Miramar at the CPC: Caruso, the Community, and County Planning Commission Weigh in on Expansion Plans

On October 9, the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission (CPC) heard the Rosewood Miramar’s Mixed-Use Housing Development plan, which includes affordable housing for Miramar staff, new retail shops, a cafe, and luxury housing split between the existing East and West parking lots.

The hearing emerged after Caruso’s team sent a letter to the CPC citing county code section 2-25.2, which states that affordable housing projects fall under the jurisdiction of the county commissioners, and not the Montecito Planning Commission (MPC). However, the MPC will now hear the item on October 18th where there will be an additional opportunity for public comment. 

Community members, the Miramar team, Miramar owner Rick Caruso, and All Saints-by-the-Sea Episcopal Church representatives stepped up to the mic. Those in opposition wanted more studies on traffic and parking impacts. Others spoke of altering the current plans to fit the church’s requests, including switching the affordable housing location to be closer to the church. 

However, Caruso and his team remained steadfast in presenting the plan as is. According to the county’s planning department, if the current project were altered, all county departments would have to do a second review. “And I’m not sure what that would come back as,” said a county staff member. 

Before the presentation, Commissioner John Parke assured attendees of his deep knowledge of Montecito and the project. He addressed concerns about the CPC’s expertise compared to the MPC, saying, “To put you somewhat at ease, I have lengthy experience with Montecito and this property.” 

Caruso addressed the commissioners first, focusing on the project’s affordable housing element and its positive impact on the Montecito community. “Honestly, what could be better than providing affordable homes for the people that do so much to make The Miramar a quality and important place in the community?” he asked. 

Alongside the proposed 26 affordable housing units are 12 luxury shops, a cafe, and eight market-rate housing units. 

The plan has seen many iterations. Katie Mangin, the senior director of development for Caruso, shared with commissioners how the Miramar plan came to be and cited their efforts to listen to what the community wants. One way they did this was by inviting neighbors within a 1,500-foot radius of the resort to share their plans and ask for feedback. “In what we heard, we were able to identify priorities that would provide a sustainable revenue source to create and maintain affordable housing without any public funds,” said Mangin. 

Many speakers asked that the mountain view from the church’s parking lot be preserved: “We now humbly ask you to take this matter to your hearts and grant us to continue our spiritual connection and view of the Santa Ynez mountains,” said an All Saints
Parish member. 

Parking issues were undoubtedly a point of contention. One Miramar neighbor claimed to have seen Miramar employees struggle to find parking before work. An intern from the law office of Marc Chytilo echoed this claim and spoke of evidence that shows “inappropriate hotel-associated use of public parking lots.”

The project utilizes the state’s Density Bonus Law, allowing certain exceptions for affordable housing projects. One exception the project requests is reduced parking ratios. For the project, the Miramar would typically require 89 additional parking spaces to the already 436 on-site. However, considering the law, the requested exception would reduce the number to 44. 

Numerous All Saints representatives echoed approval for the plan’s affordable housing element and disapproval of the luxury apartments and retail shops, worried they would bring more traffic to the area. Public Works approved a traffic study submitted by The Miramar team, though some speakers requested that a separate study be done. 

Some speakers were worried about the area’s ability to evacuate, citing Montecito’s past natural disasters, particularly the 2018 mudslides, during which the Church remained an epicenter of support. “I have grave concerns about the public safety of this project,” said former member of the California State Senate Hannah-Beth Jackson. “We need to know if this project will have an incremental effect on our ability to evacuate.”

Miramar supporters – some clad in blue Miramar shirts – believe the plan will only enhance the Montecito community and noted Caruso’s impressive track record: “Rick Caruso has been a great partner to our community and county, bringing in millions of dollars in sales property and [Transient Occupancy] tax,” said one speaker. (The Transient Occupancy Tax in Santa Barbara County is 12%, according to the county website). 

Caruso appeared again before the commission for 8 minutes to address some “misinformation” from the public comment, particularly the Miramar’s communications with All Saints-by-the-Sea Episcopal Church. He shared that he met with the pastor and members of the congregation to learn about the church’s priorities and discovered the importance of preserving the columbarium view. “I was very much told that when they’re in there, they want to be able to see the mountains,” he said. So, Caruso worked with All Saints to create a design that preserved the view from the Columbarium. That is until the Church decided that the view of the mountains from their entrance took precedence over the Columbarium’s view, according to Caruso. 

Ahead of a recent presentation to the church, Caruso claimed he mistakenly received a text message from a church member that read: “Let him go ahead and present it,” he said as he recited the message. “We’re going to go back after our meeting and just tell them that it doesn’t work. And then we’re going to come and testify against the project.”

After receiving this message, Caruso felt that the church “had no intention to solve this problem; they had every intention to kill this project,” he said. Caruso and his team then cut off communication with the church. He said they may consider reversing that decision. Nevertheless, he remained firm on keeping the project proposed as is. “It has to be looked at as proposed, not because we’re stubborn, not because we’re arrogant, not because we’re not willing to compromise. We have done all that,” he said. 

After over five hours of public comment, some commissioners shared their thoughts with Commissioner Parke, questioning the ambiguity of existing state law: “If you oppose this project, you’ve got to realize there’s some very important state law that may provide very strong boundaries on what your opposition can be,” said Parke. “…and if you’re the applicant, you’ve got some law that’s in your favor, but it’s ambiguous, it’s untested, and you can’t rely on it, maybe as much as you think you can.” 

What makes this project particularly interesting is the consideration of the Housing Accountability Act, or Senate Bill 330. According to the law, protection occurs with “Mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses with at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use.” [SB330.3.H.2.B] If the project is deemed to have health or safety concerns, it might be disapproved or set to a lower-density project. It also prevents local government from disapproving the project and streamlines it limiting it to no more than five county hearings. 

Chair Vincent Martinez reiterated concerns about the “parking situation” and requested more information regarding the parking plans. He invited both parties to submit “whatever clarifications you want.” He also reminded everyone that the MPC will hear the item on October 18. “They’re going to come back with recommendations,” said Martinez. The CPC will hear the item again on November 1st and vote whether to pass it to the county Supervisors. “That’s the big day,” he noted.