Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the April 29 hearing of the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission. As we begin, please join us in the pledge allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Mister Villalobos, could you please make the TV coverage announcement?

Yes. Thank you, mister chair, good morning to the commission and everyone else for joining us today. Planning commission hearings are televised live on county of Santa Barbara television, CSB TV channel 20 at 9AM in the South Coast, Lompoc, Sandinese Valley, San Maria, and Orca areas. Rebroadcast of planning commission hearings are on Fridays at 5PM on CSB TV channel twenty. Today's hearing will also be streamed live on the county's website as well as the county's YouTube channel and will be available for download in a day or two. Shall I move on to roll call? Please. Great. Commissioner Cooney. Here. Commissioner Ford? Here. Commissioner Park? Present. Commissioner Martinez? Here. And Chair Reid?

Here.

Thank you.

Could we please go to the agenda status report?

Good morning, chair and members of the commission. In regards to the status of our agenda today, we have two items on our standard agenda. The first item is the handrail for a footpath. Very exciting item on that one. And then we'll move to item number two, which is a housing development project in Los Alamos. And staff and applicants are ready to present on both of those items. Chair, I can move the projection report if you would like.

Please.

Our next scheduled hearing is on May 6. That on that day, we had continued the utility scale solar amendment project, and that will be here in Santa Barbara. Again, that's May 6. After May 6, we canceled the thirteenth, and so we will not reconvene again until May 27, and that will be here in Santa Barbara. And we have the continued item of Chick fil A, and then we also have the Stanford Farms Trust, appeal of the TRL parcel map.

And then after that, we will be reconvening on June 3 in Santa Barbara. Two items on that. We tentatively place the BROC core investment vesting determination and then the five year capital improvement program on that one. And then on June 10, we'll be in Santa Maria for a tenant parcel map in the San Yenas area and then a development plan permit transfer for the Santa Maria asphalt refinery. Again, June 10 is in Santa Maria. And then we will be back in Santa Barbara on June 24 for the airport land use compatibility plan and consistency amendments. That concludes the projection report, mister chair.

Alright. Thank you. Now normally, in our agenda, we would proceed now to general public comment. But due to the unusual nature of our proceedings today, we're going to go directly to planning commissioners' informational reports. So with that, I would like to ask mister Cooney.

Thank you Mr. Chair. I do appreciate having you adjust the agenda as it would take a long time if we didn't. But most of you know by now that this will be my last meeting on the Santa Barbara County report and a real experience of love which began back in 2006 when appointed by supervisor Naomi Schwartz. And there have been so many good experiences with staff, with especially my fellow commissioners that it definitely was a difficult decision.

However, supervisor Roy Lee, when he assumed the chair at the Board of Supervisors, he asked if I would consider extending my time on the commission and I agreed to do that for one year which is now lapsing. So, it's been a pleasure to extend the year and this year has been like all the rest full of interesting and worthwhile matters. I could try to remember all the fellow commissioners that I sat with but it would take a long time and our business is our business and we need to get on with that. But I will say there is no staff, no set of

supervisors and no greater opportunity to participate in the government of Santa Barbara County than being on the planning commission. And for that I will be forever grateful. Thank you. Thank you. I know like so many others I share my appreciation and gratitude for your great length of service to the county and to the commission.

And I really cherish the time I've been able to spend and get to know you as I cherish the opportunity to even sit next to you on this commission. So with that, I think we are next gonna talk about a resolution we have prepared.

Chair and commissioners, Mr. Villalobos is going to read and present a resolution that has been prepared for Commissioner Cooney. So we'll proceed with that.

Thank you, Secretary Wilson. And thank you for everyone for being here. It looks like we have a little bit of a crowd. Say goodbye. I'll just sorry.

I'll just read this into the record. It's a little awkward. Whereas Michael Cooney has provided exemplary and faithful service to four different board members in the 1st District for nearly twenty two years beginning in 2004 with review of the El Capitan, Camp Brown CUP revision at his first hearing, and countless other energy long range planning and development review projects along the way. Whereas Michael Cooney has been a model of tact, poise, and consideration in his relationship with staff, the public, and fellow commissioners. Whereas Michael Cooney continued to provide leadership, perseverance, and stability during COVID 19 time of planning commission hearings hosted remotely.

Whereas Michael Cooney's deliberations on projects always involved making sure that the proper level of environmental review was being applied with a certain suspicion of notices of exemption. Whereas Michael Cooney strived to weigh and balance the concepts of the residence of Carpinteria and surrounding areas as he thoughtfully and deliberately considered permits for cannabis operations. Whereas Michael Cooney, in his various comments, questions, and deliberations, has been concise and efficient in communication, whether in probing for facts or providing insight and guidance, and has proven a constant asset in facilitating the commission's ability to render well reasoned and just decisions. Whereas Michael Cooney always made sure that no semicolon was out of place during his thoughtful and thorough review of the commission's meeting minutes. Whereas Michael Cooney provided excellent leadership and guidance following the 01/09/2018 debris flow in the adoption of the like for like ordinance, whereas Michael Cooney has provided invaluable mentoring and advice to other commissioners during his tenure, and whereas Michael Cooney has consistently led the commission by exhibiting the highest standards of grooming, style, and sartorial splendor.

We

express our appreciation to Michael Cooney now therefore be it, and it is hereby resolved, the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission and on behalf of staff and the citizens of Santa Barbara County, present this resolution to First District Commissioner Michael Cooney, passed and adopted 04/29/2026.

So I, as Planning Director, am going to take the liberty to share a few remarks. I've known Michael for a very, very long time. And he is a very special person. He has provided incredibly steady leadership on this commission and shown a commitment to public service that is incredible. You've always been civil with your commissioners, with the public, with the staff.

Your intellect has been invaluable on complicated projects and in times of crises. Your kindness and just your commitment to good community planning. And you've been a good friend to me and to my team. And we are going to miss you very much. And one thing that was supposed to be on that resolution that I really wanted to remark on was your abilities to sustain yourself on a bag of potato chips and an apple for twenty two years. And with that, we have a gift for you. Potato chips for for at least a week.

You can pick

it up on the way out.

Yeah. So thank you so much, Michael. As I said, we are going to really, really miss you. And we appreciate everything you've done for the county and for your community. And we wish you the best in your future retirement and that you get to have a lot of trips and spend a lot of time with your family and your dog and really enjoy life. Thank

you.

I'm moved by just the presence of all or many of the people that I've worked with on the commission and staff that I've gotten to know on the commission. You and Diane before you have been friends and it's been a pleasure to be able to help wherever it can be given. So nobody appreciates the success of the County Of Santa Barbara and its many, many endeavors and I joined that group and as I said, I will never forget a single moment. Thank you.

And with that, I'll invite comment from other commissioners, and then we'll afford some time for general public comment and from Supervisor Lee. Commissioners?

Are you am I next? Yes. Mike, it's been a pleasure meeting you, and you were one of the first persons I spoke to. And, obviously, we've been sitting next to each other these past well, been over a year now in regards to us sitting next to each other. But you've definitely been a leader, and I recognize you as such. And I recognize that your commitment to what you're doing here today is something amiable and some of the things that we should all look up to in regards to serving our county, our community, and just being a professional in what you do and whatever you do. And I appreciate that and wish you the happiest future. Wishing you the best.

Thank you, Vince. Commissioner Park.

So I knew this day would come sometime, but I've rued the day. But one thing that I feel satisfied with is I finally get to call you something I've always wanted to call you, but thought I would hold off until you were off the commission and that is Professor Cooney, you've taught us all a lot and I think that it's brought intellectual integrity to the commission to serve with you And I'm going to point to two things that are of special importance to me.

You've

always exhibited the belief that we have a fair process and we need to follow that process. I remember as a new commissioner not really understanding the process very well And, you know, we think about, oh, what are my politics? That doesn't really matter. What do I like or don't like? That doesn't really matter.

What really matters is look at the findings. Can we make the findings or not? And if we think that we're not going to make the findings, so we're to vote against a project and be able to articulate why we can't make the findings in the reverse. If we're going to vote for something, we articulate why we support the findings. And I've learned that from you and it makes it a more satisfactory process for me and I think it better serves the public.

The other thing that I've tremendously admired is that sometimes we all get a little irritated and sometimes we get irritated with some of the appeals that we get. That's my special source of irritation when something's just so groundless and silly. But you've always returned us to the idea that, you know, it's public comment, it's the public's right to appeal, it's the public's right to comment and we have to respect that. And I think that's very, very important. So I thank you, Professor Cooney, for the years of service together and for our years together as attorneys in Santa Barbara before either of us came upon this august body.

I remember practicing in front of you when you were on the planning commission. I was still practicing. And it was funny that we'd finish a matter in the 1st District and whereas every other planning commissioner in a district rushes to talk about the matters that are in their district, you would always say, well I'd like to hear from my other commissioners and then I'll speak. And there you go. Wish you the best. Thank you, John.

Am I next? Yes. Great. Michael, although we haven't known each other for long, just about eight months, I'm in awe of you. You are a legend in this town.

You and your wife, as I think some people know, but maybe not all, received the outstanding couple in service award from the Santa Barbara Foundation. And when I read all that you accomplished, I was really filled with gratitude. In particular, of course, being an educator, your dedication to kids has made such a difference, including your long service on the Montecito Union School Board and, of course, your beloved volunteer assistant baseball coaching at my alma mater, Santa Barbara High School. Also, everyone should know that you are on the state aid commission and as well as the commission on teacher credentialing. And you add that to your long service on the Cancer Foundation and then the Planning Commission, it's nothing short of impressive.

So personally, I'm just so grateful for your thoughtful perspective every time and your gracious help and friendly outreach to me as a newbie. So basically, you're amazing. Thank you.

Thank you. Just finally myself. I said some of it before, but I feel really privileged to have had the chance to know you and to serve with you for about two and a half years. I think you've been a model of what my vision was of a thoughtful, considerate, well reasoned decision maker who sits on a board or a commission such as this. Among most of the people I've ever known, you're one of the rare few that seems to be truly kind and truly have a kind of a quiet dignity about you.

I think that's quite evident in your consideration of the issues before you, in your treatment of those that are before us and with whom you serve. And I really appreciate your quiet counsel and I would say coaching as I became chair. I've only met about two other people, it happens. Qualities? Sorry, both of them ironically attorneys, not you John, one a very accomplished patent trademark and copyright attorney I used to work with in San Francisco, another land use and energy attorney in Los Angeles and you're the third.

I mean, you just have a dignified manner of doing things and kind of an inherent wisdom that they really appreciate. So I've been honored to serve with you and honored, as I said before, to have the privilege of sitting beside you on this commission. So thank you and good luck to you. With that, I will be quiet and we'll allow just general public comment. I think we will start off with Supervisor Lee.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair Reid. Chair, commissioners. Mike, thank you for your service for all these years. You are such an amazing person and someone who I give respect and honor. And to go through four supervisors, that's that's a lot. Now after today, you can tell me who's your favorite supervisor, but I won't tell them the others. But I value our friendship, and we'll continue to do so. I'll continue to bother you. We can go out for lunch.

And but you are a gem. You are someone who I will continue to be friends with because you are someone who have done so much for not just the district but throughout the county. So thank you for what you've done, and we're not done. We'll we'll gonna do something big for you later on at the board of supervisors. So I hope everybody can be there and show him support. So, Mike, thank you.

Thank you, Roy. Next, Mr. Chitillo.

Thank you, Mr. Reid. Michael, as a frequent flyer to the Planning Commission and somebody who was here back in 2004 and had the the fortune to work with Naomi Schwartz, when she seated you in the Planning Commission, I knew that we were in for a good ride. Myriad projects, probably a couple of 100 or so that I've had a chance to work with you on, Michael, that have really been significant and have helped shape the county. Clearly, over the course of twenty two years, you've had the incredibly important role of providing guidance to every other Planning Commissioner that's come along.

And that stature and your view of decorum and the importance of process, hearing from the public, as a member of the public, I really valued that and treasured it and very, very much appreciate you. And it's a sad day and it's a day to celebrate all the great work that you've done and how you've put our county into the place that it is and you've made it accessible for the public and you've helped staff be their very best and helped render, you know, the county as we know it. So, thank you.

No, thank you, Mark. Okay, next we'll go to Wade Cowper. Cooper? I'm sorry, I just

morning. I just wanted to say briefly, almost everybody in this room and all the people up on the dais today are invested, in the future of this county and this community. But few have done that or exemplified that value with as much grace and, calmness as you have, mister Cooney. I've I actually met you a long time before we've met in this context. You were very nice to me as well when I was I was a lot younger. But I just want to say thank you so much for your service. It's been incredible to work with you. You've taught us a lot. And thank you for being patient with a couple of newbies on the street here. So thank you for your service.

Oh, thank you very much.

Any We're speaker Yeah, any others? We're not doing speaker slips. But if you feel the need, please come up. Alright. I think we'll take a recess for about five minutes. Oh, we have one? Oh, good. Okay. Come on down. We go.

Hello. Okay. I'll add to the record. So as a staffer of former first district supervisor and our current congressman, Salud Carbajal, I would be remiss if I didn't add his respect, admiration, and trust to this record today. So just wanna thank you on his behalf and Jeremy Tittle as well and the whole 1st District and the new 1st District and the long term past of the whole county. So just for all your dignified work and just keeping a community sense as we work through these land use issues. So thank you so much.

Oh, And wish thank you

so much happiness and rest in your retirement.

So if there are no others, we'll take a five minute recess. Okay. Welcome back to the April 29 hearing of the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission. Apologize that our break was Recording in in progress. The five minutes I quoted, but there was some details we needed to handle with the departure of our colleague and friend, Commissioner Michael Cooney.

At this time, I would like to proceed to general public comment. At this time, we afford the general public the opportunity to make comments on items not on today's agenda. Mister Villalobos, do we have any request to speak from the general public?

No speakers online and seeing no one rise in the hearing group, so no.

Alright. So we'll proceed to planning commissioners informational reports. Do we have any information reports from any commissioners at this time? Seeing none, I think we will proceed to the minutes of April 8. I would invite Commissioner Cooney to give us a report since he has been proclaimed to be the most competent.

Oh, sorry. Oops. Okay.

So for the minutes of April 8, have you noted any corrections, additions, or deletions?

No. I might have found one but forgot it in the review process. So I would move approval of the minutes as presented.

Okay. I would be happy to second. All in favor? Aye. Aye.

Now the director's report and the board of supervisors hearing summary. Ms. Plowman.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. Recent actions at the board have included the budget workshops and I'm not sure if you monitored those. Was a particularly challenging budget year with a lot of cuts to the social services and county health. So it was a tough year for the board.

They had worked to restore, I think it's about 150 employees in departments to ensure we county can deliver those services. The planning department had asked for restoration of one position, but I didn't have an expectation that we would get it given all of the other important services we need to continue to provide. We do have a potential grant opportunity that we are seeking now that we hope could help fund the restoration of that position. So we will keep you apprised of that. So currently, the way the department fared is we did remove two positions that had been vacant.

We left them vacant because we anticipated this was going to be happening from long range planning. So we went from 15 available staff to 13. So what that does is just slow the work of that division. It doesn't cancel any particular project. But I will keep you apprised of our ability to get a grant because it's not easy to get grants these days.

They are few and far between. So this is related to the safety element, this particular one. And then on the twenty first, we took the local preference marketing plan concept to the board of supervisors and they did make a few changes to it, which I think are beneficial. They extended the amount of time that developers have to reach out in advance to local businesses, chambers, and different associations to twelve weeks. So twelve weeks before they start marketing to the general public, they've got to make these efforts with the local organizations.

They also, at the request of Supervisor Hartman, added the Santa Ynez housing market area. And there was some discussion of adding other housing market areas, but the other board members did not move forward with that concept. They have decided to keep it to those two housing market areas for now. It's possible that that will be expanded at some point in the future. But there was a question raised about that, and in particular in North County, those board members did not take that up.

So with those changes, we're gonna be coming back, I believe it's on the fifth, on the administrative agenda. And then it will go into effect thirty days after that. So I am grateful for the commission's contribution to that. I think, as far as I know, we're the only jurisdiction, that has a program that attempts to address local housing for market rate units. And we're gonna be sharing what we've done with other jurisdictions in the county to see if they have an interest in doing something similar.

Future board items include briefing to the board on the May 12, which is about increasing the number of ministerial permits. So that means basically downshifting them from a land use permit or a coastal development permit, which are appealable, down to ministerial permit like the permits that we grant for the housing element projects. So they are not appealable. So the board will be giving us direction. We've given them some concepts to provide for them to consider and then they can share whether or not they think we're going in the right direction.

And then on the June 23, we are taking back the oil and gas amendment to the board, the Planning Commission heard. And so they will be taking action on that day. And that is all I have today. And I'm happy to answer any questions.

Got a couple.

Okay.

Okay. On the local preference, you said the fourth and fifth district supervisors, it was their election that it not be explored at this time.

That's correct.

Okay. Alright. I had another question, but it slipped my mind. So that's fine. Thank you.

All right. Thank you very much.

Looks like we're ready for our standard agenda. Mr. Villalobos, would you please read the first item into the record?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. The following is a hearing on the request of the property owner Robert McKay at BMO LLC to consider the following case numbers. Case number 25DVP00001 25CDP00008 and to determine the project is exempt from CEQUA pursuant to state CEQUA guidelines section one five three zero three.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Commissioners. My name is Veronica King and I will be presenting the BMO LLC handrail project. The subject law is outlined in red, addressed as 2305 Finney Street within the Summerlin Community Plan area. The figure on the left shows the site's location between Lookout Park to the West, the railroad to the North and the Pacific Ocean to the South.

The parcel is 0.34 acres and is split zoned. As shown on the figure to the right, the western half is in the recreation zone, and the eastern half is zoned R1 for single family residential. All proposed improvements are located within the recreation zone portion of the site with no changes to the residential area. Under Article two, any development in the recreation zone requires a development plan and coastal development permit, which is why this otherwise minor safety handrail project is before you today. The configuration of this split zone parcel was established through a lot line adjustment, rezone and general plan amendment approved by the Board of Supervisors in 2003.

As part of that approval, a development exclusion area was created on the recreation zone portion of the parcel to limit future development. Within this area, only minor accessory structures such as fences, walkways and drainage devices deemed appropriate by planning and development are permitted. An existing private stairway is located within this development exclusion area. The stairway descends from the applicant's deck and provides the connection to the Morris Place Trail below. Notably, this feature is recognized in the Summerlin Community Plan as an existing improvement that is allowed to remain.

This slide shows photos of the existing stairway. The image on the left shows the stairs descending from the Hopkins Deck to the Moores Place Trail below. The center image shows the stairway as it ascends toward the deck. The image on the right shows the base of the stairway where it meets the Moores Place Trail, looking south towards the beach. The project is a request for a development plan and coastal development permit to construct a 3.5 foot tall metal handrail along an existing private stairway to the beach.

The subject lot is outlined in red and is bisected by the Recreation Zone District in green and the R1 Zone District in yellow. The Morris Place Beach access trail is depicted in blue. The applicant's private stairway, shown in orange, connects to the trail. The proposed handrail, shown as a dashed lime green line, will be installed along the north side of the stairway to improve pedestrian safety. On the left is the site plan showing the proposed handrail along the existing stairway, and on the right is an elevation of the handrail.

The stairway is bordered by landscaping and boulders. Under the 2003 approval, any structures within the development exclusion area must be set back at least 10 feet from the Morris Place Public Trail and limited to a maximum height of four feet. The project meets both of those requirements. The blue line on the left shows the 10 foot setback from the trail, and the handrail will not exceed four feet in height, as shown on the right. The project complies with all applicable development standards in Article two and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Summerlin Community Plan policies.

The scope of work is limited to the installation of a handrail along an existing stairway on private property. Because the work is confined to this existing stairway, there are no impacts to biological resources, no grading or disturbance to the site, and no known cultural resources will be affected. The handrail is low profile and not visible from the beach, it will not impact public views or the visual character of the area. Overall, this is a minor safety improvement that is consistent with all applicable policies. The project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA Section 15,303.

The installation of a safety handrail to support pedestrian use of an existing private stairway qualifies as the construction of a small structure and is therefore exempt under this section. Staff recommends your Commission make the required findings for approval, determine the project is exempt from CEQA, and approve the project subject to the conditions of approval. Staff is available to answer any questions. Thank you.

Any questions? Commissioner Cooney? Not at this time. No questions. No questions.

Chair and commissioners, just a reminder.

Excuse me?

Did we do ex parte before we did that?

No, we didn't. Ex parte? Anybody do any ex parte, any site visits, discussion with the I do not. No? None. Okay. No ex parte. I have a question or two. We know how high the rail is. It's three and a half feet high. How long is that from one end of the steps to the 10 feet from the trail?

Chair Reid, I can double check on the actual length. It extends from the base of the well, not the base, actually, the deck area on the applicant's property down the stairway, and then it does maintain that 10 feet of separation as required by the condition of approval from the prior lot line adjustment. So, I can measure that.

It's not critical. I would just raise it 50 feet, 75 feet. When I look at the drawing and I look at it, I can't really tell. I just, just for my own edification, that was a question. 50.

Yeah. Commissioner Reid, it's about 50 feet.

About 50 feet. Okay. Yeah. And these, the holes for it, are they gonna be bored through the stone steps? So not in the surrounding?

What's

the Yes. That's It's gonna be stainless?

Yes, stainless steel.

Polished or dull? What's the

Well, we can that detail isn't included in the plan set, but we can condition the project to be a non reflective finish if you'd like.

I think non reflective would be nice. Can't. We've seen people complaining because they see a reflection from a tile in their eye when they're drinking tea. So to me, that's the only conceivable objection. So thank you very much.

Thank you.

And does applicant have a presentation? Yes. Okay.

Good morning, Chair Reid and Commissioners. Excuse me. I'm Nicole Bergiel with SEPS land use consulting representing the property owners and I just want to say a few words on their behalf. Miss King provided all the details I think you need but I did want to say that this is primarily motivated by safety concern. I have permission to share that the owner is 80. He is just recovering from back surgery, and, you know, this is really gonna help him navigate that trail, as well as his grandchildren, safely. So that's the primary motivation.

What's the rise of that staircase? The degree of slope. How

You know, it's interesting. If you look at the plans, it really varies because it was an organic trail. It has been there for decades that they reinforced in a few key places with steps. So it really varies. It's not consistent.

No other questions? Was they say a picture worth a thousand words? When I look at that and I look at that picture, it doesn't look like anything. I'd want to walk down without a railing.

I Well, and the stairs extend about two thirds and the rest is kind of dirt. So, yeah, it's it's a little tricky.

No additional questions from commissioners? Commissioner Cooney.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would just mention that it's been several years since I've seen a project on that particular location but it's valuable not only to the owners but to passersby trying to get down to the beach. So, I think they've done what they should do to make it a safe and a trail that will make sense for that area without causing any other negative effect in the neighborhood.

Thank you. So, at this time, I guess we would invite any public comment. If there is any, do we have any?

Mr. Chair, no commenters online. And I don't believe we've received any physical speaker slips on this item.

Alright. I suppose that we will close the public portion of this, and we will invite comments, deliberations from commissioners. Commissioner Ford. Oh, Commissioner Ford.

Thank you, mister Reed. I just would say, I could not help but like you think about the safety issue here. I know that I always like to hold on to a handrail, as I did over the weekend at the Santa Barbara Bowl. And as one of the members of the public in our, letter said that this would allow for stability and peace of mind, I completely agree. It's attractive. It blends into the surrounding area. So I support it.

Commissioner Park.

Well, I'm glad that we had such a challenging 1st District project for commissioner Cooney's final day. And he'll be able to utter his immortal words about the rest of us going first and so forth. But I read the report. I'm disappointed nobody invited me for a staff visit, but I'll get over that. I mean, for a site visit. And of course safety is paramount, so it's a good idea. I support the project.

My main comment is I'd like to thank doctor I mean, doctor. I was in the medical business for way too long. Commissioner Cooney for his insight, with respect to safety. Actually, it were my stairway and I didn't have a handrail, I would be afraid someone would fall off of it and sue me. So I think it's an excellent idea that I would fully support.

Well,

as short termer, I would like to move approval of the project as presented today. I'll second it.

And commissioners, I just wanted to circle back on a comment, I think, the chair in regards to adding a condition for non reflective material. So if the motion maker, if the commission agrees with that and the motion maker would want to say the conditions as revised today to include non reflective material of that handrail. Turning back to the commission, that was a comment that I didn't hear discussed with the commission before the motion. But if the motion maker and the commission wants to add that, then my recommendation is just improve the project based on the conditions as revised to date to include that non reflective material on the guardrail.

Well, as the motion maker, I agree with that comment and would treat the recommended action as modified at this meeting.

And as the maker of the second, I accept the alteration of the motion.

So all in favor? Are we gonna do roll call or just amass one? We'll just do all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Abstentions? You've got your railing.

Mr. Chair, while staff is still organizing themselves, should I read the item into the record?

Suit yourself if you want to do it now or when they're set up. Thank you. Go ahead.

All right. Thank you. The following is a hearing on the request of Los Alamos Investments LLC to consider the following case numbers, 23TRM123DVP1824RDN224GOV526SCC3, and to consider the state California Environmental Quality Act section guideline sections one five one eight six eight c four and one one eight three checklist for the twenty twenty twenty three to twenty twenty thirty one two thousand and thirty one housing element update, PEAR build out, and determine that all of the environmental impacts of the project are within the scope of the project covered by the pro PEAR, that the previously certified PEIR is adequate and that no subsequent environmental review is required pursuant to sequel guidelines sections one five one six two, one five one eight three, and one five one six eight c.

Okay. First, I'd like to call for any ex parte communications from the commissioners.

Commissioner Park? And I'm sure you're including site visits as well. Correct?

Yes.

Yes. And I did a drive by a few days ago, back and forth and took a look.

Commissioner Commissioner Ford, your lights on.

Sorry. Sorry. Sorry.

Okay. I actually, on the April 14, did a site visit with miss Jones, the applicant, and I believe a representative of the architect. I did that on the fourteenth. Then yesterday afternoon, after looking at the comment letters, I returned and drove around the complete site and looked at it from all aspects. That we could proceed with staff. Thank you.

Alright. Good morning, Chair Reid and Commissioners. My name is Tina Mitchell and today I'll be presenting the Los Alamos Investments Housing Project. The project site is shown here in yellow and is located on the eastern side of the Los Alamos community plan area, North of Highway 101. Access to the site is provided from Frontage Road and Price Ranch Road.

The project site consists of three assessor parcel numbers that total approximately 30 acres. The two southern APNs are zoned for a 46 unit planned residential development. The northern parcel is zoned residential ranchette with a five acre minimum parcel size. Surrounding parcels to the north and Northeast are zoned for agricultural uses. To the Southeast, there is m one zoning, which is the light industry zone, c one zoning, which is limited commercial, and a few parcels zoned for single family residential.

Directly to the South is Frontage Road and Highway 101. And to the West, there is mobile home plan development zoning, single family estate residential, and then the residential ranchette. Here's a closer look at the existing project site from above. The Rancho Los Alamos Mobile Home Park is to the west of the site, and there are seven existing single family dwellings to the east. San Antonio Creek flows over the project site, and there are several structures including three single family dwellings and accessory structures that will all be demolished in the lower western portion of the project site.

And there are two single family dwellings in the southeast corner that will remain. I'll give a quick overview of the project description here and then go into more detail on each component in later slides. So the project includes a tentative tract map to subdivide the project site into 77 lots, a development plan for construction of 67 new single family and townhome units through state density bonus law, as well as community amenities for a total of approximately 108,000 square feet of structural development. A road naming request for four new private roads within the development. A government code section six five four zero two conformity determination for a voluntary trail easement dedication to the county, and a signed certificate of conformance for two new monument signs at the entrances to the development.

This project is subject to several state housing law protections because it's a residential subdivision with multiple units proposed. Pursuant to the housing account accountability act, the project is only required to be consistent with objective requirements. Housing development projects cannot be denied or required to reduce the density unless the decision maker finds with substantial evidence that the project would have a specific adverse effect on public health and safety. The applicant submitted a complete SB three thirty pre application on 01/28/2026, which vested the project based on the fees, ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect on that date. There was a large LUDC ordinance amendment package that went into effect shortly after this date.

So just take note that the analysis of this project is based on the code in place prior to that package. Additionally, the project is subject to a maximum of five hearings, including continuances and hearings for appeals. And lastly, the project is using state density bonus law to increase the the density allowed on the site and waive certain development standards in exchange for providing affordable units. The state density bonus law proposal includes seven deed restricted units that will be affordable for very low income households, which provides the applicant with a 50% density bonus for the project and an unlimited number of development standard waivers. Three waivers are proposed and include a waiver of the requirement for street facing porches, balconies, or patios, reduced landscape buffer requirements between walkways and private yard areas, and a minimal increase in the maximum allowed light level along a few of the property lines.

State density bonus law also allows developers to to use reduced on-site parking ratio requirements. Pursuant to state density bonus law, the county cannot require more than 110 parking spaces for this project. However, the project includes 121 spaces at individual dwelling units plus 40 visitor and days spaces throughout the development. These requests were analyzed in detail in the staff report and were found to be consistent with state law and county code. The tentative track map includes a number of different lot types, including several common open space lots with which total approximately 10.9 acres, 69 lots for residential units, which are all clustered in the southern part of the map, private roads and access and utility easements.

North of San Antonio Creek, Lot 72 is the parcel zoned R R 5. It will not be developed as a part of the project, and it's not part of the open space calculation. The map also includes a 200 foot wide agricultural buffer along the eastern property line north of San Antonio Creek. This buffer area is required because the eastern property line in that area is adjacent to rural ag two zoned property. No development is proposed within the buffer except very minimal landscaping near the community pool area.

And the map is also showing the location of a 25 foot voluntary public trail easement to the county, and that is the subject of the six five four zero two conformity determination. Here's a closer look at the development plan area, which includes 67 new single family and townhome units, 10.9 acres of common open space, which will include community gardens, landscape pathways, children's play areas, and picnic areas. Additionally, there will be a private community pool at the northern end of the development. And as previously mentioned, there are several existing structures, most of which will be demolished except for the two existing units in the Southeast corner. All structural development is located South Of San Antonio Creek in an area that's bordered to the east and west by similar residential development.

Here are a couple example elevations out of the eight different model types just to give you an idea of what the housing will look like. There will be 24 units that are single story and 43 units that are two story. The maximum height of the two two story units is approximately 26 feet, which is well below the PRD zone height limit of 35 feet. The project plans are consistent with the county's objective design standards and were peer reviewed for consistency with those standards. This map shows the overlay areas that are on the project site.

There is the regulatory floodway and then the flood hazard overlay associated with San Antonio Creek shown in the two different blue colors here. Flood control has reviewed all development and drainage measures proposed with the project and confirmed that there are no health or safety concerns. No residential structures are proposed in the floodway and those that are within the flood hazard areas comply with the requirements of chapter 15 a, which is the floodplain management ordinance, and 15 b, which is the development along water courses ordinance. There is a riparian habitat buffer shown here around San Antonio Creek with the green line that extends 50 feet from the edge of riparian vegetation along San Antonio Creek. As discussed in the staff report, a portion of the community pool area will encroach and require a reduction of that riparian vegetation buffer by about 12 feet in a very limited area.

The reduction of the buffer was reviewed in the biological assessment for the project, and the project includes habitat restoration and enhancement along the creek as mitigation. No structural development will encroach within the 50 foot top of bank buffer, which is shown with the red line. Lastly, there's a scenic buffer overlay, which is intended to preserve views from Highway 101. That buffer extends 50 feet from the southern property line. No structures will be located within the scenic buffer except for one single story unit in the northwest corner.

Neighboring parcels include structures that are similar to the proposed unit that also encroach within the scenic buffer, And the project includes landscaping along the frontage area to screen the development from public views. The project includes a road naming request for four new private roads within the proposed track. These roads will be named Oldwell Drive, Yellowtail Lane, Gopher Gulch Way, and Pargo Drive. These names are consistent with the road naming criteria in the LUDC and were cleared by several county departments to ensure that there are no duplicates of existing road names in the county. As previously mentioned, the project includes a government code conformity determination for the voluntary 25 foot wide trail easement dedication to the county.

County parks has reviewed the trail easement location and is supportive of the dedication. The staff report analyzes the project's consistency with the comprehensive plan, and county parks will take that analysis as a consistency report to the board when the dedication is accepted. Construction of the trail is not proposed as a part of the project, and any future trail development within this easement area will be constructed by the county once there is connectivity with future trail easements along the creek corridor. And the final entitlement request is a signed certificate of conformance for two monument signs that will be located at the primary and secondary entrances to the development. The signage complies with all sign standards in the LUDC, including maximum sign area, number of signs, location, and height.

The signs will receive director level approval prior to construction and are not part of the recommended actions for the commission. They are part of this overall housing project, so that's why the analysis was included in the staff report. The project is consistent with the objective requirements of the county's comprehensive plan, including the Los Alamos community plan, which envisioned clustered multifamily residential development on this property. Although the project is entitled to density bonus for additional units, it's still consistent with the community plan's intended location and type of development for this site. With the waivers allowed pursuant to state density bonus law, the project is also consistent with the objective LUDC requirements, including the PRD zone standards for setbacks, height limit, open space, parking, and landscaping, the objective design standards for multiunit housing, the agricultural buffer requirements, and the road naming criteria.

And lastly, the project is consistent with the objective subdivision regulations in chapter 21 of the county code. For environmental review, staff relied on both the housing element programmatic EIR and the Los Alamos community plan EIR, both of which considered multifamily development south of the creek. In addition to demonstrating compliance with applicable policies from the Los Alamos community plan, the applicant also prepared all of the studies required by the housing element PEIR for the proposed development to ensure compliance with mitigation measures. These studies included tree replacement and habitat restoration plans, a construction traffic and management plan, a transportation demand management plan, traffic study, noise study, solid waste management plan, among others. All of these studies concluded that the development would have a less than significant impact on the environment with the exception of vehicle miles traveled, which I'll go into more detail about on the next slide.

Though no development is currently proposed on the R R 5 Lot, any future development on it would be subject to the applicable Los Alamos community plan policies and standards. After implementation of the PEIR mitigation measures, one significant impact will remain for vehicle miles traveled. The PEIR anticipated significant impacts related to VMT and the project will not re result in an increase in the severity of those anticipated significant effects. The project incorporates the transportation demand management measures described in mitigation measure t one to reduce vehicle trips to and from the project site. These measures include bike parking, pedestrian connections, and a discounted public transit pass program for residents and will result in an approximate 11% reduction in VMT.

The statement of overriding considerations that the board adopted when they certified the housing element update PIR was limited to the selected rezoned and county owned sites. Therefore, in order to approve this project, the Planning Commission must adopt a statement of overriding considerations, which is included as finding 1.4 in attachment a of the staff report. Based on this review, staff recommends that the commission follow the procedures outlined in this slide to approve the project. One, make the required findings for approval as specified in attachment a of the staff report, including CEQA findings. Two, determine the previously certified PEIR and the Los Alamos Community Plan EIR are adequate and no subsequent environmental review is required.

Three, approve the track map, the development plan, and the road naming requests subject to the conditions of approval in attachment b of the staff report. And for direct staff to transmit the government code section six five four zero two conformity report to the Real Property Division and the Board of Supervisors. That concludes my presentation. I am available for questions, And we also have the applicant team available.

Okay, well, I'll start with a few. First, as is common in all these projects, people question how did we get to that density? So the state bonus density law gives them a because they have these seven low rent that is activated, right? So that's how they get 46 plus 23, which is the 69. And that's determined by state law, not our choice, Right?

That's correct. State density bonus law does dictate that density bonus. It's a certain ratio depending on how many units and what the affordability level is going to be. So they're doing seven very low income units That gets them a 50% density bonus. The 50% is based on the base density. So 50% of forty six twenty three, like you said, gets them.

Okay. So similarly, on the parking spaces, state density bonus law requires a minimum of 110 parking spaces. Is that correct?

That's the maximum They that we can have certain maximum ratios. It's like 1.5 spaces per unit, I believe.

So we really don't have any latitude to require them to have more parking.

Is that correct? We don't. No.

Correct. Okay. There's that one. Then looked like relatively smooth sailing through your presentation. And when I got it, know, initially, I had looked at the flood way and the flood overlay in the Los Alamos special problems area, in that I guess all of Los Alamos is low lying and kind of a riparian area.

Then I look at your slide and I see these big swaths of blue. Now, know that's in the staff report, says it's reviewed by county flood control and everything, and you touched on that, but could you give me just in the audience a little more insight in the overall special problem zones in Los Alamos, and then the way this development is created, and the accommodations, and why we shouldn't be concerned about them getting flooded out.

Chair Reid. So yeah, Los Alamos has the special problems area overlaid quite a bit of it and it's all related to flooding issues. And this project, the big chunk of it is within the flood hazard overlay, which doesn't necessarily prohibit structures from being within that area. They just have to be built to meet flood control standards. And what you're you'll see with that is a raised foundation, of two feet.

So they are gonna have to meet that within the flood hazard area. That's all stipulated in flood controls condition letter, so and has been reviewed by them. The only structures and development that's within the actual floodway are non residential structures. It's for their community pool area and structures associated with that. So nobody's gonna be living in the structures that are in the floodway and they will have to be designed to meet FEMA requirements in that area.

Okay. So with respect to that, did flood controls analysis we always talk about things like fifty year floods, hundred year floods, the level of water rise. All those taken into account in making those evaluations and judgments?

Chair Reid, yes. They had to produce a no rise analysis for this project, that essentially confirms that there will be no rise in the flood level during a hundred year storm. That's my understanding.

Alright. Road naming, they're all compliant, although I find a couple of them funny. Go Gulch. Yeah, go for Gulch Way. But, yeah. So, but then the trail easement, the 25 foot wide trail easement, does it currently align with any existing county trails or planned county trails or is

Chair Reid, it is not. There, however, is a policy in the Los Alamos Community Plan that encourages county parks to establish a PRT, which is Parks, Recreation and Trail line in that area. So this does push them closer to meeting that goal, and Parks was happy that the applicant was willing to provide this.

Alright. As far as Ag buffers, we did so much work with Ag buffers on the AEO things. So the Ag Commissioner is confident that that 200 foot buffer will satisfy all the neighbors?

Chair Reid, yes. We worked very closely with the Ag Commissioner's office to review that Ag buffer. It's in a good location in terms of wind direction and all the development is, you know, outside of that and south of it. It was agreeable to the Ag Commissioner's Office.

All right. Then I'd like to look at the VMT, the vehicle miles traveled. County threshold 14.8 is anticipated. This project average vehicle mile traveled per resident will be almost 40 miles a day. Now, is that a product that we expect them to be driving enthusiasts? Or we expect it more likely they're gonna be commuting to a job, there not being a tremendous amount of employment in Los Alamos? What's behind that estimate?

Chair Reid. Yeah, that's all in the transportation study. I do believe it accounts for some commuting. So Okay. You know, the workplaces within the area.

Yeah. Chair Reid, members of the commission, it's largely driven by the rural nature Los Alamos and frankly it's the reality in much of North County that you know the county average is most properties in the North County are coming in above that just because of so many commuters to different Right.

Work sites.

Okay. Thank you. I'd like also to look at one of the findings we're going to need to make is finding 2.1.5. That's the finding on the proposed project, will not be detrimental to comfort, convenience, general welfare, health, the safety of the neighborhood, and will not be incompatible, which incompatibility is a pretty common objection we see on most of these projects. But if you look at the body of that, and this finding is, isn't it correct it was vetted through county council?

That's correct.

In that you find this finding is subjective and cannot be used as a means to deny the project pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act?

Chair Reid, yes. The language in that finding is subjective. There's no objective parts to it. We did respond, you know, to how it is compatible, but it cannot be used as I'm means just to

defining that I don't like it. It does not and then when you're looking at Los Alamos, it's quite a diverse variety of architectural styles and constructions. I think it's kind of hard to determine what fits and what doesn't. Are the streets around this, is it legal parking on all of the surrounding streets twenty four hours a day? There's no parking requirements or anything like that. No overnight parking.

Chair Reid, are you speaking about roads outside of the development or The perimeter of the development. Yeah. So Frontage Road and Price Ranch Road. I do believe those are open to street parking. I don't imagine that most residents would find that ideal to walk outside of the development.

I saw it was dirt and some people had pretty random parking patterns, so to speak. Yeah, okay. Then finally, the statement of overriding considerations. It's in your staff report. Yeah. Page A5. The project's social and economic benefits outweigh its significance and unavoidable impact. Obviously, increasing the supply of housing in the community of Los Alamos, including the seven very low income deed restricted units, the voluntary public trail easement, etcetera. Okay, and we need to make that finding that that's true, right? That's

Gerry Reid, yes. Okay.

Great. All right. At the moment, those are my questions. Any questions from other commissioners? Commissioner Park?

Yes.

I want to work through the parking a little bit because one of the neighbors has raised that issue. And then I also want to get back to slide 17 on the VMTs. So let's take parking first. It's 67 new units, but there's two existing, right? So the two existing, they must have parking right now. Is their parking that they have right now included in the calculation of 121 parking spaces for the project? Or is that supplemental to it?

Commissioner, park through the chair. I do believe it's included in the calculation.

Okay. I don't think it matters that much. It's just for my sake of going through numbers it could make a difference. But bear with me. So 69 units or limited to a maximum of 110, is that right? 110 seems more than 1.5 times 69 to me. Does that 110 include the amenity spaces or something? Is that what

Go to the statistics section. Hold tight. We're getting to the section. It's gonna be yeah.

Well, don't spend a lot of time on this because they're providing much more than the maximum anyway. Whether the maximum is 104 or 110, I'm just illustrating something. But this project, let's say there's a maximum of 110, which I think it's 104, but let's say it's 110. But they're going to provide 121 for the through the garages and adjoining spaces for the units, another 32 for the guest parking, and I think it's eight more for amenity parking. So it's 161 spaces.

And so that's almost two and a half spaces per unit as opposed to a state limiting us to requiring one and a half spaces per unit. Right? Okay, so I understand this correctly. Good. Let's move on to VMT. Okay, and that's your slide 17.

Slide 17.

And you know what it is, it's that for four bedroom units you can have two and a half. It's by state law and that's

That's why we got up to 110.

Exactly.

But we're still way over part compared to state requirements. That's correct. On VMTs, you might remember I made a brief presentation on this, a program that Riverside County has for mitigating VMTs through a bank and getting funds into affordable housing. And I made the comment that VMTs are something we don't often understand very well. Almost every project we get generates a lot of VMTs and we don't know how to mitigate them and we wind up issuing a statement of overriding considerations.

That's what this looks like to me. 14.8 is the threshold, so if we're up to 39.7, we would hope to mitigate it down to 14.8 if possible, right?

If possible, yeah.

But it never is possible. Even with all these kind of programs here is the bike parking, the bus passes, things like that. We're able to knock off 4.5 VMT and then we are going to issue a statement of overriding considerations for all the rest, right? Okay. Well again I understand this, I'm going comment on it when we get to deliberations. I don't want the applicants to be scared of my comments because Santa Barbara County does not have a program like Riverside County has that would allow you to do a full mitigation. We should and I'll comment on it, but we don't have one yet. So don't worry about what I'm going to vote.

If

there are no more questions from commissioners, we can go to the applicant's presentation.

Good morning, chair and commissioners. First of all, congratulations, commissioner Cooney, on your retirement. And I also want to thank staff for their collaboration throughout this review process. You have been professional and exceptional in your communication and your time and being available for meetings. And I really appreciate your abilities and your excellent staff report and PC packet.

So with that, we're happy to be here today to go over the project with you. I'm joined by my project team, the property owner, Tyler Raymison. Our architects from Kevin Moore Architects, Kevin Moore and Jennifer McGisick. Robert Schmidt, our civil engineer, is online. And Waters Cardenas is our land surveyor who prepared our tracked map.

Justine Cooper, our biologist, is also online if we have any questions for her. As staff reviewed, and I don't want to reiterate too much the various types of application packages before you today, the project development standards, the objective design standards, etcetera, We feel like the project is consistent and has been determined to be consistent with general plan policies and the zoning ordinance. The draft conditions are acceptable to us and we believe the required findings can be made for project approval. The project has some great community benefits, as was touched on, respect to the creek buffer and setbacks, enhanced native plantings, the fact that there's no native tree removals proposed, and a sustainable approach to the project itself, the dedication of the trail easement, the large open space that is provided, the amenities of the project, the community gardens, the parking, and the variety of housing types and styles that are provided. And I did want to note, as mentioned in the staff report, that while this is designated as a rental project, because it is a tract map, it's not going to preclude for sale of any of these lots in the future, with the exception of the seven de restricted units.

With that, I want to introduce our property owner.

Thank you, Heidi. And thank you commissioners and chairman for allowing me to present the project. I'm very excited and proud of it. And before I start, I also want to thank staff. I mean, it's been a years long process that they've worked tremendously hard on along with my team. So just want to thank everybody for their hard work before I start. I want to tell you a little bit about myself, how I ended up here before you, telling you about the project. I'm not a big time developer from Orange County. I'm a local kid. That's me on the right there, I don't know, five years old on Halama Road.

And then that's me when I was about 22, also on Halama Road growing some pumpkins. So I grew up not far from the project site. I took the school bus from Fox And Canyon Road to Los Olivos Elementary School. Later on, I moved to Lompoc. I went to Cabrillo High School.

I graduated from UCSB. And after trying my hand at growing some pumpkins, I realized I would never be able to afford a home here. And I I went off to graduate school and went to MIT in Boston. I graduated from there, still realized I couldn't move back to to Santa Barbara. I needed to go somewhere more affordable, so I moved to Manhattan.

And I started working on Wall Street, and I worked there for many years until I could finally afford to move home. So my wife and I, we moved home and we started a family. We have five kids, a few of them at MUS, San Marcos, DP. Santa Barbara County is my home. I started a business here when I moved back, and I realized how hard it was to get young people to come to work in Santa Barbara.

First of all, it's very expensive. No one can really afford to live here. And when they get here, they realize that there's no other young people because no one can afford, no one young can afford to live here. So what I realized firsthand how important housing is and providing housing to lower the costs of living here. I've lived a lot of places, and I think Santa Barbara County is the best.

And my degree is in economics, and I know that the best way to lower the price is to increase the supply. So I decided to if it wasn't me, who was going to do it? So I found this property in Los Alamos, zoned for what I'm trying to do, bring housing. And we got started. I just hope you like the project as much as I do and that we can do our part so that the next generation doesn't have to move halfway across the country to be able to afford to live here. So thank you.

Alright. Thank you members of the commission for seeing us today and reviewing our project. My name is Kevin Moore. I'm architect for the owner. And to his credit, Tyler challenged us to think outside the normal development strategies for a project like this.

His priority is to create a community that offers a high quality of life and a more sustainable approach to development. This project proposes homes organized around shared open spaces rather than streets, creating a neighborhood designed for people, landscape, and community interaction. Thanks to our project team for all your hard work and what we're here to review today. So you can see our it's really hard to see. Maybe you can borrow.

No, it doesn't. Well, at any rate, you can see the light green area indicates our project. And what's interesting about this slide is that it really reveals the footprint of the development which you can see the little houses and roads relative to the open space that's being preserved as a part of this project. So most residential developments, as you see across the freeway, prioritize the car, the houses are large, they fill up the site, there's very little common open space, and what there is is very fragmented and generally inconsequential. Adjacent to the site we have the mobile home park to the left and then Price Ranch Road on the right.

Along Price Ranch Road, there's a collection of different housing styles and massing. The newer houses are two stories and have kind of a ranch vernacular to them. So our project is structured around a series of interconnected open spaces. These key principles include homes that front onto shared greens, landscape areas, common amenities. Streets are secondary.

Garages are located behind the units to minimize visual impact. Pedestrian pathways wind through and connect the pockets to the larger neighborhood. Small clusters of homes create identifiable pocket neighborhoods within the larger neighborhood. As we zoom in into one of these areas, can see how those central green spaces become those pockets and they're ringed by those individual units. And each of those units has a porch on the front that looks out onto that shared community open space.

And again, each of those open spaces are connected by pathways so that the residents can wander through the neighborhood and experience all of those different little nodes. The benefits to the residents is that pedestrian spaces are prioritized creating a safer and more comfortable environment. Front doors and porches face those open spaces and encourage neighbor interaction and they create larger landscape areas that provide gathering space, recreation areas and outdoor amenities. The rear loaded garages allow architecture and landscape to define the neighborhood rather than driveways and garages. In addition to the residential benefits, the project provides meaningful public benefits to the surrounding community.

Project adds 67 new homes to the community. Smaller homes and compact clustering allow the site to support more landscape and open space while still providing needing housing. The community is invited in to enjoy the pathways and reestablish creek bank. The efficient neighborhood design helps accommodate growth within the community. This design preserves the creek and removes significant area from development.

Project reduces paved surfaces and increases landscape, contributing to reduced storm water runoff, increased tree canopy, lower urban heat island effects, and greater permeable surface area. There's a couple more areas zoomed in throughout the project. There's the pool area along the creek and the restoration that's happening along the creek, which is really important to this project. A little zoom in of the entries. I also wanted to talk about the neighborhood edges.

So this project minimizes the garage dominated streetscapes and instead presents continuous landscaped edges that improve the public environment experienced by neighbors and those passing by. And this is a rendering that we produced of one of the little pockets within that project. And you can see how it really just creates an intimate space that becomes the occupants that live in these homes, it becomes theirs and they take ownership of it. They have porches that face out to it. So it becomes a really community benefit for them and I think a really nice place to be.

This is a rendering of one of the common open spaces. This one happens to have some garden boxes in it, so residents will be able to use those. And a little shed there for tools. All of this is contributing to that overall community feel.

And

then here's another rendering of another one of those pockets. So you can see the porches face out to those. And then we'll just quickly scroll through some of the elevations of the different unit types. Again, as staff mentioned, we're well under the height threshold. Twenty five foot six is our max ridge height.

It's important to note that typically the elevation that's going to present itself to the open space and to the streetways is the narrowest elevation. So you won't be experiencing large massing. And this is just some more detailed information about that pool area. There's a pool house with it for restrooms and showers. And then in closing, I'd just like to add that the project demonstrates that this is an innovative approach to neighborhood design that prioritizes people, landscape and community interaction.

The project demonstrates how needed housing can be delivered in a way that creates a higher quality living environment that benefits both residents and the surrounding community. And I'll leave it there.

I have a question? Mr. Morris, stay up there. For me on the Planning Commission, we get a lot of housing cases and we have overwhelming number of new state laws and we face our RHINA goals. So we're always thinking about housing.

And that's why I think about the project before me, but I think about what can I learn to help with the overall process? And so that's my question. So I want to give you a compliment first to kind of pay you for answering my question. And that is that I think your design fits Los Alamos just perfectly. And I'll discuss in deliberation some other great things I think about this project.

But it makes me think a lot of other projects that are roughly this size, developers wouldn't have done a project like this. They'd have 10 luxury homes, okay? And they'd sell them for $2,000,000 apiece instead of three and they'd call it affordable by design. But this looks like it really is affordable by design. And I would presume there was some intentionality to that. And I wonder if you could tell us in your process of designing this, did you think of in terms of making it affordable by design?

Certainly Commissioner Park. Absolutely. That was absolutely Tyler's intent as he communicated earlier that these units needed to be done in such a way that they could be priced affordably and constructed in an affordable way. As you know, construction is incredibly expensive right now. So what we've done is tried to reduce the footprint of the homes.

So they're not particularly large at all. So if we can make them smaller, once you spread that over the number of homes envisioned, that cost can be brought down. So it's really creating smaller units, keeping their footprint compact as a whole, and generally trying to accommodate less living space within the units themselves and try to make them as efficient as possible while providing everything that everybody needs today.

Well, thank you.

I have a This is kind of a clustered village sort of a design concept. Where did that come from?

So it began in the Northwest. There was an architect in Oregon in the, I think, early 60s who developed that term pocket neighborhood. And the vision was to, as I stated, to reverse the typical situation where you have you drive up to your home, there's a two car garage that presents itself, and that's really what you see and experience in the neighborhood. And so the intent of this design concept is to flip that, push the cars to the rear, emphasize the architecture in the home instead of the car experience.

Okay, well, I like this because it seems to, we so often look at projects that are affordable or higher density and you have essentially a bunch of boxes with doors in them. I look at these renderings you have here. I often look, what if we have a child, a kid growing up in a place like that? Well, your home is, oh, it's that box over there. It's this door and this number, whereas this affords, every kid would like to, well, that's my house or their house.

And it just seems to have a great sense of community and open spaces that are so often, I would say, this county, almost totally lacking in a lot of the projects we look at. I think these renderings are very important in promoting your concept of the design of this community and affording that. Yeah, it could well be a model for others. I particularly like the open spaces with the potential of the community garden and those sort of things. So hopefully, that's intended for us to be part of the final project.

It is. It is. And all credit to Tyler for pushing for something unique.

Well, people and kids need places to learn how to grow things and learn where food and plants and other things come from. So I would applaud that. So thank you. Commissioner Ford.

Thank you so much. Having left Santa Barbara three times, as an educator because I could not afford to live here. I really appreciate the concept and the dedication to this idea. I wonder if you have, yet done any work or study on the impact it will have on the Los Alamos School District?

Commissioner, Heidi Jones again. I think my adrenaline spike has gone down. Yes, I did reach out and meet with the Orchid Union School District. They are actively studying not only our project, but two other projects in the area and their time frames to make sure that they can absorb them and have the capacity. And it's my understanding that right now they have a low capacity, so actually having more kids come will be a benefit to them.

Low enrollment. Exactly,

yes. So I haven't heard back yet about, you know, any feedback necessarily for our project, but I have reached out to them and coordinated with them.

There is declining enrollment everywhere in the state for obvious reasons. The other question I had was that in terms of the mitigation of, the car traffic, etcetera, and just the popularity now of bicycles, It looks to me like they're just four bike parking spaces. Just wonder if there would be some thought about adding, like, some near the pool. And

Yeah. But we have a mix of, guest bicycle parking and project bicycle parking long term

and short term spaces.

I apologize. It's just hard for me to see it. Only saw where it was indicated once, but it's all throughout the project?

There's like

Oh, it's

There's One one space for every two dwelling units of bicycle parking.

Spread throughout.

Could you say that again? One space for every

Oh, sorry. One space provided at each new dwelling unit, four spaces for bike parking at the community swimming pool, 14 at other on-site community amenities such as the gardens, play areas, and picnic areas.

Okay. Yeah. There's a variety of amenities throughout the site including fire pits, children's play areas, the gardens you saw, and there's bike parking at each one of them Thanks. Scattered throughout the

And when you say there's one for each, did you say resident? So where would it be located? Is it on?

Yeah. There's also bipediting on the private lot of each resident.

Okay. Yeah. Great. Thank you.

Well, me. Each residence has a garage, doesn't it?

Excuse me. Each house. Yeah. Or some of them are townhomes.

Okay.

Each of them has a garage. Some of the townhomes have a two car garage. And each, I would say probably 85% have a gravel parking spot on their private lot. Okay. The average number of parking spots per unit is 1.75, which is over what is mandated.

And for most people, if they had a bike, they could park it in their garage.

Yeah. There's an outdoor covered Yeah. Bike parking spot as well that is fenced and secure. So

So lots of places to park your bike.

Yes.

Okay. Thank you. With no more questions from commissioners, I we will go to public comment. I have one in person slip. It's from Neil Goodman. You'll have three minutes. Yeah.

Okay. I'll I'll talk fast. I live on 360 Price Ranch Road, Selma resident. I've been there. We bought the house in 2008. I'm also a retired academic professor emeritus from Indiana University and a public sculptor. So, I've worked at the university. I worked with space and planning committee. I've chaired that for many years. So, you know, worked on impact and buildings and so forth. So, I come with a little bit of experience, you know, not quite in this regard. So and I appreciate the MIT, you know, PhD or Masters. That's impressive. Know? So okay.

I do have a question about Price Ranch Road. It's got 20 this is for the architect. Tell me about how that's gonna work, the width of it and whether there's curb parking. As I mentioned in the letter that the residents who live on Price Ranch Road can use that kind of gravel areas as as for extra cars.

Yeah.

You know and We and can you tell me?

We don't really allow public speakers to ask applicants. Okay. You're done I'll you're ask them.

Okay. You know, I bought the house with the idea that there was a planned residential development that was up to 46 units and so this really supersedes my like say my idea about what was possible. So I understand listening to the planning commission how state mandate has superseded that. I still think and I've been consistent with talking with CBAR and so forth that the issue has been density and all my neighbors are in accordance that this project is way too thick for the amount of space allocated. And also the other question, if you read the letter that I submitted, is also that if you're coming off Highway 101, I'm not quite sure that that's a very copacetic kind of how that's going to work when you enter the development.

That's a pretty fast overpass and that's had a lot of issues over time. I hope that there's a study or some kind of revision will make that safe. So I pretty much used up my time. I am concerned about the other thought is that there's been no public presentation about this project to the community of Los Alamos at large. And it would be great for Tyler to, if if this is such a wonderful plan, get a larger input because this this project is going to impact not only us as residents, but it's going to impact the community of Los Alamos.

And we are a community and we really see each other as a place where we really do discuss things that come up. And I know that whatever is going to happen with this project, it's probably already superseded any necessity for a community forum. But I think that that would be really important to hear what residents have to say because we're the ones who are going to be living there and have invested our lives there, our livelihood. And for the most part, there's been absolutely, you know, we got a letter two weeks ago or a week and a half ago about the project. I'm the only resident that was able to actually come because everybody else works and everybody else in the community has absolutely zippo knowledge about what's going on.

And I think it's important to have a, like with any kind of thing that impacts a lot of people in the future, I think it's important for some kind of forum or some kind of more public venue to discuss the impact, not only for me but for the community at large. Okay? So that's pretty much it. That's my three minutes.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Now it would be time for a response from applicant. I got a question or two for staff first. When did that, when I drove around there yesterday, I noticed there was a regular county noticing sign. How long has that been posted?

Chair Reid, that has been posted, The requirement, it got posted about two weeks ago. It's a minimum of ten days posting. There also is two mailed noticings that go out. One was done when the application was deemed complete. That was I can find yeah, about a year ago. And then, ten days prior to the hearing, another noticing goes out in the mail.

Okay. And just one more question. This is a public works question. I don't expect you'll have the answer. But first, is Los Alamos one of the EJ communities, environmental justice communities? It?

No, think so.

No? Okay, I just wondered because I noticed part of their initiatives were curb and gutter work for streets and those sorts of things. I just wonder if there are any goals or development plan with public works on improving Price Ranch Road or any of that? Do you know of anything? That's probably outside of your scope, I'm sure.

Chair Reid, well, this project does have improvements proposed along Frontage Road and Price Ranch Road and I think the applicant could probably speak to it a little more in detail. But I believe Price Ranch Road is gonna be widened onto their the property that they own. So it's gonna have improvements, sidewalk along Frontage Road, so good pedestrian connections outside of the development. And then also, the traffic study, it talks about the Highway 101 off ramps and safety for that. Caltrans did review that traffic study and, had no comments or required improvements.

It is a little challenging, know. Yeah. Yeah. The on and off. Okay. I will, with that, I'll give the applicant their chance to reply.

Yes, Chair Reid, as staff mentioned, we do have public improvements along Frontage Road and Price Ranch Road in terms of sidewalks and or parkways, you know, for pedestrian access and the road widening. There is no project parking proposed on either of those streets. Our project parking is provided on

Okay. Alright. Thank you. With that, we'll conclude the public portion and we will invite deliberations. Any commissioners would like to begin?

Commissioner Park. I think Mr. Remington should be proud of this project. It goes in the right place in Los Alamos. Los Alamos is becoming a community that is kind of in the middle of the county, but it's got some high end housing and some very low end housing and not much in between. And the low end's at one end of the town and the high end's at the other end of the town, and it's just not healthy. I'm not criticizing Los Alamos. I like Los Alamos. Used to be in my district. Nevertheless, I think this will improve that, this will provide a lot of housing, and it'll be a lovely place for people to live that aren't going to be able to afford high end housing and may not want it, they might prefer this.

And I do think that we should talk about VMTs with this as an example because if you were in Western Riverside County, they wouldn't give you a pass on the VMTs for lack of mitigation programs. I'm not criticizing your efforts to mitigate because you're doing what everybody would do, but it just only mitigates so much. A good program would have you pay into a bank so to speak or an exchange. And then those mitigation credits would help fund other projects and in that county for example that includes affordable housing projects in the right places which they think actually mitigates BMTs if you put them in the right place. We had a program like this, I I wouldn't vote for your project unless you bought those credits, but we don't have one.

So our only choice is to either say, oh, we'll vote no and deny a good affordable housing project or we'll say yes and we have to have a statement of overriding considerations which I think is what we have to do. So I will support this project.

Might as well go.

Okay. Commissioner Martinez.

I I like good morning, first of all. And I do like the renditions of what's going on up there. I I like the ideas. Personally, I just with all the limitations on HOAs and stuff, I really don't know how you're going to be maintaining that stuff out there. That's one thing that I didn't see being presented in regards to those things with the limitations popped by the risks and propositions.

But that's not the issue before us. I do have the concerns regarding parking. I don't believe in 1.5 or 1.7. I mean, you don't have one half of a car or 0.75 of a car. But again, the state laws are these that are coming down as it restricts the hands.

And I'm saying that to the Los Alamos residents in regards to there's the compliance is compliance. And that's the square we're in. But the efforts in regards to I didn't hear what affordable housing is in regards to price wise, and I don't think that's really in front of us because I think the term affordable housing is a very I would say probably subjective. But I'm not against the project. I I just it just brings out issues that I have in mind regarding the laws that we're dealing with right now. Thank you.

Commissioner Ford. Thank you for both, presentations. They were extensive, comprehensive, really interesting. I love this project. I think it has excellent focus on community building.

And, having lived in many apartments over, my career and lifetime, I can just say that the way that they face each other and the addition of all of the amenities, I think, are going to be so appealing to so many people in this county. It's very attractive and to me extensive efforts notwithstanding Commissioner Parks' comments, but extensive efforts to mitigate some of the negativity especially with traffic. I support this too.

Okay.

I look at this project. Los Alamos is kind of a community in transition. Twenty years ago, it was a little kind of cowboy, relatively affordable place but no more. There are some places on the low end, most other housing there, you look at prices, even older things are very high and the new developments, while very attractive, the single family things are very high. This really fits a need for the community.

I'm really impressed with the village design instead of the, as I said before, the mainly cuboidal sorts of grouped clustered structures we most often see. This I think would have a real sense of community for the people who live there. I think it could be a real asset to the county and perhaps a model of others. With respect to the impacts on neighbors, I realize it's gonna be hard to give up essentially a large open space that you've enjoyed since you moved in until in 2008. But like the rest of California and the rest of the county, were subject to change.

Some of the change we're subject to, we don't have a great deal of latitude in modifying and I think this will prove to be a very attractive and beneficial project particularly with reference to the potential sorts of developments that could come in. We're not this one given a chance to proceed. So I just think it'll be of great benefit. I applaud the design, the concessions in terms of the dedication of the path, the remaining open space. So what I would like to do is forward a motion to approve it, to take the recommended actions given on page 18 of the staff report.

Need I read those?

You can just refer to them.

I can just reverse them, refer to them. I'll refer to them that we adopt a statement of overriding considerations since I think this is a case where that is clearly in effect. So I would again like to make that motion. Do we have a second?

Second.

We have a motion and a second. So all in favor of Mr. Villalobos, could you please do a roll call?

Sure. Commissioner Cooney. Aye. Commissioner Ford. Aye. Commissioner Park. Aye. Commissioner Martinez? Aye. And Chair Reid? Aye. Motion passes five to zero.

Chair Reid, there's a comment I forgot to make I'd like to make.

I will accommodate you. Go ahead Commissioner I

think Mr. Goodman had a good idea about a community forum. I think that's just always useful at any stage. And I think that you should talk to the applicant about it and then you should both talk to Supervisor Nelson's office and they can help you coordinate that if you all think it's a good idea. I didn't mean to ignore that. It's a good idea.

With our business concluded, a meeting hearing will now be adjourned. We will return on May 6. Alright. Thank you.