August 4, 2000


The Honorable Colleen Beall
1st District Planning Commissioner and Chair
County of Santa Barbara, Planning Commission
Santa Barbara County Engineering Building, Room 17
123 East Anapamu Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101


Dear Supervisor Beall:

We would like to thank you and the other Planning Commissioners for allowing representatives from the University of California Ð Santa Barbara to express their concerns about the plans for the Ekwill and Fowler extensions and their signalized intersections with Highway 217 at your July 19 meeting. At that meeting a number of misconceptions and inaccuracies were aired. As a consequence, we would like to clarify these issues and set the record straight.

First and foremost, the University supports most aspects of the Goleta Old Town Revitalization Plan and is primarily only opposed to the proposed signalized intersections on Highway 217. We certainly support the attempts to improve the economy and appearance of the Hollister corridor and would be primary users of some of the anchor developments, such as the Page Hotel. If we actually wanted to harm the Goleta Old Town Plan, we would have used much different tactics. Instead, we have worked diligently with our own traffic and urban planning consultants, and with County staff and consultants, to define design solutions which serve southern areas of Goleta Old Town while not impeding traffic flows to and from UCSB. We definitely do NOT want to harm this project, do NOT want the County to lose funds it has obtained for this project, and do NOT want to discourage potential Goleta Old Town investors. Instead, we have always had the goal of finding a win-win solution that serves both Goleta Old Town and UCSB.

It should be remembered that Highway 217 was built as the primary access road for UCSB, and that UCSB employees and students are concerned because of the possible effects of traffic lights on Highway 217 on the safety, health, efficiency, and time of travelers. Furthermore, we have concerns about the County's ability to maintain this highway and about the effects of stoplights on the University's connections to the entire South Coast.

UCSB is the largest employer in the County, a major educational resource for the entire state, and a major economic engine for this region, and UCSB's students and employees live in all five supervisorial districts. The campus has shown remarkable solidarity in opposing the proposed stoplights and is determined to continue its opposition to plans that involve stoplights. For all of these reasons, we hope that County bodies, such as the Planning Commission, listen carefully to the concerns of such an important public resource and important body of constituents. Given this consistent, sustained, and determined resistance from UCSB towards any plans including stoplights, it is clear that the Goleta Old Town Revitalization Plan will come to fruition much more quickly if the County works with the University to find a mutually acceptable solution. Although County staff are worried that any substantial changes to the proposed plans might trigger a re-examination, and possible loss, of funding for the proposed project, we have been working carefully with our consultants to define alternatives which can be built within current funding constraints. Furthermore, our meetings with SBCAG officials indicate that it is unlikely that traffic congestion relief funding will be lost provided any alternative projects stay within budget or additional funds can be found. Our State Assemblywoman, Hannah-Beth Jackson, has assured us that she will help to find additional funding if a win-win solution which serves both Goleta and UCSB proves to be more expensive. In short, the County can actually prevent delays in project planning by working with, instead of against, the University and funding should not be a deterrent.

We also were concerned by comments from speakers at that meeting which implied that UCSB was not a part of the local community. As mentioned above, the University is a major economic and educational amenity for this region, and UCSB employees and students are your neighbors, friends, and colleagues. We are indeed an important part of the local community and would hope that our voices would be heard. Indeed, a major tragedy of the current situation is that UCSB was not part of the original planning efforts for the Goleta Old Town Revitalization Plan. A much more positive approach to this whole planning effort would have been for the University, County, and other stakeholders to work together on regional planning efforts. In most cities, major universities are viewed and treated as major assets, and town-gown partnerships are major economic engines that drive sensible development in local areas.

County staff have stated that the proposed roads and their signalized Highway 217 intersections are needed to relieve traffic congestion on Hollister Avenue and Highway 101. We would like to emphasize that the alternative designs being considered by the University are probably as good as, or even better than, the County's plan in alleviating traffic congestion on Hollister and 101 (based on very preliminary analysis of ATE data). The choice, here, is not between the current situation and the signalized intersections but between the signalized intersections and alternatives proposed by the University. As long as there is a connection between Highway 217 and the proposed Ekwill Street, regardless of whether there is a stop light or not, there will be traffic congestion relief on Hollister Avenue and Highway 101. Instead of stop lights, we are proposing a system of ramps and overpasses to connect Ekwill to 217. In terms of congestion relief on Hollister and 101, the University's alternatives will certainly perform as well as the County's plan but without creating additional congestion on Highway 217. Our preliminary analysis also indicates that Fowler Road, in contrast to Ekwill Street, does almost nothing to reduce traffic on Hollister and 101.

Given the seriousness of our concerns, the solidarity of our opposition to the stoplights on Highway 217, and our extensive efforts to find win-win solutions which meet the goals of both Goleta Old Town and UCSB, we strongly recommend cooperation between the County and UCSB to find mutually acceptable solutions. Thank you for this opportunity to clarify some misconceptions and correct some inaccuracies aired at the Planning Commission meeting. We express regret at your vote giving conceptual approval to the County's plan for Highway 217, both because it is inimical to the interests of the University and because it contradicts recent directives from the Board of Supervisors.

Sincerely,


Scott Cooper, Chair
UCSB Highway 217 Review Committee
On Behalf of the Highway 217 Review Committee

cc: Chancellor Henry T. Yang
Supervisor Naomi Schwartz
Supervisor Susan Rose
Supervisor Gail Marshall
Supervisor Joni Gray
Supervisor Tom Urbanske
Commissioner Doreen Farr
Commissioner Lansing Duncan
Commissioner Joe H. Valencia
Commissioner Charles E. Oberdeck
Mayor Harriet Miller
John Patton, Director of Planning and Development
Phil Demery, Director of Public Works
Matt Dobberteen, Planning and Development
Jonny Wallis, Chair, Goleta Old Town Project Area Committee
Richard Watts, Chair, Academic Senate
Highway 217 Review Committee Members