My name is Steve

Thank you for visiting my site.

I want to say briefly why I have stayed with this project so closely over the past three and a half years.

This isn’t just about maps or reports to me. This project is intended for farmworker families — people who already work under difficult conditions to support this region. Many of those families include children, limited transportation, and less flexibility when something goes wrong.

As I worked through the administrative record, what became clear is that these systems — fire access, evacuation, flood risk — are being analyzed separately, but not together the way they would actually affect people in a real emergency.

And that’s what concerned me. Because in real life, those conditions don’t happen one at a time — they happen all at once.

I did not come to these conclusions lightly. They come directly from the County’s own record. And that record does not demonstrate that these life‑safety questions have been resolved.

I’m asking you to take a careful look at whether this project, as currently presented, is truly safe for the families it is intended to serve — and for the surrounding community as well.

Life Safety Was Acknowledged — Then Set Aside

A Planning Commission is not a political body free to vote on “what’s easiest.” In a quasi‑judicial project approval, commissioners are required to apply adopted standards to the evidence, make determinations, and adopt findings that explain the legal and factual basis for the decision.

On February 19, 2026, the decisive approval of Ventura Ranch followed a different path: life‑safety concerns were stated and affirmed—then the out

come‑determinative vote pivoted to litigation fear and cost avoidance.

During the February 19, 2026 Planning Commission hearing, commissioners stated that unresolved life‑safety and public‑safety concerns prevented them from supporting the project and that they would not want to have voted in favor if something were to happen.

This is not a side issue. When life safety is raised, the decision-maker must confront it through lawful findings and evidence‑based determinations—not through a tactical calculation about avoiding lawsuits.

This approval turns on a specific decision sequence.

From approximately 2:33 to 2:40, a commissioner stated that unresolved life‑safety and public‑safety concerns prevented her from supporting the project.

Immediately following those remarks, another commissioner stated he agreed with those concerns “one hundred percent” and continued speaking on other safety issues.

During that time it was also stated that the project’s design “strips away” the Commission’s normal ability to push for improvements, leaving the Commission without its usual discretion to make the project safer or better.

At approximately 2:40.59, the Chair explicitly stated he totally agreed with the safety comments and directly acknowledged agreement with the life‑safety and public‑safety concerns and their position opposing approval on those basis's.

After expressing agreement with the safety objections, the Chair stated that although the Commission could say no, denial would lead to lawsuits and a “legal spiral” he felt the County would lose. Based on that concern, he stated he would support the project to save the County time and money.

The project was approved 3–2, making the Chair’s vote and stated rationale outcome‑determinative.

The sequence above matters because it shows the deciding vote was not cast because life‑safety concerns were resolved, mitigated, or outweighed on the merits. The Chair expressly agreed with commissioners who stated they could not support the project due to unresolved life‑safety concerns, and then pivoted to approve based on fear of litigation and cost avoidance.

Project approvals require findings and determinations supported by the record—written explanations of the legal and factual basis for the decision—so the public can understand what happened and why.

A rationale grounded in “approve to avoid lawsuits” is not a substitute for those required findings and evidence‑based determinations.

California’s Housing Accountability Act (HAA) is a findings‑and‑evidence framework. It limits when agencies can deny or reduce density for qualifying housing projects and requires structured findings—particularly where public health and safety are concerned.

State housing law does not say “approve this project if denial might result in a lawsuit,” and fear of being sued is not itself a lawful decision criterion that can replace findings grounded in objective safety considerations.

County materials addressing this project identify an ordinance prohibition: farmworker housing complexes are not allowed in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ).

Project materials also acknowledge the site is now within such a zone, while staff relies on a completeness‑date interpretation to allow approval.

When this is combined with evacuation limitations raised during the hearing, life safety is not a peripheral concern—it is central to whether the approval is lawful and supported by findings tied to objective standards.

The approval was also advanced using CEQA streamlining mechanisms presented to the Commission.

This introduces a separate and independent legal defect.

CEQA streamlining—particularly reliance on consistency‑based exemptions or reduced environmental review—can only be used when a project is fully consistent with applicable zoning, land use restrictions, and voter‑approved growth controls.

Here, the project contains multiple inconsistencies that directly conflict with that requirement:

• The project site is located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone where farmworker housing is prohibited
• The project includes non‑farmworker occupancy components that do not satisfy SOAR’s “100% farmworker” requirement
• The project introduces new and site‑specific impacts not previously analyzed at a program level
• The project relies on a legal framework that assumes consistency while simultaneously acknowledging conditions that contradict that consistency

SOAR is a voter‑approved growth control measure that strictly limits development on agricultural land unless specific criteria are met.

If those criteria are not met, the project is not eligible for streamlined approval, and a countywide vote may be required.

CEQA streamlining cannot be used to bypass these requirements.

A project that is inconsistent with zoning, inconsistent with SOAR, or that introduces new significant environmental and safety impacts cannot lawfully rely on streamlined CEQA review.

When streamlining is applied under these conditions, it undermines both environmental law and voter‑approved protections.

Additional Notable: Parking Overflow and Property Line Safety Impacts

The project also creates a direct life‑safety concern through parking impacts along adjacent property lines.

With the scale and density proposed, the development will generate substantial vehicle demand. When on‑site parking is insufficient or constrained, overflow parking inevitably moves to surrounding areas—including along neighboring property boundaries.

This is not a minor issue. It has clear safety consequences:

• Vehicles parked along property lines and access corridors reduce roadway width
• Narrowed roads interfere with emergency responder access and staging
• Congestion increases evacuation time in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
• Parked vehicles can block or slow ingress and egress during emergencies
• Residents may be forced to evacuate into already congested and restricted routes

In fire‑prone areas, every foot of roadway clearance matters. Emergency response depends on unobstructed access, and evacuation depends on traffic flow that is not impaired by additional parked vehicles.

Parking overflow concentrated along property lines creates exactly the kind of localized bottleneck that can turn a manageable evacuation into a dangerous situation.

This impact is compounded by:

• Existing limited ingress and egress routes in the area
• Increased density from the project
• A high‑risk fire environment where rapid evacuation is critical

These are not hypothetical concerns. They are foreseeable conditions directly tied to the project’s scale and location.

A project that introduces additional vehicles into constrained evacuation corridors—without fully addressing where those vehicles will go—creates a life‑safety conflict that must be analyzed, disclosed, and resolved through findings.

This appeal is not about whether housing is needed. It is about whether the approval was made the way the law requires.

The Board should review the February 19 hearing and the full administrative record—especially the 2:33–2:50 decision sequence—and determine whether the approval was based on evidence‑driven evaluation of life‑safety and land‑use criteria, or whether it was driven by fear of litigation and cost avoidance.

The Board must also determine whether CEQA streamlining was applied in a manner consistent with zoning, SOAR, and the project’s actual environmental and safety conditions.

Come in person. 

This is not just another hearing.
This is the moment where the public record is corrected—or permanently compromised.

If you read this and do nothing, the decision stands exactly as it happened:
Life‑safety concerns acknowledged… then overridden.

The BOS should be addressing some or all of the following;

• Where are the findings that show life‑safety concerns were actually resolved or mitigated before the decisive vote?
• Why did the deciding vote pivot from agreement with life‑safety objections to approval justified by litigation fear and cost avoidance?
• How is the VHFHSZ prohibition being applied, and where is the record‑based explanation that life safety is protected?
• How was CEQA streamlining applied to a project that does not meet its own legal prerequisites?

A quasi‑judicial approval must be grounded in the record and explained through findings—not justified as “avoid lawsuits” or “save time and money.”

Commissioners stated they could not support the project due to safety concerns, yet approved it without resolving those concerns through findings.

Statements that their ability was “stripped away” reflect a failure to exercise independent judgment as required by law.

An explicit prohibition and a changed hazard designation were present, yet not clearly resolved through findings.

State housing law requires structured, evidence‑based findings. Litigation fear is not part of that framework and cannot replace it

This is about whether life safety matters when it is on the record.
This is about whether the law was followed.

Show up May 19 and see for yourself how the BOS responds to the Appellants and support safe housing and public safety advocates