Planning commission hearings follow formal procedures including commissioner introductions, agenda reviews, public comment periods, and deliberations. Commissioners evaluate proposed projects based on staff recommendations, technical studies, and public input, applying standards such as air quality regulations and environmental exemptions. The commission votes on recommendations after considering all relevant information and concerns raised during the hearing.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
Planning Commission - County of Santa Barbara - 05/27/26Added:
Okay.
Welcome to the May 27th hearing of the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission. Uh, as is our fashion, we invite you to join us in the pledge of allegiance.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
>> So, Mr. Voboo, would you please make the TV coverage announcement?
>> Uh, yes. Thank you, Chair Reed, and good morning to the commission and everyone else today.
Excuse me. Um, just find my sorry to reorganize the agenda. I get lost a little bit here. Uh, planning commission hearings are televised live on County of Santa Barbara television CSBTV channel 20 at 9:00 a.m. in the South Coast, Lumpoke, Senas Valley, Samria, and Orchid areas. Rebroadcast at County Planning Commission hearings are on Fridays at 5:00 p.m. on CSBTV channel 20. Today's hearing will also be streamed live on the county's website as well as the county's YouTube channel and will be available for download in a day or two. Shall I move on to roll call?
>> Please do.
>> All right. Uh, Commissioner Mayor Connor >> here.
>> Commissioner Ford >> here.
>> Commissioner Park, >> I'm here.
>> Commissioner Martinez >> here.
>> And Chair Reed >> here.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay. Well, you you may have noticed that we have a new commissioner. Uh, among us is Mr. Steve Connor representing District One.
uh replacing uh the former our our former commissioner uh Michael Cooney uh as both commissioner and vice chair. So, Mr. Mayor Connor, would you take a moment or two and uh just introduce yourself to the audience?
>> I will. Thank you. Uh Chair Reed, I appreciate it.
>> Oh, green. There you go.
>> Well, need to turn on the microphone in order to be heard. Is that the uh protocol? So, let me express my appreciation to the chair for inviting me to uh introduce myself. Good morning, everybody. Uh my name is Steven American Connor. Uh we've lived here in Santa Barbara since 1982. I served as the Santa Barbara city attorney for 8 years between 82 and 90. I joined a private law firm here in Santa Barbara in 1991.
worked there until the end of 2021, at which point I retired so that uh my wife and I could take care of our new grandson who is now 5 years old and doesn't need us so much anymore.
And so when supervisor uh uh supervis the supervisor of the first district uh asked if I would serve on the Monaceto planning commission. I uh quickly and gratefully said yes. And then um a few weeks ago he asked if I would serve on the county planning commission and I quickly and gratefully said yes. And I want to express my appreciation to Supervisor Lee for that invitation.
And I'm looking forward to my work with this commission, which is uh one of the uh truly excellent places to serve and work in this community. And I'm I'm excited about the opportunity. So, thank you for that.
>> All right. Well, thank you very much.
So, now we need >> I was right.
>> You were ready.
>> That's a growing edge. Okay.
Uh now we need to proceed to the next task which is to elect uh the vice chair for the planning commission for the balance of 2026.
Uh at this time do we have any nominations?
>> Yes.
>> You're off. You're off.
>> Oh I usually leave it on, don't I?
>> I know.
>> Okay. So I I will nominate Mr. Mar Connor as our vice chair. Did you know this was coming?
>> No.
>> Well, it's it's it's worse than you think because because the uh next up to bat, I've got to use baseball terms for former commissioner Cooney uh was Commissioner Cooney next year as I understand. And uh this is going to be important because we will not have a replacement for our fourth district planning commissioner, our chair, uh until after our next meeting. So you'll be our chair at the next meeting.
>> Well, okay.
>> And so you better learn how to turn on the lights and do all those things. And and we'll we'll we'll we'll give you a little bit of a reminder on how to do it all. I'll second that.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay. So, we Yeah, learning the light is the tough part. I'm I'm still working out on it. Uh so, we have a a nomination and a second for vice chair. Uh so, can we just do it with a general vote? All in favor of naming Stephen America Connor as vice chair signify by saying I.
>> I.
>> I.
>> Any naysay?
Great. Welcome.
>> Well, thank you, I think.
>> Okay.
Now, can we just go ahead to item six?
>> No, we can't.
>> Okay. I will leave this to Mr. Wilson.
>> Mr. Chair and Commissioners, at this point, we'd like to present a resolution to Mr. um Commissioner Roy Reid. Before we do that, we want to acknowledge Supervisor Bob Nelson, who's in the off a audience with us. We'd like to invite him to come up and say a few words before we present the um resolution to Chair Reed.
>> Make sure I got this right here. All right. Got the light going. Well, uh thank you, Mr. Wilson, for the opportunity here to come and speak um this morning. Uh when you're a county supervisor, there's nothing more scrutinized than your pick for planning commissioner. And when I got elected originally, I had a really easy opportunity to have my predecessors planning commissioner uh serve uh continue to serve under um under me. So I was able to have Larry Freeny um transition from Supervisor Adam to to my service. And so that was a really easy pick. Um but when Commissioner Freeny came to me and said that he was ready to go back to the farm and really spend a little bit more time mentoring his sons in the next generation um that we had a a tall task in the fourth district to um um fill those those shoes and so um we started looking around and um Royy's name came up and it was a natural fit.
Um, you know, the the things that we value in the fourth district um are a few things. You know, one is we will always want to um be thinking about the taxpayer and you know, Roy was a former uh president of the Santa Barbara County taxpayers association. Um we also agriculture is a big deal in the fourth district and maybe some of you may have heard that. Um you know, Roy is a um multi-generational farmer and rancher and um has great ties to the land. Um Roy also appreciates the the the oil industry which is a big um po portion of the north county and um he's a fierce defender of um you know the north county and that's a really big deal in the fourth district and so um you know Royy's name quickly rose to the top. We didn't interview anybody else and I'm so proud that we did um that we brought Roy on and Roy agreed to serve as planning commissioner. It's also I have to thank the redistricting commission um because that got Roy into the fourth district.
Previous to that he was in the fifth district. It's actually um unusual. Roy is actually a city of Santa Maria resident and so um typically um when you're representing a large area of unincorporated area that we want to have somebody coming from that area to represent it. But I think Royy's history um his values um his etiquette um really serves this district well and has served this district well. And I'm so appreciative, Roy, for your service to to me, to my constituents, um, and to the entire county. Um, I understand why you're leaving. Um, I when I filled out my speaker slip, I I didn't want to p in favor of, right? I wanted to oppose, um, this resolution because I would rather you stay than to go. Um, but again, I think Santa Barbara County and the fourth district is is well served by your um, your time here. And, um, on behalf of of our district and my constituents, I wanted to thank you for your service, Roy. Um, so thank you.
>> You bet. Well, thank you, Bob. It was an honor to have been chosen and definitely an honor to have been able to serve. So, >> and I just want actually I meant to bring up a couple of highlights that maybe come on the resolution and that I I wanted to also mention. Um, when he did come on, he came right on to the arena conversation, which we knew how big that was in the county, and I think it also speaks to his intellect that he picked it up quickly and and did really well with that. Um he also helped shepherd um the fan famcon project to get approved in the north county. That's a a big uh tax uh revenue generator as well as a jobs generator for us. Um he also helped lead on the cannabis conversation that we had um both at the board and here at the planning commission. And I think al where he shined uh the most was during the a enterprise ordinance uh conversation where he was able to draw on his relationships as well as his own personal experience to um serve the county so well in that. So again, I wanted to highlight those things as well. Again, thank you, Roy.
>> Thank you, Bob.
>> Thank you, Supervisor Nelson. Before we present the resolution, would we like to read it into the record and then we'll present it to you?
It's my honor to read this resolution to the record. Uh whereas Roy Reid has served on the commission since December 2023 and acted as chair in 2025. During his time on the commission, he provided invaluable input on such projects such as the agricultural enterprise ordinance amendments, the 2023 to 2031 housing element reszone amendments, the Lumpoke Valley Medical Center, the 2024 cannabis ordinance amendments package, the Myiramar Acquisition Company LLC Housing uh mixeduse development, the outdoor lighting and signs ordinance amendment, and the Highway 101 widening segment 4D amendment.
Whereas Roy Reid learned the operations of the planning commission very well, very quickly and always came well prepared for each hearing with detailed questions. Whereas Roy Reid was very much respected and admired by staff for his detailed and insightful project review as well as his efforts to engage with staff outside of hearings. Whereas Roy Reid continually demonstrated that members of the commission can be friends and collaborators regardless of their political differences.
Whereas Roy Reid has brought a tremendous amount of professional experience and insight to his role on the commission, providing a unique perspective and style to his decision-making.
Whereas Roy Reid consistently arrived at the meetings of the planning commission well ahead of the scheduled start time, impeccably dressed and wellprepared, during his time as chair on the commission, uh Royy's punctuality was unmatched and led to efficient hearings for the benefit of all.
Whereas Roy Reed's affinity for county branded stationary and pens has sometimes created a shortage of the commission supplies for their subsequent hearings.
Whereas Roy Reid impressed his fellow commissioners with his thorough review of staff reports, applicant documents, comment letters, etc. as evidenced by his multicolor highlights and notes on every page and the consumption of whole cartons of postits.
Whereas Roy Reid always provided constructive feedback to staff and great leadership during his time as chair. And whereas Roy Reid took the time to meet with interested or affected parties regarding projects or ordinance changes that were before the commission and did an exceptional job in representing the interest of the fourth district. Now therefore be it and it is hereby resolved that the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission and on behalf of staff and the citizens of Santa Barbara County present this resolution to fourth district commissioner Roy Reid.
Thank you.
>> Okay, nice.
>> I guess I'm supposed to say I guess I'm supposed to say something.
>> Yes, please. Well, as I said before, I was I've always thought that among the many functions that government performs, particularly at the county level, uh, land use and support of property rights was was probably the one of the most important on the list. So, I I was honored to be able to participate uh for this last two and a half years in that endeavor. Uh I think I was very fortunate to have worked uh you know with a with a gifted uh uh group of fellow commissioners and I I really appreciate well every member of county staff I encountered, but in particular the people in planning and development who I think as a group are often often the most unjustly criticized members of county staff, but are in fact uh without a doubt the most undervalued members of county staff who primarily work behind the scenes compiling these ordinances and things that we deal with, things that would drive me crazy. uh yet they are complete uh well documented uh and foundational to to our activities our actions and things. Sometimes they get some of the blame because people think they create the ordinance and things whereas what they work on are mandated or assigned by board of supervisor or even state of California.
They neither create nor destroy, but they develop and refine uh to support the necessary actions of county government. And within that, the planning commission fits in because we're we're keepers of the general plan.
So in conjunction with county staff, we have to prepare them, refine them, and pre pre uh present them ultimately to board of supervisors because that's the legislative body in the county that that enacts things. I think often one of my main objectives was to establish more transparency so that the general public in the county could understand how these things work. So, uh, hopefully we've done a bit of that, but but I I think they need to understand and not blame staff, uh, for the ordinances and things that come out they may be dissatisfied with, but they should be very thankful they have such a professional and competent staff in planning and development uh, to craft uh, very effective ordinances with with direct and simple language. uh that just simplifies the whole process. So, I think they're they're a gem and we're lucky to have them particularly when you look at some of the things that go on in other counties. Um spec specifically relating to to oil and gas and that oil and gas division which is part of planning and development. We're so professional here. You look what happens in other counties and they're nowhere near the quality of the staff and the people we have here. So again, I don't need to go on forever, but just it's been an honor to serve. It's been a pleasure to to serve with my fellow commissioners, and it has been a great honor to conserve and work with the many members of planning and development staff. So, thank you all. Yeah.
So, Chair Reed and commissioners, if we just take a moment for any of the other commissioners to say a few words and then open up to public comment just on this item. Okay.
>> And then we'll conclude. I know Commissioner or Chair Reed, this is your favorite time, but >> very uncomfortable.
>> Okay, Commissioner Park, >> you know, I always have something >> or you want to be last, >> so I'm going to take my time, of course.
Um, you know, I want to u tell a Rory Reed story when I first met him that that to me is emblematic of of just how he is and who he is. Um, some of you may remember that I chaired the Cat Canyon oil hearings and uh I just wanted to tease everybody in the room.
Why not? And I asked all the fancy consultants, our staff, all the opponents, how do you think they got the oil out of Cat Canyon when they discovered it in 1915?
And no one could answer. So I showed a map of the Pacific Coast Railway, uh, which showed it was taken out by rail.
Then I said, "For extra credit, who can tell me how that railway was powered?"
And of course, folks said, 'Well, it wasn't coal. It must have been oil because it was oil. But one person knew the answer. It was him. And it was powered by electricity. They were electric cabs. They strung power lines in 1915. And he came up to me during the break and showed me a picture of the electric cab. Do you remember that?
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. You know, it's parked in front of the Bradley building, which related to to Royy's family. I was impressed by that. and he proceeded to invite me to tour around see properties and things which I had very much appreciated. Larry Freeny had done the same thing for me and I thought you know this is a good guy I' I'd hope to keep track of him and then he became on the planning commission so I thought that was a wonderful thing. Uh we became best of friends and I and I hope that even as you leave even leave the area we're still best of friends.
>> Yeah. and it's important to me. Uh I I do want to re reveal two things about Roy that I think are very special and and if you watched every hearing, you you would get this, but may maybe you didn't. One, uh as shy and reserved as Roy sometimes presents himself, he has the most hilarious sense of humor you can imagine. If anybody in this room could do standup comedy, it's him. and and he does it with the same dead pan, but it's just the words change and it's just hilarious. You know what I'm talking about, don't you, kid?
>> You know, the other thing and the other thing is it's something that uh I take very seriously because I really do appreciate my time with the other planning commissioners and I always learn something from all of them. And uh what I've learned from Roy more than anybody else is to appreciate his empathy for the people involved in the process, for the people that will be affected by it. It really matters to Commissioner Reid uh how our ordinances, how our decisions are going to affect people, you know, whether it's school kids or employees of things. It's it's important to him. He describes it. He feels it. That's why it's empathy. And it reminds me we we have to go there to make a good decision. I appreciate that.
Last thing is that uh you know uh I think that my relationship with with Commissioner Reid uh proves it lives out something that my father taught me that's so great about this country. How we can disagree but we always come down to working it out, working with each other. And I think, you know, you're probably the most right-wing member here in politics, and I'm probably the most left-wing that you probably have ever met, but it doesn't matter. We are uh we're in 99% agreement on on everything. We do site visits together. We'd collaborate in analyzing cases and just in talking about life and history and our interests. 99% of what we believe is identical. And I think that's probably true of everybody in the room. and we ought to pay more attention to that than we do to our differences.
So, thank you for being my friend and thank you for serving with us.
>> Well, thanks a lot, John. Thank you very much, >> Commissioner Ford.
>> Thank you. Um, well, first of all, I'm upset because Roy, we were just getting started. Um, but I do understand I'm really happy for you. um especially that you're choosing to be focused on prioritizing the needs of your family.
Um what a nice and generous uh dad and granddad. Um you're amazing. You were the first person to call me to welcome me to the commission. And I want to thank you for always just responding to my questions and helping me gain insight into the practice and procedures as well as the culture of the planning department and the commission. Um, and while we have not also agreed on all issues, I really admire your preparation. It's unbelievable intellect, cander, your ry sense of humor, and your impeccable manners. um as well as your constant and determined efforts to do what is right for the people of the county and especially for your district. I will really miss you, but I wish you the best.
>> Great. Thank you, >> Mr. Martinez.
>> Oh, thank you. Well, I I'm really impressed by the fact of how you take family first. I mean, that's that says a lot about you and who you are. Um, and I'm also impressed by the fact that uh, thank the Lord sometimes that you were never an attorney across from me because you know every single fact. You memorize every single issue and you would be a hard one to be an adversarial against. I I appreciate your logic and your understanding of of what's happening here and um and you really do bring an experience to things and you you never cease to surprise me about the little things you can talk to people who are presenting about how you can talk knowledgeably about somebody not not afraid of learning but just the fact that you know something about something just so like wow okay great you have a yeah I'm sure I would love to sit down and have even more cups of coffee with you to hear about your experience in life. And I'm sure maybe I'll still have that opportunity. I'm sure you'll be back in Santa Maria and I hope you look me up when you come back. But uh but what what you're what you're doing now says a lot about you and your family and congratulations and thank you for for your service here.
>> Right. Thank you. Thank you Commissioner.
Yes.
>> So we met 45 minutes ago.
>> Right.
But having been well trained as a lawyer, I have a lot to say. Oh, >> okay.
>> One of the reasons I was so u pleased and honored to be appointed to this commission is because of the extraordinary reputation this commission has in the community.
And I think a large part of that has to do with your leadership of the commission and the way that the commission has operated, the way that the commission has listened to the community and the way that the commission deals with itself, the the respect, the intelligence, uh the care that you've taken in leading this commission. And so while we don't know each other, uh your impact on this commission, on this community has been extraordinary and I believe lasting and you have earned our respect and our appreciation.
So thank you.
>> Well, great. Well, thank you very much.
I appreciate all those kind comments, although I don't know who they were about, but I'll take I'll take them. and and John, I I I didn't realize I was ever trying to be funny, but I'll take that as well. But, uh, you know, I just think I was, as I said, I've been gratified and honored to have been able to serve. Uh, I think it's we need the commission needs to do everything it does with with a great degree of thoughtfulness and and seriousness because in most every matter we're faced with, we have one party that considers themselves the winner. and one party that considers themselves the loser. Uh so I mean we need to treat them with great consideration regardless of our personal views and and I think the same goes and then I'll shut up uh with public comment. When we receive public comment no matter what it sounds like we need to treat it with with respect because for many members of the general public it's not an easy thing to do to stand up in front of a group and speak. So I think we need to show them we value that. Uh, with that I will be quiet.
>> Cheer Reed. Um, thank you. And then we want to ask for public comment then we can move forward. And this is a >> if if there is any. Yeah. So go ahead.
>> Anybody that has any public comment would like to say a few words to cheer Reed, please come forward now.
And no, there's no requests online, so I think we can move on.
>> Good. All right. Now, let's get on with the real business. Uh, agenda status report. Mr. Wilson, >> chair and commissioners, looking at the status of the agenda today, we have two items. Um, the first is the continuing item of Chick-fil-A at Cal Cali Realel.
And then we have the second item which is an appeal of a partial map. And those are the only two items on our agenda today. And then um staff and the applicants are ready to present on those items. I can move to the projection report. Mr. Chair, >> our next hearing will be on June 3rd.
That will be here in Santa Barbara. We have two items. We have a vesting determination um on the B-rock quarry and then we have the 5-year capital improvement program that will be presented by long-range planning. Um June 10th, there are no items projected as well as June 24th.
This commission may want to consider cancelling those hearings um especially June 10th. Um and June 24th, we did move items off of those dates um moved them further down. as we wait for uh the other commissioner to join us from um district 4 and then our next hearing after that will be July 1st. We do have two items on July 1st. The Hovia's track map and then we have airport land use compatibility plan on July 1st. Um and that will be in here in Santa Barbara.
July 8th is our next hearing after that and that will be in Santa Maria. And on July 8th, we have the transfer of ownership for the Santa Maria Asphalt refinery. And then July 29th, we'll be back in Santa Barbara. And that one so far only has one item projected, which is a tenative partial map.
And then there is no other items projected for the remainder of the year.
So that concludes the projection report.
and chair and commissioners, if you wanted to consider cancelling June 10th and June 24th, unless we want to trail that to the end of the hearing in case any items today get continued.
>> Can we revisit that at the end of the hearing?
>> Cherry, that's correct. We can trailing any dates until the end of the hearing today.
>> All right, let's just remember we do it.
>> Yes, >> I'll remember. Okay.
So with that we can progress to public comment. This time is allocated for general public comment. That is public comment for items not on today's agenda.
So if anyone is prepared to make a general public comment they can proceed to the podium. Those online or on Zoom can signify their readiness by raising their hand.
>> I've seen no requests.
No requests. So general public comment is now closed. So time for planning commissioners informational reports.
These are reports by individual commissioners uh on planning issues and seminars, meetings, literature, anything else they may have noticed that they think would be useful and relevant information.
Ah there's uh two upcoming uh events I want to uh uh share with commissioners and and the public at large that I I think are uh will be interesting to what we do. first is here locally on June 8th and 9th and 10th is an organization mindset and it's a it's a conference on uh essentially regenerative agriculture practices in the wine-making industry and it has u speakers from all over the state that are well known and my friend Jesse Smith from the White Buffalo Land Trust who's an excellent speaker and very knowledgeable will be conducting a workshop on that first day. It's uh uh it's it's really a great event and it'll be at the uh uh Camber Vineyards uh uh facility in uh in Santa Maria. So it' be a good thing to go to. Uh second thing is our uh California Agra tourism summit which I attended and David Lackey attended uh last year is going to be in Pasarobels this year. Uh and it will be at um uh on September 23rd through 25th.
Very interesting thing. If you have any interest in agriculture, a tourism, it's it's definitely worth going to. You can go one day or I think it's two days and the and the first day is uh is all site visits. Uh and there's kind of like three buses and each bus has a theme of things goes to. So, it's definitely something to be involved in. That's my report.
>> Okay, Commissioner, your lights on.
>> Oh, sorry.
>> Your mic is on. of my mechazone.
>> So, no. So, no other no other reports.
>> All right. If there are no other reports, let's proceed to looking at the minutes of the April 30th and May 6th hearings.
>> Mr. Chair.
>> Yes.
>> So, since I have just been appointed to the commission, I was not at the April 30th or May 6th meetings, nor have I reviewed the videotapes of those meetings. I'm going to abstain from voting on approving the minutes.
>> Okay. Thank you. So, among the commissioners, have you if you've had an opportunity to review the minutes of those meetings, uh does anyone note any uh corrections, additions, or deletions.
So, if there are Go ahead. Just before anyone makes a motion, I just want to correct for the record that the it's April 29th and May 6.
>> Oh, instead of April 30th.
>> Yeah, >> nice catch. Who typed this thing up?
Okay. Uh, all right. So, I will revise that. So, looking at those two groups of minutes for the April 29th and the May 6th hearings, uh, if they're acceptable, can we have a motion to approve?
>> Motion to approve.
>> Second, Commissioner Martinez, >> I'll second.
>> Okay. So, all in favor of approving the minutes from the for the April 29th and May 6th, 2026 hearings, all in favor signify by saying I.
>> I.
>> I. opposed.
Approved. Okay. So, which brings us to the director's report and the board of supervisors hearing summary.
>> Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. Uh, first I would like to welcome Mr. American Connor, Commissioner American Connor to the county planning commission. Uh we've it's been um a really positive experience having him on the Monaceto Planning Commission. Um so he's all tuned up to launch to the county planning commission and so we we're looking forward to having your participation and your service to the community.
Uh, I I waited to make any remarks about Commissioner Reid because I wanted to have the last word, but uh, Commissioner Reid has been a significant contributor to this commission in his short time here.
Um he is incredibly passionate about the constituents of the fourth district and the issues that affect that district.
And I've seen I mean he's he's always very levelheaded and um considered in his comments. I have occasionally maybe just once seen a little fire from from um Commissioner Reid. Um but it's because he cares so much. uh and I appreciate that about him and I greatly appreciate his intellect. He is a very very smart man and he has so much knowledge in that head of his and and just talking with him like um Commissioner Park said I learned something new all the time and he has a very rich background um which I think has brought a lot of value to the commission um both professionally and personally.
Um, and I agree with um with uh Commissioner Ford about his rise sense of humor. It's quiet, but it is is very funny, and I appreciate that. Um, and I just want to say thank you so much for the way you've collaborated with our staff, the way you collaborated with Commissioner Park on the different programs that we've brought forward to the commission because I think it's made it a better process.
um you have been willing to go out and talk with the people of the community and explain what our programs are about particularly related to the egg enterprise ordinance and that's really meaningful like the general public often doesn't get a chance to get involved because they have lives they have to lead right and they're busy maybe they're just getting dinner on the table or they're taking their kids to school or they're working late or whatever it is but the efforts that you made to do the outreach I think have made a significant difference in our process and um I'm very sorry to see you leave the commission. Maybe someday you'll come back. Um you never know. And uh and I also agree that uh it speaks volumes that you are moving to support your family and uh I appreciate that about you as a person. So thank you so much for your service.
>> Thanks a lot.
>> So I do have a couple other things to report on.
Um, just a few things because the the board uh didn't have a few meetings, but since we last met, we did go to the board with a briefing on um changes that we want to make to our process to streamline permitting and um create more truly ministerial permits. So, we presented some ideas to the board to get direction from them. And really what we're talking about is um moving certain permit types from a land use permit, which are currently noticed and appealable, or a coastal development permit are noticed and appealable to a ministerial permit, meaning no notice, no appeal.
And that is what most jurisdictions do.
The county of Santa Barbara has been quite unique. So, we're looking at single family homes as and and the accessory structures that are associated with single family homes moving to a truly ministerial process. Um, and we're looking at different thresholds that might drive um what projects get some design review and what projects may not need design review um because those that's a discretionary process. Um so and we're also looking at trying to make some changes that are minor in commercial projects be truly ministerial. So this is a big change for the county. Um it's been something that I think um in my mind as a professional planner uh in Santa Barbara County I have thought we needed to do and the board has supported that and asked for it when I first started in this position and we're we're finally able to bring that forth. Um, I'm sure it will generate a lot of conversation at the commissions, the the two commissions, and we look forward to that. Um, we expect to be bringing this back to the this county planning commission, um, early fall because we have committed to the board to bring it to them before the end of the year. And so, um, that's what happened on the 12th of May. Uh and then the other two items I wanted to mention is that on um June 23rd we have the oil and gas phase one which is the prohibition of drilling new wells going to the board of supervisors and then utility scale solar um which the commission reviewed and provided comments on and made some recommendations to change it u is going on July 14th. And that's all I have to report. I'm happy to answer any questions.
Okay, >> great.
>> Thank you very much.
>> So, at this time, I guess we will begin our standard agenda. Mr. Vovos, could you please read in the first item?
>> Yes. Thank you, Chair Reed. Hm. The following is a hearing on the request of Turnpike Lodge's property owner to consider case numbers 22 CUP7 uh as well as 26 LUP53 and determine that no additional environmental review is required for the project pursuant to section 15183 of the state guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act.
>> Okay. At this time, I would like to ask for any exparte or site visit disclosures uh from the commission.
>> Uh Mr. Mayor Connor, so I've reviewed all the written material provided to the commission for both the uh March 25th, 2026 hearing and today's hearing, including staff reports, technical memorandum, letters from the applicant and the public.
I've watched the videotape of the March 25th, 2026 hearing and I visited the site of the project and met with Tom Patton at the site for approximately 15 minutes. And then I have an additional disclosure I would like to read into the record if I may. Uh the applicant in this matter is represented by the Brownstein Law Firm. I was a partner in that law firm until my retirement at the end of 2021.
Since then, I've had no financial connection with Brownstein or any of its clients. I've consulted with county council and have concluded that I am not disqualified from participating in the commission's consideration of this matter due to any financial interest I might have had prior to 2022.
I've also considered whether or not to voluntarily recuse myself from this matter due to my previous business relationship with the Brownstein Law Firm and the California legal requirement that a public agency hearing be conducted before a reasonably impartial non-involved reviewer. I've carefully reviewed California law on this subject and have concluded that there's no reason to believe that my impartiality in this matter has been compromised by my previous business relationships.
Moreover, I believe that recusal under these circumstances would set an unworkable precedent in a small community like ours where longtime business and personal relationships are common, particularly among people who have lived here for many years. Thank you, Mr. Mr. Chair.
>> Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any uh Commissioner Park?
>> Uh yes. I wanted to disclose some exparty contacts on this matter, but I I wanted to make a few comments about the uh point that um Commissioner Mayor Connor made about his service here. Um uh one uh I I hope everybody in the public knows that we file what's called a form 700 every year and it discloses under penalty of perjury uh what financial interests we have.
Okay? And that includes payments from former law firms. So, if you look mine up, you will see that I received uh funds in excess of $500 in the last 12 months from my old law firm. It's just part of my retirement arrangements. Uh and it's right there for everybody to see. You you you can it's a public website that the FPPC has and it's available to everyone. I've looked at mine. I've looked at Mr. American um and and his under penalty of perjury. It's just as he said, he's received no funds in excess of $500 in the last 12 months.
Uh, and he's filed two or three of these uh form 700s because he had to file one coming on to the Monaceto Planning Commission. He had to file one leaving the planning commission and coming on to this planning commission. Okay. And and there's a point that uh I want to address uh with regard to the appearance of impropriety. There's something that I've witnessed every planning commissioner uh grappling with as they come on here. We we all realize we have uh past contacts with with people and then we wonder, well, God, we don't want to look like we're biased. We don't want anybody thinking ill of us.
But then what you involve evolve into and I did personally is we've got to remember that we are the representatives of our district and and and we're here because we were appointed by members of the board of supervisors who are relying on us to hear these matters and to vote on them. And so if Mr. America Connor decided, well, if every case Brownstein brought in front of here meant he was going to recuse himself because appearance of impropriety, then he would be doing a disservice to Supervisor Lee who's relying on him to vote on these matters. Uh, I realized this with some of mine. Uh, you know, if I recuse myself, there's no vote from the third district. There's no one from the third district to express the problems and things, the issues we have at the third district with a given matter. So I think we need to be very conservative about voluntarily recusing ourselves.
>> And of course on this matter, I also met with Mr. Patton and I had a few conversations with Miss Collins. Um, and I had uh uh all sorts of conversations with different staff people and I I'll refer to that later when we get to questions. Thanks.
>> Okay. So, if we're concluded with that, we're can move ahead to the staff presentation.
>> Good morning, commissioners. My name is Willow Brown and I will be presenting the Chick-fil-A at Caya Rial project.
The project was last heard on March 25th and was continued to to today's hearing to provide time for staff to obtain additional information regarding air quality emissions from the project. The LUDC has a standard for drive-throughs requiring that they do not have a greater air quality impact than the same project without the drive-thru. staff provided a memo to the commission with additional information that I will summarize in this presentation.
To recap, the project site is located on Cay Real, accessed off of Turnpike Road from the Highway 101 offramps. The site has been developed with a restaurant use since 1970 and is currently developed with an IHOP restaurant that has been closed since summer of 2022. The project site is adjacent to a commercial development which contains a Starbucks drive-thru and is across from the Ramada Hotel.
The project is a request for a land use permit to allow for the demolition of the existing restaurant on site and construction of a new 2,647 ft quickservice restaurant. The project also includes a conditional use permit to allow for a dual lane drive-thru with two covered canopy areas. The project is a commercial use on a commercially zoned lot which has been developed with restaurant use for over 50 years.
Restaurants are a permitted use in the retail commercial zone and the conditional use permit is solely required for the drive-through use. This is a photo simulation of the project as viewed from Caya Rial.
I will now summarize the information provided in the staff memo discussing air quality emissions from the project.
This table is an excerpt from the air quality report provided for the project and shows anticipated emissions from the drive-thru compared to emissions from walk-in customers. The study assumed that the wait time for a vehicle in the drive-thru would be 5 minutes and the wait time for a walk-in customer would be 10 minutes. The emissions estimated from a customer parking and turning off their car, going inside and ordering, and getting back in their car, and restarting it are significantly higher than the emissions from a customer idling in the drive-thru, as shown in this table.
The project includes additional components that contribute to a reduction in air quality emissions.
As shown in the image on this slide, there is an existing Chick-fil-A restaurant located approximately 2.7 mi east of the project site. By adding the second Chick-fil-A location, the cumulative vehicle miles traveled would be reduced because it can be assumed that the majority of existing customers will go to whichever location they are closest to. Additionally, the air quality standard was adopted in 1981.
Vehicles have become cleaner since that time, and the use of electric and hybrid vehicles further reduces impacts to air quality emissions.
Air quality emissions are largely dependent on the amount of time a customer spends on site. The project includes design features to minimize time spent in the drive-thru, including an iPad ordering system so that employees can take orders prior to cars reaching the ordering board and an online system that allows customers to put in their order before they even arrive on site. These design features will reduce the amount of time cars are idling in the drive-through lane waiting for their order. Additionally, the dual lane drive-thru allows for employees to maneuver cars so that if, for example, a car ordered ahead or has a faster order, the employee can direct them to go in the second lane to get their food and leave the site faster.
The results from the project's air quality study are consistent with analysis done by APCD. This image from APCD's memo regarding drive-through facilities shows that a park and restart emits higher emissions than an idling vehicle. APCD also reviewed the air quality report and agreed with the analysis.
Staff is recommending a change to one condition in the public works condition letter included as attachment B to the staff memo. The condition letter from public works included language regarding undergrounding utilities as shown on this slide. Staff coordinated with public works and they stated that this condition was added in error as there is no trigger for undergrounding utilities for this project. Staff recommends that the conditions be modified to remove the requirement for undergrounding utilities.
Staff recommends that your commission make the required findings for approval of the project specified in attachment one of the staff memo. determine that the project is exempt from SQA pursuant to SQA guidelines section 15183 and approve the project subject to the conditions included as attachment two of the staff memo and as modified in today's hearing.
Staff and the applicant are available for questions. Thank you.
>> All right, questions uh from commissioners for staff and Commissioner Park.
This will result in a question, but it's kind of more of a disclosure that I kind of forgot to make. Uh, at the end of April, I was up in Santa Maria dropping off an ATV at the dealership for service, and I noticed that the there was a Chick-fil-A nearby.
So, it was my first visit to Chick-fil-A, and I stayed there quite a while watching the thing. So, I should have disclosed that. That's kind of like a site visit. Uh, and uh, I I noticed it was a very short menu. Uh, food was very wholesome. I could I could well imagine why why people want to have that there for their families. And uh, I saw how quickly the uh, cars move through the through the line. I mean, it was just a matter of seconds, frankly. Uh, and I also saw a u a set of tables that have QR code on them where you you go in, you don't even go to the counter. just sit down, put your phone over it, and you order on your phone, and they bring it to the table. I mean, it's that's what Chick-fil-A is all about. I then uh uh uh went to our our Santa Maria P&D office where I had a meeting with Tina Mitchell over the Los Alamos project. We we we uh heard uh what was it a couple of weeks ago? And at the end of that, I said, "Well, you know, Tina, you're you're a home girl. You you grew up in in Orcet and Santa Maria. helped me try to understand what what drive-throughs have come in over the years. And because I I had this feeling in my mind that I thought we should try to be consistent in enforcing this development standard that a drive-thru project in front of us, not worsen the air quality. But I thought, you know, that would be true of every drive-thru. So, what what what precedence do we have? uh uh with our staff. Uh the next day in the morning, I had an email from uh Willow Brown here, uh Shannon Ree and Tina Mitchell. They had researched this and uh sent me a list of every drive-through project the county's approved in the last few years.
Gave me uh links uh and uh I looked at that stuff. It was very useful. referred to a a report from Recon Engineering that was used in all those three projects. It has very detailed data on on emissions. Um and in every case our uh uh planning commission of various diverse people uh uh voted to approve those projects and uh further uh there was quite a debate on one of them in 2016 and the commission asked staff to come back with a specific comparative analysis of what are the emissions if there's a drive-thru and what if there isn't. Uh, we look at the recon engineering report, very detailed, had a lot of text as well. It pointed out something that seems kind of obvious, and it was the more efficient the drive-thru, the faster they go, then the the fewer the emissions. And so, these are all items of information that I thought should be in the record. uh and u uh Miss Brown prepared an excellent uh uh memorandum summarizing those things, giving you live links to all of those cases that are now in the record and I can now refer to them. Right, Miss Kim? She's been disciplining me on how to or give me a sense of discipline on on what we can refer to or what we cannot. Um so question for you. I told you I'd turn it into a question. Did you uh find any other cases in recent years involving drive-throughs approved by the planning commission or the county uh that were not uh referred to in your memorandum?
And did you find any cases in which the county in applying this development standard said no, this drive-thru uh uh will or or does not uh uh show that it won't won't increase the uh the emissions over a walk-in project.
>> Mr. Chair, Commissioner Park, um the three projects cited in the memo are the only ones I'm aware of from the past 10 years. Um, and I have not seen a project say that the emissions would be higher or at least that we've re recommended approval for that the emissions would be higher from the drive-thru. And that's consistent with the memo from APCD. Um, at least on a per trip basis, the walk-in emissions are always higher than the drive-thru.
You know, I should say we we had a a very moving discussion of how the commissioners enjoy their time with each other uh earlier today and and I derive the same pleasure from working with our staff. Uh and I must say I'm I'm bursting with pride in the way that you and Miss Mitchell and uh and Miss Reese put together this information and got it out there. It's a real service to us and to the public. Thank you.
Any other Commissioner Martinez?
>> Yes, I I'm looking at the memo and I just want to make sure I have a clear definition from you as to what is a hot so commissions.
>> Mr. Chair, Commissioner Martinez, that is when a car is parked and then it's sitting there um for a while and then a customer goes back into the car and restarts it. Um, so that time that it was sitting there is considered the that's what contributes to the hot soak.
>> Okay. So, so basically somebody turning off their car, walking into Chick-fil-A, ordering getting their order, coming back out, and restarting it the the car.
>> Yeah. So, it's that time that it's sitting there um turned off.
>> Okay.
Thank you.
>> I got a couple. Okay. first a little outside of your domain, but as clearly as demonstrated from the studies that were cited, turning the car off and on generates more emissions than letting it idle. Can you send a copy of that to carb and ask them why we have this stupid stop start technology in all our new cars? Okay, now getting more seriously though. So, this seems to document the fact that having the drive-thru will result in lower emissions than stopping the car, walking in. So, that that's one area of savings.
Do you take time to review all the public comment letters?
>> Uh, chair Reed, yes, I've reviewed the public comment letters. And didn't we see a great many of them uh indicating they were a lot of them were students people coming from Galita Isa Vista area and others who right now have to travel all the way into the Chick-fil-A and Santa Barbara instead of a much more convenient and short trip that this new facility would afford.
>> Uh yes, I did see those. So then we get double bang for the buck if this restaurant is built uh if it's built a because it simply exists fewer vehicle miles traveled and emissions and then since it's allowed to have a drive-thru a further reduction in emissions from those customers who decide to patronize it compared to if they had to stop and get out of their car and walk in.
Correct.
>> Um yes, that's correct.
>> Sounds like a pretty good deal. I'm not asking for your opinion, but it does.
So, thank you very much, >> Commissioner Ford.
>> Uh, thank you. I feel like I should also add something um sort of along the lines of um Commissioner Park's comments and that is that I lived right near State Street and I saw the evolution of the Chick-fil-A in Santa Barbara and I was shocked by the level of enthusiasm and the buzz about it opening. Uh, as we heard in our um in our letters that we received, people loved Chick-fil-A and um but I will say also that living there, I noticed terrible traffic when it first opened. It was um and the outcry was significant against it. But what I felt was so important was um the admirable response that Chick-fil-A had to that concern. And to this day, the lines just don't exist the way they used to. They completely remodeled the site.
So to make this a question, were you able to review and look at what happened in Santa Barbara as a as a way to lead you to your decision to support this?
>> Um, Mr. Chair, Commissioner Ford, I am familiar with the um Santa Barbara location. Um, and this project is implementing the same uh changes that that location made, which is the dual lane drive-thru and um the iPad ordering system as well as the online application where they can order ahead of time.
>> Yeah. Um, Commissioner Ford to add to that. Certainly in our discussions with the applicant, the Santa Barbara Chick-fil-A came up quite a bit and they um uh looked at the issues that the city had and worked very hard to have this project not repeat those same issues, therefore the longer aisle lengths and being able to to accommodate more cars. And so that was an important discussion we had with them.
>> Thank you.
If there are no more questions from commissioners, uh perhaps we could move to the applicant presentation of 10 minutes.
Is my is my light on? Okay. Yes. And PowerPoint. Great.
Good morning, commissioners. Chair Reed.
Uh it has been a pleasure working with you and I will miss you. Um Beth Collins from Brownstein for Chick-fil-A. Um we have our applicant team here present.
We're uh here and ready to answer any questions. Um, thank you to staff for all your work on this and your great presentation today as well as your memo and all the research into the other uh precedent on uh um other drive-throughs in the county. Uh I myself did a little research into this finding. Uh it was adopted back in 1981.
Uh I had very big hair at the time. A lot of hairspray was used, other air quality emissions involved there. uh but that are now being avoided uh which is good. Um but uh this quirky little finding that Santa Barbara County has uh that this uh restaurant with a drive-thru needs to have no greater adverse impact on air quality than the restaurant alone. And I think what you heard from staff and hopefully what you hear from now from me now will help convince you that there is ample ample evidence to make this finding in this qu for this quick service restaurant. quick service restaurants, people are usually running in, running out, trying to get their food quickly, right? Um, and just a little primer on uh the science of a drive-thru. Uh, park and restart emissions are higher than stabilized running, which comes with idling. And you had the question, uh, Commissioner Martinez, what is hot soak? Hot soak is comes from the evaporating fuel when you turn off the car and park it. The starting emissions, which is actually the bigger source of emissions, happens as the car warms back up to stabilized running emissions. So, why is that important? We know idling is better than park and restart. You heard that from staff. But also, less time on site results in fewer air quality emissions from idling or park and restart.
Here's the memo. 2008 APCD memo to this very planning commission. Well, not not you all but your predecessors. Um, and as you saw with staff, restart and hot soak or park and restart is higher in emissions. Same thing with all these constituents, reactive organic compounds, carbon monoxide, oxides of n of nitrogen or NOx as we call them. Um, this is the evidence. This is the memo that's been relied on for the decade at least more than a decade since 2008 almost two decades uh to approve drive-throughs. And we have the one this I'll quickly go through the memo um staff memo. We have a drive-through in Orchit. See it's a single f uh single lane drive-thru. It has again fewer emissions from the drive-thru. more emissions from park and restart. Same thing here, another drive-thru in orchet. Another single lane. And then here you can see the park and restart has higher emissions. Same thing actually next door to us. This is our our uh us well the project site. Um this is a Starbucks right next door. our single lane drive-thru and again fewer emissions from the drive-thru, more from park and restart. And our own air quality analysis for this restaurant, the Chick-fil-A, shows the same. Uh walk-in has more air quality emissions than um the drive-thru.
So, that's sufficient evidence to make this finding, but there's more evidence I can present to you. And uh Commissioner Reid was starting to unpack this. Um vehicle emissions have gone down since ' 81. So generally uh the emissions are going down because all of the vehicles are more efficient.
Also, we have modernized ordering and other operational systems that I'll talk through more. All of which decrease customer time on site. There's also the modern drive-thru. Um, and this site design, you know, this long, skinny site, the way it's designed, creates really great circulation with a two-lane drive-thru. Um, all reducing idling and um, circling for parking as well as, um, air quality emissions. So, here, 1980s, uh, a little nod to Back to the Future, which happened in the 1980s, if you recall. Uh, these are the cars. The dark line is average. all vehicle emissions.
The dotted line takes out EVs no matter what. Air quality is improved with our more modern vehicles.
Separately, also the modern technology.
No cell phones in the 80s. Uh now you can order offsite. You can pay offsite.
I can do it when I'm sitting at home.
The kids can do it at San Marcos before the lunch bell rings. Uh, so we're no longer ordering at an order board and then idolling to go and pay and then idolling and waiting for the food to cook while we're idling before we leave this site. Um, also I I uh spent some time Travis Collins is here, the operator of our state street store. So, thank you for your kind words, uh, Commissioner Ford. I was involved with the State Street store as well.
Um there are so many innovations with the way the operations he can pull up on his cell phone right now. How what is the ordering time? How is his team performing? Are there any glitches in the system?
Chick-fil-A has an interest of a well functioning and very efficient site. And they have a ton of innovations in the kitchen and otherwise to improve efficiency and to get people off the site faster and uh more efficiently. So, a little bit about the two-lane drive-thru that was mentioned. So, with the app, uh you can actually dedicate as an operator one of those lanes for just pickups for people who did the pre-order on site and people who have a smaller order can pop into that uh lane, of course, with a a team member directing them uh and get off the site more efficiently. Additionally, last time I mentioned 85% of the time, this is the going to be the queue. But what about at max time? Max time our queue is 31 cars.
Now, this great design keeps the queue out of the parking lot. If anyone does want to park and go in and eat, fine.
There's plenty of space for maneuvering.
But, um, so the drive-thru though provides a very clear, organized, safe sight circulation. Imagine this site and those 31 cars without the drive-thru.
Where are those cars going to park?
Without the drive-thru, it's just not it's actually just not sustainable.
People would potentially double park, circle in the neighborhood, um cause a bit of chaos. When you have the drive-thru, it actually reduces customers walking in the parking lot, which slows things down, creates uh safety issues, unnecessary safety issues. Also safer for team members. It reduces backing out of spaces. I was at ABR yesterday at the city and one of the members of the public backed into our architect's car. I mean, it's just true.
When you're backing up, it's not as safe. Um, and when you're just driving carefully in a line, idling all along, you're going to get on and off the sa site faster. So, the drive-through is actually a much more efficient, safe, optimized way to circulate in this site, and it really improves the site. Um, we heard a little bit about VMT. Our big data shows the average trip length is 13.9 miles. There's a huge number of customers that are to the east. um that was shown in our analysis, but we also had a um accidentally really uh when we asked folks to put in comment cards, we last time I was with you, we had uh 425 comment cards. Now we have over 722 unique comment cards and a total of 77% of those of those 722 unique people live over in the Isa Vista Galita place. So this is separate kind of verification of the improvements in VMT. And finally, I just want to mention and remind you all that there are going to be a bunch of of improvements to this Cay Real Corridor that come with this project. These improvements are going to be far superior to the other most common tenant that Tom Patton and his partners were being approached by car wash. This is going to be a far better use for this neighborhood and this site. Um here's the picture without with the car with the um landscaping grayed out. Here's it with the landscaping. We're also, if you remember, there's striping, new striping that will be on Kai Rail to improve circulation and bicycle safety. Um really, this is an excellent use for this site. It's very well designed. um the addition of the drive-thru will ensure safe, efficient site circulation and um and really success for this restaurant and this use. So with that, uh if you have any questions, we're here.
>> Any questions from commissioners?
Commissioner Martin.
>> Yes. And and I probably should have asked this with the county too regarding the APCD memo, but I'll ask this of you right now. Um, I know there's probably there is no actuals regarding this site, but if you if you go to your your um slide 15, I think this would probably best help me pose this question to you.
>> I love that you know the slide number.
Okay.
>> Well, >> let's go to 15.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. So, we're we're all addressing the time situation of when a customer coming through and parking their car and all that. But if you look through all three of them, you have drive-thru, carry out, and dining in.
What is the proportionate instead of going one to one of the units being served, let's just say within an an hour, >> how much of them are going to be drive-thru versus carry out versus dining in? There must be some kind of forecast of business model of what Chick-fil-A is because then that if it's if it's more drive-thru, then it's better. If it's more park and go, then well, that kind of works against it. So, I'm interested if you have any of those.
>> I actually spent some time with Travis Collins, the operator of the State Street store, and so I can tell you that that State Street restaurant is 62% drive-thru.
>> Okay. And I I did a follow-up question which asked how many of those people like vacasillate drive-thru, walk-in, drive-thru. And he said there's massive filty. In other words, if you're a drive-through customer, you're a drive through through customer. So 60% of those people, and that's really important for the VMT analysis as well, because it helps show if we have a drive-thru at this restaurant, those people will drive to the shorter location. And I would argue that no matter what, if you have a very efficient drive-thru, you're going to be able to get people on and off the site faster. And even the people who want to park and dine in will be able to find a parking space immediately because there will be more open parking. and there won't be frankly chaos on the site because the the drive-thru allow def in essence gets people who want to be off the site quickly um off the site in a way that they are just idling. So they're avoiding the park and restart and they're and they're idling for a shorter period of time.
>> Okay. So the focus here on this site is still going to be more towards the towards the user being a drive-thru user or customer. Let's call the person a customer cuz I'm just reflecting on well let's say the name McDonald's you see the places where the drive-throughs there the customer seating is less obviously the focus being on drive-thrus I see in in the rendition here that you have a lot of seating for people to sit down and enjoy their meal which is fine so that's why I was asking the proportionate use so it's still the focus is on is on drive-thru being more than the park turn off the car come back in the car and then produce what we were were already seeing through the APCD memo as being the the more potent, let's just call it that way. Okay.
>> Yeah. I would say that they are interrelated that the site doesn't work without the drive-thru, but we of course have a number of customers who also want to eat in, right? 62% drive-thru, but that means 48, no 38, thank you. Uh 38% are eating in, and that's really important as well.
>> Yes. Okay. Thank you, >> Commissioner Park. I wanted to ask about um average processing times for customers in the drive-thru. Um um I think you looked at those other other cases and they they all had that study from Recon Engineering.
Uh and uh one of the studies and in particular the one that was uh turned into a comparative study by staff in 2016 used two u uh you know two two starting times I mean two processing times one was five minutes and one was uh 3 and 3/4 minutes and uh you can look at their data it shows that it was significantly less emission emissions if they were processed in 3 and 3/4 minutes instead of five. And then they made that report in the text that that point in the text their report and I referred to this earlier that the faster you can move them the the lower your emissions. And I noticed that the estimates in in this case all refer to five minutes. That does not reflect my experience in watching the drive-thru in Santa Maria. I would say are closer to a minute or two minutes. Um, and I just wonder if you have data from your operator, uh, as to what the average drive-through processing times are in practice at Chick-fil-A.
>> In practice at Chick-fil-A, they are less than five minutes. And that is always the goal to be less than 5 minutes. And especially when you add on the ordering off-site, the paying off-site, etc. When you really are implementing that system, then it's even it's even more efficient. So that is the goal, the way this site will be operated. Um, but either way, you have fewer emissions um than the park and restart, but the goal is definitely more efficient and uh less than 5 minutes.
>> Well, I'll begin first with an observation. And admittedly, this is anecdotal, but my experience with drive-through restaurants, ones that have experience with high volume and ones where they will meet you in the queue. If you look at In-N-Out, I think Chick-fil-A is clearly faster in getting your order, getting you through the line, and way faster than Canes. Hey, I only go to Canes on Sunday, all right?
So, no problem. But uh so I I think their expertise has been well demonstrated in that area. I do have a question about the little cards, the survey cards, because when I look at the survey card, I can't really read the back side of it that well. Do customers get any kind of a premium or whatever returning that card?
>> No. And that's a great point. Uh no premium, no incentive, and we did not script any of the letters or anything that you received were all spontaneous.
They we did not provide talking points or scripting as often occurs.
>> Great. So all those answers were self-generated on the part of the c a loyal customers.
>> Yes.
>> All right. Thank you.
>> Oh, Commissioner Ford.
>> Uh thanks. Uh just a quick question. I wonder if um the the response from the public was pretty astounding and um I appreciated the opportunity to read through them all and look at it. I just wondered if you're aware if there's a regular process that Chick-fil-A uses to get feedback from uh its customers in a formal way so that uh you know from now till whenever they will always understand what the public is thinking about the process, the efficiency and the food.
>> Okay, I'm I'm going to let uh Carlos from Chick-fil-A speak on that.
>> Thanks.
Good morning, commissioners. Thank you so much for having us and for the opportunity to speak today. Uh, Commissioner Ford, the short answer is yes. Um, absolutely. Those um surveys comes in form of receipts or if you have the app with us, we're constantly looking for feedback. It helps us get better. As Beth um pointed out so accurately, we have a very strong interest and a high focus on innovating on being better providing a guest a better guest experience across the board and usually that is in the form of delivering fast and accurate service.
>> Thanks.
>> We're here for any other questions if you need. No. Thank you so much.
Okay.
Well, with no more commissioner questions, we can proceed to public comment. Are there any more slips? I have two.
>> Okay. Uh, first we will go to Roy Melender.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Roy Millinger. Uh my wife and I came to Santa Barbara in 1967.
We raised our sons here and uh when Chick-fil-A opened, uh I wanted to try it and uh we have been satisfied with it for the entire time that they've been here. Uh we love the place. were there at least once a week. Uh I tell the managers that uh since I work out of my home, uh this is my office and I meet with clients and I meet with friends uh at Chick-fil-A. Um, and I I taught 31 years at Westmont College in economics and business. And I I can tell you every one of my students should have worked at Chick-fil-A because the people there are extremely welltrained.
Uh, they love their jobs. I've never seen in the in the years that I've been there, I've never seen an incident where somebody was unhappy.
As a matter of fact, I fill out those cards and I say, "It's a joy to come to Chick-fil-A because the people are really good."
Now, as to what's going on here, we all know that Lumbumber Plaza is going to have at least a thousand more families uh right there, literally within a couple of blocks at the most from the existing Chick-fil-A.
And if we read what the university is doing in terms of the number of students that are going to be at the university, that number is going up as well. And I got to tell you, I think there are a lot of people like me who just like Chick-fil-A, uh, not only in Santa Barbara, but I think worldwide. Uh, they have they have a secret sauce that really works. And if you're not fans of Chick-fil-A at the present time, I encourage you to try it.
You'll love it. Uh, I can't imagine anything that would be better for Santa Barbara than than getting this uh thing approved to be able to spread out the uh traffic from Galita to Santa Barbara. I I certainly hope that it's approved and Lord bless you all. You do a great job.
Steve, it's nice to see you in this job, too. Have a good day.
>> All right. Thank you. Uh, next we will hear from Tom Patton.
Good morning, chair and commissioners.
I'm Tom Patton. I'm one of the managing partners of the partnership that has the site as well as the hotel across the street. I'm joined by my other partner, Don Lucian, in the in the second row.
And uh, Commissioner Reid, thank you for your service. We appreciate it, Steve.
Welcome to the commission. Be careful what you volunteer for. As I look at Kristen Miller in the second row there as the current board chair of the Chamber of Commerce, that's how I ended up there as well. So, again, look forward to working with you. U Chick-fil-A has been a really great team to work with these past four years. It's obviously been a very thoughtful and not a rush process. Worked really well with county staff. County staff has been amazing. Obviously, all the things that have been talked about, the traffic circulation, the vehicle stacking, the admissions, the landscaping, and the overall site aesthetics. Uh, as property owners, we're completely uh deeply invested in the community. Uh, Don and Karen Lucian were born and raised here.
I've my sons were raised here, live in the community. Uh, we want the right thing for this site. As as Beth mentioned, we looked at some car washes.
We all love clean cars, but you know what? We need a restaurant that feeds our friends and neighbors and community members here. Uh the site will be vastly better than it is now. It's an old tired IHOP. It was great in its day, but it's passed. It's a sea of asphalt. It's a very large building. Doesn't meet the current restaurant standards. As you saw in the slide, we're going to have a beautiful new restaurant site, great new landscaping. It's really going to dress up that part of town.
Uh, and also, I mean, you talk about this high schoolers across the way, they're jumping in their cars and driving some places. Not only is that a safety risk, but it's a vehicle emissions risk. So, again, they'll be able to walk across the freeway to the restaurant. Have lots of friends and neighbors in there that keep asking Don and myself, when are you going to get that Chick-fil-A open? And we go, we're working hard because they want to eat there. And, man, I'm getting hungry after listening to you talk about going there every week. So, I want to thank the commission. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this. Thank you for the county staff. We really are doing what we feel is the best for the community and will be the best at this site. So, thank you very much for your consideration.
>> All right. Thank you. Uh Mr. Vobus, do we have any commenters? Any hands raised?
>> So, again, for those of us joining us online and you'd like to speak on this item, raise your virtual hand and I'll call on you. We do have one hand up.
Uh, our next speaker will be Suzanne Sters.
>> Uh, Mers, whenever you're ready.
>> Sorry. Sorry about that.
Hello, commissioners. I am a property owner who lives within walking distance of the proposed project and I urge you to deny this project because it does not meet the requirements for a conditional use permit. I'd like to note that all of the current drive-throughs in the entire South Coast unincorporated area are within 300 yards of each other near the Turnpike Kyrial intersection.
This proposed project would add yet another drive-thru in the exact same area, increasing drive-throughs in the South Coast unincorporated area by 33% with 100% of them concentrated within 300 yards of each other. I'd also ask whether the sheriff's department has been formally consulted given that their headquarters rely on the same interchange. Any additional con congestion at this location could affect emergency response times and public safety operations which should be carefully evaluated. I want to address the use of the SQA exemption under section 15183.
SQA is clear that agencies must still evaluate impacts that are project specific, sightsp specific or cumulative and not previously addressed. In this case, the concentration of multiple drive-throughs within a very limited area near public safety operations, schools, and a freeway interchange creates unique and intensified conditions, particularly related to traffic circulation, safety, and access.
These are sightspecific and cumulative impacts that go beyond what would typically be analyzed at the general plan level and have not been adequately addressed. Regarding the air quality results, the average drive-through wait time of 5 minutes has not been supported by actual data. Actual data should be required for this estimate. Also, is it really appropriate to rely on an 18-year-old APCD analysis? Supporting data and evidence has not been presented to support how current-day car emissions are less impactful than in the 2008 analysis.
Additionally, based on the conversation today, it seems that the preferences of temporary residents in Isa Vista are given priority to those of permanent property taxpaying residents of the neighboring community. For these reasons, unmitigated cumulative impacts, unresolved public safety concerns, neighborhood livability, and the questionable application of a SQA exemption and idling times. I ask that you deny this application.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Um staff, do you have uh any response to anything that emerged during public comment?
>> Um Chair Reed, I don't have anything to add, but I can um address any comments or questions.
>> Okay. With that, we'll offer applicant two minutes.
for rebuttals.
>> Uh just very quickly, hi Commissioner uh or Chair Reid. Commissioners, um Beth Collins again. Uh just quickly, uh we're not just relying on the APCD study u from 2008. It's actually uh the results from the study have been reaffirmed repeatedly over the years, including in our separate air quality analysis. So just a clarification um on that point.
Um the other point is cumulative impacts have been analyzed in the um if you look at the technical studies that are submitted uh in your report cumulative um analysis includes traffic associated with all of the housing projects for example that are coming on board. Um there was a cumulative analysis also done for air quality etc. So cumulative impacts have been analyzed. Um and then uh the point that our avid Chick-fil-A fan has made over here uh which is you know the question before you is restaurant alone or restaurant with a drive-thru. And there's a lot of objection that people are hearing or saying about a jab drive-thru. Not a lot, but historically um at the last hearing at least. And the truth is a drive-thru will actually, and I know this seems counterintuitive, but based on everything that I detailed, the drive-thru is going to improve this site. It's going to improve the operation. And with the drive-thru, then you can have the restaurant use and then you will have all the restriping and all the other benefits to the neighborhood.
So I think in the end the neighbors are going to appreciate this project. Um but I understand that there is a current of some fear um because of the his other um drive-throughs in the area. Um but the 15183 analysis is absolutely uh appropriate. there are no impacts that are particular to this site. Um it's quite a detailed analysis um that was written by staff and uh we're very confident uh that it is appropriate uh to move forward with the section 15183 analysis. So with that if you have any questions we're here. Thank you.
>> All right. Thank you.
I have one for staff. We had a comment about the the needs or the wants of quote temporary residents from you know UCSB in that area. Okay. Are air emissions generated by cars of temporary residents any different in intensity or harmfulness of those emitted by cars owned by long-term residents?
>> There's no answer to that one. Right.
>> No.
>> Yeah. So I just just wanted to answer that since that question came up. So all right. So we would we would value the needs or or wants of those temporary residents. We would give them the same level of standing as those of long-term residency here in the county, wouldn't we?
All right. I just wanted to double check on that. Thank you very much. Uh if there are no more questions, I suppose it is time to proceed to deliberations.
We have anybody willing to take the bit and lead?
>> I'll go first.
>> Okay. Commissioner Martinez.
Well, I I would say that I I'm actually looking to to be in favor of the recommendations, especially I I don't like a um a moving target here. This was continued specifically for 35.42.130B and that's about B2 about the air quality and that's what we're here about and we have addressed that as the air quality issue here. Um we already addressed the issue of zoning and use that's already was last hearing. So, uh, I just think the the burdens that were placed upon the the applicant and the staff doing their job, I just see enough that it's going to it has met those provisions. the mention of the 2018 study. Um I I get what the the the one caller indicated, but I to me just pure logic would dictate that with the advances that have been you know we know about that are always even being raised every year on the on the um car makers is that those emissions are always going down. So, I can only imagine my logic is the emissions have to be going down rather than rising up even if we have more car use out there. And um that's my analysis of the situation. I think everything has been met. Thank you, >> Commissioner Ford.
>> Uh thank you so much. Um, well, I was thinking about this decision and I'm I'm sure there was some disappointment when we didn't come to a decision at the last meeting, but honestly, I'm really delighted that we requested this deeper dive into the concerns about air quality because uh the data and the information that uh was presented is really convincing to me of no greater adverse uh effects. And personally, I just learned a lot through this process. So, I'm I'm much inclined to support this. I also uh just since it's a bigger picture than just the air quality. I I think that this u restaurant's design is based on science. It's based on the latest technology and experience with other um Chick-fil-As and also innovation. Um I also believe that Chick-fil-A has been extremely responsive in every way. Um, and it's been mentioned a couple times, but I'll just reinforce the idea that as um a former educator, I would just say that it's known to be an outstanding employer for young people and uh the focus is on service and on on manners and uh it's been great. So when I was uh listening to the arguments, I thought a lot about I don't know this uh phrase came into my mind which is make it work which if any of you go back to watching Project Runway which is a clothing design reality show uh one of the judges Tim Gunn would always tell the contestants to make it work and it's really clear to me that the uh there is great dedication to making this work and I appreciate that. But I guess the only other thing I would say is I think it'd be great for the owners to just uh consider leaving a little space for a drone landing zone because I think that's probably the next thing is people will be able to order um to be ordered online and have a drone uh deliver the food. So with that, I support this application.
>> Thank you, Commissioner Park.
You know, I I've often uh restated my favorite quote from Ralph Waldo Edmmerson that consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. I use that when I change my mind, which is all the time. And uh but I think it's important to address a complaint that we sometimes hear about the county planning process that that it's inconsistent. And that's been something that's been voiced for for decades before you were born, Miss Brown. And um it it seems to me when we have a development standard like this, and it's not a condition, it's a development standard. It it means if if at some point in the future it turns out that the air quality is worsened by this drive-thru, the development standard will say, "Shut it down." I mean, it's it's it's it's it's a strict restriction. Um, but we've had it in play. It seems to apply to all drive-throughs, and this county has consistently approved these drive-throughs. So, to make an exception to deny Chick-fil-A would would would be something that's somewhat indefensible. I I I I notice and I hope I'm saying this with some sense of humor that in the um 2019 approval at is it Ksite 2 or three whichever one it was in in Orchid uh there was a new member of the planning commission that voted for it which meant that they were approving that development standard that had been met and and that was me. So I I want to be consistent at least with myself. Um and thank you for not noting that uh Miss Collins. I think that was very respectful. But uh uh I just think that's important and and we we look at the information. It was it's been well presented here. It was very well presented in those past applications.
And and that's what it says that drive-throughs will will improve, not worsen the um the uh the air quality.
Does one question the science? Um, personally, I don't think it's up for me to question the science when it's well laid out. I want to make sure it's there. And I and I and I did that at the last hearing. I I objected because I didn't think we had an adequate record.
Now, it's in the record. Uh, I made it very clear when I made that motion to continue this two months ago that the issue for me was air quality.
And and Commissioner Martinez was absolutely right. That's that's the issue for today because that's the issue we left. Uh and uh anyone who felt that uh air quality was in fact worsened has had two months to get that information on the record. And I haven't seen a single sentence that that that that addresses that. So I I think that um uh given what we've all learned, what we've seen, uh we should approve this project.
Commission Commissioner America Connor.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Could we put uh slide 14 from the applicants presentation up on the screen, please?
Thank you.
I was um trying to decide how I might vote on this when I saw this slide and wondered how the applicant got a picture of the car we bought in 1981 with the faux wood siding on it, which actually peeled off after four years.
And that pretty well tipped me over into a decision. Uh I believe our my colleagues here on the commission have it exactly right.
Uh, I watched the hearing from March and listened to the hearing again today and I think the bottom line for me is that the project meets all of the standards uh, both code and environmental and others that we have set for this kind of a project.
And I think that one of the hallmarks of a successful land use decision-making process is predictability. That if a project comes along that meets all of those standards, that project deserves uh to be approved. And I concur with my colleagues here who believe that those uh that that has been demonstrated. I think very clearly that this project meets all of those standards. And so I am happy to support this application.
>> Okay. First, I'll let Commissioner Marac Connor know that his purchase of that Dodge Caravan, you know, that was the the beginning of the minivan revolution.
>> It was >> it's only shortcoming was they only had three doors, but they figured that one out. Nonetheless, I'll keep it short.
All right. Uh I was ready to approve this last time. Uh I voted to approve it. Uh it was continued because of the air quality question which has been completely resolved uh due to staff's uh work uh with the assistant of commissioner Park. I'm prepared to vote yes again. So do we have a motion?
>> I'd like to make a motion.
>> Indeed.
>> Thank you. Uh, I'd like to u approve the recommended actions. Uh, would you like me to read these aloud?
>> I think what you can do is you can just you can just refer to you can uh you make a motion for staff recommendation just recognizing the uh change to the conditions.
>> Yes. I would like to uh make a motion to approve the recommended actions with the amendments uh recommended in and uh the points in number one, two, and three to approve this project.
>> I will second that to give power to the people, give them the Chick-fil-A they want. So would you please do a roll call, Mr. Vo?
Uh, Commissioner Maron Connor, >> I.
>> Commissioner Ford, >> I, >> Commissioner Park.
>> See, I told you that sense of humor would come out finally, but anyway. I >> Commissioner Martinez, >> I chair Reed >> I.
>> Motion passes five to zero.
>> Can we take a what about a 10-minute recess to set up? Yeah.
>> Can we take about a 10-minute recess?
Welcome back to the May 27th, 2026 hearing of the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission.
>> Mr. Vobus, will you please read the next item into the record?
>> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The following is a hearing on the request of Stanford Farms Trust appellent to consider the following case number 26 APL uh 6. Uh the Stanford Farms Trust appeal of the Terrell Terrell uh parcel map to consider the appeal of the zoning administrator's decision to approve tenative parcel map case number 24 TPM1.
>> Okay. At this time, I'd like to ask are any exparte or site visit disclosures?
Commissioner Ford.
>> Uh, thanks. Uh, just yesterday, uh, Mr. Park and I, Commissioner Park and I met with Alicia Harrison, the senior land use manager, and we also had a site visit at the Via Robladas um, land, and we had a great discussion about the issue.
>> All right. Uh, Commissioner American.
>> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is the same disclosure I made prior to the hearing earlier this morning on Chick-fil-A.
The applicant in this matter is represented by the Brownstein Law Firm.
I was a partner in that law firm until my retirement in December 2021.
Since then, I've had no financial connection with Brownstein or any of its clients.
I've consulted with county council and have concluded that I am not disqualified from participation in the commission's consideration of this matter due to any financial interest I might have had prior to my retirement at the end of 2021.
I've also considered whether or not to voluntarily recuse myself from this matter due to my previous business relationship with the Brownstein Law Firm and the California legal legal requirement that a public agency hearing be conducted before a reasonably impartial non-involved reviewer. I've carefully reviewed California law on this subject and I've concluded that there's no reason to believe that my impartiality in this matter has been compromised by my previous business relationships.
Moreover, I believe that recusal under these circumstances would set an unworkable precedent in a small community like ours where longtime personal and business relationships are common, particularly among people who have lived here for many years. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
>> Okay. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Park, I won't repeat my comments I made earlier in in support of uh Mr. Maric Connor's decision not to recuse himself, but they they stand. Um, I also attended the site visit that uh, Miss Ford just referred to. Um, and uh, I've advised by county council to disclose something that I've researched. U, when did I do that? It was last night. And that is um the, uh, historical landmarks that have already been approved by the county of Santa Barbara. There's a list of them.
Uh it's online. So if you look up HLAC Historical Landmarks Advisory Commission, then um you can find that right away. It lists u approximately 48 structures that have been approved. I'm I'm I looked into this because it's my understanding from both sides uh paperwork that that this is a a a crucial issue or they considered a crucial issue in this case that whether this is a landmark or not and what the process is referring to the uh to to the uh barn that seems to straddle the property line and and I'll refer to what um the significance is of that uh list while we have deliberations and perhaps perhaps in in questions, but at least I've disclosed it. It's part of the record, and if somebody wants to look it up, you can do it in a matter of seconds.
>> Okay, with that, I think we'll proceed to staff presentation. Miss Cruz, are you ready?
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you. Good morning, Chair Reed and commissioners. My name is Tatiana and I will be presenting the Stanford Farms Trust appeal of the Terrell parcel map.
The project is located in the coastal zone on a blufftop property in the community of Hope Ranch and is addressed 4653 via Rob, excuse me, via Robata pictured on the left here. Lot size in the immediate area ranges from 1 and a2 acres up to 22 acres and the zoning is one family exclusive residential. The surrounding neighborhood is developed with single family dwellings and accessory structures such as pools, sports courts, and garages. The project site has existing residential development and agriculture consisting of a roughly 3 and 1/2 acre lemon and avocado orchard.
The Terrell parcel map is a request for subdivision of a 12.99 acre parcel into three lots. Existing structures, which are highlighted in yellow, are proposed to remain.
Parcel one will be 2.6 acres and contains a driveway off Via Roblada, an orchard, and no structures.
Parcel 2 will be 2.6 6 acres and contains a driveway off Via Robatada, an orchard, a permitted agricultural well for irrigation, and just under 3,000 square ft of an existing barn that straddles the property line to the east, which is the appellance property.
And parcel 3 will be 7.79 acres and contains the existing single family dwelling, guest house, pool and cabana, tennis court, storage shed, and existing driveway access also off via robot. The proposed easements include access easements which encompass the existing driveway access, utility easements, drainage easements that encompass an existing storm drain system, and landscaping easements across parcels 1, 2, and three. And those easements are pictured in the hatched area. So there is um driveway on parcel one that goes down the middle. Um to the right on parcel two, there's also driveway. And then the easements continue down, excuse me, to parcel three.
Parcel one and two will be vacant except for the roughly 3,000 ft portion of a barn straddling the property line, and parcel 3 is already developed. The site has existing utilities from Lumbre Mutual Water Company, private on-site wastewater treatment, a well for agricultural irrigation, and has three driveway access points off via Robata.
There is no mapped environmentally sensitive habitat. There are no creeks, and there are no known flood or high fire hazard areas on the property. The site is relatively flat with an average slope of less than 5%. Cultural and historic resource studies found that there are no significant cultural or historic resources on the parcel. And specifically, a historic report prepared by a qualified licensed historian analyzed the 80-year-old barn that is straddling the property line and found that the structure does not meet the criteria to be considered a historic resource.
The Terrell parcel map application case number 24 TPM1 for subdivision of the existing parcel into three lots was approved by the zoning administrator on February 9th, 2026.
The appellent Stanford Farms Trust submitted a timely appeal of the zoning administrator approval on February 18th, 2026.
On May 5 May 15th, 2026, the appellant submitted a nomination to the historic landmarks advisory committee for consideration of the existing barn. The applicant, however, does not agree to this nomination because the historic resources reports which we received as part of this subdivision found that the structure has no historic merit.
So this bar in question which is pictured here straddles the property line and is used for storage. It was built in the 1940s prior to zoning requirements and so it is grandfathered in and it is allowed to remain like that if they wish. The use of the barn is subject to a private agreement between the property owners and the project does not propose any changes to the underlying property line or to the structure itself. And as I mentioned, planning and development received a historic report which is dated from 2024 that found the barn does not meet criteria to be considered a historic resource resource for squa purposes and it is not eligible for listing at the local, state or national level. The appalent submitted a letter dated May 26th asserting that a permit application has been submitted for demolition of the barn. However, planning and development has not received an application for barn demolition and it is shown on the approved tenative parcel map as an existing structure.
The appellant raised six primary issues in their appeal asserting that the findings were not supported by substantial evidence that the project is not exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and is likely to cause environmental damage. that the project site is not physically suitable for independent use or for the proposed density of development and lastly that the project is not consistent with the general plan and applicable policies.
Staff will address each of these appeal issues in the next slides.
So first the appellant asserts that there was insufficient evidence to support the findings required under the subdivision map act. But contrary to the appellant's claim, there is substantial evidence to support the subdivision map act findings, including general plan consistency, physical suitability for the type and density of development proposed. There's no creation of substantial environmental damage or serious public health problems, no conflict with public easements, no water quality violations, and no other conflicts. The project is consistent with all applicable policies of the county comprehensive plan, including the coastal land use plan and the eastern Galita Valley Community Plan, the coastal zoning ordinance, and chapter 21 land division requirements. All reviewing agencies which included the county fire department, public works transportation, environmental health services, the county surveyor and lumbre mutual water company confirm that the project has adequate access, water supply, wastewater treatment capacity, drainage and fire protection services to serve the three parcels which may be developed with residential structures.
and parcel 3 already contains existing development and utilities that meet applicable requirements. In addition, several technical studies support the physical suitability of the site.
Because the site is a blufftop property, the potential for bluff retreat and erosion threats were studied and a technical secliff retreat study concluded that an 80oot setback would adequately address any long-term risk even under worst case sea level rise scenarios. All proposed parcels meet the recommended bluff setback. The site is relatively flat, making the parcels physically capable of supporting future development. Although parcel 3 does include some steeper slopes near the bluff, those areas would remain undeveloped in compliance with the recommended bluff setback.
And cultural and historic resource studies further found that no significant cultural or historic resources exist on the property. And as mentioned previously, the site lacks environmentally sensitive habitat and there are no known flood or highf fire hazard areas on the property that would lend to any public health issues.
Next, the appellant claimed that the squa exemption was improperly applied and that environmental review was deferred. Contrary to the appellance claim, the project properly qualifies for the SQUA class 15 categorical exemption because it creates fewer than four parcels, is located within an urbanized residential area, conforms to the general plan, zoning, and chapter 1 land division requirements, and requires no variances or exceptions. In addition, none of the exceptions to this categorical exemption under SQA guidelines applies because there are no unusual circumstances nor hazardous conditions. And as previously mentioned, the site does not contain any flood, fire hazard areas, any environmentally sensitive habitat, or any historic or cultural resources. No new structures are proposed as part of this project, but any futural any future residential construction would require a coastal development permit and does not constitute deferral of environmental review. All parcels were analyzed for adequate services and are able to support future residential construction on parcels one and two and parcel 3 is already built out.
Next, the appellant claimed that the parcels are not physically suitable for independent use. However, contrary to the appellent's claim, the proposed parcels are physically suitable for independent use because there are adequate services and each parcel satisfies satisfies applicable lot design, the minimum size, the width and setback standards. Parcels one and two will contain easements for access and utilities and are readily developable without any significant site constraints. Parcel 3 is already developed and is served by existing infrastructure and the appellant has submitted no contradictory technical evidence.
Next, the appellant claims that the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density. Contrary to the appellant's claim, the project site is physically suitable for the proposed density. The site is located in the EX1 zone, which is a single family residential area. All proposed parcels exceed the 2 and 1/2 acre minimum lot size consistent with the EX1 zone district requirements, and the site has adequate services to support future development. And as I mentioned, parcel 3 is already developed with existing services.
Next, the appellant claims that the project is likely to cause environmental damage. Contrary to the appellant's claim, the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage because the site contains no environmentally sensitive habitat, critical habitat area, flood hazards, fire hazard areas or any significant cultural or historic resources and the property is already largely disturbed by either existing residential structures or the agricultural use.
The project is limited to subdivision into three lots and designation of private easements for access, utilities, drainage, and landscaping and future residential lot development is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage due to the absence of sensitive resources or hazards. And condition number three in attachment B does require to stop and redirect work in the unlikely event that any cultural resources are encountered during grading or construction activities in the future.
Lastly, the appellant asserts that the plan consistency finding is unsupported by a reasoned evidence-based analysis.
Contrary to the appalance claim, the project is consistent with the general plan, the coastal land use plan, and eastern Galita Valley Community Plan, including policies for adequate services, water resource, and hillside protection, tree protection, and the protection of cultural resources. The parcels are appropriately sized and designed to match the rural residential character of the area and meet all applicable zoning and subdivision standards including for lot size setbacks and access. The site has existing access offada and the proposed easements cover existing driveways for continued access. The project has adequate services available and the capacity to support future residential development was confirmed by the public water purveyor and through percolation testing that confirmed there is suitability for private on-site wastewater treatment on parcels one and two. In addition, there are no significant biological, cultural, or historic resources on the property, and the project avoids bluff hazards through required setbacks.
Regarding environmental review, the project is exempt pursuant to SQA exemption section 15315 minor land divisions. The project qualifies because it because it is in an urban residential area and creates four or fewer parcels, conforms to zoning and general plan, has adequate services and access. It requires no variances and it was not previously subdivided in the past 2 years and has an average slope below 20%.
In closing, the project design, access, utilities, and lot configuration satisfy all applicable development and subdivision standards, and the record demonstrates that the site is physically suitable for the subdivision without resulting in any significant environmental, cultural, or historic resource impacts. The subdivision is consistent with the comprehensive plan including the coastal land use plan and eastern Galita Valley plan as well as article 2 coastal zoning ordinance and chapter 21 land division regulations and the subdivision map act and staff concludes that the appeal issues have no merit. Therefore, staff recommends that the decision maker deny appeal case number 26, APL6, adopt the findings for approval as provided in attachment A, determine the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to section 15315 for minor land divisions, and grant denovo approval of tenative parcel map number 24 TPM1 subject to the conditions contained in Attachment B.
This concludes staff presentation. I'm available for any questions. Thank you.
>> Oh, questions from commissioners.
Commissioner Park.
I'm going to ask you a question that I'll I'll ask of each of the participants if you can't answer it or maybe they'll have a different answer than you do. So, we're led to understand that regardless of these appelllet issues that that the the real action here is is on the barn. And and that's the only place I've actually seen any evidence is something about this barn.
And what I what I don't personally understand is how whether this is a landmark or not affects whether the subdivision can go forward. Can you address that?
Yes, Commissioner Park. Um, the project before you today is for a subdivision into three lots and there are no changes proposed or related to the barn um in question. really the issue between the barn and um is a private matter between the property owners and this subdivision does not impact their ability to you know review that separately um with you know HLAC or between each other if they choose. So, if HLAC had had an appearing last week and said it's a landmark, um, and I'll address that later because I was on HLAC. Um, would that mean that the subdivision couldn't go forward? What what effect would it have on it?
>> Chair Park, if that were the case, the subdivision um, we would still recommend for approval because the project would not have any impact on any historic resources. it simply does not um change those um circumstances whether or not that structure is historic um is would not be impacted if that were to be the case. But we also have a historic report um prepared by a licensed historian that has found that the structure is not historic. So there would not be a chance for it to be eligible for listing at our local, state or national level.
>> Okay. Well, thank you.
>> And commissioners, if I could just add something really quick, too. Um, the interesting part about this recent designation was it was not done at the behest of the property owners themselves. Um, HLAC did bring forward a project, I think it was last year, against a property owner's wishes that went all the way up to the board. The board made it pretty clear that that's not something that they're very supportive of. Um the current owners have said that they do not wish to designate it and they also don't think it is eligible. So that's just something I wanted to >> Wait. So when you refer to the current owners, you mean both owners cuz both owners two own. I got you. So, so one of those two has or their or their or their agent did or somebody did asked that be considered by HLAC, but >> I think the appellent did is my understanding, but not um not either property owner has not expressed a wish to designate this barn.
>> Okay. Thanks.
>> Yep.
With no more questions, uh we ask we proceed to appellant.
You have 10 minutes.
>> Good morning, Chair Reed and commissioners. My name is Mandy Mua from Prescidio Law Firm and we represent Appalent um Stanford Farms Trust, the owner of the adjoining property at 4635 via Robatada. We respectfully request that the commission either continue this matter pending review by the Historic Landmark Advisory Commission or grant appeal and deny tenative parcel map without prejudice. This is not an opposition to future development. The issue is whether the county can lawfully approve this subdivision. Now based on the present record, the project is not a routine minor lot split. It would divide 12.99 acre coastal blufftop estate parcel into three separately conveyable lots, create two residential parcels, establish new easements and development rights, and permanently embed a legal non-conforming cross lot barn into a new parcel configuration. That barn straddles the property line. It cannot be repaired, maintained, insured, altered, assessed, or demolished without coordination between separate property owners. Importantly, demol demolition is not speculative. The applicant formally noticed an intent to demolish the barn and circulated demolition related material.
At the same time, a historic resource review process is now pending before HLAC. The county should not approve a subdivision that changes the ownership and parcel framework around this structure before the county's own historic resource body has a meaningful opportunity to evaluate it. Our position is not that the commission must determine today that the barn is historically significant. The point is that there's substantial evidence raising legitimate historic resource questions that require further review before the county relies on a categorical SQA exemption.
The required subdivision map act findings also cannot be be supported by this record. The county deferred feasible feasibility issues including septic feasibility, storm water control, fire access, compliance, drainage issues, and future development constraints to later permitting stages.
The bluff analysis relies primarily on a preliminary 2019 study prepared for a different project years before this subdivision application. The county cannot approve parcel framework first and determine later whether the resulting lots are actually suitable for the contemplated development. The SQA exemption is also improper because this project presents multiple unusual circumstances. a coal coastal blufftop subdivision, two future resident residential lots, a cross lot non-conforming structure, pending demolition issues, unresolved historic resource questions, and deferred environmental review issues. This is precisely the kind of project where careful review is required before approval. Accordingly, we respect that the commission continue or stay the matter pending the HLAC review or grant um appeal and deny the tenative parcel map. Thank you.
>> Okay. Thank you. Any questions, Commissioner Park?
>> Yes. Um in um Mr. Log's letter to the to to to us um I think it's to us, he refers to a barn agreement. I I believe the date was 1960 and calls it the alleged barn agreement and then says it's of of of dubious legality. I'm I'm paraphrasing and and I know that uh you didn't write the letter, but I'd like to ask questions about that. I can ask you about that now or we can hear from Mr. Jacobs and then you'll have a chance for rebuttal and I can ask you about it then. Is that which would you prefer?
>> Um I I can make a comment on it. Um I I know that uh we have issues whether that agreement runs with the land and um that's that's all I can say.
>> Well, let let me ask you this. I even if if it was invalid, what what difference does it make to what we're doing today?
That's that's you know that's I'm I'm not independently supposed to be interested in whether it's valid or not or what it says. I I just always want to know what impact does it have today on us. So I just asked that same question about the landmark status and now with this this agreement, what what difference does it make? You know, why did Mr. Lo bring it up?
>> Um I can't I can't speak to to part any particular reason why it was brought up.
I just know that um he has some contentions whether that agreement runs with the land and would be applicable.
>> Okay. Well, I don't want to put you on the spot. I'll I'll we'll let Mr. Jacobs address that as well when it's his turn and then if you have any contrary opinions, you'll have the chance to address it in your rebuttal. So, thanks.
>> Thank you.
>> Oh, I have a question here from Mr. American.
>> I want to Hi.
>> Sure. I want to follow up on a question that Commissioner Park asked the staff.
>> Um, >> the proposed parcel map would create three parcels.
How does that fact, the division of one parcel into three have any impact on the barn and any issues related to the barn? I I frankly don't see any connection there and I'm hoping you can enlighten me.
>> I believe the effect would be that the subdivision runs with the land. So where the barn sits, um it would have an effect on whether um whether any um enforcability or um just general approvals regarding the barn straddling our our client's property would be an issue.
I'm sorry, but I I don't understand the explanation. Right now, the barn straddles a property line between your client's property >> Yes.
>> and the applicant's property.
After the subdivision goes through, the barn will straddle a property line between your client's property and the applicant's property. What the applicant then owns is going to be three parcels rather than one.
to which I say, how does that affect the barn and issues relating to the preservation, demolition, whatever, of the barn? I I just don't see the connection. I understand the argument made repeatedly in the letters that have been submitted to us, but I just don't see the connection between this subdivision and the future of the barn.
>> Got it. Um, I believe our position is that the subdivision itself creates a legal parcel framework and development rights. That would be an issue.
But there are development rights right now on the 12 acre parcel that exists today. And there going to be development rights in the new parcel that is created where the barn is located.
I'm still not getting it. I'm sorry. I just don't understand the connection.
>> Yeah, my apologies. I wish I can expand on this further. I I'm not um in the position to be able to answer that for you at the this moment.
>> Okay, that's a that's a fair answer. I appreciate that. Thank you.
>> Yeah.
Okay, with no other questions, uh we can go to applicants presentation.
>> Morning, Chair Reed, members of the commission. Uh I'm Christopher Jacobs.
I'm an attorney at the Brownstein Law Firm and I'm here today with Alicia Harrison, a senior land use planner with our firm. I also have um Tim Hazeline who is the uh historian who wrote the report uh that we have submitted and also Mr. Terrell is here. Chris Terrell able to answer any questions. Um, Alicia is going to make the primary presentation, but because of the order in which the questions have been raised, I think I would like to start out with talking about the barn. And I agree with you.
The the barn is it should be a non-issue today. The application has been carefully crafted to preserve the barn as something that remains in its status quo.
Uh there are no changes that have been proposed for that barn.
So I was curious why Mr. Loe called it an alleged barn agreement.
>> Excuse me.
>> You know, it sort of questions as uh Commissioner Park mentioned the enforcability of that agreement, but there's no explanation as to why it's uninforcable.
You know, I took a look at it. We've looked at this quite a bit and uh we have determined that the barn agreement.
It's from 1960.
It's either enforcable as a covenant running with the land or an equitable servitude. And the difference between those two things is something that you study in law school, but it doesn't really matter. They're both enforcable as against uh future owners if it's crafted in the proper way. In this case, we have an instrument in writing that was entered into and signed by the owners of both 4635 and 4653 Rio v rea.
Uh the barn agreement states the purpose and conditions of use which are to apply to the barn. It states expressly that the bind agreement is binding on successors and assigns and it was recorded in the official records of Santa Barbara County in 1960.
Uh when Mr. Terrell purchased 465 through via Robata in 2018.
It was an allcash asis quick close deal with no contingencies other than title, you know, does it have good title insurance? Does the Pelisero family, the the original owners of the parcel, did they have the ability to convey it? And they did. Uh there was no survey that was completed. Um, while Mr. Terrell was aware the barn was on the easterly property line, as is typical for most residential real estate buyers, he did not drill down into the preliminary title report to look at its underlying exceptions to coverage.
Mr. Terrell actually first became aware of the barn agreement when uh Stanford Farms Trust's owner, Wendy Macau, emailed it to him a couple of years later.
She was explaining that it was an enforcable agreement and that she had the right to go on to his property relative to the use and maintenance of the barn.
Through a series of email communications, Miss Macau suggested a lot line adjustment process under which she would pay for and acquire ownership of the barn in some area around the barn and that upon completion of the lot line adjustment then the barn agreement would be terminated have no further use.
Uh that did not happen.
There has been no challenge to the enforcibility of the barn agreement over the past 66 years.
Uh Stanford Farms has in the past always asserted that it was an enforcable agreement. Uh accordingly to now challenge its enforcability in the context of today's planning commission hearing seems highly disingenuous.
So that's that's my comment on the history of the barn agreement. really the existence of that barn will continue after today after what we hope to be an approval uh and the parties can decide at a later date what they want to do with it. I'd like to also address historic landmarks advisory commission argument which is also one that's been put forward by the pelants.
They suggest that the barn is potentially a significant historic resource but offer no evidence in support of this argument or to counter the conclusions reached by post Hazeline.
Those are in the record.
The appellant does not mention that the same conclusion as to the lack of historic merit on that barn was reached by another historian, Alexandra Cole, in a report actually commissioned by the Stanford Farms Trust property when they wanted to do improvements on the Stanford Farms Trust parcel.
uh about the HELAC the HLAC process. You know, in my case of dealing with historic landmarks advisory commission over the years, as is the case with your commission, the HLAC members do not independently investigate properties that are being identified as possibly having historic resource value, but instead review reports from architectural historians and other design professionals.
uh and then they rule upon the the question of historicity uh based upon the strengths or witness weaknesses of the information that is submitted for its review. Tim Hazelton may have more to say on that, but that's that's been my experience here. As in the case with most of appellants arguments, there's no evidence being offered in support of the arguments. So there's no contrary historian testimony, only the argument that it may be historical. And let's wait and see what the he the HLAC does.
Uh the request for pausing the parcel map process to allow for HLAC's consideration of the barn is nothing more than a delay tactic.
So, those are sort of the out of order answers to the questions that have been raised and uh I'll let Alicia take it from here.
Good morning, chair and commissioners.
I'm Alicia Harrison, land use planner with Brownstein. And to be honest, Chris Jacobs just covered most of my points, but we do have a slideshow. Um, so I'll move quickly. I'll provide my opening comments and then maybe get you to some photos which could be helpful. So, as explained in detail in our written materials and as we'll cover today, the appeal filed by Stanford Farms Trust and the trust's recent request to defer consideration of the project until after it is considered by the HLAC represents an improper attempt to expand the scope of this appeal and delay a decision on an already approved project. The tenative parcel map is a simple lot split to divide an approximately 13 acre legal parcel into three lots consistent with zoning and site suitability analysis. The map has been thoroughly reviewed and approved by the zoning administrator and found to be consistent with the applicable county regulations and coastal policies as provided uh comprehensively by staff. The zoning administrator decision was based on substantial evidence in the record submitted by the applicant including all underlying studies required for map approval prepared by respected design professionals and consultants.
In turn, the app the appellant has submitted a laundry list of legal arguments, but no evidence to support those arguments as would be required to meaningfully counter the conclusions reached by the applicant's design professionals and consultants. And the appellants, oh rather, the basis of the appeal focuses on an existing shared lot line barn. And the appellent's fundamental argument is that the barn has historic resource value and its existence is an unusual condition that prevents your commission from improving the applicant's parcel map. However, there is no evidence submitted to the record by the appellant, including the appellant's most recent substantially sized submittal yesterday to support the appellent's claim as to the historic status of the barn or how its existence is relevant to your consideration of the parcel map.
As covered by Chris, to the contrary, the barn has been evaluated by two local, respected, qualified architectural historians, Post Hazeline and Alexander Cole, both of who com whom concluded that the barn does not have historic resource value.
And the Alexander Cole evaluation of the Stanford Farms Trust property was actually commissioned by the appellant in the late 1990s for approval of the new development of the appellent's property.
So, I'll skip through some of these photos that staff had presented in terms of location. Um, this just shows that the surrounding area is predominantly 2.5 acre minimum parcel sizes with some nearby areas allowing even smaller parcels at 1.5 acres.
The approved project, I believe, has been covered as well via Rablada on the north as well as the coastal bluff on the south end of the parcel.
And here's just a closer look at that.
Some context for you. We talked about the three um access points along Via Rablatada. In this image, it's proposed parcel one. You will see the driveway on the right side and the center driveway is the is the driveway that accesses um proposed parcel 3. This is for proposed parcel two. The the existing gate and wall. So, the existing gate would be the access point for proposed parcel 2. And on the right you can see the access driveway for proposed parcel 3.
And then this is proposed parcel 3, the existing driveway. All the improvements seen here were built as part of the coastal development permit for the existing residence on proposed parcel 3.
Uh Chris Jacobs provided a lot of information regarding the uh maintenance agreement and the existing barn, its location, and that most importantly that there are no changes to the barn as proposed as part of the the parcel map.
And so here are some images um to share.
The barn is is currently used for storage. It is currently in poor structural condition. As you can see, the exterior walls consisting of concrete masonry block are severely weathered and cracked. The sliding wood doors in either end of the barn are dilapidated and cannot be closed. Wood framing is exposed to the elements and there are obvious signs of water intrusion. dry rot and substantial deterioration of the roof sheathing and cedar uh shingle roofing. In some the barn has deterioration is not water weatherproof and can only be used for the storage of items that do not require weather type conditions. And here's a photo showing the storage of the construction debris and materials for the last few decades. Yeah. The point being too that this was originally designed as a horse barn, but for the last several decades has been used for storage by the parties.
The appeal summary um at its core is narrowly focused on three primary claims about the barn. The barn being a historic resource. The subdivision will increase the likelihood of barn demolition and the parcel map will create coordination challenges between property owners.
I believe that this has been pretty well covered by this point, but there is no evidence submitted by the appellant that the the barn has historic resource value. Um, there's a historic resource technical report prepared by qualified architectural historians post Hazeline and they evaluated the structure under county, state, and national criteria and did not find that the um barn met any of those criteria. And this built upon the findings of the appellent's own historic resource study prepared by Alexander Cole in 98. Uh importantly importantly the appellent's HLAC submitt is nothing more than a delay tactic which is lacking in merit particularly given the findings of the Alexander Cole historical report commissioned by the appellant and for the appellent's property.
The second uh appeal point is about the future demolition argument. Again, the parcel map does not rely on the removal of the barn, nor would any future development of parcel 2 rely on removal of the barn. No demolition is proposed or requested as part of the parcel map.
No CDP for demolition has been applied for by the applicant and any change to the barn would require its own CDP permitting process regardless of whether this lot configuration were approved or not.
And it is our position that the recorded agreement governing the ownership and shared use of the barn would remain in effect.
There's the another appeal point is about uh suitability and coordination.
between the parties. Um the properties are already burdened and benefited by the barn agreement and have been for 66 years. So the present existing coordination requirement between the applicant and the appellant is already established and there is no reason to conclude arrangement will be compromised by approval of the parcel map.
Nor uh the lot configuration would not have any material impact on this status quo nor would it increase or complicate coordination between the property owners.
There's also the argument about um an exception to the squa exemption.
Post Hazeline reports that former stables like the barn were a common feature of many Hope Ranch properties throughout its history as a residential enclave and there's no evidence in the record that a dilapidated non-conforming structure encroaching over a property line is an unusual circumstance per sequ standards. The barn is also not historic and there is no reasonable possibility of sign significant effects.
Accordingly, the exception to the category exemption does not apply.
Finally, related to the HLAC deferral, the appellants request to involve HLAC introduces a new issue that was not raised during the zone administrator proceedings and presents an improper attempt to delay resolution of the appeal. The fact that the structure is older and used for equestrian was used for equestrian purposes does not establish historic significance. The property's prior equestrian activities including raising and showing horses were common at Hope Ranch where equestrian activities were a focus of many properties. The barn is simply a dilapidated utilitarian 13stall barn which has not been used for equestrian purposes for decades. The peelant has submitted no evidence to the record finding the barn has historic resource value. There is however substantial evidence in the record that the barn is old but devoid of historic resource value.
Finally, our requested action. The barn has not been demonstrated to be a historic resource. No changes to the barn are propo proposed as part of the parcel map and there is no evidence that approval of the project will result in demolition of the barn. The zoning administrator's decision decision on the map is based on substantial evidence in the record submitted by the applicant.
In contrast, the appellant has not submitted any evidence to support their appeal arguments. For these reasons, we respectfully request that the commission deny the appeal, adopt staff's findings, and uphold the zoning administrator's approval. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Do we have any public comment?
>> I had a question.
>> Any questions? I'm sorry.
>> Yeah. And and this may be a question more for Mr. Hazel Tine than than you.
Um and and it may these questions may seem a little pointless the rest of the commission, but you know, I've got an applicant that's called this an equestrian stables and an appellant that calls it a show barn. And uh Mr. Hazel Tine, I was out there yesterday and the doors for the animals to go out of their stalls to their paddics or whatever was out there. Uh, if I was wearing a cowboy hat and I'm 5' n, probably not anymore. It would have knocked my hat off. Um, I have horses. None of my horses could fit walking out that door. They would hit their heads. And um uh I mean I've seen countless barns. I when I was a college kid I cleaned manure out of horse barns in Hope Ranch. And uh and I never have seen a barn with such low doors. And I know from your report it referred to when this barn was built probably about 1951. the then owners, what they specialized in, what they were interested in was breeding pulled Herford cows. And I made the comment to Miss Harrison yesterday, I think this is more like a dairy barn than a horse barn. And I'm just wondering, is everybody is it possible everybody's wrong here and this was not an equestrian barn, not built that way, maybe used later, but that this was built for the the cow breeding operation?
>> Um, to answer that question, that's possible. there's very little um written data that was available to us about this precise original use of the building.
However, it does appear that it was used to stable horses at one point.
Um, we did not use the term showbar in our report because we were not clear that that was the historic or say the original use. But is is not uncommon in these sort of facilities sort of equestriing facilities for the use of a building as you know from um working with horses that the use can change sometimes over the decades. Um, but yes, the the um clearance on the stalls is pretty low. Um, and I can't see um that they would have um had um riders on the horses when they brought them out. I I if they were using that at some point for that particular use, >> there's not a lot of information about the building. There's one sheet that we're able to find of the elevations and the floor plan dating to it looks like 1949. The date's very uh sort of illeible, but um there's not an architect or designer's name on those drawings.
And so it could have likely had um when we say barn we do mean that it could be used for any type of you know horse or livestock or if someone wrote raised burrows or donkeys all those things are are possible. It doesn't make the building more or less I mean it doesn't really add much to significance except that it's it has this particular range of uses or did during its history. I'm I hope that answered your question. Well, you've reviewed other barns in Monaceto and Santa Barbara and Hope Ranch, correct?
>> Yeah, we've done two equestrian facilities in Hope Ranch many, many years ago and also a couple of um stable/barn structures in Monteceto and some in the Santine Valley.
>> And more often than not, they were built by people of some means.
Uh >> correct. Um, and this is, um, as you can see from looking at the aerial photos, there are other structures associated with this. They call it the home farm.
Sometimes on sometimes it's referred to as an equestrian facility. Um, that were built around 1930 when the original uh, estate was developed for the Meyer family by a very well-known architect named Gordon Kaufman.
Um there's no data at this point uh that would suggest that would confirm that this the barn structure that's in question was designed by him of course and there was Roland code another architect worked for the Foley family um in the 40s and 50s but as I noted there's no information on the available drawing that would assign this particular building to him.
>> My experience has been that um barns are often a source of pride for for owners that build them and they'll be nice wooden barns and they'll use wood and even uh farmers build them the same way.
They use wood because it's safer for the horses. There's some give to it. It's smooth surfaced. M >> I frankly have never seen a a a horse barn that uses roughsided concrete block as as stall separators.
That's more what you'd use if you had bottom eye or rhinoceroses or big cows.
>> Yeah. So yes, um it could be its original use was to stable uh this livestock he was raising that the foley were raising. that would not um lend it additional historic significance unless um I I shouldn't really apothesize here, but generally these larger complexes of buildings um that have a similar use or are um the historical part of it is that they're a part of a complex of structures. This is a very late addition. It's the last addition to the farmyard in 1949, essentially 19 years after Meyers created the estate. So, it's late. It's not part of like Roland Coat's original, not Roland Coat, pardon, that um Gordon Kaufman's architectural vision or his client's needs and desires for the property.
Um, but the precise use of it is not unique or distinguished in and of itself.
>> Okay. Well, thanks.
>> I'm not sure I answered your question. I hope I did.
>> It's good. Well, maybe but maybe your next report you might say then, you know, maybe it wasn't a question barn.
It was a >> Yeah, we'll see. Correct. the last um when we were interviewed uh the current owner and also uh talked talked to Alex, this was when we first um worked on the report in 2024. She thought it might have had an equestrian use.
Unfortunately, Alex is not um is dealing with some physical ailments, so we were not able to recont her at this time.
Well, you know, the Peliseros were famous for their involvement with horses, and they uh donated and perhaps it's on permanent loan, that fabulous saddle collection that's at uh the Santa Barbara Carriage Museum. Yes. So, clearly when they had it, but that was years later.
>> Oh, yeah.
>> They would have been interested in horses and perhaps used it that way, but yeah, >> back when it was built, they didn't have it >> probably. And I and and as uh Alicia noted, it seems very clear that at least for the last couple of decades from the sometime in the '9s, if not before, there was the building was used for storage and actually has probably been used for storage for a longer period of its life than it was used for the original function.
>> I have a question about that that building. You know, you know, it seems a very rudimentary design and unremarkable construction. I mean, stacked cinder blocks. I have not been with it, so I didn't know what separated the stalls, but uh when Commissioner Park says cinder block, that makes it sound a little suspicious.
If it were going to be for horses, what are the floor? What is the floor in that native soil or is it some hard surface like concrete? I think it's most if I remember I haven't been out in a couple years and to be honest um I I believe it's part soil and then part a hard surface.
>> It is it's >> but the design I I'll speak to the design uh Mr. to read. Um the building was constructed or designed right around 1949, built a few within a few years of that um drawing being prepared of those plans.
And by that period in um Santa Barbara architecture in California and Santa Barbara, these utilitarian buildings actually sort of got more utilitarian. So there wasn't usually the same sort of vision that you would have had in 1930 when they were designing the entire estate when Gordon Koffman was designing the entire estate to emulate a specific architectural style and repeat those materials and design features in each of the buildings to create a sort of cohesive assemblage of buildings that at that time they were essentially entranced with their idea of what life in Spanish and Mexican era Santa Barbara was like.
>> So that's how those styles of those buildings tend to be more elaborate, have a specific style. In this case, as you noted, this building is very utilitarian.
So it it wasn't trying to hit all the bells and whistles that Gordon Kaufman's original design did for the >> Exactly. So I just Yeah, it looks like, as I said, quite unremarkable like a lot of other very utilitarian a buildings I see now. seems like its sole concession to style. Are those look like rotting in a state of rot cupulas on the roof look like they're about ready to fall through? Were those original to the building or did somebody put those on at a later time intending to to dress it up, make it look more like something you could see in Kentucky?
I think they're original and as you not just noted they were a sort of a architectural gestured gesture to sort of tie the building in at a very minimal way with the rest of the farm buildings which had been designed by Gordon Kaufman.
>> Okay.
Okay. That's that's mine.
>> Are we if we're through I guess we will proceed to public comment. Do we have any no speaker slip? Is anyone online or remotely have their hand up?
>> Uh, no requests online.
>> All right. So, appellent have any need to rebut anything? You have a couple of minutes.
>> So, Mr. Chair and commissioners, just uh as a matter of record, the appellant had about six and a half minutes left over.
>> Yes. and then the appellant went over about five or the applicant sorry >> applicant >> applicant went over about five minutes.
So to make things equal um I would recommend giving the >> we give appellent a balance of what they had plus a couple if they need it and we'll give applicant two times available.
>> So you're both okay. All right. So with that, we will close the public hearing and we're ready for comments, deliberations on part of the commissioners.
>> Sure.
>> Commissioner Ford.
>> Uh thank you. Um I think this is a rather easy decision. I think all of the issues that were raised by the appellant have been addressed comprehensively and clearly and uh there's no evidence of historic resource value, no development proposed, no need for the HLAC deferral.
So I will definitely be ready to make a motion um after hearing my colleagues.
Commissioner Park, >> I I want to address the the the HLAC issue. Um I used to serve on HLAC. Um and and you can look at my form 700 and you can see that I did. Okay. And um HLAC is uh it's different than the city of Santa Barbara's Historical Landmarks Commission because it's it's under an ordinance that has really no teeth.
Okay. So really the only way something gets under the gets historical landmark status in the county is if the owner volunteers it.
Um city is very different and I admire the way the city does it by the way but we're not in the city. Um, I looked through the list.
There are, um, I think 48 historical buildings that have landmark status in this county over the long time we've had this ordinance. That's not really very many.
Um, I I I took a look at what might be of this vintage because most of what's there is things like the Stow House, you know, goes back to 1860s or something. Uh, uh, we've got the Galita Railroad depot. We've got uh the Messini Adobe, which is what is it 1803 or something in Monaceto. We've got things like that.
um the Dabney cabin, things that are really well known. People know about them. And you here we're talking about this barn. Uh this barn, the best guess according to Post Hazeline report was 1951. I was thinking about this. Uh one thing I've shared with Commissioner Reid is my passion for Ford 8N tractors. And my Ford 8N tractor was built in 1951.
So it's the same age as this barn. And uh I guarantee you if you put it out there and just let the air out of the tires and had it sit by that barn, most historians would say that the the my Ford aid in is more historically significant because half a million of them were built by the Fords and there's one on every hilltop in Texas, Arkansas, Missouri, Nevada, and everywhere else because half of them are still running.
Um, the barn uh is also interesting with respect to what else in Hope Ranch is is a landmark. And you've got the Hope House which was built in I think 1870.
Um, and there's really nothing else. There's a um there's a cabana, a beach cabana which was built in 1956. I think it's the only thing I could find that is newer than the barn and and it's landmarked uh because it's on a promontory and it's a very interesting structure and so forth. You know, it it it met the tests.
Um, what's also interesting is the post Hazel Tine report uh refers to Lost Terbas, which is a a 9 acre estate. Uh, it's it's uh it was built by Harold Chase in 1925.
It was the first Hope Ranch estate. It's a beautiful structure. It was designed by Reginald Johnson.
Uh uh the terraces are still there. The house is in pristine shape. It's uh it's uh uh you can't go on it because it's protected by a 120lb bundle of white fur and fangs that was spread by the woman that just walked in. Uh and uh and so you can guess where it came from. But it's a beautiful structure and it's not landmarked. Okay. So, here's the most historic estate in Hope Ranch that is not landmark, but we're asked to to delay this because HLAC is going to take seriously this this uh uh application to landbark a concrete barn that where the roofs held up with rusted steel posts that was probably meant for you storing cows. Uh I I just don't see it happening. Uh, and I and I have had still no answer to the question uh of what difference does it make anyway if it was landmark? What difference would it make to this this subdivision? Uh, piece of gratuitous advice. I would guess if this thing got appealed to this level, it will get appealed to the board. And uh I I would almost suggest to Mr. Terrell, build a fence around it.
give them a license agreement and say, "Here, you take the darn barn and do whatever you want with it." Because I can see for um uh the appellant that uh it's aesthetically pleasing, you know, when you're on their side of the property to look at the barn. I mean, I I admit that. I think so. So, I I would hope this thing could go away from the planning process with a in a sense gift of the barn to them by way of a license agreement, put up a visual obstruction and and never have to deal with the planning process again. But, uh, for all that, I I will go along with what I believe will, uh, be Commissioner Ford's motion.
>> Okay. Commissioner Martinez, were you?
>> Yes.
I I would I'm I'm well I I don't see a fact of how the barn is is really involved in this. I I I see there's something else in the background here and it's not for me to speculate, but um I'm going to go along with my commissioners and I will say this as to the presentation. when somebody appeals something and and the county's papers out outnumber and outweigh what the appellant is asking for on a serious matter regarding real property that that tells me a lot about the appeal and that's just not for now and that would be for future but um yes I know the appelle we'll call them has to come prepared and that's what everybody's going to do and that's what good attorneys do but um I didn't see anything in this appeal I'll leave it at that thank Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner.
>> I agree with my colleagues and I'm prepared to support uh the motion.
>> All right. I just, you know, in looking at it, I fail to really see the relevance of the barn. I look at its design and its condition, and I I just fail to see how it would ever achieve a status as historic. My main advice is if you visit the barn, be very careful you're not inside it when the roof falls in. But, uh, so I would be inclined to deny the appeal and approve the project.
Uh, sounds like we have pretty good consensus. Are we prepared to make a motion?
>> Yes, >> Commissioner Ford.
>> Thanks. Um, at this time, I would like to make a motion to deny the appeal in case number 26 APL 0006 and adopt the staff findings for approval. determine the squa exemption and grant denovo approval of 24 TPM 0001.
>> Do we have a second?
>> Second.
>> Oh, Mr. Vobos, could you please do a roll call on this one?
>> Commissioner Americer, >> I.
>> Commissioner Ford, >> I.
>> Commissioner Park, >> I.
>> Commissioner Martinez, >> I.
>> Chair Reed, >> I. Motion passes five to zero.
>> Thank you. And before we adjourn, Mr. Wilson, we can address the issue of those two hearings that we wanted to consider for cancellation.
>> Mr. Chair and commissioners, that is correct. We trailed the um cancellation of those hearings. As a reminder, we are looking at cancelling June 10th and June 24th hearings.
>> I move to cancel the June 10th and June 24th hearings. We had nothing today that got continued to there. You wouldn't really be able to notice anything anyway that something new came in. So there's it's just nothing's going to happen and there's no reason for it.
>> Second.
>> All in favor?
>> I >> I >> notice I didn't vote because I won't be here. Thank you.
Related Videos
US-Iran War LIVE: US Launches New Strikes On Iranian Military Site Near Bandar Abbas | WION Live
WION
6K views•2026-05-28
Guess Which Country Trump Is Threatening To Bomb Next! w/ Chris Hedges
thejimmydoreshow
5K views•2026-05-30
TRUMP LIVE | POTUS makes massive announcement on Iran nuke deal in high-stakes cabinet meeting
TheEconomicTimes
536 views•2026-05-28
The Silence Around Alex Coughlan | #80
RealEddieHobbs
2K views•2026-05-28
Did China Get to Marco Rubio?
ChinaUnscripted
1K views•2026-05-28
Sonko Is Now Speaker. But Who Are the Two Men Who Made His Return Possible?
djbwakali
11K views•2026-05-28
Why Was There No Mention of Israel or Gaza in The DNC's Autopsy Report
wearefindout
227 views•2026-05-29
Trump Just Got HUMILIATED... And It's Going VIRAL
harryjsisson
46K views•2026-05-29
