MPC Recusal: Miramar and the 18 Pages Heard Around the Room

The October 18^th Montecito Planning Commission (MPC) meeting, scheduled for the purposes of discussing the Rosewood Miramar’s proposed expansion for mixed-use housing, abruptly ended when Commissioner Sandy Stahl recused herself halfway through, causing the commission to lose its required quorum. 

The mixed-use housing development plan being considered, in advance of next week’s scheduled County Planning Commission meeting on the same topic, includes affordable housing, market-rate apartments, and new retail shops, expanding the hotel’s current footprint by 54,000 square feet. Last month, Rick Caruso and his team, citing County Code Section 2-25.2 which gives the County full approval over any development linked to affordable housing, insisted that the county bypass the MPC and move the project directly to the County Planning Commission for approval. The County, however, in response to the overwhelming objection by Montecito residents, decided to give the MPC one of their five allotted hearings on the matter. 

The county’s original position, however, did not go unmentioned at the hearing. MPC Chair Marshall Miller addressed the county’s decision to move the item straight to the CPC, saying the decision was “corrosive to trust between staff and the Montecito Planning Commissioners.” 

Before the scheduled lunch break, Chris Robertson, Rick Caruso’s Senior Vice President of Planning and Development, questioned the integrity of a document Commissioner Stahl submitted prior to the meeting. The document in question contained 6,000 words and over 18 pages of questions. Robertson pointed out that, according to the document’s history discovered in a reverse search by Caruso’s legal team, the letter was authored not by Stahl, but by an individual who is openly opposed to Caruso’s proposed expansion. “As some of you know, it’s very easy to go into Word and see who authored the document,” said Robertson. 

A later statement from Miramar owner Rick Caruso’s team revealed that the letter’s author was Philip Dracht, “a litigator and leader at All Saints Church. Dracht has helped lead the church’s concerted effort to stop the Miramar project and has threatened to sue the county.” 

According to Stahl, the original email she sent to County staff member Willow Brown included a paragraph in the body of her document with her own questions and an attachment of the ones drafted by Dracht. She said that she did not draw on Dracht’s questions at the meeting. 

Stahl claims that had someone asked her about the questions before the meeting, she would have said where they came from. “I wasn’t trying to hide anything,” she said in a phone call. “I mean, it’s a set of questions. It’s not like some insidious document; it’s just questions.” 

Commissioners usually disclose any ex parte communications that occurred before hearings, but Stahl had not mentioned Dracht’s name. “I was unclear about procedures and the specifics of ex parte communications, and on that basis, I am going to recuse myself,” said Stahl after the lunch break. 

The Miramar was concerned that this revelation showed that the commission had “pre-judged” their project. “Integrity is a core value for me and my company,” said Caruso in the Miramar statement following the meeting. “And it should be for those who hold positions of public trust.” 

Stahl says she was unaware of Dracht’s association with the church when she shared his questions with county staff. According to Stahl, this is why she did not specifically mention Dracht in her ex parte communications. “He identified himself to me as a neighbor,” she said. During her ex parte, she disclosed that she had talked to “various neighbors.” She also said that the first time she ever met Dracht was at the
Friday meeting. 

According to the California Public Utilities Commission: “An ex parte communication is a written or oral communication between a decisionmaker and an interested person concerning any issue in a formal proceeding, other than procedural matters that does not occur in a public forum established in the proceeding or on the record of the proceeding. Ex parte communications include communications that are one-way from a decisionmaker to an interested person.”

Lisa Plowman, the Director of Planning and Development for Santa Barbara County, expressed that in her view Stahl had not shared the document with enough members of county staff and that she should have explicitly disclosed that the questions she submitted were not hers. “It was not clear that they were from somebody else,” Plowman said. 

“Had anyone called me or asked me to clarify the origin of the 18 pages of attachment questions, I would have happily given Mr. Dracht’s name,” said Stahl in an email to the Montecito Journal. 

Chair Miller also recused himself at the beginning of the meeting, citing a conflict of interest, leaving only three MPC members present in person with Commissioner Bob Kupiec participating from out of town over Zoom. As a result of Stahl’s recusal, the commissioners ceased to have a quorum. 

Stahl said that the questions she submitted in the email were “very different” than Dracht’s questions. “I feel like my job as a commissioner is to ask questions.” 

According to The Montecito Planning Commission Procedural Manual: 

“A member who has received evidence outside of a hearing or has viewed the subject property, who is familiar with the subject property, shall fully disclose at the beginning of the hearing such evidence and observations and familiarity with the property so that the applicant, opponent, interested persons and other members of the decision-making body may be aware of the facts or evidence upon which the member is relying and have an opportunity to controvert them. All written evidence received outside of the hearing shall be filed with the Recording Secretary, distributed to other members, and be included in the record.” 

Lisa Plowman, stated that MPC members are expected to follow the procedures from the manual. “In a public process like that, those procedures ensure that you have a fair, impartial hearing,” she said in a phone call with the MJ. 

According to Plowman, the county council advised Stahl as to the “appropriate steps” to remain seated in the quorum and allowed her to choose what she wanted to do. “It was ultimately her choice to recuse herself,” said Plowman. 

Officials from the Montecito Fire Department, the County Flood Department, and Public Works answered the commissioner’s questions about the project before the meeting was shut down. 

Prior to the meeting’s ending, Commissioner Stahl inquired whether there was an evacuation plan in place that included the current projects happening South of the 101 Freeway. Fire Marshall Aaron Briner of the Montecito Fire Department said that a 2022 scientific evacuation analysis was completed to “assess the district for deficiencies in relation to wildfire.” However, he added, that many of the projects Stahl referenced, like the Music Academy, The Biltmore, or Coral Casino, had not yet commenced at the time of that study.

“The vast majority of the evacuations included north-to-south evacuations, and from my understanding of the analysis, there was very little impact that occurred from the inclusion of both residences and the commercial structures south of the freeway,” Briner said. 

Briner also mentioned a county-wide evacuation analysis that is currently underway and would include Montecito. 

In a later statement to the Montecito Journal, Briner stated, “The Fire Department was pleased to participate in the Montecito Planning Commission meeting, offering insight into the fire and life safety requirements for the proposed Miramar project. The department evaluates all projects within district boundaries using the current California Fire Code as its standard.”

Commissioner Stahl echoed the same concerns to William Robertson from the county’s Public Works transportation division, who referred her back to the fire department, saying, “I think fire is the best department to answer that question.” 

Commissioner Ron Pulice voiced concerns about congestion on the Posilipo Lane on-ramp near the Miramar. He asked if the “added burden” of the plan had any effect on traffic while getting onto the on-ramp. William Robertson of County Public Works and Transportation cited a traffic study submitted by the Miramar. “There would be no impact so far that we’ve identified,” he said regarding the study. 

The Miramar team was not required to submit a traffic study for this project. A traffic study is required if the project generates more than 50 peak-hour trips, according to Robertson. 

Community members, both for and against the project, also spoke at the meeting. The project will next be presented to the County Planning Commission on November 1st, at which point community members will have another chance to speak to the matter.