Tier I - Long Range Planning Division - Santa Barbara County ...

GavPAC Meeting #52-
DRAFT Meeting Minutes
and adding a statement regarding a vision for a vast network of trails from the ridgeline to the coast
with loops. The GavPAC discussed including a statement that clarifies working with “public and
private owners” and not including a statement transferring liability to the County.
4
(17:15) ACTION: Kimbell polled the GavPAC regarding their support for providing Statement of
Purpose and Intent, as revised, to staff with direction to integrate it into the Trails Section of the
plan. The GavPAC members affirmed the Statement of Purpose and Intent unanimously and
without a formal motion.
c. Siting Principals and Criteria
(18:30) Deliberation: The GavPAC discussed how to recognize the various components of a trail,
referring to a range of uses, and removing the reference to braided trails in item 2 on page 7. Boise-
Cossart indicated that the TS did not use the term “braided trails” and had discussed specific uses
including whether equestrian uses are appropriate along bluffs. The GavPAC discussed descriptions
of trails to serve a range of users, multi-use trails, that some trails would have limitations due to site
conditions and the potential when the GavPAC revisits the issue in the future for addressing a crossregion
bike trail, a set of more primitive trails, and the character of trails. Lackie discussed developing
the general and specific trails siting guidelines using the guidance provided by the GavPAC in the trail
map and supporting narrative, including the multiplicity of trails concept. Lackie clarified that the PRT
Trails Siting Guidelines would be incorporated into the Gaviota Coast Plan and adopted to give them
official status. They can be included on the map as well. Lackie distributed example PRT maps to the
GavPAC.
(29:25) ACTION: Motion by Van Leer, Under General Siting principles, page 7, #2 – Remove “or
braided,” and remove all text after “Note”. Motion seconded by McNabb and approved
unanimously.
(31:10) The GavPAC discussed and staff noted their specific edits and items missing from the
General Siting Principles, including protection of agricultural operations, residential development,
privacy, and balancing the interest of the public and land owners, and use of the words alignment
instead of corridor, limiting or increasing use of the word, “shall” or “should” in policy statements and
managed access. The GavPAC discussed instructing property owners about fire safe land clearing,
Forest Service maintenance resource reductions, and the potential for the County to provide
maintenance and clearing of trails.
Public Comments:
(46:00) Susan Petrovich inquired about the use of the word, “priority” in item 1 and asked that it be
clarified what it means. In item 6 she asked if it should be worded, “close as feasible consistent with
the other policies,” and introducing the Agricultural Element policies into the section. In item 8, she
recommended that trails not be allowed to open until all the amenities were in place. In item 10 page
9, the list should add owner privacy and security.
County PRT Description/Guidelines
(48:40) Kimbell directed the discussion toward the County PRT Description/Guidelines. Tautrim
expressed his support for the guidelines. Kimbell noted the guidelines seem to be written for plan
areas that don’t have a lot of public land. The first, being that they emphasize exactions more suitable
to other plan areas, and the other that they need to emphasize the potential opportunities for trails on
public lands. In Gaviota the unique opportunity exists to locate trails in the public corridors and needs
to be reflected in the guidelines.
(50:40) ACTION: Kimbell polled the GavPAC members who expressed their support for use of
the County PRT Description/Guidelines in the trails section of the Plan without a motion.
General Policies
(51:30) The GavPAC discussed the General Policies on pages 22-23. The GavPAC provided specific
edits including: clarifying or removing item 3, on page 23; general direction to remove redundancy
from the policies including item 5, which may be redundant; item 2 (a), on page 22 should clarify that
Gaviota Coast Planning Advisory Committee