Meeting Summary
Present: Cooney, Park, Reed, Ford
This summary was AI-generated to save you time. It may miss or misstate details, so verify against the official recording and the transcript.
At a glance
Election of 2026 Planning Commission Chair and Vice-Chair
- Mr. Roy Reed was appointed as Chair and assumed the role to preside over the remainder of the hearing.
- Commissioner Cooney was elected as Vice Chair.
Staff Report and Projection Report
- Staff reported on recent Board of Supervisors actions, including the adoption of an updated fee study and the continuation of a streamlining ordinance amendment package.
- Staff presented the upcoming hearing schedule, noting that no items are currently projected for the February 4 date.
- Staff recommended coordinating with applicants to potentially cancel the February 4 hearing if no new items are added.
Workshop – Recreation Master Plan, Comprehensive Plan Amendments, and Ordinance Amendments (Recreational Benefits Program)
- Staff presented proposed amendments to the Land Use Element and Development Code to support the new Recreational Benefits Program (RBP), including simplified permitting for low-impact private trails.
- Public commenters raised concerns regarding agricultural land protection, trail user conflicts, and the definition of "substantial" in-kind contributions.
- Staff clarified that the RBP is distinct from the Agriculture Enterprise Ordinance and that Williamson Act contracts supersede other uses on contracted land.
- The commission voted to continue the item to the February 11 hearing to allow time for staff to address CEQA questions and refine the scope of work for the EIR.
Administrative Matters
- The commission approved the minutes from the December 3, 2025 meeting and appointed Mr. Wilson and Mr. Villalobos as Secretary and Recording Secretary.
- The commission voted to cancel the February 4 hearing.
- The commission agreed to revisit the potential rescheduling of February 25 items to March 4 during the February 11 hearing.
Full summary
Agenda Item: Election of 2026 Planning Commission Chair and Vice-Chair
- Chair Election: Chair Kate Ford nominated Mr. Roy Reed for the position of Chair. A motion was made and seconded to appoint Mr. Reed as Chair. The motion passed. Mr. Reed assumed the role of Chair and presided over the remainder of the hearing.
- Vice-Chair Election: A motion was made and seconded to elect Commissioner Cooney as Vice Chair. The motion passed.
Agenda Item: Staff Report and Projection Report
- Staff Report: Staff reported on recent Board of Supervisors actions, including the adoption of an updated fee study, the resolution of a SUTAR appeal in Isla Vista, and the continuation of a streamlining ordinance amendment package to January 27. Staff outlined future Board items, including a general cleanup package (February 3) and an environmental justice element (February 10).
- Projection Report: Staff presented the upcoming hearing schedule:
- January 28: Three items scheduled in Santa Barbara, including the continuation of the Peterson appeal and a Gaviota area appeal.
- February 4: No items currently projected. Staff suggested the commission could cancel this date if no items are added.
- February 11: One item scheduled in Santa Maria (Plant Hill Nurseries).
- February 25: Two items scheduled in Santa Barbara (a rezone and the 2025 comprehensive plan annual progress report).
- March 11: One item scheduled (utility scale solar amendments project).
- Decision: Staff recommended coordinating with applicants regarding the February 4 date and potentially canceling it if no items are added, with a follow-up discussion planned for the January 28 hearing. No formal vote was taken on the projection report in this segment.
Agenda Item: Workshop – Recreation Master Plan, Comprehensive Plan Amendments, and Ordinance Amendments (Recreational Benefits Program)
- Context: This item is a continuation of the workshop held on December 3. The purpose is to gather feedback on proposed amendments to the Land Use Element and Land Use Development Code to support recreation, specifically the new Recreational Benefits Program (RBP). Staff emphasized that no formal action is being taken; the goal is to refine proposals for a future hearing and to inform the Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
- Staff Presentation:
- Trail Development Standards: Staff clarified three categories of trail projects: County Parks projects, public trails built by partners, and private recreational trails. Staff proposed simplifying the permitting path for low-impact private recreational trails using zoning clearances or LUPs, with design compliance to U.S. Forest Service standards.
- Siting Standards: Proposed standards include a 200-foot buffer from active agriculture, avoidance of biological/cultural resources, and compliance with lighting standards where applicable.
- RBP Example: Staff presented a conceptual example for Guadalupe Community Park and Campground, illustrating two potential approaches: a County-led project or a public-private partnership where a private entity builds/operates a campground in exchange for incentives, with the in-kind contribution being the construction/dedication of a public sports park.
- Definition of "Substantial": Staff referenced dictionary definitions to clarify that the in-kind contribution must advance the development of an identified public recreation project.
- Outreach: Staff reported meetings with CRATAC, Grower and Shipper, developer stakeholders, and WE WATCH/Santa Ynez Valley Rioters.
- Next Steps: Staff indicated they are refining proposals based on comments and anticipate a public draft of the Programmatic EIR in March. Staff requested guidance from the commission on scope and scale parameters (e.g., size of trailside cafes, country inns, number of events) to finalize the project description for the EIR.
- Public Comment:
- WE WATCH (Catherine Rohr): Requested safeguards in the RBP to protect agricultural land from conversion to tourism uses, particularly in the Santa Ynez Valley. Proposed that RBP incentives not apply to agricultural parcels smaller than 40 acres (Ag 1 or Ag 2), that incentives focus on significant recreational needs (e.g., river trail easements), and that RBP land use permits include exceptions for neighbor notice or planning commission hearings. Also requested that all aspects of an RBP project be located in the same recreation planning area and that trail policies prioritize connecting existing trail easements.
- Suzanne Duca (CRATAC): Requested amendments to Policy 13 of Goal 2 in the Comprehensive Plan to include "case-by-case basis" language for trail user groups and to remove the word "only" from the second sentence. Raised concerns about the placement of bicycle trails on the north side of Lake Cachuma, noting that community needs assessments prioritize hiking and equestrian trails in the Santa Ynez Valley, and requested that the county expand equestrian trails instead.
- Dr. Heather Barrett: Addressed the Live Oak Equestrian Trail pilot project, citing a court ruling that vacated approvals due to improper use of a CEQA exemption and lack of site-specific environmental review. Urged the commission to consider the trail as a rare resource requiring site-specific protection and noted that non-equestrian use was stopped by the court order.
- Vineyard Owner: Requested that RBP incentives be clear and provide tangible financial assistance for infrastructure costs (e.g., culverts, retaining walls, turn lanes) that are cost-prohibitive for private landowners. Also requested streamlined permitting processes and input from private sector property owners during the decision-making process.
- Philip Jones (Better World Trust): Representing a 486-acre property in Winchester Canyon, expressed support for the RBP and public-private partnerships. Suggested expanding the definition of "cafe" to allow coffee roasting and onsite food preparation, incorporating culinary institutes into the definition of education facilities, and including the Winchester Canyon area in the RBP EIR to streamline permitting.
- Joan Hartman (Highline Adventures): Noted that not all Ag 2 zoned property is viable for commercial agriculture and requested that policies allow for recreational uses on such parcels. Stated that a country inn requires a Land Use Permit (LUP) rather than a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for viability, and that trailside cafes need to be sized for commercial viability (approx. 3,000 sq. ft. vs. 1,200 sq. ft.).
- Otis Califf (CRATAC Chair): Highlighted that hiking/walking constitutes 50% of outdoor recreational activity in the county. Emphasized the expertise of the CRATAC subcommittee and the importance of trail promotion.
- Kevin Snow: Encouraged the commission to pay close attention to CRATAC’s submitted letter regarding language refinements and to strengthen staff commitment to the public benefit of trails in discretionary decisions.
- Landowner Representative: Requested that the definition of "substantial" incentive be clarified to reflect the significant cost to private landowners. Suggested that land use permits be considered for RBP projects and that findings specific to the RBP be included. Also requested that the 10-year waiting period for Williamson Act non-renewal be waived or tied to the project entitlement to facilitate landowner participation.
- CRATAC 4th District Representative: Spoke as a resident of Orcutt, emphasizing the value of trails for community health and safety. Supported the public-private partnership model and the cost-effectiveness of trails and trees.
- Kathy Rosenthal (Santa Ynez Valley Riders): Addressed the goals in the comprehensive plan and ordinance amendments document. Noted that while the document states recreation often preserves natural resources, the primary purpose of recreation land use provisions is not resource conservation. Expressed concern regarding the maintenance of the Live Oak Trail as an equestrian trail within the Kachuma Recreation Management Area, noting the trail has existed since 1989. Stated that the coalition believes the Kachuma Recreation Area requires a separate section in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to address these specific issues. Requested a qualifier stating that the proposed policies apply to the entire county except for the Kachuma Recreation Area. Mentioned that three specific policies for the Live Oak area are in place under the county’s conservation element and thanked CRATAC and Mr. Lindgren for including a trail policy. Indicated she would submit a letter to the consultant with proposed edits to the policies for consideration in the EIR.
- Additional Comments:
- Trail Standards and Design: Discussions focused on trail construction standards, specifically regarding grades, sight lines, and compatibility between different user groups (e.g., equestrians and mountain bikers). Comments were made on the need for "hydrologically invisible" trails and the importance of design features that mitigate user conflicts.
- Recreation Benefit Program Administration: Questions were raised regarding who would administer the program, how "substantial in-kind contributions" would be defined, and the potential role of the County Recreation and Trails Advisory Committee (CRATAC) in identifying projects and contributions.
- Agricultural Compatibility: Representatives from the Grower Shipper Association and the Gaviota Coast Conservancy raised concerns about potential conflicts between new recreational developments and agricultural operations. Specific issues included setbacks from row crops, fencing requirements to prevent animal intrusion, and the potential for the plan to bypass standards established in the Agriculture Enterprise Ordinance (AEO).
- Cochuma Lake: A commenter argued that the area is federally managed land with primary purposes of water supply and fire abatement, not recreation. Cited legal agreements and environmental reviews (NEPA/CEQA) that restrict expansion and requested that proposed changes to the North Shore trails be removed from the plan.
- Guadalupe: Concerns were raised regarding proposed campground and sports field sites located in FEMA flood hazard zones. Alternatives, such as utilizing the existing Jack O'Connell Community Park, were suggested.
- Roadside Trails: Commenters from CRATAC emphasized the need to include roadside shoulder trails in the plan to address safety issues, fire evacuation concerns, and lack of pedestrian infrastructure in communities like Santa Ynez.
- Procedural and Administrative Issues:
- Thresholds of Significance: CRATAC proposed the adoption of specific thresholds for significant impacts to trails to guide staff and decision-makers, citing examples of past projects that damaged trails without adequate public notice or review.
- Public Notice: Recommendations were made to improve public notification for projects impacting trails, such as using tilt-up signs with QR codes and detailed information.
- Encroachments: Discussion occurred regarding unpermitted encroachments on public right-of-way, with suggestions to require removal of such encroachments during major remodels or additions.
- EIR Scope: Commissioners discussed the need to define the "outer perimeter" of the project scope for the EIR to avoid future re-analysis if the Board of Supervisors requests different parameters (e.g., room counts for inns).
- Commission Discussion:
- Commissioners asked for clarification on the balance between agriculture and recreation, the definition of "balance," and the specifics of outreach with the City of Guadalupe.
- Staff explained that the goal is to find a balance that supports outdoor recreation while complementing farming operations and avoiding fragmentation of agricultural land.
- Staff noted that Williamson Act contracts supersede other uses, and any RBP proposal on contracted land must be consistent with the contract.
- Staff clarified that the RBP is distinct from the Ag Enterprise Ordinance (AEO) as it is recreation-focused and tied to substantial in-kind contributions to the county, rather than requiring primary agricultural use.
- Staff recommended that the commission take a lunch break and return to discuss guidance, or continue the item to the February 11 hearing to allow time for deliberation.
- Motion: A motion was made and seconded to continue the item to the February 11 hearing to allow time for staff to address CEQA questions and for the Commission to review correspondence and refine the scope of work for the EIR.
- Decision: The motion passed.
Agenda Item: Administrative Matters
- Minutes Approval: A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes of the December 3, 2025 meeting. The motion passed.
- Secretary Appointments: A motion was made and seconded to appoint Mr. Wilson and Mr. Villalobos as Secretary and Recording Secretary, respectively. The motion passed.
- Hearing Cancellation: A motion was made and seconded to cancel the February 4th hearing. The motion passed.
- Hearing Rescheduling: A discussion occurred regarding moving items from the February 25th hearing to the March 4th open date to allow Commissioners to attend an agricultural forum in Santa Maria. The Commission agreed to revisit this decision on February 11.
Adjournment
- The commission adjourned the meeting.