At the June 20 Supervisors' meeting, we were grateful for the attention that you and the other Supervisors devoted to the concerns of the UCSB community regarding the planned establishment of stoplights on Highway 217. Specifically, the Board of Supervisors "directed staff to return to the Board as appropriate with a [RBF] contract amendment to exclude work related to the "Geometrics" study and possibly other contract components related to the signalization of Route 217" (taken directly from the minutes of the meeting). We interpreted this directive as a clear indication that you were instructing staff and their contractors to seek a solution to this problem that was mutually acceptable to both the county and UCSB. At the least, it directed staff to halt further development of plans that called for stoplights on Highway 217. In addition, at that meeting the Board of Supervisors directed County staff to include a UCSB representative on the RBF design team.

Because of your directive, we were bewildered by County staff's actions at the July 19 Planning Commission meeting, where they requested conceptual approval of the plan involving stoplights on Highway 217. According to County staff, this was done to provide "direction to staff to avoid time consuming and expensive design modifications in the future" (taken directly from page 8 of the staff report to the Planning Commission). More importantly, members of the RBF consulting team were present at the meeting, and presented models and justifications for the placement of stoplights on the freeway. The actions and reports of County staff and their consultants clearly contradicted the spirit, if not the letter, of your directive. We were very puzzled. It may be that County staff and the Planning Commission were unaware of your directives to staff at your June 20 meeting. Certainly, County staff appeared to be confused and refused to comment when the contradictions between your directive and the Planning Commission agenda were addressed at the Planning Commission meeting.

Subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting, we received the proposed amendments to the RBF contract that were requested by the Board of Supervisors. It is our understanding that these amendments will be considered at your August 15 meeting. The proposed amendments further cooperation between UCSB and the County by including provisions for RBF to work with UCSB to identify, discuss, and evaluate project alternatives. Furthermore, specific modifications to RBF's work on Geometric Approval Drawings (GAD) are listed as follows: " . . . The GAD will focus on the following design elements:" . . . . the phrase "conversion of SR 217 to an arterial highway" was crossed out and replaced by "agreed upon configuration of SR 217 and it's connection to Ekwill Street and Fowler Road". A cover letter to these proposed amendments from Director of Public Works, Phil Demery, to the Board of Supervisors further recognizes that: "It was agreed that geometric design work related to Route 217 will be removed from the scope of work by Amendment" and that the "scope of Task 3.2 . . . has been modified to not specifically define the type of Route 217/local street connections" (memo dated July 25, 2000). Of course, we welcome and endorse these proposed changes. Again, we are very puzzled because the Board of Supervisors' directive and subsequent proposed amendments to the RBF contract remove and stop any design work on the proposed stop lights, whereas the Planning Commission gave conceptual approval to the proposed Fowler and Ekwill extensions including their signalized intersections with Highway 217. We assume that the "agreed upon configuration of SR 217" means a SR 217 design approved by both UCSB and the County? In any case, there appears to be a profound disconnect between the directives of the Board of Supervisors and subsequent proposed amendments to the RBF contract, on one hand, and the actions of the Planning Commission, on the other.

As a consequence of these actions, we need guidance and clarification as to the substance of your June 20 directive. When was the design work that was presented at the Planning Commission meeting completed? If it involved work on the new RBF contract, then this contradicts the Board of Supervisors' directives and the proposed amendments to the RBF contract, because this work dealt with intersection design and our UCSB representative on the RBF team only began working with RBF in the second week of July. If the design work was completed under an old contract but within the last six to seven months, then it was completed after UCSB had been promised that it would be involved at "every step of the way" (April 14, 1999, letter from Supervisor Marshall to Mrs. Lee Marking, UCSB, Office of Governmental Relations) and after UCSB had been assured that "County personnel will work with University personnel to develop a Highway 217 design that is acceptable to the University, while achieving the goals of the Goleta Old Town Redevelopment Plan" (Feb. 29, 2000, letter from Supervisor Marshall to Chancellor Yang). In any case, the Board of Supervisors' directive and proposed RBF contract amendments would appear to prohibit any additional work on the signalized intersections; however, the Planning Commission granted conceptual approval to the signalized intersections which, apparently, would allow additional RBF work on these intersections. Our engineers also are puzzled about how some of the design work on the Ekwill and Fowler extensions, including the bridges over San Jose Creek and the intersections of these roads with Kellogg Avenue, can be completed given the Board of Supervisor's directive to eliminate any reference to signalized intersections from the RBF contract. According to our engineers, the geometrics of the adjacent roads and the improvements to Highway 217 are such that one cannot be designed without the other. In short, a change to 217 directly affects the geometrics for the adjacent intersections and vice versa.

We would ask that you resolve these contradictions. After the directives from the Board of Supervisors and the proposed RBF contract amendments, we do not believe that County staff or their consultants are acting in good faith by proceeding with design work on signalized intersections. We would like assurances from the Board of Supervisors that all design work on signalized intersections has stopped and will not be pursued. We formally request clarification of section 00-21,748,c of your minutes and of the proposed amendments to the RBF contract. We would like an assessment of County staff's adherence to your directive and would like resolution of the apparent conflict between your directives and the actions of the Planning Commission.

We would like to end by stressing that we support most elements of the Goleta Old Town Revitalization Plan, but primarily only oppose the proposed signalized intersections on Highway 217. Rather than harm the Plan, we have been working diligently to find alternative solutions which serve southern areas of Goleta Old Town without impeding traffic flows to and from UCSB. We hope that you consider seriously our concerns, given our position as the largest employer in the County, a major educational institution in the State, and a major economic engine for this region. We understand your concerns about possible delays in the execution of this plan presented by additional planning and cooperative efforts. We assure you, however, that the Goleta Old Town Plan will come to fruition much more quickly if the County attempts to work with, rather than against, the University.