Planning Commission

Mr. Villalobos, could you continue with the TV coverage announcement followed by the roll call?

be joining us in a few minutes.

Thanks very much. At this time we're going to commence with the election of the 2026 Planning Commission Chair and Vice-Chair, and I'd just like to say first that although my tenure as chair was short four months long it was really interesting it was rewarding and it was fun. I received gracious guidance from my fellow planners Planning Commissioners and especially Mr. Villalobos and Mr. Wilson so thank you very much any other comments before we go on to I'd like to make the motion?

I didn't have a chance to indicate what I felt about your short tenure, but we do change and otherwise I'd be voting for you to go two or three more years. Very good job. Thank

you very kind. Thank you. Okay, so with that I see no other comments. I'd like to have the honor to nominate Mr. Roy Reed for chair. He's always incredibly well prepared thoughtful helpful bold and quite clever. So that's my nomination do I have a second?

Yes, I'd like to second the motion.

Mr. Villalobos, could you record the vote please?

Motion passes 4-0

Thank you. And now I believe that Mr Reed can take over preside over the election of the vice chair as well as the remainder of this hearing so talk amongst yourselves while we do a little musical chairs

One improvement already this It says appoint the, no elect the vice chair. And I believe that our rules of succession would indicate the logical candidate for that would be Commissioner Cooney. Do we need nominations for that? Yes. So I would like to nominate Commissioner Cooney as Vice Chair.

Second.

I guess we'll find out if Commissioner Cooney accepts this. Commissioner Cooney, start with

you. It's a right and a privilege and I'm pleased to at least start this term as Vice Chair. Excellent.

Motion passes 4-0

Okay, now this next one. You have to explain this. Appointment of Planning Commission Secretary and Recording Secretary Jeff Mr. Wilson, I mean.

Congratulations Chair. I think it's a congratulations and welcome to the seat. At this point you have the opportunity to appoint the secretary and according Secretary myself and Mr. Villalobos have sat in those roles but we're open to any discussion on the other alternatives if you would like But we leave that to your discretion, but it's just an appointment so you can make the nomination and take a motion to appoint myself and Mr. Villalobos if you so choose.

Well I for one would certainly not want to make any changes so I would certainly like to nominate Mr. Wilson and Mr Villalobos to fill the spots of secretary and recording secretary Do we have a second? Is it

an election?

Okay, so that's it.

He's done.

No you do take action on it. Yeah

I'll second.

Motion passes four to zero

Could we please have the agenda status report? That would be a better idea. Yeah, could we please have the agenda status report?

Mr. Chair and commissioners when looking at the status of the agenda today We only have one item on our standard agenda which is The follow-up or continues to the discussion we had in early December on the recreation master plan as it relates to comprehensive plan amendments and ordinance amendments. So staff is here to follow up on that and receive additional public comment.

And I can move to the projection report, Mr. Chair if

you'd like? Yes please.

Our next scheduled hearing will be on January 28th and that will be in Santa Barbara We have the continuation of the Peterson appeal on that date. And then we also have another appeal that's in the Gaviota area, and that's going to be on that date as well on January 28th again. That's going to be in Santa Barbara on the 28th so there are three items on the 28th Moving down the projection report, we have nothing projected on February 4th and there is a note that Commissioner Reed would be absent that day.

And then moving down to February 11th, we have the Plant Hill Nurseries and that hearing is in Santa Maria. And then we have our next meeting after that is February 25th and that will be in Santa Barbara and there are two items projected on that, a rezone In this area and then the 2025 comprehensive plan annual progress report by Long Range Planning. Again, that's in Santa Barbara. Nothing else is projected until we get to March 11th and there's one item on that from Long Range Planning which is the utility scale solar amendments project. That concludes a projection report and the commission may or may not take up whether or not to keep the February 4th hearing at this date I don't anticipate there will be any items on the February 4th hearing.

So you could take it up and cancel it if you would like?

I would like to move that we cancel the February 4th hearing.

I'll second Madam Chair, Mr. Chair So

we have a motion and a second to cancel the February 4th hearing.

Commissioner Park?

I and I'd like to point out some of these things that are less controversial we can do by acclimation. Yeah.

And Jerry motion passes four to zero.

I have a question now on February 25th Myself and Commissioner Park, there is an agricultural forum going on in Santa Maria. It may be beneficial for us to attend, and Commissioner Park has said he would actually like to attend I would like to explore if this is the appropriate time, if the items from February 25th could be moved to our open date of March 4th.

And then we Council the 25th meeting to permit, well actually Commissioner Park and I would like to attend that. But any commissioner with an interest in agriculture in the county could benefit although I realized we certainly couldn't sit together or talk together due to Brown Act but I would like to ask if that's something it could be considered

So chair and commissioners that yes, that is something that can be considered if we don't have anything on the March 4th hearing at this time. The long range planning item can be adjusted. The other item we would need to coordinate with the applicants to make sure they're available on March 4th. If they're not available on March 4th, we'd have to just coordinate what date they're available so if the commission cancels it then yes, we would just relocate those to the most appropriate.

So should we revisit this on February 11th or?

Yes we can. Mr. Chair, we didn't reach out to the applicants and coordinate with that and come back on the February 11th.

Let's do that.

Actually I think we have the 28th so I think we could come back on the 28 project

report.

So between now and the 28 will coordinate with staff and the applicants and just let them know that that hearing date will be canceled more than likely.

Okay thank you Now, I think we move to public comment. This is general public comment. Any member of the public has a comment they would like to make on an item not on today's agenda? They can at this time make a public comment either in person or over the phone. Do you have any Anyone in the room who wants to make a public comment again on items not on the agenda?

And for those of you online, raise your virtual hand if you have a comment at this time. Seeing no one rise in the room and no hands raised online we can move on.

Okay well that'll bring us to Planning Commissioner's informational reports Are there any commissioners who at this time wish to make a brief report on issues, seminars, meetings or literature that might be of interest to the public or the Commission as a whole? It appears there are none. So with that, we need to consider the minutes from our December 3rd 2025 hearing provided everyone has had an opportunity to review those minutes.

Are there any additions deletions or corrections that need to be made?

Mr. Chair, I would move approval of the minutes of December 3, 2025. Okay do we have a

second?

I'll second.

So all in favor say aye. Aye. Thank you. Are approved. Director's report. Do we have a director's report?

You do, I'm online. Proceed. Happy New Year. Welcome Commissioner Reed to the chair position and thank you for your service and appreciate our former chair she did a great job in her first term as chair and she will come back around no doubt. I have a few things to report today. There were a number of actions that the board took in December that included the adoption of the department's updated fee study and that was heard by the board on December 9th and that's going to be going into effect in another 30 days roughly.

They also heard the SUTAR appeal that was in Isla Vista The Mission IB project on the 9th of December. And there was a great deal of back and forth between the applicant and the appellant, and ultimately the board ended up approving some changes to the project and ultimately resolved the appeal which I think was a positive thing in the long run But the applicant is still in the process of working out some of the details on that particular design change, making sure that they can meet fire department requirements. And then on the 16th of December, the board heard the SABLE item, the transfer of ownership and Also heard the streamlining ordinance amendment package for the housing element implementation items that the Planning Commission already heard.

That item was continued to the 27th of January because the density of the package, they felt like the first hearing was more like a workshop like we did with the Planning Commission and We went through in great detail what those changes would be and they continued it to the 27th to take action. And so we'll be going back at the end of this month for that. Future board items include a general cleanup package that will go into the ordinances will be going on February 3rd and then environmental justice element would be going on February 10th to the board And that concludes my report.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

Apparently, I see no questions so thank you very much.

Yeah, thank you.

That will bring us to our standard agenda So Mr. Villalobos, could you read that one in?

Yes thank you Mr. Chair. The County Planning Department and County Parks Division will conduct a workshop with the County Planning Commission regarding the upcoming comprehensive plan and ordinance amendments related to the Recreation Master Plan. Workshop will include presentation from planning and park staff opportunity for public comment and questions and questions from the planning commissioners

I presume I will just jump in. Okay, good morning Chair Reed congratulations on your appointment to the chair and good morning commissioners This is a continuance from the December 3rd Planning Commission meeting, where we started to host a workshop in order to get feedback from your commission on the amendments proposed to the county land use element adding policies and language supporting of recreation.

and amendments to the Land Use Development Code, to add additional uses that support recreation and to create a new chapter in the Land Use Development Code for the Recreational Benefit Program. At December 3rd we discussed these items and we took public comment today were here too Do a short presentation on a few more items, answer some questions from the first round of discussion and to take additional public comment today as a reminder of where we are in the process.

This is a workshop, we're not asking for any action by your commission today. We will be taking the comments from today and comments that we've had over the last months and refining our proposal on the land use element amendments and land use development code amendments. And we will be bringing those back to your commission for consideration a little bit later this year We are developing a programmatic EIR for this entire program with the information that we gather this month from these comments.

We intend to finalize that project description and are anticipating a public draft of the EIR in probably March of this year, and that will help understand some of the impacts and implications of the proposals that we're making when we come back to your commission. So that's where we are and from there you can launch into it. I suppose I should introduce myself, Jeff Lindgren, Assistant Director with the Parks Division of Community Services.

Our team is composed of Jeff Wilson, Assistant Director for Planning and Development Tina Mitchell, Planner with Planning and Development. And then not with us today but Taylor Lane is our Environmental Consultant with WSP and Erica Leachman is our consultant helping us finalize the Recreation Master Plan with Bornstadt Consulting. So since our last meeting on December 3rd, we had a couple of outreach efforts. We did meet with the CRATAC Rec Master Plan Subcommittee which included members from Montecito Trails and I didn't put it up here but also of course the Trails Council discussing some of their comments We met with Claire Weinman, Grower and Shipper.

We met with some developer stakeholder representatives. I met with Kathy Rosenthal representing, I believe you're representing both WEWATCH and the Santa Ynez Valley Rioters discussing some of their questions and concerns bringing us to today. We'd like to start with some clarification and some reframing of the trail development standards that we are proposing throughout this process. I'll go through these pretty quickly, but the current options for trail development fall into three general categories.

The orange bucket is county parks projects, fairly simple we own the land we own a trail easement and um we work to build a trail we're not subject to zoning requirements in the inland area of Santa Barbara County. We do some CEQA and we do bio studies and often arc studies The second type of project that we normally see is a public trail that is going to be built by some other group. This might be one of our trail partners, like the Trails Council or Santa Maria Valley Open Space.

In those cases either there's an offer to dedicate or grant of an easement or they're building it on county property in which case it flips back to the orange bucket for permitting purposes. If not, then they need to follow the current zoning which may allow a trail if it's allowed under a conditional use permit. The third category and pretty rare is private trails for recreation. They're subject to the zoning of the property in which they want to build the trail and the permitting requirements that exist there.

Next slide please. Excuse me. We've created a couple of different trail types to help understand the permitting process a little better. The first one is the recreational trail, this is the trail that probably most of us think of when we go for a hike. It's natural surface it's in wild land open area type of environments generally used for hiking equestrian use cycling use and there's no real structural support type of development The second trail type we've identified are multi-purpose or community trails, and these are generally paved trails that are along a road right of way. And they're used for both recreational purposes people jogging walking pushing their strollers but also can be used for more of a commuter purpose So more of a transportation purpose if you want to travel from one part of your community to another, one of these nice paved paths can be a good alternative to driving.

In the cases of these two trails we're really focusing on simplifying the recreational trail permit path so that's what you'll hear mostly about this morning. Next slide please So the new permitting standards that we're proposing are as shown here. Again, we have county parks and rec trails on county land or on county easements. Those won't really change very much but we should note that any trails that we build or built on our behalf, we ask that they are built to US Forest Service standards and I'll talk a little bit about more of those in a moment.

The other type of trails are these private recreational trail projects. And in this case, we are looking if they're building looking to allow in our proposal if they're looking to build a low impact recreational trail as we described just a moment ago Then they'd be eligible to build that trail using a zoning clearance or potentially a land use permit if it's a little more complicated type of trail.

Again, these trails would need to be designed in compliance with the new development standards and using the U.S Forest Service construction standards that we currently use. Okay next slide We mentioned a couple of times the U.S. Forest Service standards and they call out sustainable trails in their standards, and what that means is that the trail is able to withstand heavy use and weather conditions and sometimes extreme weather conditions like you might see from a natural event like a forest fire or debris flow.

So in following the U.S. Forest Service standards, you get a set of construction standards for guidance on how to build the trail so that the trail will be safe and be maintainable long term and will withstand conditions. And I really like the last bullet where it talks about hydrologically invisible So in days gone by when trails were built, they had things called water bars and they had all sorts of devices that were inserted into the trail to direct water off of the trail so that there was no erosion on the trail. Now there are new modern construction techniques that remove a lot of that and you have more of a seamless trail that uses other techniques to keep water from pooling or eroding the actual trail surface.

So this is part of the reason that we embrace these US Forest Service standards. And if you want to take a look at the Santa Barbara Trail Council website, they have a really nice kind of summary of all of that information on their website to do a great job sharing information about trails. Next slide please. So in order to facilitate all of these new trails, we also needed to develop siting standards. So trail development standards. So of course the first one is you follow the U.S. Forest Service and you create a sustainable trail.

And then you can see on this list we have a few other things 200 foot buffer from active agriculture on adjacent properties Avoid biological and cultural resources. If there is lighting, which would probably only apply in limited circumstances on maybe on a what we call the community trail or the multi-purpose trail that are more urban than those would need to comply with the existing lighting standards for that community. And then some other standards that you see on this slide.

And next slide. I'll pass this one over to Mr Wilson.

So chair and commissioners, on this slide what and I think Commissioner Park has alluded to this as well in prior hearings. One of the opportunities and challenges that we have in doing a We have identified that. We also want to look at the agricultural element to make sure that's internally consistent with the goals and policies that we're presenting in the land use element. As a commission may be aware of, the Long Range Planning Division is already looking at the open space element and making amendments to that per state law so that's not part of what we're doing because it's already being done through the Long Range Planning Division However, we think it's beneficial to look at all the policy elements and make sure that we're being consistent.

We don't have conflict internally with the different elements. And so identified that there could be an opportunity for us to include an additional policy or goal in agriculture element just to make sure that it supports the policies that were introducing in the land use element so that way the elements are internally consistent or talking to each other. And some of the things that we are considering and we're exploring is a policy that relates to supporting outdoor recreation but that it complements farming operations and agricultural productivity, and is trying to find that balance between recreation agriculture and protect agricultural activities while allowing recreation benefit incentives And then just avoid fragmentation of agriculture and or recreational uses.

So these are some of the things that we're considering as far as agricultural element. We did based on the last workshop, we did hear a comment about Williamson Act and how does this relate to the Williamson Act? As we've explored that preliminarily what we're thinking or considering is that The purpose of agriculture is to do agriculture. There are some opportunities for recreational uses in the agricultural areas.

Property is under Williamson at contract. We're recommending that the Williams that contract is going to rule or supersede anything else so any proposal on contracted land would need to be consistent with that contract there through the ag enterprise ordinance I believe they made some changes as far as uniform rules as far as allowing additional uses to be considered compatible but Any recreational benefit project or anything that we're proposing would need to be consistent with those contracts. Now the contract holder has opportunities as far as going into non-renewal, or canceling their contract but that's going to be under the contract holders purview to make those decisions. So when we talk about conflict of the Williamson Act, in agricultural land the Williamson Act is gonna rule and then There are opportunities for compatibility that's already included, so that's where we're recommending in regards to finding any conflicts with the Williamson Act.

So we just want to present that to the Commission and public that we are looking at making sure that we're internally consistent with all the elements of the comprehensive plan. And with that I'll turn it over to Jeff. Sorry, Mr. Lindgren to highlight a potential recreation benefit project that they're looking at in the future.

Thank you Jeff. During our December 3rd meeting we did spend some time talking about the rec benefit program and we did have some kind of sketchy sketched out types of examples that we presented. So, we thought we would create an example that's a little more robust and you can kind of see how this might work a little more in the real world. So in this case, we want to share with you a project that's identified in the Recreation Master Plan.

The current draft it's a Guadalupe Community Park and Campground. Next slide please. You can see Highway 1 through the city of Guadalupe functions as Guadalupe's main street. Leroy Park is the green rectangle that is a City of Guadeloupe park that was recently renovated, did a very nice job in their community center and the whole The whole renovation. Surrounding Leroy Park and around the edge of the city are a couple of ag parcels that have not seen a lot of agriculture in some time, so we're contemplating how we might utilize these for the program. Next slide please shows Oh, look at that animation.

The parcel at the top has both some... will propose both some campgrounds and some trail connections and then the parcel towards the south will have a community sports park. Next slide please. Okay, this is the one I was looking for. Thank you. Here is a concept for both of these things. The Leroy Park is still there in the middle of your screen. Wrapping around it on the north is the potential campground that we had preliminary concept design prepared for. And then we also show a community park with some sports fields and some space from some other types of events that could benefit the City of Guadalupe. We've had discussions with the mayor and staff at the City of Guadeloupe, you know they see this as an economic development tool as well as recreation facility that could serve their community We also know from our extensive public outreach that folks that live in Guadalupe who want to play competitively have to travel to Santa Maria to find good fields and good leagues for any of the sports that they're interested in playing.

So this would allow them to stay home, take some trips off the highway and be able to stay in their own community. There's a pretty substantial bicycle touring component that travels up and down Highway 1 through this area, and they would benefit also from having some campgrounds in the area. And it also would support the Guadalupe downtown. Next slide please.

So there's two ways this project might happen. Well, there's probably more than two, but these are a couple of obvious ones. The first one is it's a county project. The county finds funding goes through the land acquisition process and we then we advance the design, find funding for the design and move the design forward and get into construction. And then we operate both the campground and the sports park as a revenue opportunity for the county parks and it also supports the city of Guadalupe. That's more, the more traditional approach through our rec benefit program we can initiate a public private partnership with the landowners where they would have the opportunity to say build the campground and operate the campground As a revenue stream for themselves and the substantial in-kind contribution to the county could be the construction and dedication of the sports park component.

And that would be operated by the county or possibly City of Guadalupe in the future as a public facility. So I just wanted to give you a little breakdown about how those two approaches might look and how one of them might be beneficial in certain circumstances, in this case utilizing our rec benefit program. Okay next slide please. So last time we met there was a lot of question about substantial because we use this term substantial in-kind public recreation benefit contribution which probably needs an acronym of its own.

But that is the component of a REC benefit project that would be dedicated to the county in exchange for the incentives that are available through the REC benefit program. So there's a lot of questions about what does substantial mean? So I went to the trustee Funkin Wagnalls New Standard Dictionary. Everyone uses Webster's, I know but or their computer. But my grandfather had a giant version of Funkin Wagnalls on the table looked very so that's not his but it looked very similar to that one And always referred us to the Funk and Wagnall. So I thought I'd use a couple of their examples of what substantial means considerable, important or essential having substance material or real so that's the direction we're going when we use the word substantial in the working definition for recreation benefit program.

So essentially The contribution needs to advance the development of identified public recreation project that's part of that rec benefit program. So I hope that helps clarify what we mean by substantial a little bit. Of course, we're still open to refining that in many ways as as we move forward and next slide please.

Okay, I'm going to jump in here at the end and we don't want to take too much more time. But just to close this out, I want to give a brief explanation of the two tables that were provided along with the staff memo for the workshop today. So I'm going to go to those in Word really quick if I can. There we go. Larger. So Table 1 summarizes the various standards and parameters that we are considering for the additional rec benefit project uses.

So as a reminder, these are the uses that would be available as an incentive to eligible recreation benefit projects And so everything in this table here is the same information that was in the summary document and the presentation slides in December, but just in a table format to help facilitate the discussion. There are some blank spaces in blue Try to make that bigger.

So like for example, country and max floor area we're still trying to figure that out so you know we welcome any input on anything on this table especially those blank spaces. And then Table 2 moving into that So that summarizes the trail permitting reframe that Mr. Lindgren walked us through a few minutes ago, and so it explains the differences between recreational trail and then multipurpose or community trail That's about it. I just wanted to explain that we have these two tables open in Word and we can make comments or take direction from the Commission and put them in this table live if that would be helpful.

We'll take the Commission's lead on when you might want to do that, whether it's before after public comment And overall, the big picture objective here is to hopefully finalize some of these details so they can go into the EIR that we are finishing up. And I believe that concludes our presentation for today and we are available for questions.

So any questions from commissioners? Hello. Now we're in full force, yes.

Commissioner Park I want to talk to you about the trail standards and as you know usually I'll find some way to disguise my comments as questions. I'm too tired today so I'm just going to go at it. If you could go back to these trail standards slides one or two of them My recollection from just a few minutes ago is you talk about making them hydrologically invisible. I like that phrase as well, and I think that's very important.

It's very important how you construct a trail. But I want to bring up something else that is maybe even more important and it's something that is a form of a solution or mitigation to a problem that I think several people in the audience are going to bring up today. A problem that we have with trails is who uses them and how? Okay, when we have the classic multi-purpose trail it's everybody and his dog in everything uses it.

But a lot of trails that we have they've historically been used for hikers or maybe they were equestrian or maybe their important mountain bike trail. It's when we try to combine all those uses we get conflict sometimes and sometimes those are unfortunate I think we have folks in the mountain bike community that feel excluded at Live Oak. I can point out that if you go to several places, including say Johnson Park property on San Luis Obispo County You'll see that horses have basically been excluded by mountain bikers because they don't want to, those communities the biking community doesn't want to have to deal with the horse problems. And so it's just easier to convince the powers-that-be to take those small number of horse users and just prohibit them.

So it can work both ways what I'm saying but there's another way of handling it aside from just Dividing groups up and having them comment on what, who should be allowed in the trail and who should not. And that goes to the design of the trail. That's what I'm getting at. If you go to Live Oak, and I go there all the time, and i put on events there and so I'm familiar with how people use it, how, what's compatible.

Those trails, the official ones are essentially old farm roads If, if I was to deliberately design a trail that's dangerous because it's a potential conflict between bikers and horses. I would use that trail as a pattern because there's all sorts of blind spots steep grades things like that If on the other hand you go to a place and I'll give you an example, the Pismo Preserve where those trails are all only a few years old.

They have tremendous sight lines so if you're on a horse you can see that bicycle coming around over here. You can see them They have a lot of switchbacks, but they're switchbacks that are the modern kind where it's more of a curve instead of a tight angle. And they have really mellow grades which means that nobody can really build up speed. They're much safer if you're out on those on horse and in your scene mountain bikes than you are in other places And I think anybody who's using trails and designing trails should be aware of these differences. And you should in this, this product right here tried to build that into your sustainable trail standards. It goes beyond forest service and built-in trails are as compatible as possible. That doesn't mean I favor letting all users use all trails.

I think we need to be more sophisticated but let's take the trails that we are going to put in and make them the best they can be. And that's a way to make them better And I'm glad to take people out on horse or bike or whoever, to show you just what this looks like. Anybody?

Commissioner Ford

Thank you. Mr. Lindgren, I don't know if this is possible but I'm interested in knowing what modifications suggestions ideas you're considering or you already have inserted here as based on the meetings that you held and I'm very glad you did.

Chair Reed Commissioner Ford You know, we're still going through that process as we collect comments. And I'm sure in the last day, we received a handful more of letters. So we'll be looking at all of those and then looking where we can incorporate a lot of those. Some of the comments were pretty substantial type of ideas that might not be able to accommodate in the scope of the work that we're doing.

And then on the other end, there are kind of language changes in the policies and a lot of those I think are reasonable and can be accepted. But we need to look at them, you know kind of each on case by case basis. And then we're going to be publishing our proposals again when we bring them back to you for your consideration so you'll see everything that was added or changed in that version of it.

So we're going to go ahead and get started. Thank you so much for your time. Sounds great if there's a way that you can actually highlight those I think we'll see in your proposal just because I think people have the different groups have, you know, have a right to see where where their ideas were accepted considered seriously The commissioners here but to the public.

What suggestions were actually taken.

And then I will add in the EIR process there are, there's a comment period and then in that process there is a response to comments which will also be more fine-tuned on each comment and responding to each of those. So they'll be a couple different ways I assume that we can share the changes that were great that we're looking at.

Thank you Mr. Wilson, I wonder if you could just be a little more specific about what you mean? Just maybe it's just me but what you mean when you say you're really seeking this balance. What does balance look like to you or is it just sort of like you know a little demon sitting on your shoulder telling you keep this balance between agriculture and recreation?

What does balance look like?

Chair Reed and Commissioner Ford, what we're talking about is prior workshops and coordination with important stakeholder groups. And lessons learned through going through the Ag Enterprise Ordinance Amendments as well is that making trying to ensure that uses that are in agricultural land, especially productive agricultural land when we talk about row crops that we're not introducing conflicts that could potentially impact those agriculture operations. So that's what we're talking about at balances the goal of this project is where this is not an agricultural project. This is recreational based But at the same time, we need to be cognizant of what other potential conflicts there could be by adding uses or encouraging uses in agricultural land.

And there may be areas like grazing lands or even orchards where some of those property owners want to include these type of recreational activities and so it's making sure that we can incorporate these uses as well as preserve agriculture at the same time. So that's what we're talking about trying to find that balance.

Thank you. If

I might add a

little bit to that. On the surface, you know we're asking to create some new language that supports recreation seems like a very simple kind of straightforward idea that most people would want and support but we are balancing a lot of different concerns. I use balancing to describe our balancing effort. Sorry about that, but we are trying to bring all of these considerations in their concerns about neighborhood compatibility about compatibility with other types of existing land uses within recreation there's competing interests so all of those things are trying to be addressed throughout this process and You know the challenge of course there is you know creating a program that can still work and but supports all of those different interests.

Thank you. And just one more quick question and a note of gratitude, thanks for giving us the actual sample of what the RBP might look like. You used the word outreach and could you just review for all of us what kind of outreach you did with the City of Guadalupe?

Sure I think we maybe had Three visits on site with the mayor and the park staff there talking about the project, had several communications with the Mayor of Guadalupe about trying to reach those individual property owners, their older families. And don't appear at this moment to be willing to sell or find a different use for their land. So we're trying to use the local network and the local connections to figure out how we might find a way to have this discussion with those families, so the mayor of Guadalupe has been pretty involved in all of that. He took us to a nice taco shop in Guadalupe.

And we've had some good discussions with them. We also looked at another campground in Guadalupe that's not in that location but turned out to not be feasible out by our Guadalupe Dunes Park, very sandy, a lot of issues with constraints out there so yeah.