Dark Day at the MPC

Friday, October 18 was a dark day for those who care about the principles of integrity and fairness in Montecito. This was the day the Montecito Planning Commission utterly failed in its mission to faithfully abide by its legal and ethical obligations in representing our community. Their unfinished hearing amounted to a self-inflicted wound that may prove impossible to recover from. 

As many readers will be aware, the matter at hand was the Miramar Resort and Rick Caruso’s plan to convert two parking lots into 26 units of affordable employee housing, approximately a dozen resort shops, and eight market rate apartments. This is a plan that has been developed over the course of two years with a great deal of public input. MPC members have insisted they are the rightful body to review and evaluate this plan, rather than the County Planning Commission. County code indicates otherwise, clearly stating that affordable housing projects such as this are to be heard at the County level. After an outcry, the County CEO agreed to allow the MPC to hear the matter and issue a recommendation before a final decision from the County Commission.

The MPC then used this hard-won opportunity to publicly embarrass itself.

The five-member commission was already down to four members on the hearing day. Chair Marshall Miller recused himself due to a conflict of interest, as his wife is the Junior Warden of All Saints Church, a leading Miramar opponent. That left Commissioners Donna Senauer, Ron Pulice, and Sandy Stahl, with Bob Kupiec attending remotely from out of town.

As is standard in such hearings, the Commissioners disclosed their ex parte communications on the Miramar matter – interactions that took place outside Commission hearings. Commissioner Stahl disclosed that she had met with representatives from Caruso, with some area neighbors, and with two vocal plan opponents, Cliff Ghersen and Sheri Benninghoven. She said nothing about the 18-page document filled with questions for County Staff and Caruso that she had sent to County Planning staff, and later relied on in her questioning of the project.

The problem was, Commissioner Stahl was not the author of the document. As a Caruso representative revealed right before lunch in a stunning statement, data embedded in the computer file showed that the actual author of the document was Philip Dracht. Dracht is a local attorney and parishioner of All Saints who is helping to lead the church’s campaign against the project. In fact, he has threatened to sue the Miramar and the County if the decision doesn’t go his way. 

After lunch, Commissioner Stahl said she was “unclear about procedures and the specifics of ex parte communications” and recused herself, approximately five hours after the hearing began. There wasn’t even an attempt to justify her transgression. The move meant the Commission no longer had a quorum, as Kupiec’s remote presence didn’t count toward the necessary total. The hearing promptly ended, and with it the influence over this application the MPC had so loudly fought for.

For Commissioner Stahl to accept this diehard opponent’s lengthy work product and submit it as her own, and then sit in judgment of the topic as an allegedly fair-minded arbiter, almost defies belief. It is a plain-as-day violation of basic principles of fairness and transparency, as well as a violation of law. There is no way in good conscience she can continue to serve on this Commission and should tender her resignation immediately.

These troubling events raise many urgent questions. What other undisclosed interactions has Commissioner Stahl been having with Miramar opponents? Is this a common practice with this Commission? And more broadly, what other “specifics” of good governance and due process has this Commission been unfamiliar with in its work?

I am on record as a supporter of the Miramar proposal. I believe we owe a debt of gratitude to Rick Caruso for having the patience and stamina to hang in there long enough to replace the dilapidated and abandoned Miramar property with the beautiful hotel that stands today – and which helps fill the coffers of our County government every year. I believe they have proposed a sensible plan that will help us meet our state housing requirement at no cost to the public, and I was pleased to see that the state agency overseeing housing policy recently voiced support for the plan as well. 

But all of that said, my opinion of this proposal is beside the point. There are more fundamental questions that Montecitans must now confront. What kind of Commission is holding this position of public trust? Why don’t all of its members honor basic concepts like fairness, open-mindedness, and transparency? Montecito deserves the highest quality of representation in local government. If this Commission is the best we can do, maybe we should think twice about even having it at all.