Santa Barbara County planning staff unveiled a draft Recreation Master Plan at Wednesday’s Planning Commission meeting, drawing praise for its long-term vision but immediate criticism from stakeholders who said key recommendations they submitted were left out.

The plan outlines the county’s long-term recreation vision through 2050 and proposes updated planning and zoning rules that would guide how new parks, trails and other projects are built. Staff said it reflects more than 8,000 community survey responses and adds tools for expanding public access, including a voluntary incentive program for certain development projects if they include public recreation features.

The workshop was informational only, and after hearing public concerns about the draft and the limited time stakeholders had to review it, commissioners agreed to continue the discussion at their next meeting on Jan. 14.

A significant portion of the workshop focused on the Recreation Benefit Project (RBP), one of the plan’s proposed funding and implementation tools.

“The traditional set of tools for building parks in our county has been conditioning projects to add recreational features,” said Jeff Lindgren, assistant director of the county’s Parks Division. “A lot of our ability to do that has been diminished with changes to state law that don’t allow us to condition those types of projects any longer.”

Lindgren said those limits, combined with increasingly competitive state grant programs, mean the county “needs some new tools.”

The proposed RBP would offer a streamlined review process for projects that include a “substantial public recreation improvement,” such as a new trail segment or park. Staff said eligible proposals could be approved with a single land-use permit and receive limited flexibility in uses or development standards that would not otherwise be allowed. 

That flexibility could include allowing structures such as a small lodge or trailside café in certain zones, or adjusting requirements such as parking, staff said in their presentation.

During public comment, speakers from multiple advisory and stakeholder groups said the draft did not reflect recommendations they had submitted over the past several years. 

Otis Calef, chair of the County Riding and Hiking Trails Advisory Committee, said his group was “disappointed that the public workshop and review process seems to be rushed,” saying they were given “two and a half days over the weekend preceding the Thanksgiving holiday to review a substantial volume of complex material.” He said a nine-page letter that CRAHTAC submitted on Dec. 1 included detailed recommended changes not incorporated into the draft presented Wednesday.

Tom Parker, the District 2 representative on the County Park Commission, said he had not found any information about what the program would cost the county and that the pressure to understand the draft on a short timeline felt like a “firehose.” He said the document contains “a lot of very good material and good ideas,” but that his first impression was that it read like “a gigantic wish list.” 

“Wish lists are great, but they are not plans,” Parker said.

Representatives from agricultural groups also raised concerns, particularly about how the RBP could introduce new commercial uses into agricultural zones.

Claire Wineman, president of the Grower-Shipper Association, said the program risks “undermining orderly land use planning” and could create conflicts with surrounding farming operations if not narrowed or paired with clearer limits.

Commissioners agreed that the draft raised issues that needed more time and collaboration to resolve, including additional input from advisory groups such as CRAHTAC. Parke said the workshop had not allowed enough time for meaningful public input and that the draft still had too many unresolved issues to address that day.

“I sincerely believe with a continuance we can review the suggestions that we see, we can then shorten the actual process and ensure that these people feel heard,” he said.

The commission voted to continue the item to January.

Staff said a draft Environmental Impact Report is expected in early 2026 and will include a formal public review period.

The public can follow the process and submit feedback at SBCRecPlan.com or by emailing RecPlan@countyofsb.org.