Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) County of Santa Barbara 09_03_26

Good afternoon. I will call to order the September 3rd, 2026 meeting of the Santa Barbara Local Agency Formation Commission. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

but it's running late

Thank you. Would you

public comment at this time.

Thank you. That concludes public comment. Next is the approval of the consent calendar. Do any commissioners wish to pull any item on the consent calendar? Hearing none, is there anyone from the public that wishes to speak on any item on the consent calendar?

Chair Sarkin, members of the Commission. There are no requests to speak on this item.

Thank you. I would call for a motion for the consent calendar agenda.

Hartman moves. Patino so move. Hartmann seconds.

We have a motion and a second. Would you please call the roll?

Motion passes unanimously

Thank you the next item is business item number one would the clerk please read that item into the record

Chair Stark and members of the Commission, business item number one is to consider approval of amendments to the Commissioner Handbook and seek with determination regarding the Commissioner's Conflict of Interest Code.

Thank you Mr. Executive Officer would you please report?

Thank You chair good afternoon we'll have analyst Natasha present this item.

Thank You Chair Stark and members of the commission as you're all aware state law does require every local agency to maintain a current conflict of interest code That accurately reflects our organizational structure and properly identifies all officials and employees that are required to file a Form 700. LAFCO recently received correspondence from the County of Santa Barbara regarding its Conflict of Interest Biennial Review Notice for LAFCO, which is due in October of this year.

LAFCO existing conflict of interest code was last amended and adopted in 2022 More recently in the last year, LAFCO has updated our administrative organization chart which does now require an update to our current code. Staff is bringing before you today a resolution to amend the commission's current conflict of interest code with the proposed changes which are to add a new designated position entitled senior analyst as well as to reaffirm designated employees may file their statements online using the e-disclosure system

Thank you. Do any commissioners have any questions or comments? Commissioner Kiriakou.

Yes, the designated position of senior analyst is the reason for this justification and for this similar to how there are certain county positions that are considered confidential? Or is this for a different reason?

No, that is the same reason.

Thank you. I'd like a brief clarification. What is due in October is amendments to our code Not when each the people that are required to file a form 700s have to file. That's still in April, am I correct on that?

That is correct. Every two years the County of Santa Barbara notifies all special districts and agencies that the opportunity to amend their conflict of interest code We are requesting amendments from our commission.

With due respect, since you would be added to the code is that right?

Yeah we are amending pardon me Chair. We are amending our conflict code to include that new position that the Commission added. This is simply

what... When is an assuming office statement required?

Within one year

Within a year. Okay, thank you. I would ask is there anybody any other commissioners have any questions? Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak on this matter?

Chair Stark and members of the Commission there are no requests to speak on this item.

Thank you. I would call for a motion.

I'll move for approval.

Hartman seconds

We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the motion?

Chair Stark, can we just get clarification on who made the motion?

I believe that Commissioner Geier made the motion. Thank

you. Commissioner

Hartman seconded it. I'm correct. Um thank you if there's no uh discussion on the motion would Adam Clerk would you please call the roll?

Motion passes unanimously

Thank you that brings us to item business item number two will the clerk please read that item into the record

Chair Stark and members of the commission, business item number two is to consider approval of the updated resolution and memorandum of understanding between Special District Risk Management Authority and Santa Barbara LAFCO for health benefits. And find that the proposed actions are not a project under CEQA guidelines in that these are organizational or administrative activities of the government that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes to the environment.

Thank you. Maybe we have an executive officer report?

Thank you, Chair and Commission. So LAFCO is currently enrolled with SDRMA. They provide both ancillary health benefits, vision and dental, and they are our workers' comp sponsor as well. So they provide these coverages to us. We started these coverages with them in 2022. The SDRMA board, they have updated their agreements to meet industry standards and norms And they have requested all of their participating members to update the agreements and MOUs that we have with them so that we're current, and that we can continue to retain the benefits that we seek. So we've placed these on your agenda to be able to update and adopt the agreements with them, and then we will forward those on so that we can retain services. Are there any questions of that?

I'll be happy to answer any.

Are there any commissioners have questions about this? Hearing none, are there any members of the public that wish to speak on this?

Chair Stark and members of the Commission. There are no requests to speak on this item.

Thank you. I would call for a motion

Move staff recommendation item two of our business item.

I heard a motion. I'll second. There's a motion and a second. Okay. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Please call the roll.

Motion passes unanimously.

I understand there's a gentleman who wishes to speak on public comment. The time has passed. I would suggest that before commissioner announcements we give the general, which will be after the information item, we give the late arriving public comment person a chance to give you three minutes or up to three minutes in public comment if that's okay.

Chair Stark and members of the Commission, information item number one is to receive and file a status report on municipal service review program.

Great. All right, thank you. We do have a PowerPoint for this before I get into the PowerPoint. I do want to make a clarification correction and then staff report in the report inadvertently indicated that Isla Vista CSD would be getting an adopted update to their sphere of influence I wanted to make that correction clear that because IV CSD provides multiple services and they require multiple service reviews, we typically wait to adopt the spheres of influence until we've concluded all of those service reviews.

We would strike that IV CSD would be getting an updated SOI at this time, at the conclusion of this particular service review. And we would defer until we completed all of their service reviews. So I wanted to make that clarification in the report. So with that, the search review has embarked back in February of this year. The commission adopted your work plan and includes police fire and EMS services predominantly. We've requested responses through a survey and questionnaire to all of the agencies that are being evaluated 12 in total as part of this review.

Responses were due in early April We've received those we prepared an administrative draft for each of the agencies to comment and review on that's currently happening right now they're in a 30 day period. We're there critiquing the work, having an opportunity to make changes and corrections and clarifications. We'll receive those, we'll amend the report, pair it up with the remaining chapters that are due, and then we'll likely present a public release for 30 days minimum late October-November timeframe.

In which case then we'd like to adopt the service review and update the spheres of influence for those agencies that were noted at the end of the year. So, we're still on track to complete that In this particular search review, we had no significant changes that we've identified for spheres of influence changes. Likely just going to reconfirm the existing spheres for Four of the agencies at least.

With one slight caveat, we'd like to re-add the Hollister Avenue right-of-way segment that sits out in front of the airport, City of Santa Barbara District, to the County Fire Protection District. So history is and we'll go through a slide of what that looks like and will kind of explain all of that. In addition, there were seven study areas that were being considered throughout this and we'll propose the tentative recommendations for the Commission to consider.

So with that, the City of Builton had requested what we're classifying as one area which includes three parts essentially because it includes their measure of their urban growth boundary measure that they passed in 2024. We evaluated those sites to include three areas outside of their existing city boundary. The intent is for future annexation for them down the future mainly and largely to allow some reasonable additional housing growth, should the need arise likely when the next housing cycle comes through and they need some additional space.

So we've evaluated that those three sites and this is the three sites just north end of their city limits and towards the east Right now the conclusion is that we not amend the sphere of influence under the MSR program, but rather we defer and allow the city to apply for a formal sphere of influence application change. In which case we can identify these three sites specifically and do site specific analysis when the time is ready and it's a lot closer to when anticipated annexation might occur.

The City of Santa Maria also requested essentially what we're calling one area and also includes a multitude of parcels. The intent again is to allow some mixed development of commercial on housing institutional uses This site was considered and evaluated in a previous service review for the city, and the conclusion was that when the time was right, the city would apply for an application for a SPHERA in that opportunity. Well, the city completed their journal plan update. They have indicated that they anticipate submitting an application that largely covers this area in the near future.

And so under the service review and its program, we're deferring to that application to amend an official sphere boundary for them. We would a lot like Buellton will wait for them to apply for a specific boundary request and we'll evaluate it. But we want to make sure we highlight the contemplated areas that the city is anticipating and the types of development that come.

That allows the commission an opportunity to sort of understand what might be coming for you in the future.

I've got a question on that slide or these slides in general, is that right? Commissioner Nelson I know it's been past practice that to bring forward sometimes a sphere of influence and annexation request at the same time. Are you anticipating that with these ones here in Bealton and Santa Maria? Or are you thinking this would be done as sphere of influences first, and then...

The conversations have been requests for sphere of influence first. They can concurrently apply for sphere change and annexation that often requires some sort of form of development moving through the process and being and having gotten entitlements. And I don't think either those cities are at that stage.

Thank you.

The City of Lompoc has also requested one area. They are currently working with the county on a Bodger Meadows project. The intent again is to allow the builder's remedy project that was submitted to the county, to be processed and then ultimately eventually annexed into the city through an application by the landowners or either the city Again, the Bodger Meadows site is a subset of the larger Bailey Avenue component that the commission evaluated a few years back.

And so this one actually has development that's going through the process and so we are again deferring until that development is approved and likely allowing a concurrent application for this application. Again, so the recommendation is to not amend this fear at this time through the MSR program but allow an application to come forward and make the commission aware of what's on the ground and what's being processed.

The City of Solvang also included a request of three parcels that kind of surrounded some of the other areas of the city. Again, the intent was they would have some sort of master plan community that would be coming forward. They would evaluate that and then they've been contemplating some additional parcels along the Alice Hall Ranch area that would expand the ranch opportunities for Some glamping experiences and whatnot within adjacent to what they already serve that sits within the city boundary.

And so these areas here just west of the city is the master plan area that they're evaluating In addition, the city convened an exploratory boundary committee to look at whether they would request expansion of their sphere and future annexation to LAFCO. And I understand the City Council took an action recently that gave direction for their staff to come forward to LAFCO and seek some sort of boundary application for a sphere change.

It may include these, it may include a broader subset of this. We'll see what that application looks like when it comes in but for this purpose we evaluated what they anticipated future development might look like for them based on conversations they've had with landowners that are interested in pursuing development. Area 2 was the Alice Hall Ranch, that fingerling that stands down as Alice Hall Ranch proper within the city. They're looking to expand adjacent to that some operations and so we at least evaluated and again concluded that We would likely wait until a formal application came in before we considered any kind of application to amend the sphere And lastly is the City of Santa Barbara and County Fire have over the past had looked at reorganization activities that the Commission has approved.

These date back early in 1970s, 1980s and prior decisions that the Commission has And then we're looking at that Hollister Avenue right-of-way area. And again, Hollister Avenue intent here is that County Fire acts as a backup fire service for the airport. The airport property itself is within County Fire's service boundary This one little strip out in front is not. And so to clarify the roles and responsibilities, we think it'd be appropriate to clean up that boundary officially amend the sphere of influence for them and then allow essentially a setup for a future annexation of that right away by the district or through the Board of Supervisors action to initiate some sort of annexation.

Mr. Brader, I have a question and I apologize for my ignorance in advance. The Area 1 parcels, could you refresh our recollection as to what is being detached from or what you acknowledge is being detached from?

I will. So that's this map here. So as history tells us, all of the areas in red have been annexed into the city over time and through that reorganization process they were intended to be detached from the fire district But there is no official formal record of detachment. And so we wanted to make it clear that the intent of the commission was to detach those without having to go through another formal application resolution process. So, we are through this service review acknowledging that past actions were intended to detach These areas as they annexed into the city, they would be taking out of the County Fire District. And that is the way operationally things work today but we just don't have a very clean record to cement that and so through an adoption of this service review We are going to use that as the action that the Commission is

gonna do. They formally go back into the end of the city

They're already in the city. We're just going to formally acknowledge that they are out of the County Fire District.

Thank

you. That's area one, there was a number of those as you saw that sort of fell on that bucket of their record just didn't reflect. Commissioner

Nelson? Yes. Yeah I just had a question about that so were they already in the city Should I also assume that there was a tax exchange done and those were eliminated as part of the TRA for those areas? Correct. So those areas are not providing any tax revenue to the fire district now, they're just on paper not detached?

Mr. Prater,

I have a question with regards to how the fire service is currently dispatching their units. It's the nearest available truck. You see a lot of that in Santa Barbara, how does that impact this? And does that policy change their sphere of influence?

That's a good question. So we've noted that new dispatch arrangement with the closest response vehicle through a centralized dispatch, that in itself doesn't change the pattern of services per se And it wouldn't change anybody's sphere of influence or responsibility. We are looking at and documenting what that looks like in actual dollars. At the end of the day, whatever closest unit was responded to is supposed to either be billed or have in-kind services for that call and that response.

That particular operation and how that gets tracked is something that piqued our interest to make sure that there is some tracking of that, which Regional Central Dispatch is doing. They have software to do that and so we're documenting that through this service review And we will monitor how that operation moves forward and make sure that adequate funding is sufficient for that model.

But at this time, it's one year in and we don't know but is something that we are tracking through the service review so that subsequent reviews will be able to comment and document as to whether we think that's an efficient model or not.

Thank you. Continue.

Okay. Area 2 is this little area in yellow, that little strip there. So that's the right-of-way segment. All of the red area is dual serviced by County Fire and City Fire Department. And so in order to get to it or if there's something that happened right out in front, there's misunderstanding of who is responsible party. Ultimately who has to retain the call response or the bill in this case because now they do a first closest responder but then they will track who's supposed to pay for that service.

And so in order to clean that up, we're going to amend this sphere for this little segment and then request that the fire district come in for an annexation to formally add it back in. So at this level, the commission has the authority to amend spheres as you see fit through either the search review program or through an action directed by the Commission to have staff bring an item back or through a formal application of a sphere of influence.

To actually annex that, it has to come from either the landowner or the district themselves. So the commission or staff we don't have the ability to formally move that back in but we can set the stage for that and that's what we're doing. And again, spheres of influence. A good segue into the 20-year sort of physical service boundary where we think they're going to be providing services. Again it's not a land use tool for that purpose.

It's to help you make decisions on future applications that might come forward and annexation is required to have the boundary in its sphere of influence. If it's not then a concurrent action would have to take place in order for that to occur And again, these usually are areas that are close to a jurisdictional boundaries. You saw all of the city boundaries they were adjacent to the city limits We're not looking at areas that would be beyond a parcel length beyond or not That isn't allowed by Cortese-Knox Hertzberg Act They'd have to be contiguous and then again If an area is within the sphere of influence, it can either be annexed or an out-of-agency service agreement can be authorized.

And there's a shortened review process through an out-of agency service agreement if it is within a sphere of influence and meets a threat to health and safety.

Thank you. Commissioner Kiriak, do you have any questions?

For the two areas by the airport, is public noticing Something that's already occurred in terms of noticing an outreach, something has already occurred. Something that's pending. Something that's not at all required. I imagine there would be some required.

Yeah, so there's a requirement to when you amend a sphere of influence to include either direct mailing or through a paper. And so this notice has been added for this MSR and we'll complete another one when we go to adopt this and we need at least the minimum 21 day notice.

And who is responsible agency for doing the noticing?

We are, LAFCO is.

Okay and so how does that work when you have one jurisdiction and another jurisdiction so close to each other? So is there a requirement for noticing directly to affected resident potentially affected residents or is this just something that you put a notice in the newspaper and that's sufficient?

Yeah, so the requirement depends on the size and who is affected and how many boundaries we're amending through that action. If it's greater than 1,000 people that are going to be affected then simply a notice in the paper suffices if it's less then we got to do a direct mailing plus 300 foot buffer of that boundary.

Okay, so in this

particular case because we can lump everybody in it meets the thousand foot and so would likely do it in a paper

okay thank you

Thank you.

Continue.

Okay, I think the concluding sides are this is a municipal service review required by the Cortese-Knox Hertzberg Act before we update or adopt spheres of influences again it's an informational piece of document for the Commission to understand. We evaluate each of these jurisdictions ability to provide the type of service that they're obligated to provide There are seven legislative factors that we must evaluate. We can include additional factors and we often do in this case, we've picked up some mental health services that aren't common within a legislative factor but we felt was important and a germane topic to talk about. The commission has also asked about overtime and its use so we've added those components through the service review and you'll see that in here.

In the end, we hope to produce a public review draft. We'll notice that for 30-day public review period and an ultimate adoption likely in our December meeting. And again we're amending only three spheres in this case not four out of the 12 agencies and that is all three fire districts So if there are any other particular questions, I'd be happy to answer any.

Thank you. Any further commissioner questions? Or is there any members of the public that wish to speak on this?

Chair Stark and members of the commission, there is a request to speak on this item from Rafael Castillo.

Thank you. Go ahead sir.

This is new for me. Well, good afternoon my name is Rafael Castillo I am the Community Development Director for the City of Solvang and I first want to thank the Commission and LAFCO staff for taking on an MSR review. I've been in municipal planning for well over 15 years now and this is the first time I've seen an MSR review in a comprehensive nature so kudos to you all I do want to read a letter that was provided to you penned by our city manager and read it into the record.

So, the primary mission of Santa Barbara Local Agency Formation Commission or SB LAFCO is to manage the orderly formation growth boundaries of cities and special districts within Santa Barbara County while ensuring that public services can be delivered efficiently through these districts. Since its incorporation in 1985, the City of Solvang has not requested amendments to its sphere of influence.

The city has experienced only three minor annexations during this time period including two small subdivisions and the acquisition of land for Sunnyfields Park. As Solvang looks towards the future with a backdrop of realities facing California cities today due to various legislation efforts from the state, city leadership believes that this is an appropriate time to carefully evaluate whether our existing sphere of influence continues to reflect our future needs.

Like many municipalities through California, Solvang faces an increasingly difficult dilemma created in part by mandated housing requirements, limited availability of vacant parcels within our community boundary. The city has completed its required rezoning in compliance with the Department of Housing Community Development or HCD and has amended its zoning ordinance to accommodate infill housing. These changes have spurred infill development within our village along with housing applications within our rezone sites so clearly what we've done is working Solvang has done its part to help evaluate our local housing crisis.

However, our community along with others across the state face fundamental choices accommodating additional growth through greater infill increased densities including building upward or can or consider carefully planned outward growth for a small community such as Solvang neither approach should be considered in isolation nor without careful consideration of the impact of our neighbors in the San Yanez Valley Santa Ynez Valley is a special place because of its unique balance of open space, agricultural lands, rural landscapes and most of all strong communities.

Solvang recognizes that decisions regarding its future boundaries have impacts beyond our city limits. Any consideration of future growth should be undertaken carefully, transparently and with an understanding of importance of preserving the character that make our valley so unique. At the same time, the City has a responsibility for its long-term sustainability.

This includes exploring housing opportunities to diversify and strengthen its water supply portfolio, providing for future housing needs, unlocking right of way for plants in Ynez Valley Trail, an additional infrastructure that would provide emergency ingress and egress with any potential westward expansion, and finally identifying appropriate economic development opportunities.

The continued growth and activity associated with the Vandenberg Space Force Base in our region serves as an important economic catalyst, and we believe it would be prudent to consider how Solvang and the broader Valley can benefit from new opportunities and partnerships this creates. Our city staff has reviewed LAFCO's staff report and the draft municipal service review.

And with recent direction of the City Solving Council, respectfully request LAFCO directed staff to consider broader range of potential sphere of influence study areas including an expansion of study area one to allow for more comprehensive evaluation of potential future growth in service opportunities. Retain annexation study area two that has been previously identified as there remains interest by both the property owners and the city Evaluate a potential additional study area north of the city along Alamo-Pentado Road Corridor.

And evaluate a potential additional study area southeast of the city, its existing city limits and sphere of influence as shown in your attachment in the letter. And finally consider analyzing a removal of a portion of the City's existing sphere of influence to the east including developed properties within the Janet Acres and Coyle Ridge neighborhoods. The purpose of this effort should not simply be to expand Solvang's potential future boundaries, but also take into consideration sphere of influence that more accurately reflects logical future growth areas to ensure well thought out master plan development along with efficient provisions of public services.

This message was clearly conveyed by the city's Urban Growth Boundary Exploration Committee A group of 13 local residents recently convened to analyze potential expansion of the city's SOI in light of state housing mandates, infrastructure needs, economic development and the pressure created by the limitations of our existing urban growth boundary. City staff believes the Janet Acres and Quail Ridge neighborhoods may be more appropriately served by the long term by the San Yanez Community Services District and continue any potential future growth although minimal under the county San Ynez community plan.

Evaluating the removal of these areas while simultaneously studying other areas would provide an opportunity for more comprehensive and balanced land use planning approach. It would also be more comprehensive including potential funding, establishment of green belts that are most often merely thoughts when it comes to policy versus actual implementation. Our request should not be interpreted as a request to annex these areas, but instead provide the background evaluation of whether these areas are best served by our municipal services.

The City of Solving looks forward to continuing the dialogue with S.P. LAFCO, Santa Barbara County and our neighboring communities affected property owners and other key stakeholders with a shared goal of accommodating Solving's long-term needs while maintaining the community character that has made the San Ynez Valley such a special place. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Castillo, I got a question for you if you don't mind. It appears looking at the three attachments that you provided that the area that you're proposing to add to the studies

It's predominantly agriculture, is that accurate? It is an accurate assessment. Again

as mentioned it's a sphere of influence and our sphere has not changed since 1985 and normally during an annexation process you do need larger parcels to accommodate a master plan growth approach.

So that was a yes? It is yes. Thank you

I understand got your letter thank you. Commissioner Hartman.

Thank you, I'm glad to see the reference to Greenbelt in the letter. There was a time historically when the county Solvang and Buellton were actively engaged in negotiations to establish a green belt and I'm hoping to launch that again. I think that would be very important If you take the agricultural land, there's still what people value about the Santa Ynez Valley is we've got different townships that are separated.

Each has their distinct identity and there's working landscapes and open space between them. And I think it's really important to give some assurance going forward to the residents I wholeheartedly agree.

I looked at it back, early 2000s. I was still in college then and a great professor once told me it's great if it's written on a piece of paper but doesn't mean anything if it is not actually implementable and so that's where we feel that expanding to the west we can concrete use policies as well as the master planning effort to put into perpetuity an actual greenbelt that's funded and that's the biggest key Creating the strong sense of communities because as you mentioned, the San Ynez Valley has so many strong knit communities and maintaining the differences between the two is what's best comparative to seeing a sprawl and blending of each individual community. The only difference is just seeing a road sign.

If we go forward with the green belt which I hope we do, I think that has to come back to LAFCO it's a complicated process

Thank you.

Thank you so much for your time.

This is an information item, isn't it Mr. Prater? Should we ask for any other members of the public that wish to speak on this?

Chair Stark and members of the Commission there are no other requests to speak on this item.

So am I correct we do not need a motion? Thank you. That brings us to information item number two. Do I have that correct? Would you please read that item into the record?

Chair Stark and members of the Commission, information item number two is to receive and file a status report regarding the SALT grant.

Thank you Chair and Commission. Great segue into the next item, right? To talk about that. So staff and our member partners which we have a diverse working group working on that has been working on this two-year grant program now. There are essentially four components of the grant policy review Mapping, outreach and engagement. And then framework for an MOA. Those are the main four components of work that we're trying to accomplish through this grant.

The staff report provides a brief overview of the present accomplishments that we have made today. The next steps that we're looking to achieve in each one of those tasks and subtasks The outreach and the mapping team, they are getting underway as part of that effort. Outreach team has been holding one-on-one engagement meetings. I'm trying to get a better understanding of what suggestions are out there from these groups.

They intend to use that to help with their focus groups that they will embark on, likely beginning in 2027 where larger group formats will be held and workshops will be held as well As far as the policy review, we are hoping to wrap that policy review up by the end of the year. Essentially what we're preparing is a large matrix of policies that cover a broad set of topics that are important and germane to LAFCO and its decisions that it makes.

and how it would tie to a future MOA should the agencies embark on that endeavor. And the goal here is to sort of align commonalities I'd like to start by saying thank you to all of our partners and city representatives who have worked tirelessly to identify any gaps or inconsistencies on the way communities take that approach. And so we're assembling all of these policies, we're probably 85% there.

We hope to complete it, convene some internal meetings amongst And then we want to use this policy discussion to assist with both the mapping team in mapping and identifying important areas either for protection or opportunities, and allow the outreach team to use that policy base as an understanding when they engage with these focus groups. And lastly, once all that kind of is coming to a head and wrapping up we will embark once again with our interested agencies cities in the county on whether they want to continue to pursue an MOA. For those that do will embark on that effort if there is no interest in that what we will do is probably come back with a framework for how an MOE might look or work in case somebody wants to pick it up later down the road.

That work likely won't happen until all that feedback comes to us and we start that dialogue between the cities and the counties towards the end of this two-year program. With that, that concludes where we're at currently with the grant. If there are any other specific questions I'd be happy to answer any.

Any questions or comments from commissioners? Commissioner Hartman did you want to say something? Commissioner Hartman first.

I'll jump in first. So the mapping, I assume it's concentrated around urban areas. So I wonder what is the band within which you're doing the mapping? I understand that the Land Trust of Santa Barbara County has gotten some funding to add to this, the county as a whole but what is this that we're adding too?

Yeah, so the area that we're focusing in on for mapping is 1.75 miles outside of this five cities that are really the focus of this effort.

The five cities?

Yeah, so five of the cities are wanting to expand their spheres.

Okay

and look at that three of them were okay with the where their boundaries were those five cities is a city of Santa Maria, the city of Lompoc, the city of Buellton, the City of Solvang and the city of Goleta. So the focus is in around 1.75 miles in around their existing city limits and what Are the constraints and opportunities within that 1.75 miles to expand future growth opportunities?

Yeah, it seems to me that this will endure for longer than I mean, I think additional cities may come up or even unincorporated townships. I sort of hate to see it limited just to the five that have requested

Yeah, the limit was essentially because of the allocation of the grant and the amount of time and effort that it was going to take. And so we chose the five most cities that were seeing a need for that. But the intent is that the work that we do can be built upon either another grant can be awarded or individual cities can take the work and the mapping effort and they can continue on as they see opportunities Sure,