Letter to MPC and MBAR

May 31st, 2006

Dear Commissioners and Board Members: After six years of analysis by your county staff and the county-supervised, independent EIR consultant, we have finally had the opportunity to present our project and receive some of your comments and feedback.

Much has changed during the six years of review; the method of determining the height of buildings has changed, the clearance for oak trees is now measured differently, the Montecito Board of Architectural Review (MBAR) and the Montecito Planning Commission (MPC) were formed, and the project has evolved in response to three rounds of environmental review, concerns raised by some neighbors, and other analysis. With the volume of recent public meetings, we would like nothing more than to wrap-up this effort and seek your decision within 30 days.

Yet we are listening closely to the MBAR and are taking their advice to make changes to the academic center. As a result, we request a 60-day pause in the hearing schedule to step back and allow the time necessary to address the MBAR and MPC comments regarding the academic center. This pause will enable the college to add more local expertise to our architectural team and allow the designers to create a plan for the academic center that responds to the comments we have received.

Master Plans are critical components of sound community planning, and the update to our Approved Campus Master Plan is no different. Since the Campus Master Plan has a long time horizon, we are willing to invest adequate time to take a fresh look at the entire campus before we resume with the MBAR and MPC review and approval process.

We believe that this fresh look will be fruitful, and we look forward to the opportunity to pick up where we left off and bring a plan to you that is responsive to your concerns and recommendations.

At the same time, we respectfully must report that the Montecito Planning Commission process has not been conducted in a productive manner due to the unwarranted attention paid to opponents of the Campus Master Plan Update who are deliberately misstating the facts and the law. This has resulted in confusion and a stated lack of understanding on the part of members of the commission that the purpose of this process is to update the Approved Campus Master Plan. We need to step back to ensure that when we start again, the process is back on track.

We are engaged in this process because we relied upon county direction, and this reliance has cost the college over $20 million. Nearly a decade ago, we were prepared to move forward with the buildings that today make up the majority of what is now called Phase I. At that time - based on the direction of the county planning department - Westmont agreed to update Approved Campus Master Plan rather than simply seek a substantial conformity determination for the new buildings as we have done in the past.

The resulting process has taken more than a decade, and Westmont has incurred more than $2 million in costs associated with the processing of the update. In addition, construction costs have increased by $15 to $20 million dollars.

After relying on this process at a total cost of over $20 million and 10 years of delay, our Board of Trustees is shocked that members of the MPC have referred to the Campus Master Plan as a “wish list” of buildings and have questioned why the county and Westmont need a comprehensive plan that provides the college, the community, and the lead agency confidence and predictability in future campus construction and measures to mitigate this construction.

Most communities require facility master plans for institutions similar to Westmont College, and Santa Barbara County is not any different, especially given the fact that your staff and county counsel have confirmed that Westmont’s ability to create a suitable campus for 1,200 students was approved by the county in 1976. The use of master plans to avoid a piecemeal review and approval process has been common practice in Santa Barbara County for decades.

There must be a clear understanding and acceptance that the process we are engaged in is leading to the update of an already-approved master plan that will continue to provide the opportunity for the college to complete a suitable campus for 1,200 students. Your county counsel has confirmed the fact that a suitable campus for 1,200 students has been approved since 1976, and has been reconfirmed numerous times since then, most recently in 1993.

Your county staff recommendations come to you after years of study and analysis of the facts. These professional recommendations should be held to the highest standard and should be respected and valued above all others, including the applicant’s or the opponents’ recommendations or demands. County standards and policies should be applied to this project in ways that are consistent with county precedent on other projects and in conformance with ordinances and guidelines.

The public review process itself also deserves attention.

Westmont has invested millions and waited years to publicly present our project, and we should not be unfairly limited in the content or time of our presentations. Likewise, meetings should allow broad public participation and not be dominated with special treatment for individuals claiming to represent groups, especially when many members of these groups are allowed to speak as well.

In effect, the process has created three classes of citizens: the applicant (whose presentations are limited in scope, cut short, and interrupted), opponents (who receive uninterrupted time equal or greater to the time allotted to the applicant, without any limitation in scope), and those who support Westmont (who were forced to sit through three full-day hearings before receiving just three minutes each.) This needs to be fixed.

In addition, the roles of all involved in the public review process should be clarified, specifically the respective roles of the MBAR and the MPC.

So, although this will be a pause in the approval process - adding at least another $500,000 in construction cost increases - it should be a very busy time as we develop a new design for the academic center and as problems with the Montecito Planning Commission process are addressed by county staff, county counsel, and the Board of Supervisors.

We greatly appreciate the hours of time dedicated to study, review, and evaluation of the updated Campus Master Plan and Phase I development, and we look forward to recommencing the review and approval process with a fresh perspective.

Sincerely,

Stan D. Gaede
President