BOARD OF SUPERVISORS on 9:00 AM

Well, good morning everybody. I'd like to convene this regular session of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. Mr. Allen would you call the roll please?

Ms. Wolfe, Ms. Gray, Mr. Lavagnino, Mr. Carbajal, Ms Farr.

Here. Would you

Madam Chair, members of the board. Yes we have six requests to speak. We're going to start with Marina Reed here in Santa Barbara to be followed by Elsa Granados

Thank you there's actually three of us we'd like to change the order if that we may Is that all right with you? I would have to tell you that next time huh? All right well so why don't you go ahead and tell us what order you want Mr. Michael Weissman and then myself and then Candace Jones

Okay thank you

Good morning. I'm Dr. Michael Weissman, you may recall that I spoke before you two weeks ago regarding the fraud that we a group of concerned citizens and homeowners perceive is being perpetrated upon this county by Wall Street banks with regard to the foreclosure of mortgage loans We had gathered evidence, we believe of violations of law including fraud and illegal options.

We had met with the DA and the sheriff and felt that our claims of injustice have been ignored. We came before you to request that you simply ask the local county officials to do their job. We ask, to ask the county recorder to perform an audit as the recorder of San Francisco City County has done and to report any irregularities to the district attorney. To ask the district attorney to investigate suspicious recordings and prosecute as appropriate.

And to ask the sheriff to suspend evictions until a full investigation has been performed. The only response we've had from the board was Supervisor Wolf's question to the county attorney following my presentation. I believe the gist of it was, to what extent is the Board of Supervisors responsible for the actions of the county officials? And I believe the answer was in effect none.

However, it went by very quickly. I did not take notes and it was not in the minutes so I may be mistaken. But this is not the point. Even if the board has little direct control over their actions your opinions and actions will certainly guide them. In fact officials at both the DA and Sheriff's Office had indicated to us that they would be more proactive If they were so directed by the Board of Supervisors.

After all, you have the ultimate power to pass ordinances to right wrongs and then the county officials must obey those laws. Surely this issue is important enough for the citizens of this County. And thus I hope to the board That a full airing of the board's jurisdiction and what actions the board can take in this matter is warranted. The second reason I'm here again, is to report to you on our meeting with the county recorder and the very serious issue this has revealed about what has been recorded in the County Hall of Records.

I was shocked to hear Mr. Holland say that, in effect, the Hall of Records does not contain a legally valid chain of title.

Thank you, sir. I'm sorry your time is up. If you have some written comments that you want to submit, you can go ahead and do that to the clerk.

Yes, I'll pass these to you. Please read the last paragraph. This is very serious.

Thank you. Marina Reed to be followed by Candace Jones

Good morning, everyone. On or about March 20th this year we provided you a copy of our report entitled Trustee Sales in California Crisis by Theft Citizens Report which exposed the ongoing illegally conducted trustee sales happening in California and specifically here in Santa Barbara. On April 3rd I came to follow up on my submission and spoke with the panel We have two other concerned citizens as a matter to shed light on the subject matter as far as mass crime that is occurring here in Santa Barbara.

I'm writing to you today, and I will submit a copy of this, and I've also emailed a copy of this to each of you last night. Four main points. I've attached the subsequent addendum. It seems that many people read the report, and they read two little clauses in the code, and they just dismiss the whole thing. So this is an analysis. Explaining those parts of the code so that you can move forward with it.

I'm also attaching the full in my email, I attach the full report so that you can share it amongst yourselves, share it amongst your constituents shared amongst people so that you folks can become educated and inform other people about it to date. I have not received any response from any of the board members regarding having Acknowledgement of receiving it, having read it. Nothing. It's like a black hole and that is my experience generally with the county. I used to work for the county so I can speak to that.

So I'm directly requesting that there's an acknowledgement from specifically the individuals. I know that the clerk has received it but I would like to hear from each of you You have received it, that you have read it. And also I have requested that your calendar person whoever that is for each of you contact me so that we can set up an appointment to discuss the matter directly with you.

I already have one in play with Ms. Farr because she was my direct representative but we are requesting each of you since this is regarding all of us in each of your areas Many of us were in attendance. I greatly appreciated Board Members Wolf's question to the Council regarding the role or the power of the board as regarded Uh, giving you know whether the sheriff or the district attorney need or can take direction from you.

But we were left greatly concerned with the disconnect by Council Marshall's response though his response may be accurate it answered a different question than the one posed by Supervisors Wolf. We are concerned that many have not been...we're concerned that this may not have been noticed by the board members as such you were left to believe that there is no power You have no power to direct the sheriff or the DA to request an investigation, or to request a receiver report regarding the investigation and their progress regarding prosecution on the related matters.

Rather it seemed that you were left with a hands-off posture would be the correct way to go for the board which would in our mind abandon your responsibility and accountability to the citizens in the County of Santa Barbara I transcribed what was said during that meeting. It is here and you will be able to see that there was a disconnect that was going on with that. So, I request that your calendar people contact me and I've left my phone number there. Thank you very much.

Candice Jones to be followed by Dr. Robert Jones

Good morning. I came to Santa Barbara about 24, almost 24 years ago. I was brought in with the Resolution Trust Corporation. I don't know if you're familiar with that. We were brought in just closed down Santa Barbara Savings and Loan and County Bank because of the wrongdoings. It was a form by the government. I worked with the RTC. We did shut down the SNL's at the time that one of this tsunami hit And Paulson and Geithner and all of them were approached with bringing back the Resolution Trust Corporation. They immediately put the crouch to that and said no, reason being we were bankers going in and examining bankers they didn't want that.

I've been in the industry now for 38 years, and I have watched what has happened in our country and how the banks get hit with penalties over and over again. I will tell you they laugh all the way to the bank. A penalty to them is just a slap on the wrist, and they go right about doing business as usual. This continues to happen. I know our Attorney General just recently signed the deal with the other AGs across the United States, and actually giving them immunity from prosecution for their wrongdoings on the robo-signing and all of that.

But also today as of yesterday they have lobbyists in Washington trying to stop civil actions against the banks. So everything that was agreed to by our Attorney General, their lobbyists are now trying to change all of that literally one week after it was signed by the judge. We, the banks have planned this all along. I can assure you, I've been in it 38 years. Their goal was to control the rates which they do through the Treasury with Geithner. They control the money through the Federal Reserve which they own and they want to control the land. That's the last piece of the puzzle that the banks want to capture.

We're headed for the biggest tsunami you've ever seen. It may not today

technical skill to provide support to law enforcement fire services emergency medical services and other governmental field personnel. The work of these unforeseen, or unseen first responders is invaluable in emergency situations and each of these dedicated men and women deserves our heartfelt appreciation. Because emergencies as you know can strike at any time we rely on the vigilance and preparedness of these individuals 24 hours a day 365 days a year We in the wireless industry are extremely proud to have a key role in providing the wireless infrastructure and systems that make the dedication of these people effective.

As you may know, over 30% now of American homes have only a wireless device as their primary phone. And over 70% of emergency 911 calls come from wireless devices. Many in situations where a lack of coverage would mean these calls for help would go unanswered. The wireless industry has made major investments and infrastructure improvements to ensure not only that these calls go through and stay connected, But as importantly, that the dispatchers know exactly where the call is coming from thanks to enhanced locational data transmitted with the call itself.

The wireless industry looks forward to continuing to work with the County of Santa Barbara to improve the wireless infrastructure that serves the people in this community so they can make that call whenever they may need to. Thank you for your time.

Thank you for being here. Right, and that concludes public comment. So unless any members of the board want to take opportunity at this time to say something? Seeing not let's go on to our administrative agenda and I believe that we have at least two items that we need to pull one is a public speaker on A4 and then I think Supervisor Wolf you wanted to pull A16 for a separate vote so anything else that we need to pull from the A agenda All right.

Why don't we go ahead and hear from our speaker on A4?

Madam Chair, we have one request to speak on item A4. It's Dr. Robert Johns. This is a resolution sponsored by Supervisor Wolf. It is a resolution of accommodation celebrating the 64th anniversary of the founding of the State of Israel.

Well I would like to congratulate the State of Israel. They don't need my congratulations, I understand that. But I want to reassure everyone that our president, and he doesn't need my, you know. But our president stands behind the state of Israel 100%. Okay? So I want to make sure that... but another issue is always fantasized, I fantasize about it is is the Nazi hunter Wiesenthal.

I don't know whether I got that name correct or not. Anyway, Wiesenthal was a Nazi hunter and somehow or another I have fantasized myself as Carvajal fantasized himself As a lover, a person who just...

Dr. Johns, you need to stay on topic here and this is the resolution.

Well I'm just drawing a comparison between Carvajal and his fantasy.

You need to stay on topic or you're going to be asked

to sit down. You're looking a little grayish, Supervisor Carvajal. But anyway, I sort of fantasize myself as a Nazi hunter but not really a Nazi A racist hunter. You don't get that, do you? The two. And also when there's racism, there's always sexism. The two run together.

Dr. Johns, you need to sit down. You're off topic and you've been warned now three times. Well,

thank you. I'm just trying to make a comparison between the two. OK. Thank you very much.

You need to sit down. Thank you. All right, so I will entertain a motion on all of the administrative agenda except for item A-16. Motion? Second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. All right, now we will take up item A-16 specifically. Do you need to read that in the record then? Go ahead.

Madam Chair, Item A- 16 is a set hearing item from Planning and Development Department. It's an appeal filed by Jeff Nelson of the County Planning Commission's determination that draft mitigated negative declaration prepared for the Park Hills Estates Project is inadequate. The questions at this board set the hearing for your meeting on May 1st

Okay, Supervisor Wolf Thank You madam chair just Wanted to I will need to recuse myself from this vote in any subsequent vote on this project due to The fact that this project is in close proximity to my home which In consultation with County Council is a would be a conflict of interest.

Thank you. All right, so I'll entertain a motion then on A16. Motion second all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries with one recusal Okay, so now we have finished the administrative agenda and we will just go ahead and go right into our first departmental agenda item. Mr. Allen would you read that into the record please?

Madam Chair members of the board Item number one is from the Public Works Department it's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding speed limits on various roads using in the 1st 3rd and 4th district. Good morning Mr. McLaughlin.

Yes, good morning Madam Chair and board members I'd like to introduce our presenters this morning Eric Pearson our interim deputy director of transportation as this is his first presentation in front of your board and certainly Gary Smart our county traffic engineer

Good morning, Mr. Pearson. Mr. Smart thank you for being here

Good morning. Madam Chair and board members, as the clerk mentioned we are here for the speed limits board letter. The process to establish speed limits is summarized in this slide. This procedure is governed by state law and is the same for cities counties and state highways The first step required to set speed limits is an engineering and traffic survey on segments of roadways or speed zones.

It should be noted these surveys expire and require a re-survey every seven to ten years. To keep all the countywide speed zones current, we're typically here before your board twice a year on this matter. As engineering and traffic surveys expire, new surveys are completed for traffic and they're presented to the County Traffic Engineering Committee. For information, the Traffic Engineering Committee is comprised of CHP, County Sheriff, Caltrans, County Traffic Engineering, County Schools, the Metropolitan Transit District The Bicycle Coalition was recently added.

Triple A, a member from Triple A and Vandenberg Air Force Base. The recommendations from the Traffic Engineering Committee are then presented to your board for consideration as we are here today. County code is amended by ordinance to set speed zones so it's part of the consideration today an ordinance amendment is included After board action, we install signage and roadway markings and then provide documentation to CHP for enforcement.

At this time I'd like to turn it over to Gary Smart, our traffic engineer. He'll discuss in further detail the components of the Traffic Engineering Survey and to summarize the recommendations to your board. Thank you.

Good morning Madam Chair, Board of Supervisors. The engineering traffic survey is required for all the speed zones we go out and measure the speed of traffic take a sample size about 100 vehicles record the conditions of the roadway if it's residential developed four lanes two lanes those facts We look at the volume of traffic, we collect the collision data and research that. And then we analyze that for the 85th percentile which is the critical speed and the speed that the speed limit is based on.

We also have the ability to lower speed limits due to Assembly Bill 2767 if there are conditions that would not be readily apparent to motorists The slide here shows our results of those speed zone surveys and the recommendations from the Traffic Engineering Committee. And I'm available to answer any comments or questions from the board.

All right, thank you. Any comments or questions from the board on this particular matter? To do with speed limits. All right. Yes, Supervisor Carballo?

Thank you. I really appreciate your presentation. As usual we are reminded that we have very little recourse or flexibility in this issue if we are to continue to have thoroughfares where we can cite individuals who are over the speed limit. To do otherwise which is available to us Would not would preclude us from being able to cite people who go over the speed limit as we are informed by law enforcement officials. So our hands are really tied and I guess I just it's counterintuitive and I know two of the roads in my district, Lily Avenue and Toro Canyon Road.

I haven't heard from much of my constituents, but I know that they remain concerned. I remain concerned, but we know the state law really gives us very little recourse so I just want to point that out for my constituents who are going to see this and say well why are you raising it five miles an hour? Well five miles per hour it falls within the formula that is prescribed by the State of California based on the traffic assessments that are done out there.

I'm disappointed, not in you. I'm just disappointed in the lack of flexibility that we have for our constituents who see that raising the speed limit can provide for a more at least based on perception of lay people a much more dangerous circumstance but that's what the state law prescribes. That's what our engineers mainstream thinking is and I guess we have to abide by it.

Thank you. Other comments or questions from the board? Do we have any public speakers for this item?

No request to speak.

All right, so this is a first reading of the ordinance and setting on the administrative agenda on May 1st the follow-up actions. So do we have a motion? So moved and a second all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries thank you very much I think we'll just take five minutes to allow staff to set up the next item.

♪ Yeah. ♪ Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Good morning. Yeah. You ♪ ¶. ♪ Thank you. Yeah. Yeah.

Good morning again, everybody. We're going to take up our departmental agenda item number two. Mr. Allen would you read that into the record please?

Madam Chair and members of the board, Item 2 is some planning and development. It's a hearing to consider recommendations for the Lost Forest Ranch Project. This is a total of 1,784 acres located at 10045 Cayo Real in the Gaviota area in 3rd District.

All right, thank you. And how many public speakers do we have right now?

We have about 13 at present. I believe there's some additional speakers pulling out slips.

Okay, all right so how we're going to proceed with this item is we're going to have the staff presentation then we're going to have the project applicant represented by Ms. Petrovich speak then we will have public comment then we will have staff's response to those comments then we'll have the board deliberation And we need to be done no later than noon. So let's go ahead and get to it, but before we do that, we do need to do ex parte.

So let's start with you Supervisor Lavagnino.

Thank you Madam Chair I have met with I had a meeting with Susan Petrovich Mr Van Leer Paul Van Lear was also at the meeting and then I joined Mr Van Lear on a site visit on his property.

Okay Supervisor Carbajal?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I've discussed this issue and met with Kevin Snow, Mike Lunsford, Bob Keats, Keylon Kelley, Caleb, Montecito Trails Foundation, Susan Petrovich, Paul Van Leer, and Mark Shutillo.

Thank you. Supervisor Wolf?

Madam Chair, I met with Susan Petrovich, Paul Van Leer. I met with Mike Lunsford and unfortunately there were two other folks I believe with Mr. Lunsford and I cannot recall their names. If you'd like me to get those names, I can go back to my staff and get the names of those individuals.

No, I don't think that's necessary.

Thank you. And Supervisor

Gray? Paul Van Leer and Susan Petrovich came up to my office, and I met with them about two weeks ago. And I just went out and talked to Cheryl and Tyki Minetti, and we talked about that issue.

Okay, thank you. And I've had several meetings with Mike Lunsford, meeting with the Trails Group where Kevin Snow and Otis Califf was there, discussion with the EDC at one time and meeting with Ms. Petrovich and Mr. Van Laer, and also a site visit with Mr. Van Laer last week. Supervisor Wolf? Madam Chair,

I should add Mark Sciatello to my list please.

Yes, and I

should do that as well. And I believe I discussed it with representatives from ETC as well. Okay, Supervisor

Carbajal?

Yes, I neglected to include Otis Califf as well that I met with. Somehow I had his name wrong on my ex parte form here so just wanted to... He got a haircut so I didn't recognize him and then I did recognize him and said I think I met with him too.

Supervisor Wolf. Madam Chair, a little bit off topic. If we're required to do ex parte, if County Council could give us a heads up ahead of time on a particular item so we can have that list available, that would be helpful. Thank you. Thank you.

All right. So let's go ahead and return to staff. Mr. Tuttle?

Yes. Good morning, madam chair and members of the board. I'm here today to present to you a brief overview of the Lost Forest Ranch project with a specific emphasis on public trails. At their last hearing on February 8th, the Planning Commission in considering public access issues associated with the project voted to send the project to your board for consideration of a specific technical question which is to determine whether the burden imposed by the project applications warrants exaction of coastal trails south of the highway.

As you will hear today, if your board determines that a trail exaction is warranted, the Planning Commission has recommended that you direct staff to prepare additional environmental review and return to the Planning Commission for full consideration of the project applications. If your board concludes an exaction is not warranted, the Planning Commission recommends that you refer the project back again to the Planning Commission for full recommendation of the projects to return to your board for further consideration.

To provide the proper context, here is the project vicinity map with a project site outlined in black. As you can see, the ranch is located in between the Naples Townsite and El Capitan State Beach. The property in total is approximately 1,800 acres. It extends from the ocean up to U.S. Forest Service lands approximately three miles inland from the coast. The site is zoned Ag 2100 within the coastal zone and unlimited agriculture under Ordinance 661 in the inland area.

The ranch is bisected by both the highway as well as the railroad. And while it's composed of several parcels, the ranch operates as a combined farming operation with grazing and approximately 200 acres of lemon and avocado groves. The project consists of the reconfiguration of nine parcels into seven parcels and it's composed of three separate applications.

Including a lot line adjustment and conditional certificate of compliance on the three coastal lots between the ocean and the railroad to create two lots of approximately 55 and 58 acres. The existing lot lines on this site plan are shown in yellow, the proposed lines are shown in red, and the area of import is highlighted in black. Additionally, in between the railroad and the highway there's a proposal for a tentative parcel map that would, for the two middle lots to create three lots of 100 acres, 147 acres and 157 acres.

And then north of the highway there's proposal for lot line adjustment and merger of the four inland lots to create two lots of 150 acres and then one large lot of 1115 acres. In addition, inland of the coastal zone, the project includes a consistency rezone to AGG 100 so that the entire ranch would have consistent zoning under Article 2 and LUDC. In addition to lot reconfigurations, the project includes the identification of development envelopes on each lot that would apply for future residential development.

The envelopes range in size from two and a half to five acres, although future residential development would be limited similar to the uniform rules to two contiguous acres within each envelope. For lot six which is the eleven hundred acre site due to its large size three potential building sites have been identified though once again future development would be limited to two acres within one of those building sites In addition, the project includes improved access roads to serve each residential envelope and a private shared water system to serve future development.

In addition to these project elements, the project proposes to offer three public trail easements including as shown in white, a lateral access along the Sandy Beach, a lateral access north of the highway to serve as a segment of the California Coastal Trail And third, a vertical beach access along the eastern portion of the site following Las Flores Creek.

This vertical trail easement would be disconnected from the coastal trail north of the highway although a 30-space parking lot would be provided by the applicant at the vertical beach access trailhead. Due to the presence of the railroad crossing through the site, this vertical access requires an access easement from Union Pacific Railroad through the existing railroad culvert. The construction of a raised concrete walkway in order to provide safe access to the culvert before the formal beach access can be established.

The applicant has further indicated, as shown with the arrow along the lateral trail north of the highway, that this trail requires a pedestrian bridge over the Goddard Creek undercrossing in order to avoid conflicts with the agricultural operation which uses this undercrossing on a regular basis. Key issues your board should consider in evaluating the question of coastal access include that the project increases the number of developable lots south of the highway from four to five, essentially shifting one developable lot from north of the highway to the south side of the highway.

Additionally there are no established public recreational facilities trails within the project site however there is existing unauthorized access to the ranch to Edwards Point that would be impacted by future development especially on the two coastal lots At the same time, the proposed public access easements would expand recreational opportunities in the area and the vertical trail easement would remove a significant barrier to establishing the only beach access in between Bacar Resort and El Capitan State Beach.

Other key issues to consider include the fact that the proposed coastal trail is located north of the highway again and is disconnected from the vertical beach access. However, the trail is designed on the north side to connect with another segment of the coastal trail further west between Las Faras and El Capitan State Beach potentially creating a nearly six-mile long continuous segment between Las Faras Ranch and Rufio.

As you'll hear today, a group of trails advocates have proposed an alternative coastal trail route that is closer to the shoreline and contend that a trail north of the highway as proposed by the applicant is inconsistent with local public access and state coastal trail policies. However, the applicant does not support the proposed alternative trail location.

If your board determines we do have the ability to exact a coastal trail closer to the shoreline, additional environmental analysis would be required to evaluate impacts of such trail especially as it relates to agricultural and biological resources. There's also the practical issue associated with the challenges of gaining access across the railroad in at least two locations in terms of the uncertainty of when or if we'd be able to obtain access authorization from the railroad.

Here's again the site map of the trails with the applicant proposed trails, again shown in white and the alternative trail locations shown in yellow. As you can see there is around Edwards Point and Gato Creek there are a few sub-alternatives within this trail alignment that Trails Coalition is considering. The orange dash line represents the railroad With this information, the information provided in your board letter, the recommendations again to your board are that you determine whether the burdens imposed by the project applications warrants exaction of a coastal trail located south of the highway which will affect, depending on your determination, that will affect the direction you give staff.

And additionally, that your board provide any other direction to staff and or the Planning Commission concerning this project. That concludes staff's presentation and we're here to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Tuttle. Any questions from the board at this particular time? Okay, we will go ahead and go to the applicant. Ms. Petrovich, you will have 10 minutes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, Madam Chair. Good morning. Oh sorry technical difficulties here My name is Susan Petrovich with the law firm of Brownstein High at Farber-Schreck. I'm here representing the applicant.

I will move through this presentation quickly because we've submitted so much in writing. This is the ranch entrance off the view from Highway 101, just east is the proposed trailhead and parking area. I wanted you to have a quick view of what the ranch looks like. Here's the grazing land Here are the orchards through which the main ranch road passes. This ranch road would be impacted by the proposed EDC trail, and parts of the orchard would have to be removed for the trail. This is pristine native habitat in Gato Canyon. Here's some more pristine habitat in the ranch.

Tim Doheny combined two historic ranches into one agricultural operation to increase long-term viability. He planted additional orchards, he purchased a very expensive Goleta Water District 2-inch irrigation meter and he planned the ranch as one unit for as long as he could. This plan accomplishes his goal while passing a valuable asset to his children. If you accept Mr. Chatillo's argument that a family's reason for choosing a particular long-term plan for their ranch requires environmental review, you would be making new law. A property owner's motivation is not an environmental issue. Tim Doheny wanted to do the right thing for this ranch and for his family. He knew about the existing parcels. He particularly wanted to preserve Gato Canyon as one parcel with no building site down in this wild area.