Planning Commission

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'm seeing 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. Please do. Our next scheduled hearing is next week, July 8th. However it's noted that Commissioner or Chair Mary Connor will be absent at 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 are only there is only one item projected 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 that's in Santa Barbara on August Then August 12th, we're in Santa Maria for a transfer of ownership for the Santa Maria Asphalt Refinery. And then we don't have anything else projected in August and then September 9th, we have one item at Vesting Track Map and that's in Santa Maria as well. In September, nothing else is projected in September but Chair and Commissioner since we have Deputy Director Seabroads 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.

Seawards.

I would say so you know I won't be here August 5. So you would recommend we

potentially move it the other direction?

That would work for me yes.

Oh, the staff report is? Okay. 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 but then um so that concludes the projection report so if we wanted to take a motion on July 8th and then note that on August 5th Commissioner Martinez won't be here, but we don't 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.

So Chair and Commissioners I'll work with Mr. Seawords during the hearing and we'll before we conclude we'll trail that and see more than likely when we might have to move the July 29th to August 5th even though Commissioner Martinez is absent due to timelines I think I would like to

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? We anticipate that by the end of July we will 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.

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... I'm sorry we do have one hand up. 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 Cayacito and um i was just uh 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. We have 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? John?

Yes, I have three things. Three weeks ago, I attended a tour of the Straus Wind Energy Project with 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 you'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 in the 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

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 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 CEQAs just sort of a pain in the neck Thank you, Commissioner Park. Did you say that you visited the Space Force Base on horseback? I drove there but then went through the base on horseback. 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's 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 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 27, 2026. Is there

a second? Motion made and seconded. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say no. 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. Internet does not work very well in here. Okay, a few things to report today since I was last here. I haven't been here since May so it's been quite awhile. The board had their budget hearings on the 16th of June this year and those were the final budget hearings.

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 in County Health. So we had initially asked for the restoration 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 was really helpful because that then reduces the amount of general fund that our department is required to take from 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 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 And it's going straight to the board because of the timelines in which we have to have a final decision on this incomplete item. So, 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 and 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 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 our IT department is gonna 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 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 so that if you're interested in that there'll be a summary and presentation to the board on 14th. The other item that we have going forward is the oil and gas prohibition of new drilling of wells. That is on the 14th, and then utility-scale solar is also on July 14th so that's gonna be a big day.

And then the only other item that we have going, and that's gonna be going in the first August hearing, and that's the HAG 4's general plan amendment and rezone which is out in San Ynez Valley. And it's a commercial rezone. And that, that's all I have to report. I'm happy to answer any questions.

COMMISSIONER ROBERTSON COOPER Have a question? COMMISSION PARKER 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...

Their last hearing is the 14th.

Yeah, their last hearing's 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 placeholder for next week's board. Okay.

That is correct actually. I did hear that.

Yeah, just looking again back at our projection report. I think the 4th District Planning Commissioner should be in place for the hearing on that we have scheduled the 12th for the transfer of permit for the Santa Maria Asphalt Refinery.

Correct. I know their goal is to have something in place for that item. That

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

Yes.

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 O'Mara Conner we don't have one proposed currently. It was a question about whether or not one could be proposed. 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 but what has been 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, 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 as 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. 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.

It's correct.

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

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 CEQAs guidelines section 15183. Starts the 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 will 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 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 a 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? 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 Cumbre 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 tract map application.

The project is subject to your commission's review because a state subdivision map act requires a tract 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 tract 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, 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 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 multi-family housing through a zoning clearance. The housing element acknowledged an expected build-out of 50 multifamily units on the subject property. 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 to design residential zone district. And the project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA pursuant to the projects consistent with a comprehensive planner zoning.

Staff recommends that your commission take the following actions. Make the required findings 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 has you need to have a vacancy rate used to be over 5% or something like that to convert the condominiums. And 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 Cayucita or North Lacomba Road?

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

I see. OK. 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 Cayucita. And so that was decided during that zoning clearance application in coordination with both fire and transportation departments.

OK, 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 Is 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 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 then 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 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 approvals so that there's 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?

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% that are to be affordable, are in fact affordable on future sales? How does that happen?

Mr. Chair and Commissioners, the zoning clearance which conditioned the project to require that affordability, the 20% affordability is in full force and effect. And so no matter what happens with this tract map application, the development of these units must comply with that 20% affordability threshold.

The 10 units are deed restricted so they have to fill out a covenant and then those units are managed by our colleague department HCD for 99 years.

So there's a covenant that's recorded between the Owners of the property and their successors, meaning the buyers of each of the units, 20 percent of the units in question. Ten units, twenty percent. Let's talk about ten units. The buyers of each of those ten 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. Other questions? All right. Let's move to the applicant's

presentation. 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 Yu 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's 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 were pleased to partner with the county in accomplishing this goal. As the staff presentation explains, the property was rezoned to DR 20-30. In the housing element environment, EIR anticipated a build out of 50 units on the site and today the project delivers exactly what the county envisioned. Fifty new homes, ten affordable homes, twenty percent 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 of the county, our proposal has been 50 condominium homes including 10 affordable homes representing 20% 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 this 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 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 Most housing element projects out of the 17 provide rental housing. Hope Villas provides something equally important, attainable ownership.

Teachers, healthcare 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 Hope Villas fulfills the objectives, county's housing element by providing much-needed housing including 20% affordable homes on site specifically identified to rezone for this purpose and as been stated it is consistent with a 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 that project is exempt from CEQAs and approve the tentative track map consistent with 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 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? This