Santa Barbara County delays final action on Recreation Master Plan after wide public input on trails, agriculture and CEQA

Santa Barbara County planning and parks staff on Jan. 14 presented draft land‑use and code changes tied to the county’s Recreation Master Plan and sought input on the programmatic environmental review.

At a workshop before the County Planning Commission, Jeff Lindgren, assistant director with the Parks Division, outlined three trail project types and proposed a streamlined permitting path for ‘low‑impact recreational’ trails that would allow either a zoning clearance or a land‑use permit in many cases. Lindgren said private projects built to U.S. Forest Service construction standards could avoid costly grading plans and reduce environmental risks, calling modern designs “hydrologically invisible” because they minimize erosion.

Staff also offered a concrete example: a proposed Guadalupe Community Park and Campground that could be delivered either as a county project or through a public–private partnership under the Recreation Benefit Project (RBP) program. Under the RBP model, private landowners could build and operate campgrounds while dedicating a sizeable sports‑park component to the county as a “substantial in‑kind public recreation contribution,” Lindgren said. He told commissioners staff expects to publish a public draft of the programmatic EIR in March if the commission narrows the project scope.

Why it matters: The RBP is the mechanism staff proposes to use to expand parks and trails without direct county funding. The draft permitting rules, incentive thresholds and the EIR’s scope will determine how much private land may be used for recreation, what activities will be allowed, and the range of mitigation and noticing required.

Key proposals and technical details

- Trail types and standards: Staff distinguished natural‑surface recreational trails from paved multipurpose/community trails used for both recreation and commuting. Low‑impact recreational trails built to USFS standards could be eligible for an expedited permit path, staff said. (Staff presentation)

- Agricultural buffers and siting: Staff proposed a 200‑foot buffer from active agricultural operations for new trails and recommended avoiding biologically and culturally sensitive areas. Jeff Wilson, planning staff, emphasized the need for internal consistency with the county’s agriculture element and said Williamson Act contracts would continue to govern uses on contracted land.

- Grade and permitting thresholds: Staff suggested a permitting threshold linked to trail grade, proposing additional permitting requirements for segments steeper than 7 percent; commissioners questioned that cutoff and noted USFS guidance often uses a 10–15 percent working range for standard trails.

- Incentives and definitions: Staff seeks clearer definition of what counts as a “substantial in‑kind public recreation contribution” before finalizing the EIR’s project description. That definition will shape what incentives—such as development allowances or land‑use entitlements—may be offered to private landowners who dedicate public recreation facilities.

Public testimony and issues raised

Speakers representing trail‑advocacy groups, landowners and agricultural interests filled the meeting record.

Otis Califf, chair of CrayTac, thanked staff for outreach and urged clearer thresholds and public noticing, saying trail users “deserve to be noticed” for projects that will close or substantially alter a trail. CrayTac proposed county signs with QR codes and recommended county staff drop grading‑plan requirements when projects follow USFS standards to reduce permitting costs for noncommercial trail builders.

Multiple equestrian advocates, including Heather Barrett, MD, and members of the San Ynez Valley Riders, urged the commission to protect Kachuma Lake and Live Oak Trail from added hiking and biking uses. Barrett cited a 2021 court ruling that vacated approvals for a Live Oak multiuse pilot project, saying the court found the county had relied on an improper CEQA exemption and that site‑specific environmental review was required. “All approvals were vacated, non‑equestrian use was stopped, and the county was ordered to complete proper environmental review,” Barrett said.

Agricultural stakeholders pushed for stronger safeguards. Katherine Rohrer of WeWatch urged that RBP incentives not apply to agricultural parcels smaller than 40 acres and asked for heightened notice or hearing requirements for RBP projects that affect farming operations. Claire Weinman of the Grower‑Shipper Association flagged flood risk at the proposed Guadalupe campground site and recommended larger setbacks (for example, 400–1,000 feet depending on crop type) and more robust fencing where trails adjoin row crops or orchards.

Landowners and private partners, including representatives from Better World Trust and local ranches, expressed support for the RBP in principle but urged clear, practical incentives and streamlined permitting. Several operators warned a conditional use permit (CUP) is often cost‑prohibitive and said a land‑use permit (LUP) path or other streamlined review is essential to make projects viable. Some speakers argued a 1,200‑square‑foot limit for trail‑side cafés is too small and suggested roughly 3,000 square feet would be needed to support a commercial kitchen and serve sufficient customers.

Staff request and commission decision

Staff asked the commission for high‑level guidance on the EIR scope—specifically outer bounds such as the size of country inns, floor area for trail‑side cafes, allowable event sizes at amphitheaters, setbacks from agriculture, and the degree of discretionary review (LUP vs. CUP). Jeff Wilson and Lindgren said those parameters must be decided conceptually so the programmatic EIR can analyze environmental impacts.

Commissioners signaled they wanted time to review written comments and correspondence, and Commissioner Park moved to continue the workshop to Feb. 11 to give commissioners time to distill conceptual guidance for staff. The motion carried and staff said it will work with CrayTac and other stakeholders to refine proposals ahead of the next hearing.

What’s next: The commission continued the matter to Feb. 11 for further direction. Staff said finalizing the EIR project description after that guidance would allow a targeted programmatic EIR timeline, with a public draft anticipated in March if the scope is resolved.