Yellowtail Lane. Pargo Drive. Gopher Gulch. Naming a few newly proposed private roads in Los Alamos after fish and rodents fell into the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission’s purview at its final hearing of April.
County Planner Tina Mitchell assured the commission on April 29 that the road names before them were cleared by the U.S. Postal Service, County Fire Department, and other agencies. These authorities confirmed that no duplicates of roads with those names exist throughout the county.
The 60-plus unit housing project set to include the new private roads, a community pool, children’s play areas, and other amenities is consistent with the Los Alamos Community Plan, “which envisioned multi-family residential development on this property,” Mitchell added.
Known as the Cottonwoods Housing Project, the proposed 108,000-square-foot development at the intersection of Price Canyon and Price Ranch roads won the Planning Commission’s unanimous approval with a 5-0 vote.
Before putting his motion to approve forward, Planning Commissioner Roy Reed praised the project’s village-style design elements, which he compared favorably to “the mainly cuboidal sorts of grouped, clustered structures we most often see.”
“I think it could be real asset to the county, and perhaps a model for others,” Reed said. “This really fits a need for the community.”
One speaker, who identified himself as a Los Alamos resident since 2008, came forward during public comment to raise concerns.
“All of my neighbors are in accordance that this project is way too thick for the amount of space allocated,” said speaker Neil Goodman, whose home is on Price Ranch Road. “Everybody else in the community has absolutely ‘zippo’ knowledge about what’s going on.”
Goodman said he wished there were additional public forum opportunities to inform Los Alamos residents about the project, but also said he understood that state housing rules probably superseded “any necessity for a community forum.”
“We got a letter two weeks ago or a week and a half ago about the project. I’m the only resident that was able to actually come because everybody else works,” Goodman said at the Wednesday morning hearing. “Like with any kind of thing that impacts a lot of people in the future, I think it’s important for some kind of forum or some kind of more public venue to discuss the impact, not only for me but for the community at large.”
After public comment, Planning Commissioner Reed asked staff how many informational project mailers were sent out to nearby residents of the site ahead of the April 29 meeting. Planner Mitchell said that the first mailer was sent about a year ago, while the latter that Goodman was referring to was sent about 10 days prior to the meeting.
“With respect to the impacts on neighbors, I realize it’s going to be hard to give up essentially a large open space that you’ve enjoyed. … But like the rest of California and the rest of the county, we’re subject to change,” Reed said. “Some of the change we’re subject to we don’t have a great deal of latitude in modifying.
“I think this will prove to be a very attractive and beneficial project,” he continued, “particularly with reference to the potential sorts of developments that could come in were not this one given a chance to proceed.”
Earlier in the meeting, Mitchell described the project as “subject to several state housing law protections,” since it’s a residential subdivision with multiple units proposed.
“Pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act, the project is only required to be consistent with objective requirements,” she said. “Housing development projects cannot be denied or required to reduce the density unless the decision-maker finds with substantial evidence that the project would have a specific adverse effect on public health and safety.”
This article appears in May 7 – May 14, 2026.