Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay. Welcome to the May 27th hearing of the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission. As is our fashion, we invite you to join us in the Pledge of Allegiance. So, Mr. Villalobos, would you please make the TV coverage announcement?

Yes, thank you, Chair Reid, and good morning to the Commission and everyone else today. Excuse me. Just find my... Sorry, to reorganize the agenda, I could get lost a little bit here. Planning Commission hearings are televised live on County of Santa Barbara Television, CSB TV, Channel 20, at 9 a.m. in the South Coast, Lompoc, Senes Valley, Samaria, and Orchid areas, where we broadcast the County Planning Commission hearings on Fridays at 5 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 roll call? Please do. All right. COMMISSIONER MERRICK-CONNOR?

HERE.

COMMISSIONER FORD?

HERE.

COMMISSIONER PARK? I'M HERE. COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ? HERE. CHAIR REED?

HERE.

THANK YOU.

OKAY, WELL, YOU MAY HAVE NOTICED THAT WE HAVE A NEW COMMISSIONER AMONG US. IT'S MR. STEVE MERRICK-CONNOR, REPRESENTING DISTRICT ONE, REPLACING THE FORMER COMMISSIONER Michael Cooney as both Commissioner and Vice Chair. So, Mr. Mariconner, would you take a moment or two and just introduce yourself to the audience?

Mr. I will.

Thank you, Chair Reid. I appreciate it. Mr. Michael.

Mr. Oh, green. There you are.

Mr. Well, you need to turn on the microphone in order to be heard. Is that the protocol? So, let me express my appreciation to the Chair for inviting me to introduce myself. Good morning, everybody. uh... my name is steven ameri connor uh... we've lived here in santa barbara since nineteen eighty two i served as the santa barbara city attorney for eight years between eighty two and ninety i joined a private law firm here in santa barbara in nineteen ninety one worked there until the end of two thousand twenty one at which point i retired so that uh... my wife and I could take care of our new grandson, who is now five years old and doesn't need us so much anymore. And so when the supervisor of the first district asked if I would serve on the Montecito Planning Commission, I quickly and gratefully said yes. And then a few weeks ago, he asked if I would serve on the County Planning Commission. And I quickly and gratefully said yes. And I want to express my appreciation to Supervisor Lee for that invitation. And I'm looking forward to my work with this commission, which is one of the truly excellent places to serve and work in this community. And I'm excited about the opportunity. So thank you for that.

All right. Well, thank you very much. So now we need to proceed to the next task, which is to elect the vice chair for the planning commission for the balance of 2026. At this time, do we have any nominations?

Yes. You're off. You're off.

I usually leave it on tonight. I know. Okay, so I will nominate Mr. Merrick Conner as our vice chair. Did you know this was coming? No. It is worse than you think. Next up to bat, I have to use baseball terms for former Commissioner Cooney, was Commissioner Cooney next year, as I understand. This is going to be important because we will not have a replacement for our fourth district planning commissioner our chair until after our next meeting. So you will be our chair at the next meeting. So you better learn how to turn on the lights and do all those things. We will give you a little bit of it. REMINDER ON HOW TO DO IT ALL.

I'LL SECOND THAT. THANK YOU. OKAY. SO WE, YEAH, LEARNING THE LIGHT IS THE TOUGH PART. I'M STILL WORKING ON IT. SO WE HAVE A NOMINATION AND A SECOND FOR VICE CHAIR. SO CAN WE JUST DO IT WITH A GENERAL VOTE? ALL IN FAVOR OF NAMING STEPHEN AMARACONNER AS VICE CHAIR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY NAYS?

Great. Welcome. Well, thank you, I think.

Okay.

Now, can we just go ahead to Item 6? No, we can't.

Okay. I will leave this to Mr. Wilson.

Mr. Chair and Commissioners, at this point, we'd like to present a resolution to Mr. Commissioner Roy Reed. Before we do that, we want to acknowledge Supervisor Bob Nelson, who's in the audience with us. We'd like to invite him to come up and say a few words before we present the resolution to Chair Reed.

Make sure I got this right here. All right, got the light going. Well, thank you, Mr. Wilson, for the opportunity here to come and speak this morning. When you're a county supervisor, there's nothing more scrutinized than your pick for planning commissioner. AND WHEN I GOT ELECTED ORIGINALLY I HAD A REALLY EASY OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE MY PREDECESSORS OF HUNTING COMMISSIONER CONTINUE TO SERVE UNDER ME. SO I WAS ABLE TO HAVE LARRY FRENI TRANSITION FROM SUPERVISOR ADAM TO MY SERVICE AND SO THAT WAS A REALLY EASY PICK. BUT WHEN COMMISSIONER FRENI CAME TO ME AND SAID THAT HE WAS READY TO GO BACK TO THE FARM AND REALLY SPEND A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME MENTORING HIS SONS AND THE NEXT GENERATION, that we had a tall task in the fourth district to fill those shoes. And so we started looking around and Roy's name came up and it was a natural fit. The things that we value in the fourth district are a few things. One is we will always want to be thinking about the taxpayer. And Roy was a former president of the Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association. We also, agriculture is a big deal in the 4th District, and maybe some of you may have heard that. Roy is a multi-generational farmer and rancher, and has great ties to land. Roy also appreciates the oil industry, which is a big portion of the North County. He's a fierce defender of, you know, the North County, and that's a really big deal in the 4th District. And so, you know, Roy's name quickly rose to the top. We didn't interview anybody else, and I'm so proud that we did, that we brought Roy on, and Roy agreed to serve as Planning Commissioner. It's also, I have to thank the Redistricting Commission, because that got Roy into the 4th District. Previous to that, he was in the 5th District. IT'S ACTUALLY UNUSUAL ROY IS ACTUALLY A CITY OF SANTA MARIA RESIDENT AND SO TYPICALLY WHEN YOU'RE REPRESENTING A LARGE AREA OF UNACCORPORATED AREA THAT WE WANT TO HAVE SOMEBODY COMING FROM THAT AREA TO REPRESENT IT BUT I THINK ROY'S HISTORY HIS VALUES HIS ETIQUETTE REALLY SERVES THIS DISTRICT WELL AND HAS SERVED THIS DISTRICT WELL AND I'M SO APPRECIATIVE ROY FOR YOUR SERVICE TO to me, to my constituents, and to the entire county. I understand why you're leaving. When I filled out my speaker slip, I didn't want to put in favor of, right? I wanted to oppose this resolution because I would rather you stay than to go. But again, I think Santa Barbara County and the 4th District is well served by your time here. And on behalf of our district and my constituents, I wanted to thank you for your service, Roy. So thank you.

Well, thank you, Bob. It was an honor to have been chosen and definitely an honor to have been able to serve.

Actually, I meant to bring up a couple of highlights that maybe come out in the resolution and that I wanted to also mention. When he did come on, he came right on to the arena conversation, which we knew how big that was in the county. And I think it also speaks to his intellect that he picked it up quickly and did really well with that. He also helped shepherd. the FAMCON project to get approved in the North County. That's a big tax revenue generator as well as a jobs generator for us. He also helped lead on the cannabis conversation that we had both at the board and here at the planning commission. And I think where he shined the most was during the Ag Enterprise Ordinance conversation where he was able to draw on his relationships as well as his own personal experience to serve the county so well in that. So again, I wanted to highlight those things as well. Again, thank you, Roy.

Thank you, Bob.

Thank you, Supervisor Nelson. Before we present the resolution, we'd like to read it into the record and then we'll present it to you.

It's my honor to read this resolution to the record. Whereas Roy Reed has served on the Commission since December 2023 and acted as chair in 2025 during his time on the Commission He provided invaluable input on such projects such as the agricultural enterprise ordinance amendments the 2023 to 2031 housing element rezone amendments Lompoc Valley Medical Center the 2024 cannabis ordinance amendments package the Miramar acquisition company LLC housing and mixed-use development, the outdoor lighting and signs ordinance amendment, and the highway 101 widening segment 4D amendment. Whereas Roy Reid learned the operations of the Planning Commission very well, very quickly, and always came well prepared for each hearing with detailed questions. Whereas Roy Reid was very much respected and admired by staff for his detailed and insightful project review, as well as his efforts to engage with staff outside of hearings. Whereas Roy Reed continually demonstrated that members of the commission can be friends and collaborators regardless of their political differences. Whereas Roy Reed has brought a tremendous amount of professional experience and insight to his role on the commission, providing a unique perspective and style to his decision making. whereas Roy Reed consistently arrived at the meetings of the Planning Commission well ahead of the scheduled start time, impeccably dressed and well prepared. During his time as chair on the commission, Roy's punctuality was unmatched and led to efficient hearings for the benefit of all. Whereas Roy Reed's affinity for county brand stationery and pens has sometimes created a shortage of the commission supplies for their subsequent hearings. Whereas Roy Reed impressed his fellow commissioners with his thorough review of staff reports, applicant documents, comment letters, et cetera, as evidenced by his multicolor highlights and notes on every page and the consumption of whole cartons of Post-Its. Whereas Roy Reed always provided constructive feedback to staff and great leadership during his time as chair, And whereas Roy Reed took the time to meet with interested or affected parties regarding projects or ordinance changes that were before the commission and did an exceptional job in representing the interests of the fourth district. Now therefore be it and it is hereby resolved that the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission and on behalf of staff and the citizens of Santa Barbara County present this resolution to fourth district commissioner Roy Reed.

I guess I'm supposed to say something. Yes, please. As I said before, I've always thought that among the many functions that government performs, particularly at the county level, land use and support of property rights was probably the one of the most important on the list. So I was honored to be able to participate for this last two and a half years in that endeavor. I think I was very fortunate to have worked, you know, with a gifted group of fellow commissioners. And I really appreciate Well, every member of county staff I encountered, but in particular the people in planning and development who I think as a group are often the most unjustly criticized members of county staff, but are in fact without a doubt the most undervalued members of county staff who primarily work behind the scenes compiling these ordinances and things that we deal with, things that would drive me crazy, yet they are complete, well-documented, and foundational to our activities, our actions. And sometimes they get some of the blame because people think they create the ordinance and things, whereas What they work on are mandated or assigned by Board of Supervisor or even State of California. They neither create nor destroy, but they develop and refine to support the necessary actions of county government. And within that, the Planning Commission fits in because we're keepers of the general plan. in conjunction with county staff, we have to prepare them, refine them, and present them ultimately to Board of Supervisors because that's the legislative body in the county that enacts things. I think often one of my main objectives was to establish more transparency so that the general public in the county could understand how these things work. So hopefully we've done a bit of that, but I think they need to understand and not blame staff for the ordinances and things that come out they may be dissatisfied with, but they should be very thankful they have such a professional and competent staff in planning and development to craft very effective ordinances with direct and simple language that just simplifies the whole process. So I think they're a gem and we're lucky to have them, particularly when you look at some of the things that go on in other counties, specifically relating to oil and gas and that oil and gas division, which is part of planning and development. We're so professional here. You look at what happens in other counties and they're nowhere near the quality of the staff and the people we have here. So again, I don't need to go on forever, but it's been an honor to serve. It's been a pleasure to serve with my fellow commissioners, and it has been a great honor to conserve and work with the many members of planning and development staff. So thank you all. Good. Thank you all.

So Chair Reid and commissioners, if we could just take a moment for any of the other commissioners to say a few words and then open up to public comment just on this item, and then we'll conclude. I know, Chair Reid, this is your favorite time, but.

Very uncomfortable. Okay.

Commissioner Park. You know, I always have something to say.

Or you want to be last.

So I'm going to take my time, of course. You know, I want to... tell a Roy Reed story when I first met him that to me is emblematic of just how he is and who he is. Some of you may remember that I chaired the Cat Canyon oil hearings and I just wanted to tease everybody in the room, why not? And I asked all the fancy consultants, our staff, the opponents, how do you think they got the oil out of Cat Canyon when they discovered it in 1915? And no one could answer. So I showed a map of the Pacific Coast Railway, which showed it was taken out by rail. And I said, for extra credit, who can tell me how that railway was powered. And, of course, folks said, well, it wasn't coal, it must have been oil, because it was oil. But one person knew the answer. It was him. And it was powered by electricity. They were electric cabs. They strung power lines in 1915. And he came up to me during the break and showed me a picture of the electric cab. Do you remember that?

Yes.

It is parked in front of the Bradley Building, which is related to Roy's family. I was impressed by that. He proceeded to invite me to tour around, see properties and things, which I had very much appreciated. Larry Frini had done the same thing for me. I thought, this is a good guy. I would hope to keep track of him. Then he became on the Planning Commission. I thought that was a wonderful thing. We became best of friends. I hope that even as you leave the area, we are still best of friends. It is important to me. I do want to reveal two things about Roy that I think are very special. If you watched every hearing, you would get this, but maybe you didn't. As shy and reserved as Roy sometimes presents himself, he has the most hilarious sense of humor you can imagine. If anybody in this room could do standup comedy, it's him. And he does it with the same deadpan, but it's just the words change and it's just hilarious. You know what I'm talking about, don't you? You know. The other thing is something that I take very seriously because I really do appreciate my time with the other planning commissioners. and I always learn something from all of them. What I have learned from Roy more than anybody else is to appreciate his empathy for the people involved in the process, for the people that will be affected by it. It really matters to Commissioner Reed how our ordinances, how our decisions are going to affect people, whether it is school kids or employees of things. It is important to him. He describes it. He feels it. That is why it is empathy. It reminds me we have to go there to make a good decision. I appreciate that. I think that my relationship with Commissioner Reed proves, it lives out something that my father taught me that is so great about this country, how we can disagree, but we always come down to working it out, working with each other. I think you are probably the most right-wing member here in politics, and I am probably the most left-wing that you probably have ever met, but it doesn't matter. We are in 99 percent agreement. on everything. We would do site visits together. We would collaborate in analyzing cases. And just in talking about life and history and our interests, 99 percent of what we believe is identical. And I think that is probably true of everybody in the room, and we ought to pay more attention to that than we do to our differences. So thank you for being my friend, and thank you for serving with us.

Thanks a lot, John. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Well, first of all, I'm upset because, Roy, we were just getting started. But I do understand. I'm really happy for you, especially that you're choosing to be focused on prioritizing the needs of your family. What a nice and generous dad and granddad. You're amazing. You were the first person to call me to welcome me to the commission. And I want to thank you for always just responding to my questions and helping me gain insight into the practice and procedures, as well as the culture of the planning department and the commission. And while we have not also agreed on all issues, I really admire your preparation. It's unbelievable. Intellect, candor. your wry sense of humor and your impeccable manners, as well as your constant and determined efforts to do what is right for the people of the county and especially for your district. I will really miss you, but I wish you the best.

Thank you. Mr. Martinez.

Thank you. I'm really impressed by the fact of how you take family first. I mean, that says a lot about you and who you are. And I'm also impressed by the fact that I thank the Lord sometimes that you were never an attorney across from me because you know every single fact, you memorize every single issue, and you would be a hard one to be an adversarial against. I appreciate your logic and your understanding of what's happening here. and um and you really do bring an experience to things and you you never cease to surprise me about the little things you can talk to people who are presenting about how you can talk knowledgeably about somebody not not afraid of learning but just the fact that you know something about something that's just so like wow okay great you have a yeah i'm sure i would love to sit down and have even more cups of coffee with you to hear about your experiences in life. And I'm sure maybe I'll still have that opportunity. I'm sure you'll be back in Santa Maria and I hope you look me up when you come back. But what you're doing now says a lot about you and your family. And congratulations and thank you for your service here.

Right. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner. Yes.

So we met 45 minutes ago.

Right.

But having been well trained as a lawyer, I have a lot to say. One of the reasons I was so pleased and honored to be appointed to this commission is because of the extraordinary reputation this commission has in the community. And I think a large part of that has to do with your leadership of the commission. and the way that the Commission has operated, the way that the Commission has listened to the community, and the way that the Commission deals with itself, the respect, the intelligence, the care that you've taken in leading this Commission. And so while we don't know each other, your impact on this Commission and on this community has been extraordinary, and I believe lasting. And you have earned our respect and our appreciation. So thank you.

Well, thank you very much. I appreciate all those kind comments, although I don't know who they were about, but I'll take them. And John, I didn't realize I was ever trying to be funny, but I'll take that as well. But, you know, I just think, as I said, I've been gratified and honored to have been able to serve. I think it's We need, the Commission needs to do everything it does with a great degree of thoughtfulness and seriousness because in most every matter we're faced with, we have one party that considers themselves the winner and one party that considers themselves the loser. So, I mean, we need to treat them with great consideration regardless of our personal views. And I think the same goes, and then I'll shut up, with public comment. When we receive public comment, no matter what it sounds like, we need to treat it with respect because for many members of the general public, it's not an easy thing to do to stand up in front of a group and speak. So, I think we need to show them we value that. With that, I will be quiet.

Chair Reed, thank you. And then we want to ask for public comment, and then we can move forward.

If there is any. So go ahead.

Anybody that has any public comment, would like to say a few words to Chair Reed, please come forward now.

I know there's no requests online, so I think we can move on.

Good. All right. Now, let's get on with the real business. Agenda status report, Mr. Wilson.

Chair and commissioners, looking at the status of the agenda today, we have two items. The first is the continuing item of Chick-fil-A at Cali Real, and then we have the second item, which is an appeal of a parcel map. And those are the only two items on our agenda today, and then staff and the App Conservancy to present on those items.

I can move to the projection report, Mr.

Chair. Our next hearing will be on June 3rd. That will be here in Santa Barbara. We have two items. We have a vesting determination on the B-Rock Quarry, and then we have the five-year capital improvement program that will be presented by Long Range Planning. June 10th, there are no items projected, as well as June 24th. This commission may want to consider canceling those hearings, especially June 10th and June 24th. We did move items off of those dates, moved them further down, so as we wait for the other commissioner to join us from District 4. And then our next hearing after that will be July 1st. We do have two items on July 1st. The HOPE-VIA's track map, and then we have airport land use compatibility plan on July 1st. And that will be here in Santa Barbara. July 8th is our next hearing after that, and that will be in Santa Maria. And on July 8th, we have the transfer of ownership for the Santa Maria Asphalt Refinery. And then July 29th, we'll be back in Santa Barbara. And that one so far only has one item projected, which is a tentative parcel map. And then there is no other items projected for the remainder of the year. So that concludes the projection report. And chair and commissioners, if you wanted to consider canceling June 10th and June 24th, unless we want to trail that to the end of the hearing in case any items today get continued.

Can we revisit that at the end of the hearing?

Chair Reid, that is correct. We control canceling any dates until the end of the hearing today.

All right.

Let's just remember we do it.

Yes. I'll remember. Okay. So with that, we can progress to public comment. This time is allocated for general public comment. That is public comment for items not on today's agenda. So if anyone is prepared to make a general public comment, they can proceed to the podium. Those online or on Zoom can signify their readiness by raising their hand.

I see no requests.

No requests. So general public comment is now closed. So time for planning commissioners' informational reports. These are reports by individual commissioners on planning issues and seminars, meetings, literature, anything else they may have noticed that they think would be useful and relevant information?

There's two upcoming events I want to share with commissioners and the public at large that I think will be interesting to what we do. First is here locally on June 8th. and 9th and 10th is Organization Mindset. It is a conference on essentially regenerative agriculture practices in the winemaking industry. It has speakers from all over the State that are well known. My friend Jesse Smith from the White Buffalo Land Trust, who is an excellent speaker and very knowledgeable, will be conducting a workshop on the first day. It is really a great event. It will be at the CAMBRIDGE VINEYARDS FACILITY IN SANTA MARIA, SO IT WOULD BE A GOOD THING TO GO TO. SECOND THING IS OUR CALIFORNIA AGRITOURISM SUMMIT, WHICH I ATTENDED AND DAVID LACKEY ATTENDED LAST YEAR, IS GOING TO BE IN PASO ROBOS THIS YEAR. And it will be on September 23rd through 25th. Very interesting thing. If you have any interest in agriculture or ag tourism, it's definitely worth going to. You can go one day or I think it's two days. And the first day is all site visits. And there's kind of like three buses, and each bus has a theme it goes to. So it's definitely something to be involved in. That's my report.

Okay. Commissioner, your light's on.

Oh, my mic is on.

So, no other reports? All right. If there are no other reports, let's proceed to looking at the minutes of the April 30th and May 6th hearings.

Mr. Chair?

Yes.

So since I have just been appointed to the commission, I was not at the April 30th or May 6th meetings, nor have I reviewed the videotapes of those meetings. I'm going to abstain from voting on approving the minutes.

OK, thank you. So among the commissioners, if you've had an opportunity to review the minutes of those meetings, does anyone note any corrections, additions, or deletions? So if they are, go ahead.

Just before anyone makes a motion, I just want to correct for the record that it's April 29th and May 6th.

Oh, instead of April 30th. Yeah. Nice catch. Who typed this thing up? Okay. All right. So I will revise that. So looking at those two groups of minutes for the April 29th and the May 6th hearings, if they're acceptable, can we have a motion to approve? Motion to approve. Second. Commissioner Martinez, I'll second. OK, so all in favor of approving the minutes from the for the April 29th and May 6th, 2026 hearings. All in favor signify by saying aye aye. Opposed. Approved OK. So. Which brings us to the director's report and the Board of Supervisors hearing summary.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the Commission. First, I would like to welcome Mr. AmeriConner, Commissioner AmeriConner, to the County Planning Commission. It's been a really positive experience having him on the Montecito Planning Commission. So he's all tuned up to launch to the County Planning Commission. So we're looking forward to having your participation and your service to the community. I waited to make any remarks about Commissioner Reed because I wanted to have the last word. But Commissioner Reed has been a significant contributor to this commission in his short time. HERE. HE IS INCREDIBLY PASSIONATE ABOUT THE CONSTITUENTS OF THE FOURTH DISTRICT AND THE ISSUES THAT AFFECT THAT DISTRICT. AND I'VE SEEN, I MEAN, HE'S ALWAYS VERY LEVEL HEADED AND CONSIDERED IN HIS COMMENTS. I HAVE OCCASIONALLY, MAYBE JUST ONCE, SEEN A LITTLE FIRE FROM COMMISSIONER REED. BUT IT'S BECAUSE HE CARES SO MUCH. AND I APPRECIATE THAT ABOUT HIM. And I greatly appreciate his intellect. He is a very, very smart man. And he has so much knowledge in that head of his. And just talking with him, like Commissioner Park said, I learn something new all the time. And he has a very rich background, which I think has brought a lot of value to the commission, both professionally and personally. And I agree with Commissioner Ford about his wry sense of humor. It's quiet, but it is very funny. And I appreciate that. And I just want to say thank you so much for the way you've collaborated with our staff, the way you collaborated with Commissioner Park, on the different programs that we've brought forward to the Commission because I think it's made it a better process. You have been willing to go out and talk with the people of the community and explain what our programs are about, particularly related to the Ag Enterprise Ordinance, and that's really meaningful. Like, the general public often doesn't get a chance to get involved because they have lives they have to lead, right, and they're busy. Maybe they're just getting dinner on the table or they're taking their kids to school or they're working late or whatever it is. But the efforts that you made to do the outreach I think have made a significant difference in our process. And I'm very sorry to see you leave the commission. Maybe someday you'll come back. You never know. And I also agree that it speaks volumes that you are moving to support your family. And I appreciate that about you as a person. So thank you so much for your service. Thanks a lot. So I do have a couple other things to report on. Just a few things because the board didn't have a few meetings. But since we last met, we did go to the board with a briefing on changes that we want to make to our process to streamline permitting and create more truly ministerial permits. So we presented some ideas to the board to get direction from them. And really what we're talking about is moving certain permit types from a land use permit, which are currently noticed and appealable, or a coastal development permit, which are noticed and appealable, to a ministerial permit, meaning no notice, no appeal. And that is what most jurisdictions do. The county of Santa Barbara has been quite unique. So we're looking at single-family homes and the accessory structures that are associated with single-family homes moving to a truly ministerial process. And we're looking at different thresholds that might drive what projects get some design review and what projects may not need design review, because that's a discretionary process. And we're also looking at trying to make some changes that are minor in commercial projects be truly ministerial. So this is a big change for the county. It's been something that I think, in my mind as a professional planner in Santa Barbara County, I have thought we needed to do. And the board has supported that and asked for it when I first started in this position, and we're finally able to bring that forth. I'm sure it will generate a lot of conversation at the commissions, the two commissions, and we look forward to that. We expect to be bringing this back to this county planning commission early fall because we have committed to the board to bring it to them before the end of the year. And so that's what happened on the 12th of May. And then the other two items I wanted to mention is that on June 23rd, we have the oil and gas Phase 1, which is the prohibition of drilling new wells, going to the Board of Supervisors, and then utility-scale solar, which the Commission reviewed and provided comments on and made some recommendations to change it, is going on July 14th. And that's all I have to report. I'm happy to answer any questions. Okay. Great.

Thank you very much. So at this time, I guess we will begin our standard agenda. Mr. Villalobos, could you please read in the first item?

Yes, thank you. Chair Reid, the following is a hearing on the request of Turnpike Lodges property owner to consider case numbers 22 CUP7 as well as 26 LUP53 and determine that no additional environmental review is required for the project pursuant to section 15183 of the state guidelines for implementation OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.

OKAY. AT THIS TIME, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK FOR ANY EX PARTE OR SITE VISIT DISCLOSURES FROM THE COMMISSION. MR. MERRICK HONOR.

So I've reviewed all the written material provided to the Commission for both the March 25th, 2026 hearing and today's hearing, including staff reports, technical memoranda, letters from the applicant and the public. I've watched the videotape of the March 25th, 2026 hearing, and I visited the site of the project and met with Tom Patton at the site for approximately 15 minutes. And then I have an additional disclosure I would like to read into the record, if I may. The applicant in this matter is represented by the Brownstein Law Firm. I was a partner in that law firm until my retirement at the end of 2021. Since then, I've had no financial connection with Brownstein or any of its clients. I've consulted with County Council and have concluded that I am not disqualified from participating in the Commission's consideration of this matter due to any financial interest I might have had prior to 2022. I've also considered whether or not to voluntarily recuse myself from this matter due to my previous business relationship with the Brownstein Law Firm and the California legal requirement that a public agency hearing be conducted before a reasonably impartial, non-involved reviewer. I've carefully reviewed California law on this subject and have concluded that there's no reason to believe that my impartiality in this matter has been compromised by my previous business relationships. Moreover, I believe that recusal under these circumstances would set an unworkable precedent in a small community like ours, where long-time business and personal relationships are common, particularly among people who have lived here for many years. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Okay, thank you, thank you. Any other, Commissioner Park?

Yes, I wanted to disclose some ex parte contacts on this matter, but I wanted to make a few comments about the point that Commissioner Mayor O'Connor made about his service here. One, I hope everybody in the public knows that we file what's called a Form 700, every year, and it discloses under penalty of perjury what financial interests we have. And that includes payments from former law firms. So if you look mine up, you will see that I received funds in excess of $500 in the last 12 months from my old law firm. It is just part of my retirement arrangements. And it is right there for everybody to see. It is a public website that the FPPC has, and it is available to everyone. I have looked at mine. I have looked at Mr. Americaner's. And his, under penalty of perjury, just as he said, he has received no funds in excess of $500 in the last 12 months, and he has filed two or three of these Form 700s because he had to file one coming on to the Montecito Planning Commission, had to file one leaving the Planning Commission and coming on to this Planning Commission. Okay. And there is a point that I want to address with regard to the appearance of impropriety. There is something that I have witnessed every planning commissioner grappling with as they come on here. We all realize we have past contacts with people, and then we wonder, well, God, we don't want to look like we are biased. We don't want anybody thinking ill of us. But then what you evolve into, and I did personally, is we have got to remember that we are the representatives of our district and we are here because we were appointed by members of the Board of Supervisors who are relying on us to hear these matters and to vote on them. And so if Mr. Amirah Connor decided, well, if every case Brownstein brought in front of here meant he was going to recuse himself because appearance of impropriety, then he would be doing a disservice to Supervisor Lee, who's relying on him to vote on these matters. I realize this with some of mine. You know, if I recuse myself, there's no vote from the Third District. There's no one from the Third District to express the problems and things, the issues we have at the Third District with a given matter. So I think we need to be very conservative about voluntarily recusing ourselves. And of course, on this matter, I also met with Mr. Patton, and I had a few conversations with Ms. Collins, and I had all sorts of conversations with different staff people, and I will refer to that later when we get to questions. Thanks.

Okay. So we are concluded with that. We can move ahead to the staff presentation.

Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Willow Brown, and I will be presenting the Chick-fil-A at Calle Real project. The project was last heard on March 25th and was continued to today's hearing to provide time for staff to obtain additional information regarding air quality emissions from the project. The LUDC has a standard for drive-throughs requiring that they do not have a greater air quality impact than the same project without the drive-through. Staff provided a memo to the commission with additional information that I will summarize in this presentation. To recap, the project site is located on Calle Real, accessed off of Turnpike Road from the Highway 101 off ramps. The site has been developed with a restaurant use since 1970 and is currently developed with an IHOP restaurant that has been closed since summer of 2022. The project site is adjacent to a commercial development which contains a Starbucks drive-thru and is across from the Ramada Hotel. The project is a request for a land use permit to allow for the demolition of the existing restaurant on site and construction of a new 2,647 square foot quick service restaurant. The project also includes a conditional use permit to allow for a dual lane drive through with two covered canopy areas. The project is a commercial use on a commercially zoned lot, which has been developed with a restaurant use for over 50 years. Restaurants are a permitted use in the retail commercial zone, and the conditional use permit is solely required for the drive-through use. This is a photo simulation of the project as viewed from Calle Real. I will now summarize the information provided in the staff memo discussing air quality emissions from the project. This table is an excerpt from the air quality report provided for the project and shows anticipated emissions from the drive-through compared to emissions from walk-in customers. The study assumed that the wait time for a vehicle in the drive-through would be five minutes and the wait time for a walk-in customer would be 10 minutes. The emissions estimated from a customer parking and turning off their car, going inside and ordering, and getting back in their car and restarting it are significantly higher than the emissions from a customer idling in the drive-through as shown in this table. The project includes additional components that contribute to a reduction in air quality emissions. As shown in the image on this slide, there is an existing Chick-fil-A restaurant located approximately 2.7 miles east of the project site. By adding the second Chick-fil-A location, the cumulative vehicle miles traveled would be reduced because it can be assumed that the majority of existing customers will go to whichever location they are closest to. Additionally, the air quality standard was adopted in 1981. Vehicles have become cleaner since that time, and the use of electric and hybrid vehicles further reduces impacts to air quality emissions. Air quality emissions are largely dependent on the amount of time a customer spends on site. The project includes design features to minimize time spent in the drive-through, including an iPad ordering system so that employees can take orders prior to cars reaching the ordering board, and an online system that allows customers to put in their order before they even arrive on site. These design features will reduce the amount of time cars are idling in the drive-through lane waiting for their order. Additionally, the dual-lane drive-through allows for employees to maneuver cars so that if, for example, a car ordered ahead or has a faster order, the employee can direct them to go in the second lane to get their food and leave the site faster. The results from the project's air quality study are consistent with analysis done by APCD. This image from APCD's memo regarding drive-through facilities shows that a park and restart emits higher emissions than an idling vehicle. APCD also reviewed the air quality report and agreed with the analysis. Staff is recommending a change to one condition in the Public Works condition letter included as attachment B to the staff memo. The condition letter from Public Works included language regarding undergrounding utilities as shown on this slide. Staff coordinated with Public Works and they stated that this condition was added in error as there is no trigger for undergrounding utilities for this project. Staff recommends that the conditions be modified to remove the requirement for undergrounding utilities. Staff recommends that your commission make the required findings for approval of the project specified in attachment one of the staff memo, determine that the project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15183, and approve the project subject to the conditions included as attachment two of the staff memo and as modified in today's hearing. Staff and the applicant are available for questions. Thank you.

All right, questions from commissioners for staff and applicant?

Commissioner Park? This will result in a question, but it is kind of more of a disclosure that I kind of forgot to make. At the end of April, I was up in Santa Maria dropping off an ATV at the dealership for service, and I noticed that there was a Chick-fil-A nearby, so it was my first visit to Chick-fil-A. I stayed there quite a while watching the things, so I should have disclosed that. It was kind of like a site visit. I noticed it was a very short menu. Food was very wholesome. I could well imagine why people want to have that there for their families. I saw how quickly the cars moved through the line. It was just a matter of seconds, frankly. And I also saw a set of tables that have QR code on them. where you go in, you don't even go to the counter, you just sit down, put your phone over it, and you order on your phone, and they bring it to the table. I mean, that is what Chick-fil-A is all about. I then went to our Santa Maria P&D office where I had a meeting with Tina Mitchell over the Los Alamos project we heard a couple of weeks ago. And at the end of that, I said, well, you know, Tina, you are a home girl. You grew up in Orca and Santa Maria. Help me to understand what drive-throughs have come in over the years. I had this feeling in my mind that I thought we should try to be consistent in enforcing this development standard that a drive-through project in front of us not worsen the air quality. But I thought that would be true of every drive-through, so what precedents do we have? With our staff, the next day, in the morning, I had an email from Willow Brown here, Shannon Reese, and Tina Mitchell, they had researched this and sent me a list of every drive-through project the counties approved in the last few years, gave me links, and I looked at that stuff. It was very useful, referred to a report from Recon Engineering that was used in all those three projects. It has very detailed data on emissions. In every case, our Planning Commission of various diverse people voted to approve those projects. Further, there was quite a debate on one of them in 2016, and the Commission asked staff to come back with a specific comparative analysis of what are the emissions, if there is a drive-through, and what if there isn't. We look at the Recon Engineering Report, very detailed, had a lot of text as well. It pointed out something that seems kind of obvious, and it was the more efficient the drive-through, the faster they go, then the fewer the emissions. And so these are all items of information that I thought should be in the record. And Ms. Brown prepared an excellent memorandum summarizing those things, giving you live links to all of those cases that are now on the record. And I can now refer to them, right, Ms. Kim? She has been disciplining me on how to give me a sense of discipline on what we can refer to or what we cannot. So a question for you. I told you I would turn it into a question. DID YOU FIND ANY OTHER CASES IN RECENT YEARS INVOLVING DRIVE-THROUGHS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR THE COUNTY THAT WERE NOT REFERRED TO IN YOUR MEMORANDUM. AND DID YOU FIND ANY CASES IN WHICH THE COUNTY IN APPLYING THIS DEVELOPMENT STANDARD SAID NO, THIS DRIVE-THROUGH WILL OR DOES NOT SHOW THAT IT WON'T INCREASE THE EMISSIONS OVER A WALK-IN PROJECT?

Mr. Chair, Commissioner Park, the three projects cited in the memo are the only ones I'm aware of from the past 10 years. And I have not seen a project say that the emissions would be higher, or at least that we've recommended approval for, that the emissions would be higher from the drive-through, and that's consistent with the memo from APCD. At least on a per trip basis, the walk-in emissions are always higher than the drive-through.

I should say we had a very moving discussion of how the Commissioners enjoyed their time with each other earlier today. I derive the same pleasure from working with our staff. I must say I am bursting with pride in the way that you and Ms. Mitchell and Ms. Reese put together this information and got it out there. It is a real service to us and to the public. Thank you.

Any other, Commissioner Martinez?

Yes, I'm looking at the memo and I just want to make sure I have a clear definition from you as to what is a hot soak emissions.

Mr. Chair, Commissioner Martinez, that is when a car is parked and then it's sitting there for a while and then a customer goes back into the car and restarts it. So that time that it was sitting there is considered the, that's what contributes to the hot soak.

Okay, so basically somebody turning off their car, walking into Chick-fil-A, ordering, getting their order, coming back out and restarting the car.

Yeah, so it's that time that it's sitting there turned off.

Okay. Thank you.

I got a couple. Okay, first, a little outside of your domain, but as clearly as demonstrated from the studies that were cited, turning the car off and on generates more emissions than letting it idle. Can you send a copy of that to CARB and ask them why we have this stupid stop-start technology? and all our new cars. Okay, now getting more seriously though. So this seems to document the fact that having the drive-through will result in lower emissions than stopping the car, walking in. So that's one area of savings. Do you take time to review all the public comment letters?

Chair Reid, yes, I've reviewed the public comment letters.

And didn't we see a great many of them indicating they were, a lot of them were students, people coming from Goleta, Isla Vista area, and others who right now have to travel all the way into the Chick-fil-A in Santa Barbara instead of a much more convenient and short trip that this new facility would afford?

Yes, I did see those.

So then we get double bang for the buck if this restaurant is built. If it's built, A, because it simply exists, fewer vehicle miles traveled and emissions, and then since it's allowed to have a drive-through, a further reduction in emissions from those customers who decide to patronize it compared to if they had to stop and get out of their car and walk in, correct?

Yes, that's correct.

Sounds like a pretty good deal. I'm not asking for your opinion, but it does. So thank you very much. Commissioner Ford.

Thank you. I feel like I should also add something sort of along the lines of Commissioner Park's comments, and that is that I lived right near State Street, and I saw the evolution of the Chick-fil-A in Santa Barbara, and I was shocked by the level of enthusiasm and the buzz about it opening. As we heard in our In our letters that we received, people loved Chick-fil-A. But I will say also that living there, I noticed terrible traffic when it first opened. And the outcry was significant against it. But what I felt was so important was the admirable response that Chick-fil-A had to that concern. And to this day, The lines just don't exist the way they used to. They completely remodeled the site. So to make this a question, were you able to review and look at what happened in Santa Barbara as a way to lead you to your decision to support this?

Mr. Chair, Commissioner Ford, I am familiar with the Santa Barbara location, and this project is implementing the same changes that that location made, which is the dual lane drive-through and the iPad ordering system, as well as the online application where they can order ahead of time.

Commissioner Ford, to add to that, certainly in our discussions with the applicant, THE SANTA BARBARA CHICK-FIL-A CAME UP QUITE A BIT AND THEY LOOKED AT THE ISSUES THAT THE CITY HAD AND WORKED VERY HARD TO HAVE THIS PROJECT NOT REPEAT THOSE SAME ISSUES, THEREFORE THE LONGER AISLE LENGTHS AND BEING ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE MORE CARS AND SO THAT WAS AN IMPORTANT DISCUSSION WE HAD WITH THEM.

If there are no more questions from commissioners, perhaps we could move to the applicant presentation. 10 minutes.

And PowerPoint, great. Good morning, commissioners. Chair Reid, it has been a pleasure working with you, and I will miss you. Beth Collins from Brownstein for Chick-fil-A. We have our applicant team here present. We're here and ready to answer any questions. Thank you to staff for all your work on this and your great presentation today, as well as your memo and all the research and to the other precedent on other drive-throughs in the county I myself did a little research into this finding it was adopted back in 1981 I had very big hair at the time a lot of hairspray was used other air quality emissions involved there that are now being avoided, which is good. But this quirky little finding that Santa Barbara County has that this restaurant with a drive-through needs to have no greater adverse impact on air quality than the restaurant alone. And I think what you heard from staff and hopefully what you hear from me now will help convince you that there is ample, ample evidence to make this finding for this quick service restaurant. Quick service restaurants, people are usually running in, running out, trying to get their food quickly, right? And just a little primer on... the science of a drive-through. Park and restart emissions are higher than stabilized running, which comes with idling. And you have the question, Commissioner Martinez, what is hot soak? Hot soak comes from the evaporating fuel, when you turn off the car and park it. The starting emissions, which is actually the bigger source of emissions, happens as the car warms back up to stabilized running emissions. So why is that important? We know idling is better than park and restart. You heard that from staff. But also, less time on site results in fewer air quality emissions from idling or park and restart. Here's the memo, 2008 APCD memo to this very planning commission. Well, not you all, but your predecessors. And as you saw with staff, restart and hot soak or park and restart is higher in emissions. Same thing with all these constituents, reactive organic compounds, carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen or NOx, as we call them. This is the evidence. This is the memo that's been relied on for a decade at least, more than a decade since 2008, almost two decades, to approve drive-throughs. And we have the one, I'll quickly go through the staff memo. We have a drive-through in Orchid. See it's a single lane drive-through. It has Again, fewer emissions from the drive-through, more emissions from park and restart. Same thing here, another drive-through in Orchid, another single lane. And then here, you can see, The Park and Restart has higher emissions. Same thing, actually, next door to us. This is our, well, the project site. This is a Starbucks right next door, single lane drive-thru. And again, fewer emissions from the drive-thru, more from Park and Restart. And our own air quality analysis for this restaurant, the Chick-fil-A, shows the same. Walk-in has more air quality emissions. than the drive-through. So that's sufficient evidence to make this finding, but there's more evidence I can present to you, and Commissioner Reed was starting to unpack this. Vehicle emissions have gone down since 81, so generally, the emissions are going down because all of the vehicles are more efficient. Also, we have modernized ordering and other operational systems that I'll talk through more, all of which decrease customer time on site. There's also the modern drive-thru. And this site design, you know, this long, skinny site, the way it's designed, creates really great circulation with the two-lane drive-thru, all reducing idling and CIRCLING FOR PARKING AS WELL AS AIR QUALITY EMISSIONS. HERE, 1980s, A LITTLE NOD BACK TO THE FUTURE, WHICH HAPPENED IN THE 1980s, IF YOU RECALL. THESE ARE THE CARS. THE DARK LINE IS AVERAGE, ALL VEHICLE EMISSIONS. THE DOTED LINE TAKES OUT EVS. NO MATTER WHAT, AIR QUALITY IS IMPROVED WITH OUR MORE MODERN VEHICLES. Separately, also the modern technology. No cell phones in the 80s. Now you can order off-site. You can pay off-site. I can do it when I'm sitting at home. The kids can do it at San Marcos before the lunch bell rings. So we're no longer ordering at an order board and then idling. TO GO AND PAY AND THEN IDLING AND WAITING FOR THE FOOD TO COOK WHILE WE'RE IDLING BEFORE WE LEAVE THE SITE. ALSO, I SPENT SOME TIME, TRAVIS COLLINS IS HERE, THE OPERATOR OF OUR STATE STREET STORE, SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR KIND WORDS, Ford, I was involved with the State Street store as well. There are so many innovations with the way the operations. He can pull up on his cell phone right now, what is the ordering time? How is his team performing? Are there any glitches in the system? Chick-fil-A has an interest of a well-functioning, very efficient site, and they have a ton of innovations in the kitchen and otherwise to improve efficiency and to get people off the site faster and more efficiently. So a little bit about the two-lane drive-through that was mentioned. So with the app, you can actually dedicate, as an operator, one of those lanes for just pickups for people who did the pre-order on site. And people who have a smaller order can pop into that lane, of course, with a team member directing them, and get off the site more efficiently. Additionally, last time I mentioned, 85% of the time, this is going to be the queue. But what about at max time? Max time RQ is 31 cars. Now, this great design keeps the queue out of the parking lot. If anyone does want to park and go in and eat, fine. There's plenty of space for maneuvering. But so the drive-through, though, provides a very clear, organized, safe site circulation. Imagine this site and those 31 cars without the drive-through. Where are those cars going to park? Without the drive-through, it's actually just not sustainable. People would potentially double park, circle in the neighborhood, cause a bit of chaos. When you have the drive-through, it actually reduces customers walking in the parking lot, which slows things down, creates safety issues, unnecessary safety issues. also safer for team members. It reduces backing out of spaces. I was at ABR yesterday at the city, and one of the members of the public backed into our architect's car. I mean, it's just true. When you're backing up, it's not as safe. And when you're just driving carefully in a line, idling all along, you're going to get on and off the site faster. So the drive-through is actually a much more efficient, safe, optimized way to circulate in this site, and it really improves the site. We heard a little bit about VMT. Our big data shows the average trip length is 13.9 miles. There's a huge number of customers that are to the east. That was shown in our analysis, but we also had a, accidentally, really, when we asked folks to put in comment cards, We, last time I was with you, we had 425 comment cards. Now we have over 722 unique comment cards, and a total of 77% of those, of those 722 unique people live over in the Isla Vista Goleta place. So this is separate kind of verification of the improvements in VMT. And finally, I just want to mention and remind you all that There are going to be a bunch of improvements to this Calle Real corridor that come with this project. These improvements are going to be far superior to the other most common tenant that Tom Patton and his partners were being approached by, car wash. This is going to be a far better use for this neighborhood and this site. Here's the picture with the landscaping grayed out. Here's it with the landscaping. We're also, if you remember, there's striping, new striping that will be on Ki-Rail to improve circulation and bicycle safety. Really, this is an excellent use for this site. It's very well designed. The addition of the drive-through will ensure safe, efficient site circulation and really success for this restaurant and this use. So with that, if you have any questions, we're here.

Any questions from Commissioners? Commissioner Martin.

Yes, and I probably should ask this with the County 2 regarding the APCD memo, but I'll ask this of you right now. I know there's probably there is no actuals regarding this site, but if you if you go to your your. Slide 15. I think this would probably best help me. Close this question to you.

I love that you know the side number OK well. Let's go to 15. Yes.

Okay, so we're all addressing the time situation of the customer coming through and parking their car and all that. But if you look through all three of them, you have drive-through, carry-out, and dine-in. What is the proportionate, except going one-to-one, of the units being served, let's just say within an hour, how much of them are gonna be drive-through versus carry-out versus dine-in? There must be some kind of forecast of business model of what Chick-fil-A is because then that, if it's more drive-through, then it's better. If it's more park and go, then well, that kind of works against it. So I'm interested if you have any of those

I actually spent some time with Travis Collins, the operator of the State Street store, and so I can tell you that that State Street restaurant is 62% drive-through.

Okay.

I did a follow-up question which asked how many of those people like vacillate, drive-through, walk-in, drive-through. And he said there's massive fealty. In other words, if you're a drive-through customer, you're a drive-through customer. So 60% of those people, and that's really important for the VMT analysis as well because it helps show if we have a drive-through at this restaurant, those people will drive to the shorter location. And I would argue that no matter what, If you have a very efficient drive-through, you're going to be able to get people on and off the site faster. And even the people who want to park and dine in will be able to find a parking space immediately because there will be more open parking and there won't be, frankly, chaos on the site because the drive-through allows, in essence, gets people who want to be off the site quickly off the site in a way that they are just idling. So they're avoiding the park and restart. and they're idling for a shorter period of time.

So the focus here on this site is still going to be more towards the user being a drive-through user or a customer, let's call the person a customer. Because I'm just reflecting on, well, let's say the name, McDonald's. You see the places where the drive-through is there. The customer seating is less. Obviously, the focus is being on drive-throughs. I see in the rendition here that you have a lot of seating for people to sit down and enjoy their meal, which is fine. So that's why I was asking the proportionate use. So it's still the focus is on drive-through being more than the park. Turn off the car, come back in the car, and then produce what we were already seeing through the APCD memo as being the more pollutant, let's just call it that way.

Okay.

Yeah, I would say that they are interrelated, that the site doesn't work without the drive-through, but we, of course, have a number of customers who also want to eat in, right? 62% drive-through, but that means 48, no, 38, thank you, 38% are eating in, and that's really important as well.

Yes, okay, thank you.

Commissioner Park? I wanted to ask about average processing times for customers in the drive-through. I think you looked at those other cases, and they all had that study from Recon Engineering. One of the studies, and particularly the one that was turned into a comparative study by staff in 2016, used two two starting times, two processing times. One was five minutes and one was three and three quarter minutes. You can look at their data. It shows that it was significantly less emissions if they were processed in three and three quarter minutes instead of five. Then they made that point in the text of their report, and I referred to this earlier, that the faster you can move them, the lower your emissions. I notice that the estimates in this case all refer to five minutes. That does not reflect my experience in watching the drive-through in Santa Maria. I WOULD SAY CLOSER TO A MINUTE OR TWO MINUTES. I WONDER IF YOU HAVE DATA FROM YOUR OPERATOR AS TO WHAT THE AVERAGE DRIVE-THROUGH PROCESSING TIMES ARE IN PRACTICE AT CHICK-FIL-A?

In practice at Chick-fil-A, they are less than five minutes. And that is always the goal, to be less than five minutes. And especially when you add on the ordering off-site, the paying off-site, et cetera, when you really are implementing that system, then it's even more efficient. So that is the goal of the way this site will be operated. But either way, you have... FEWER EMISSIONS THAN THE PARK AND RESTART, BUT THE GOAL IS DEFINITELY MORE EFFICIENT AND LESS THAN FIVE MINUTES.

I'LL BEGIN FIRST WITH AN OBSERVATION. ADMITTEDLY THIS IS ANECDOTAL, BUT MY EXPERIENCE WITH DRIVE-THROUGH RESTAURANTS, ONES THAT HAVE EXPERIENCE WITH HIGH VOLUME AND ONES WHERE THEY WILL MEET YOU IN THE QUEUE, IF YOU LOOK AT IN AND OUT, I think Chick-fil-A is clearly faster in getting your order, getting you through the line, and way faster than Cane's. I only go to Cane's on Sunday, all right? So no problem. But so I think their expertise has been well demonstrated in that area. I do have a question about the little cards, the survey cards. Because when I look at the survey card, I can't really read the back side of it that well. Do customers get any kind of a premium or whatever returning that card?

No, and that's a great point. No premium, no incentive, and we did not script any of the letters or anything that you received. We're all spontaneous. We did not provide talking points or scripting as often occurs.

Great, so all those answers were self-generated on the part of the loyal customers. Yes. All right, thank you. Commissioner Ford.

Thanks. Just a quick question. I wonder if the response from the public was pretty astounding, and I appreciated the opportunity to read through them all and look at it. I just wondered if you're aware if there's a regular process that Chick-fil-A uses to get feedback from its customers in a formal way so that from now till whenever, they will always understand that what the public is thinking about the process, the efficiency, and the food.

I'm going to let Carlos from Chick-fil-A speak on that. Thanks.

Good morning, Commissioners. Thank you so much for having us and for the opportunity to speak today. Commissioner Ford, the short answer is yes, absolutely. Those surveys comes in form of receipts or if you have the app with us, we're constantly looking for feedback. It helps us get better. As Beth pointed out so accurately, we have a very strong interest and a high focus on innovating, on being better, providing a better guest experience across the board. And usually that is in the form of delivering fast and accurate service.

Thanks.

We're here for any other questions if you need. No? Thank you so much.

OK. Well, with no more commissioner questions, we can proceed to public comment. Are there any more slips? I have two. OK. First, we will go to Roy Melender.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MY NAME IS ROY MILLINGER. MY WIFE AND I CAME TO SANTA BARBARA IN 1967. WE RAISED OUR SONS HERE. AND WHEN CHICK-FIL-A OPENED, I WANTED TO TRY IT. AND WE HAVE BEEN SATISFIED WITH IT FOR THE ENTIRE TIME THAT THEY'VE BEEN HERE. We love the place. We're there at least once a week. I tell the managers that since I work out of my home, this is my office. And I meet with clients and I meet with friends at Chick-fil-A. And I taught 31 years at Westmont College in economics and business. And I can tell you, every one of my students should have worked at Chick-fil-A, because the people there are extremely well trained. They love their jobs. I've never seen, in the years that I've been there, I've never seen an incident where somebody was unhappy. As a matter of fact, I fill out those cards and I say it's a joy to come to Chick-fil-A because the people are really good. Now as to what's going on here, we all know that La Cumbra Plaza is going to have at least a thousand more families right there literally within a couple of blocks at the most from the existing Chick-fil-A. And if we read what the university is doing in terms of the number of students that are going to be at the university, that number is going up as well. And I got to tell you, I think there are a lot of people like me who just like Chick-fil-A, not only in Santa Barbara, but I think worldwide. They have a secret sauce that really works. If you're not fans of Chick-fil-A at the present time, I encourage you to try it. You'll love it. I can't imagine anything that would be better for Santa Barbara than getting this thing approved to be able to spread out the traffic from Goleta to Santa Barbara. I certainly hope that it's approved. And Lord bless you all. You do a great job. Steve, it's nice to see you in this job, too. Have a good day.

All right. Thank you. Uh, next we will hear from Tom Patton.

Good morning chair and commissioners. I'm Tom Patton. I'm one of the Managing partners of the partnership that has the site as well as the hotel across the street I'm joined by my other partner Don Lucian in the in the second row and Commissioner Reed, thank you for your service. We appreciate it Steve welcome to the Commission Be careful what you volunteer for as I look at Kristen Miller in the second row there as the current board chair of the Chamber of Commerce That's how I ended up there as well. So again look forward to working with you Chick-fil-A has been a really great team to work with these past four years. It's obviously been a very thoughtful and not a rush process. Worked really well with county staff. County staff has been amazing. Obviously, all the things that have been talked about. the traffic circulation, the vehicle stacking, the admissions, the landscaping, and the overall site aesthetics. As property owners, we're completely deeply invested in the community. Don and Karen Lucien were born and raised here. My sons were raised here, live in the community. We want the right thing for this site. As Beth mentioned, we looked at some car washes. We all love clean cars, but you know what? We need a restaurant that feeds our friends and neighbors and community members here. The site will be vastly better than it is now. It's an old, tired IHOP. It was great in its day, but it's passed. It's a sea of asphalt. It's a very large building. Doesn't meet the current restaurant standards. As you saw in the slide, we're going to have a beautiful new restaurant site. great new landscaping. It's really going to dress up that part of town. And also, I mean, you talk about those high schoolers across the way, they're jumping in their cars and driving some places. Not only is that a safety risk, but it's a vehicle emissions risk. So again, they'll be able to walk across the freeway to the restaurant, have lots of friends and neighbors in there that keep asking Don and myself, when are you going to get that Chick-fil-A open? And we go, we're working hard because they want to eat there. And, man, I'm getting hungry after listening to you talk about going there every week. So I want to thank the commission. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this. Thank you for the county staff. We really are doing what we feel is the best for the community and will be the best at this site. So thank you very much for your consideration.

All right. Thank you. Mr. Villalobos, do we have any commenters, any hands raised?

So again, for those of us joining us online and you'd like to speak on this item, raise your virtual hand and I'll call on you. We do have one hand up. Our next speaker will be Suzanne Sturrs. Ms. Sturrs, whenever you're ready.

Sorry about that. Hello, commissioners. I am a property owner who lives within walking distance of the proposed project, and I urge you to deny this project because it does not meet the requirements for a conditional use permit. I'd like to note that all of the current drive-throughs in the entire South Coast unincorporated area are within 300 yards of each other near the Turnpike-Caerial intersection. This proposed project would add yet another drive-through in the exact same area, increasing drive-throughs in the South Coast unincorporated area by 33%, with 100% of them concentrated within 300 yards of each other. I'd also ask whether the sheriff's department has been formally consulted, given that their headquarters rely on the same interchange. Any additional congestion at this location could affect emergency response times and public safety operations, which should be carefully evaluated. I want to address the use of the CEQA exemption under Section 15183. CEQA is clear that agencies must still evaluate impacts that are project specific, site specific or cumulative and not previously addressed. In this case, the concentration of multiple drive-throughs within a very limited area near public safety operations, schools, and a freeway interchange creates unique and intensified conditions, particularly related to traffic circulation, safety, and access. These are site-specific and cumulative impacts that go beyond what would typically be analyzed at the general plan level and have not been adequately addressed. Regarding the air quality results, the average drive-through wait time of five minutes has not been supported by actual data. Actual data should be required for this estimate. Also, is it really appropriate to rely on an 18-year-old APCD analysis? Supporting data and evidence has not been presented to support how current day car emissions are less impactful than in the 2008 analysis. Additionally, based on the conversation today, it seems that the preferences of temporary residents in Isla Vista are given priority to those of permanent property taxpaying residents of the neighboring community. For these reasons, unmitigated cumulative impacts, unresolved public safety concerns, neighborhood livability, and the questionable application of a CEQA exemption in idling times, I ask that you deny this application.

Thank you. Thank you. Staff, do you have any response to anything that emerged during public comment?

Chair Reid, I don't have anything to add, but I can address any comments or questions.

OK, with that, we'll offer applicant two minutes for rebuttals.

Just very quickly hi commissioner or chair read commissioners Beth Collins again, just quickly We're not just relying on the APCD study from 2008. It's actually The results from the study have been reaffirmed repeatedly over the years including in our separate air quality analysis, so just a clarification on that point. The other point is cumulative impacts have been analyzed. If you look at the technical studies that are submitted in your report, cumulative analysis includes traffic Associated with all of the housing projects for example that are coming on board There was a cumulative analysis also done for air quality Etc. So cumulative impacts have been analyzed and then the point that our avid chick-fil-a fan has made over here, which is you know the question before you is restaurant alone or restaurant with the drive-through and There's a lot of objection that people are hearing or saying about a drive-through. Not a lot, but historically, at the last hearing at least. The truth is a drive-through will actually, and I know this seems counterintuitive, but based on everything that I detailed, the drive-through is going to improve this site. It's going to improve the operation, and with the drive-through, then you can have the restaurant use, and then you will have all the restriping and all the other benefits to the neighborhood. So I think in the end, The neighbors are going to appreciate this project, but I understand that there is a current of some fear because of the other drive-throughs in the area. But the 15183 analysis is absolutely appropriate. There are no impacts that are particular to this site. It's quite a detailed analysis that was written by staff, and we're very confident

uh that it is appropriate uh to move forward with the section 15183 analysis so with that yeah if you have any questions we're here thank you all right thank you i have one for staff we had a comment about the the needs or the wants of quote temporary residents from you know ucsb in that area okay are air emissions generated by cars of temporary residents any different in intensity or harmfulness of those emitted by cars owned by long-term residents?

There's no answer to that one, right? No.

So I just wanted to answer that since that question came up. All right. So we would value the needs or wants of those temporary residents. We would give them the same level of standing as those of long-term residency here in the county, wouldn't we? All right. I just wanted to double check on that. Thank you very much. If there are no more questions, I suppose it is time to proceed to deliberations. Do we have anybody willing to take the bit and lead?

I'll go first.

Okay. Commissioner Martinez.

Well, I would say that I'm actually looking to be in favor of the recommendations, especially, I don't like them. moving target here this was continued specifically for 35.42.130b and that's about b2 about the air quality and that's what we're here about we have addressed that as the air quality issue here we already addressed the issue of zoning and use that's already was last hearing so i just think the the burdens that were placed upon the the applicant and the staff doing their job i just see enough that it has met those provisions. The mention of the 2018 study, I get what the one caller indicated. But to me, just pure logic would dictate that with the advances that have been you know we know about that are always even being raised every year on the on the car makers is that those emissions are always going down so i can only imagine my logic is the emissions have to be going down rather than rising up even if we have more car use out there and um that's my analysis of the situation i think everything has been met thank you commissioner ford

Thank you so much. Well, I was thinking about this decision, and I'm sure there was some disappointment when we didn't come to a decision at the last meeting. But honestly, I'm really delighted that we requested this deeper dive into the concerns about air quality. because the data and the information that was presented is really convincing to me of no greater adverse effects. And personally, I just learned a lot through this process, so I'm much inclined to support this. I also, just since it's a bigger picture than just the air quality, I think that this restaurant's design is based on science. It's based on the latest technology and experience with other Chick-fil-A's and also innovation. I also believe that Chick-fil-A has been extremely responsive in every way. And it's been mentioned a couple times, but I'll just reinforce the idea that as a former educator, I would just say that it's known to be an outstanding employer for young people, and the focus is on service and on manners, and it's been great. So when I was listening to the arguments, I thought a lot about, I don't know, this phrase came into my mind, which is make it work. which if any of you go back to watching Project Runway, which is a clothing design reality show, one of the judges, Tim Gunn, would always tell the contestants to make it work. And it's really clear to me that there is great dedication to making this work. And I appreciate that. I guess the only other thing I would say is I THINK IT WOULD BE GREAT FOR THE OWNERS TO JUST CONSIDER LEAVING A LITTLE SPACE FOR A DRONE LANDING ZONE BECAUSE I THINK THAT IS PROBABLY THE NEXT THING IS PEOPLE WILL BE ABLE TO ORDER, TO BE ORDERED ONLINE AND HAVE A DRONE DELIVER THE FOOD. SO WITH THAT, I SUPPORT THIS APPLICATION.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER PARK?

YOU KNOW, I HAVE OFTEN restated my favorite quote from Ralph Waldo Edmerson, that consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. I use that when I change my mind, which is all the time. But I think it's important to address a complaint that we sometimes hear about the county planning process, that it's inconsistent. And that's been something that's been voiced for decades, before you were born, Ms. Brown. And It seems to me when we have a development standard like this, and it's not a condition, it's a development standard. It means if at some point in the future it turns out that the air quality is worsened by this drive-through, the development standard will say shut it down. I mean, it's a strict restriction. But we've had it in play. It seems to apply to all drive-throughs. And this county has consistently approved these drive-throughs. So to make an exception to deny Chick-fil-A would be something that's somewhat indefensible. I notice, and I hope I'm saying this with some sense of humor, that in the 2019 approval, is it Keysight 2 or 3, whichever one it was, in ORCID, there was a new member of the Planning Commission that voted for it, which meant that they were approving that development standard that had been met, and that was me. So I want to be consistent, at least with myself, Thank you for not noting that, Ms. Collins. I think that was very respectful. I just think that is important. We look at the information. It has been well presented here. It was very well presented in those past applications. That is what it says, that drive-throughs will improve, not worsen the air quality. Does one question the science? Personally, I don't think it's up for me to question the science when it's well laid out. I want to make sure it's there, and I did that at the last hearing. I objected because I didn't think we had an adequate record. Now it's in the record. I made it very clear when I made that motion to continue this two months ago that the issue for me was air quality. Commissioner Martinez was absolutely right. That is the issue for today because that is the issue we left. Anyone who felt that air quality was in fact worsened has had two months to get that information on the record, and I haven't seen a single sentence that addresses that. So I think that given what we've all learned, what we've seen, we should approve this project.

Commissioner Americano.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Could we put slide 14 from the applicant's presentation up on the screen, please? Thank you. I was trying to decide how I might vote on this when I saw this slide and wondered how the applicant got a picture of the car we bought in 1981 with the faux wood siding on it, which actually peeled off after four years. And that pretty well tipped me over into a decision. I believe my colleagues here on the commission have it exactly right. I watched the hearing from March and listened to the hearing again today. And I think the bottom line for me is that the project meets all of the standards, both code and environmental and others, that we have set for this kind of a project. And I think that one of the hallmarks of a successful land use decision-making process is predictability. A project comes along that meets all of those standards, that project deserves to be approved and I concur with my colleagues here who believe that those, that that has been demonstrated I think very clearly that this project meets all of those standards and so I am happy to support this application.

Okay, first I'll let commissioner mary connor know that his purchase of that dodge caravan you know that was the the beginning of the minivan revolution it was it's only shortcoming was they only had three doors but they figured that one out nonetheless i'll keep it short all right uh i was ready to approve this last time I voted to approve it. It was continued because of the air quality question, which has been completely resolved due to staff's work with the assistant of Commissioner Park. I'm prepared to vote yes again. So do we have a motion?

I'd like to make a motion.

Indeed. Thank you. Proceed.

I'd like to approve the recommended actions. Would you like me to read these aloud?

I think what you can do is you can just refer to, you make a motion for staff recommendation, just recognizing the change to the conditions.

Yes, I would like to make a motion to approve the recommended actions with the amendments recommended and the points in number one, two, and three to approve this project.

I will second that. To give power to the people, give them the Chick-fil-A they want. So would you please do a roll call, Mr. Villalobos?

Commissioner Mariconner. Aye. Commissioner Ford. Aye. Commissioner Park.

See, I told you that sense of humor would come out finally.

But anyway, aye. Commissioner Martinez. Aye. And Chair Reed. Aye. Motion passes five to zero.

Can we take about a 10-minute recess to set up? Can we take about a 10-minute recess? Welcome back to the May 27th, 2026 hearing of the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission. Mr. Villalobos, will you please read the next item into the record?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. The following is a hearing on the request of Stanford Farms Trust appellant to consider the following case number 26APL6, the Stanford Farms Trust appeal of the Terrell parcel map to consider the appeal of the zoning administrator's decision to approve tentative parcel map case number 24TPM1.

Okay. At this time, I'd like to ask for any ex parte or site visit disclosures. Commissioner Ford?

Thanks. Just yesterday, Commissioner Park and I met with Alicia Harrison, the Senior Land Use Manager, and we also had a site visit at the Villa Robledos land, and we had a great discussion about the issue.

All right. Commissioner Americaner?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is the same disclosure I made prior to the hearing earlier this morning on Chick-fil-A. The applicant in this matter is represented by the Brownstein Law Firm. I was a partner in that law firm until my retirement in December 2021. Since then, I've had no financial connection with Brownstein or any of its clients. I have consulted with County Council and have concluded that I am not disqualified from participation in the Commission's consideration of this matter due to any financial interest I might have had prior to my retirement at the end of 2021. I have also considered whether or not to voluntarily recuse myself from this matter due to my previous business relationship with the Brownstein Law Firm. and the California legal requirement that a public agency hearing be conducted before a reasonably impartial, non-involved reviewer. I have carefully reviewed California law on this subject and have concluded that there is no reason to believe that my impartiality in this matter has been compromised by my previous business relationships. Moreover, I believe that recusal under these circumstances would set an unworkable precedent in a small community like ours, where long-time personal and business relationships are common, particularly among people who have lived here for many years. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I won't repeat my comments I made earlier in support of Mr. Mariconner's decision not to recuse himself, but they stand. I also attended the site visit that Ms. Ford just referred to. I have been advised by the County Council to disclose something that I researched. When did I do that? It was last night. That is, the historical landmarks that have already been approved by the County of Santa Barbara, there is a list of them. It is online. If you look up HLAC, Historical Landmarks Advisory Commission, you can find that right away. IT LISTS APPROXIMATELY 48 STRUCTURES THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED. I LOOKED INTO THIS BECAUSE IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING FROM BOTH SIDES PAPERWORK THAT THIS IS A CRUCIAL ISSUE, OR THEY CONSIDER IT A CRUCIAL ISSUE IN THIS CASE, WHETHER THIS IS A LANDMARK OR NOT AND WHAT THE PROCESS IS, REFERRING TO THE BARN THAT SEEMS TO STRADDLE THE PROPERTY LINE. I'LL REFER TO WHAT THE SIGNIFICANCE IS OF THAT LIST WHILE WE HAVE DELIBERATIONS AND PERHAPS IN QUESTIONS, BUT AT LEAST I'VE DISCLOSED IT. IT'S PART OF THE RECORD, AND IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO LOOK IT UP, YOU CAN DO IT IN A MATTER OF SECONDS.

OKAY. WITH THAT, I THINK WE'LL PROCEED TO STAFF PRESENTATION. MS. CRUZ, ARE YOU PEDDING?

Thank you. Good morning, Chair Reid and commissioners. My name is Tatiana, and I will be presenting the Stanford Farms Trust appeal of the Terrell parcel map. The project is located in the coastal zone on a bluff top property in the community of Hope Ranch and is addressed 4653 Via Roblata pictured on the left here. Lot size in the immediate area ranges from one and a half acres up to 22 acres and the zoning is one family exclusive residential. The surrounding neighborhood is developed with single-family dwellings and accessory structures, such as pools, sports courts, and garages. The project site has existing residential development and agriculture, consisting of a roughly 3.5-acre lemon and avocado orchard. The Terrell parcel map is a request for subdivision of a 12.99 acre parcel into three lots. Existing structures, which are highlighted in yellow, are proposed to remain. Parcel 1 will be 2.6 acres and contains a driveway off Via Roblada, an orchard, and no structures. Parcel 2 will be 2.6 acres and contains a driveway off Yeroblada, an orchard, a permitted agricultural well for irrigation, and just under 3,000 square feet of an existing barn that straddles the property line to the east, which is the appellant's property. And parcel three will be 7.79 acres and contains the existing single family dwelling, guest house, pool and cabana, tennis court storage shed, and existing driveway access, also off via Robata. The proposed easements include access easements which encompass the existing driveway access, utility easements, drainage easements that encompass an existing storm drain system, and landscaping easements across Parcels 1, 2, and 3. And those easements are pictured in the hatched area. So there is driveway on Parcel 1 that goes down the middle. To the right on Parcel 2 there's also driveway. And then the easements continue down, excuse me, to Parcel 3. PARCEL 1 AND 2 WILL BE VACANT, EXCEPT FOR THE ROUGHLY 3,000 SQUARE FOOT PORTION OF A BARN STRADDLING THE PROPERTY LINE, AND PARCEL 3 IS ALREADY DEVELOPED. THE SITE HAS EXISTING UTILITIES FROM LAKUMBRE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY, PRIVATE ON-SITE WASTE WATER TREATMENT, A WELL FOR AGRICULTURAL IRRIGATION, AND HAS THREE DRIVEWAY ACCESS POINTS OFF VIA ROBLADA. THERE IS NO MAPPED ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE HABITAT, THERE ARE NO CREEKS, AND THERE ARE NO known flood or high fire hazard areas on the property. The site is relatively flat with an average slope of less than 5%. Cultural and historic resource studies found that there are no significant cultural or historic resources on the parcel. specifically a historic report prepared by a qualified licensed historian analyzed the 80 year old barn that is straddling the property line and found that the structure does not meet the criteria to be considered a historic resource. The Terrell parcel map application case number 24 TPM1 for subdivision of the existing parcel into three lots was approved by the zoning administrator on February 9th, 2026. The appellant Stanford Farms Trust submitted a timely appeal of the zoning administrator approval on February 18th, 2026. On May 15, 2026, the appellant submitted a nomination to the Historic Landmarks Advisory Committee for consideration of the existing barn. The applicant, however, does not agree to this nomination because the Historic Resources Reports, which we received as part of this subdivision, found that the structure has no historic merit. So this barn in question, which is pictured here, straddles the property line and is used for storage. It was built in the 1940s prior to zoning requirements and so it is grandfathered in and is allowed to remain like that if they wish. The use of the barn is subject to a private agreement between the property owners and the project does not propose any changes to the underlying property line or to the structure itself. And as I mentioned, Planning and Development received a historic report, which is dated from 2024, that found the barn does not meet criteria to be considered a historic resource for CEQA purposes, and it is not eligible for listing at the local, state, or national level. The appellant submitted a letter dated May 26th asserting that a permit application has been submitted for demolition of the barn However, Planning and Development has not received an application for barn demolition and it is shown on the approved tentative parcel map as an existing structure. The appellant raised six primary issues in their appeal asserting that the findings were not supported by substantial evidence, that the project is not exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and is likely to cause environmental damage, that the project site is not physically suitable for independent use or for the proposed density of development, and lastly, that the project is not consistent with the general plan and applicable policies. Staff will address each of these appeal issues in the next slides. So, first, the appellant asserts that there was insufficient evidence to support the findings required under the Subdivision Map Act. But contrary to the appellant's claim, there is substantial evidence to support the Subdivision Map Act findings, including general plan consistency, physical suitability for the type and density of development proposed, there's no creation of substantial environmental damage or serious public health problems, no conflict with public easements, no water quality violations, and no other conflicts. The project is consistent with all applicable policies of the County Comprehensive Plan, including the Coastal Land Use Plan and the Eastern Goleta Valley Community Plan, the Coastal Zoning Ordinance, and Chapter 21 Land Division requirements. All reviewing agencies, which included the County Fire Department, Public Works Transportation, Environmental Health Services, the County Surveyor, and Lacumbre Mutual Water Company, confirm that the project has adequate access, water supply, wastewater treatment capacity, drainage, and fire protection services to serve the three parcels, which may be developed with residential structures, and parcel three already contains existing development and utilities that meet applicable requirements. In addition, several technical studies support the physical suitability of the site. Because the site is a bluff top property, the potential for bluff retreat and erosion threats were studied, and a technical sea cliff retreat study concluded that an 80-foot setback would adequately address any long-term risk, even under worst-case sea level rise scenarios. All proposed parcels meet the recommended bluff setback. The site is relatively flat, making the parcels physically capable of supporting future development. Although parcel 3 does include some steeper slopes near the bluff, those areas would remain undeveloped in compliance with the recommended bluff setback. And cultural and historic resource studies further found that no significant cultural or historic resources exist on the property. And as mentioned previously, the site lacks environmentally sensitive habitat and there are no known flood or high fire hazard areas on the property that would lend to any public health issues. Next, the appellant claimed that the CEQA exemption was improperly applied and that environmental review was deferred. Contrary to the appellant's claim, the project properly qualifies for the CEQA Class 15 categorical exemption because it creates fewer than four parcels, is located within an urbanized residential area, conforms to the general plan, zoning, and Chapter 1 land division requirements and requires no variances or exceptions. In addition, none of the exceptions to this categorical exemption under CEQA guidelines applies because there are no unusual circumstances nor hazardous conditions. And as previously mentioned, the site does not contain any flood or fire hazard areas, any environmentally sensitive habitat, or any historic or cultural resources. No new structures are proposed as part of this project, but any future residential construction would require a coastal development permit and does not constitute deferral of environmental review. All parcels were analyzed for adequate services and are able to support future residential construction on parcels 1 and 2, and parcel 3 is already built out. Next, the appellant claimed that the parcels are not physically suitable for independent use. However, contrary to the appellant's claim, the proposed parcels are physically suitable for independent use because there are adequate services and each parcel satisfies applicable lot design, the minimum size, the width, and setback standards. Parcels 1 and 2 will contain easements for access and utilities and are readily developable without any significant site constraints. Parcel 3 is already developed and is served by existing infrastructure and the appellant has submitted no contradictory technical evidence. Next, the appellant claims that the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density. Contrary to the appellant's claim, the project site is physically suitable for the proposed density. The site is located in the EX1 zone, which is a single-family residential area. All proposed parcels exceed the two and a half acre minimum lot size consistent with the EX1 zone district requirements and the site has adequate services to support future development. And as I mentioned, parcel three is already developed with existing services. Next, the appellant claims that the project is likely to cause environmental damage. Contrary to the appellant's claim, the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage because the site contains no environmentally sensitive habitat critical habitat area, flood hazards, fire hazard areas, or any significant cultural or historic resources, and the property is already largely disturbed by either existing residential structures or the agricultural use. The project is limited to subdivision into three lots and designation of private easements for access, utilities, drainage, and landscaping, and future residential lot development is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage due to the absence of sensitive resources or hazards. And condition number three in attachment B does require to stop and redirect work in the unlikely event that any cultural resources are encountered during grading or construction activities in the future. Lastly, the appellant asserts that the plan consistency finding is unsupported by a reasoned, evidence-based analysis. But contrary to the appellant's claim, the project is consistent with the General Plan, the Coastal Land Use Plan, and Eastern Goleta Valley Community Plan, including policies for adequate services, water resource and hillside protection, tree protection, and the protection of cultural resources. The parcels are appropriately sized and designed to match the rural residential character of the area and meet all applicable zoning and subdivision standards, including for lot size setbacks and access. The site has existing access off via Robata, and the proposed easements cover existing driveways for continued access. The project has adequate services available, and the capacity to support future residential development was confirmed by the public water purveyor and through percolation testing that confirmed there is suitability for private onsite wastewater treatment on Parcels 1 and 2. In addition, there are no significant biological, cultural, or historic resources on the property, and the project avoids bluff hazards through required setbacks. Regarding environmental review, the project is exempt pursuant to CEQA exemption section 15315, minor land divisions. The project qualifies because it is in an urban residential area and creates four or fewer parcels, conforms to zoning and general plan. has adequate services and access, it requires no variances, and it was not previously subdivided in the past two years and has an average slope below 20%. In closing, the project design, access, utilities, and lot configuration satisfy all applicable development and subdivision standards, and the record demonstrates that the site is physically suitable for the subdivision without resulting in any significant environmental, cultural, or historic resource impacts. THE SUBDIVISION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, INCLUDING THE COASTAL LAND USE PLAN AND EASTERN GOLITA VALLEY PLAN, AS WELL AS ARTICLE 2 COASTAL ZONING ORDINANCE AND CHAPTER 21 LAND DIVISION REGULATIONS AND THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT, AND STAFF CONCLUDES THAT THE APPEAL ISSUES HAVE NO MERIT. Therefore, staff recommends that the decision maker deny appeal case number 26, APL 6, adopt the findings for approval as provided in attachment A, determine the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to section 15315 for minor land divisions, and grant de novo approval of tentative parcel map number 24 TPM 1, subject to the conditions contained in attachment B. This concludes staff presentation. I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

No questions from commissioners? Commissioner Park.

I am going to ask you a question that I will ask of each of the participants if you can't answer it, or maybe they will have a different answer than you do. We are led to understand that regardless of these appellate issues, the real action here is on the barn. That is the only place I have actually seen any evidence, something about this barn. And what I don't personally understand is how, whether this is a landmark or not, affects whether the subdivision can go forward. Can you address that?

Yes, Commissioner Park, the project before you today is for subdivision into three lots and there are no changes proposed or related to the barn in question. Really, the issue between the barn and is a private matter between the property owners and the subdivision does not impact their ability to review that separately with HLAC or between each other if they choose.

So if HLAC had had a hearing last week and said it's a landmark, and I'll address that later because I was on HLAC, would that mean that the subdivision couldn't go forward? What effect would it have on it?

Chair Park, if that were the case, the subdivision, we would still recommend for approval because the project would not have any impact on any historic resources. It simply does not change those circumstances, whether or not that structure is historic would not be impacted if that were to be the case. But we also have a historic report prepared by A LICENSED HISTORIAN THAT HAS FOUND THAT THE STRUCTURE IS NOT HISTORIC, SO THERE WOULD NOT BE A CHANCE FOR IT TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING AT OUR LOCAL STATE OR NATIONAL LEVEL.

OKAY. WELL, THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONERS, IF I COULD JUST ADD SOMETHING REALLY QUICK, TOO. THE INTERESTING PART ABOUT THIS RECENT DESIGNATION WAS IT WAS NOT DONE AT THE BEHEST OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS THEMSELVES. HLAC DID BRING FORWARD A PROJECT, I THINK IT WAS LAST YEAR, against a property owner's wishes that went all the way up to the board. The board made it pretty clear that that's not something that they're very supportive of. The current owners have said that they do not wish to designate it and they also don't think it is eligible. So that's just something I wanted to

So when you refer to the current owners, you mean both owners? Both owners, yeah. I got you. Correct, yeah. So one of those two has, or their agent did, or somebody did, ask that it be considered by HLAC.

I think the appellant did, is my understanding. But not either property owner has not expressed a wish to designate this barn.

Okay, thanks.

Yep.

With no more questions, I guess we proceed to appellant. You have 10 minutes.

Good morning, Chair Reid and commissioners. My name is Mandy Moua from Presidio Law Firm, and we represent Appellant Stanford Farms Trust, the owner of the adjoining property at 4635 Via Roblada. We respectfully request that the commission either continue this matter pending review by the Historic Landmark Advisory Commission or grant appeal and deny tentative parcel map without prejudice. This is not in opposition to future development. The issue is whether the county can lawfully approve this subdivision now based on the present record. The project is not a routine minor lot split. It would divide 12.99 acre coastal bluff top estate parcel into three separately conveyable lots, create two residential parcels, establish new easements and development rights, and permanently embed a legal non-conforming cross-lot barn into a new parcel configuration. That barn straddles the property line. It cannot be repaired, maintained, insured, altered, assessed, or demolished without coordination between separate property owners. Importantly, demolition is not speculative. The applicant formally noticed an intent to demolish the barn and circulated demolition related material. At the same time, a historic resource review process is now pending before HLAC. The county should not approve a subdivision that changes the ownership and parcel framework around this structure before the county's own historic resource body has a meaningful opportunity to evaluate it. Our position is not that the Commission must determine today that the barn is historically significant. The point is that there's substantial evidence raising legitimate historic resource questions that require further review before the county relies on a categorical CEQA exemption. The required subdivision map act findings also cannot be supported by this record. The county deferred feasibility issues, including septic feasibility, stormwater control, fire access, compliance, drainage issues, and future development constraints to later permitting stages. The bluff analysis relies primarily on a preliminary 2019 study prepared for a different project years before this subdivision application. The county cannot approve parcel framework first and determine later whether the resulting lots are actually suitable for the contemplated development. The CEQA exemption is also improper because this project presents multiple unusual circumstances. A coastal bluff top subdivision, two future residential lots, a cross-lot non-conforming structure, pending demolition issues, unresolved historic resource questions, and deferred environmental review issues. This is precisely the kind of project where careful review is required before approval. Accordingly, we respect that the Commission continue or stay the matter pending the HLAC review or grant appeal and deny the tentative parcel map. Thank you. Okay.

Thank you. Any questions? Commissioner Park?

Yes. Mr. Logue's letter to us, I think it's to us, he refers to a barn agreement, I believe the date was 1960, and calls it the alleged barn agreement, and then says it's of dubious legality, I'm paraphrasing. And I know that you didn't write the letter, but I'd like to ask questions about that. I can ask you about that now, or we can hear from Mr. Jacobs, and then you'll have a chance for rebuttal, and I can ask you about it then. Which would you prefer?

I can make a comment on it. I know that we have issues whether that agreement runs with the land, and... that's all I can say.

Well, let me ask you this. Even if it was invalid, what difference does it make to what we're doing today? I'm not independently supposed to be interested in whether it's valid or not or what it says. I just always want to know what impact does it have today on us? So I just asked that same question about the landmark status, and now with this agreement, What difference does it make? Why did Mr. Logue bring it up?

I can't speak to any particular reason why it was brought up. I just know that he has some contentions whether that agreement runs with the land and would be applicable.

Okay. Well, I don't want to put you on the spot. We'll let Mr. Jacobs address that as well when it's his turn, and then if you have any contrary opinions, you'll have a chance to address it in your rebuttal. So, thanks.

Thank you. I have a question here from Mr. Americana.

Hi. I want to follow up on a question that Commissioner Park asked the staff. Proposed parcel map would create three parcels. How does that fact, the division of one parcel into three, have any impact on the barn and any issues related to the barn? I frankly don't see Any connection there? And I'm hoping you can enlighten me.

I believe the effect would be that the subdivision runs with the land, so where the barn sits. It would have an effect on whether any enforceability or... Just general approvals regarding the barn straddling our client's property would be an issue.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand the explanation. Right now, the barn straddles a property line between your client's property and the applicant's property. After the subdivision goes through, the barn will straddle a property line between your client's property and the applicant's property. What the applicant then owns is going to be three parcels rather than one, to which I say, how does that affect the barn and issues relating to the preservation, demolition, whatever, of the barn? I just don't see the connection. I understand the argument made repeatedly in the letters that have been submitted to us, but I just don't see the connection between this subdivision and the future of the barn.

I believe our position is that the subdivision itself creates a legal parcel framework and development rights that would be an issue.

But there are development rights right now on the 12-acre parcel that exists today. And there are going to be development rights in the new parcel that is created where the barn is located. I'm still not getting it. I'm sorry. I just don't understand the connection.

My apologies. I wish I can expand on this further. I'm not in the position to be able to answer that for you at this moment.

Okay. That's a fair answer. I appreciate that. Thank you.

Okay. With no other questions, we can go to applicant's presentation.

Good morning, Chair Reid, members of the Commission. I'm Christopher Jacobs. I'm an attorney at the Brownstein Law Firm, and I'm here today with Alicia Harrison, a senior land use planner with our firm. I also have Tim Hazeltine, who is the historian who wrote the report. that we have submitted, and also Mr. Terrell is here, Chris Terrell, able to answer any questions. Alicia is going to make the primary presentation, but because of the order in which the questions have been raised, I think I would like to start out with talking about the barn. And I agree with you. The barn is, it should be a non-issue today. The Application has been carefully crafted to preserve the barn as something that remains in its status quo. There are no changes that have been proposed for that barn. So I was curious why Mr. Logue called it an alleged barn agreement. You know, it sort of questions, as Commissioner Park mentioned, the enforceability of of that agreement, but there's no explanation as to why it's unenforceable. You know, I took a look at it. We've looked at this quite a bit and We have determined that the barn agreement is from 1960. It's either enforceable as a covenant running with the land or an equitable servitude, and the difference between those two things is something that you study in law school, but it doesn't really matter. They're both enforceable as against future owners if it's crafted in the proper way. In this case, we have an instrument in writing that was entered into and signed by the owners of both 4635 and 4653 via Roblata. The barn agreement states the purpose and conditions of use, which are to apply to the barn. It states expressly that the agreement is binding on successors and assigns. And it was recorded in the official records of Santa Barbara County in 1960. When Mr. Terrell purchased 465 through Via Roblada in 2018, it was an all-cash, as-is, quick-close deal with no contingencies other than title. Does it have good title insurance? Does the Pellissero family, the original owners of the parcel, did they have the ability to convey it? And they did. There was no survey that was completed. While Mr. Terrell was aware the barn was on the easterly property line, as is typical for most residential real estate buyers, he did not drill down into the preliminary title report to look at its underlying exceptions to coverage. Mr. Terrell actually first became aware of the barn agreement when Stanford Farms Trust's owner, Wendy McCaw, emailed it to him a couple of years later. She was explaining that it was an enforceable agreement and that she had the right to go on to his property relative to the use and maintenance of the barn. Through a series of email communications, Ms. McCaw suggested a lot line adjustment process under which she would pay for and acquire ownership of the barn and some area around the barn, and that upon completion of the lot line adjustment, then the barn agreement would be terminated, have no further use. That did not happen. There has been no challenge to the enforceability of the Barn Agreement over the past 60 years. Stanford Farms has in the past always asserted that it was an enforceable agreement. Accordingly, to now challenge its enforceability in the context of today's Planning Commission hearing seems highly disingenuous. So that's my comment on the history of the Barn Agreement. The existence of that barn will continue after today, after what we hope to be an approval, and the parties can decide at a later date what they want to do with it. I'd like to also address Historic Landmarks Advisory Commission argument, which is also one that's been put forward by the Pellens. They suggest that the barn is potentially a significant historic resource, but offer no evidence in support of this argument or to counter the conclusions reached by post-Hazeltine. Those are in the record. The appellant does not mention that the same conclusion as to the lack of historic merit on that barn was reached by another historian, Alexandra Cole, in a report actually commissioned by the Stanford Farms Trust property when they wanted to do improvements on the Stanford Farms Trust parcel. About the HLAC process, in my case of dealing with Historic Landmarks Advisory Commission over the years, as is the case with your commission, the HLAC members do not independently investigate properties that are being identified as possibly having historic resource value, but instead review reports from architectural historians and other design professionals And then they rule upon the question of historicity based upon the strengths or weaknesses of the information that is submitted for its review. Tim Hazeltine may have more to say on that, but that's been my experience. Here, as in the case with most of appellant's arguments, there's no evidence being offered in support of the arguments. So there's no contrary historian testimony, only the argument that it may be historical. And let's wait and see what the HLAC does. The request for pausing the parcel map process to allow for HLAC's consideration of the barn is nothing more than a delay tactic. So those are sort of the out of order answers to the questions that have been raised. And I'll let Alicia take it from here.

Good morning, Chair and Commissioners. I'm Alicia Harrison, Land Use Planner with Brownstein. And to be honest, Chris Jacobs just covered most of my points, but we do have a slideshow. So I'll move quickly. I'll provide my opening comments and then maybe get you to some photos, which could be helpful. So as explained in detail in our written materials, as we'll cover today, the appeal filed by Stanford Farms Trust and the trust's recent request to defer consideration of the project until after it is considered by the HLAC represents an improper attempt to expand the scope of this appeal and delay a decision on an already approved project. The tentative parcel map is a simple lot split to divide in approximately 13 acre legal parcel into three lots consistent with zoning and site suitability analysis. The map has been thoroughly reviewed and approved by the zoning administrator and found to be consistent with the applicable county regulations and coastal policies. As provided comprehensively by staff, the zoning administrator decision was based on substantial evidence in the record submitted by the applicant, including all underlying studies required for map approval prepared by respected design professionals and consultants. In turn, The appellant has submitted a laundry list of legal arguments but no evidence to support those arguments as would be required to meaningfully counter the conclusions reached by the applicant's design professionals and consultants. And the appellant's, rather the basis of the appeal focuses on an existing shared lot line barn. And the appellant's fundamental argument is that the barn has historic resource value and its existence is an unusual condition that prevents your commission from approving the applicant's parcel map. However, there is no evidence submitted to the record by the appellant, including the appellant's most recent substantially sized submittal yesterday, to support the appellant's claim as to the historic status of the barn or how its existence is relevant to your consideration of the parcel map. As covered by Chris, to the contrary, the barn has been evaluated by two local, respected, qualified architectural historians. Post Hazeltine and Alexander Cole, both of whom concluded that the barn does not have historic resource value. And the Alexander Cole evaluation of the Stanford Farms Trust property was actually commissioned by the appellant in the late 1990s for approval of the new development of the appellant's property. So I'll skip through some of these photos the staff had presented in terms of location. This just shows that the surrounding area is predominantly 2.5 acre minimum parcel sizes with some nearby areas allowing even smaller parcels at 1.5 acres. The approved project, I believe, has been covered as well via Roblada on the north as well as the coastal bluff on the south end of the parcel. And here's just a closer look at that. Some context for you, we talked about the three access points along Via Roblada. In this image, it's proposed parcel one. You will see the driveway on the right side. And the center driveway is the driveway that accesses proposed parcel three. This is for proposed parcel two, the existing gate and wall. So the existing gate would be the access point for proposed parcel two. And on the right, you can see the access driveway for proposed parcel three. And then this is proposed parcel three, the existing driveway. All the improvements seen here were built as part of the coastal development permit for the existing residence on proposed parcel three. Chris Jacobs provided a lot of information regarding the maintenance agreement and the existing barn, its location, and then most importantly that there are no changes to the barn as proposed as part of the parcel map. And so here are some images to share. The barn is currently used for storage. It is currently in poor structural condition. As you can see, the exterior walls consisting of concrete masonry block are severely weathered and cracked. The sliding wood doors in either end of the barn are dilapidated and cannot be closed. Wood framing is exposed to the elements, and there are obvious signs of water intrusion. Dry rot and substantial deterioration of the roof sheathing and cedar shingle roofing. In sum, the barn has deterioration, is not weatherproof, and can only be used for the storage of items that do not require weather-type conditions. And here's a photo showing the storage of the construction debris and materials for the last few decades. Yeah, the point being, too, that this was originally designed as a horse barn, but for the last several decades has been used for storage by the parties. The appeal summary at its core is narrowly focused on three primary claims about the barn, the barn being a historic resource, the subdivision will increase the likelihood of barn demolition, and the parcel map will create coordination challenges between property owners. I believe that this has been pretty well covered by this point, but there is no evidence submitted by the appellant that the barn has historic resource value. There's a historic resource technical report prepared by qualified architectural historians post-Hazeltine, and they evaluated the structure under county, state, and national criteria. and did not find that the barn met any of those criteria. And this built upon the findings of the appellant's own historic resource study prepared by Alexander Cole in 98. Importantly, the appellant's HLAC submittal is nothing more than a delay tactic, which is lacking in merit, particularly given the findings of the Alexander Cole historical report commissioned by the appellant and for the appellant's property. The second appeal point is about the future demolition argument. Again, the parcel map does not rely on the removal of the barn, nor would any future development of parcel two rely on removal of the barn. No demolition is proposed or requested as part of the parcel map. No CDP for demolition has been applied for by the applicant, and any change to the barn would require its own CDP permitting process regardless of whether this lot configuration were approved or not. And it is our position that the recorded agreement governing the ownership and shared use of the barn would remain in effect. Another appeal point is about suitability and coordination between the parties. The properties are already burdened and benefited by the barn agreement and have been for 66 years. So the present existing coordination requirement between the applicant and the appellant is already established, and there is no reason to conclude arrangement will be compromised by approval of the parcel map. nor the lot configuration would not have any material impact on the status quo, nor would it increase or complicate coordination between the property owners. There's also the argument about an exception to the CEQA exemption. Post-Hazeltine reports that former stables like the barn were a common feature of many Hope Ranch properties throughout its history as a residential enclave, and there is no evidence in the record that a dilapidated non-conforming structure encroaching over a property line is an unusual circumstance per CEQA standards. The barn is also not historic, and there is no reasonable possibility of significant effects. Accordingly, the exception to the categorical exemption does not apply. Finally, related to the HLAC deferral, the appellant's request to involve HLAC introduces a new issue that was not raised during the zone administrator proceedings and presents an improper attempt to delay resolution of the appeal. The fact that the structure is older and was used for equestrian purposes does not establish historic significance. The property's prior equestrian activities, including raising and showing horses, were common at Hope Ranch, where equestrian activities were a focus of many properties. The barn is simply a dilapidated, utilitarian, 13-stall barn, which has not been used for equestrian purposes for decades. The appellant has submitted no evidence to the record finding the barn has historic resource value. There is, however, substantial evidence in the record that the barn is old, but devoid of historic resource value. Finally, our requested action. The barn has not been demonstrated to be historic resource. No changes to the barn are proposed as part of the parcel map, and there is no evidence that approval of the project will result in demolition of the barn. The zoning administrator's decision on the map is based on substantial evidence in the record submitted by the applicant. In contrast, the appellant has not submitted any evidence to support their appeal arguments. For these reasons, we respectfully request that the commission deny the appeal, adopt staff's findings, and uphold the zoning administrator's approval.

Thank you. Do we have any public comment? I had a question. Any questions? I am sorry.

Yes, and this may be a question more for Mr. Hazeltine than you. These questions may seem a little pointless to the rest of the Commission, but I have got an applicant who has called this an equestrian stable and an appellant who calls it a show barn. Mr. Hazeltine, I was out there yesterday and the doors for the animals to go out of their stalls to their paddocks or whatever was out there. If I was wearing a cowboy hat, and I'm five foot nine, probably not anymore, it would have knocked my hat off. I have horses. None of my horses could fit walking out that door. They would hit their heads. I have seen countless barns. When I was a college kid, I cleaned manure out of horse barns in Hope Ranch. I have never seen a barn with such low doors. I know from your report it referred to when this barn was built, probably about 1951, the then owners, what they specialized in, what they were interested in was breeding polled Hereford cows. And I made the comment to Ms. Harrison yesterday, I think this is more like a dairy barn than a horse barn. And I am just wondering, is it possible everybody is wrong here and this was not an equestrian barn, not built that way, maybe used later, but that this was built for the cow breeding operation?

To answer that question, that's possible. There's very little written data that was available to us about this precise original use of the building. However, it does appear that it was used to stable horses at one point. We did not use the term show barn in our report because we were not clear that that was the historic or say the original use. But it is not uncommon in these sort of facilities, sort of equestrian facilities, for the use of a building, as you know from working with horses, that the use can change sometimes over the decades. But yes, the clearance on the stalls is pretty low. And I can't see that they would have had riders on the horses when they brought them out, if they were using that at some point for that particular use. There's not a lot of information about the building. There's one sheet that we're able to find. of the elevations and the floor plan dating to, it looks like 1949. The date's very sort of illegible. But there's not an architect or designer's name on those drawings. And so it could have likely had, when we say barn, we do mean that it could be used for any type of horse or livestock or if someone raised burros or donkeys, all those things are possible. It doesn't make the building more or less, I mean, it doesn't really add much to significance except that it has this particular range of uses or did during its history. I hope that answered your question.

Well, you've reviewed other barns in Montecito and Santa Barbara and Hope Ranch, correct? Correct.

Yeah, we've done two equestrian facilities in Hope Ranch many, many years ago, and also a couple of stable slash barn structures in Montecito and some in the Santa Nez Valley.

And more often than not, they were built by people of some means?

Correct. And this is, as you can see from looking at the aerial photos, there are other structures associated with this, they call it the home farm sometimes, and sometimes it's referred to as an equestrian facility, that were built around 1930 when the original estate was developed for the Meyer family by a very well-known architect named Gordon Kaufman. There's no data at this point that would confirm that the barn structure that's in question was designed by him, of course. There was Roland Cote, another architect, worked for the Foley family in the 40s and 50s. But as I noted, there's no information on the available drawing that would assign this particular building to him.

My experience has been that barns are often a source of pride for owners that build them. They will be nice wooden barns and they will use wood. Even farmers build them the same way. They use wood because it is safer for the horses. There is some give to it. It is smooth surfaced. I frankly have never seen a horse barn that uses rough sided concrete block as stall separators. That's more what you'd use if you had hippopotami or rhinoceroses or big cows.

Yeah, so yes, it could be its original use was to stable this livestock he was raising, that the Foley's were raising. that would not lend it additional historic significance unless, I shouldn't really hypothesize here, but generally these larger complexes of buildings that have a similar use are, the historical part of it is that they're a part of a complex of structures. This is a very late addition, it's the last addition to the farmyard. in 1949, which is essentially 19 years after Myers created the estate. So it's late, it's not part of like Roland Coates original, not Roland Coates, pardon that, Gordon Kaufman's, architectural vision or his client's needs and desires for the property. But the precise use of it is not unique or distinguished in and of itself.

Okay, well thanks. I'm not sure I answered your question. I hope I did. Maybe your next report, you might say. Maybe it wasn't a question, Barn. It was a... Yeah, correct.

The last, when we were interviewed, the current owner, and also talked to Alex, this was when we first worked on the report in 2024, She thought it might have had an equestrian use. Unfortunately, Alex is dealing with some physical ailments, so we were not able to recontact her at this time.

Well, you know, the Pelliceros were famous for their involvement with horses, and they donated, and perhaps it is on permanent loan, that fabulous saddle collection that is at the Santa Barbara Carriage Museum. So clearly when they had it, but that was years later, they would have been interested in horses and perhaps used it that way. But back when it was built, They didn't have it.

Probably. And as Alicia noted, it seems very clear that at least for the last couple of decades, from sometime in the 90s, if not before, the building was used for storage and actually has probably been used for storage for a longer period of its life than it was used for the original function.

I have a question about that building. You know, it seems a very rudimentary design and unremarkable construction. I mean, stacked cinder blocks. I have not been with it, so I didn't know what separated the stalls, but when Commissioner Park says cinder block, that makes it sound a little suspicious if it were gonna be for horses. What are the floor, is the floor in that native soil, or is it? Some hard surface like concrete.

I think it's most if I remember I haven't been out in a couple of years and to be honest I believe that's part soil and then part a hard surface But the design I'll speak to the design Mr. Reid The building was constructed or designed right around 1949 built within a few years of that drawing being prepared of those plans and By that period in Santa Barbara architecture in California and Santa Barbara, these utilitarian buildings actually sort of got more utilitarian. So there wasn't usually the same sort of vision that you would have had in 1930 when they were designing the entire estate, when Gordon Kaufman was designing the entire estate to emulate a specific architectural style and repeat those materials and design features in each of the buildings to create a sort of cohesive assemblage of buildings that, at that time, they were essentially entranced with their idea of what life in Spanish and Mexican era Santa Barbara was like. So that's how those styles of those buildings tend to be more elaborate, have a specific style. In this case, as you noted, this building is very utilitarian. So it wasn't trying to hit all the bells and whistles that Gordon Coughlin's original design did for the estate.

Yeah, it looks like, as I said, quite unremarkable like a lot of other very utilitarian ag buildings I see now. Seems like its sole concession to style are those look like rotting, in a state of rot, cupolas on the roof look like they're about ready to fall through. Were those original to the building or did somebody put those on at a later time intending to dress it up, make it look more like something you could see in Kentucky?

I think they're original, and as you just noted, they were sort of an architectural gesture to sort of tie the building in at a very minimal way with the rest of the farm yarn buildings, which had been designed by Gordon Kaufman.

Okay. Okay, that's mine. If we're through, I guess we will proceed to public comment. Do we have any? No speaker slip. Is anyone online or remotely have their hand up?

Uh, no requests online.

All right. So appellant have any need to rebut anything? You have a couple of minutes.

So, Mr. Chair and Commissioners, just as a matter of record, the appellant had about six and a half minutes left over. Yes. And then the appellant went over about five, or the applicant, sorry.

Applicant. Applicant went over about five minutes, so to make things equal, I would recommend giving the... We'll give appellant a balance of what they had, plus a couple if they need it, and we'll give applicant... Times available. So you're both, okay. All right. So with that, we will close the public hearing and we're ready for comments, deliberations on part of the commissioners.

Sure.

Commissioner Ford.

Thank you, I think this is a rather easy decision I think all of the issues that were raised by the appellant have been addressed comprehensively and clearly and There's no evidence of historic resource value no development proposed no need for the HLAC Deferral, so I will definitely be ready to make a motion after hearing my colleagues

COMMISSIONER PARK. I WANT TO ADDRESS THE HLAC ISSUE. I USED TO SERVE ON HLAC. YOU CAN LOOK AT MY FORM 700 AND YOU CAN SEE THAT I DID. HLAC is different than the City of Santa Barbara's Historical Landmarks Commission because it is under an ordinance that has really no teeth. Really, the only way something gets historical landmark status in the county is if the owner volunteers it. City's very different, and I admire the way the city does it, by the way, but we're not in the city. I looked through the list. There are, I think, 48 historical buildings that have landmark status in this county over the long time we've had this ordinance. That's not really very many. I took a look at what might be of this vintage Because most of what's there is things like the Stowe House, you know, it goes back to 1860s or something. We've got the Goleta Railroad Depot. We've got the Messini Adobe, which is, what is it, 1803 or something in Montecito. We've got things like that. The Dabney Cabin, things that are really well known. People know about them. And yet here we're talking about this barn. This barn, the best guess, according to the Post-Hazeltine Report, was 1951. I was thinking about this. One thing I've shared with Commissioner Reed is my passion for 4-8N tractors, and my 4-8N tractor was built in 1951. So it is the same age as this barn. I guarantee you if you put it out there and just let the air out of the tires and had it sit by that barn, most historians would say that my Ford 8N is more historically significant because half a million of them were built by the Fords and there is one on every hilltop in Texas, Arkansas, Missouri, Nevada and everywhere else because half of them are still running. It's also interesting with respect to what else in Hope Ranch is a landmark. And you've got the Hope House, which was built in, I think, 1870. And there is really nothing else. There is a beach cabana, which was built in 1956. I think it is the only thing I could find that is newer than the barn. It is landmarked because it is on a promontory and it is a very interesting structure and so forth. It met the tests. What is also interesting is the post-Hazeltine report refers to Los Terrazas, which is a nine-acre estate. It was built by Harold Chase in 1925. It was the first Hope Ranch estate. It is a beautiful structure. It was designed by Reginald Johnson. The terraces are still there. The house is in pristine shape. You can't go on it because it is protected by a 120-pound bundle of white fur and fangs that was spread by the woman that just walked in. So you can guess where it came from. But it is a beautiful structure, and it is not landmarked. So here is the most historic estate in Hope Ranch that is not landmarked, but we are asked to delay this because HLAC is gonna take seriously this application of land bark, a concrete barn where the roof's held up with rusted steel posts. It was probably meant for storing cows. I just don't see it happening. And I have had still no answer to the question of what difference does it make anyway if it was landmark? What difference would it make to this subdivision? A piece of gratuitous advice, I would guess if this thing got appealed to this level, it would get appealed to the board. And I would almost suggest to Mr. Terrell, build a fence around it, give him a license agreement and say, here, you take the darn barn and do whatever you want with it. Because I can see for the appellant that it's aesthetically pleasing when you're on their side of the property to look at the barn. I admit that, I think so. So I would hope this thing could go away from the planning process with a, in a sense, gift of the barn to them by way of a license agreement, put up a visual obstruction and never have to deal with the planning process again. FOR ALL THAT, I WILL GO ALONG WITH WHAT I BELIEVE WILL BE COMMISSIONER FORD'S MOTION.

COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ, WOULD YOU?

YES. Well, I don't see effect of how the barn is really involved in this. I see there's something else in the background here and it's not for me to speculate, but I'm going to go along with my commissioners and I will say this as to the presentation. When somebody appeals something and the county's papers outnumber and outweigh what the appellant is asking for on a serious matter regarding real property, that tells me a lot about the appeal. And that's just not for now, and that would be for future, but yes, I know the appellee, we'll call them, has to come prepared, and that's what everybody's gonna do, and that's what good attorneys do, but I didn't see anything in this appeal. I'll leave it at that. Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Mayer-Taylor.

I agree with my colleagues, and I'm prepared to support the motion.

All right, I just, you know, in looking at it, I fail to really see the relevance of the barn. I look at its design and its condition and I just fail to see how it would ever achieve a status as historic. My main advice is if you visit the barn, be very careful you're not inside it when the roof falls in. But, so I would be inclined to deny the appeal and approve the project. Sounds like we have pretty good consensus Are we prepared to make a motion?

Yes.

Commissioner Ford.

Thanks. At this time, I would like to make a motion to deny the appeal in case number 26APL0006 and adopt the staff findings for approval, determine the CEQA exemption, and grant de novo approval of 24TPM0001. Do we have a second?

Second.

Mr. Villalobos, could you please do a roll call on this one?

Commissioner Americano? Aye. Commissioner Ford? Aye. Commissioner Park? Aye. Commissioner Martinez? Aye. Chair Reid?

Aye.

Motion passes five to zero.

Thank you. And before we adjourn, Mr. Wilson, we can address the issue of those two hearings that we wanted to consider for cancellation.

Mr. Chair and Commissioners, that is correct. We trailed the cancellation of those hearings. As a reminder, we are looking at canceling June 10th and June 24th hearings.

I move to cancel the June 10th and June 24th hearings. We had nothing today that got continued to there. You wouldn't really be able to notice anything anyway that something new came in. So it's just nothing's going to happen, and there's no reason for it.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Aye. Notice I didn't vote because I won't be here. Thank you.