

1 the setback is what you're saying?
2 MR. BIERIG: Let's look at our -- how about
3 sheet 3A002.
4 MR. PHILLIPS: I think that's just the lanai
5 building.
6 MS. GOTTSDANKER: No, it's a little bit of
7 the backside of --
8 MR. BIERIG: It would be the ballroom -- the
9 main building, the ballroom, 44, 43.
10 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Not 43, 44.
11 MR. BIERIG: That's only on Jameson. I'm
12 just now addressing two-stories in the setback.
13 MS. GOTTSDANKER: I'm sorry. I misunderstood
14 you, Mr. Chairman. What you are saying is that you do
15 not think there should be any two-story buildings in any
16 setbacks.
17 MR. BIERIG: That's what I'm saying. I'm
18 willing to give on Buildings 11 and 9 because they're
19 adjacent to the Applicant's own property, and I'm
20 willing to give on 24 because historically they are not
21 moving them. And for most of these, for Building 44, 4,
22 and 5, the changes required to get them out of the
23 setbacks are not substantial. For building 43 it
24 basically can't be a two-story building.
25 MS. GOTTSDANKER: 43 and not 44.
364

1 MR. BIERIG: 44. But I figure they'll move
2 44. They'll move 4 and 5 slightly or modify them
3 slightly.
4 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Where's Building 4? Are
5 you talking about 1 and 5?
6 MR. BIERIG: Excuse me. It's 1. I don't
7 have glasses.
8 MS. GOTTSDANKER: I'm sorry. Yeah, it's 1
9 and 5.
10 MR. BIERIG: 1 and 5.
11 MS. GOTTSDANKER: I think on page A009 -- I
12 mean that's the one I'm working off of, which is the
13 one -- I've colored in the setbacks in preparation for
14 this. I mean just it's really easy for me to read. So
15 Buildings 40 -- and 41 and 40 are both single-story
16 buildings.
17 MR. BIERIG: If you want to make it easy, we
18 can start on Jameson and just look at Building 44, 1,
19 and 5, which is the lanai building, the main building,
20 and ballroom building. I don't think those buildings
21 should be in the setback.
22 MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chair, are you suggesting
23 that, if they were moved out of the setbacks, the
24 heights would be appropriate?
25 MR. BIERIG: No. But I'm suggesting they can
365

1 be two-story building -- that they are two-story
2 buildings and should not be in the setbacks of a public
3 street.
4 MR. OVERALL: Mr. Chair, I could support that
5 view. I cannot find a justification for them being in
6 the setback.
7 MR. BIERIG: Nor can I.
8 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Yeah, I would agree with
9 that because, along with that -- and I think I mentioned
10 it today, and I think it was -- was it Mr. McMannis
11 who -- somebody from Mr. Caruso's team said they were
12 willing to give something on South Jameson or on that
13 parking and sound thing. So that really works for one
14 of my future design adjustments that was going to be
15 made because I'm not giving up the idea of my
16 encroachment.
17 MR. BIERIG: So if we pull those out of the
18 setback which is not big changes -- not pulling them
19 out --
20 MS. BLACK: Mr. Chair, you really need to be
21 speaking to each other on the mikes because, otherwise,
22 you're just having a conversation between yourselves and
23 the public can't participate.
24 MR. PHILLIPS: Is this a little too
25 inflexible? We're invited to permit those encroachments
366

1 for -- I forgot -- what is the language? The project --
2 MR. BIERIG: Let's talk philosophy. I'll
3 argue philosophy. Why are we putting two-story
4 buildings in the setback? Normally we don't put
5 buildings in setbacks. So why are we putting two-story
6 buildings in the setback especially since -- do you see
7 any reason why they need to be in the setbacks?
8 MR. PHILLIPS: No.
9 MR. BIERIG: Nor do I.
10 MS. GOTTSDANKER: And from MBAR and my
11 architectural background, we have requested multiple
12 residential customers in the community that, if a
13 building is on the setback -- that's just like right on
14 the setback, that the second story shall be set back an
15 additional ten feet.
16 You know, so once again, I've got to go back
17 to it's like what's fair for our residential clientele
18 or constituency ought to be fair for a commercial
19 developer in a residential community.
20 MR. PHILLIPS: Here we have the Applicant
21 redesigning. Wouldn't we want to give him some design
22 flexibility and come back and say, "We understand the
23 setback issue"?
24 MS. GOTTSDANKER: He does have design
25 flexibility if he wants to reduce -- well, this is just
367

1 my opinion. If he wants to reduce -- well, just take
2 the second section in -- from San Ysidro Road and
3 Building 44 where there happen to be -- 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 --
4 6 units. There's 12 units in there. The flexibility
5 for me would be that I would allow that building to
6 exist in the setback if the second story were taken off
7 and those six units were added to some of the cottages
8 which only have 2 or 3 units.
9 MR. PHILLIPS: Exactly.
10 MS. GOTTSDANKER: That would be fine. I
11 would -- the single-story building could still exist in
12 the setback if the second floor of that section of it --
13 because for me that gets myself and the community a
14 whole lot of -- a whole lot of what we're saying because
15 you take that second building -- not the first building,
16 you take the second building. You would take that whole
17 second floor off. You've immediately begun to wiggle
18 that long facade along south Jameson, which really what
19 I'm concerned about --
20 MR. PHILLIPS: Looking like a cottage --
21 MR. OVERALL: I think this is exactly what we
22 shouldn't be doing. We shouldn't be trying to sit here
23 and design this project. There's a philosophical
24 question on -- that Bob posed which is can we find a
25 justification to build a two-story building in the
368

1 setback, and I think to go beyond that we're coopting
2 exactly what the Applicant needs to do, which is design
3 it.
4 Take a straw vote. You had a proposal. I
5 think it's a good one.
6 MR. BIERIG: Let's talk about Jameson first.
7 I suggest there should not be two-story buildings in the
8 setback along Jameson.
9 MR. OVERALL: You got one vote here.
10 MS. GOTTSDANKER: I'll agree with that.
11 MR. PHILLIPS: I'll agree with that.
12 Two-story? Two-story?
13 MS. BLACK: Mike, please.
14 MS. BURROWS: Oh, thank you. So the bottom
15 line is all these buildings would be pushed back?
16 MR. BIERIG: That's the idea.
17 MS. BURROWS: I agree with that.
18 MR. BIERIG: Same. Okay. No two-story
19 buildings in the setback along Jameson.
20 Let's address the rest of the setback issues
21 if we can.
22 MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chair, they're not
23 necessarily moved back. They're just not going to be in
24 the setback. They can be moved somewhere else.
25 MS. BURROWS: Yes, but they can't be in the
369

1 setback here.
2 MR. BIERIG: No two-story buildings in the
3 setback.
4 The harder issue, I think, for me is when it
5 comes around to Building 43, 9, and 11. I can live with
6 9 and 11 and 2, 3, and 4. I'm not proposing we do
7 anything to 9, 11, 2, 3, 4 and 6. Well, 6 isn't -- but
8 I have a problem with a two-story building that's as
9 close as 43 is to the property line. It's the side yard
10 issue. They've addressed the spa; so that's out of the
11 way.
12 MS. GOTTSDANKER: So you're saying you
13 don't -- as far as two-story buildings in the setbacks,
14 we're talking 9, which is a two-story building.
15 MR. BIERIG: I tried to address all the
16 two-story buildings.
17 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Is 11 a two-story building?
18 MR. BIERIG: Yes, it is. It's internal to
19 the property. If you look -- I'm not concerned about --
20 MS. GOTTSDANKER: I don't have a problem
21 with --
22 MR. BIERIG: -- internal property or 9
23 because it's adjacent to their own parcel. 2, 3, and 4,
24 they're effectively rebuilding something in its place,
25 same location. Obviously they're new, but they're the
370

1 same location. So the only one that is left in the
2 setback issue is 43, and I'm kind of on the fence on 43.
3 MR. OVERALL: I think this is one of those
4 cases where you have to say that the existing setback is
5 not adequate whether it has to be a one-story building
6 or a two-story building. I think we need to leave to
7 the Applicant -- we simply say this is too close to the
8 property line where it is now, at least my approach. I
9 don't want to dictate what that setback should be.
10 MR. PHILLIPS: I feel more strongly about
11 that. I can support Jack's feeling.
12 MS. GOTTSDANKER: I kind of agree with that,
13 although I do want to make sure Building 40, 41, and 43
14 that there is enough room -- and I think I brought this
15 up at the last hearing; so you guys are probably
16 prepared for this.
17 But I feel those are too close to the
18 property line because they do not allow for landscaping.
19 You have no landscaping on your existing landscape plan,
20 and I think I had suggested at the last hearing that I
21 thought those buildings needed to move slightly or
22 somewhat into the property so that could be heavily
23 landscaped as a protection for the church and the
24 neighborhood.
25 I also -- there was also a statement -- and I
371

1 just want to cover this. This is something I didn't get
2 out earlier is that Commissioner Burrows asked one of
3 the team, and the team responded that there were no
4 windows that were facing into the church, and that is
5 not accurate per these drawings. Per these drawings
6 there are windows that face and look down from that
7 two-story building into the church properties.
8 So I just want to make sure that
9 Commissioner Burrows is clear that we do not yet have a
10 set of drawings where there are no windows looking into
11 the -- and that may change because, if we push this out
12 of setbacks, your concern, Commissioner Burrows, may not
13 be a concern anymore. But I just want to point that
14 out.
15 MS. BURROWS: I agree with everything you
16 said especially, if there are windows here, you need to
17 manage that in some way, and more landscaping would be
18 very good there -- or landscaping would very good.
19 MR. BIERIG: Somebody want to suggest an
20 alternative condition related to 40, 41, and 43.
21 MR. OVERALL: 40, 41, 43.
22 MS. BURROWS: I thought you just did.
23 MR. BIERIG: What is it?
24 MS. BLACK: Turn your mike on.
25 MS. BURROWS: I thought we were going to move
372

1 them in and have more landscaping there or have
2 landscaping in there if there is none on the landscaping
3 map, and I had not noticed that.
4 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Errin, can you flip up the
5 landscape plan so people on the Commission can see it.
6 MR. OVERALL: Mr. Chair, I make a motion that
7 we suggest to the Applicant that they honor the setback
8 of 30 feet. If they come back with a design reason why
9 it doesn't work, perhaps we can justify it, but as of
10 right now, I would suggest a 30-foot setback for each of
11 those three buildings.
12 MR. BIERIG: I think
13 Commissioner Gottsdanker, who does a lot of landscaping,
14 suggested 20 was probably --
15 MS. GOTTSDANKER: I could even live with
16 that.
17 MR. PHILLIPS: Could you screen it at 20?
18 MS. BURROWS: I'm sorry? I missed that.
19 MS. GOTTSDANKER: 15 would be sufficient.
20 But then I don't know -- given that Mr. Caruso has owned
21 the plan has pathways of things. I just want to make
22 sure there's enough room for people -- this is up to you
23 that your clientele be able to get out their doors and
24 walk around there and also be heavily landscaped.
25 MR. OVERALL: I'll try again. I made a
373

1 suggestion. If the Applicant can't do that and can
2 justify why the encroachment in the setback needs to be
3 something different, then let's have them come back and
4 tell us. But I think to compromise at this point --
5 there is a policy which is you don't build in the
6 setbacks, and I think we're already making a compromise
7 whether it's 20 feet or 30 feet. But let's let the
8 Applicant do the work and come back with a justification
9 of why it has to be at 20 feet instead of 30 feet or
10 whatever.
11 MS. BURROWS: I agree with that.
12 MR. BIERIG: I think code is 50. So you
13 realize you're --
14 MS. SLUTZKY: 50.
15 MR. BIERIG: For side yard?
16 MS. GOTTSDANKER: 50 for side yard.
17 MR. BIERIG: I think you're better off to let
18 us do what we're going to do. Then we'll let you --
19 MR. CARUSO: Only if I can just give some
20 direction because I would hate to be wasting anybody's
21 time.
22 MR. BIERIG: It's not a waste of our time. I
23 think you're better off to let us -- we have to do this.
24 MR. CARUSO: Okay. I can just --
25 MR. BIERIG: Then you can say whatever you
374

1 want.
2 MR. CARUSO: Okay. All right.
3 MR. PHILLIPS: What else do we have?
4 MR. BIERIG: Did we settle at a number?
5 MR. OVERALL: I suggested 30.
6 MR. BIERIG: Claire?
7 MS. GOTTSDANKER: What was the number?
8 MR. BIERIG: He's suggesting 30. You
9 suggested 20 or less.
10 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Yeah, 20.
11 MS. BURROWS: I accept 20.
12 MR. BIERIG: 20.
13 MR. PHILLIPS: I think we all want to
14 accomplish the same thing. I'd like the Caruso team to
15 come back with something that works for them and works
16 for us. Let's get out of the setbacks as much as you
17 can.
18 MR. BIERIG: The side yard setback is
19 50 feet.
20 MR. PHILLIPS: Is it 50?
21 MR. BIERIG: Yes.
22 MR. PHILLIPS: I agree with 20.
23 MR. BIERIG: 20. What's next?
24 MR. OVERALL: Height.
25 MR. BIERIG: Height. I suggest you make a
375

1 motion related to heights of buildings adjacent to
2 public streets. I can live with the beach and tennis
3 club. I don't see any problem with the height.
4 MS. GOTTSDANKER: I don't have trouble with
5 that.
6 MR. BIERIG: I don't think any of us have
7 issues with that.
8 MR. OVERALL: A motion related to Buildings 1
9 and 5 -- I think they ought to conform to the community
10 plan. I can find no justification. There have been
11 alternatives presented by people in the community,
12 architects in the community. It's indicated there are
13 other places to put parking. The argument it has to be
14 this tall because of P1 and P2 -- I just don't feel
15 that's a justification.
16 MR. BIERIG: Can I suggest a slight
17 modification.
18 MR. OVERALL: Certainly.
19 MR. BIERIG: That we not grant a modification
20 of height limitation and that for the purposes of
21 measuring the height of this building that the top of
22 the curb on Jameson be Level 0.
23 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Level 0 of the two-story
24 habitable area?
25 MR. BIERIG: Finished first floor.
376

1 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Which would allow for
2 still --
3 MR. BIERIG: 35 feet.
4 MS. GOTTSDANKER: -- 35 feet for that part of
5 the building?
6 MR. BIERIG: They can build exactly the same
7 building if they want to. They just have to push it
8 down.
9 MR. PHILLIPS: And you argue for this because
10 that's the real visual impact?
11 MR. BIERIG: Yes.
12 MR. PHILLIPS: I like that as well.
13 MS. GOTTSDANKER: I'll go with it.
14 MS. BURROWS: I'll support that.
15 MR. BIERIG: Okay. Same.
16 Claire, I don't know if you want to address
17 any of the discussion we had on Building 44 in addition
18 to the setback issue.
19 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Earlier in the day, what I
20 was going to recommend is that, I think, the project
21 should comply with our encroachment policy; so the
22 sidewalk should be -- sidewalk and signage should be
23 added to the outside of the sound wall.
24 MR. OVERALL: Stop right there. Is that a
25 motion?
377

1 MS. GOTTSDANKER: That's it, yeah.
2 MR. OVERALL: I'd go along with that.
3 MR. BIERIG: Sidewalk outside the sound wall
4 on Jameson connecting into the project?
5 MS. BURROWS: Yes.
6 MR. BIERIG: They agreed to that.
7 MR. PHILLIPS: Yeah.
8 MR. BIERIG: We're all in agreement on that
9 one.
10 MS. GOTTSDANKER: And what that would do is
11 it would cause there to be -- from the curb to the sound
12 wall, it would cause that to be ten feet. That's what
13 the encroachment policies call for. You just need an
14 additional ten feet there, and then you know, that's
15 what that would be.
16 MR. OVERALL: I want to address the spirit
17 behind grading. I don't have a specific motion except
18 to acknowledge that, if you drop the height of the main
19 building, it seems to me like there is less -- and
20 particularly to do one level of parking, there is less
21 grading required.
22 Just as a philosophical approach, I would
23 like to see no net import to this project. I think
24 there's been too much conversation about grading to gain
25 height to have views, and that's not supported by our
378

1 potential policy in the community.
2 So as an encouragement, I'd like to encourage
3 the design people to reduce the amount of grading. I
4 think it's possible to change the parking arrangement.
5 MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman,
6 Commissioner Overall, I want to include -- I want to
7 call out for another look at that grading as it impacts
8 water flow around it, flooding neighbor impacts.
9 I think the Caruso team has an -- I think
10 they've demonstrated that a less convoluted surface is a
11 better hotel. The ADA issue is major --
12 MS. GOTTSDANKER: I completely agree with
13 that.
14 MR. BIERIG: So do I. I think the grading is
15 fine.
16 MR. PHILLIPS: I don't know if it's fine.
17 They've got to have that flexibility to accomplish.
18 MS. BURROWS: I agree.
19 MR. BIERIG: We have to be able to allow them
20 to have import --
21 MR. PHILLIPS: But I'm concerned about the
22 water flow around it. If you build it up too much, I'm
23 not sure we looked at that impact. But that's coming up
24 later in CEQA. I'd like to be flexible about this until
25 we see a problem.
379

1 MS. GOTTSDANKER: That's fine with me. You
2 know, I think -- you know, I think by doing what we just
3 did with the height that's going to impact the grading,
4 and I certainly am not going to try to sit here and tell
5 anybody how this lot should be graded because that's so
6 complex. It's so much a trade off between the cutting
7 that's being proposed, the "lower buildings on one end
8 and bring them up at that end."
9 And also I'm not going to go with no fill
10 because, if they need whatever -- if they need 1,000
11 cubic yards of fill to fill in the hole, well, fine.
12 That's what they need to do it. So I don't think we
13 here -- at least you guys -- and it would take me a lot
14 longer to figure out a grading plan that worked to be
15 able to make any conditions like. I don't want to do
16 that.
17 MR. OVERALL: I want to clarify. I'm not
18 making a condition. I was making a suggestion that it
19 would be desirable to comply with our regulations which
20 is to minimize the amount of grading.
21 So I think, to the extent he can justify
22 grading to level out the site, I'm not opposed to that.
23 I would encourage them to try and arrive at a plan that
24 doesn't require nearly as much import of fill.
25 MS. GOTTSDANKER: I think we can go right to
380

1 the Watershed Protection Policy. There's two of them.
2 HWPP1 says "Plans for development shall minimize cut and
3 fill operations. Plans requiring excessive cutting and
4 filling may be denied if it's determined that the
5 development can carry that with less alteration of the
6 natural terrain." And then HWPP2 is "All developments
7 should be designed to fit the site and any other
8 existing conditions" -- you know, and then it goes on
9 and on and on. So yeah, it should be kept to the
10 absolute minimum and still have the design work and the
11 ADA ramps work and the parking work and all of that.
12 MR. BIERIG: I'm still comfortable with
13 grading plan to give them a site that's relatively flat
14 similar to what they have now, and those policy are in
15 effect. I can't see changing any -- I can't come up
16 with a motion for modification of the conditions right
17 now.
18 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Well, I think you have,
19 Chairman Bierig, by saying that the first floor of --
20 MR. BIERIG: But that's an impact rather
21 than --
22 MS. GOTTSDANKER: -- the building. That's
23 going to impact the grading no matter what. What are
24 you going to do? Leave the grading where it is and have
25 the building buried. That's going to impact the
381

1 grading.
2 MR. BIERIG: I'm having trouble constructing
3 them. I mean obviously none of them have grading. I
4 don't know what I want to tell staff to write related to
5 grading.
6 MS. GOTTSDANKER: I don't think we're writing
7 conditions. I hope we're not.
8 MR. BIERIG: I hope we're pretty close to
9 suggesting what we want conditions to look like.
10 MS. GOTTSDANKER: They're going to have to
11 figure out how to write them.
12 MR. BIERIG: Tennis court lights, anyone?
13 MS. BURROWS: We addressed that. I think the
14 Applicant agreed to turn the lights off at 9:00 o'clock.
15 That's fine for me.
16 MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not sure whose lights are
17 shining in whose windows.
18 MS. BURROWS: We had a two letters that the
19 lights would sign in their windows, Mr. Bellarmy for
20 one.
21 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Mr. Phillips, you have to
22 remember that we've got -- I think it's approximately
23 11 feet of fill down. So the tennis courts are actually
24 going to sit up above those residents that are on the
25 other side of Oak Creek. So I think -- the letters came
382

1 from those residents who foresee the tennis courts
2 sitting up here and the lights shining down into their
3 rooms. That's what their letters say anyway.
4 MR. BIERIG: I wouldn't want it next to my
5 house.
6 MS. BURROWS: No, I wouldn't want it next to
7 mine either.
8 MR. OVERALL: Is that a motion?
9 MR. BIERIG: No lights?
10 MS. GOTTSDANKER: After 9:00 o'clock, yes.
11 MR. BIERIG: No, I was saying no lights.
12 MS. BURROWS: No lights at all?
13 MR. OVERALL: We don't grant it to other
14 people.
15 MS. BURROWS: Are you saying no lights at
16 all?
17 MR. PHILLIPS: It's not lights only; it's
18 noise too.
19 MS. BURROWS: But in the winter that would
20 mean there would be no use of the tennis courts after
21 maybe 5:00 o'clock.
22 MR. BIERIG: And?
23 MS. BURROWS: 9:00 o'clock is fine for me.
24 MR. BIERIG: Phillips, 9:00 or none?
25 MR. PHILLIPS: None.
383

1 MR. BIERIG: I say no.
2 MR. OVERALL: No.
3 MS. GOTTSDANKER: No.
4 MR. BIERIG: No.
5 MR. BIERIG: Any suggestions on Building 44.
6 MS. GOTTSDANKER: I thought we dealt with it.
7 We just moved it in -- out of the setbacks.
8 MR. BIERIG: Okay. That addressed enough of
9 what you're concerned --
10 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Yes, given Mr. Overall's
11 pointing out to me that I didn't get to redesign the
12 project myself.
13 MR. BIERIG: Okay. All right. Do we need
14 any -- just of staff, what's the condition related to
15 the well or lack?
16 MS. BLACK: The Applicant included in the
17 project description the fact they would not be using an
18 onsite well.
19 MR. BIERIG: They'd have to come back.
20 MS. BLACK: Yes. And I think our intention
21 would be to make it explicit in the findings that that
22 was a matter of substantial public controversy if it
23 occurs 20 years from now. I won't be here 20 years from
24 now, but others would know.
25 MR. BIERIG: Okay. Thank you. I've only got
384

1 one left.
2 MS. GOTTSDANKER: I've got a couple related
3 to water and drainage. Okay. I think I would like to
4 see a condition that all rainwater and roof runoff be
5 directed and used in some sort of reclamation system for
6 the use of landscape water on the project.
7 MR. BIERIG: Cistern type?
8 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Whatever. I don't know.
9 MR. BIERIG: Landscape?
10 MS. GOTTSDANKER: There's all kinds of
11 systems out there where you can collect rainwater and
12 reclaim and put it back on the ground.
13 MR. BIERIG: How would you phrase that
14 condition again?
15 MS. GOTTSDANKER: All rainwater and roof
16 runoff to be directed into a reclamation system for use
17 as for -- for use as landscape water on the property.
18 MR. BIERIG: How about "best efforts" or
19 something?
20 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Best efforts, whatever you
21 want to say.
22 MR. BIERIG: I can't see making them put a
23 secondary storm drain system for roof runoff.
24 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Hey, listen. My son
25 in New Zealand just put in a $15,000 septic system
385

1 that's good for 40 years that filters all of his
2 effluent water and gives him clean water that can be
3 used for landscape purposes. $15,000. The systems are
4 available.
5 So I mean give me a break here. I'm not even
6 asking for all the funky water to go into a system. I'm
7 asking for some system to be put on the site that will
8 use the rain and roof runoff water rather than putting
9 it into a storm drain or into the ocean, which was the
10 issue that the sanitation district had and we have
11 throughout Montecito. That's where that came from.
12 MR. PHILLIPS: Can we expand that at your
13 pleasure to -- it seems to me, just to back up here,
14 there hasn't been any mention of an attempt to -- green
15 issues. I don't know.
16 MS. GOTTSDANKER: This is my slight attempt.
17 MR. PHILLIPS: Yeah. I mean is there more we
18 should do as planning commissioners to nudge that fold.
19 Is there a solar panel somewhere that would fit? I
20 don't know. Is that out of our --
21 MS. GOTTSDANKER: You know, for myself, I
22 think that's a personal lifestyle choice.
23 MR. PHILLIPS: Not a community impact choice?
24 MS. GOTTSDANKER: No. Because there's no --
25 we have no community impact shown for a lack of
386

1 electricity.
2 MR. PHILLIPS: No ordinance either.
3 MS. GOTTSDANKER: No ordinance or anything
4 like that. The reason I went here was because we did
5 have issues with not enough water possibly with the well
6 going away. We had issues from Heal the Ocean having
7 clean water, and we had issues with overloading the
8 sewage system with possible rainwater runoff. So
9 that's -- this was just my way of trying to do a little
10 bit of environmental stuff around that.
11 MR. PHILLIPS: Can they come back with
12 feasibility issues and see --
13 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Absolutely, yeah. At this
14 point I think all of it is kind of up for grabs.
15 MR. PHILLIPS: Yeah, it's not a directive.
16 MS. GOTTSDANKER: I don't know that we're
17 going to be able to reach a point where this is all
18 going to be put into conditions tonight that make sense
19 to anybody and can be voted on. So I don't know what
20 anybody else thinks.
21 MR. BIERIG: You'd like to see some language.
22 MS. GOTTSDANKER: I'd like to see some
23 language that causes them to reuse some reclaimed water.
24 MR. OVERALL: I'd like to address that
25 because it's related to it. I think I'm on -- I'd like
387

1 to address what are to me the twin issues of traffic and
2 parking. I am not persuaded by the testimony I've heard
3 today that we have an adequate analysis of the traffic
4 impacts.
5 I'm not persuaded, in spite of Mr. Caruso's
6 representation of adequacy of his staffing. There's
7 just been too many five-star hotels that have been
8 contacted that indicate that staffing levels are way
9 off.
10 I'll give you an example. I was in
11 Los Angeles last Thursday. I was staying at a
12 three-star, not a five-star hotel, a three-star hotel.
13 It was within eight rooms of the same size as what
14 Mr. Caruso is proposing. They have 40 housekeepers. He
15 has ten.
16 I don't believe the numbers Mr. Caruso has
17 presented to us can run a five-star hotel and deliver
18 the kind of service that five star indicates.
19 So I'm concerned about employees arriving in
20 the morning, of the impact on traffic, the impact on
21 parking, and I think we need considerable more -- I at
22 least require considerable more convincing that the
23 numbers that we're dealing with have anything related to
24 the reality of the operation of this hotel.
25 So I don't have a motion to make. If I had
388

1 to make one, I would say we ought to stick with the
2 initial parking requirement, but I'm willing to waive
3 that subject to additional input.
4 We may end up requiring it. But I just don't
5 feel we have adequate information on traffic. We have
6 limited it to one intersection. I don't want to go off
7 on my soapbox too long, but if you have 300 people
8 leaving an event on a Sunday afternoon, wherever, the
9 first time somebody heads south to Los Angeles, a family
10 of four, and they get slaughtered on that southbound
11 onramp, you can bet that every valet parker that they
12 have on that property is going to say, "Don't go south.
13 Go over to Eucalyptus. Go to North Jameson. Go back
14 down Hot Springs, or go south to Sheffield.
15 And no data, no study has been done on the
16 potential impact on any of the other intersections in
17 all of Montecito, and they're all in trouble. We have
18 traffic problems. So I guess what I would say is I want
19 to hold off on parking, and I want to hold off on
20 anything related to traffic until we get considerably
21 more information.
22 MR. PHILLIPS: I agree.
23 Mr. Chair, if you'll entertain a motion
24 regarding the CEQA document, maybe that's the time to do
25 it, or do you want to do it --
389

1 MR. BIERIG: I was hoping we could through
2 all the land use first.
3 MR. PHILLIPS: I think Jack's point comes up
4 in that area more than --
5 MR. BIERIG: I do have a couple traffic --
6 not traffic. I won't argue the traffic issue with you,
7 but I have concerns about parking. In particular I have
8 concerns about valet parking. And I think the way --
9 I've been thinking about this a lot how can we address
10 the valet parking issue because that's the one that's
11 really going hammer that neighborhood with people like
12 me not using it and parking in front of houses.
13 So I thought maybe what we can consider doing
14 is beefing up the language in Condition 55, which is the
15 one that let's us look back and look at the traffic
16 again. And I can't remember the exact language. I
17 think we look at it a year after operation.
18 And so two issues: One is I think we should
19 stage the increase of the beach and tennis club
20 membership until after that review is over. So that
21 gives 150 as per the existing plan -- or 140, and the
22 additional would be subject to the other review.
23 But I'd also like to beef up our solutions,
24 our potential mitigations to include, if we determine in
25 our best -- if our best determination is the operation
390

1 of the hotel is causing undue impact on the
2 neighborhood, that we have ability to require the
3 conversion of the tennis courts to a surface parking
4 lot.
5 MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chair, I like that
6 solution. Would you --
7 MR. BIERIG: I can tell counsel doesn't like
8 it already.
9 MR. PHILLIPS: Well, he doesn't get to vote.
10 That's good.
11 MR. BIERIG: We might as well hear why.
12 MR. PHILLIPS: Let me just say one thing
13 first.
14 MR. BIERIG: Here's my theory. We need a
15 solution, and I think having a solution -- we need
16 something. What do we do after we determine people are
17 not using the valet lot and parking all over the
18 neighborhood?
19 MR. PHILLIPS: Can't this be analyzed? Would
20 you feel better if a study was done, which I want to
21 call for in the CEQA discussion, to look at parking
22 again? Would we feel better if more studies were done
23 or a different kind of study looking at Jack's issue,
24 looking at --
25 MR. BIERIG: I'd love to study it. I asked
391

1 the question of both traffic people, and nobody had seen
2 any data on valet parking.
3 MR. PHILLIPS: I just know where this is
4 going.
5 MR. BIERIG: You allow them to build their
6 plan, and it just gives us a way to endorse it.
7 MR. PHILLIPS: I know it's going to happen.
8 I don't want the community to suffer. So I like that
9 idea in that we have parking there. We can't ask them
10 to do underground later.
11 MR. BIERIG: No, we can't. So I'm looking to
12 say, "Hey, here's something you don't have to have and
13 still have all your revenue." I guess the beach and
14 tennis club wouldn't be happy.
15 MR. PHILLIPS: Not much of a tennis club.
16 MR. BIERIG: No, it's not.
17 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Well --
18 MR. OVERALL: Let me just voice a thought. I
19 asked the question this morning related to what happens
20 if somewhere down the road the valet parking doesn't
21 work for the entire property. It was -- I don't
22 remember the exact statistic, but it was a dramatic drop
23 in capacity of the parking structure.
24 And I don't think we can overlook that. If
25 they don't build it, it will never be available, and if
392

1 a year from now or two years from now they find the
2 valet parking is too burdensome, then that parking is
3 going to evaporate.
4 As part of the study, I would like to see
5 what the capacity of the parking structure is if you
6 don't do tandem parking because I think, otherwise,
7 we're going into this blind.
8 Now, they may be fine with, but we don't know
9 that, and we don't have the data on valet parking to say
10 how it's going to work. I think we need to know --
11 before we make a decision on the amount of parking we
12 require, I think we need to have a spectrum of
13 information that we don't have present today.
14 MR. PHILLIPS: Let's do the CEQA context
15 maybe.
16 MR. BIERIG: Maybe we don't have -- I just
17 threw it out as a way to get at it. It may be not the
18 right one.
19 MS. GOTTSDANKER: I would like to hear --
20 MR. BIERIG: I would like to beef up the
21 language in 55 to give us something other than "God, we
22 wish we hadn't done this."
23 MS. SLUTZKY: That's probably possible, but
24 the language that you suggest is too vague. It
25 couldn't -- there's no enforcement capabilities. Nobody
393

1 would know what an undue impact is.
2 MR. BIERIG: Does the overflow spaces become
3 permanent?
4 MS. SLUTZKY: No, the undue impact. Once
5 there's an undue impact, then the overflow goes to the
6 tennis courts. Then we have to --
7 MR. BIERIG: We're going to have a hearing --
8 right? -- at the end of a year of operation or two years
9 or whatever it is, and we're going to analyze whether
10 it's working or not, and when we find it's not
11 working --
12 MS. SLUTZKY: You'll need some parameter to
13 identify it when it's not working.
14 MS. BLACK: It can't be in your judgment.
15 MR. BIERIG: It can't be in our judgment. We
16 have no judgment? Is that what you're trying to tell
17 us?
18 MS. BLACK: Mr. Chair, what Ms. Slutzky is
19 saying is you have to set --
20 MR. BIERIG: I'll be run out of town on a
21 rail by the time we're done here.
22 MS. BLACK: You have to set a clear standard
23 as to when you would trigger additional requirements.
24 You can't just say, "Well, if we don't think it's
25 working in our assessment."
394

1 MR. BIERIG: Maybe the direction is just
2 let's have some language that tries to give us some
3 flexibility to make something out of something we wish
4 we hadn't done.
5 MS. SLUTZKY: If they're submitting reports
6 to you -- the Applicant is submitting reports, for
7 example -- and five months out of six, they don't have
8 parking capacity --
9 MR. BIERIG: I'm not worried about capacity.
10 I'm worried about people not using the capacity. I'm
11 worried about that the lot has 100 empty spaces in it,
12 and people are parked all over the neighborhood.
13 MS. GOTTSDANKER: What would that have to do
14 with the tennis court?
15 MR. PHILLIPS: That would save $15.00 --
16 MR. BIERIG: Yeah, they don't want to pay, or
17 they don't want to give valet their keys.
18 MR. PHILLIPS: I think it will be worse than
19 that.
20 MR. BIERIG: I think it would be worse than
21 that too. I'm convinced there's enough parking space.
22 MR. PHILLIPS: You are?
23 MR. BIERIG: I am. I'm convinced there's
24 enough spaces. I'm not convinced they'll be used.
25 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Mr. Chair, one of the
395

1 things I just found on my piece of paper -- and I don't
2 know whether this fits in here, but I would like to
3 suggest, as we did with the Westmont project, that all
4 employees and beach club members be issued parking
5 decals so that at least as we're trying to monitor the
6 neighborhood, however that works, we can at least get at
7 employees and beach club members who are not parking
8 where you're indicating you want them to park.
9 MS. BURROWS: The employees are comped. They
10 can park there.
11 MS. GOTTSDANKER: I know, but if they have a
12 decal, who says -- I don't know that, though, and I
13 think that's what Mr. Bierig is saying. They may not
14 necessarily go to valet parking. You know, if you're
15 late for work and there's an empty space on
16 South Jameson, you're going to pop in there and run to
17 the front desk rather than go into the valet and have --
18 you know, I can see that happening.
19 You know, I can see any number of beach
20 club -- beach and tennis club people wanting to come
21 down for the day and just use the spa because that's
22 available to them and parking as close as they can to
23 the spa and then leaving and taking one or two of those
24 parking spaces. And at least with a decal for the
25 place, you will be able to walk those streets and go,
396

1 "Okay. There's nobody that's connected to the hotel
2 here."
3 MS. BURROWS: I think that's just fine with
4 me.
5 MR. PHILLIPS: What do we do then?
6 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Well, I don't know. I
7 think that's what were working on, and I think that we
8 have found from past projects that this is one of the
9 most difficult issues that we ever deal with is parking
10 and traffic.
11 I mean we spent hours on the Westmont project
12 and hours on the Coral Casino and hours on the
13 Music Academy dealing with to how do we park and how do
14 we deal with traffic.
15 And I think Mr. Overall is totally accurate
16 that we're not quite there yet. We don't quite know.
17 So we're looking for conditions, and I would suggest
18 that, given we're obviously not going to do anything
19 with this project tonight, that maybe staff can go back
20 and work on it.
21 They have come up with various scenarios for
22 various projects for dealing with these kinds of issues.
23 I am not a traffic expert; I'm not a parking expert.
24 I'm just -- you know, I go south when it comes to this.
25 I think that's staff -- that's the kind of information
397

1 and the kind of conditions that staff is more than
2 capable of writing.
3 MR. BIERIG: Maybe we just suggest we need
4 additional enforcement language within Condition 55 and
5 leave it at that for now. There's a lot of stuff on the
6 table here.
7 MR. PHILLIPS: You know, I think this hotel
8 does very well without Montecito beach and tennis club
9 folks. It would be a shame if that's where ended up
10 that only hotel guests can stay there because no room
11 for --
12 MR. BIERIG: I can't see that.
13 MS. BURROWS: I think it's a great community
14 asset.
15 MS. SLUTZKY: Could you all be on your mikes
16 when you speak, please.
17 MS. GOTTSDANKER: I think the beach and
18 tennis club people are -- and I think providing the
19 ability of the beach and tennis club to the community is
20 a really great asset for the community. It fits right
21 inside the -- you know, which I happened to bring with
22 me -- the goals and objectives of Mr. Caruso and his
23 team.
24 MS. BLACK: Mr. Chair, we have to do
25 something because our court reporter is, I think, dying.
398

1 MR. BIERIG: I think we're almost -- we're
2 almost done.
3 MR. BLACK: Can we take a five-minute break,
4 and let her shake her hands.
5 MR. BIERIG: Okay.
6 (Whereupon a short recess was taken.)
7 MR. BIERIG: I'd like to call us back into
8 session. We're going to wind this thing up.
9 Commissioners, anybody else have anything
10 else they want to deal with other than CEQA issues?
11 MR. PHILLIPS: No.
12 MR. BIERIG: Who wants to take a shot at that
13 one?
14 MR. PHILLIPS: I'll try. Counsel, this is
15 going to be unartful. Let's see. How would I set this
16 up? I move that the -- that the cause of a change of
17 circumstance in the water supply issue and, I believe,
18 traffic given the years out of the traffic -- normal
19 traffic study that we ask for additional studies to
20 amend the mitigated negative declaration, that we
21 include -- that we ask for additional traffic and water
22 studies of the project. That's more unartful than I
23 thought it was going to be.
24 Do you want to do this? I'm getting tired.
25 So it's a form of a motion to -- it's not
399

1 amend necessarily. What are we calling for? We're
2 calling for additional studies --
3 MR. GHIZZONI: Chairman Bierig and
4 Commissioner Phillips, you wouldn't be amending the
5 negative declaration which is back in 2000, eight years
6 behind us. So the question would be what form? If
7 you're looking for additional document, are you looking
8 for a supplemental EIR on one or more topics?
9 MR. PHILLIPS: So the motion is to call for a
10 supplemental EIR on water supply.
11 MR. GHIZZONI: Let me correct myself on that.
12 Subsequent, not supplemental. Subsequent EIR on one or
13 more topics. Excuse me.
14 MR. PHILLIPS: So I move to -- I'm moving
15 for -- is it -- I'm sorry. I'm tired. Can you say that
16 again. It's studies supporting the subsequent EIR.
17 MR. GHIZZONI: I think all you'd be saying is
18 that you found based on substantial evidence that the
19 current environmental document is not adequate as to the
20 topics of X and Y and you would direct further
21 environmental review in the form of subsequent
22 environmental impact report on those topic.
23 MR. PHILLIPS: That would be water, traffic
24 circulation, and parking. That's a motion.
25 MR. GHIZZONI: I'll just -- although you
400

1 didn't ask the question, I'll just mention that upon --
2 if you're finding that the environmental document is not
3 adequate in its present form, that it does -- just for
4 symmetry, you would not be providing a project approval.
5 At the same time you would be directing further
6 environmental review. If you direct further
7 environmental review, you're saying that the project is
8 not currently ready to be approved.
9 MR. PHILLIPS: Yes.
10 MR. OVERALL: Want a second on that?
11 MR. PHILLIPS: I do.
12 MR. OVERALL: Second.
13 MR. BIERIG: I'm assuming this is a straw
14 vote not -- are we making motions?
15 MR. PHILLIPS: If it's not the appropriate
16 time, a straw vote works for me.
17 MR. BIERIG: It's a good topic. I think we
18 should discuss it. Let's make it a tentative motion how
19 about? Just so we see where everybody is. It seems
20 like if we take that action we're done.
21 MR. PHILLIPS: We're done.
22 MR. BIERIG: Yeah, we're done. There's no
23 sense in having staff go and write conditions on all
24 this other stuff that we've done. We're done.
25 MR. PHILLIPS: Well, not that they would
401

1 disregard the last prior two hours.
2 MR. BIERIG: I don't know what to do with it
3 other than --
4 MR. PHILLIPS: Do we wait until a new design
5 until when get to the CEQA issues, or do we still have
6 this issue?
7 MR. BIERIG: Director Black?
8 MS. BLACK: Mr. Chair, I think you should
9 address your level of comfort or discomfort with the
10 EIR; otherwise, sending us out -- or the Applicant out
11 to redesign the project and they come back and then you
12 address this issue -- so one way or the other, we need
13 to know where the Commission is at on that.
14 MR. GHIZZONI: I'd offer also there would
15 be -- provide the Applicant with the ability, while
16 spending time on one track, be pursuing the other track.
17 MR. BIERIG: You know, I understand the
18 concern. I personally feel like I'm not convinced that
19 doing an EIR or a supplemental will give me any more
20 information than I have today.
21 MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I don't know if that's
22 true or not. We don't know that.
23 MR. BIERIG: I mean I feel like I have enough
24 information to make a decision on this project and move
25 it forward personally.
402

1 MR. PHILLIPS: I think we have such a huge
2 obligation for the community to measure impacts. What
3 we do with it is another thing. The whole reason for
4 CEQA is to -- is a recognition of the pressure a
5 community faces when a great project comes to town and
6 everyone gets excited about it. CEQA says at least look
7 at impacts.
8 I don't think there's substantial evidence
9 that there's been sufficient traffic analysis, and the
10 water issue is all new information. I think it's
11 important that we know what that is. What we do with it
12 is another thing, but I don't want to -- I'm not going
13 to support calling for a new EIR. I think that's not in
14 the interest of the community at all.
15 MR. BIERIG: No, I don't either.
16 MR. PHILLIPS: Let's make it better.
17 MR. BIERIG: I feel -- although I'm
18 uncomfortable with how the process has come together
19 related to traffic, given that we had five different
20 traffic study reports all bundled together -- but I mean
21 I personally think there's enough information to make a
22 determination on my side.
23 I am concerned about the water situation just
24 because the district said one thing and took it back and
25 then said it again, and that is concerning.
403

1 MR. PHILLIPS: I'd like to see Caltrans --
2 MR. BIERIG: I wonder if they might not
3 change their mind again next week. You know, they've
4 been here twice.
5 MR. OVERALL: Mr. Chair, I'd like to ask a
6 question of staff and make a suggestion.
7 Is there something we can ask you to do --
8 instruct you to do short of a subsequent EIR on two
9 targeted issues? And if so, what would that be?
10 MR. GHIZZONI: Chairman Bierig,
11 Commissioner Overall, you could indicate that you don't
12 consider the current addendum to be sufficient and asked
13 that that be reinforced at certain areas. I would offer
14 that there's no litigation benefit to the County with
15 that particular approach, as opposed to going down the
16 road with a subsequent EIR.
17 With a subsequent EIR, you will get
18 litigation benefit from that although it will come with
19 extra time. I think that, again, we're in the area
20 where some precision with what you conclude is going to
21 be very important if you conclude that there is new
22 information of substantial importance as to water, for
23 example, and that -- directed that be addressed in
24 addendum. That's a combination that doesn't work. If
25 you consider that there's new information of substantial
404

1 importance, then you're signally that there should be a
2 subsequent EIR.
3 MR. PHILLIPS: Can my motion be amended to
4 just call for reinforcement -- was that the word? -- of
5 the present document? Was that the word you used?
6 MR. GHIZZONI: Commissioner Phillips, yes,
7 you could indicate that the current document is not
8 adequate, and you can actually split, if you consider,
9 for example, water or a particular topic to be new
10 information of subsequent substantial importance and
11 direct a subsequent EIR of that and direct reinforcement
12 of the addendum as to some other topics. You do have
13 that combination option.
14 MR. PHILLIPS: Reinforcement sounds like we
15 don't need the notice, we don't need the formality of
16 the SEIR, and I think we'd all like to go there. We
17 just want to see impact.
18 MR. GHIZZONI: Again, I would counsel that,
19 as to new information of substantial importance, that's
20 still new information of substantial importance that's
21 linked to the increased significant environmental effect
22 or impacts mitigation a certain way. So we can talk you
23 through that, though.
24 MR. OVERALL: Michael, as far as it relates
25 to the traffic end of it, my concern remains that we
405

1 have inadequate information related to the impacts of
2 additional employees. If we could get staff to study
3 that issue, I'd like to know what happens if they end up
4 with 50 more employees or 100 or 150 more employees.
5 What is that going to do till we pass the
6 threshold of impact? If we do one that, one of the
7 mitigation possibilities will arise. It's unfair to ask
8 Caruso & Associates to go down this road here. If
9 something comes up, somebody is going to be looking at
10 them to mitigate it. We haven't looked at any of those
11 things.
12 MR. BIERIG: I understand your passion. I'm
13 going argue the other way pretty strongly, which is we
14 have had county traffic people and the Applicant's
15 traffic people both stand here and go, "You got a
16 project right down the street that's exactly what you're
17 describing, and it's got 75 less spaces and nobody" --
18 MR. OVERALL: That's parking, Bob. I'm
19 talking about traffic.
20 MR. BIERIG: It's kind of one in the same.
21 MR. OVERALL: We're not going to finish this
22 today. What could it possibly hurt to come back with an
23 analysis? Maybe it's absolutely going to confirm what
24 you say.
25 MS. BURROWS: May I suggest we would ask
406

1 staff to do -- bring us any information you might have
2 with regard to traffic and parking. I'm not willing to
3 request a subsequent EIR on those issues. I think I
4 have so much information.
5 On the water issue can you as our counsel
6 give us any guidance on whether or not you think
7 Ordinance 89 -- and how that would impact this project,
8 if that is enough new information, that it would be a
9 substantial change environmentally. Could you advice us
10 on that.
11 MR. GHIZZONI: Chairman Bierig,
12 Commissioner Burrows, yes, I believe that, if you found
13 that Ordinance 89 -- the combination of Ordinance 89 and
14 the correspondence you received from the Montecito Water
15 District -- if you found that to be both or either
16 substantial changes in the circumstances or new
17 information of substantial importance such that you
18 require a subsequent EIR as to water supply, that that
19 would be a very defensible position for the County and
20 in a comparative basis would be far more defensible than
21 determining that it was not something that required a
22 subsequent EIR.
23 MS. BURROWS: I'll support a subsequent EIR
24 on the issue of water but not on the other two issues.
25 MR. PHILLIPS: Can we do anything less
407

1 burdensome and get to the same place? Can we measure
2 impact without the formality of the SEIR.
3 MR. GHIZZONI: Commissioner Phillips, the
4 answer is yes. If you conclude that you are not
5 adequately served as a decisionmaker by the current
6 addendum as to water and wanted to have that portion
7 reinforced, you can do that.
8 But my opinion is that, as I've just
9 described to Commissioner Burrows, Ordinance 89 and the
10 series of letters from the Montecito Water District, you
11 would get a much better litigation posture by having a
12 completed subsequent EIR than not completing a
13 subsequent EIR as to water.
14 MS. BURROWS: And again, please the time line
15 on just a subsequent EIR for water. I know you gave us
16 that. I lost that. Did you estimate nine months?
17 MS. BLACK: Mr. Chair and
18 Commissioner Burrows, I estimated nine months for, I
19 think, something more than that, but it would probably
20 be less than nine months, but it would probably be at
21 least six, seven. You know, it really depends on the
22 level of public comment that we would receive. That's
23 going to be the big driver.
24 MR. BIERIG: You know, we have a motion.
25 You've made a motion. I'll call it a motion. Sort of a
408

1 straw vote.
2 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Could I --
3 MR. BIERIG: I'm going to vote no.
4 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Would Mr. Phillips please
5 repeat -- let's repeat where we're going here. I was
6 listening to traffic, then listening to water, traffic.
7 MR. PHILLIPS: My motion called for a
8 subsequent EIR as to water and traffic. I'd like to
9 take that off the table. I don't know if I can,
10 Mr. Chair, after a second. But if I can, I'd like to.
11 I just want more information and the least burdensome,
12 the least time consuming approach. I think we need --
13 we need more information on traffic. Caltrans has to
14 tell us they're not going to take Jameson away and those
15 parking spaces and they're not going to pull the bridge
16 out and whatever. They've got to tell us this.
17 I think it's probably true. I can't imagine
18 why they would take all that long. And then I think I
19 could certify it, but as it is now, it's going to be
20 difficult. I'd like to change the motion and ask for
21 additional information. Counsel is telling us we're
22 vulnerable on the water issue unless we do an SEIR, and
23 we're going to get reversed in court is what he's
24 telling us.
25 MR. BIERIG: I understand.
409

1 MR. PHILLIPS: So we can ignore that or make
2 believe it isn't going to happen, or we can get an SEIR
3 on water and maybe beef up the traffic a little, and I
4 can live with that.
5 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Can we -- Mr. Chair, can we
6 separate the two issues for the purpose of straw voting
7 here?
8 MS. BURROWS: Which two issues?
9 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Traffic and water. We have
10 two issues here, and we're collapsing them. So it's
11 kind of difficult to -- you know, at this late hour for
12 my little brain.
13 MR. BIERIG: We can do whatever we want to.
14 I'm not convinced I need more information or -- I don't
15 think I need more information.
16 MS. GOTTSDANKER: So all I'm doing is asking
17 you if we can have the discussions separate since the
18 original discussion was collapsing the two together.
19 Now, inside of further discussion, I can see that we
20 actually might be able to separate it which might
21 actually separate my opinion. I'm not quite sure, but
22 I'd rather think one thing at a time at 8:30 at night,
23 whatever time it is.
24 MR. BIERIG: Please proceed.
25 MR. OVERALL: Michael, do you want to restate
410

1 what you proposed? If you can remember that far back.
2 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Yeah, it's just --
3 MR. PHILLIPS: Let's do it in two steps. I
4 think -- I just can't see -- I think we need an SEIR on
5 water, or we're going to lose this document, and it's
6 going have to be done from the beginning. No one wants
7 that. We've got 99 percent of it.
8 If we can do it without an SEIR and survive,
9 let's try it. Maybe that's what we should do. Let the
10 court worry about it. I don't know. The water story
11 keeps changing. We got to nail it down.
12 MS. GOTTSDANKER: I completely agree with
13 you. You know, there's the thing we don't know about
14 the -- one of the things that didn't even come up today
15 is that there are other wells that belong to the
16 Montecito Water District that are right across the
17 freeway. They've got a couple down at Sheffield. That
18 didn't even come up today is are they going to then
19 start pumping those wells to deliver water? I don't
20 know that. I don't know that because it's very nebulous
21 at this point where any additional water needs are going
22 to come from whether they get paid for or not -- I mean
23 paid for where they're going to come from.
24 MR. PHILLIPS: We don't even know if there's
25 water in the community because we're supposed to start
411

1 there.
2 MS. GOTTSDANKER: I understand.
3 MR. PHILLIPS: We don't even have that.
4 MS. GOTTSDANKER: I understand. So I would
5 go along with your suggestion that we do a supplemental
6 addendum -- whatever you want to call it.
7 MR. GHIZZONI: The term would be subsequent
8 EIR as to water.
9 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Subsequent. Okay.
10 Subsequent as to water.
11 MR. PHILLIPS: I'll leave it at that. If
12 there is a redesign, it will impact traffic, and maybe
13 look at it later. I'll limit my motion to water.
14 MS. GOTTSDANKER: That's fine with me.
15 MR. BIERIG: Any other discussion?
16 MS. BURROWS: I know this question's been
17 asked, but forgive me. I've lost the answer. Is there
18 a less -- is there a way to get us information on water
19 and potential environmental impacts and help us
20 determine if this is a significant change that is short
21 of a subsequent EIR? Can we request a written opinion
22 from county counsel on that issue.
23 MR. GHIZZONI: Chairman Bierig,
24 Commissioner Burrows, I can provide you with a written
25 opinion, but my written opinion would be very similar to
412

1 what I just told you, and that is that the combination
2 of the new ordinance and the chain of differing letters
3 from the Montecito Water District all memorializing a
4 negative delta supply and demand for the district would
5 leave the County at risk if you determine not to do a
6 subsequent EIR as to water.
7 You could direct staff to reinforce the
8 current addendum as to water, look at all the
9 information in that, and make a decision downstream as
10 to whether that did or did not rise to a level of
11 changed circumstances or information of substantial
12 importance, but my thought is that you would really just
13 be spending time to get to the same exact position that
14 you're in right now. I don't think new information will
15 change that.
16 MR. BIERIG: Mr. Ghizzoni, can I ask a
17 question, given that there's an approved project that
18 can be built today -- they can go out and build this
19 thing, not this exact one but one that's very similar.
20 They can go build it. Why can't they build the modified
21 one? I mean one's not subject to litigation. Why's the
22 other?
23 MR. GHIZZONI: The short answer is that they
24 could build the approved Schrager plan without
25 discretionary action by the County; therefore, there's
413

1 no trigger for CEQA on that you have a completed 2000
2 CEQA document which is time barred for litigation.
3 That's why there's no litigation risk.
4 But if you're looking at a modification to
5 that project with a new discretionary action by the
6 County, that's a new CEQA opening. That's the
7 difference.
8 MR. BIERIG: That, in and of itself, whether
9 they use more water, less water, the bottom line is we
10 don't know. It's an estimate. Is that what triggers
11 it?
12 MR. GHIZZONI: Again, let me back up and say
13 there is no discretionary action by the County if the
14 Applicant decided to build the Schrager project today
15 with no changes. There's no discretionary action by the
16 County; there's no trigger to initiate CEQA. There's no
17 risk of CEQA litigation, but the minute you have a
18 discretionary action by the County on modifying the
19 original project, you do have to trigger it for CEQA,
20 which is where we are at today.
21 MR. BIERIG: I hear your discussion about
22 CEQA, and I understand it may trigger it, but again,
23 with the litigation stuff, I obviously wouldn't want to
24 litigate anything, but wouldn't they simply look back
25 and go, "The same number of rooms, same this, same that.
414

1 They can operate within the framework of historical
2 use," and end of story.
3 MR. GHIZZONI: Chairman Bierig, I think,
4 although that may be a persuasive fact for the reviewing
5 court in determining whether it was new information of
6 substantial importance, the critical point is you would
7 be in -- there's a trigger to get you into court by
8 discretionary action of approving the modification to
9 the originally approved project.
10 MR. BIERIG: Okay.
11 MS. BURROWS: I have a question about the
12 process. If we should choose to go ahead with the
13 subsequent EIR on water and then that's completed, then
14 we reconsider this project and are incorporating the
15 changes or conditions or whatever we made during this
16 hearing, consider that EIR and move forward?
17 MS. BLACK: Commissioner Burrows -- Mr. Chair
18 and Commissioner Burrows, that is correct. That would
19 be the process.
20 MR. BIERIG: We've got a motion. I think we
21 have a second on the water issue.
22 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Sure.
23 MR. BIERIG: That was -- I'm just trying
24 to -- let's -- I got a wooden stake in my hand. Let's
25 move this thing forward one way or the other. You guys
415

1 are going to have to decide. I told you how I'm going
2 to vote. If you want to vote the issue, let's vote it.
3 Call the motion. This is a motion now -- right? --
4 related to the water, a motion for --
5 MS. BURROWS: Only on --
6 MR. PHILLIPS: Only on water.
7 MR. BIERIG: This is the SEIR; right? Just
8 making sure I understand what we're doing.
9 MS. BURROWS: Do we have a second?
10 MS. GOTTSDANKER: You seconded it.
11 MS. BURROWS: I didn't.
12 MR. PHILLIPS: Jack did.
13 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Mr. Bierig, I seconded it.
14 Okay. Fine.
15 MR. BIERIG: The motion is seconded.
16 Why don't you call roll on this one?
17 MR. MOORE: Commissioner Gottsdanker?
18 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Yes.
19 MR. MOORE: Commissioner Overall?
20 MR. OVERALL: Yes.
21 MR. MOORE: Commissioner Burrows?
22 MS. BURROWS: Yes.
23 MR. MOORE: Commissioner Phillips?
24 MR. PHILLIPS: Yes.
25 MR. MOORE: Chairman Bierig?
416

1 MR. BIERIG: No. Okay. I don't know if we
2 need any more motions after that one.
3 MR. BLACK: Mr. Chair, I think perhaps there
4 are two things you should think about. The first is I
5 think you should give Mr. Caruso the opportunity to
6 address the Commission, and second, you need to make a
7 motion to continue the project, refer it back to staff,
8 but something more than just the motion you made and
9 adjourn, and I suggest in that order.
10 MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chair, is it the sense of
11 the Commission that traffic should be not discussed? Do
12 we ask for a reinforcement outside of the SEIR process?
13 MR. BIERIG: If you want to make another
14 motion on the traffic one.
15 MS. BURROW: I will review any additional
16 information on that subject, but I won't approve an
17 supplemental EIR on either traffic or -- traffic or
18 parking.
19 MR. PHILLIPS: I'd like to move that we --
20 it's not a motion, is it? -- that we have reinforced
21 data on traffic.
22 MR. OVERALL: I said specifically from one
23 person's perspective what I'd like to see in the
24 analysis is basically take into account the potential
25 increase in the number of employees.
417

1 MR. BIERIG: The motion didn't get seconded.
2 MR. OVERALL: Second.
3 MS. BURROWS: I don't think it was a motion.
4 It was a direction; right?
5 MR. PHILLIPS: Either form of your pleasure.
6 It's a motion.
7 MS. BURROWS: I'll second it. That is, for
8 additional information.
9 MR. BIERIG: Tell me what we're doing.
10 MS. BLACK: Mr. Chair, I think the motion was
11 to do additional analysis but not in the context of an
12 SEIR to reinforce the addendum.
13 MR. PHILLIPS: Yes.
14 MR. BIERIG: Motion and second to -- for
15 staff to provide additional analysis related to traffic
16 before we hear this matter again.
17 All in favor say "ay," opposed "no."
18 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Ay.
19 MR. OVERALL: Ay.
20 MS. BURROWS: Ay.
21 MR. PHILLIPS: Ay.
22 MR. BIERIG: Ay.
23 Mr. Caruso, I think it's your turn.
24 MR. CARUSO: Well, I appreciate all the time.
25 We have had a long two days, and I must admit I did not
418

1 expect this result. So I'm probably at a little bit of
2 a loss for words and obviously very disappointed.
3 We have worked very hard to put a project
4 together. I thought at least it was pretty remarkable
5 that we had every homeowners' association in the area,
6 including the Montecito Association, endorsing us,
7 including county staff supporting our findings.
8 And you know, the dozens of studies that
9 we've done -- to your point, Mr. Chairman, there are
10 three traffic studies on this project. But nonetheless,
11 we've come up short. I certainly respect your
12 authority. I certainly respect your ability to make a
13 decision any way you want.
14 But with the last vote, putting aside the
15 tweaking on the project -- with the last vote what you
16 basically have voted on is that the underlying
17 documentation on the project is not adequate.
18 So what we need to do is we need to retrench
19 and figure out how we move forward, but effectively
20 you've denied the project because it goes to the
21 underlying entitlements of the documentation and the
22 environmental documentation.
23 So to preserve some value on this land and
24 preserve options and for us to be able to go back and
25 sort of look at this site with a clean slate, I would
419

1 prefer that you just deny the project so we know where
2 we're at -- we don't have project effectively -- and
3 have a project denial. Our team can regroup.
4 We certainly hear you loud and clear the
5 direction on the setbacks, the heights along Jameson,
6 and all those kind of things. And then we need to go
7 back and see if there's a project that makes sense.
8 The difference here, with all due respect --
9 and I know that many, many of the hearings that you go
10 through are for homes -- this is a commercial venture.
11 And there are metrics and hurdles in order to make this
12 work.
13 By losing keys and square footage, building
14 heights, to say we can move buildings and replace it,
15 it's really not that easy. We tried to do a lot of
16 things that we couldn't do.
17 The underground parking, a very expensive
18 move. The curb line issue, I certainly understand your
19 goal in that. You can't build the underground parking
20 because of the water table.
21 So there's just a lot for us to digest, and
22 again, I'd rather get the denial and, frankly, include
23 in our discussions whether we -- this isn't a threat by
24 any stretch of the imagination, but it's an option --
25 sell to somebody else who maybe has a better vision for
420

1 this property than we do. And a project disapproval
2 will, frankly, give us that option because it's not sort
3 of marred in this is some ongoing project that's sitting
4 in limbo. We can clean the slate.
5 So after tens of millions of dollars, that
6 would be my request at this point because we've
7 redesigned the project twice now. It cost a few million
8 to do that. And we may opt to do that. I love the
9 neighborhood; I love the project. I was certainly
10 enamored with the idea of building a resort here. But
11 if it's not in the cards, it's not in the cards. So
12 that would be my request, and I seriously would
13 appreciate it if you would do that so we can move on
14 with our lives.
15 MR. BIERIG: Thank you, Mr. Caruso. I want
16 to make a few comments if I can. I feel badly for your
17 position here tonight. I think you've been poorly
18 served by some of the bodies you've been dealing with
19 who I do not think have acted in the best interest of
20 the Montecito community.
21 And I think subsequently that ended up in
22 them not dealing in your best interest because it got to
23 this body, and you've found a conclusion that they could
24 accept things that we simply will not accept, and I
25 think it's unfortunate that you were lead down that
421

1 path. I've been where you are, and it's not a pleasant
2 thing to do.
3 And it's just too bad we're where we are.
4 I'm not going to name names, but you have really been
5 lead down the path. I don't think there's anybody up
6 here that doesn't think you would do a first-class job.
7 But our mission is not to let you do your
8 first-class job. It's to let you do a job that fits
9 into our community, and the project as designed did not
10 do that and does not do that, and I understand you want
11 a denial. But that would be, in my opinion,
12 inappropriate.
13 MR. CARUSO: Why is that?
14 MR. BIERIG: Because -- the reason I can't
15 support a motion for denial is because I want to make
16 sure anybody else who looks at this thing like the board
17 of supervisors understood exactly what it is we would
18 approve.
19 So if you want to wait until we make -- we'll
20 make a motion, and we'll approve -- we can approve a
21 project with the kind of mitigations and changes that we
22 discussed here earlier today, and that's really where I
23 hoped we could get to was to get a project you could
24 appeal and address whether we had done an adequate job
25 and what we want -- and the changes we want you to make
422

1 and whether those are appropriate.
2 But a blanket denial, no, I can't do that.
3 I'm not going to blanket -- I can't see us blanket
4 denying this project. It's a good project, and with
5 some modifications, it could be done well. And maybe
6 you can convince the other Members of the Commission
7 here --
8 MR. CARUSO: I can't build the project that
9 was discussed. That's the problem. With a 30-foot
10 setback --
11 MR. BIERIG: I can't tell you what you can
12 build. I can just tell you what we can approve.
13 MR. CARUSO: I understand. That's why I'm
14 asking for disapproval because I can't -- I don't want
15 to lead anybody down the wrong path. To say that the
16 property line along All Saints, we should be 30 feet
17 away from and if we can't come back with a
18 justification, I'm in the same cycle that I can never
19 get out of, and I can't be 30 feet away from it. 15 we
20 already offered a couple weeks ago.
21 So there's all those things that happened.
22 If you want to approve it -- I don't really understand
23 the process. If you want to approve it subject to those
24 conditions, that's also subject to an SEIR for water.
25 The water department, in my opinion, has been
423

1 very clear. They're going to serve us. We're in
2 existing use. We're an existing client. I can start
3 using 42 acre feet out there tomorrow, start opening up
4 the faucets, and the water district would have to supply
5 us.
6 MR. BIERIG: As I understand it, based on the
7 vote that calls for an SEIR, we cannot approve this
8 project.
9 MR. CARUSO: So what am I left with? Then
10 you have to deny. That's what I'm saying. You took a
11 vote my underlying environmental document -- you've got
12 me stuck, and I can't be stuck financially. You have to
13 at least do me that favor.
14 I either have to dispose of the land or I
15 have to figure out what to do. And I'd rather have the
16 opportunity if I want to dispose of it. I have my own
17 financial concerns that are real, and I can't set stuck
18 in limbo here, and let somebody else with a clean
19 slate -- this project's denied. Don't even try it --
20 with a clean slate figure out something else for the
21 property. That's why I need the denial. I need to have
22 an end.
23 MR. BIERIG: I appreciate your position.
24 Thank you.
25 Commissioner Burrows.
424

1 MS. BURROWS: Mr. Caruso, I want to thank you
2 for everything you brought to our community. I think
3 that --
4 MR. CARUSO: A lot of guys in suits.
5 MS. BURROWS: No. I think you did the
6 community a great service in your outreach. I don't
7 think we've had any project here where the Applicant was
8 so forthcoming and did so much outreach, and we
9 appreciate that. There was a great sense of democracy
10 in Montecito at that time.
11 I do want to -- what I hope you will do --
12 and I can't -- you know, your financial situation. We
13 have a date of maybe six months, and I think you can
14 appreciate -- I hope you can appreciate why we had to do
15 the supplemental EIR on the water.
16 Our counsel, as he laid it out for us, the
17 impact of 89 and letters that came subsequent to that,
18 in my opinion, left us no option on that. I hope you
19 will redesign. I think your properties are beautiful,
20 and I would love to have you here.
21 MR. CARUSO: I appreciate that. On the water
22 issues, just for the record, we have a "will serve"
23 letter, and we had the Montecito Water District confirm
24 it. We have validity of the "will serve" letter. That
25 is a legal binding contract. There's not a water issue.
425

1 The general manager of the Montecito Water
2 District stood up here again today and said, "We have
3 the water to serve." I don't know what could have been
4 more clear especially with a "will serve" letter.
5 But I don't want to debate. Again, I would
6 just ask let me out, sort of let me go, and let somebody
7 else take this thing on. But staff has been
8 unbelievable, and I want to say publicly you have an
9 incredible smart hardworking staff.
10 And they have put their heart and sole into
11 this. And as Matt said, they kept our feet to the fire.
12 Many times I was very frustrated. Dianne will tell you.
13 I called, and I was upset.
14 But they are smart. They are very protective
15 of this community, very protective of you, very
16 respectful of the laws and the rules and regulations,
17 and they did an unbelievable job, and I am very grateful
18 to staff for this.
19 But again, I ask that you let us go on this,
20 and I never thought in my life I'd ask for denial of a
21 project, but that's where we're at. We need to have
22 that for our lenders and in order to put the property up
23 for sale, whatever else we need to do with the property.
24 MS. BURROWS: Could we please have advice on
25 staff of Mr. Caruso's request and our options.
426

1 MS. BLACK: Mr. Chair and
2 Commissioner Burrows, you always have three choices or
3 maybe even some iteration on three choices. You can
4 always approve, deny, or continue a project, and you can
5 approve with conditions. You can deny with direction.
6 You can continue with direction, but you know, you
7 basically have those three options.
8 MS. BURROWS: Is there support on the
9 Commission to continue this incorporating the conditions
10 which we discussed today until the subsequent EIR is
11 completed?
12 MR. BIERIG: There is here.
13 MS. BURROWS: I'm sorry?
14 MR. BIERIG: There is here.
15 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Was that a motion?
16 MS. BURROWS: I think that we do have
17 support, and I will make that as a motion.
18 MR. BIERIG: So would you -- would you say
19 what your motion is, please.
20 MS. BURROWS: The motion is to continue this
21 hearing on the Caruso project with the conditions that
22 we have discussed here today until the subsequent EIR is
23 completed.
24 MR. BIERIG: We have a motion. Is there a
25 second?
427

1 MR. CARUSO: Mr. Chair, we're not
2 participating. We're not doing the study.
3 MR. BLACK: Mr. Chair, that was the point, I
4 guess, I wanted to make. If you take an action to
5 continue with specific direction with an Applicant who
6 is saying they're not going to participate, they're not
7 going to draw new plans, and they're not going to do
8 this, I'm not sure that's going to serve anybody very
9 well either.
10 MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chair, it's been a long
11 day. You would think one would want to think about this
12 a little bit. I think we saved a train wreck on the
13 EIR, and I think we have a project we're about to
14 approve. I think we furthered it.
15 I'll entertain a motion to undue that motion
16 on the water issue if it's the sense here that we're not
17 going to end up losing it all in the court challenge.
18 What good does that do the community or the Applicant?
19 MS. BURROWS: And I think I make a second of
20 that motion. I will accept if we can undue a motion.
21 MR. BIERIG: No. Come on, guys.
22 MR. PHILLIPS: That doesn't help.
23 MR. GHIZZONI: Chairman Bierig and
24 Commissioners, I offer that, upon a vote finding that
25 the document was not adequate, that you have crossed the
428

1 route in terms of litigation.
2 MR. BIERIG: I would say so. I'd say we're
3 done, but I also suggest we continue the matter. We can
4 always deny it at our next regular meeting, but I'm not
5 going to deny it from my perspective.
6 MR. PHILLIPS: The Applicant has options.
7 Let's let him sleep on it.
8 MR. BLACK: So Mr. Chair, we need to continue
9 this to a specific date, and I don't know --
10 MR. BIERIG: I'm not here August 20th.
11 MS. BLACK: I was actually going to suggest
12 we cancel August 20th.
13 MR. BIERIG: I think that's a good idea.
14 MS. GOTTSDANKER: There's only one item on
15 that; right? Am I accurate?
16 MS. BLACK: You're correct, although we
17 probably shouldn't have this discussion right now. I
18 will separately let you know.
19 But if you want to just let a little bit of
20 time pass and come back, then we probably ought to set a
21 date that's not too far into the future, and if the
22 Commission would entertain it, we could have another
23 special hearing rather than wait until September, which
24 I think is more respectful of all involved.
25 MR. BIERIG: I do too. I think we looked at
429

1 a potential -- looking at calendars before, but the 28th
2 approximately, the next week in August?
3 MS. BLACK: Mr. Chair, you would ask me to
4 just look to see what might be available that week, and
5 August -- it's a Thursday -- the 28th is an available
6 date, and I guess I would ask if you want us to -- staff
7 to at least have available for your Commission findings
8 for denial if you even want us to go that far.
9 MR. BIERIG: You know, it seems to me the
10 appropriate thing is to let everybody sleep on it for a
11 couple days and decide whether they want to continue it
12 forward, but I'm not going to ask you to do that, no.
13 I'm -- we have a motion for continuance. Is there a
14 second motion for continuance, and we'll schedule --
15 MS. BLACK: Set to August 28, special
16 hearing. Public hearing is closed.
17 MR. BIERIG: Right. All in favor say "ay."
18 MS. GOTTSDANKER: Ay.
19 MR. OVERALL: Ay.
20 MS. BURROWS: Ay.
21 MR. PHILLIPS: Ay.
22 MR. BIERIG: Ay.
23 MS. BLACK: Mr. Chair, just so we're
24 extremely clear what it is your expectations are, you
25 expect us to come back with nothing?
430

1 MR. BIERIG: No, I expect you to come back
2 with our agenda, and on this apparently at this point,
3 nothing.
4 MS. BLACK: Okay. I mean in terms of
5 analysis?
6 MR. BIERIG: For analysis, right.
7 And otherwise, did we want to try to hear the
8 items that would have been heard at our second
9 meeting --
10 MS. BLACK: We'll be able to arrange for
11 that.
12 MR. BIERIG: Right. And otherwise, we need a
13 motion for -- otherwise, I guess we're adjourned.
14 (Whereupon the proceeding was concluded
15 at 8:55 P.M.)
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
431

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
11 COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA ) ss.
12
13 I, AMANDA R. WOLFENSTEIN, C.S.R. NO. 13129, IN
14 AND FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DO HEREBY CERTIFY:
15 THAT SAID PROCEEDINGS WERE TAKEN DOWN BY ME IN
16 SHORTHAND AT THE TIME AND PLACE THEREIN NAMED AND
17 THEREAFTER REDUCED TO TYPEWRITING UNDER MY DIRECTION AND
18 THE SAME IS A TRUE, CORRECT, AND COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT OF
19 SAID PROCEEDINGS;
20 I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT I AM NOT INTERESTED IN
21 THE EVENT OF THE ACTION.
22 WITNESS MY HAND THIS DAY
23 OF , 2008.
24
25
432

1 CERTIFIED SHORTHAND
2 REPORTER FOR THE
3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
433