In hopes of one day operating 24/7, a local gym is changing some of its policies to appease the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission. But one box left unchecked was one too many for some officials.
Although the Stuart C. Gildred YMCA—located in the Santa Ynez Valley—complied with the Planning Commission’s request in June for the gym to return in August with an adaptive management plan, the document failed to meet 3rd District Commissioner John Parke’s expectations.
The YMCA’s draft highlights some internal review procedures for the gym to deal with various contingencies but doesn’t address a way for the county to modify the gym’s conditional use permit if things go wrong, Parke said at the Planning Commission’s Aug. 28 meeting.
“What I don’t want to see here is some incidents of trespass, even crime, and things like that there ... reports of criminality and other incidents as a result of this modification,” said Parke, whose district encompasses the YMCA.
Parke was referring to concerns about the gym’s proposed late hours potentially leading to a crime uptick in the area, an issue raised by appellants of the CUP amendment—approved by Planning and Development in March 2023 and appealed less than two weeks later by Santa Ynez residents Deanna Harwood and Frank Betts, who neighbor the YMCA.
After a brief presentation from county staff on YMCA’s responses to the appeal and the Planning Commission’s suggestions at the Aug. 28 meeting, 4th District Commissioner Roy Reed agreed with Parke that the internal review procedures did not amount to an adequate adaptive management plan.
Later in the meeting, just before deliberations, county counsel interjected “to remind the commission that ... its purview is really to regulate and to make decisions related to the uses of land,” and described enforcement or regulation of criminal conduct as “a separate issue.”
Parke responded to the counsel’s comments during deliberations.
“I appreciate what county counsel said and we could debate all that and how we mean it. But ... I’m just going to cut to the chase, I strongly support this project,” Parke said. “I made some comments the last time we heard it, ... concerns I had that weren’t necessarily personal concerns but were concerns to protect the whole neighborhood, and the whole neighborhood is not just Mr. Betts and Ms. Harwood. It’s the senior facility across the street; the school across the street ... it’s an interesting mixed community.”
Parke said the YMCA’s August revisions addressed most of his concerns, but he announced, “I am not going to vote for this today ... because I don’t feel that my comment [on an adaptive management plan] was responded to, and I frankly don’t like that.”
“I think I do have the discretion to either vote or not vote for something,” added Parke, who later motioned to continue the item to give the gym an opportunity to fix its adaptive management plan.
Reed sided with Parke and said he “wouldn’t be prepared to approve their proposal” as it currently stands.
Second District Commissioner Laura M. Bridley agreed “with the other commissioners that this is a really good start, but maybe it’s just not in the language and format that is sufficient at this time.”
Bridley added that “however this permit compliance program [or] adaptive management document comes forward, I’m hoping that there’s some understanding that you’re right next to a commercial corridor,” before commenting on noise complaints included in the appeal.
“This is on a property that’s on a state highway ... in a commercial zone, and it’s across from a school and several non-residential communities. This is a very active neighborhood,” Bridley said. “I appreciate the fact that the neighbors behind it are feeling the pressure of that but ... it’s not in ... zoning that’s expected to be really quiet.”
With a 4-0 vote, the Planning Commission agreed to continue the item and revisit the appeal at its Nov. 6 meeting. Fifth District Planning Commissioner Vincent Martinez was absent.
