Planning Commission

Mr. Villalobos, will you please make the TV coverage announcement?

And Commissioners Park and Martinez will be joining us shortly.

Okay, next the Agenda Status Report

Good morning Mr. Chair and commissioners in regards to our agenda today we have two items on our standard agenda One is, the first one is the Plantel Nurseries Development and the second one is the continuance of the Recreation Master Plan Workshop. Staff in Atkins are ready to present on all those items today. I can move to the projection report Mr. Chair?

Our next hearing was scheduled for February 25th but at an earlier meeting we have canceled that so there will be no Planning Commission hearing on February 25th So then our next hearing after today will be on March 4th and that will be in Santa Barbara. And then on that hearing there are two items projected, the first one is a rezone in the St. Nez area and then the 2025 comprehensive plan annual progress report by Long Range Planning. And again March 4th is in Santa Barbara.

The next hearing after that is back here in Santa Maria on March 11th and we have a government code consistency, a vacation of a road In the Summerland area, and then we have projected a long-range planning bringing forth ordinance amendments related to utility scale solar projects. Again that's on March 11th here in Santa Maria. The hearing after that will be on March 25th two items on that agenda.

That one will be in Santa Barbara there's the Chick-fil-A project at Cali Real And then we also have a general plan rezone project in the Eastern Goleta Valley on that day, again March 25th in Santa Barbara. And then April 1st is in Santa Barbara as well one item projected which is an equestrian event center that's located in the San Yanez Valley and then April 8th we have one item projected which is an oil and gas amendments project that's flooding planning is bringing forth And then we don't have anything projected after that. The April 8th hearing is back here in Santa Maria.

So, that concludes the projection report Mr. Chair.

All right thank you. Now it's time for general public comment. We accept public comment for items not included on today's agenda so is there anyone present who wishes to make General public comment.

And for those of you online, raise your hand and I'll call on you. No hands on Zoom.

No hands so we will conclude general public comment next just in time welcome Commissioner Park planning commissioners informational reports Does anyone have an informational report about a meeting information that they discussed?

Absolutely. That's why I drove a little faster. There are a couple of things I want to report on. One is, I think very well actually both are appropriate for today with the rec master plan but they're not rec master plan issues. I'm going to be on a panel for the small farm conference on February 22 which is a Sunday and the subject is Is there a right kind of agritourism?

So that's Relevant topic. The conference is put on by CAFF I don't have any idea what that means, I figure CA means California and one of the F's means farm but anyway it's a group of small farmers and the conference is put on oh it's free by the way and it's organized and moderated by Rachel Callahan who was the same University of California Davis a person who puts on the California Agritourism Summit, very nice woman. And it I've met the other panelists one's a young citrus farmer small farm she's in Redlands California and others in Sonoma they're facing a lot of issues we talk about so it's kind of interesting to hear what people think and say And Rachel told me that the California Ag Tourism Summit, right? Will be repeated again this year.

It won't be in May like last year when David Lackey and I went it's going to be in September, September 23 through 25 and it's going to be in Paso Robles so it'd be a very easy one for people to attend different sessions without having to, you know, spend three or four days in a hotel. So I would urge people to do that. You know at these summits they all talk about Santa Barbara County because our Ag Enterprise Ordinance for all its glory and its minor faults is the ticket in ag tourism in California where we got the first one which brings me to an issue In the, in the our AEO and implementation.

I hear all sorts of stories from landowners and their agents about applying for permits into the AEO some of my, I do discount somewhat because I find that some of the agents haven't read the AEO and haven't didn't attend all our hearings and things but I was approached by someone who did And they're having issue on low-impact campgrounds, which you might remember is something that we specifically built into our ordinance.

And it was built in because we had pending Assembly Bill 518 that was going to allow low impact campgrounds as nine or less and it wouldn't have all the requirements that we have for environmental health for septic and water. The bill passed, I helped lobby for it. I reported here last summer or early fall that it had passed and we needed to do what we would do to trigger our adoption of that ordinance, or rather that new law. Very easy because the new law says that if you have an ordinance that is compatible with the standards of this law which you know is the nine campgrounds those kinds of things and that's what our AEO was specifically written to match David Lackey wrote it up that way Then all you have to do is send a notice to HCD, whatever HCD is doing in this.

I don't understand but they do and then you're authorized to take these permits. Problem is it's reported me folks go to EHS and they say You know, with the law as it is right now in this county we still can't issue permits for these kind of campgrounds and we don't know when we will be able to. That'll be up to the board and to P&D. And so here we are Could you, Travis, Jeff someone please discuss with Lars and Jason excuse me for using first names at EHS and coordinate because I think our ordinance is already there.

Okay? I don't think we need to do any new ordinance. I think we just need to do a simple notification to HCD and I also brought that up a few months ago so that's just a request not bagging on anybody Looks like you're nodding affirmatively.

Mr. Chair and Commissioner Park, yes we will look into it and I think after this hearing we can provide additional information to the Commission and to Commissioner Park. I think Mr. Seawards has been working on this issue so he has information on it. Excellent. We're not agendized to go into detail on this today but we can provide information post-hearing on how we can navigate this.

Well, I appreciate your work and EHS's work. You know, I can remember all the effort we went through this and Lars and Jason were always there for us and very helpful and patient so it's not criticizing anybody in any way shape or form just want to make sure we get there. Thanks

With that, we will proceed to reviewing the minutes of the January 28th 2026 hearing. To any commissioners have they noted any additions deletions or corrections to those? Commissioner Cooney?

Mr. Chair I move approval of the minutes of our hearing of January 28.

Okay and I second

you may okay all in favor Is a director's report available today?

Mr. Chair and commissioners, there won't be a director's report today. Director Plowman is out of the office and so she will provide a direct report at our next hearing.

All right, thank you. So with that we will proceed to our standard agenda Mr Villalobos could you please read in the first item?

Yes, thank you Mr Chair. The following is a hearing on the request of Rich Grove Nursery Products Inc to consider case number 19 RVP 115 and to adopt a mitigated negative declaration case number 22 NGDU 10 and mitigation monitoring program contained in the conditions of approval pursuant to state guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act

I wish I could talk that quickly, it's kind of like an auctioneer. All right so aside from the levity Miss Mitchell are you prepared to proceed with the staff report? Please.

All right good morning Chair Reed and Commissioners my name is Tina Mitchell and today I'll be presenting the Plantel Nurseries Eastside Expansion Project The project site is located on East Clark Avenue between Telephone Road and Dominion Road, just outside of the Orchard Community Plan area. The site is within the rural area of the county and is surrounded by agriculturally zoned parcels that are developed with ag uses including row crops, ag processing facilities, and oil and gas uses.

Here's a closer look at the Plantell Nurseries lot, which covers about 137 acres total. The western 60 acres of the lot is built out with the existing Plantell Nurseries greenhouse operation. The proposed project would expand this operation to the eastern half of the lot, which is about 77 acres. The existing greenhouse operation on the western portion of the lot was permitted under Development Plan 08-DVP7, which was approved by the Planning Commission in 2010.

There were a couple changes to the development plan approved in 2016 with a substantial conformity determination and in 2019 under an amendment. Both of those were for relatively small additions. The existing structural development covers approximately 23.7 acres and includes seven greenhouses, a shop and office building, a germination building, a water recycling facility, and solar carports.

Here are a few photos of the existing greenhouses, the germination building and open growing areas. Hours of operation at the existing facility are 630 AM to 6 PM Monday through Friday year round. And the number of daily workers on the western side operation varies between 120 and 140 employees. Yeah. This is the view looking towards the east side, which is the site of the proposed expansion project.

The project site has been subject to previous disturbance including strawberry cultivation with hoop houses, grading to create pads for open growing areas and some temporary equipment storage. As this photo shows fallowed areas have grown in with non-native plants. The project is a revision to the development plan 08-DVP7 to allow Plantell Nurseries to expand the greenhouse structural development to the eastern portion of the parcel.

This will include 13 new greenhouses, a new germination building and a water recycling facility all of which will look and operate similarly to the existing operations. An 80 foot wide strip of new landscaping is proposed along Clark Avenue to help screen the development from public views. Hours of operation will remain the same and the expansion area will require 10 additional full-time employees.

Adequate parking will be provided on site, including for employees and truck staging areas. On-site slopes are generally less than 10%. However, grading will be necessary to even out the terrain, and all grading will be balanced on site. Overall, the project includes approximately 36.7 acres of new structural development. Here's a site plan showing the layout of the greenhouses, germination building near the center of the lot, water recycling areas and the water storage tanks.

Both stormwater and excess irrigation will be collected and conveyed via gravity flow to the retention pond area for reuse in the greenhouses. Access will continue to be provided via Clark Avenue from the existing driveway, follows the red dashed line between the existing operations and the proposed expansion area. Additionally, the traffic study for the project concluded that there is adequate stopping distance on East Clark Avenue and additional turn lanes are not needed to accommodate project-generated traffic.

This table shows the phasing plan for the project, and this was included with the staff report. We did make a minor correction here. The only difference between this corrected version and the version in the staff report is that phases three and four are under stage one rather than stage two. The project description included in the conditions is accurate, and this is the version of the phasing plan that was studied for CEQA purposes.

So stage one includes all grading and infrastructure for the project site, and then construction of the first four greenhouses and the germination building. And stage two includes construction of additional greenhouses on an as-needed basis, and it's estimated that it'll be two per year Total construction time is expected to last approximately five years, but their development plan would allow for 10 years if needed.

This slide and the next slide show the elevations for the germination building and greenhouses. The germination building will have a maximum height of approximately 24 feet, and there is no height limit for ag structures in the Ag-2 zone. The greenhouses will have a maximum height of approximately 23 feet. All building materials, paint colors and proposed landscaping have been reviewed by the North Board of Architectural Review and are subject to their final approval.

The project is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the Land Use and Development Code. The type and intensity of development proposed is consistent with the intent of the Ag-2 Zone, as well as the ag commercial land use designation which both allow for heavy agricultural uses. The project meets all requirements for setbacks, building separation, height limits, landscaping and parking for the zone district.

The project also complies with all applicable policies and standards related to aesthetics, noise, drainage, cultural resources and public services. Project was also analyzed for consistency with county ag policies and overall the project will increase the efficiency and productivity of the current operation, and will supply local farmers with vegetable transplants.

As discussed in the staff report, adequate parking will be provided in an area that's not visible from Clark Avenue or neighboring properties. However, landscaping in that parking area would restrict maneuvering areas needed for large shipping trucks and equipment. Therefore, the applicant has requested a modification to waive the requirement for landscaping in parking areas that exceed 3,600 square feet.

The project is also consistent with Chapter 25, which is the county's petroleum code. The site contains two plugged and abandoned oil wells in the northeast portion of the site, and Chapter 25 requires a 200-foot setback between buildings and oil wells. The project will meet this setback for the greenhouse structures. However, the proposed water tanks will be approximately 90 feet away from one of the oil wells.

Chapter 25 includes provisions for reductions to the 200-foot setback with authorization from the Petroleum Administrator. So staff worked with the department's petroleum division to review the project layout and oil well access, and the Petroleum Administrator authorized the setback reduction. The project was also reviewed by CalGEM, and a condition of approval is included that will require the two wells to be exposed, surveyed, and leak tested prior to grading permit issuance.

And if required by CalGEM, the wells will be re-abandoned in accordance with their requirements. Environmental review for the project was processed with a mitigated negative declaration in compliance with CEQA requirements. Significant but minimal impacts were identified for air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, biological resources, cultural resources and public facilities.

During the public review period, we received comments from APCD, CalGEM and California Department of Fish and Wildlife which were all addressed in the final MND included with today's staff report. The analysis in the MND concludes that the project will result in a net reduction in trips and water use after accounting for the discontinuance of the traditional row crop cultivation that has historically occurred on site.

A total of 10 mitigation measures are included as conditions of approval. These include measures to prevent impacts during construction, including wildlife surveys, worker trainings for bio and cultural resources, and a solid waste management plan. Mitigation measures related to operations include a natural gas fuel use limit and a greenhouse gas reduction program which I have more detail on in the next slide.

So as detailed in the staff report, the project includes a variety of new equipment to support the greenhouse operation. But the vast majority of emissions are associated with the greenhouse heaters. The projects includes 416 New Holland heaters and these are used inside the greenhouses when interior temperatures fall below 60 degrees Fahrenheit that's usually between November through April and the heaters are fueled by natural gas When modeling emissions for CEQA, we are required to assume the worst-case conditions that could happen on any given day which in this case would be the heaters running at full capacity for 24 hours.

However based on the applicant's experience with their current operation, 24 hour usage isn't necessary because the heaters can typically be turned off once the sun has begun to naturally heat the greenhouses. Crop hardiness and planting rotation schedules can also result in less heater use. Based on this knowledge, the applicant opted to incorporate a natural gas fuel use limit for the project which has been applied as a mitigation measure.

This fuel use limit is equivalent to running the heaters at about 50% of the rated daily capacity or less. In addition to the fuel use limit, the applicant will be required to implement a greenhouse gas reduction program using specific reduction measures from a menu of options that are detailed in Mitigation Measure GHG-1. With these two mitigation measures impacts related to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions will be insignificant.

Staff also worked closely with APCD while reviewing the air quality analysis and when crafting these mitigation measures. And APCD provided a condition letter for this project that is included with attachment B to the staff report. Based on this review, staff recommends that the Commission follow the procedures outlined on this slide in order to approve the project.

One, make the required findings for approval as specified in Attachment A of the Staff Report including CEQA findings. Two, adopt the MND and mitigation monitoring program included as attachment C of the staff report. And three, approve the revised development plan including the modification request subject to the conditions of approval in attachment B of the staff report.

That concludes my presentation. Staff is available for questions and also available for questions we have the applicant team from Plantel, their air quality engineer for the project and then we also have the county's CEQA consultant WSP that helped with preparation of the M&D. That concludes it thank you.

All right thank you first Commissioner Park courteously informed me that I somehow omitted asking for ex parte information or site visit disclosures from commissioners. So, I know Commissioner Park and I made a comprehensive site visit yesterday hosted by Stephen Waldron who I believe is operations manager general manager so we did that any other commissioners have anything to report?

Yes, it's been about probably over a month where I met with the applicant and a couple other staff members. Their general manager. I'm forgetting their names but I'll remember them.

Great

thank you.

Nothing to report Mr. Chair.

Okay thank you okay with that I have a few questions. With respect let's just start off with the oil wells I read the data from Dogger, those two wells were abandoned approximately 1952?

Yeah that's correct.

I recognize some of the names in the paperwork as friends of my grandparents and people. So that was before any of us were born, even Commissioner Park or I. And I think necessarily that might necessitate some questions on the integrity of those. So I was gratified to see that they will be inspected. Abandonment is required. It will be to the latest specifications?

Chair Reed, that's correct there is a condition of approval that requires you know CalGEM to be involved with the inspection of those wells and if it's required by CalGEM then they will be re-abandoned up to their current standards

Okay, and with respect to that the expenses incurred in that abandonment who would they be paid for?

Chair Reed I believe that would be the applicant's responsibility.

Okay excellent next question is with respect to the greenhouse gas the gas use limitations and the monitoring Your report explained that but I would like, is there a reporting procedure to county or to staff to verify things have been conducted in accordance to the conditions of approval?

Chair Reed, yes there is. So the mitigation measure details that they will have to have metering devices to monitor and take reports of the daily natural gas fuel usage. That gets reported to our permit compliance staff monthly And they will review that. We also have APCD to assist us with reviewing that data as needed, so that's part of the mitigation measure language and monitoring requirements.

All right another question with respect to rainfall management under the PON system is designed to collect and save that water for other uses. Just like in the event of a major rainwater event, are those ponds and the associated grading, are they capable of handling the totality of the runoff from that site without causing flooding on adjacent properties or roadways?

Chair Reed, yes so there is a drainage study and stormwater control plan that was prepared that includes you know analysis of those ponds and that goes to our flood control division for their review. And they review it for consistency with the county code chapters 15a and 15b requirements Those ponds will exceed the storage capacity needed for a 100-year storm event, and they have proper emergency outflows as needed. That's all detailed.

All right next with respect to traffic volume now this expansion is going to increase number of daily employees by 10?

That's

correct. And it would be anticipated there are probably going to be more shipments leaving the facility due to the expanded capacity?

Chair Reed, that is correct and that was all calculated and accounted for in the traffic study that was prepared for the project. And when you account for the strawberry farm discontinuing it's actually a reduction in the total number of trips and that accounts for deliveries and employees so that's all accounted for in the studies.

So fewer trips. That's

correct.

Yeah, that's why I wanted that to be come out in the hearing parking. They're putting what 76 new spaces but only 10 new employees is that?

That's correct. Yeah basis for that

is

So Chair Reed, there is about 9 or 10 actual employees spaces and then there's room for about 76 spaces in their staging area which they need for their operations for receiving and shipping out the shipments. Yeah, they need the larger area for their shipping areas but they really only need 10 additional spaces I would say. So plenty of additional spaces.

Okay last one I have at this time is landscaping. The plant palette for landscaping where did that come from?

Chair Reed so that I think they had Yeah, plein air. Landscape architect on that one and that does get reviewed by North Port of Architectural Review so they would look at the plant palette to make sure that it's appropriate and there's no you know invasive species of that sort.

Well I like the native plants that were picked out. I think it's a great palette. I wasn't going to criticize it I just wondered what the genesis was of that one. I think it will be very complementary to the area and has some of our favorite natives, so thank you. With that, I will give the mic to any commissioners who have any additional questions.

Thank you. Just quickly, could you remind us with the addition of the 10 employees how many employees that total that is? Yeah, certainly and then

projected. Commissioner Ford through the chair so they're currently at 120 to 140 employees said it would be 130 to 150 thank you.

I don't think I'll need more than that. Hi, I'm Scott Nicholson. I recently retired from Plantell but I was there when we were putting all this plan together and first of all I'd like to really thank Tina Michelle for sticking with this plan over the years it's taken us a while to get through this to go through all the mitigation measures and make sure everything is appropriate We think that it's a good plan. It's basically just an expansion of our existing operation. We do face periods of time when we are at maximum capacity in our existing facilities, so this will allow us to expand our production.

And so unless there's any other specific questions, that's pretty much what I have.

Just for the general public that's watching and may be interested could you give me a just a couple minute explanation of what your operations are?

Our operations are for the production of vegetable transplants And so we produce from seed in our seedling trays, a miniature plug or a miniature plant that we sell to the farmer. We sell directly to the farmers were not a retail operation. And so by starting the plants and selling them to the farmers, the farmers get a better yield in the field. They save time in the field. They save water and pest control products in the field because they get a instant start with the plants that we provide to them.

Right well thank you very much With no additional questions from commissioners we can proceed to public comment We have no public, I have no forum so no public comment in the room.

For those of you online if you would like to speak on this item raise your hand. It must be for the next item. No hands raised.

No hands raised. So any additional comments from staff?

Members of the Commission, Chair, we are content with the information provided but happy to answer any further questions.

Well interesting I guess we can progress to deliberations well I'll start this You know, Plantel has been a fixture and I think an important element of the local ag community for. A few decades with respect to this expansion plan. It seems it would be a great asset to their operations. It's been well mitigated with Larger concerns would obviously be greenhouse gas, maintenance management of the abandoned wells on the property and traffic which are typical of most projects particularly projects at this volume that we are faced with. It appears that all effects of those are well mitigated and well conditioned in conditions of approval I even think the landscaping will be a benefit. So at this point, after reviewing all the pertinent materials and the presentations of staff and the testimony from applicant, I would be prepared to give it complete support for approval.

So any other commissioner part?

I like that little bell. I don't know what it was for, but it's like at a restaurant you're about to give a wedding toast. And that's kind of what I'm going to do because I think that big picture Sometimes we need to celebrate things and the fact that Plantel sees the need to expand this much says a lot for farming in Santa Ana or Santa Ana, it was Santa Ana, in Santa Maria Valley.

I'm looking over there at Claire Wyman and eight years ago I think when I became a Planning Commissioner Claire and Larry Farini took me on a tour of the valley and we went over to Plantel And I've had a number of tours at Plantel, both this facility and the Gary one since then. And it was impressed upon me how absolutely central to veg farming Plantel is. I mean you could make an argument that they're the most significant enterprise in this county in terms of their importance for doing something. I mean you could make that argument.

And I encourage people to, to go on tours there. They always participate in Farm Day which is in the late summer and then I know they're having some tours in September which I guess is Farm Day. I'm not sure but everybody should go there it's fascinating. I heard yesterday that last year they produced 1.4 billion plants And I bring that up just because, again big picture.

One of the things that appropriately received a lot of attention here was GHG admissions for the heaters. That's what we're supposed to do. But you look at that when you're producing 1.4 billion plants, think of all the carbon sequestration it's going to occur once those get planted and grow. It's phenomenal so it's very important. Something that's important to me particularly is I'm not trying to pick on the fourth district but most of our Older oil wells are in the 4th district, are they not? I think they are.

Yeah and what worries me about these older wells is how well were they abandoned and some of them never really were abandoned there little strippers or they're just inactive And there's a lot of release of methane and methane is probably our worst greenhouse gas. It is, luckily it disappears quickly but it's still bad stuff So any chance we get to take some old wells and make sure they were abandoned properly, and if they weren't abandoned properly or if there's some release to do it under today's standards is a good thing. So I think that's a good thing here not a bad thing that you're dealing with these wells.

Anyway, I absolutely support this project

Commissioner Cooney. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is interesting to me. I'm not a farmer though. I spent several summers working on farms and appreciate the difference between a well-run and sloppily run farming operation. A very well done Report by Ms. Mitchell answered all of the questions that I had about this project, so I will be adding my approval to those of my fellow commissioners.

Commissioner Martinez?

Yes, I'm since first meeting with the applicant and staff. I've been as I found this project to be in the right place progressive and responsible and I'd support it.

Commissioner Ford

Thanks. This certainly has been a long time coming and although I'm pretty much a city girl, I really appreciate the comprehensive thorough planning that has taken place and extensive mitigation and modifications that lead me to support and in fact celebrate the project.

So well I'm chair so I'll make a motion all right Excuse me. I would like to sit forward a motion that we make the recommended actions as included on slide 15 of the staff report They make the required findings for approval specified in attachment A, including the CEQA findings. We adopt the mitigated negative declaration case number 22 NGD 00010. Adopt a mitigation monitoring program contained in conditions of approval and we approved the project case number 19 RVP 0000115 Including a modification to waive the landscaping requirements for uncovered parking areas that exceed 3,600 feet. Subject conditions included is attachment B.

Commissioner Ford?

I'll second that

motion thank you. Mr. Villalobos could we do a roll call?

Motion passes 5-0 today. Commissioner Cooney? Motion passes 5- 0. Great

and thank you to staff for all your meticulous work on this item. Can we take a what about it 10 minute recess or 15 to change for the next item? What? Ten? Welcome back to the February 11th hearing of the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission. Mr Villalobos, will you please read the next item into the record?

Yes, thank you ma'am. 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

Thank you and just as a bit of positioning, this is our third workshop on the rec master plan. The first workshop was largely information informational on what we deal with which is the recreation benefit program portion of the rec master plan It's a little narrow in scope. This has to do with the public-private partnerships that will enable participating property owners not restricted to ag owners as the AEO was, will allow them to be able to participate create certain uses which are allowed in the rec master plan.

The second hearing was very broad in scope and was intended to invite an illicit comment from stakeholders, interested groups, and others relative to the broader plan. Now the goal for this workshop is again narrower in scope. Our intent today is to provide direction and information to planning staff that they will use to prepare the REC benefit program, not the overall REC master plan to repair prepare the REC benefit program so it can proceed Preparation of the programmatic EIR. We are not Although we invite public comment, public input, we are not going to be acting on individual projects or proposals included in the overall rec master plan. We have a specific goal and that is to prepare it for the programmatic EIR. After that is prepared, we will embark on a series of hearings as necessary to really refine the elements and at or consider public input in refining it.

So with that, I'd like to proceed to our staff presentation. Ms. Mitchell?

Mr. Chair and Commissioners as we get ready to show the slide again Jeff Wilson Assistant Director of Planning Development Department And then we have Jeff Lindgren with the Community Services Department and Tina Mitchell is the planner on this one. I just wanted to follow up with Chair Reed's introduction, that was awesome and perfectly framed what we're working on. I just want to add a couple tidbits to that That's a type scientific term is that what we're doing today with the planning commission is a subset of the greater recreation master plan as chair read indicated in addition to the recreation benefit program, which is again. part of what we're doing. We're also doing ordinance amendments to encourage additional recreational uses throughout different zoning, as well as we are updating the land use element with policies, as well as looking at the agriculture element and maybe adding policies there.

So we are more narrow in scope as far as what we'r doing and what we re coordinating with the Planning Commission on And yes, there is the larger rec master plan that has specific project in it that Mr. Lindgren can talk to you so as today we're looking for comments from the Planning Commission in regards to those components of ordinance amendments or policy amendments that we're looking at which are designed to help support the greater recreation master plan that we're working on. So having said that I will turn it over to Mr. Lindgren to have some opening remarks And then to Ms. Mitchell.

Thank you and good morning. This morning, well again I'm Jeff Lindgren, Assistant Director for Parks in the Community Services Department. Thank you to Mr. Wilson and Ms. Mitchell for assisting us in these hearings and development of the REC plan overall. We also have a team of consultants WSP is working on our environmental documentation and Erica Leachman is helping us finalize REC plan elements so thank you to our full team As we move forward today, as your chair pointed out, we are on the third continuance. I guess a second continuance third meeting of a workshop format where we are looking for feedback and input that we can include in our project description for our environmental document for the rec plan.

In front of the Planning Commission in coming months will be the output from that, we will bring back the public version of the environmental document and our kind of final collection of proposals for the Recreation Master Plan and the amendments to the Land Use Development Code And the comp plan elements that we are looking to revise all in support of recreation in the county.

Okay, we jump into that first slide please. Thank you today. We're looking for some feedback from your commission. About the components of the amendments, as we just mentioned. I will discuss some of the feedback that we've heard throughout these workshops And then we will also spend a little bit of time talking about the amendments and precisely get into some of the details about what those amendments might look like in the Land Use Development Code.

We're really looking for your discussion today to focus on the areas that we'll present to you in the next minute or two, so next slide please. Recapping some of the feedback we received over the last few months and actually going back to when we released the NOP for the environmental impact report. But overall, we are hearing support for development standards that support Low impact outdoor recreation and sustainable trails. That's good.

We're hearing support for streamlined permitting processes, so using the zoning clearance and the LUP process rather than what's generally required now which is a more stringent CUP conditional use permit. We are getting good feedback on the rec benefit program as an innovative approach and the use of public private partnerships to help provide recreation across the county.

Um, we've heard excitement and a lot of interest from nonprofit sector from landowners from various groups who have particular interests in certain types of recreation so those are all very good things. Next slide please. We've also heard some critiques and. In the comments we've received, there are definitely some differing opinions and some tension between some of the things that we're suggesting. We've provided a list of incentives to help applicants through the Recreation Benefit Program.

And we've heard both that those incentives are not valuable enough and then we've also heard that some of those incentives might be too much. We've heard that agriculture setbacks from agricultural productive agricultural land could be too big. We've also heard that they're not big enough. So these are the kinds of comments that we are hearing in this process.

We're hearing that rec benefit programs, zoning and the parcel size should be considered for example. We've heard that rec benefit program should be limited to parcels larger than 40 acres There's a challenge with that. We do have some parcels and some projects that we'll talk about in a little more detail later, that are potentially on smaller parcels than 40 acres that would not be applicable here.