Santa Barbara County Planning Commission Approves Controversial Painted Cave Housing Development 

A housing development in Santa Barbara’s Painted Cave community got a rare second chance on Wednesday.

Neighborhood protests that the project — two new homes on Painted Cave Road next to Laurel Springs Ranch — would increase wildfire risks and clog roads during evacuations convinced the Planning Commission to deny the development in a 4-1 vote in December. 

The item was continued to the commission’s meeting this Wednesday, January 28, to allow time for county staff to prepare findings for the official denial of the project. 

But a new 91-page “Fire Protection Plan” (FPP) submitted by the applicants last Friday, and its last-minute approval by the County Fire Department, pushed the project into the good graces of county staff and commissioners. 

Staff submitted a letter to the Planning Commission saying that they consulted with the County Fire Department, “which reaffirmed the project’s compliance with all applicable development standards set forth in the Fire Code, including those pertaining to defensible space, offsite fuel clearance, and road width requirements.” 

On Wednesday, county staff instead brought forward renewed findings for approval of the project. Following some debate, commissioners reversed their former decision and approved the project in a 3-2 vote.

Appellant Michele Peterson’s attorney, Marc Chytilo, had called the staff’s turnaround “unprecedented” and urged the commission to stick to their original decision to deny the project. 

Peterson, who lives next door to the lots, appealed the project due to concerns over the area’s high vulnerability to wildfire and the potential of backed-up evacuation routes. Also at risk, the appeal argued, are sensitive biological resources — endangered Santa Barbara honeysuckle, for one. 

One home would be 2,880 square feet and the other would be 3,185 square feet, on adjacent lots, with garages — much larger than the average home in the community, the appeal states. 

Peterson’s neighbors reiterated these concerns on Wednesday. 

Painted Cave resident Rich Robar questioned how the county could even consider allowing additional housing in the area. Painted Cave’s steep terrain, heavy fuels, limited access, narrow roads, and constrained evacuation routes could result in a deadly fire, he said.

These risks, while concerning, do not deem denial of the project, Commission Chair Roy Reed stated plainly. He suggested these new structures will “do nothing” to increase the fire potential of the existing community.

He suggested that with the voluntary FPP, the homes would arguably be the “most fire-resistant structures” in the community. Commissioner Kate Ford agreed with this, noting that the main problems seemed to lie with the condition of Painted Cave Road, not just the houses. 

Both homes would probably not exceed three to four occupants each, according to the applicant. One home is for a family that currently lives on Laurel Springs Ranch, including two adults and their daughter — not the 20-plus potential residents the appellants were afraid of, argued Amy Steinfeld, the applicant’s representative.  

Steinfeld said that the project will include fire-safe construction, defensible space, access and egress routes, automatic sprinklers, and two water tanks for everyday use and to aid in the event of a fire. The applicant also plans to retain some of the honeysuckle plants and live oaks that grow on the lots. 

Site changes also included replacing the wood frame of the home with fire-resistant material and the removal of a gas fire pit in the yard. 

“Equally significant, the FPP concludes that the projects will not create any adverse fire‑safety impacts for the Painted Cave community,” Steinfeld explained. “In fact, the homes’ high‑compliance, fire‑resistant design may enhance community resilience by serving as a buffer against wildfire spread and as a model for home‑hardening throughout the neighborhood.”  

But while commissioners Ford, Reed, and Vincent Martinez were reassured by the new documents, commissioners John Parke and Michael Cooney still took issue with the project.

Cooney, whose district is where the project will be built, said his concerns were not abated. He added that the project would ultimately add to the community’s fire risk, not subtract from it. “It’s a dangerous place up there,” he noted, referencing past testimony by fire experts. “We can’t eliminate the potential for a very disastrous outcome.”   

Parke said he did not think the hearing was fair, considering the lack of time for review of the FPP and the Fire Department’s letter before Wednesday’s hearing. “If we make a mistake, some of you may be paying with your lives,” he told the audience. “So we have to be extra careful that we’ve crossed every ‘t’ and dotted every ‘i,’ and I don’t think we’ve done that,” he said.  

Chitylo likewise criticized the process and the late submission of the new documents, arguing that it disallowed thorough review of the updated project.  

Cooney suggested a short continuance to allow attorneys from both sides to meet and reach a compromise. However, that motion was voted down by the rest of the commission. Commissioners Ford, Reed, and Martinez voted to deny the appeal and approve the project. Cooney and Parke voted against it. 

In a statement, Steinfeld told the Independent that her client, Edward Czuker, “cares deeply about the Painted Cave community and has approached this process with care, diligence, and respect for the unique conditions in the area.” The commission’s decision, she added, follows years of effort to design the project in a way that is safe and fits in the community. 

She said Czuker “encourages members of the community to reach out to the applicant team with any questions.” 

The appellants vowed to continue to fight the development and take it to the Board of Supervisors. 

“We will appeal these deeply flawed, unfair, and irresponsible actions of the planning commission,” Chytilo said.