Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the July 1st, 2026 meeting of the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission. Item number one is the Pledge of Allegiance. Please rise. And if we can have the TV coverage announcement, please.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning to the Commission and everyone else. 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, San Ynez Valley, Samaria, and Orchid areas. Reprodcast of Planning Commission hearings are 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? Yes, please. Great. Excuse me. Commissioner Ford? Here. Commissioner Park?

Here.

Commissioner Martinez?

Here.

And our acting chair, Mayor Conner?

Here. Thank you. All right. The agenda status report, please.

Good morning, Chair and Commissioners. In regards to the status of our agenda, we have two items on our standard agenda. THE FIRST ONE IS THE HOPE VIA'S TRACK MAP, AND THEN THE SECOND ITEM IS THE AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN AND SOME MINOR COASTAL LAND USE, THAT'S LAND USE WITH AN E PLAN AMENDMENTS. I SEE EVERYBODY CAUGHT THAT. AND THEN THAT'S AS FAR AS THE SENATE AGENDA GOES, AND I CAN MOVE TO THE PROJECTION REPORT, MR. CHAIR, IF YOU'D LIKE. Our next scheduled hearing is next week, July 8th. However, it's noted that Commissioner, or Chair, Mayor Conner will be absent that hearing, and we have no items projected. I recommend that we cancel that hearing on July 8th, and then we can do that at the end of the projection report. And then on July 29th, we will reconvene here in Santa Barbara. There is only one item projected at that moment, which is a tentative parcel map. And then on August 5th, we have one item, which is an equestrian arena, small scale event. And then on August 12th, we have, and then that's in Santa Barbara on August 5th. Then August 12th, we're in Santa Maria for a transfer of ownership for Santa Maria Asphalt Refinery. And then we don't have anything else projected in August. And then in September 9th, we have one item, a vesting track map. And that's in Santa Maria as well. In September, nothing else was projected in September. But Chair and Commissioner, since we have Deputy Director Seabirds here, one item just for agenda management. Looking at the projection report for July 29th and August 5th, it might be an opportunity for us to combine those meetings, because there's only one item on each item. So I think my recommendation is to move July 29th to August 5th, if that would work for Mr. Sewards.

I would say for the record, so you know, I won't be here August 5th.

So you would recommend we potentially move it the other direction?

That would work for me, yes.

Oh, the staff report is? OK. So we will coordinate on those hearing dates to see if we can consolidate so there isn't one item on those dates. And so we'll get back to you on that. So that concludes the projection report. So if we wanted to take a motion on July 8, and then note that on August 5, Commissioner Martinez won't be here, but we don't have to have a motion for that. But just a motion to cancel July 8th.

All right. Is there a motion to cancel the July 8th, 2026 meeting?

Move to cancel the July 8th meeting.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, no? Motion carries.

I do have a question. How will we know about the July 29, August 5 consolidation? We won't have another hearing before then.

Chair and commissioners, I'll work with Mr. Seawords during the hearing. Before we conclude, we'll trail that and see. More than likely, we might have to move the July 29th to August 5th, even though Commissioner Martinez is absent. Due to timelines, I think TO BE ABLE TO MOVE THE AUGUST 5TH UP EARLIER. WE NEED TO SEE IF THE APPLICANT AND THE STAFF IS PREPARED TO GO ON JULY 29TH FOR THAT AUGUST 5TH ONE.

A CONCERN I HAVE IS THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE FROM THE FOURTH DISTRICT YET. I WOULD HOPE WE'D HAVE THEM BY JULY 29TH, BUT I DON'T KNOW. IT KIND OF DEPENDS ON HOW MANY BOARD MEETINGS ARE AVAILABLE AND WHEN THEY'RE CHOSEN. AND IF MR. MARTINEZ CAN'T BE THERE ON THE, WHAT WAS IT, THE 5TH, THEN THAT'S A RAZOR-THIN MARGIN OF QUORUMNESS. ASSUME WE HAVE A QUORUM OF THREE, RIGHT? Is that our quorum? Yeah. And so if somebody's sick or whatever, then we could have a lot of people here at a meeting that doesn't happen. So I'm just concerned there. Thanks.

Yeah, Chair and Commissioners, we anticipate that by the end of July we'll have somebody from District 4 appointed.

All right, any other discussion on the scheduling of our future meetings for this summer? All right. And that's the completion of the projection report. Let's move on to item number six, public comment, which public comment period is set aside to allow public testimony on items not on today's agenda. Do we have any speaker slips or anyone online who wishes to offer public comment?

FOR THOSE OF YOU JOINING US ONLINE, IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON SOMETHING THAT'S NOT ON TODAY'S AGENDA, PLEASE RAISE YOUR VIRTUAL HAND. AND FOR THE CALLER, IT'S STAR 9 TO RAISE YOUR HAND ON YOUR PHONE. SEEING NO HANDS RAISED ONLINE. ALL RIGHT. AND I HAVE THREE. I'M SORRY, WE DO HAVE ONE HAND UP. I'M SORRY, OUR CALLER. SO FOR OUR TELEPHONE CALLER, IT'S NOW STAR 6 TO UNMUTE YOURSELF.

Caller, you may offer your comment if you're ready. There we go.

Hello.

Hello.

Hi. My name is Joshua Sheffield. I live at 3828 Cayetito. And I was just inquiring regarding this just to bring up a concern of the neighborhood.

So before you go on. Are you wishing to speak on item number one, the Hope Villas Tract Map item? Yes. That is, we've not yet started on that item. We will in a couple of minutes, and there will be a time during the consideration of that item for public comment, and that will be the time for you to offer your comments on that item. Is that all right?

Yeah, my apologies on that.

No problem.

All right, thank you.

You bet. Talk to you in a few minutes.

All right, thanks. No additional hands up.

All right. And I don't have any speaker slips specifically identifying public, generalized public comment. Just to be sure, is there anybody in the room who wants to offer a comment on an item not on this morning's agenda? Seeing no hands and no indication, we'll close the public comment. Period. Item 7, the Planning Commissioner's Information Reports. Individual Commissioners may present brief reports on planning issues such as seminars, meetings, and literature that would be of interest to the public or the Commission as a whole. Do any of the Commissioners have anything to offer under this agenda item? No? Yes. John?

Yes, I have three things. Three weeks ago, I attended a tour of the Straus Wind Energy Project with a seniors hiking group that I lead. This time we focused on their restoration efforts. It's an expansive project there, the restoration. It's very interesting. They welcome tours for other planning commissioners. I think we have something coming up in a few months on that, so it's not the kind of thing that we could all go at once, but any two could go. Otherwise, we'd have a Brown Act violation, but I strongly advise that. It's really interesting scenery. It's interesting to see what they're doing, and it's going to be a hard thing to understand very well when you're just looking at a staff report and you haven't been out to the site. So here's an example to go out there when you'd like to do it, and that can be easily set up. A week later, I went out to Vandenberg Space Force Base on horseback and toured that and that northern part with their restoration biologist, and they're doing a lot of interesting things out there. I don't even know if that's my district anymore or not. Do you know, Commissioner, I mean, Director Plowman? Who knows? Whatever. It's in the county.

And they're doing... I'm not sure it is.

Yeah. They're doing some interesting things on a very large scale. I think it's, again, something that could be of interest to planning commissioners because so many of our projects involve restoration. And, again, it's hard to understand it unless you're looking at it. And... Restoration sometimes involves millions of dollars on an acre and sometimes involves sort of passive activities on thousands of acres. So it's just a good thing to get familiar with the scale. And then this weekend I conducted an Ag Enterprise Ordinance event, horseback event near Lake Kachuma. Had to reroute my trail. I spent two days doing that because some babies, and I can show you the baby pictures, these babies are fledgling bald eagles and their mother made it very clear she wanted me to leave them alone and vacate the area. So we did, but in all seriousness it illustrates to me that sometimes these miracles of nature are why we have CEQA. And sometimes I think we think of CEQA as just sort of a pain in the neck that we have to overcome, but there's some really strong protections in it and, of course, in Federal law that makes something like this possible. So there I am.

Well, thank you, Commissioner Park. Did you say that you visited the Space Force base on horseback? Yes. And you?

I drove there, but then went through the base on horseback. I mean, I could have ridden over there, but I didn't.

okay well i was just curious because you went to one place by horseback another by bike i'm wondering is alternative transportation required for these tours no it was all by horse no bike okay all right well that sounds interesting thank you for that anybody any of the other commissioners have anything to uh offer no all right So let's move on to the minutes of May 27th and June 3rd. They were distributed with the agenda for today's meeting. Let's do separate motions. First, the minutes of May 27th, 2026. Is there a motion to approve?

I move to approve the minutes of May 27th, 2026.

Is there a second? Motion made and seconded. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say no. Aye. Motion is approved. Is there a motion for the June 3rd, 2026 minutes?

Move to approve.

And second.

Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

All opposed, no. Motion is approved. The Director's Report and the Board of Supervisors Hearing Summary. Director Plowman, welcome.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the Commission. I'm just trying to bring up the map for Commissioner Park to tell him whether or not Vandenberg is in his district. Our internet does not work very well in here. OK. I have a few things to report today. Since I was last here, I haven't been here since May. So it's been quite a while. The board had their budget hearings on the 16th of June this year, and those were the final budget hearings. And we as a department had initially requested the restoration of one position because as part of the budget this year, all departments were asked to contract a bit because of the shortfall that the county was experiencing due to loss of grant funding from the federal government and the state government for some of our social services departments and county health. So we had initially asked for the restoration of one of the positions that we were giving up. And we decided to withdraw that request based on just sort of how things were unfolding in the budget hearing process. But what I did want to say is, subsequent to that hearing, we did learn that we received a grant from Ocean Protection Commission, I believe is what it's called. And it is to help us with our adaptation planning for sea level rise. And we're building that. That's part of our adaptation planning we're doing as part of the safety element update. That's one piece of it. So we got a $300,000 grant to help support that effort, which is really helpful because that then reduces the amount of general fund that our department is required to take from the county's general fund for the support of long-range planning. So we may be able to fill that position that way. BUT OVERALL I THINK THE BUDGET PROCESS WENT FAIRLY SMOOTHLY. WE DID JUST LEARN WHEN THE STATE BUDGET WAS SIGNED BY THE GOVERNOR, IT DID RESTORE SOME FUNDING TO COUNTY HEALTH AND SO THEY WERE ABLE TO MAINTAIN SOME OF THE POSITIONS THAT THEY WERE GOING TO HAVE TO CUT. SO THAT IS SOME POSITIVE NEWS FROM THE STATE. The other thing I wanted to mention is that the Board takes a break at the end of July and the beginning of August. So the last two weeks of July, the Board will be out of session in the first two weeks of August. So after the 14th of July, they will not have a hearing until August 18th. So that's a quiet time at the Board of Supervisors. The other thing I wanted to mention was that while it's not a planning and development project, the recreation master plan draft environmental impact report was made public for review, and that review period is June 26th through August 10th. So if people have an interest in that project and they want to review the EIR, they can find it on the CSD website. And then the other things I wanted to report on were future board items that we've got coming up. We have on the 7th of July, the Rose general plan amendment and rezone, which was the out sort of near Moore Mesa, a change from an agricultural zoning to residential zoning. We have an item that did not come to the planning commission. It's an appeal of an incomplete determination for an ADU IT'S GOING STRAIGHT TO THE BOARD BECAUSE OF THE TIMELINES IN WHICH WE HAVE TO HAVE A FINAL We could not come to the Planning Commission and the Board and meet that deadline. And so we decided to go straight to the Board of Supervisors. And they will be deciding on whether the department's determination that the application for her as bill ADU is incomplete. Then we also have an item on the 7th. This was an item that the Board brought up and it had to do with ICE detention facilities. And there was a question at the board as to whether or not those types of facilities are permitted in the county in the unincorporated area. And so we are reporting to the board tomorrow, or not tomorrow, I'm sorry, next week, about what our code says. And I can give you a preview of that. We've docketed the board letter. Our code does not currently have a use of a detention facility or even a definition of one. And as such, it is not considered a permitted use. It is also not in similar nature to any other permitted use in our code. It's our determination that such facilities would not be allowed under our current existing zoning ordinances. So we will be reporting to the board on that. The other thing to note is that any activity on federally owned land by the federal government or federally leased land by the federal government is not subject to our codes. So that is going to be on the 7th of July. And then on the 14th of July, we are going to be, the county is going to be giving an update to the Board of Supervisors on the implementation of Acela, which is a permitting public interface software that multiple departments are using. So we call it an enterprise software for the county. And we will, our IT department is going to be leading the meeting or the hearing presentation. then I will give a presentation sort of on what Planning and Development is doing, how far we've come with Acela, and what our next steps are. We are currently implementing what we call E-Permit Hub, which is an interface in the Acela environment that allows for joint plan review between departments and they can mark up live and put their comments in and applicants are able to see what comments are from which department and who is reviewing the different plans and so that's very helpful for applicants to be knowledgeable about where their plans are in the process. And then public works has implemented it, fire has implemented it, and environmental health has implemented it. If you're interested in that there'll be a summary and a presentation to the board on the 14th The other item that we have going forward is the oil and gas prohibition of new drilling of oil of wells That is on the 14th and then utility scale solar is also on July 14th. So that's going to be a big day and then The only other item that we have going, and that's going to be going in the first August hearing, and that's the Hague Forest general plan amendment and rezone, which is out in Santa Ynez Valley. And it's a commercial rezone.

And that's all I have to report. I'm happy to answer any questions.

I have a question. Commissioner Park. I don't mean to be obsessed about calendaring, but I'm wondering if there is even time before the board takes its recess for it to approve the appointment of a fourth district planning commissioner.

So I...

If their last hearing is the 14th.

Yeah, their last hearing is the 14th. I don't have an update on that. Do you, David?

HE'S SMILING.

I DON'T THINK WE KNOW.

SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THERE'S CURRENTLY A PLACE HOLDER FOR NEXT WEEK'S REPORT. OKAY.

THAT IS CORRECT, ACTUALLY. I DID HEAR THAT.

YEAH. JUST LOOKING AT, AGAIN, BACK AT OUR PROJECTION REPORT, I THINK THE FOURTH DISTRICT PLANNING COMMISSIONER SHOULD BE IN PLACE. for the hearing that we have scheduled the 12th for the transfer of permit for the Santa Maria Asphalt Refinery.

Correct. I know that's been their goal is to have something in place for that item.

That is correct. I'm glad somebody's thinking about it.

Yes.

Yeah. Thank you. Any other questions for Director Plowman? I have one. Is the proposed ICE facility described its location or whether or not the property will be owned or leased by the federal government?

So, Chair, Mayor Conner, we don't have one proposed currently. It was a question about whether or not one could be proposed. Got it. And, you know, there are sort of two ways these things happen. One, the federal government builds it on federal land or federally leased land, or they take over a building. What has been sort of happening across the country is that They'll go in and lease a vacant warehouse or something along those lines. Other communities have put into moratoriums and taken other measures to prevent the development or the occupation of one of the buildings by ICE department. So we don't have one now. If we do have one that comes in and is proposed by a private entity, then we would, as a department, tell them that's not a permitted use, but we would be advising the board that we had received such an application.

Got it.

I think there was some concern that there's been quite a bit of money set aside for the development of these facilities at the federal level and a question about where those facilities would go if any more were to come into Santa Barbara County. There is one in the city of Santa Maria today that was approved by the city.

But at the moment, the question is hypothetical, not real.

It's correct.

Good. Okay. Any other questions? Thank you. Nice to see you again. Nice to see you. All right. That is our administrative agenda. We're on to the standard agenda. Mr. Clerk. Mr. Secretary, sorry.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The following is a hearing on the request of Franciscan Real Estate LLC to consider case numbers 26TRM1 and to determine the project as exempt from CEQA pursuant to state CEQA guidelines section 15183. And before staff... starts a presentation I just want to mention something before it slips my mind at some point before we get to public comment I just want to point out we did receive a late submittal I put it on the dais this morning it came in just before the hearing started so if the commission wishes to consider this inclusion as part of the public record we'll have to vote that in and because There are only four members. I believe it would have to be unanimous, perhaps, but council can correct me on that.

Is the time to do that now or when we get to the point of public comment?

So we can do it at any point, but I believe that we should do it during public comment in case the person who wrote this letter is present so they have the ability to cover their comments and their verbal testimony.

All right. So this is an email from Joshua Sheffield and Robert Sheffield. Is that what we're talking about?

Correct. Dated July 1st. Okay.

So we'll consider whether or not to accept this additional comment when we come to the public comment portion of this agenda item. Is that all right with everybody? Sounds good. All right. So let's move on to our staff report, please.

Good morning members of the Planning Commission. My name is Kevin De Los Santos and I'm presenting the Hope Villas Track Map Project. The project site is located at 560 North La Cumbria Road. It is within the inland area of the county and is zoned design residential. The project before your commission is a request for a track map to convert 50 previously approved multi-family rental units into condominium units. meaning the rental units can now be sold as individual units. No development is proposed under this track map application. The project is subject to your commission's review because the State Subdivision Map Act requires a track map for the creation of five or more condominiums. The already approved housing development is entitled and not subject to review or appeal. Although that approved housing development is not subject to review, this slide provides context on the housing units that will become condominiums through this tracked map. The previously approved site plan can be seen in the top image. It depicts 50 multifamily units, parking areas, a barbecue and picnic area, a playground, and a bioretention basin. Visual elevations of the buildings can be seen in the lower image. Ten of the approved units, which is 20% of the total, are affordable to low-income households with the remaining four units at market rate. This track map is simply to allow those housing units shown on the screen to be sold as individual units, condominiums. This slide provides context and background on the subject property and prior approvals that have been granted for the site. In May of 2024, the Board of Supervisors rezoned the project site through the housing element update and its associated environmental impact report. It was rezoned from single family residential to design residential. This rezone to design residential allows development of multifamily housing through a zoning clearance. The housing element acknowledged an expected build out of 50 multifamily units on the subject property. In November of last year, excuse me, in October of last year, a zoning clearance approved the 50 multifamily rental units and associated development. As discussed in the staff report, the project, which is a request for this track map, is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The project complies with the requirements of County Code Chapter 21 and with all applicable development standards of the Land Use and Development Code, specifically the Design Residential Zone District. and the project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA pursuant to the projects consistent with the comprehensive plan or zoning. Staff recommends that your commission take the following actions. Make the required prior needs for approval, determine that the project is exempt from environmental review, and approve the project. This concludes my presentation. I'm available for questions.

Before we move to questions from the Commission, can we have any ex parte or site visit disclosures from members of the Commission? Commissioner Ford.

Thanks. Yes, I visited the site yesterday on my own. All right.

Anyone else? No. All right. Questions for staff?

COMMISSIONER PARK. THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, IT FALLS UNDER WHAT CATEGORY? IS IT LOW INCOME, MODERATE, VERY LOW INCOME?

MR. CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS, LET ME REFER BACK TO THE ZONING CLEARANCE THAT APPROVED THAT AND VERIFY FOR YOU. IT STATES HERE THAT THE AFFORDABLE UNITS ARE AFFORDABLE TO LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS.

I HAVE SOME FAMILIARITY WITH MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES, CITIES HERE IN THE COUNTY THAT ARE CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION ORDINANCES. DO WE HAVE ANYTHING LIKE THAT IN THE COUNTY? You know, what they'll have in these ordinances is they'll tie it to vacancy rates and things like that. Like carpentry, you need to have a vacancy rate. It used to be over 5% or something like that to convert to condominiums. I just wonder if there's something that's not really in our typical land use ordinances that will bear on this in some way.

Chair and Commissioner Park, my understanding is the only process we have for a conversion of rental to condo is the tract map process, which requires approval at the Planning Commission level.

Well, good. It makes it easier. Thanks.

Commissioner Ford.

Thanks. If I could just clarify, I'm looking at the map. First of all, the visual, the attractive visual that is on the bottom of the page, four, is that on Cayetita or North La Cumbra Road?

Mr. Chair and Commissioners, that visual simulation is what would look like from both Cayetita and La Cumbre Road. That's a simulation for all elevations.

I see. Okay. And then clarifying that there will be no vehicular access from North La Cumbre Road because there is a driveway now.

Mr. Chair and Commissioners, that's correct. Both access points would be on Cayetita. And so that was decided during that zoning clearance application in coordination with both fire and transportation departments.

Okay, thank you.

I have two questions. So you use the phrase zoning clearance for the members of the public who may not be familiar with the county's permitting process. Does zoning clearance Does that represent the final act in issuing approvals for the construction of the apartment building?

Mr. Chair and Commissioners, somewhat correct. Yeah, in this instance, project sites and properties that were rezoned through the housing element, they went through an extensive review process at that time, and then once they were rezoned, those properties can submit applications for multifamily housing development, and it was codified that those subsequent applications for multifamily housing would be completed through a zoning clearance application. And zoning clearances are processed ministerially, meaning there's no public hearing notice for it and they cannot be appealed.

The public hearing on the apartment building, which was subject to the zoning clearance, that occurred during the rezoning process?

THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS WAS FOR THE HOUSING ELEMENT THAT ANALYZED THE PROCESS FOR THAT PROJECT SITE TO BE REZONED TO ALLOW FOR HIGHER DENSITY MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT. IT ANTICIPATED A NUMBER OF UNITS, 50 IN THIS CASE, BUT DID NOT REVIEW OR ANALYZE THE ACTUAL AESTHETICS AND DEVELOPMENT OF THOSE BUILDINGS.

if uh chair and commissioners if i can add there was a full environmental impact report done that analyzed all of the rezone sites and potential impacts that could occur in all issue areas as a result of those rezones including the 50 units on this site and that applied mitigation measures that all rezone projects are required to comply with including for objective design standards for architectural design, transportation demand management programs, air quality, noise, any issue area, biological resources, there are mitigation measures that all of the ReZone site projects were required to comply with. That project did comply with all of those through the zoning clearance process. Hence, the zoning clearance was approved in November of 2025, I believe. And to answer your question, that was the final zoning action on that physical development.

The last remaining step in terms of beginning construction of the apartment building that has already been approved is the issuance of grading and building permits. Is that correct?

Chair, that is correct. There are grading and building permits in process.

In other words, the owner or the applicant has applied for building permits and grading permits and those applications are being reviewed and once they're issued, they can begin construction?

Chair, that is correct.

All right. And I'm asking the questions about the previous county approval so that there is clarity for everyone involved in this process about how far down the road this project already is. The County Board of Supervisors held a public meeting and a public hearing on the housing element update to authorize the rezoning of this property from what it was to residential. Is that correct?

Chair, that is correct.

And then subsequent to amending the housing element, there was then an ordinance to rezone the property from what it was to a zoning category that would allow the construction of this multi-unit building. Is that correct?

That's correct.

Okay. And those all happened in the last three, four years. Is that right?

That's correct.

Okay.

My other question has to do with the affordability condition. What's the mechanism that the County has in its code to ensure that the condominiums, if this condominium application is approved, that the condominiums that are sold, the 20 percent that are to be affordable, are in fact affordable on future sales. How does that happen?

Mr. Chair and Commissioners, the zoning clearance, which CONDITION THE PROJECT TO REQUIRE THAT AFFORDABILITY, THE 20% AFFORDABILITY IS IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT. SO NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS WITH THIS TRACT MAP APPLICATION, THE DEVELOPMENT OF THESE UNITS MUST COMPLY WITH THAT 20% AFFORDABILITY THRESHOLD.

THEY ARE DEED RESTRICTED. THE 10 UNITS ARE DEED RESTRICTED. THEY HAVE TO FILL OUT A COVENANT. THOSE UNITS ARE MANAGED BY OUR COLLEAGUE DEPARTMENT, HCD, FOR 99 YEARS.

THERE IS A COVENANT THAT IS RECORDED BETWEEN THE owners of the property and their successors, meaning the buyers of each of the units, the 20% of the units in question, 10 units, 20%. Let's talk about 10 units. That's easier. The buyers of each of those 10 units who are buying at an affordable price will be signing a covenant with the county to, if they ever sell those units, they have to sell them at a price that continues to comply with the affordability standards. Correct. And those sales will be reported to the county and the county can then enforce that covenant to be sure that it's complied with. Is that, do I understand it correctly?

Yes. Yep.

You're right on. Okay. That's the mechanism to ensure that the affordability persists in future years. Correct. Okay. Good. Thank you.

Yep.

Other questions?

All right. Let's move to the applicant's presentation.

Good morning, Chairman, Mayor Conner, Commissioners. My name is John Mullen, authorized agent for Hope Church and managing partner of Franciscan Real Estate. I'd first like to thank Kevin De Los Santos and Nicole Liu and the planning staff for their professionalism and thoughtful work through this process. We appreciate the staff recommendation for approval. AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED, THIS PROJECT BEGAN REALLY DURING THE COUNTY'S 2024 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE. and county long range planning approached us and asked whether we would allow the church property become one of approximately 17 housing element rezone sites identified to help meet Santa Barbara County's housing needs. We agreed because we believed in the county's vision in creating much needed housing. As part of the process, we submitted a letter supporting the rezoning and committed that any future development would include 20% affordable housing, We've honored that commitment throughout this process. County staff explained that the purpose of the housing element was to identify sites that could realistically deliver housing and we're pleased to partner with the county in accomplishing this goal. As the staff presentation explains, the property was rezoned to DR 20 to 30, and the housing element environmental EIR anticipated a build out of 50 units on the site. And today the project delivers exactly what the county envisioned. 50 new homes, 10 affordable homes, 20% affordable housing. A project fully consistent with the adopted housing element and zoning. We're proud to have worked with the county to help implement that vision. Before I continue, I'd like to clarify what I believe is the most important point about today's application, because it may not be entirely clear from the staff report. This is not an apartment project being converted to condominiums. It has always been a condominium project, and from the day we submit our application to the county, our proposal has been 50 condominium homes. including ten affordable homes representing twenty percent of the project. The physical development you see today is exactly the physical development we proposed from the beginning. The reason we are here today is simply procedural. County staff elected to bifurcate the approval process rather than processing our condominium project through the single entitlement. Staff divided it into two separate approvals. First the county reviewed and approved the physical development through zoning clearance and second Staff directed that the condominium ownership be processed separately through this tentative track map. That was a county's procedural approach, not a change to our project. So today's hearing, from our perspective, is not about converting apartments into condominiums. It's about completing the second step of the approval process for a condominium project that has always been a condominium project. Most housing element projects provide, out of the 17, provide rental housing. Hope Villas provides something equally important, attainable ownership. Teachers, health care workers, first responders, young families, working professionals, many earn too much to qualify for subsidized housing but still cannot afford to purchase a home in Santa Barbara. Condominiums provide an opportunity to build equity, to establish long-term roots in our community, and to create housing stability. Santa Barbara needs both rental housing and attainable homeownership opportunities, and Hope Villas helps provide that balance. Nothing about today's application changes our affordable housing commitment. The project continues to provide 10 affordable homes representing 20% of the development, exactly as originally proposed and approved. We appreciate the careful review that planning staff has given this project and their recommendation for approval. We believe Hopeville fulfills the objectives, county's housing element by providing much needed housing, including 20% affordable homes, onsite specifically identified and rezoned for this purpose. And as has been stated, it is consistent with the comprehensive plan, the DR 2030 zoning designation and applicable provisions of the county code. and it qualifies for the CEQA exemption identified by staff. Accordingly, we respectfully ask the Commission to make the required findings for tentative track map 14924 to determine the project is exempt from CEQA and approve the tentative track map consistent with the staff recommendations. Thank you for your time and consideration, and I'm available to answer any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Mullen. Are there questions by the Commission for the applicant? Yes, Commissioner Park.

You know, I want to thank you for bringing up the point about this being a somewhat unique project in that it's providing units for sale as opposed to for rent. And I've spoken to a member of the Board of Supervisors that addressed exactly that issue countywide. that for teachers, police officers, and so forth, they would like to build inheritable wealth through their house just like many Santa Barbara residents do, but they can't. And so it's good to have these kinds of projects in addition to the rental projects, and I'm very glad you brought that up and explained it. Great.

Thank you, Commissioner Park.

Other questions for the applicant?

No?

Thank you, Mr. Mullen. Thank you. Anyone else for the applicant? All right. It's now time for public comment. I have four public comments slips, and we have the written submission from Joshua Sheffield and Robert Sheffield, which came in after the deadline. So let's deal with that first. Is there a motion to accept the written submission from Joshua Sheffield and Robert Sheffield? Yes, Commissioner Ford.

Thanks. Yes, I'd like to make a motion to accept the email from jsheffield222 at yahoo.com, dated today.

All right. Is there a second? I'll second the motion. Any discussion? All those in favor? I'm sorry.

I'm sorry. When was this submitted again? Well, just this morning. This morning.

Mr. Secretary?

It was received about 10 minutes before the hearing started. In our process, is there supposed to be a submitted when? So for letters longer than the page in length, that's the middle deadline, is the Monday before the hearing by noon, so two days ago at noon.

All right. All right. Motion's on the floor. It's been seconded. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say no. No. Motion fails. All right. This item is not accepted into the record. We have four... REQUEST TO SPEAK, AND I WILL CALL ON THEM IN THE ORDER IN WHICH THEY WERE SUBMITTED TO THE CHAIR. FIRST IS ROBERT FREEMAN. MR. FREEMAN, IF YOU WOULD BE KIND ENOUGH TO APPROACH THE LECTERN AND THE MICROPHONE.

IT WILL BE THREE MINUTES EACH FOR YOU, SPEAKER.

VERY GOOD. YOU HEARD THAT, MR. FREEMAN? IT WILL BE THREE MINUTES EACH. VERY GOOD. YOU'RE WELCOME TO START.

Is there a button I'm supposed to put?

There you go.

There you go. Okay. Okay. Yeah. Actually, I had two questions, but essentially you discussed the second one, so I have no need to bring that up again. I had a question. I was unfamiliar with the prior approval of the project. But I was wondering what the impact on traffic is at that corner of Cayetita and La Cumbra.

So I think we'll direct that question to staff to answer that question after you have completed your comment.

Well, I just think it's... busy now, and there's the crosswalk that's been established for the children to go across Lacumba to the La Colina and Hope Elementary School. And so I just worry about the impact of how many trips, additional trips, this project will create at that corner.

And we'll ask staff to address that after we've had all the public comment. very good very good thank you sir our next speaker robert sheffield mr sheffield will you turn the microphone on please it's a little button underneath the On the right side there. On the right. There you go. You got it. It's on. It's on, sir.

All right. Can you hear me now?

You can.

Robert Sheffield. I live at 3828 Cayetita. I've lived there since 2020. I really did not know about this project until maybe a month ago. I have no major objections to the project. My main concern is the traffic. The speed limits, I believe, on Hope Avenue and La Cumbria are 35 miles an hour, and I think residential is 25, if I'm not mistaken. There are a lot of people, a lot of children that walk our street. And also, I am on a small hill that allows people to crank it up a little bit in terms of their automobile. So this street, Caycita, I think at one time was a cul-de-sac. And then they opened it up. to La Cumbre, or it could have gone in reverse. I don't know. It's probably, like I said, on the former. So the concern I have really has to do with the speed of traffic. And it is my suggestion that that be lowered to maybe 20 miles an hour. I just see a lot of kids walking the streets, a lot of electric bikes, a lot of adults walking in that area. And since it is a hill, people sort of get the idea they can go a little faster. So it's my suggestion that the county take into consideration the speed for the area. That's my comment.

Thank you, Mr. Sheffield. Our next public speaker is Nancy Pearson, 524 North La Cumbria Road.

A button.

The microphone is on.

Thank you very much. I was hoping to be last. My concern is also traffic. I live on Lacumbra Road. And also, I'm going to try to condense this. I understand that the height of the building is they are asking for a 10-foot variance. Am I correct?

We'll let the staff take note of your question and they'll respond to it after you finish speaking.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

The removal of 46 trees and adding nine, those trees, some of those trees have been there 100 years. I've lived on Lacumbra for 62 and they were there again. safety of the children that walk up La Cumbra over to Cayesita. The open space, I understand that they are asking for a reduction of 40%, which was the original, to one place I looked up, it said 21%. Another said 38. Reduce it to 38. There was an email that should have been included. It was sent in before the cutoff time. And I'm sorry it didn't get included.

I'm not sure it's not been included, ma'am. We received emails that came in before the deadline on Monday. That was distributed to the commission. And when you finish speaking, we'll ask the commission secretary to put into the record the names of the people who sent in emails.

Oh, thank you very much for that clarification. And I do wish to thank Kevin De Los Santos for his time and concern and My daughter, who grew up in that area, spent a long time talking to him, and I do appreciate his taking the time. And Henry Wakamaya was also contacted and gave a great deal of his time, so much appreciated. It was a shock. to come down and find out what was being built since there were no public hearings. And I realize you were legally not obligated to notify us. But for the residents, it was a shock.

Thank you, Ms. Pearson. And thank you for your kind words about the county staff. Our last public speaker is Kitty, forgive me if I mispronounce your name, Su Hu. Okay. And then we do have a few online as well. Oh, good. All right. And the microphone is on, ma'am. You may begin.

Thank you. Yeah, one of our concerns, we live right across the street where the property is going to be developed, and our concern is traffic, too, as the previous three speakers. One thing to note is that a lot of cars come down Calisita because one block over Puente has speed bumps, so a lot of people want to bypass that, so they're zooming on Calisita. So we have that problem there, and then also there are a lot of students that use that route to go to school, either to the junior high school or to the elementary school, so we were Wondering how that would impact having 50 residents You know condos across the street and the main throwaway for them is Calisita going in and out so a lot of people walk on that street and Like I say a lot of cars try to bypass Puente so I don't know if they want to consider putting speed bumps on Calisita to slow people down and the hill is being used by kids to use their skateboards and they ride their bikes because it's kind of a They like the hills. I had other concerns, but they were answered during this proceeding. So thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Suhu. So we have some speakers online. Is that right?

It looks like one left. But again, if you'd like to speak on this item and you're joining us via Zoom, raise your hand. If you're joining us via telephone, it's star 9 on your phone to raise your hand. While waiting on that, we do have one hand up currently, and that is Jamie Poe.

All right. Jamie Poe, you are online and ready to be heard by the commission.

Hello, commission. This is actually Jason Poe, Jamie Poe's husband. We live at 3832 Cayesita. I'd like to address, first of all, the lack of a public hearing for the residents in the neighborhood. I would like to second Bob Sheffield's notion that we didn't know anything about this project It felt very underhanded. And to the gentleman on your left, sir, who is a stickler about the deadlines of receiving comments, it seems kind of hypocritical to say we received an email 10 minutes before the meeting and we're not going to read it. However, everyone in the neighborhood did not know of this project before it started. My main concern and my wife's main concern is the height of the building, which is a proposed to be 10 feet above code. Once again, does not fit the neighborhood. There was no public comment, no desire from the people involved in this project to know how the residents feel. Because we would probably have gone along very well with a project that fits the neighborhood. Our other main concern is that the entrance goes on to Cayesita, which is one of the few streets that goes between Hope and La Cumbre. That means there's going to be extensive traffic. As some of the other speakers have said, there's a lot of children, including my own, who walk that neighborhood, and it's already quite congested with traffic. Our school infrastructure isn't really designed to accommodate many more folks. It's good to hear that it will be sold as a condominium because that does provide income into our existing school system since we're not funded by the state. There is a number of oak trees that are being sold. targeted for removal, as the previous speaker had said. Some of them have been there for hundreds of years. Only to reduce the amount of open space to add to more condominiums. It seems quite egregious, both in the height and the amount of condominiums proposed to go into the space. Once again, a project tailored to the neighborhood would probably have been welcomed by our community, but instead it seems like the county quickly approved a process without any input from the neighborhood. We did not know this project was in existence. It was approved before anyone found out. Most of us have lived there for quite some time. And to all of a sudden find out that this is going on, it felt very underhanded and reckless. Obviously, there's a lot of money involved and you'll have to deal with it. from your end, but that is the feeling of the neighborhood, and I just wanted to express that as quickly and concisely as I can. I can see I'm down to six seconds, but next time, please, you can do better than that. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Poe. Do we have any other speakers online or on the phone?

We did have one additional telephone speaker that I think I just lost. If they pop back in, can we just leave Public Com open for just a minute? Sure. Thank you.

Any other speakers? Other than that, no. Okay. And I have no other speaker slips. So with the exception of recovering the one online public speaker, we will close the public hearing and we'll move to commission questions and deliberations. So let's actually, before we do that, can we have any staff responses to public comment?

Thank you, commissioners. I'm going to start with a few myself, and then staff will join in. All right. I want to make it clear that during the housing rezone process, the housing element process, all of the rezone sites within 300 feet, people did get notifications during that process. So that's important to have on the record. Just informational, I've been messaging with our public works colleagues. I wanna say it in Italian is a city street. So any traffic calming measures that the community is interested in would need to be in coordination with the city. It's one of these weird where it's like a county land, but it's a city street. So I just wanted that on the record for informational purposes. All right. I think staff has a few other things to add to the record. All right.

Chair and commissioners, I know that we covered this earlier, but I wanted to just restate for the public so that they understand that the project that's going forward today is not the physical development project for the construction of the units. The project that's going forward today is a tracked map that would allow the units to be for sale condo instead of rental units. So we will be responding to comments related to the already approved physical development for informational purposes. But I just did want to make it clear that that physical development is not the project that's on the agenda today. If it's okay, I can move into a response to some of the questions about traffic.

Please do.

Okay, so the approved project did have a traffic study prepared for it. The traffic study had a couple of findings. It found that the total average daily trips throughout the day would increase by, around 30 trips. But it also found that the peak hour trips, which are the trips when the most traffic's occurring early in the morning, in the afternoon when people are getting out of school and getting off of work, those trips would be reduced by around 30 trips as well. So the total is increasing, but the peak hour traffic during the time when there's the most conflicts and traffic is decreasing. The traffic study also studied vehicle miles traveled, which is it's a little hard to define but the total amount of vehicle miles generated by the proposed development in comparison to existing conditions and The project did not exceed our threshold for vehicle miles traveled it also didn't exceed any County thresholds for average daily trips Or peak hour trips which were being reduced as I stated in addition all of the rezone Properties including this one were required to prepare a transportation demand management plan that focused on pedestrian and bicycle Availability for the residents on the site and and alternative forms of transportation. So the HOA requirements for this property are going to be providing 50% discounted bus passes for all of the residents of this community so that they have more readily have access to transportation. There is bike parking provided in the garages. for the approved project. And then there's also pedestrian connectivity within the development itself. And there's existing bikeway and roadway infrastructure external to the site. Finally, the project was reviewed by Public Works Transportation. And they did not apply conditions for additional sidewalk curb and gutter, because there's already sidewalk curb and gutter and bike lane infrastructure. And as Mr. Seward said, some of the changes that are being asked for by the public would require the city to change speed limits or things like that, but that wasn't determined to be necessary by our public works transportation review. Thank you.

All right. So any other questions of staff from the commission? Yes. Commissioner Park.

I want to make sure that I understand WHAT'S THE SUBJECT OF TODAY AND WHAT ISN'T? I THINK I DO. BUT I WANT TO GO THROUGH AN EXAMPLE. IN MAKING NOTES, I UNDERSTOOD IN BROAD GENERALITIES THE CONCERNS OF NEIGHBORS TO BE LOSS OF TREES, OPEN SPACE REDUCTION, TRAFFIC, AND THERE MAY HAVE BEEN OTHERS. Let me take the oak trees just for example. That was covered in the PEIR for the housing element, which I remember. I remember this project from a couple of years ago. I remember going through every single one of these projects because we were dealing with approval of all the smaller projects in order not to have to approve all the giant Goleta projects. So the zoning clearance determination the department must have considered and decided that there were no peculiar circumstances relating to those oak trees in order to have the section 15 183 exemption right that's correct so do we even Do we even today, the Planning Commission, look at peculiar circumstances for the oak trees, if that's already been determined? Maybe we just do it to see if, not converting, but having these be condominiums as opposed to an apartment building creates some sort of peculiar circumstances relating to the oak trees.

chair um you have to answer yes or no no i'm serious i know i'm sorry i'm long-winded the question was the physical development including oak tree planting and removals is not on the agenda for discussion today and it's also not subject to the 15183 determination The only topic that's being considered is changing the units from for rent units to for sale condo units. And just to state it another way, were this map to not go forward at all, the project would still be built. The oak trees would still be planted and replanted as approved in the zoning clearance. And the only thing that would be different is that there would be rental units.

Thank you. Thanks. That answered my question.

Other questions? All right. I think, do we have the public speaker who disappeared?

No.

All right. Then we're going to deem the public comment period as being closed. And we're ready to move on to Commissioner deliberations. Anybody wish to start off on the deliberations? Commissioner Ford.

Just a quick comment. First of all, also my gratitude for the Planning and Development Department to really try to help us understand exactly what's being addressed today, and I do now, and I appreciate that. I'm also very glad that the COMMUNITY HAS COME OUT TO LET US KNOW THE THINGS THEY ARE WORRIED ABOUT AND I'M JUST HOPEFUL THAT GOING FORWARD THAT THERE'S BETTER COMMUNICATION AND INPUT SEEKING FROM THE COMMUNITY. THAT'S JUST A BETTER WAY TO DO BUSINESS IN SANTA BARBARA.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ.

YES I'D LIKE TO ALSO THANK STAFF IN REGARDS TO THE COMMUNICATIONS OF MAKING IT CLEAR TO US THAT THIS IS KIND OF A THIS IS A SMALL BOX IT'S NOT A IT DOESN'T GO OUTSIDE OF THE BOX OF THE ISSUES OF WHICH WE CAN OF WHICH SOME OF THE COMMENTS WERE ABOUT UM I CAN APPRECIATE FROM THOSE WHO ARE LIVING IN THIS AREA OF SEEING THIS AS A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE BUT UNFORTUNATELY THE SITUATION IS ONE THAT THIS THIS COMMISSION TODAY IN MY AND WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING IS AS TO THE LIMITED ISSUE AS accepting it as a sales situation of the individual units. That's what we're considering. And that's what I'm basing my opinion upon.

Commissioner Park.

First, just a procedural thing. I don't think we asked if there was rebuttal by the applicant, but I'm sure, Mr. Mullen, if you felt you had something to say in rebuttal, you'd have asked for it. You're good. I thought so. I hate the phrase, our hands are tied, because I've had a whole career and lifetime of trying to untie hands. uh... and uh... here actually they are because we have a prior approval all the concerns that people brought up about the physical nature of the project they've that's happened already uh... we're looking at the sole question of shall this be condominiums as opposed to a rental project and i've already expressed my opinion that that's a very healthy thing that we have some of these affordable or projects that have affordable housing in them that are for sale. And that's a good thing. So given the purview we have today, I'm going to support this project.

Mr. Chair and Commissioners, if I could interrupt. It looks like we're moving to a potential motion. I'd recommend whoever the motion maker is to refer to the motions or the recommended actions listed at page two of the staff report. The ones on the slide are just a little vague, so I'd recommend referring to page two of the staff report for whoever the motion maker is.

All right. I am... following that advice and looking at page two of the staff report. And if I may, I'm going to just read the three recommended paragraphs of the staff prepared motion. One, make the required findings for approval of the project specified in attachment A of the staff report, including CEQA findings. Paragraph two, Determine the project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15183 as set forth in the Notice of Exemption included as Attachment C. In paragraph 3, approve the project case number 26TRM-00001 subject to the conditions included as Attachment B. Oh, and now that's on the screen. Handier. Okay. Sorry for that poetic reading. And I have any other comments from commissioners before I offer mine? I have concluded that my fellow commissioners are correct in concluding that the limitations, sorry about that, My fellow Commissioners are correct in describing the scope of our job here this morning. It is to review the approval of this project as a condominium, as a for sale project. It is not to review or re-review the physical construction of this project, which was concluded finally some months ago. With that in mind, I'm going to offer up a motion that the application be approved and that the findings and determinations on the screen, and as I've just read them, be approved. That's my motion. Is there a second?

Second.

All right. Commissioner Ford seconds it. Is there discussion on the motion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. The motion is unanimously approved. Thank you everyone for being here this morning. Thank you to the staff for an excellent job presenting the project to the Commission.

Mr. Chair, can we take a short break before the next item?

We certainly can. We're in recess until we begin the next item, which will be just in a few short minutes. All right. I'm going to reconvene the July 1st, 2026 meeting of the County Planning Commission. We're going to move to agenda item number two. Mr. Secretary.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The following is a hearing on the request of the Planning and Development Department that the County Planning Commission consider the following amendments related to consistency with the county airport land use compatibility plans and an amendment to the coastal land use plan for consistency with phase one oil and gas prohibition amendments. This includes case numbers 26 GPA one, two, and seven, 26 ORD four and five, as well as 26 RZN three and four.

Very good. And can we begin with the staff report, please?

Good morning Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, Alex Tuttle with Long Range Planning and with me today Ben Singer will be preparing or providing the presentation, David Lackey supervising and then Kathy King. The reason we are here in force this morning is as you'll hear in our presentation we are covering a couple topics. The focus is on the airport land use compatibility plan. AMENDMENTS, BUT WE ARE GOING TO BE ADDRESSING SOME MINOR COASTAL AMENDMENTS AS WELL RELATED TO OIL AND GAS THAT BEN WILL DISCUSS. AND SO BETWEEN THE FOUR OF US, WE SHOULD BE COVERED IN TERMS OF ANSWERING ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. AND WITH THAT, I'LL HAND IT OVER TO BEN.

GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND GOOD MORNING, CHAIRMER CONNER, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. LET'S GET INTO IT. To quickly go over kind of what we'll talk about today, first we'll have the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, or ALUCP, as I'll probably refer to it from here on out. Consistency amendments, these are comprehensive plan amendments, ordinance amendments, and rezones, two of each, one coastal, one inland. And then we have, as mentioned, the minor coastal land use plan amendments related to oil and gas. That's just a comprehensive plan, one amendment in the coastal zone, so one case number for that. STARTING WITH THE ALUCP AMENDMENTS. BACKGROUND ON KIND OF WHAT AN ALUCP IS, WHERE IT COMES FROM, WHY IT'S HERE. THEY ARE REQUIRED FOR ALL PUBLIC AIRPORTS. THE STATE PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE GIVES KIND OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THEM. THEY PROVIDE REGULATIONS FOR SURROUNDING LANE USES. SO EVERYTHING AROUND AN AIRPORT IS SUBJECT TO AN ALUCP. GUIDANCE FOR WHAT GOES INTO AN ALUCP COMES FROM THE CALTRANS AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK PER THE PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE, COMPREHENSIVE PLANS AND ORDINANCES FOR THE AREAS SURROUNDING THEM HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE ALUCP. THEY HAVE TO BE CONSISTENT. IF NOT, THEN THE AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION OR ALOC, IT'S USUALLY CALLED, GETS JURISDICTION OVER DETERMINING IF USES ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE AIRPORT AND THE ALUCP. ALUC is a regional body. It oversees airport land use issues, as you might tell from its name, and it's the board of the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments, or SPCAG. They act as ALUC for us. Once we adopt these amendments, the county will then get back our jurisdiction over determining consistency for uses with the ALUCPs. IN THE COUNTY, WE USED TO HAVE ONE OLD ALUCP FOR ALL OF THE AIRPORTS IN THE COUNTY. IT WAS ADOPTED IN 1993, UPDATED AT SOME POINT LATER. BUT THEN IN 2023, SBCAG ADOPTED ONE NEW ALUCP FOR EACH AIRPORT IN THE COUNTY. THOSE ARE SANTA BARBARA AIRPORT, SANTA MARIA AIRPORT, SANTA YANEZ AIRPORT, LOMPOCA AIRPORT, AND THEN THE VANDENBERG SPACE FORCE BASE. VANDENBERG IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT, BUT IT STILL DID GET AN ALUCP. We're gonna use the Santa Barbara airport as an example for demonstration of a couple of the old things and the new things. This shows the old approach and clear overlay zones. So this is what the 1993 ALUCP had. So you'll see the approach zone is the larger shape and kind of provided general standards related to safety and land use compatibility. And then within that, you can see a smaller shape, which is the clear zone, and that provided much stricter standards for safety, especially. The new model provided by the ALUCPs is the airport safety zones. There are six safety zones. The safety zone one is the runway protection zone. You can see it in green. And then it goes all the way up kind of radiating outward to safety zone six, the traffic pattern zone. You can see that as the red kind of oval around it. That one is not shaded. All the other ones are shaded to show you their areas. These similarly provide standards for uses, both compatibility and safety. The standards in Zone 1 are the strictest. They're very strict. You can't do much in Safety Zone 1. And then they get less strict each zone goes out. So, as an example, Safety Zone 3 is more restrictive than Safety Zone 4. And then Safety Zone 6 is the least restrictive. There's not much that you have to worry about if you're developing in Safety Zone 6. The other contents of the ALUCP, it provides compatibility of uses based on the uses themselves, as well as the safety zone that they're located in. It has updated noise contours for each airport. It provides requirements for overflight notifications and avigation easements. An overflight notification is a notice that gets recorded on the deed with a residential project. AND IT BASICALLY SAYS THERE'S AN AIRPORT NEARBY, YOU'LL BE SUBJECT TO NOISE, POTENTIAL ODORS, WHATEVER MAY COME FROM AN AIRPORT OPERATING. AN AVAGATION EASEMENT IS A MUCH LESS COMMON KIND OF DOCUMENT, BUT IT'S A RECORDED DOCUMENT AND EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF THE AIRPORT THAT ALLOWS THEM TO USE AND MAINTAIN THE AIR SPACE ABOVE A PROPERTY. Getting to the actual proposed amendments, first are the comprehensive plan amendments for the inland area. These are text amendments to the land use element of the comprehensive plan for consistency with ALUCPs. REALLY A LOT OF SMALL CHANGES, UPDATING REFERENCES, ADDING THE DEFINITIONS FOR THE SAFETY ZONES, TAKING OUT THE APPROACH AND CLEAR ZONES, THINGS LIKE THAT. THERE ARE ALSO CHANGES TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT MAPS FOR LOMPOKE, SANTA MARIA ORCHID AREA, THE EAST GALITA VALLEY COMMUNITY PLAN AREA, GALITA COMMUNITY PLAN, SANTA ANA'S VALLEY COMMUNITY PLAN AND ORCHID COMMUNITY PLAN TO TAKE OUT THE APPROACH AND CLEAR ZONES AND ADD IN THE SAFETY ZONES. THERE ARE ALSO AMENDMENTS TO THE GALITA COMMUNITY PLAN. VERY SIMILAR TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT TEXT AMENDMENTS, IT'S UPDATING REFERENCES, ADDING SOME NEW DEFINITIONS, AND THEN UPDATING ONE OR TWO POLICIES RELATED TO AIRPORT NOISE AS WELL. THE LAST INLAND PART IS THE ORCIT COMMUNITY PLAN, WHICH HAS A LOT OF INDIVIDUAL EDITS. AGAIN, MOSTLY VERY MINOR UPDATES TO REFERENCES TO INCLUDE SAFETY ZONES AND THINGS LIKE THAT. ONE LARGER CHANGE TO THE ORCIT COMMUNITY PLAN IS REMOVAL OF THE NO BUILD CORRIDOR. THIS CURRENTLY EXTENDS SOUTHWEST FROM ONE OF THE RUNWAYS ON THE AIRPORT THERE. IT'S SHOWN IN THIS IMAGE HERE. THAT HASHED PART IS THE CORRIDOR. IT'S AN OUTDATED SAFETY MEASURE. SPCAG WANTED IT ORIGINALLY FOR THE AIRPORT BACK EVEN BEFORE THE 1993 PLAN BACK IN THE 1980s. THEY REQUESTED IT AND COUNTY PROVIDED IT. With the advances that we've seen in safety and planning, it's really no longer necessary. And I did work with SB CAG staff on this to confirm they don't need it anymore. They don't think it's required or useful anymore. Moving into the Coastal Comprehensive Plan Amendments. These are map amendments to the Eastern Goleta Valley Community Plan and Goleta Community Plan maps and text amendments to the Goleta Community Plan. These are all the same as the inland. This is just the coastal mirror of those changes. INTO ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS. THEY'RE VERY SIMILAR BETWEEN THE LUDC INLAND ZONING CODE AND ARTICLE 2 COASTAL ZONING ORDINANCE. LIKE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANMENTS, A LOT OF SMALL REFERENCE UPDATES TO CHANGE NAMES AND UPDATE SECTION NUMBERS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. THE BIG CHANGE IS REPEALING THE AIRPORT APPROACH OVERLAY AND REPLACING IT WITH THE AIRPORT SAFETY OVERLAY. This new section includes a list of prohibited uses and development density limits on non-residential and residential development within the airport safety zone area, height limits, new noise standards, and as Kim mentioned, avigation and overflight notification requirements. The other big part is that both of these codes are, we're proposing a new appendix to these codes that has all of the county's defined uses as well as their compatibility. So the AOECP had set up three different levels of compatibility. Compatible, which is allowed with very few restrictions. Conditionally compatible, which has conditions and restrictions but can be allowed, and then incompatible, which is not allowed. So the new appendix takes each use we have, lists their compatibility and the conditions for each of the safety zones for each use. For the rezones, the inland zoning map is being updated for the areas surrounding all of the airports. AND THEN THE COASTAL ZONE HAS KIND OF INDIVIDUAL ZONING MAPS SO IN THIS CASE THE EASTERN GOLITA VALLEY ZONING OVERLAY MAP AND GOLITA COMMUNITY PLAN ZONING OVERLAY MAP ARE BEING UPDATED AND THESE ARE TO SHOW THE SAFETY ZONES AND TAKE OUT THE APPROACHING CLEAR ZONES. AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THE AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSIONER HAS SOME RESPONSIBILITIES RELATED TO CONSISTENCY. ONE IS REVIEWING CHANGES TO A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ORDINANCES FOR CONSISTENCY WITH ALUCPS TO SAY, YES, YOUR PROPOSALS ARE CONSISTENT. THE ALUC DID REVIEW THESE CHANGES AND THEY FOUND THEM CONSISTENT WITH ALUCPS ON MAY 21ST OF THIS YEAR. That brings us to the end of the ALUCP amendments. We'll move into the other minor coastal amendments related to oil and gas that we're proposing today as well. FOR A QUICK REFRESHER ON WHERE THESE ARE COMING FROM, THE BOARD REQUESTED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO PROHIBIT DRILLING NEW ONSHORE OIL AND GAS WILLS. THESE CHANGES ALIGN WITH THE COUNTY'S 2030 CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND ARE CONSISTENT WITH STATE ASSEMBLY BILL 3233. The Planning Commission heard the Phase 1 amendments on April 8th of this year and voted 3-2 to recommend Board adoption of these ordinance amendments. And the related amendment today to the Coastal Land Use Plan is consistent with the ordinance amendments that were heard on April 8th. Today we are proposing amendments to the Coastal Land Use Plan to update references to Public Resource Code Section 30262 to align with changes that Senate Bills 704 and 237 made within the last few years. The other change is to clarify that new onshore exploratory oil and gas wells are prohibited in all zones. THESE CHANGES MAKE THE COASTAL LAND USE PLAN CONSISTENT WITH THE COASTAL ACT AND THE BOARD DIRECTED PHASE ONE OIL AND GAS AMENDMENTS. SB 704 also amended Sections 30260 and 30263 of the Coastal Act within the Public Resources Code. The Coastal Commission recently made us aware that these legislative updates had happened and recommended our staff incorporate them into the Coastal Land Use Plan. So these sections are not directly related to the Phase 1 prohibition amendments that the Board requested. but including them will help ensure the coastal land use plan is up to date and aligns with recent legislation on oil and gas development. To summarize those, Coastal Act Section 30260 requires coastal dependent industrial facilities encouraged to locate and expand within existing sites. And then 30263 pertains to refineries and petrochemical facilities And staff recommends the Planning Commission include the updates to sections 30260 and 30263 in the proposed coastal land use amendments that are being presented today. For environmental review of these projects, inland ALUCP amendments can be found exempt from CEQA review pursuant to section 15061 of the CEQA guidelines. This is usually known as the common sense exemption. The coastal ALUCP amendments, excuse me, can be found exempt by section 15061 again, as well as section 15265, which exempts preparation of a local coastal program. And then the oil and gas related amendments similarly can be found exempt pursuant to section 15265. Since the ALUCP and oil and gas amendments are different, and we understand that you may want to take different votes on them, we have split them up into distinct sets of recommended actions, though you'll see that the recommended actions are effectively the same, just two sets of them, so you can act on them separately if desired. FOR THE ALUCP AMENDMENTS, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT YOU MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS, INCLUDING CEQA FINDINGS, AND RECOMMEND THAT THE BOARD MAKES THE FINDINGS, RECOMMEND THAT THE BOARD FIND THE AMENDMENTS EXEMPT FROM CEQA, AND ADOPT A RESOLUTION WHICH WAS ATTACHMENT C TO THE STAFF REPORT RECOMMENDING THE BOARD APPROVE THE AMENDMENTS, THE CASE NUMBERS FOR WHICH ARE SHOWN HERE. AND THEN FOR THE OIL AND GAS COASTAL LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENTS, STAFF RECOMMENDS Similarly, the Planning Commission make the findings, including CEQA findings, and recommend that the Board make the findings, recommend that the Board find the amendments exempt from CEQA, and adopt a resolution recommending the Board approve the amendments, which is case number 26, GPA 7, including the additional Coastal Commission recommendations that we've discussed here but weren't included in the staff report. That concludes my presentation for you all. We are available to answer any questions, and then we also have an additional county planner, Karina Martin, online via Zoom to help out since she was the lead planner for the oil and gas-related amendments.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Singer. Do the commissioners have any questions for staff? Commissioner Park.

I have a I have a threshold question that came to me at about slide number six. Okay. And when I initially read your staff report and went over these materials, I thought this is an impressive amount of material. It's important, but it's somewhat beyond my understanding and that's okay because these are technical things that need to be determined. But it came to me as we were looking at these maps that The new safety zones may impact the thousands of units that were approved in the housing element on South Patterson. And I know that in talking to the developers and staff and everybody and their dog about those projects a couple of years ago, we looked at potential parks and all sorts of things and so much of it was determined by what was allowed under these approach in clear zones. So here's what I'm getting at. I see this on slide six, this object that's drawn in red and it looks like a short cigar tube. What is that?

Commissioner Park threw the chair. Do you mean the kind of shaded red in the middle there?

No. I mean, there's a red oblong, like a circle, circular ends.

The largest, the whole area? That's a big thing.

What is it?

So that's the bounds of safety zone six.

Okay. All right. All right. So here's why this is a threshold question that's important to me. If this new approach, oh, what a pun, but this new way of doing it affects what can be built or not be built, those thousands of units that are going to come in under the housing element. And I didn't take a careful look at it. There would be hell to pay. So that's what I'm wondering. Is there a practical significance to what can be built or not built on those projects which were sold to us and sold to the board, so to speak, in 2024 based on what they could do or what they were going to do?

COMMISSIONER PARK THROUGH THE CHAIR. SO WHEN WE, DURING THE REZONE PROCESS AND IDENTIFICATION OF THESE SITES, WE WERE, THE ALUCPS HAD ALREADY BEEN ADOPTED IN ADVANCE OF THE REZONE. COUNTY STAFF AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS WERE WELL AWARE OF THE CONSTRAINTS, SOME OF THE CONSTRAINTS THAT CAME ALONG WITH THESE SAFETY ZONES. PRIMARILY, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A PIECE OF, YEAH, THERE ARE SOME RESTRICTIONS THAT COVER SOME OF THOSE REZONED SITES SOUTH OF HOLISTER AVENUE IN THE PATTERSON AREA. THE PROJECTIONS WE HAD IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT THE DIFFERENT SITES COULD PRODUCE WAS REFLECTIVE OF THE DENSITY LIMITATIONS AND SOME OF THE USE CONSTRAINTS THAT CAME ALONG WITH THESE ALUGPS. ADDITIONALLY, THE CONCEPT OF COMMUNITY PARK WITHIN THAT SAME AREA. These amendments that we're proposing to align with the ALUCPs have been developed with those projects in mind, and we've set it up so that consistent with the ALUCP, the concepts that are proposed or being considered for those park spaces would align with the amendments and align with the ALUCPs. So we believe that everything is sort of coming together as it has been anticipated and that with these amendments there will not be any additional restrictions imposed on housing development or the public spaces that weren't already in place and we were already mindful of as we were going through the rezone process.

So with these incoming, and I'm sorry if I'm so prone to puns today, but it seems to fit, incoming ALUCP changes, they were well aware of them a few years ago and they're already baked into those projects.

Yes. So for example, while not a rezone site, the Georgie property which has been in planning as a builder's remedy application for several years. AS MR. SINGER INDICATED EARLIER IN THE PRESENTATION, BECAUSE OUR ZONING CODE DOES NOT CURRENTLY COMPLY WITH THE ALUCPS, THESE CONSISTENCY DETERMINATIONS ARE ACTUALLY FORWARDED TO THE AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION OR COMMITTEE FOR CONSISTENCY DETERMINATIONS. SO THE GEORGIA PROJECT, FOR EXAMPLE, HAS GONE TO THE ALUC FOR CONSISTENCY REVIEW WITH ALUCP AND ACTUALLY DID HAVE TO GO UNDER UNDERGO A FEW CHANGES WITHIN AIRPORT SAFETY ZONE 2 TO ENSURE THAT IT ALIGNED WITH THE USE LIMITATIONS. AND SAME WITH CARED AND SOME OF THE OTHER SITES AS WELL THAT ARE DESIGNING THEIR PROJECTS IN A WAY TO ENSURE CONSISTENCY WITH ALUCPs AS WELL AS WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH OUR AMENDMENTS ONCE THEY'RE IN PLACE.

Well, let's use Caird as an example. One of the compelling features of that project was a community park and sort of a passive use park. It wasn't going to have much in the way of structures, if any, just because of where it was located in relation to these zones. And so we won't have any surprising information that tells us, no, we can't have this park after all because these changes have been approved, right?

Commissioner Park, through the chair, yes, that's correct. The amendments won't be a surprise. We actually worked closely in drafting these amendments to sort of thread the needle between ensuring compliance with the ALUCPs while at the same time not foreclosing on park opportunities. The ALUCP allows for for essentially limits population densities within certain safety zones. And so the types of uses that are being contemplated for those community park areas would be consistent with the use densities that the ALUCP allows. They set it up in no more than a certain number of people per acre type of situation. passive park, even some play fields, recreational areas, things of that nature that are being contemplated for those park spaces would fit within the ALSUP limitations.

Well, I thank you for your explanation. I think it's as clear as it could be, and it's an important subject. I'm glad we've addressed it, and I want to compliment your department on its thoroughness here. I thought in 2024 we were tackling things that were unbelievably complicated and almost had never been done before, and to add this into the mix makes me have an even stronger feeling, so good job all. Thank you.

Other questions from other commissioners? ALL RIGHT. I'LL HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW.

I'M ACTUALLY, THIS PRESENTATION IS KIND OF RIGHT OVER MY HEAD BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE THESE AMENDMENTS AS THEY'RE WRITTEN INTO THESE THINGS. I ALWAYS LIKE, MAYBE OTHER MEMBERS HAVE THEM, BUT I DON'T THINK, I WAS LOOKING AT MY EMAILS AND I DIDN'T GET THEM, THE AMENDMENTS THEMSELVES AS WRITTEN AND PROPOSED. So this has gone over my head a lot in relation to these things because I like to see how they're intertwined into these things. But one comment that I can make right off from the cuff is that the the restrictions that are going to be placed on the properties that are now going to be allowed to people to build upon through the, they used to be non builders is what I heard. And now they're going to be, people can build on them, but there's going to be some restrictions on them is what I heard. Is that my, am I, is my interpretation correct?

COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ THROUGH THE CHAIR, DO YOU MEAN THE NO BUILD CORRIDOR? YEAH. I CAN GET INTO THAT A LITTLE BIT RIGHT NOW IF YOU WOULD LIKE OR IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION OR COMMENT.

MY COMMENT WOULD BE IS THAT I'M PRETTY FAMILIAR WITH SOME OF THE BUILDINGS THAT ARE EVEN AROUND THERE FROM THE PREVIOUS ONES AND THOSE HAVE RESTRICTIONS ON THEIR BUILD. DOES THIS CHANGE THOSE RESTRICTIONS? Because some of them may be, I know that some restrictions that exist around the surrounding areas have building restrictions that you cannot go more than so many feet. And I don't know if these restrictions that are coming in are synonymous with those. In other words, the same. or you can go three stories down. That's why I'm interested in seeing these because I just don't have them in front of me. And if they are exceeding, let's say they say now, no, you can go to three stories, not just two stories. How's that going to be communicated to those who are restricted under the old provisions?

OK, COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ THROUGH THE CHAIR. SO THEY ARE UPDATING THOSE HEIGHT LIMITS? Those were height limits specifically for that area. That's a good area to start. Would have been from the airport approach overlay, which is being replaced with the safety zones. So there are new height restrictions. They are explained in the code. For that, again, specifically, there are kind of two levels based on how far you are from the runway So there's you can be a set amount higher than the runway and then also if you're closer, there's kind of like a Geometric calculation exactly so those are explained in the code and listed out so anyone within the safety zones will be subject to those But it is listed in the code and when someone comes in to develop a new project they'll be given oh your In safety zone six, you're this distance from the airport, this is what your height could be. For the vast majority, they are allowed to be higher regarding airports than our zoning code allows. So they won't affect them. Any existing structure that maybe had a shorter height limit under the old system, under the new one it doesn't apply retroactively if the new one would say you have to be 10 feet shorter they're allowed to maintain their current height if they demolished and rebuilt they would have to come in under the new requirements and then they'd be informed and saying okay look at you you're no longer restricted to two stories you can go three stories on this situation okay well that sounds logical so it's really to the to those landowners to

somehow find out about these new ALUCP, I think is what you call them, and be aware of them, which I guess comes into the professionals of those who develop land. And then the oil restrictions stuff, is this basically incorporating what our legislature has passed and now is law and we're just trying to say, okay, we're grabbing the law and we are SPRINKLING IT INTO OUR COATS. IS THAT WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE?

COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ, WITH THE OIL AND GAS, THIS IS JUST A CLEANUP ITEM. AS YOU RECALL, BACK IN APRIL WE TOOK FORWARD THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO THE COASTAL ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE LAND USE DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT PROHIBITED NEW OIL AND GAS WELLS IN THE COUNTY UNDER OUR ZONING. THAT WAS DIRECTED BY THE BOARD. THAT ITEM, THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED 3-2 TO THE BOARD AND IT'S GOING TO BE HEARD BY THE BOARD, THAT PACKAGE IN TWO WEEKS ON THE 14th. AFTER SUBSEQUENT TO OUR HEARING AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION, It was made aware to us that there's some language in our coastal land use plans or planning element that could cause confusion in terms of how it's read in relation to the prohibition in the zoning code. And so this is really like a cleanup item to ensure that the prohibition language in the zoning code has similar prohibition language in our coastal land use planning document so that there's no confusion as to what is or what isn't allowed.

within the coastal zone, okay, so as And I'm a bit confused by this and I try to follow it on the board of supervisors Did they adopt because there are two stages in this stage one was doing the study stage two was taking that study and then applying it to the pro to the phase-out and Am I stating that correctly, or am I mixing apples and oranges?

Commissioner Martinez through the chair. So phase one was broken into two phases. Phase one was prohibiting any new oil and gas wells within the county, and that was the ordinance package that your commission considered back in April and that the board is considering on the 14th. Phase two is the study, the amortization study, and the phasing out of all, potential phasing out of all existing wells. And that's in the works. They've kicked off the amortization study. Any decisions that are associated with that will come back to your commission and are still a couple years away at least. So the cleanup language that you're looking at today is really tied to the phase one, prohibiting new oil and gas wells. And again, it's just to harmonize or clean up the language so that there's no discrepancy or inconsistency between. the ordinances and the coastal land use plan.

Okay, so phase one has been adopted by the Board of Supervisors?

No, phase one is gonna be considered by the Board on July 14th. Okay. And this cleanup item that you're looking at today, that will get back up to the Board as soon as we can get it to them so that they sort of have the full package. THAT WOULD THEN GET SUBMITTED ULTIMATELY TO THE COASTAL COMMISSION FOR CERTIFICATION BECAUSE NONE OF THESE REGULATIONS, THIS PROHIBITION, WILL GO INTO EFFECT IN THE COASTAL ZONE UNTIL IT'S CERTIFIED BY THE COASTAL COMMISSION.

OKAY. I UNDERSTAND THAT STAGE, BUT WHAT I'M GETTING TO, AND I'LL CUT TO THE CHASE HERE, IS ARE WE CONSIDERING LANGUAGE WHICH IS SUBJECT TO BEING ADOPTED? IN OTHER WORDS, WE ARE projecting that the board is going to accept phase one, let's just say, and that this language will then complement it. I'm trying to avoid putting the cart before the horse is what I'm saying. Usually I would think that it would be adopted and then the work begins to take their adoption and implement it into the codes. But here I'm thinking, and I'm saying this out loud so I make sure that we're understanding each other, here I'm thinking that we're actually taking the forecasted adoption and sprinkling it into the codes now so that when they adopt it, it's already green button pushed.

Commissioner Martinez to the Chair, SO FROM A PLANNING PERSPECTIVE, WE HAVE OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THEN WE HAVE OUR ZONING CODE THAT IMPLEMENTS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. IN AN IDEAL SCENARIO, WHEN WE WERE BACK HERE IN APRIL, WE WOULD HAVE IDENTIFIED THIS AMENDMENT THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY AND THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN PART AND PACKAGED WITH THE ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS. Identify that language as being a necessary amendment in the coastal land use plans or in our comprehensive plan So it wasn't part of that package back in April So we're a little behind the Behind the the timeline here and what would normally be the sequence in terms of taking a package that would constitute both amendments to the zoning code and to any comprehensive plan elements and take that forward as a single package in this case the zoning code is already kind of on its way and going to the board and we're trying to bring this comprehensive plan amendment along to catch up with the zoning code so that it's all SORT OF UNITED IN TERMS OF BEING ADOPTED. AS YOU PUT IT, IT'S TO COMPLEMENT THE ZONING AMENDMENTS THAT ARE ALREADY IN PROCESS.

SO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WOULD THEN HAVE A FULL PACKAGE TO VOTE UPON AND SAY YES OR NO TO IT.

By the time it gets to the Coastal Commission, it would be submitted to the Coastal Commission as a single package that includes both the zoning code amendments and the comprehensive plan, land use plan amendments.

Okay. And now that you're talking about the first situation, I'm recalling those meetings in my mind here. Yes. Okay. I understand what's going on now. I do. Thank you for that.

Thank you, Commissioner. So I have a few questions. The airport land use code is a set of binding restrictions on uses in the area governed by that plan. Is that right? In other words, it is an overlay zone.

operates like the zoning code with its zones and it places restrictions on the use and development of property within the overlay zone is that a correct understanding of its effect chair americana yes it's an overlay zone in the zoning code acts similarly to our main zones and other overlay zones that defines an area and says here's additional restrictions that apply in these areas

The overlay zone was originally adopted 30, 40 years ago, and this is a set of amendments to that overlay zone. It both enlarges it and shrinks it and changes the rules applicable to it. Is that correct?

Essentially. It's basically a whole new version of what there was. It would be too complicated to really change the existing one, so instead it's repeal the existing one, replace it with these new ones.

Understood. When we take property in the county and apply a new zone to it or a changed set of rules within an existing zone, do we provide notification to the owner of the property that that's happening before it's enacted? In other words, when you rezone property, or change the zoning code applicable to property? Do we notify people that it's about to happen to their property, that they're going to have fewer uses or more uses or different uses? Is that something that we provide to the owners of those properties?

Chair Americano, yes, we do have a noticing requirement for affected properties. In this instance, we WHEN IT'S SO MANY PROPERTIES, WHEN IT'S SO MANY PROPERTIES, WE CAN DO A NEWSPAPER NOTICE, WE CAN DO A NEWSPAPER NOTICE, GENERALLY IF IT AFFECTS MORE GENERALLY IF IT AFFECTS MORE THAN A THOUSAND PROPERTIES. THAN A THOUSAND PROPERTIES. SO IN THIS CASE, THERE WERE SO IN THIS CASE, THERE WERE NEWSPAPER NOTICES DONE BOTH IN NEWSPAPER NOTICES DONE BOTH IN THE SANTA BARBARA INDEPENDENT THE SANTA BARBARA INDEPENDENT AND SANTA MARIA TIMES, AS WELL AND SANTA MARIA TIMES, AS WELL AS SOME EMAIL KIND OF NEWSBLAST AS SOME EMAIL KIND OF NEWSBLAST NOTICES DONE TO ANYONE WHO NOTICES DONE TO ANYONE WHO HAD identified themselves as an interested party or a few kind of general interested party lists. We for this did not send out a mailed letter to every property affected because it is five airports and very large areas for all of them.

And I guess that's my question. If you own property near the Santa Maria airport and you're about to experience a significant reduction in the permitted uses of your property because the boundaries of the airport land use zone are changing. I'm wondering if we shouldn't be doing something more robust than newspaper notices with a large map and the maps in the newspapers are not necessarily easy to read or easy to understand, and if you're a property owner in there, you may not get that your property is going to be affected by this one way or another. Has the P&D staff considered a more robust form of public notification in order to ensure that the people whose economic interests could be dramatically affected by this plan? have a reasonable chance to know about it and to think about its implications for their property and to say something about it before it happens to them. Because once it happens, they're then pretty well subject to it. And so that's my question. And it's sort of a variation on Commissioner Martinez's question. And I'm thinking in particular, you've got some people for whom this new plan is going to be good news. They're going to find that the previous restrictions on the use of their property, limited to three stories, is now changed. And now they can build four stories. They may not know about it until they demolish their building and come in for permits for a new one. And that strikes me as... an avoidable circumstance that we could, if it's feasible and reasonable and not overly expensive or burdensome, do something like that to notify people that their property is about to be rezoned. And let's call it what it is. It's a rezoning of this fairly sizable area. And I recognize the practical question of how do you notify 1,000 people or 2,000 people that this is about to happen to them? That is my big policy question about the process that we follow for notifying property owners and others about it. There is a second reason for it. For property owners that have commercial buildings or apartment buildings and rent out their buildings, They may have a duty, legal or otherwise, to let the tenants who are coming into those buildings know about overflights, to let them know about other changes in county rules that may affect their tenancy, that may affect their use and enjoyment of the property. If they don't actually know about what's happening, they're prevented from doing what they perhaps want to do or should do, in terms of notifying their tenants. That is an additional reason for going to a more robust notification system. That is my big picture question for you.

Chair Americano, getting to your first of those questions, in this scenario, we didn't have particular discussion about if we wanted to do a more robust noticing. A primary reason for that, and this is something I could have made clearer in my presentation, but Mr. Tuttle talked to a little bit, is that these are effectively in place. WHEN SBCAG, THE ALUC AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION ADOPTED THEM IN 2023. I'M NOT FAMILIAR IF THEY DID ADDITIONAL NOTICING OR WHAT THEIR PROCESS IS TO ADOPT THESE PLANS, BUT WHEN THEY ADOPTED THE PLANS, THE REQUIREMENTS WENT INTO PLACE. THAT'S WHEN THE RESTRICTIONS OVER THESE PROPERTIES BECAME A THING THAT THEY HAD TO DEAL WITH. WE ARE CATCHING UP TO THAT A LITTLE BIT TO MAKE OUR ZONING CODE CONSISTENT WITH THEM. SO IN ADOPTION OF THESE AMENDMENTS, WE WILL NOT REALLY BE IMPLEMENTING NEW REQUIREMENTS BEYOND WHAT HAVE BEEN IN PLACE FOR NOW THREE YEARS. WE ARE JUST HOPEFULLY MAKING IT CLEARER TO EVERYONE BY PUTTING IN OUR CODE AND WE GET THE RESPONSIBILITY BACK OF MAKING SURE THAT PROJECTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THESE REQUIREMENTS. A LITTLE BIT ABOUT OVERFLIGHT NOTIFICATION AND SOME RESPONSIBILITY ON THAT. THE REQUIREMENT THAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS THERE ARE OVERFLIGHT NOTICES. THEY'LL BE RECORDED FOR ANY NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. SO ANYONE WHO HAS AN APARTMENT BUILDING IN THIS AREA CURRENTLY ISN'T REQUIRED TO RECORD THIS NOTICE. IF THEY HAVE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS TO THEIR TENANTS, that's possible that's not something i'm aware of but that would be handled more likely under real estate code which has a separate overflight notification requirement uh this i believe ours can satisfy theirs but i in the process of developing these looked at that a little bit and couldn't entirely parse out the real estate code requirements um JUST KIND OF GOT TO THE POINT THAT THERE ARE SEPARATE ONES RELATED TO THE SALE OF A PROPERTY, BUT THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT ZONING GENERALLY DEALS WITH. WE DON'T GET IT TOO MUCH IN THE WEEDS IF YOU'RE SELLING YOUR PROPERTY. IT'S IF YOU'RE DEVELOPING YOUR PROPERTY, YOU HAVE TO RECORD THIS NOTICE AS PART OF THE ON THE DEED. DOES THAT ANSWER BOTH YOUR QUESTIONS? DO YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL PAST THAT?

IT DOES. wonder whether or not we could be doing our property owners and tenants more good by having some more robust system of letting people know about this kind of a significant change. Because overflights have a significant effect on the use and value of property and safety zones have a significant effect as well. We can say people who buy or lease property close to an airport ought to be paying attention to the fact that the airport is there and may affect their uses and lay it off on the property owners or the tenants and just say it's an obvious use right near you. You ought to be looking to see what effect it may have on your use of the property. I also think that There are times, and we saw this with the hearing we had earlier this morning, where people don't pay attention to the planning process. They only pay attention to the fact that something's about to be built in their neighborhood, or there's a 747 flying 200 feet over your property by the time you discover there's an overflight zone. And perhaps it's just idle dreaming here on my part to think that maybe we can do a better job of providing notification and can we, with the electronic systems we now have in place, can we do it? So with that, I will desist. Commissioner Park, rebuttal.

Well, you know, the problem with long question and answer sessions like that, it spurs other questions by other commissioners.

Not a bad thing.

Yeah, that's okay. You know, I'd like to have kind of an illustration of what Mr. Mary Connor was talking about generally. And so let me ask, it appears to me that Safety Zone 6 is massively larger in scope than anything on the prior page, the old plan. So if I'm in safety zone six, which is like most of Goleta, what's new in terms of restrictions or anything else?

COMMISSIONER PARK THROUGH THE CHAIR, SAFETY ZONE 6 IS THE LARGEST BY FAR, SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER THAN OLD SAFETY OR OLD OVERLAYS RELATED TO AIRPORTS. IT'S NOT VERY RESTRICTIVE, THOUGH. SO SAFETY ZONE 6 DOES REQUIRE THE OVERFLIGHT NOTIFICATION. THAT'S EVEN ACTUALLY A LITTLE BIT LARGER OF AN AREA THAN THE SAFETY ZONES. WE DIDN'T SHOW THAT TOO MUCH HERE. IT'S DESCRIBED A LITTLE BIT IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT IT'S LIKE EXTRA BEYOND SAFETY ZONE 6 AND WAS SHOWN IN THE EXHIBITS AS PART OF THE RESOLUTION. OTHERWISE, IN SAFETY ZONE 6, IF YOU'RE IN CERTAIN AREAS, THERE CAN BE HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS. AT THAT POINT, IT'S GENERALLY IF AT A HIGHER ELEVATION ALREADY. SO LIKE FOR THE SANTA BARBARA AIRPORT, IF YOU'RE IN THE FOOTHILLS, IF YOU'RE STARTING TO GET UP IN ELEVATION COMPARED TO WHERE THAT AIRPORT IS, YOU START TO POTENTIALLY RUN INTO SOME HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS BECAUSE YOU'RE ALREADY PRETTY HIGH AND IF YOU BUILD UP TOO HIGH, THERE'S THE POTENTIAL THAT IT CREATES AN OBSTRUCTION TO AIR TRAVEL. AT THAT POINT, THAT'S WHEN SOME OTHER THINGS LIKE A NAVIGATION EASEMENT MIGHT KICK IN. OTHER THAN THAT, don't believe there are any density restrictions in safety zone six there aren't generally other safety requirements it's the general traffic pattern zone so it's to say you're near an airport but you're not in landing pathways so you don't really need that much more safety requirements once you get into some of the closer ones, zone four, zone three, you start to get more density requirements, some additional safety construction if you want higher density, things like that. And then as far as some things like YOU MIGHT CONSIDER, NOISE, AIRPORT NOISE CAN BE A BIG ISSUE. IT'S BASED ON THE UPDATED NOISE CONTOURS, SO I DO HAVE IN THE PROPOSAL SECTION ON NOISE THAT SOME CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS TO ABATE NOISE CAN BE REQUIRED IF YOU'RE WITHIN, I THINK IT'S GREATER THAN THE 60 DECIBEL, MAYBE IT'S 65, I CAN'T REMEMBER, NOISE CONTOUR. THAT'S NOT A LOT OF AREA, THAT'S PRIMARILY ON THE AIRPORT PROPERTY ITSELF. But if you're in safety zone two and three and you're looking at developing, that's something that during the process would come up and you'd say, you know, once you apply with the county, your planner would say, oh, you're actually within this noise area. You have to have, you know, double pane windows to abate noise, something like that.

So when you talk about elevation, I'm thinking, what could possibly be so tall? And I think builder's remedy projects, and they override our general zoning, but this overrides builder's remedy, right? These safety zones?

I believe it can. This is considered public health and safety. That is one of the things that can override some builder's remedy. I don't believe any of the sites that are in the process for Builder's Remedy will have to be concerned with this. The height is, at which point there are issues, is if you're 150 feet above the elevation of the airport. So it's kind of particular to each airport where exactly it falls. But again, until you're getting... FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT ELEVATION GAIN FROM THE AIRPORT, IT'S NOT AN ISSUE. IF YOU GO UP 100 FEET HIGHER THAN THE AIRPORT, YOU STILL HAVE 50 FEET TO WORK WITH BEFORE YOU HAVE ANY ISSUE. AND EVEN THEN THERE'S SOME AVAGATION EASEMENT CAN KIND OF GET YOU ABOVE IT BECAUSE YOU KNOW THAT YOU'RE PROVIDING THE AIRSPACE OR YOU CAN GET IN SOME CASES A DETERMINATION BY THE FAA THAT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE AN OBSTRUCTION. SO THERE ARE additional standards beyond kind of the simple ones that are laid out in the code for these relatively fringe cases that might provide some height issue.

And just to add to that, correct me if I'm wrong, but The way the ordinance is written is in those situations where you might be higher than the elevation of the airport, you're still entitled to 35 feet?

I believe it's 35 feet, even if that would project into above 150 feet. It kind of provides the reasonable use.

And if they're surrounding trees or other development that is higher than that, you get relief from that requirement. So it's basically, we don't believe it's going to be an issue in terms of adding a restriction on future development.

Well, thanks. That was a good explanation. A good example and a good explanation.

Other questions or perhaps even comments from commissioners? Commissioner Martinez.

Yes, I'm looking at the amendment and in regards to the coastal land use plan amendment with revisions shown case number 26 GPA 007. So it's repealing the applicability of public resource code section 20263. But isn't public resource code 20263 still law?

I'M READING THIS. THE WAY OUR COASTAL LAND USE PLAN IS PREPARED, WHICH IS A 40-PLUS-YEAR-OLD DOCUMENT, IT INCLUDES REFERENCES TO CERTAIN COASTAL ACT SECTIONS IN OUR COASTAL LAND USE PLAN. So that coastal act section the public resource code section is outdated so it's repealing the old one and Replacing it with the current language of that public resource code section, so if you read on that's what it Clarifies that's repealing the old replacing it with the current language of that statute And it really is just a reference to the section of the Coastal Act.

Okay, so I see the new Section 20262. I wish I had my LexisNexis in front of me, because then I'd be able to zoom in on these things, understand these things. Because it's referring to Senate bills, and the Senate bill has to do with that Kern County, where Kern County made a deal with the government that we can do all our drilling and everything and address the coastal issues. But that's just my comment. So you're trying to adopt the new 20262, which is now law?

Correct. It's just really updating the reference to make sure that our language and our coastal land use plan aligns with the legal text or the statutory text of that section of the Coastal Act.

Okay. Thank you.

All right. Other questions or comments? All right. Anything else from staff before we move to deliberations and the motion? And can we put the staff recommendations up on the screen, please?

Mr. Chair and Commissioners, I just want to make sure that.

Oh, public comment, too. Sorry.

Yeah. Before we do public comment. Right. I just want to make sure that for Commissioner Martinez that he has adequate time to review the amendments based on the earlier comments. And if not, we could take a break. No, I've had enough time to review.

I've been going back and forth using both my phone and my computer.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. All right, let us now take public comment from anyone in the room or anyone who may be on the phone or online.

We have no commenters online. I have not seen any speaker slips for this item. Is there anyone in the room that, okay. I guess no public comment.

No public comment. Then we will close the public comment period and open the floor for deliberations by the commission. And if there are no deliberations by a motion by the commission, yes, we're going to put the recommendations up on the screen, please. Okay. The ALUCP recommended actions. Is that the entirety of the recommendation? Or is it more than one page? Oh, all right. There are two different ones. All right. We'll take them separately then, right? Okay. Is there a motion?

We even talked about taking some of them separately.

Well, there's one set of actions for the ALUCP, which are on the screen there, and that's the entirety of them. And then there's a separate set of actions for the oil and gas amendments.

Right. All right. Let's start with the ALUCP recommended actions. Is there a motion? Anyone? All right. I will move that we concur with the recommendations of staff as listed on the screen under AOUCP recommended actions. Is there a second to the motion?

I'll second.

All right. Is there a discussion? No discussion. All in favor of the motion say aye.

Aye.

All opposed say no. The motion is approved. Now, if we could put up on the screen the Second set of actions for the oil and gas language. There are three bullet points there. Is there a motion?

And again, just to clarify, Mr. Singer introduced two additional Coastal Act sections that have also been revised by various Senate bills in the last couple of years that we were going to add to these amendments. So it's in addition to, what were the three Coastal Act sections? Do we have the specific language? It's sections 3062, sorry, 30260, 30262, which was what was in your package, and then as well, 30263.

Yes. So Mr. Chair and Commissioners and Mr. Tuttle, is that going to require a revised resolution?

Not necessarily. Well, we have three bullet points up here, including a resolution, third bullet point, adopt a resolution attachment E, which is in the packet. Are you adding language to attachment E in what you just said, Mr. Tuttle?

Our plan was to, when it goes to the board, that the package at the board would include these additional two sections. Okay. But that, for the purposes of your resolution, it didn't necessarily need to be updated to include those two other sections.

And you concur with that, Mr. Wilson?

Mr. Chair and Commissioners, that's correct. As long as the commission's clear on what they're recommending.

Okay. TO THE BOARD. WE HAVE THE LANGUAGE OF ATTACHMENT E IN THE PACKAGE THAT WAS DISTRIBUTED TO THE COMMISSIONERS. SO WE'VE ALL LOOKED AT IT. AND IF THERE'S LANGUAGE TO BE ADDED BY THE STAFF LATER ON OR If there's supplemental language to be provided to the board by the staff later on, that will be up to the staff to do that. Is that right? Are you asking for our concurrence with that additional language?

That's correct. And again, this isn't, these are just updating references to Coastal Act sections that are statutory requirements.

Okay. Updating references, not necessarily operative language that changes the meaning of the resolution that we're being asked to approve.

It's just ensuring that what we include in our coastal land use plan is consistent with what's under state law. Okay. Commissioner Ford.

Well, I thought I understood what the motion should be. But did you say that there are three sections that are being added? 30260, 30262, 30263? Correct. Correct. And do you or you think they need to be called out?

Well, these are the recommended actions on the screen. And I think for the third bullet, it would just be as revised at the hearing today.

Great.

OK. That's a good way.

I'm happy to make that motion.

All right. Motion's made to adopt the three bullets on the screen with the additional language to the third bullet. The language being as revised by the Planning Commission at its hearing on July 1st. All right? That's the motion. Is there a second?

Second.

All right. Any discussion?

I would just say that my understanding is it's just simply grabbing the express language of these statutes and putting them into the code. That's all it's doing. We're not doing an interpretation of the code, we're just grabbing the express language of each code and putting it into our codes. That's my understanding of what's happening here, correct?

Certainly for those code sections, correct. The other piece of that, the minor piece, is to make it clear that in our coastal land use plan where it talks about oil and gas being a permitted use, that it's to align with the zoning code amendments that your commission considered. It's to clarify that any new oil and gas wells are prohibited in the coastal zone. So so that is where it sort of departs from the coastal act reference.

Thank you for that clarification Any further discussion all in favor of the motion say aye aye All opposed say no no The vote is three to one the motion is approved All right, do we have any further business to discuss on this item? No And our thanks to the staff for extraordinary amount of work. Yes, thank you. Very good, clear explanation for what we were dealing with today. And I believe that is the end of our agenda. We have staff, yes? I can see hands going up.

So, Mr. Chair and Commissioners, we trailed an action off of the projection report to the end of the meeting today, and that was in regards to the hearing on July 29th and August 5th. Staff has reached out to the applicants and the staff working on those projects, and we're going to move the July 29th to August 5th. We do understand that Commissioner Martinez will be absent that day, but we anticipate that we will have a new commissioner for District 4 at that hearing, so there will be four commissioners available. So the action would be to cancel July 29th today.

All right. And you want a motion to do that? All right. Is there a motion to cancel the meeting on July 29th?

Move to cancel the meeting on July 29th. All right. Second.

All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. Motion's approved. The July 29th meeting is canceled. Our next meeting, therefore, will be on August 5th. All right.

And the asphalt refinery matter, that's the 12th when Mr. Martinez will be here, right?

August 12th? Yeah. August 12th? Yes, I'll be here. Yeah.

I just don't want us to be hearing a matter that's your district where you're not there. Yeah. Appreciate it.

All right. And with that, I think our business is concluded and the meeting is adjourned. Thank you all for being here today.