Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the January 26 hearing of the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission. Will you please join us in reciting the pledge of allegiance? 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. Mr. Villalobos, will you please give the TV coverage announcement?

Yes. Thank you, Mr.

Chair, and

good morning to the Commission and everyone else here. Planning Commission hearings are televised live on County of Santa Barbara television, CSB TV channel 20 at nine a. M. In the South Coast, Lompoc, San Yenes Valley, Samaria, and Orca areas. We broadcast the Planning Commission hearings on Friday at five p. M. On CSB TV 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. Should I move on to the roll call?

Yes, please.

Okay, great. Commissioner Cooney? Here. Commissioner Ford?

Here.

Commissioner Park? Present. Commissioner Martinez? Here. And Chair Reid? Here. Thank you.

The agenda status report.

Good morning, commissioners. Sitting in for Jeff Wilson. Bear with me here. Okay. Today, we have the continuance of the two appeals of the Peterson projects, and then we have the EDC Surfrider appeal of the DMF single family home.

Okay. Would please continue with the projection report?

Sure.

Which is normally conducted by mister Wilson, but he has had an automotive difficulty.

That is

true. Yes. Stuck in Goleta right now. Okay. February 4 is canceled. February 11 is Plantel Nurseries. That is a CUP, in the Orchid area. And also on February 11, you're having another recreation master plan workshop. Okay. February 18 is oh, do you go over Montecito? I'm not sure. No? Okay. Moving on to February 25, there are no items scheduled at this time.

Can I interject there?

Yes.

So you'll remember at the last hearing, we did have two or three items scheduled for the twenty fifth. But we did receive a request to, move items off of that agenda. So, as you can see from the projection part of what Mr. Sievertz, just indicated, we were able to do that. So if you, when we're, when Mr. Sievertz gets to the end, it's certainly your option to cancel at this point.

Alright. Thank you, mister Villalobos. Moving on to March 4, there is an item from development review, a rezone of a property in the San Yenas Valley. It's right next to the airport. And, Long Range Planning will be giving you their 2025 annual progress report on the comprehensive plan. March 11, long range planning has a utility scale solar amendment project that they'll be presenting to you. Nothing scheduled for March 18 right now, but that's I'm sorry. That's Montecito. March 25. We have another rezone, of a property in the Eastern Goleta Valley.

April 1 is our first ag enterprise ordinance project that you'll hear, and that is an equestrian events center in the San Ynez Valley. And finally, on April 8, the long range planning team will be bringing more amendments to the oil and gas ordinance to you.

Alright. Thank you. Now, item mister Villalobos mentioned, county PC hearing scheduled for February 25. As we discussed in our last hearing, on that day, there's an event, an ag advisory event in the North County that commissioner Park and I had hoped to attend. Thus was our reason for requesting, that date be cleared. So at this time, I would like to ask for a motion to cancel that hearing.

I move to cancel the hearing for February 25.

A second? I'll second. Okay. So all in favor? Aye. Aye. So canceled. Alright. Public public comment. Mike. There we go. Thank you. Someday I'll get that right. Okay. Public comment. This is the time for public comment on general items, not items on today's agenda. So at this time, if anyone would like to make public comment unrelated to items on today's agenda, now is the time to come forward.

And for those of you online, raise your virtual hand if you'd like to speak at this time. No hands online.

Okay. And with none in the room, we will move ahead to Planning Commissioner's informational report. These are made by individual commissioners who may present a brief synopsis on issues, seminars, meetings, literature. They have come across things that will be of interest to the general public and or the commission. Do we have any informational reports?

Okay. There being no reports, noted, let's proceed to the minutes. We are looking at the minutes of our 01/14/2026 hearing. If all have had an opportunity to review those minutes, do we have a motion to accept?

I'll that motion, mister chair.

And second it.

Okay. Thank you. All in favor of accepting, as provided the minutes of our 01/14/2026 hearing, signify by saying aye. Aye. Now, we're up to the director's report and the Board of Supervisors hearing summary.

Mr. Chair, before we get to that, I just wanted to we skipped over the waived hearing item.

It actually comes after director's report is item nine, public hearing item 10. Thank you, Mr. Villalobos.

A rare mistake by mister Villalobos. Exceed exceedingly aware.

I'll leave now.

Oh, no. No. No. He's just testing the seatings to collapse without mister Villalobos. So director Ploughman, please proceed.

Yes. Thank you, mister chair, members of the commission. Brief report today. We had a board hearing yesterday in Santa Maria. The planning commission I'm sorry.

The board took action on the streamlining and housing accommodation ordinance package that was heard by the commission probably maybe it was last year. And they made a few tweaks to it, I will say, between when the commission heard it and when they finally adopted it. We originally went to them on the December 16. They wanted to ensure that in the CN and C 1 commercial zones that the housing sort of didn't overpower the commercial uses that might be offered in these zones. And so, they reduced the allowable density in those two zones from 20 units per acre to 10 units per acre on those C 1, c N properties.

They also changed the C 2 properties to be we had it up to 30 units per acre, I believe, and they reduced it to 20 units per acre.

And,

they ended up maintaining the standard with 50% commercial allowed and 50 residential, but with a finding, and I think the commission already heard this component of it, but with a finding that where there's sufficient commercial in the vicinity, you can go up to 75% residential. And that's a way to try and manage the different economic situations across the county because in North County, we have a greater need for commercial development than we may in South County. The other things that they asked us to work on were open space requirements. They wanted to change those open space requirements. So I think for the higher density projects, we had a 150 square feet oh, I'm sorry.

It was 60 square feet per unit. That could be a mix of private and common, and we went up to a 150. And then on the more medium density, we went from 200 to 300 square feet per unit, and then we increased the size of the common open space that needs to be provided to 50 by 50 and added a minimum 15% landscaping requirement. So, I think those were all good changes. One thing that they did include, you know, they've been spending time talking about wanting to get decisions that are gonna be appealed to the board more quickly.

So they decided to amend the code so that zoning administrator appeals go straight to the board rather than coming to the planning commission first. So those will go into effect in the inland area shortly, and then we'll have to submit those to the Coastal Commission for their adoption. The other item that was finalized yesterday, this is our final step adoption, and that was the acceptance of the mods that the coastal commission made to the rezones that were made in the coastal zone as part of our housing element update. So that is now complete, which is great news. We had a few sites in the coastal zone that did get rezoned, three in Carpinteria and one in Isla Vista.

And and so I think my team is very happy that that final piece is in place, and and now we're just in the process of implementing the housing element. Future board items include the general ordinance amendment package, which is just our general cleanup package, which is gonna be heard on the second of February. The environmental justice element will be heard on the February 10 by the board. They will hear the Araya Hayduck appeal, from a decision by the Planning Commission on February 24. That's the replacement of the retaining wall in the creek.

And then on the March 3, and this is just informational because it's not an item that came to the PC, a year ago the board made a decision to require odor control, a different type of odor control in the cannabis grows in the coastal zone in Carpinteria. And that includes using these multifactor, odor control equipment like photocatalytic oxidation processes or carbon filtration. And all growers are supposed to have those installed by the March 18. They did provide an aspect of the code that allowed growers to request an extension if there was some good reason why they couldn't get that equipment installed by the eighteenth, like they couldn't they'd ordered it but it was late or or something along those lines. And the board is the body that decides whether these extensions are granted.

We will be making a recommendation on that. We, nine of the growers have, amendments into their odor abatement plans to install the equipment, new equipment, And eight, requested an extension. So we will be taking the extension request to the board on the March 3 and making a recommendation to the board about which ones should be extended versus which ones should not.

I have just a question with respect to that. Have any of the growers actually installed the new scrubbers?

Oh, there are growers in Carpinteria that have

because I I thought I heard on the news covering the meeting that the report was that ten of them had. Is that correct? So,

I don't have the exact number in my mind, but there are growers have some growers in the area have already installed the equipment. There some are using just carbon filtration, others are using a system called Infinity, which is a PCO with a carbon filtration aspect to it. And then other growers will be adding them in. Yeah. And I think that's all I have today. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Questions from commissioners. Commissioner Cooney?

Just on one of the last items. You said that we'll be taking it to the board. Correct. So the Planning Commission won't see those?

That's correct.

Okay.

That was the decision the board made when they adopted that ordinance package. They decided they wanted it to come straight to them, for a decision.

Maybe they'd like to take on the whole cannabis issue. Okay, thank you.

Yep.

Alright. Thanks.

It's complete. All right. The waived public hearing item.

All right.

Mr. Villalobos.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So you'll notice that there is a waived hearing notice on the agenda. So the purpose of this is just to serve as supplemental notice of this opportunity to request a hearing. There's no action for the commission to take. The reason why it's showing up on your agenda is the Planning Commission was the original decision maker on the permit. So there's no action to be taken today.

Easy one. Easy. Okay. So would you please read item one into the record?

Yes, thank you. The following is a hearing on the request of Michelle Peterson, appellant to consider case number 23 APL 37 to consider the appeal of the director's approval of the Royal Springs Retreat LLC, new single family residence project case number 21 LUP 197, and to determine the project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to section one five one eight three of the state guidelines for the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act.

Yes. If everyone's ready to proceed with the staff presentation.

Go ahead. Mr. Chair, I wanted to say a few things before we started hearing on this particular item.

Please do, Director.

Yes. So, there has been some questions about the recommendation that is provided in the staff report. When we were here last, there was direction by the Planning Commission to bring back findings of denial. We, in consultation with Commissioner Cooney and our chair, talked about the process and the fact that we had received a fire protection plan from the applicant and felt that it was a better approach to come back with the fire protection plan to give the Planning Commission an opportunity to review that. If the Planning Commission still wants to make have the staff return with findings, we could trail the item today and come back with that.

But, we agreed internally and with the chair and commissioner Kennedy that this would be the best approach for today. And so, I know that Mr. Chatillo expressed great consternation about that process, but I want to assure the public and Mr. Chatillo that we considered all of the aspects of this case and we spoke with the chair and the commissioner whose district this is in and decided this was the best approach for today. So I'm happy to answer any questions about that.

Commissioner Cooney. He's that away. Oh no, I'm sorry, Commissioner Park. I know much better than that.

Did you want to say something, Mr. Cooney? Okay.

Two things that aren't particularly relevant to what you've just discussed. But one, as a general practice, I think when we're going to have a situation like this, kind of unique circumstances where it looked like we were going to have findings for denial but things happen and I predicted at the time something could happen, this report could come in and it might change things. That's okay. But I would be, I'd at least keep a skeletal set of negative findings in your back pocket just because it's pretty obvious to me now we're going to see case after case where people try to invoke the Housing Accountability Act in five hearings per case. It's going to be in everything.

You'll get a new Cuyama, somebody's putting up a chicken coop and they'll say, that's a housing development and therefore it's limited to five hearings. And we don't want to get trapped where, oh gosh, well people really did want to deny this project today and we need to come up for still another one with our findings. So let's not use up our hearings with that. Okay, that's one thing. Second thing is I'm still trying to regain my post surgery concentration and I don't think I heard a request for reference to ex parte communications. If I did, missed it. But I had some and I ought to report them. And probably other people did too.

Yeah, we definitely need to do that. But, yes. Okay. Ex parte communications on this item. Proceed, commissioner. Commissioner Ford.

Oh, sure.

Put your

lights on. Yeah.

I know. Okay. Let's see. Yesterday, I met on Zoom with Amy Steinfeld, the attorney for the applicant.

Commissioner Park. And I also had a phone conversation with Amy Steinfeld a few days ago. Thank you.

Now, Commissioner Cooney. Thank you.

I had a number of, Zoom meetings, around these topics, and Amy Steinfeld was one. We didn't get together until the end of the day yesterday because of earlier conversations, but, I also, spoke with representatives of the let's see. I'm I'm gonna put this together and announce it when we go back on the record after break because I I don't have all the individuals here. So, no, I don't I'll come back to it. Yes, I'm done for now.

Commissioner Martinez?

Other than meeting and conferring with staff, no other ex parte communications.

Okay. I had, I spoke at a conversation with Amy Steinfeld on December 5. December 1, I made an unaccompanied site visit just by myself. January 27, I had another site visit with Amy Steinfeld, Josh Kaplan, and Robert Mel.

Chair Reid and commissioners, before we go too far, I just wanted to offer one point of clarification in regards to Park's prior comment regarding the Housing Accountability Act. So this project, it's not a Housing Accountability Act project, but it is subject to the five hearing limit through SB three thirty as it is a single family residence. So just a point of clarification there.

Mr. Stewart, I have a question about that. It really relates to all sorts of things. But since you brought this up, SB three thirty, was it an amendment to the Housing Accountability Act, same place in the government code or is it a different code section?

It's a different place in the government code there.

Okay.

So

traditionally SB three thirty folks would applicants would avail themselves to the streamlining process by submitting a preliminary application. That hasn't occurred in this instance. But however, recent changes in state law to SB330 do place a five hearing limit on single family residences. And so it would be my recommendation to your commission that we adhere to the five hearing limit according to SB three thirty.

And we'll see that in every single family residence application?

That is correct.

Okay. So but in general, we would look to see if the Housing Accountability Act applies. But since SB three thirty is outside of that, we'd also look at that separately to see if it applies.

That's correct. Two different statutes pertaining to housing projects.

And of course what you're telling is SB three thirty, way it's with the latest amendments it's always going to apply.

Correct.

That's interesting. Okay. Okay. Thanks.

Okay. Before staff report begins I'd like to make a comment about director Plowman's comments, relative to staff's action following our December 3 meeting. It is not my expectation that staff should exhibit blind obedience in falling following every direction of the commission. I would rather that they use their ability in critical thinking and if they have something they demand, they think is worthy of questioning, they feel free to discuss it with commissioners following the meeting. Although, I realize it is rare and not customary.

I would fully support the action they took after our December 3 hearing. And I think in the end, by the conclusion of this hearing, it will probably be seen that the action they took is in the best interest of the public. So I, for one, have no problems whatsoever and feel they took the correct course. No other comments? Okay. So, miss King, feel free to proceed.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Commissioners. My name is Veronica King, and I'm here to present the Peterson appeal of the Laurel Springs LLC single family dwelling project and to provide a brief update following the Commission's December 3 hearing. Following that hearing, staff met with County Fire to address the Commission's concerns regarding fire safety. County Fire reaffirmed that the project complies with all applicable fire protection development standards, including access, defensible space, construction materials, and water supply.

County Fire Division Chief and Fire Marshall Fred Tan is here in person today and available to answer any questions. In addition, on January 23, the applicant voluntarily submitted a fire protection plan along with project plans that provide additional detail regarding fire protection measures. To support this effort, the applicant retained a fire protection specialist, Robert Lewin, who is present today to discuss those measures. Mr. Lewin is the former director of the Santa Barbara County Office of Emergency Management and led the county's Emergency Operations Center during major disasters, including the Thomas Fire and the Montecito debris flow.

Based on the project's continued compliance with all applicable development standards and policies, Staff continues to recommend approval of the project. Finally, we would like to clarify one point raised in the appellant's letter. The applicant's recent submittals reflect enhancements to fire protection measures and do not constitute substantive changes to the project scope. The project remains consistent with all applicable development standards and community plan policies. We also want to note that yesterday evening, we received a letter from County Fire stating their conceptual approval of the Fire Protection Plan.

Staff recommends that Conditional Approval No. 19 be updated to include the letter. Thank you.

Questions from commissioners? Oh, Commissioner Park, you should always look to your right. I know I should.

I have a very fundamental question that I think will be kind of addressed by several people today, we might as well get it out there. I think it's great that we've had this fire protection plan submitted and I kind of figured that would happen after the last hearing. But what is the normal approval process for that? And I would guess that there's fire protection plans in cases where there's not discretionary approvals know, with the Planning Commission and it's more at the building department or something. But then there's going to be some where there is a discretionary approval.

So here we've seen one that has come in after our first hearing. I would guess that's unusual. But what's the general approval process? Who approves it and when?

Chair and Commissioner Park, as with all hearings, provided that the document is submitted prior to the the Monday at noon deadline, documents that are over a page can be submitted into the record. In terms of the approval process, in our conversations, it's not required for a single family home to prepare a fire protection plan. So this is unusual in that case that the applicant is voluntarily preparing the fire protection plan. But in our conversations with County Fire, the finalized Fire Protection Plan would typically be reviewed prior to building permit issuance because of the fact that it outlines construction methods. And so what we have now is that County Fire has reviewed the fire protection plan on a conceptual level and said that in their letter says that it includes all the necessary components.

And in that, they request a final review of the fire protection plan prior to the building permit issuance. And so that is why staff is recommending that this letter be incorporated into our conditions of approval in order to give them that opportunity.

So in in a typical case coming in front of us, that plan would have come in earlier. It would have been seen by the subdivision review committee and fire. There'd be conceptual. Then we'd do whatever, but we wouldn't be expecting to have it at our level a final approved plan. That would come afterwards and go through building department.

Commissioners, good morning. Thank you for having me here today. So the fire code allows myself or the fire chief or his designee to require a fire protection plan. If it comes through the land use process, we could put those conditions there. And as it moves forward to the building permit process, then it would live there, where we require a fire protection plan submitted and approved prior to occupancy clearance.

We typically, you know, would only require it for large scale projects, commercial, factory, hotels, anything of that nature that requires it, you know. Not typically single family dwellings. So it could come in this process. But if there's a process that comes that the Planning Commission doesn't see, then we would certainly have it at the building permit application process. And we call it a condition letter for our FPC fire department process.

So my last sub question on that, you might as well answer it too, is so County Fire, if one does come through, you're going to review it. Does anybody else review it? Does P and D review the plan as well for something? Or anybody else?

They may. In this case, if we get it if we require it as part of fire's requirements on the condition letter, This particular plan has elements, construction elements and features, that we don't plan check and inspect for. So we would likely put conditions on our condition letter that it has to be approved and that elements are included in the plan sets and details for the building officials' staff to inspect, enforce, and review. So there would be a little bit of, you know, we would go back to the building official and have his staff review it.

And that'd be pretty much at the end of the process before they start building, right?

You know, probably before construction. Because, know, like this, the plan that we're seeing set forth is they're using all steel construction, you know, as far as framing and whatnot. So you wouldn't want to have anything go vertical, you know, with wooden structures and have to bring it back down, you know. We would communicate that and make sure that nothing happened before that.

But I guess we could generalize it. However this one happened to get here, we basically have the approvals from P and D and fire department that we would expect to have at this stage before the Planning Commission. Anything else left to happen will happen through the building department before construction.

Yes, sir.

Okay, thanks.

Any other questions?

Yes. Mr. Chair, I do have questions because I think we're at an unusual point in our consideration of this matter. We had an extensive hearing on this project and my concern, which I expressed throughout the presentation had to do with the potential of a wildfire, which has happened actually on this property adjacent to it in the past. And we'll talk about these things.

I don't believe that we're foreclosed from talking about them. But we'll hear from the fire chief. And we we may hear from others as well. But, just to clarify one point, your staff recommending approval has already been made. You've already said that for this hearing. Is that right?

Commissioner Cooney, that's correct.

Okay. So, I don't believe we're foreclosed. County Council may have a different view and I'd love to hear it. But we're not foreclosed by staff's recommendation from taking evidence today regarding this very important issue. I just want to be sure everybody's comfortable that this may be the third inning of a nine inning game and we really need to listen all the way through before the commission takes action. And of course, here's again from staff anything that they wish to tell us.

Okay?

Good. Thank you.

With no further questions, we can go to appellant.

Mister chair, how much time maybe we should ask mister Sotelo how much time he needs.

Ten minutes? What do you feel?

Okay. There we go. I believe that the applicant is basically going to be making another presentation as to the project presenting the fire plan and that sort of thing. And it I believe it would make sense in terms of the order to hear that first so that we have a chance to respond to that if if they based on all the materials, mean, have to admit we've been buried under a blizzard of documents over the last four days. And so I think it'd probably be helpful to hear from them. You know what my concerns are. We've submitted letters in a timely manner. We got it to you over the weekend. So if that would if that would be helpful. It's your discretion.

And if you'd like, I'm happy to proceed right now. But I think it may be better that way.

I wanna make sure I do thank you for getting your first mailing to us in on Thursday, which is earlier than has been in the past. I realized that you sent a second on Monday, but I fully realized the reason for that. So I guess we could ask if

Chair, the applicant's saying that they would like to keep the normal order of the

hearing. Okay.

I think it

would be the chair's discretion at this point.

I guess we will proceed with appellant. Do we need oh, yeah. Okay.

Mr. Chateau, how much time did you need for your

Well, mister chair, if I thank you. Sorry, David. If I could ask, mister chair, if we could, because of the, we'd ask for extra time on rebuttal. So Yes. Let me let me aim for eight to ten minutes for my opening presentation.

Yeah. You've got ten.

So if you Great. Need a little

extra, we'll exercise that.

We need to get a copy. Thanks. Alright. Thank you. So, good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the Commission. I'm Mark Chatello. I'm here on behalf of the appellant Michelle Peterson in this matter. Next slide, please. Oh, it's right here. I control it, don't I? So, our request our initial request, as you saw in our first letter, is that we fulfill the direction that that the command commission made back on December 3. It was reasoned. We do appreciate the fire protection plan. That's an important first step, but it's only a step in this process.

And and we we believe that the continued extraordinary fire risks and and in particular, the unstudied evacuation capacity of the addition of the now revised project will still have a potentially a demonstrable catastrophic potential effect on the existing residents, and it continues to conflict with the safety element, the Eastern Galena Valley Community Plan, and the letter and intent of state law. And the handout that I just distributed was just an excerpt based on the applicant's agent's contention that the fire plan and the project comply with the intent of state law. And so that's why I felt like this handout was particularly important. And I'd also note on the timing. This is really a last minute project change.

This project has been under consideration for approximately five years. It was been under appeal for two years. We had nothing to do with the delays associated with that appeal. That was entirely staffs and the applicant's managed process. We really did nothing. Ms. Steinfeld was gracious in providing documents to us along the way. But the fact that now it's all collapsed into this last week is making it very challenging. The we do see that there are some potential issues with respect to the adequacy of the fire protection plan. In particular, I don't have the slide of Figure 13 out of the plan, but you have the plan with you.

It is the separation analysis, which provides for the critical 30 feet of separation. And you heard last time from from mister Hazard the importance of having protection, having that separation so that firefighters could safely go in and attack a fire. Now, I will say parenthetically that mister Hazard cannot be here today. He had a preexisting commitment to work on fire safe issues here in our community. So he's I've had a chance to talk to him, unfortunately he's also ill.

And so we haven't had a chance to really review and go through the fire protection plan in the manner that we need to. So if the Commission is considering moving forward today, we would ask that there be a continuance and we have an opportunity to respond substantively to the mountain of information that's been provided. And I just note, you know, walked into the hearing and secretary Villalobos was kind enough to point me to the fire department letter that I hadn't seen yet. So, you know, this is really just breaking very quickly. We received the fire protection plan over the weekend.

So stepping back a little bit, we believe that it's important to go through the process and that includes CEQA's environmental review process. The fire protection plan is a good step. It does not constitute CEQA review. And significantly, where the project is relying on exceptions to the standards, there's both a requirement under state law, the final bullet here, that they do justify each of the exceptions. And you see in the fire department letter that we received this morning, that justification is a blank form.

It is not provided. And in one of the matters of particular concern, to me at least as the veteran of a of a fire in my community, using a single aluminum wall as the buffer to insulate the firefighter from an active fire is probably not gonna be sufficient. I had aluminum melt at my property during the last fire that I experienced. And so the code calls and speaks to cinder block walls and things like that. Those are not shown on the plans, So we don't really know what's out there.

But we think these kinds of details need to be provided in order to be able to understand what are those impacts and ensure that CEQA's being complied with and that the community has all the information and the commission has all the information that they're entitled to. So this additional information is definitely creates some challenges. One of the things that we've noticed just, you know, the well, the fire protection plan addresses the 30 foot setback, although we question whether, you know, it's really an appropriate solution, and it's not shown on the plan, so we don't really know what that solution is. It addresses defensible space, but in the mean since our last hearing, the fire department, I look forward to hearing the explanation from the from fire marshal Tan as to why and how development standard number six was revised to eliminate the the ability to look across a property line. The ability to look across a property line is specifically authorized under state law.

And the changes to the development standard have weakened our local requirement to less effectiveness than required under state law. Other communities do require looking across the boundary, as our development standard number six did on December 3. So that's a significant change that, again, change in circumstances, but also a change in the ability. And while looking to adjacent properties that are already developed and are already subject to the home invincible space requirements is one thing. But to the west of Lot 10 is the applicant's own property, which provides the opportunity for a thirty and one hundred foot defensible space requirement on those lands.

Subject, as required under state law, subject to the consent of the owner. Now if the owner is refusing to consent, I think that's information that your commission should know. I would imagine that this is an item, given the applicants' desire to protect and create a fire safe project, that they would want to offer that, but that's not been in the offence. So last week, was up at the site. You folks were too.

If you tried to come up from the northern route, you would have hit that road closed sign on the left side there. And there's the county road closure dashboard showing that, in fact, the northerly access to the property is closed right now. Two days after our hearing, that cement truck in the middle frame got stuck for eleven hours at the double switchback area. I happened to see a, as part of the prescribed burn as I was going down the hill, I was greeted by the brush truck on the right side there coming underneath the boulder. It's the evacuation is far from adequate.

And our concern is that the fire protection plan is gonna provide us false sense of security. So it really does require third party review. You heard from Mr. Hazard, he does have experience and applicants themselves acknowledge that. So we look forward to, you know, the opportunity for reviewing this.

But there's a number of issues that we identify here. The, I think the local fire, the third bullet here, the reliance on local firefighters, volunteer firefighters, is important. Because if a fire breaks out in Paint A Cave, and residents are intending to fight and defend their community and but they're in town, they're actually gonna be coming up the road at the same time that evacuation traffic should be heading out in addition to dealing with reconciling conflicts with fire equipment. Currently, you could not get a fire truck into the community from the north, which is the only road that allows it. It would have to go up Gibraltar Road, across Camino Cialo, and then come down Pinacay Road North in order to access.

That's a forty five minute drive. So, obviously, that's a we don't know from roads, that may be a good question, how long it's going to take to repair Escamino Cialo to be able to bring heavy equipment on it. But I know in my community, we have a road that's been down at one lane based on storm damage from two years ago. And then the reliance on local equipment is a little questionable. Basically, they say, well, have a truck, it's not really running, and they have a pump, but it's not really working, but they're going to fix it as the mitigation.

So I think there's some issues that we need to address. The the plans that we've seen are incomplete, and and and as a result, you know, we really need to to talk about CEQA, and we need to employ the CEQA process. I'd like to turn now to the document that I handed out as I close my comments here. Fire protection plan on page nine concluded is actually the presentation, not the fire protection plan, but the PowerPoint that you'll be seeing in a Ask the question, do the projects comply with the intent of all fire regulations and the best management practices to ensure highest level of safety for the new homes? And then section two, para number two there, is the California law as drawn from the code of regulations.

The citation is there. Seven section twelve seventy three. Does the do the roads and driveways, whether private or public, unless they're exempted, the only exemption is for agricultural roads, do they provide for safe access for emergency wildfire equipment and civilian evacuation concurrently? And they have to provide for or or the the intent is that they provide for unobstructed traffic circulation during a wildfire emergency. And then there's a section on width.

I will close at this point the active capacity for evacuation up and down at the same time. And that is not the current state of Painted Cave Road. So thank you. From commissioners. We will begin with Commissioner Park.

When did you receive the fire protection plan?

The first fire protection plan was posted on the website, and I saw it on Saturday. So yes. May have been Friday night. I was hustling to try and get your letter out. I didn't get it on Thursday. It was Friday. It was actually Saturday at 01:30AM is when I finished that letter. No. Friday at one well, Saturday morning at 01:30AM. And then I went away and went back country for the weekend and did some trails that you know about. So it was Friday late. Okay. That's when I saw it posted to the website. I didn't see the material submitted by the applicant until Monday that was submitted, but most of it was submitted before the noon Monday deadline.

And this fire department letter that we received this morning, you likewise saw it this morning?

Yeah. I just got it off the diocese or

the counter And in the you made a comment just a moment ago about the house plans, revised house plans being incomplete. And I couldn't understand what that meant or why it matters. So could you explain what's incomplete about it and why does it matter?

So my understanding is that the applicant has revised the house plans to go from four bedrooms to three, which is material in that it affects the evacuation calculations and how many occupants we can expect to see there, as well as the ADU. So the layout there were the plans that were provided in the materials for Monday noon included only the footprint and the layout of those bedrooms and rooms in the house. It did not include the firewall that is relied on in order to provide for the exception to the 30 foot setback requirement. It's referenced in the narrative, but the site plan does not show it. There's reference in a footnote to fire to a fence screen or they'll be able to tell you the product name, but it's the single wall aluminum wall.

That's not shown on the plans. So we haven't seen that. The other piece that I think will probably need to be reconciled is the going to the higher standards for the building construction on this property. Well, they reference metal roofs throughout the entire through the two structures. The roof design that I had up here still shows right there.

It shows in the top part this open deck in the roof. It's not clear if that's going to stay or not. That's somewhat of a red flag in fire design because it provides a location for embers to gather and to remain and potentially create ignition. And that's where the well, think it's off to the right is where the fire pit is, I think, on one of the projects. The other project shows in the plans and again, this is an inadequacy in my view of the plan itself it shows a group of chairs circled around what would be a fire pit, but they no longer describe it as a gas fire pit.

So I don't know what the feature is there that provides on the exterior of Lot 11, I believe, that would provide for that outdoor gathering. It looks like it would be a fire pit, but that notation has been removed. Those are details in the plans that I think we really need to see before we can really evaluate, you know, is this the right structure for this site?

Any further questions?

Commissioner Reid or Chair Reed, if you could allow us just one second because I think we're just confused by a few things too and we wanna clarify what has been modified so the commission knows exactly what has changed from the last hearing and Nicole Liu has an explanation for everybody. But we think it's important that you guys

Okay. Understand Chair

and commissioners, the removal of a bedroom from each of the homes that Mr. Shutillo is referencing occurred prior to your last hearing. So that's not a change that's occurring to the project currently. The changes that are proposed at this time are removal of the fire pit and incorporation of the construction methods into the home that are outlined in the fire protection plan. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. I have a question or a few. I noticed today you mentioned your consultant, mister Hazard who also formed to me the centerpiece of your presentations at the prior meeting. I know I for one, at the prior hearing, I for one had come to the hearing having reviewed all of the documents provided to us and my leanings were I saw, I didn't feel the appeal had there was information sufficient to approve the appeal.

Come to the meeting and there's mister Hazard, former fire marshal and we all have been trained to observe to follow the orders of a fireman, I guess that means in uniform, but we all respect firemen, and their opinions. And mister Hazzard gave a very comprehensive and compelling, I felt, presentation relative, to the various hazards in the area. That was pivotal in my decision and I suspect the decisions of some others, although I can't talk to them under the Brown Act other than one, I suspect may have influenced the opinions and hence the votes of other commissioners in asking for findings of the denial and to proceed, therefore bringing us to today's meeting. Now subsequent to that meeting, we find based on some of the work done by applicant that the testimony presented to us at that hearing by mister Hazard who appeared as a consultant you brought. I remember at the beginning of the of the hearing, you introduced him as part of your team, which I spent thirty years interviewing people and listening to what they said and trying to interpret what that actually meant.

So when you said to member of your team, I thought that was interesting. I thought he was an outside independent consultant but whatever. But then we find that testimony he provided during that hearing, as principal of his new, apparently, you know, consulting role as an independent consultant, that testimony was in direct conflict with some testimony he had given not too many years before in front of the board of supervisors that he had formed a role, a very important role in formulation of the the fire protection plan covering that area. Yet, when he is appearing now, as I said, as an independent paid consultant, his opinions are widely different. I I think that's a a very disturbing reference to his credibility.

And I I was wondering, you got thirty five years of experience here. You bring someone in to give testimony on behalf of your client and your action. Do you normally take the opportunity to review what their comment is going to be and did you do that with Mr. Hazard?

Mr. Chair, first of all, the I do work with the team. That is the the way these are complicated processes. We're dealing with technical issues integrated with legal provisions and requirements and then the process of the county. So it it requires presenting effective testimony requires integration of all of those bits of information.

I saw those references and I'm not in a position to respond because that is for Mr. Hassard to be able to do. And he is unable to be here. So I I would ask that before you reach a conclusion with respect to the veracity of his testimony and his credibility, you would allow him an opportunity to respond. And for us to look at that. Again, we didn't really see any of that stuff until I mean, the the principal letter came through on Monday. So and it's Wednesday. So we've had not forty eight hours to be able to review and it's not that's not the only piece of evidence that was presented

Mhmm.

In that in that submittal. There's a lot there. So I I appreciate your concern, and that's it's legitimate. Applicant raised it. Was it cherry picked out?

Was it just a I mean, we'd known we've seen the behavior of the applicant has been to put words into the appellant's mouth. So I and and one of the reasons we've been reluctant to meet because all of a sudden, anything that's said gets taken out of context and then reported out publicly. So we're interested in working with the applicant to come up with the right project for this site. But we think, Ms. Steinfeld and I have been in communication, and we agreed that we're going to talk after today's hearing.

Because as we we may be in the third inning at this point. I think that's about right. So and I would ask that before we close the book, we give mister Hassard an opportunity to respond to these allegations because that's what they are. They're allegations. And you can take out a context, an individual statement, and attempt to smear somebody's reputation.

But I would ask that you, as somebody who does know and your commission, give him afford him the opportunity to respond. He did commit some time ago, before we started this process, that he would support a training for prescribed burns that was scheduled this morning. Since then, he contracted pneumonia and I don't think he's actually up at Sedgwick with that that doing that. But he would be in no condition to be here to address your commission. So I apologize for that.

And, you know, it's challenging. I believed that based on my thirty five years, never has the commission been overruled by staff. And I understand why and I appreciate Director Plowman's comment. It would have been a courtesy to inform me what was going on as well. But that's okay. I'm kind of used to that. But I think that if we want you know, have the right decorum and process here, do need to have a little bit better communication. Certainly need to give everybody an opportunity to respond to allegations that are provided at the last minute like this. Does that make sense?

It makes sense. But, you know, with respect to mister Hazard, I don't I wouldn't say that he was being, you know, I even have the idea he was being purposely deceptive. I do suspect, you know, somebody's out, they've got a consulting business, they want to perform. I've dealt a lot with medical speakers that had many of the same accusations made with respect to them, but perhaps even the job to do a the desire to do a good job could color some of that. Nonetheless, and I wouldn't wanna He's had a long and very excellent, well respected history with the department.

I mean, I understand all of that. But nonetheless, his testimony, I think, was pivotal in changing the course of last December's hearing, was probably responsible for changing a few votes that brought us to where we are today. And I think necessarily, in my mind, it kind of tainted any of the other opinions he rendered which were foundational. And in fact, in my mind, of tainted tainted that entire hearing. So with respect to that, we can proceed.

If I could

just go ahead.

You, mister chair, that professor Dicus, a wild lion fire specialist, submitted a I was 40 or 50 pages of I mean, I'm sure now you've you've read you read it all. And so you understand that mister Hazzard's comments were not isolated. They were supported by other experts in the field. And I will say that mister Hazzard, in his comments, he those were his comments. I didn't, you know, and I I believe that he stands with them and I, you know, I know that he talked to fire marshal Tan after, I guess, last Friday, maybe or maybe on Monday, maybe it was Monday, that, you know, and that there wasn't necessarily as as at least the way Mr.

Hazard reported it to me. There was not a substantive disagreement with the statements that he'd made. Now maybe that's again, I'm now this is all hearsay, but I I would ask that the commission do not take the applicant's selection of a particular bit of information with without a grain of salt to understand its context. And to recognize as, you know, there's there's differences of how to interpret these things. And so when I gave you this legal authority that binds, that touches on the key issue here is, can can we rely on these roads to provide for safe evacuation?

There may be a question as to whether the applicant can be required to expand the roads in order to meet it. But the question is, can you can you make the findings that it does meet these standards? And I'm looking forward to hearing mister Marshall Tan's testimony about that because you're trying to accomplish an intent. We want it to be safe, as safe as possible. As commissioner Cooney said, we wanna have we wanna do the best possible. And I think we all want that. Thank you,

mister chair. I think we're all in that boat. So thank you very much, and we'll readdress after your rebuttal. If applicant is ready.

I still have a question of Ms.

I'm sorry.

We kind of got interrupted by this fifteen minute colloquy, but there we go. It happens. Ms. Liu, you were referring to the plans and what's in them and what are the revisions. Okay? And I've heard a lot today about a firewall or screen. You know, it's aluminum. I'm not even sure whose idea this was just because all this stuff came up at once. But is it in the plans or not in the plans? Because it seems to be an important feature.

Okay, well, think the I'm asking Ms. Liu, I'll ask you when it's your turn. I want to it's keep not up to me to keep ordering the process, but I don't want to damage it.

Chair and Commissioner Park, the plans, the current plans include a site wall. The one of the alternative means and methods for protection of the site that's outlined in the fire protection plan is that that wall should extend and be at a height of five or six feet for the full length of the property. And I think Ms. Steinfeld can speak to the materials in more detail.

That's good. So I'm gonna just tell you why I'm asking about this practically so you be prepared. Is bigger walls, walls of different materials, they require different footings. And as you know, part of the issues here is what's the disturbance from this disruption to plants, to rocks, to soil, everything. Maybe none or there may be a lot. I don't know. But that's what I would ask Ms. Liu about if she was prepared to, but I'll ask you about it, Ms. Steinfeld. Okay. Thank you.

Chair, I have one quick question of staff before. Yes, sir. This parcel map that we're talking about for this property, when was this parcel map approved?

Chair and Commissioner Martinez, we might need a minute to look that up and get back to you.

Okay. And I'm going to say this out loud in regards to, think it's in all fairness to Mr. Cicciolo who's pointing to the law here in regards to it. When we're looking at Chapter 14 of the CCR, I'm looking at the definitions and there's an indication at 12.03 be that this doesn't even apply to parcels that were approved prior to 1991 and permits that were filed after 1991. I'm going to ask if Mr.

Schiller could address that. And I'm not trying to ambush him. I think he needs the time to address that. Because then when I look at the definitions under twelve seventy point zero one, that's identifying the state resource area which is outside of the developed area. Which goes into the roads and so forth.

And then you have the definition of what is a developed parcel, is under twelve seventy point zero one F, which I always thought with that what we were dealing with is that's with within the perimeter of the parcel, which is what the fire plan should be addressing rather than outside of the state resource area, which is outside of the perimeter. So I'm just saying that out loud because I think Mr. Sotelo is pointing to that and I don't believe in ambushing anybody, but I would ask Mr. Sotelo and applicant to even address those things because that's what I'm looking at whether this is even applicable to these sections that have been brought up. Okay? Thank you.

With that applicant, feel free to proceed. You have ten minutes.

As discussed, is it possible to get fifteen since our fire experts are here from San Luis?

Sure.

Okay. Thank you. Good morning Chair Reid and honorable commissioners. Amy Steinfeld on behalf of the applicant. I'm joined today with my team architect, we have Rob Mel, and we have our two fire experts. In addition, we have Daniel Hosea, who runs the ranch next door. We're here to present the results of our work that we've done since our last hearing. I must say this eight week pause has been really helpful to our team, and we've learned a lot during that time. We fully understand that fire risk is a significant concern for the Painted Cave community, and we share that concern. Over the past two months, the applicant has taken the time to thoroughly evaluate the appellant's concerns.

We reexamined the plans. Of course, you heard we prepared a voluntary fire protection plan. And we also incorporated meaningful improvements. With these enhancements, we believe the projects before you today reflect a thoughtful and responsible approach to development. With regards to the project description, it sounds like there's some confusion. So I want to point out in our resubmitted plans Exhibit B to our letter, we have noted that the masonry wall will remain around the front of the homes. The purpose really is to provide that aesthetic look. So that's also a non combustible wall. But then to avoid additional disturbance, we'll continue with a thinner aluminum wall. There's a lot of new materials out there that are fire resistant up to very high heat levels.

So that non combustible wall is noted in the key and noted on the plans. In the top right you can see that NCW non combustible wall. So that is in addition to our plans. In addition, we are removing and have removed the fire pit. There will be no gas stove.

There will be no gas heater on the roof. We understand that that was a big concern of appellant, so we have removed those. I want to touch briefly, if we can go to the next slide, let's see, on compatibility and share the project design, which demonstrates that the homes respect the rural character of the area and are built into the natural terrain. And this is really done to eliminate the amount of ground disturbance and reduce the amount of grading needed. The reason why it's important is that under this design, so this would be the view from Painted Cave Road.

So as you can see, only the 1st Floor is visible because the second story is set far back. As a result the homes appear very compact from the street view. And this is same for the back of the homes. As you heard, even though the fire protection plan wasn't required, we spent a lot of time and we understood that the community needed to see this. So we voluntarily retained these experts.

We researched several fire experts. And we were very impressed with the depth of knowledge with the Resolute team who's here with us today. As you can see, and as we'll hear more about, the fire protection plan responds to the concerns raised by appellant. In addition, we're excited because the fire protection plan can really serve as a model for this community and for other homes in the area to consider these types of hardening activities around their homes. Quick summary of our main project changes that you heard above.

Again, I think the wall is our main defensibility. There's a lot of research. The reason why you do a non combustible wall and not a fence is you want to avoid embers entering the fence. In addition, we added some additional criteria. You'll see here we updated our habitat mitigation plan, plan in response to Mr. Chatillo's concerns about honeysuckle. So that's been submitted to you. And you'll hear more from our team about the details of what is in our fire plan. I did want to touch upon one point that Mr. Stutillo made.

We are not relying on these two small fire trucks that are located at the ranch. We just wanted to point out to the community that these will be the first line of defense if anyone has a fire at their home. We're here today to ask for approval because the applicant has spent seven years designing these homes and ensuring compliance. We want to reiterate that the applicant has retained and worked with an architect, an arborist, an archaeologist, two biologists, an engineer, a geotechnical engineer, geologist, land use attorney, landscape architect, a surveyor, a structural engineer, and now we're adding two fire experts to our team. Throughout the process, we've made changes.

We've reduced the sizes of the home. And we really are here today with a much improved project that we're excited to share with the community. These homes meet and exceed all fire safety standards. These two homes are being developed on lots that are zoned for single family homes. And these homes will contribute to the fire district through both mitigation fees and ongoing property taxes.

But as you heard, this is not the last step for the projects. They will go through an onerous review by the fire department and the building department. So, when we're talking about specific materials being used for the fence, etcetera, we will be working with the building department to identify and refine those materials. In addition, there will be pre construction surveys to make sure that none of the plants on-site are harmed during the construction of the fence, for example. I do want to address Commissioner Martinez as to the width of the roads.

So there is what Mr. Shutillo fails to mention is that parcels that were legally created before 1991, and we include a citation in our letter. This is 1270.03D. It's in a footnote to our letter. So parcels that were legally created before 1991 do not need to comply with these state road standards. In addition, the county's own rules provide that the 20 feet rule applies to new roads and also to private roads that they don't have jurisdiction over. With regards to the access roads, Mr. Rob Lewin is going to address that. And with regards to meeting and conferring with Mr. Chatillo and his client, I did reach out several times.

I did finally hear back yesterday, but it's a little too late. Again, I'm happy to talk to him after the hearing and I expressed that to him as well. But we've been frustrated because we really haven't had a chance to sit down with his team and figure out what his client would like to see here. With that, because the public and the community appears very concerned about what is going on in Painted Cave, I wanted you to hear very briefly from Mr. Daniel Hosea first, who is the ranch manager at the Laurel Springs Retreat.

Chair, Commissioner, thank you for having me. I'm Daniel Jose, the Agricultural Manager at Laurel Springs Ranch, where I've lived and worked for three and a half years with my wife and my daughter. The ranch is next door to the proposed projects. In fact, when I accepted the job, the Zucker family shared that they're planning to build the two homes next door so that I can live off of the ranch and in the Painted Cave community one day. In my role, I oversee land stewardship regenerative agricultural practices, infrastructure infrastructure coordination and on ground operations with a strong focus on ecological health, wired wildfire resistance, and long term sustainability.

As both a resident of the ranch and a neighbor with the Painy Cave community, I deeply

excuse me.

I'm deeply committed to strengthening relationships, communication, and collaboration between the ranch and the surrounding community, particularly around shared properties, priorities such as wildfire preparedness, land care, and mutual support. I am a member of the Mountain Ember team and seek to serve in a collaborative leadership role bringing hands on land management experience, nonprofit leadership, and a steady community centered approach to wildfire resistance and stewardship. On the ranch, we have a herd of 60 goats which we use to reduce fire fuel loads by grazing grass, weeds, and brush, creating and maintaining defensible spaces around homes, roads, and shared areas. Further, we are working to repair the Met's small fire truck, which currently sits alongside the Ranch's fire truck as we have a very capable mechanic on staff. I look forward to further strengthening the collaboration between the ranch and the Painted Cave community.

And if anyone's interested in learning more about our efforts, please email me at agmanager@laurelspringsretreat.com. Thank you.

Good morning, honorable chair and commissioners. My name is Robert Lewin. For the sake of time, I'm going to abbreviate my prepared remarks and let you then come back to me with questions that you might have about each particular point that I'm going to just abbreviate and highlight what we like to talk about. In the back of the fire protection plan that we have submitted, there is a bio on my associate Dennis O'Neil who's with us today and myself Robert Lewin and you can see that because it is a requirement that fire protection plans are done by qualified people. So some other background, when we took on this project in December, we did revisit the Painted Cave community and this project site.

We reviewed all documents associated with the project including Professor Dykes's and Chief Hazard's reports. I have worked with both of them many times in my career. We have reviewed the San Marco CWPP and other reports associated with these projects. Despite that this project has been in process under previous regulations, we've applied the new more rigorous WUI fire codes that went into effect 01/01/2026. We've watched the entirety of your last Planning Commission meeting in December.

Okay. Now I messed that up. Help. I pushed the right button arrow and that wasn't the right thing to do apparently.

So did you want to go back to that same presentation or to the second?

Oh, is it a I thought they were combined. Oh yes, please. You can pull up my presentation. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. So what is a fire protection plan? The fire protection plans are generally only completed when the fire code official requires one. In this case, we have done one at the request of the applicant to provide information. The plan we have completed and meets all the requirements of what is required under the California WUI Fire Code in section six zero two.

It is very unusual to do a fire protection plan for single family residences. It's generally done for subdivisions or complex developments on properties. The analysis that we did in conducting our analysis, recognize that the California has the strictest regulations for homes built in the WUI, that the purpose of these strict regulations is to strike a balance between the right to develop and public's interest in reducing wildfire risk. It is clear that, you know, the safest place we could be in a wildfire environment might be in a bomb shelter, but we can't live in bomb shelters. So, when we try to reach that balance, we apply the strictest part of the codes in our analysis to be able to do that.

It's important to note that these homes will be only the only fire resistive hardened homes in the community. The existing homes have a little if any fire resistive home hardening despite the fact that they're in a very high fire severity zone. We believe that our plan can serve as a template for the community and other homeowners to incorporate the recommendations. So when we did this analysis, we looked at two things. Do the projects comply with the intent of all fire regulations and best management practices to ensure the highest level of safety for the occupants, for the new residents themselves?

And then the second question is do the projects impact or harm the safety of the community? Are they adding to the risk that already exists up there? We specifically, we specifically my associate Dennis O'Neil, who's a fire behavior analyst conducted a comprehensive fire behavior analysis of this project consistent with best practices using the latest software to complete a site specific computer model of the fire environment. The results that were that the general area around Painted Cave and the project is that they are in a very high fire severity area fire hazard severity area and the risk is high for destructive fire. This is consistent with the outcomes of to the results of the reports done by both the appellant's consultants, Doctor.

Dikus and Chief Hazard. It's consistent with the CWPP. It's consistent with the Goleta Valley Community Plan. It's consistent with CAL FIRE's mapping that it's a very high fire severity zone. So in essence, we concur that the area up there is volatile. I'm gonna have my colleague come up now, Dennis O'Neill.

Chair and commissioners, just real quickly, know we're running out of time. Public Resource Code four thousand two and ninety one dictates defensible space and also Santa Barbara County has their development standard number six. So as you see here, we have zone zero, zone one, and zone two. So defensible space traditionally goes out to 100 feet. But public resource code does not, so it does not go beyond a property line.

So in this photo that you're seeing over here on the right, the red represents the 100 foot defensible space requirement for the adjacent properties. So you'll notice from the Northeast to the East to the Southeast to the South, you have these overlapping defensible spaces that provide protection to the properties. And then on the North, you'll see the area at the top is a horse corral with very little vegetation. So in this case, the requested reduction in building setback is driven solely by parcel size constraints. Both the Santa Barbara County Fire Department standards and the state minimum fire safe regulations allow for setback reductions when parcel dimensions limit full compliance provided that alternative measures are used to reduce the risk.

To address this, the applicant will implement specific mitigation measures including non combustible block walls and non combustible fences, hardscape landscaping, non combustible materials extending at least five feet from the structure and compliance with the most protective requirements in the California Wildland Urban Interface Code. These measures are intended to offset the reduced setback and provide an equivalent level of wildfire protection given the site constraints. So the next slide that we're seeing is when a structure ignites during a wildfire, it typically occurs through three primary mechanisms, ember exposure, direct flame contact and radiation. Both proposed structures are designed using the most protective exterior construction requirements in the California Wildland Urban Interface Building codes to reduce the vulnerability to these ignition pathways. Key design features include a metal roof, non combustible gutters and downspouts, ember and flame resistant vents, non combustible exterior walls and eaves, double pane, double tempered windows, wildfire risk and doors, and the Zone zero ember resistant zone.

These design elements are specifically intended to mitigate ember exposure, which is the leading cause of structure ignition during wildfires. In addition, the building design meets the requirements of Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety Wildfire Prepared Home Plus designation. IBHS is an independent nonprofit scientific research organization supported by the insurance industry. It is and its design program is based on peer reviewed post fire research identifying construction practices that measurably reduce wildfire damage. Wildfire Prepared Home Plus adds extra protection using specific building materials to help defend against radiant heat, trick flames and provides the maximum level of protection.

And so, should I yeah.

So, I know we've exceeded our time. If you can indulge me another minute, I'll just show you what we have and jump to the last slide for you.

Proceed.

Thank you. So, of course, there is a lot of topic about evacuation and we have done an analysis on the evacuation and I'm glad to share that if you have any questions about it. In essence, we believe that the addition of these two homes does has no determinable impact on the existing evacuation situation that is in Painted Cave. Firefighter safety, we've looked at that in-depth and we believe that these homes do not. As a matter of fact, homes will provide even a location for firefighter safety if they're in a firefight in that community.

Here's our recommendations that we've listed for the fire officials and the building officials to include as in this project as part of our analysis. And then our conclusions are with those two questions that I asked in the first slide was are answered in these two. Do these does this project in any way not provide the highest level of protection for the occupants? We believe that it clearly does provide that safety for the occupants. And the other question is, do these homes create an impact on further risk to the community?

And our determination is they do not. And then, one side thing, just for the good of the order, as we were driving around and I can't help myself but see safety things. This rock has been a lot of topic about what can be done to improve that road which doesn't need to be improved as Chief Hazard and Chief Professor Dykes, everyone that's ever worked on driven down that road knows that road needs to be improved. One simple thing may be just to lower that road a little bit where that rock is to get 14 foot vertical clearance, two feet more, and we could get water tenders and other large firefighting vehicles up that road. And I'd encourage the county to take a look at that as a And with that, we're of course available for any questions.

Questions from commissioners?

I have questions of Ms. Steinfeld, but not the experts. Thank you for coming, Mr. Lewin, Mr. O'Neill.

Sorry for the

extension I have a couple.

For me or?

For you. You.

For both of you. Whoever can answer it, I suspect you're capable. You made a remark that in that entire community, these two new structures will be the only fire resistant hardened homes up to current Is that correct?

That's correct, chairman.

As I noticed in 2019, there was a survey you mentioned, mentioned out of 57 homes surveyed, there was only one, so.

Yeah, there's one that was built under that code, but the current code is even stricter. That came into effect on 01/01/2026. And the new maps that are also in the county that have been adopted. So, 2019 code, of course, is what they built under. These are even more strict. Yes, one home up there. And we did drive I did drive around up there. And for the most part it looks like most of the homes were built a long time ago, but I did note that there were looked to me like two homes that were more modern.

Okay. Secondly, so would these two homes in and of their existence, were they built? Would they increase due to their structure, any fire hazards or of the community?

Our determination was that, Chair, our determination is that these two homes will not increase the risk to the community. They may even create a barrier from a wildfire that's coming from that direction because these will be fully hardened homes. So, in essence, we think that there's nothing that would these homes would cause further impact on the community during a wildfire.

Okay, one more. You know, there's an evacuation area on Laurel Springs Ranch. Did you inspect that area, take a look at it?

I think you're referring to the temporary refuge area, the informal temporary refuge area that's in the CWPP, which I know Chief Hazard was part of the process of developing that. I know it's been used. I know that the applicant has had no problems with or the landowner of using that as a our recommendation is that that become formalized for the community. That wouldn't be part of this project, obviously, but it is a So, I think the most important thing in evacuation is that people leave when they're told to leave or when they feel threatened and they leave early. If they don't have that kind of time, then the next option is they have to shelter in place in some fashion.

These two particular homes will provide a very high level of shelter in place protection for those occupants. But, if everyone else up there and possibly these occupants, they may need to find a place in the community to shelter and that would be a temporary refuge area.

And so, feel it's a sufficient placement and size to offer protection in the case of any wildfire that might occur?

Right now, they're informal and they've been mentioned in the CWPP. It would be my recommendation that the fire department formalize these. The Forest Service and Santa Barbara County Fire formalize these and look to make sure that they fully meet what are the standards for a temporary refuge area.

Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Cooney. I just have one question.

And I'm not sure it was you, but I heard somebody say that the conditions up there are volatile. We're not changing that with all the efforts that that can be made and what this commission can do. We're not gonna make it completely fire safe. And that's my concern is should there be the opportunity for people to enter into this area and live there and how can we possibly make it safe for them?

Commissioner Cooney, through the chair, yes. Your question is the question that everybody in our business world agencies contemplate every day. We have communities, a lot of them in this county, that are built in areas that are very volatile. This county is ground zero for major wildfires, destructive wildfires. During the Thomas fire, we evacuated over 30,000 people because of the vulnerability of many communities from all along the front country and within the San Ynez range and many other places in this county.

The question is much bigger than probably any of us in this room of what do we do about this wildland urban interface problem that affects the Western United States particularly. And I of course can't answer that. That's a decision for others, officials and things. But what I fall back onto just for a bit of political science background that I have is the Fifth Amendment is people have a right, have property rights. And, you know, so when we look at these and when the California regulations were developed, they were to try to find that balance of how can we allow people to build and do their take advantage of the properties that they own while doing it in a way that doesn't add to the risk of the community and to themselves.

And that's why the Wildland Urban Interface Code is what it is right now. It's designed to try to provide the highest level of protection for people building.

I really appreciate your forthright presentation all throughout. There's no question that this commission is a non willing participant in figuring out what can we do with this interface in that particular area. So we have more information than we had before and, I'm comforted by that. By the same token, I'm very concerned about that fact. But thank you for your testimony.

Mr. Chara? I have one question.

Oh, proceed.

My question, the fire plan addresses that, from when I'm looking at it is really when the construction has been completed. You know, what what has been done, how this house is built and so forth. What what I'm not hearing is and I just put two and two together right here. You were sitting here when we saw that mister attorney Shielo I'm sorry if I'm mispronouncing your name. The cement truck.

Cement truck there stuck for eleven hours. So when I'm hearing construction, what is your fire plan addressing during the construction? Because to me, I think that's the most volatile period. You have a bunch of strangers, people who are not aware of this area, the potential of a cement truck getting stuck. I mean, there's gonna be cement involved, imagine, in this thing. What does your fire plan address that situation which I think because you have the most congregation of people at that time rather than those who are just going to be living there?

Thank you Commissioner. Through the Chair, it's a great question. The answer to that is actually in the Wildland Urban Interface fire code and the previous codes had this as well. It's in Public Resources Code four 290 that if you're going to build a new subdivision, you're required to have secondary access if the parcels are under an acre, you can only go 800 feet on a dead end road. So, what was the purpose of that?

The idea is that if a cement truck is blocking that one access road, that there is an alternative access road in the event of an evacuation and also to be able to provide ingress for first responders. This of course is not a new subdivision. This is existing parcels going back a long ways. I don't know if we've come up with a date yet on that. But fortunately, it does have two access routes.

It actually even has a third route down Gibraltar to add to it. They're inadequate. They need to be improved. My recommendation just on what we could do would be fix the rock situation, widen the fuel, all of the vegetation along the edge of the road, take out more so that when people are evacuating they have more protection. But the idea again is, yes, truck, a cement truck, a wildfire, a road that's been washed away, all of those things show why we need two access roads into communities.

And that is the one thing that they do have up there is two accesses to Highway 154.

Commissioner Park? Yes. Miss Steinfeld, you're probably getting tired of standing up there, but I still have my microscopic question. Sure. Big fire plan questions.

Getting back to the property. And and microscopic is the right word because, as you know, in fact, we we bought the property and every plant seems to be mapped and can it go, can it return, how many replacement plants there are, every rock. It's just what happens with this kind of concern on small lots. So I'm getting back to your revisions for the firewall, which you've now been advised by, I'm sure, these people to build to the sides, on the sides of the lot and in the back. Can you describe what materials it is and is it going to need footings and how will that impact all that microscopic examination we've done of what rock goes here and what plant goes there?

I'm not trying to make light of it, it's just something that's important.

Commissioner Parks, through the chair, that's a great question. And if you look at the original plans, we had a fence along both sides. But it was a fence that was made out of kind of a track material, fake wood as you saw from those photos, that had a lattice design on the top. We've learned from our fire team that that is not the safest way to go. They're subject to embers getting stuck. In addition, the material could melt. So we've looked at other material to create more of a non combustible wall. We included a photo and a link for you so you can look at this material. The aluminum walls are very thin. And we had already incorporated footings for the fence.

So there's really no change. We will be using Mark De La Garza, our biologist who thoroughly understands the property, to walk the property and do preconstruction surveys so that we're not impacting, for example, any of the oak root structure, etcetera. So that will be fully documented as we move forward into the next phase.

Thank you.

Commissioners, I did want to address two open questions. These parcels, this EDRN, was created in 1928 through a record of survey. This is prior to the Subdivision Map Act. And then with regards to the road closure that we see right now, you know, there is still a possibility for trucks to go around currently. In fact, when we were on-site yesterday, we did observe many large propane trucks coming through the East Camino side, and we hope that they will complete the roadwork immediately.

Thank you. Any no further questions? I have a question. Oh, we have one from Commissioner Ford.

Ms. Steinfeld, thanks for your presentation. I noted that you used the words that this plan, and the mitigations you've, added could serve as a model. I wonder if you could for construction in fire zones, etcetera. I wonder if you could, for us and for the public, just sort of review the aspects of it that make it a model.

Sure. And Commissioner Ford, through the chair, before I answer that, I did want to mention one more thing. Commissioner Vincent, you had asked about what happens during construction. And you're right. That is a time in which everyone working on-site needs to be extremely careful.

That, those measures have been incorporated into the plan at page 65. There's an entire section on fire safety during construction. And the project will be required to comply with California Fire Code Section 3,312 Fire Safety During Construction. And of course, because this plan will be incorporated into the approval and reviewed again by the fire department and building department, all of these measures will be taken. Commissioner Ford, through the chair, with regards to your question about how it can serve as a model.

So I think the number one thing that we learned from this plan is really what you can do on-site and really what the low hanging fruit was. So actually the first thing I did after the last hearing, I went back home and I noticed my husband had left a truck full of firewood up against our wood fence, which is only three feet from our house. So I immediately added that to the honey do list and required him to remove the wood that was right adjacent to our home. So the first thing that you can learn from this plan is really why we have these different zones. And so what the average homeowner can do in this region is simply remove vegetation, especially trees that are overhanging a house.

That's very dangerous because the fire can use the trees as a ladder and jump to the top of the house. So the first step would be creating this Zone Zero, removing any especially plants that are particularly combustible. We also have a list of plants that we've referenced that are basically resistant to fire or considered non combustible. I know the Montecito Fire Department has a great list as well. In addition, if you look at these kind of additional standards that are put forth by the insurance industry, clearly they have an interest ensuring that a home doesn't burn.

So we've listed all of the items in the plan that could be taken to satisfy this. And as a result, these homeowners in the region would be eligible for a reduction in their insurance, their annual premium. In addition, we talk about adjoining properties, so neighbors getting together to look at what they could do to work together. And as far as other items, you know, I think while we're not proposing removal of the rock as part of the project, our goal is to get the community potentially interested in this idea so that maybe there's going to be enough community interest in taking this to the Board of Supervisors. Because in talking to Mr.

Lewin, you know, my initial thought as a non engineer was, well, could you remove the rock? Obviously I know the rock is beloved by the community and so he pointed out you could simply bulldoze the road to lower the road a few feet, which had not occurred to me. So there's many items in here and we would urge everyone to look at this. And also the reason why we brought Daniel up is he spent a lot of time over the past several years working with the Mountain Ember team. In fact, as I was driving up there I saw the signs and the work that they're doing.

So, for example, there are seventy, sixty or 70 Nubian goats on-site. They are used extensively for fuel management at the ranch. So to address Mr. Chatilla's question, the ranch does do extensive fuel management. As you all probably know, there's a very historic lodge up there. The ranch was developed in nineteen o five. There's many old wood structures. So the ranch has a huge interest in maintaining defensible space at that next door property. So the goal of, I think, all of this is to come together. I've had many interesting conversations with members of the community.

I feel like I just obtained some sort of Master's in wildfires. And so, I think that what we learned, A, was the community is doing a lot up there. The people in Painted Cave really care.

Could you wrap it up in about

Yes, a

so sorry. Get very passionate about this issue because it was great for all of us. And again, I just want to thank you all for this eight week pause because it allowed us to really work with our fire experts to understand how to move forward. Thank you.

With no more questions, I think we will take a ten minute break. I've had a request. I think it's necessary. Mr. Chill. Sorry.

Just going to revisit and see if we could receive ex parte from Commissioner Cooney before the break since I believe that was still outstanding.

Yes. I have started to I'll I'll start. When we come back from break, I'll announce the other contacts I've had. Thank you.

Excuse me. When we give our ex parte, you write that down?

No. I believe, Commissioner Cooney had had paused and we were going to revisit to

I'm his just wondering. Just wondering.

Yes, Mr. Wilson. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Just a matter of record, when we were looking at the time allotted to each of the appellant applicant, we noticed there's a discrepancy. Mr. Shatilo was provided ten minutes, and then the applicant had finally ended at about eighteen minutes. So to keep things equal, we recommend adding eight minutes to Mr. Shatilo's time.

Definitely give Mr. Shutillo that time as much as he needs. Thank you. With that, we'll take a ten minute break and let's try to keep it at ten minutes. I'm still unmuted.

I'm still am I muted? No. Okay. If we're ready, I'd like to it's time for us to proceed with public comment. I think we'll give you three minutes. I'll call your name and then you can come up to the speaker, the podium. I apologize in advance if I happen to mispronounce a name. I will do my best. First speaker will be Ladia, is it Cherry or Clary? There we go. Thank you.

The name's Lydia Chen, c h e n g. Sorry about my poor writing. K. So thank you so much for allowing me to speak. I am one of the members of the community, and I live around the 73 houses that you have been showing as clustered together.

I had provided a concern to Chris Chris Muckle at the time when this project was proposed. And one of my big concern is the water situation that we are currently confronted with in the community. As you know, the water comes from an aquifer. And, although I've been hearing today that there's enough water, adequate water to fight the fire, but what does that really look like? If there's just a water tank, it might be enough to put away the immediate danger for that particular house.

But what would it be for all 73 houses that are in danger of fire, in a wildfire situation? As we have learned in the recent LA fires, water was a big complaint for firefighters when they got to the site and turned on the spigot and realized that there isn't enough water to fight the fire. And we have low water pressure in the community to begin with And it is never clear to me what the source of our water and how that could be replenished during a time of emergency and what it would mean for long term residents such as myself after we drained the water aquifer and then all of these tanks. What would it mean for our future availability of water? I am one of the original initiators of the petition in the community against this project and in support of Michelle.

And I believe that particular complaint that I brought out has not really been properly addressed. Although, Krish Muckle at the time, assured me that this will be addressed. It appears that Ms. King has taken over the position, and I don't quite know where my complaint lies today. So that is what I would like to raise to the commissioner today, and I thank you for the time and the permission.

Thank you for speaking. Next will be Doctor. Arthur Oakland.

Good morning. Arthur Olguin. And as I was driving along the freeway coming here this morning, I was looked up into the hills and I saw this plume of what I thought was fog initially. And it turned out to actually be a home that was combusted. And those were plumes of smoke that were going across the mountains there.

It was and just underneath the Painted Cave area. So, it did cause a little bit of alarm. But it looked like at least it was under control. I have not had sufficient time to really read all of the reports that were submitted at the last minute. As a member of the public, It takes time to be able to negotiate your websites and to look at the information.

However, I was concerned and still am concerned and not sure exactly what it is I plan to do. Because I do believe that the work of Nicole and the work of Veronica is a matter of insubordination. Insubordination to you, the Commission, and the Commissioners. And I don't know whether or not this is a grand jury matter to be considered or whether there are other internal county wide complaint processes that need to be addressed. But I am concerned.

I'm concerned as a member of the public that things could be so overturned, if you will, from the clear instructions that were provided in the December 3 meeting. Mr. Reed, I do not believe that this is a Milgram type situation. They were not tied to electrodes. They were not shocked.

They were not forced to be insubordinate with the Commission's directives. I am also concerned about the very clear imbalance of ex parte communication between the Commissioners

and

the applicant, the attorney for the applicant. I think that and again, all of it being done outside of the public view and also at the very last minute. So those are concerns that I have at this time. I do appreciate the work and the questions. And what really is, was sitting here today, was thinking, this is really a situation of a moral dilemma.

And I can see that you are grappling with those moral dilemma issues. Not just individual interests, but community wide interests. And I do sincerely appreciate that. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. With respect to your comments, I think Director Plowman very effectively addressed any staff issues. Also, wasn't there did I hear on the news there was a controlled burn up by Painted Cave today? Excuse me.

Commissioner Reed, sorry. That tells you how often I'm here. But the Forest Service over the last couple of years has been conducting prescribed fires, but more specifically pile burning. So they've treated a lot of brush, piled them together, reduced continuity of fuels. And there are several 100 piles that have been, that have been in the process of burning the last several years and doing it today. So

Okay. Thank you. I just thought that might be responsible for that plume of smoke you saw. With respect to the ex parte, our numbers are available. We will provide them to appellants, applicants at will. They can call Mr. Villalobos and we're free to speak and would welcome speaking to them. Yet sometimes they just never call. I was hopeful Mr. Chitillo would call me because he'd asked for my contact information last week.

And he did send me one of his mailings, but we're we're available for contact. So it's not like we try to avoid it and give availability preferentially to applicants or appellants. Next, mister Rich Robar.

Sorry, my voice didn't get any better since December 3. Maybe a little bit. Good morning. Over the last forty eight hours, the applicant has dumped a pile of new paperwork on us. It doesn't fix anything. It confirms what this community already knows. The site is a fire trap. They're using technical language and volume to try to bury the simple truth that this location cannot meet the safety standards our lives depend on. Let's start with the basics. Access.

Painter Cave Road, one of the there's only one way in and one way out. County requires fire safe roads to be 20 feet wide. I can elaborate on this. We've been talking about it for a long time. There's talk about let's lower the road underneath the rock.

Let's get rid of the rock. All that's going to block the road. And as we all know, every single major catastrophe that's ever happened has been a conglomeration of issues that all happened at once. And if they start working on that road and we can't get out going down and the road is blocked going up, there's one hundred and fifty people are going to die from a fire. So I really don't have a good answer for this, but I can't, for the life of me, understand why anybody, any fire people, anybody that's fire savvy could even fathom, even begin to think that it's okay to build more houses in an area that's already too congested with houses and no way in, no way out.

And mean, let's be real. Literally 8,000 square feet of housing for three people. Really? One family? That doesn't make any sense when we know that Mr. Zucker as the ranch manager said, it's Laurel Springs Ranch retreat. Retreat meaning his plan, we all know, was to bring hundreds of people in throughout the year. Where are they going to stay? They're going to come for a retreat and they're going to stay in these houses. There's no if, ands, or buts.

I just can't understand why anyone would even think that it's okay to build more housing up there. We've been told over and over that we need to stop the wild land encroachment with more housing. I went way off what I wrote, but listening to everybody else speak, this is my answer. So I just want to say one more thing and I want to be very clear. I'm glad that at least a couple of you have managed to go up to Painted Cave and check it out, but when and not if the next major fire comes, the outcome will not be a mystery.

If you approve this project, the resulting life loss of life and property will not be an accident. It will be the foreseeable consequences of a conscious decision made in this room. That responsibility will rest with you. The Planning Commission got this right the first time. I urge you to deny this property or this this project before you all get to read the after incident report. Thank you.

So Mr. Villalobos, do we have any additional commenters on phone or via Zoom?

Yes. For those of us, I do see a couple hands up. If anyone would like to speak on this item, go ahead and raise your virtual hand. So our first speaker will be Dustin Hoyseth to be followed by Marion Parra.

Hello, chair reading, planning commissioners. My name is Dustin Hoyseth. I'm the director of public policy with the Santa Barbara South Coast Chamber of Commerce, which represents business interests from Gallita to Carpinteria. I'm speaking today in support of the project and in opposition of the appeal. Housing and the associated workforce challenges continues to be the number one issue faced by our local businesses, both big and small.

Housing is also one of the biggest limiting factors to our local economy. And at a time when new housing is so important to to our community, I'm concerned about the type of precedent that this appeal would set in the county. This project for two single family homes has been in development for over seven years and has undergone extensive review. I respect the process, and safety is never something to rush. But I also have concerns that a project's prod progress has been stalled for this long.

I don't wanna seem oblivious to community concerns regarding fire risk. That is why the chamber supports housing that meets both county and state fire standards. Our state already has one of the most stringent building and fire codes in the nation, and this project has gone under or has undergone extensive review to ensure that compliance. Please deny this appeal and support this well vetted project and our county's critical need for more housing. Thank you for your time.

Our next speaker will be and I believe that was our last speaker. I don't see any additional hands raised. Will be Mary Anne Parra.

Hello. Good morning. My name is Mary Anne Parra. I initially was on this meeting to speak on another matter. However, I am alarmed that this would even be any consideration. I don't live in Painted Cave, but as a Shumash person, we understand that this is an ancestral, ancient sacred site that continue to be destroyed, dug

up,

and buried. We keep hearing about property owner rights. What about indigenous people's rights? What about the land that was stolen from us? We know we're not getting back. But at the same time, we have every right to protect it. I feel the discussion, it feels incredibly disrespectful and hurtful to continue to hear how we wanna destroy ancient boulders, move them, just dig into the, you know, ground. Just dig a few feet, move it. Let's keep widening roads that are barely wide enough, mountainous areas that we're never meant to live on anyways. The fact that we keep continuing to discuss affordable housing, there is no affordable housing.

You're never gonna solve a homeless issue by continuing to build mansions, retreats, hotels, and boutique hotels. This is a fact. It's it it doesn't take rocket science to understand this, but it's about the continuous greed and the addiction of saying using the fact that we need housing and twisting it into the continuous greed and addiction of wanting to swallow up more of the land for uses that most people can't use or afford to use. People are many people can't make today's meeting. Elders can't get there at the time.

Didn't have enough time to get there, enough warning. Also, most people are trying to work just to survive in Santa Barbara County. They can't always take off for meetings and the various projects that continue to go on and destroy the territory. I'm against this. There is you're gonna put more lives at risk. You can't get in and out of those roads. I've been traveling that road my entire life. It has been widened, but it's not gonna change the fact that we're risking so much. Are you willing to take that type of a gamble? I'm not a gambler, but I wouldn't use human lives, and I wouldn't use a landscape we know that we cannot continue to build on.

There are plenty of vacation homes, Airbnbs, empty properties that can be converted to affordable housing to house people if we really care about housing people. Do people that need housing need to live in the mountain? That that doesn't just seem like it's an option. These landscapes have stayed beautiful and been maintained for thousands of years, and we're gonna destroy it for homes that most people can't even afford to live in or even afford to vacation in. We need to start actually being real about what's going on, And I do not support this at all. I support the people that live there. They have already been there for many years. You can't continue to put lives at danger, specifically everybody living around the community.

Well, thank you for your comments. Your time is up.

Ms. Parra was our last speaker.

With that, we're prepared to move to rebuttals. We'll begin with appellant. Mr. Shatillo, proceed. I believe you have up to eighteen minutes. Is that what

No, Mr. Chair. It would be whatever was allotted at the beginning. We're just saying we're adding eight minutes to whatever we're adding. Yes. Not another

That's better.

Eighteen minutes.

Okay.

So I don't know what I sorry I was late. So I don't know what was originally allotted.

Original is original rebuttal would be five but

So I would recommend adding eight to his time so it's equivalent if he needs it.

Twelve minutes or so. We'll both man.

That's fine. I just need a little place to park. Yes, please.

Mark, excuse me. I put a speaker's foot in there.

Mr. Adams didn't have a chance to speak, Mr. Chair. You wanna use all my materials? I got the picture in the box.

Adams.

Yeah. I spoke with him about filling it out, so he did do it. Ted

Adam? Correct.

Ted Adam? Sorry, sorry. Please go ahead.

My name is Ted Adams. I'm a longtime resident of Painted Cave. Many years I lived there since 1965. I traveled the roads. Didn't speak today in favor of either one of the positions because I have friends on both sides and I think there are valuable points being made by both sides.

One thing I'd like to do is to narrow it down to one minor point that's being brought forward today and I'm hoping that you folks will have an idea about how to proceed with it. And that is the idea that they would excavate a couple of feet around the overhanging rock to make it more able for traffic to go underneath that. That's a laudable idea, but I think there's a much more important place on the road that needs attention and needs work done. That is on the lower of the first curve below Pena Cave where the concrete trucks and all the other trucks are getting stuck. That curve is in complete non compliance with the county ordinances for the width and the type of grade on that road and it needs to be reengineered.

I've spoken with a couple of the officials and they have said, well, we'll bring some signs up. Well, we've had lots of signs up there. And one of the problems with the signs is that many of the drivers do not read English. And many of the drivers don't read the signs anyway because they have on their GPS on their phones, it shows them they can drive to Painted Cave without a problem. So that really, that curve needs to

be

reengineered and it's just something that I don't want to see the County spending money on dropping the level of the road around the overhanging rock because I don't think that's nearly the problem. Most of the large vehicles for fire suppression come in on East Camino Cielo. They don't come up Painted Cave Road anyway because it's a much longer torturous trip to Painted Cave. So my point is, please take a look at that particular problem and use your energy to make something really valuable happen. And I think that fixing that curve is going to change a great deal for access and egress on the road.

Thank you very much.

Well, thank you for your comment based on your long experience. And I apologize again for overlooking your

Well, I'm deeply offended, and I expected a substantial tax discount on my next step. Thank you so much.

Mr. Chatillo.

Thanks, Mr. Adams. So I will be as concise. There's a lot to cover here, and there's some technical issues I'd like to be able to cover them with sufficient time. So I appreciate the opportunity to do so. So going back to I'm just going to leave this picture up for right now. I'm going to start with aesthetics and the compatibility with the visual resources policies of the Eastern Galena Valley Community Plan. Because you heard Ms. Steinfeld talk about how it was compatible. I would beg to differ.

This project has never been to the ABR and policy visual EGV 1.6 requires compatibility and design and scale to the surrounding built environment. So this project is also inconsistent with that element of the general plan. We talked about she talked about biological resources. A new habitat restoration plan was produced Monday, day before yesterday, thirty six hours ago, forty two hours ago, that we really haven't had a chance to look over. I did ask our biological expert, Mr.

Kissner, to review. He submitted some comments before that was we submitted ours by the Monday noon deadline and that's when they submitted their update to the plan. So we didn't have a chance to get any kind of input or comment on that. And and in particular, the the problems with the habitat restoration plan are the fact that the area where there are plants, Santa Barbara, honeysuckle and everything, are not going to be habitat. They're going to be plants.

They're subject to what Mr. Lewin referred to as this balancing and the competition between it needs to be zone zero. So you can't have excessive vegetation, so you can't have habitat. You may have a potted plant or you may have a plant that's in the ground that's actually growing, but it's not providing the ecological function that these endangered plants do in ecology. So, study. We that's an adverse impact. Our belief is that there needs to be sequel review of these projects. And that's how that we're gonna get to the bottom of these stubborn problems. We've gotten we've made progress. We have some new plans.

But given the timing, there's no way, in my view, that the commission can approve this project at this time because there are so many so much new information and so and and the inability to really have a careful review of that and some unanswered questions. The I'm gonna so now I'll turn to fire issues. And oh, I've I've mentioned the timing and the need for additional opportunity. Mister chair, I would have called you. I did get your number.

I sent I wanted to, but then when the blurry and flizzard of documents started to bear me, just didn't have the time to do that. I did have a chance to talk with mister Cooney on Friday, and I left a call with mister a message with mister Park. But I I wanted to talk to you were next on my list.

No no problem. I hate to feel left out, but as I said, I'm available for calls from any appellant or applicant.

The the Yeah. Thank you. So speaking turning to Mr. Vincent's question with respect to the the provision of the the fire safe regulations. And while mister Lewin said that these were new effective January, they're actually they've been in place for a while.

They've now been all compiled into the into the WUI zone. And one seventy I'm sorry. Twelve seventy dot o three concerns the scope of the application of these regulations to existing developments, specifically as to roads and access. And in section paragraph B of this and I'm sorry I don't have it up here, these things evolve It's the section that is cited in the applicant's materials as the authority for the provision that they're not required to meet the current road standards because of the preexisting or the date of the approval. But they left off the complete text of paragraph b.

Now, b says that subchapter two, which are these regulations as two roads, do not apply where an application for a building permit is applied after 1991 on a parcel that was formed from a parcel map that was approved prior to 01/01/1991. And here's the language that was omitted. To the extent that the conditions relating to the parameters and access to the buildings were imposed by the parcel map or final tentative map approved prior to 1991. So my read of this, and this is technical, complicated, and it may just have to get resolved across the street. But as I read this plain language, it says that if there are road width standards as part of a parcel map, they apply.

So to the extent they are addressed in parcel map, then the modern standards don't apply. You just use what's in the map. Well, we just heard, and I spent some time trying to find the map, we just heard today that actually hits a record of survey from Tony There's no parcel map. They do not have a parcel map. They have a record of survey. That does not constitute a subdivision. 1920, there was a version of the coastal of the the Map Act. And in fact, we know from Naples what came before that that that map was recorded in 1888. Now, wasn't necessarily under the MAP Act, but the Subdivision MAP Act was in existence. And or at least it's clear that if there was something that that was tantamount to a map, but that's not a record of survey.

And if there is, we need to look at that record of survey. I've not seen it, but does it provide for road widths? If it does, those road widths apply here. So there's a technical issue with respect to the the width of the road to the extent that the conditions relating to the perimeters and access to the buildings were imposed by the parcel map prior to 1991. So unanswered question with respect to that.

I hope that's helpful. The second legal issue that I wanted to raise concerns the fire department's revision to development standard number six. The the and I don't know if this is gonna get addressed later on, the one of the key issues, as I mentioned in my previous comments, was the ability to reach across a property line to impose development defensible space requirements, fuel modification. And it's the standard, the development standard number six, in existence on December 3, said that those standards applied across the property line. Now, we recognize that there's potentially some legal and constitutional complications from that.

That revision was accomplished on January 20, so a week ago, and two days. And, however, that revision eliminated entirely the potential to reach across the property line. Now, state code, this is Public Resources Code four thousand two and ninety one. It's been referenced by the applicant as well as, I think, by the fire department. B, as in boy, states that a person is not required to do fuel modification outside of their own property line without the consent of the owner of the property.

So, and there's other provisions in the fire code that do provide that if you have consent of the property owner, you may do defensible space activities and fuel modification on that. And, you know, we know that the applicant owns the area. And you saw the revised figure 13 in the applicant's fire experts presentation. That was the figure 13 that was incomplete on the materials that were submitted last week, or over the weekend, and with the applicant today. I just saw the, you know, with this, that they actually have the complete slide.

I couldn't read the whole thing. But you saw that there was a red line that went out into Laurel Springs Ranch Retreat area. Those lands are available under state law to be subject to fuel modification requirements. There's no the local standard does not allow that, so it does not comport to state law. And indeed, in this case, this is an example of where additional defensible space fuel modifications could improve the safety of the community.

And they would have biological impacts because those are resources there. And so part of this balance is we need to study these issues. We can't just we're just going to ignore it and forget about it. The temporary refuge area concept is an interesting one. If any of you have ever been in a wildfire and needed to evacuate or shelter in place or find yourself in between those two circumstances, then you can run to an empty field.

But you're in conditions where the winds are anywhere from 20 to 60 miles an hour, there's smoke everywhere, impaired visibility, and there are embers and flames all around you. It's terrifying. And while that is certainly going to be a measure of last resort, I think before the county wants to say, or even a landowner wants to say, Here, you can come and stand in my empty field, you better make darn sure that they've done weed abatement, that they've done controls around it, they've identified the parameter, and they have some kind of shelter, some kind of resources for people to be able to survive a burnover. You heard from Rob Hazard what it was like being on Painting Cave Road in the engine of a fire truck when it was burned over. And he survived, but that was not a given at the time.

The member Mountain Embers team, They I'm glad that we have a representative and that the applicant has a is engaged with that. But one of the other pieces of the Mountain Embers team, and I know that Mr. Lewin didn't really have a chance to interview them, but to understand fully their activities. But those include going to fight this fire in the community. And so you're going to have traffic going both ways on on Panicave Road to respond to this fire.

People evacuating, people residents who are at their work see the fire, they got to get home before that road closes because otherwise they're not going to be able to be up there and defend and work with their neighbors to try and keep you know, use the limited resources that are there to try and protect their area. So and we all know what happens when you stay well, you don't if you haven't, but if you stay too late and the road is closed and you can't get out and your structure isn't safe to shelter in place, then you're heading for that temporary refuge area and hoping.

The

I'm gonna turn in closing to, you know, where we really need to go here, and that is to conduct a CEQA analysis. You know, the fire protection plan is good, but it does provide a false sense of security. The updated plans, we don't really have them all. I appreciate that there's a designation on the wall as or on the site, as Ms. Steinfeld referred to a noncombustible wall.

But that's not shown in any of the drawings. It's not shown in the plans exactly where is the footprint for that wall, all the way across the entire length of the property. And it doesn't address, obviously, the the aesthetics or or any of those kind of remaining issues. So these are unanswered questions that needed that need to be addressed through a review process. Now, if your commission feels comfortable saying, Chattillo is right on this, we need to commence an environmental review process, I would encourage you to have that as your motion.

If you feel like, well, I'm not convinced on this, I would ask that you give us a delay so that there's an opportunity for the public, the appellants, and your staff to review the materials that have been all submitted in the last forty eight to seventy two hours. Because there's not been that opportunity for peer review. But it's our sincere request and hope that you will recognize that CEQA streamlining does not apply in this case. Fifteen And thousand one eighty three is a streamlining provision. It's not an exemption provision.

It's complicated. We talked a little bit about it at the December hearing. There's a number of requirements that don't qualify here. So I know that your staff the right level of project specific environmental review in order to ensure that all the issues that we've been talking about are going to be able to be adequately addressed, The public will be able to be involved in that process, and then you as decision makers and the public will know answers to these questions and what we need to do to keep Painted Cave as safe as possible once the right project gets scoped for this for this site. So with that, I appreciate very much your attention, and I'm available if you have any questions.

Any questions from commissioners? Seeing none.

Thank you.

We'll proceed to applicants rebuttal.

Thank you.

Yeah, you have five?

And I'm

going do 13. They start out at five. Thank you.

Okay. I'd like to address several of the comments made by both Mr. Shatillo and the public commenters. With regard to water, obviously a very important issue. The Painted Cave Mutual Water Company serves all 71 of these homes, plus these additional homes. They are important because they provide both water for domestic purposes and firefighting purposes. The source is groundwater. In addition, we have in here, we have a Ken and Will serve letter that's been provided already. In fact, the applicant actually paid to install a new water main to replace an existing main, and a new water service and connection were installed for both of these lots. They both have active meters.

With regards to whether there was an analysis done, this is on page 80 of the fire protection plan. Mr. Lewin took a look at weather based on the size of the homes, which by the way are not 4,000 square foot each. They are one is 2,880 and the other one is 3,100 square feet. So there's no 4,000 square feet house in our plans.

So he did a very detailed water calculation to determine that 5,000 gallon tanks per home were adequate. In addition, next door on the ranch there are very large 28,000 gallon water tanks. Second, with regard to the fire protection plan, we spent eight weeks working very closely with our fire experts to address the mountains of material that were provided by Mr. Shutillo on the eve of the last hearing. Our experts worked hard over the holidays.

With regard to the retreat center, I do want to set the record straight. Mr. Zucker is not planning to turn the historic Laurel Springs Retreat into any kind of lodge or retreat center or wellness center for the public. Instead, he has submitted a CUP simply to confirm the existing development and convert the ranch for a rural residential purposes for his family. So he understands the concerns of the community.

It will not be open to the public. With regard to bio resources, we spent a lot of time working with both the landscape designer and our biologists to ensure that the landscape would serve an ecological function. In fact, there will now, after the project is constructed, be four times the amount of habitat that currently exists. In addition, they will be removing all non native plants from the area. With regards to the access, it's clear that when a parcel was created, there was no subdivision map act when this particular parcel was created.

It was created back in 1928. The Record of Survey was the legal mechanism for creating that particular parcel. In addition, the state rules also provide beyond that exception for older parcels or older legal parcels, it states the regulations don't apply at the discretion of the local jurisdiction if there is reasonable ingress, egress, and capacity for evacuation, which we've demonstrated in our fire protection plan. Okay. Let's see what else we have.

With regards to the Laurel Springs Retreat and the temporary refuge area, the community has actually approached Laurel Springs Retreat completely separate than this project to ask if they would be open to using the retreat as a refuge area. I had the benefit of touring the ranch yesterday, and it is a massive open field. It's a 160 acre parcel. Daniel and his team have done an incredible job at removing all the brush. All of the structures have a lot of defensible space around them.

And it's really the only place in the community for the community to have everyone gather if needed. But of course, evacuation would be the number one priority. The wall is shown on the plans and it shows exactly where it goes. Again, that was just want to refer you to Exhibit B, to our resubmittal. It is the same place where the fence was proposed earlier. It will go all along the side of the lot that is adjacent to the appellant's house to protect her home. It will also be along the entire perimeter of the side along the Laurel Springs Ranch. With regards to CEQA and fifteen thousand one eighty three, it is actually a statutory exemption. But Mr. Schiller is right, it is different.

The reason why it is different, it requires a very detailed analysis that our county has provided us to demonstrate that the Eastern Goleta Valley Community Plan and its EIR addressed wildfire hazards, that addressed impacts on infrastructure. And thing about fifteen thousand one eighty three is it provides directly in the statute that if new laws and guidelines are passed after an EIR is certified that those serve as a bridge to ensure that all impacts are mitigated. So I think that's all I have. Thank you.

Any questions from commissioners? I have two. Sure. Okay. We always hear about the total square footage of those two houses. What are the footprints of those houses?

Yes. And we address this in our updated letter. So because they are two stories, they do have a smaller footprint. And we did also submit an exhibit so you could see exactly what that would look like. So I believe let's see which exhibit this is.

It is Exhibit C attached to our recent submittal and so you can see that for Lot 10 the footprint instead of being the 2,880, so the footprint on the ground is 2,194 square feet. And then for Lot 11 the footprint is 2,392 square feet and not the total home size, which is 3,185. So it's a smaller footprint that's actually sitting physically on the ground. I did want to address the Chumash comment. There are no paleo resources.

We did an extensive archaeological survey here. There are Chumash artifacts and very sacred sites on the ranch. And the owners provide open access to the Chumash to basically visit that area and they do not do anything to disturb that area. So they take these resource areas resource issues very seriously.

Okay. One final one final question I have in terms of residents of those homes. I understand one of the homes is going to be inhabited by Mr. Jose and his family.

Correct. So Mr. Jose currently lives on the ranch in one of the very old structures on the ranch with his daughter and his wife. So, family of three. And at this point, we don't know exactly who's going to live in the other home, but it is a three bedroom home, so we suspect it'll be an average sized family, which we did a survey of the entire region. The average sized family in a home of that size is 2.766 people.

So a modest increase to the population.

Correct.

Okay, thank you. Yes, Commissioner Park. This discussion

of square feet and footprints and all, so it's kind of spawned a little bit of confusion in my mind. And you mentioned that calculations for water and things reflected the combination of square footage of these structures. But doesn't each structure have a garage in the four fifty to 500 square foot range? And those are outside the footprint numbers you've just been describing to us, right?

Yes, that is correct.

And those are built of similar materials to the houses, right?

That is correct.

So if the house is going to burn, so is the garage presumably.

Yeah, and maybe Mr. Lewin can speak to this. He's the one that conducted the site specific analysis to confirm that each 5,000 gallon tank was sufficient.

Yes. And

I don't want to argue with your I just think it's when we describe the square footage, we should be describing the square footage of all of the improvements, not just the inhabited bedrooms and so forth.

Chairman, yes, if you could turn, if you have the ability to, appendix three in the fire protection plan, we have the calculations that are done on it and you'll see that we include in the calculations using NFPA, the National Fire Protection Association standards eleven forty two. We included the square footage including we added the garage area. Looking at we we just did one calculation for Lot 11 because it's the bigger of the homes and we you can see it has four eighty four square foot for the garage added on to it.

Thank you. No more questions. I guess this will conclude the public hearing portion of this item. Thank you.

Thank you for your time.

Do we need a break or is everybody prepared to proceed to deliberations?

Okay,

let's go with deliberation.

And I have no questions of staff. I don't know if anybody else Go ahead. No. I said I don't have any.

Oh, okay. No more questions. So deliberations.

Do we have the staff recommendation over what the specific language? Could we put that up?

Chair and Commissioner Martinez, our recommendation is to approve the project with modifications to the project description to incorporate the fire protect compliance of the project with the fire protection plan and also to modify condition number 19 to incorporate the letter we received yesterday from the Modocino from the county fire department. Thank you.

And those, from my understanding in regards to reviewing those doc there we go. Thank you. Well, my position really hasn't changed in regards to what I previously stated at the last hearing in regards to this matter, which is the efforts of which my opinions are, or my conclusions are based upon, are within the parcels themselves, which I believe has adequately been addressed. That well, I'll leave it like that. I I do think though that there there's this the concern over during the construction period of time is is something that's outside of

the

area. And I'm looking to the I looked to the fire plan to address that, and I have looked it over. But I'm thinking that there there probably should what I was thinking I was gonna see was, okay, there's going to be one cement truck up coming down and so forth like that. You know, there's going be some coordinated effort. But then I was looking at the picture that was just put back up again when a pallet came up and the cement truck stuck stuck there on 12/05/2025.

So, obviously, construction is going on there right now. So somebody, I mean, somebody had a cement truck going up there on that road in regards to that picture. So I imagine this is not something new, but can be at least addressed when within the concept of of the fire plan that's been presented. And that's my deliberations.

Commissioner Ford.

Thank you. Well, I I'm, impressed with both sides, and the arguments are compelling for sure, but I believe that the new fire protection plan is reasonable and comprehensive. And I do want to clarify that I did have a comprehensive visit of the site on November 25, and I did meet on Zoom with mister Chitillo on December 2, and that was in preparation for our December 3 planning commission hearing. The to me, the additional mitigation details by the applicant are appreciated and thoughtful. Removal of the fire pit and the spa and no wood used throughout the structure, I think, is significant.

And I remain concerned, as I said on December 3, about, the reluctance of the appellant to meet with the applicant. And I think that the appellant's concerns still continue to be more about the roads in the area, the fire history in the entire area, not solely related to the proposed development. I'm also reminded that the fire protection plan submitted in the last week was voluntary and seems to be at the same time the most, this development will be the most fire resistant structure in the area. So I'm ready to support, this project and believe we should deny the appeal.

Well, this looks like it's a slow race, so I will jump in now. You know, this applicant has been accommodating issues, has reduced the size of the project, has taken a significant number of steps to improve the fire resistance of the homes both in terms of design and material. We've seen a number of issues which have been raised, by the appeal. I felt prior to the last hearing, and I still feel those feelings remain at this hearing that while many of them may be concerning, they don't rise in my mind to the level, to require denial of the project. The centerpiece of the last hearing seemed to revolve around the absence of a fire plan, which we have received, which has been robust and comprehensive, which has been deemed adequate by our county fire department.

I feel as if these two structures, will do nothing to increase, the fire potential of the existing community. Indeed, they are, will arguably be the most fire resistant structures within that community. In terms of increasing hazard due to evaluation, but one home is gonna be inhabited by people who are already current residents of the community. The other, it was mentioned before, maybe used by relatives but probably by no more than three people. I don't anticipate the residents representing any kind of a hazard in terms of evacuation.

Indeed, if anyone were evacuating down Painted Cave Road, they would be last in the line. If evacuation was along East Camino Cielo, they would be first or perhaps more likely just to step over the fence into the area on Laurel Springs Ranch. So my closing position would be that this is a high fire area, an area in which all the other residents of the Painted Cave community have willingly with full knowledge accepted the hazards of and I don't feel that the residents of these two new homes with far superior fire resistance should be precluded from making the decision to utilize their property and build and occupy those homes. Therefore, I would be in favor of moving a motion which would deny the appeal and approve the project.

Did you wanna go next or you want me to go? It's your district. Yeah, I'll go last. Sometimes you go first, sometimes you go last. I'll go last.

Commissioner Martin. I'm going to

be the odd man out here. What a surprise. I have a couple of concerns. One is fairness. I talk to a lot of people after our hearings and before our hearings and I'll tell them, you know, I rarely agree with anybody and I may not agree with their position, but I'll do my best to make sure it's a fair hearing And I want people to go away and leave that room and say, we lost, we won, but it was a fair hearing.

This is not feeling like a fair hearing to me right now because I, like everybody else, am very excited to receive that new fire protection plan. I think it's extremely significant. And I can see that the other commissioners are basing their votes on receiving that. But you know, it was only received on Friday night. It was only available to review by Mr.

Chitillo, his client, all the people in this room. And the fact that we're basing a decision on something received so late and having the very excellent fire department letter in response to it just this morning, don't think that's fair. And that bothers me. And I'm reminded of our last hearing as I sat through this one and some comments I made there. I did suggest to Ms.

Peterson that if we were to build a profile of the best possible people to develop those last two lots out there, it's gonna be this applicant because they've got a continuing stake in what happens there because they have the Laurel Springs Ranch, so it's not like a spec house where you build it and don't care what happens the next time. They've been over backwards to do every single possible thing to keep improving their design and they've done a lot just in the interim, in the last hearing. But nevertheless, there are concerns. A perspective that I think is appropriate for here is that if we make a mistake at the Planning Commission level, okay, it's not a matter of somebody's going to have an unsightly house they have to look at for twenty years or maybe the value of their house goes down because there's an ADU in the backyard for the neighbors. No, I'm looking out there and I think if we make a mistake in this, some of you may be paying with your lives.

Okay, so we have to be extra careful that we cross every t and dot every I. And I'm not sure we've done that yet. That goes back to my issue about a fair hearing. I don't think we've had time to really react to all this yet. So I want to go back to Mr. Cooney's baseball analogy or metaphor that that he gave earlier. Now, he's an ardent Yankee fan and I was brought up to hate the Yankees, but I I can still understand the metaphor. You said third inning. I think the other commissioners are in the ninth inning, but I'm at like the sixth or seventh inning. And I think there's more to do.

One thing that I often see at the commission is we get an important development and then we could forget all the other discussion. And I had to do that myself. Important development. I'm excited about the fire protection plan. But I recall that when I spoke about this project and where it was going back in December, I also mentioned compatibility.

It was a big issue. I was surprised that there's a compatibility requirement somewhere in the code for this, but there is. And we spent a lot of time talking about those 73 houses and their very small nature and these being larger. I've had discussions with the applicant's attorney about how to respond to that and I think they've made a good point, spent years doing engineering for these houses, it's not easy to cut them in half without a lot more time. Maybe you cut off the second story and then you'd have to reengineer the first.

But I think the compatibility concerns still remain and if I'm forced to vote for it today as opposed to when I think the ninth inning will be, then I'm gonna vote no.

Commissioner Cooney.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. One of the concerns I've had about this project, but before mentioning that, I want assure for County Council and everybody else that, other than, Mr. Shatillo, I did not, speak with, anyone, in the community or otherwise, except I think I had a brief conversation about this with Amy as well and I'm not even sure about that. We've talked about other projects as well.

So anyhow, that's the limit of my disclosure and I'll have another on the next item on our agenda if we go forward. But as far as this project is concerned, I have a great deal of thinking to report. But what it comes down to is starting with the very honest and straightforward comment that we heard from one of the expert witnesses, solicited by Amy, in his conclusion and after study and with years and years of experience, he said, It's a dangerous place up there. This is not something that's necessarily caused by anything proposed by the applicant, but the applicant, if given permission by the commission, would add to the problem. It would not be a subtraction.

Some things would be fixed, others wouldn't. But we have a whole community existing and living up there and as I said when we heard this the first time, I can't support it. Now, maybe the only choice is to vote no period. Another choice that I would support would be to continue it so that Mr. Shapillo, Shatillo and counsel for the applicants could try and improve some of the ideas today that were presented I hadn't heard before and apparently there was a flurry of new information.

So, I'd propose a short continuance a month or a month plus if we are forced to do it. But basically, I think that rather than vote no, I'd like to give the skilled attorneys and supporters the opportunity to keep improving this project. It's gotten a lot better, it needs to go further and we can't eliminate the eventual potential for a very disastrous outcome.

Commissioner Ford, do you have a comment?

Well, thanks. I'm just questioning whether it can be continued or not. Can we have some kind of guidance?

Chair Reading, Commissioner Ford, it is within your discretion to continue the project today. And yeah, I'll leave it at that.

So, Chair, if I can, just to help us navigate how to move forward. Appears to be potentially two motions that could be made. One to appeal the project and deny the appeal. The other one is to continuance. There may be some impacts to continuing it, but we we'd have to dive into that further.

I don't know if a continuance is gonna get us further down the field on this. I think we've had two hearings on this already. Don't know what more we're gonna get out of a continuance, but I'll I'll leave it to the chair. I know typically we defer to the the commissioner whose district this is on to make the motion. But if Commissioner Cooney wants to defer to another commissioner to make that motion, if it's different than what he's proposing, then I think that's appropriate as well.

If I may, my feeling about a continuance, if we continue it, issues will continue to emerge at each and every hearing. People will say need to be addressed and ask for another. I think applicant has been more than willing and forthright to accommodate numerous needs up till now and I think it's time to vote either on the appeal or on the application. And my feeling is I feel the application is approvable today.

May I reply, Mr. Chair? Yes, go ahead.

So I I just have to stand up.

Just don't leave. Your position, Mr. Chair, is absolutely reasonable. And your prediction that we could continue it and get nowhere further is not out of bounds. I mean, the amount of testimony that we've had from all sides, including most importantly others in the community that are not the applicant

or

the parties to this proceeding. But I think it's worthwhile in a case like this where life and limb is part of the process. It's our duty to make sure that we have made every attempt, every attempt to bring this to the best conclusion even if it's not going to change the vote or the outcome. Mr. Chatello early on in this hearing said, you know, if I could go through a document I received yesterday or last night or last week, I think it would be fair.

And so if we had another reason that outweighs the potential for settlement of this matter, I'd like to hear it, but otherwise I would vote no as opposed to making the motion, which I think it was suggested that I should do that and then we'd have the motion on the floor to vote with that or we could take them separately, whichever.

Would it be appropriate at this time to take a straw poll of the commissioners prior to a motion or?

Mr. Chair and Commissioners, if you wanted to take a straw poll, I think you could do that. Or if another one of the commissioners wanted to make a motion, as I think was shown on the screen, that supports denying the appeal and approving the project. They could do that. I think Commissioner Cooney is wanting to make a motion to continue it.

But I leave that to the chair and Commissioner Cooney. If Commissioner Cooney would want to allow for another not allow, but defer to another commissioner to make a motion to support the project and vote on that, we could do that to move this forward. So I think we kind of know where everybody is. So if somebody wants to make a motion to deny the appeal and approve the project, then we can do that to move forward. If that fails, then we can move to mister Kuni's motion to for a continuance.

Wouldn't you make the motion for continuance first? Mean, it's you you vote on the matter and get a final decision. You're not gonna make a motion to continue it. That seems insane. So if you're gonna make a motion, then make it. And I'll second it.

Who's gonna make the matter? Who are you talking to? Commissioner Park.

That's right. I just was going to ask, if we could have a potential date to include in the motion.

Commissioners, we'd have to confer with both parties, as well, but let's see. And the continuance is, and you would be asking for more information from the applicant. So because we need to know how what's expected of them in order to give a reasonable timeline for the continuance as well.

Well, the parties gave us the impression, maybe it was unintentional, that they haven't had a chance to look at all the material or to study it. The parties are the best ones to assess what needs to be done and offer us the best chance of a successful outcome. So it needs to be, as you suggest, agreed upon, to do that. But I thought sitting here with with our fire chief, Mr. Tan, that we didn't even get a chance, in spite of all the time we've spent over two hearings, we didn't get a chance to hear him testify about our own county's, fire protection in this case.

So, I'm I'm more and more convinced that it would be, premature to vote on the project. Yes or no.

So the next available date is February 11. That is in Santa Maria. So again, we'd have to confer with both parties that they'd be available for that date.

Is there a Santa Barbara date?

The next Santa Barbara date is March 4.

I would certainly prefer that And everybody that testified today would hopefully be able to do so again if they chose.

So chair chair I just

let's just say March 4 you can call the appellant applicant up and see if they can agree to March 4. If not then we'll just drop it from the agenda. Or we just take that as a motion and see if that motion gets a majority vote or not.

Why don't you make the motion?

Okay, I'll make the motion hearing now that we continue this matter to our hearing in Santa Barbara of March 4.

And I'll second the motion.

Can we have a roll call on that?

Excuse me. Commissioner Cooney. Aye. Commissioner Ford. No. Commissioner Park? Aye. Commissioner Martinez? No. Chair Read? No. Motion fails.

Do we have a

motion? So

I guess this is my time where I would make the motion to accept the recommendations of staff. As presented on the screen here today.

So chair Reid and commissioner Martinez, well, one addition to that, the motion would be to to recommend staff's recommendation that's on the board. And for item number four, as revised today. So we need to add that clause in there because there were some changes that were made today. So approve the project de novo case number and then subject to conditions included as attachment b of the staff report and as revised today. So if the motion maker wants to include that in the motion, then that would be appropriate.

I will include.

Second. Can we have a roll call?

Commissioner Cooney. No. Commissioner Ford? Aye. Commissioner Park? No. Commissioner Martinez? Aye. Chair Reid? Aye. Motion passes three to two.

Is it lunchtime?