Fight over Naples Housing Project Returns to Santa Barbara County Planning Commission on Wednesday

Environmental groups are still fighting tooth and nail to keep a proposed seaside residence on the Gaviota Coast from being built. 

They will hash it out during the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission’s meeting on January 28. At issue is the County Zoning Administrator’s approval from February 10, 2025, of a coastal estate on the Naples bluff, a portion of the coast just west of Goleta. 

It features a 6,100-square-foot single-family residence and its accessory bells and whistles, such as an onsite wastewater treatment system and 2,000-square-foot barn, pool, and spa. 

Making good on their word from last year, the Environmental Defense Center (EDC) and the Surfrider Foundation, alongside the Gaviota Coast Conservancy, filed appeals of the project, arguing that it conflicts with county policies designed to protect species and habitats.

“This project will set a precedent for development on the Gaviota Coast,” potentially igniting the buildout of the Santa Barbara Ranch, encompassing 71 lots at Naples approved for development back in 2008, the EDC warned.

“Naples is Southern California’s largest undeveloped coastline with incredible views, public access, and a haven for birds and wildlife.”

They claim that a new environmental analysis should be conducted, reflecting project changes and site conditions that could cause adverse environmental impacts, including risks to habitat, water quality, and protected wildlife such as the white-tailed kite and rare bumblebees.

It’s been an uphill battle for the project applicant, listed as DMF Fund, LLC, or Dr. Peter Ma of Diamond Bar, California. Since the project’s original submittal in 2016, the applicant’s response reads, he has worked closely with the county to design a residential project and accompanying habitat restoration plan that complies with county regulations. 

The project’s mitigation measures and habitat restoration plan actually go above and beyond county requirements, the applicant has argued. 

The project voluntarily merges four lots into one to reduce potential residential density and includes dedicated public access trails and beach access easements. Of the project site, 84 percent will be preserved for open space, habitat, and agricultural resource protection. Additionally, the habitat restoration plan promises to fix the effects of illegal discing — using a machine to loosen the soil for farming — by a third party in 2019, which damaged native grasslands and wetland. Fencing would protect restoration areas, and additional “protective measures” are proposed for resident bumblebees.

But it’s not enough, the appellants say. The legacy of illegal discing and potential impacts of the project go far beyond the proposed restoration, the EDC argues.

“Unless and until the Plan is revised to remediate all areas impacted by the discing and key habitats that are currently omitted, it should not be approved by the Planning Commission,” the EDC said.

County planning staff’s recommendation is to deny the appeals and uphold the Zoning Administrator’s approval. They say that legally, the county may only deny such a project if there is a specific, unavoidable health or safety impact, according to the staff report. 

Staff identified no new significant impacts as a result of the proposed project that would warrant a new environmental analysis. Staff instead reported that the original Environmental Impact Report prepared for proposed housing development in the area from 2008 suffices, and the project’s proposed habitat restoration results in a net environmental benefit.  

But the outcome ultimately lies in the hands of the Planning Commission. 

The hearing is scheduled for January 28 at 9 a.m. at 123 E. Anapamu Street. People can also attend remotely by Zoom, but advanced registration is required here.