October 20, 2000

Mr. Phillip M. Demery
Director of Public Works
County of Santa Barbara
123 East Anapamu Street
Santa Barbara, California 93101

Dear Mr. Demery:

Thank you for your letter dated October 4, 2000. I am writing to respond to some of the points you made in your letter.

At the September 19th workshop, the University presented the results of the Syncro analysis previously requested by the County. The results suggest that the intersection and signal improvements proposed by the County for Route 217 will not have a benefit to area circulation, which could not otherwise be achieved through alternative, less costly and less disruptive mitigations. The County's traffic consultants concurred in this conclusion. In fact, during the discussion of these results, Public Works staff stated that Syncro was the most accurate traffic model used by the County. Dissatisfaction with the use of the Syncro model was first expressed by County Planning staff late in the meeting after they became aware of the transportation conclusions. County Planning staff subsequently requested that new analysis be performed using Circular 212 methodology.

The Syncro methodology was used by the University at the express direction of the County. There was no misunderstanding of the work program to be performed. In joint UCSB-County meetings on March 16 and April 20, 2000, and in related e-mails, Jeff Knowles of the Transportation Division gave our consultant, HNTB, the Syncro software, as well as input files that describe Goleta intersections, and the list of intersections to be subjected to LOS analysis. In addition, on April 27, 2000, Jeff Knowles sent the University's consultants an e-mail containing the Syncro program file and stated, "The County project that the UCSB alternatives should be compared to includes the geometry in the attached Syncro file." County Planning staff's new claim that County policy mandates the use of Circular 212 methodology is not correct. The County of Santa Barbara Engineering Design Standards, which you supplied, state that "level of service should be calculated by the TRB circular 212 Method or any other method satisfactorily documented by the consultant and approved by the County." Additionally, the September 30th memorandum contemplates that there may be exceptions to the Circular 212 requirement by noting that, "All exceptions, including use of any other methodology, must be approved by Transportation Division staff prior to commencing work on any traffic study." Indeed, as discussed earlier, County staff directed the University to use the Syncro methodology and supplied the appropriate files. The Syncro analysis indicates that intersections along Route 217 will not provide congestion relief that could not otherwise be achieved through other mitigations. County Planning staff's reluctance to accept these conclusions is not an acceptable basis for the County to impose a different methodology and set of assumptions at this late date.

In your October 4th letter, you indicated that 30% right turns on red lights should be assumed unless conditions indicate otherwise. We have conducted traffic counts at the intersections of Kellogg and Hollister, which confirm that 50% of the right turns from northbound Kellogg to eastbound Hollister currently occur during the red phase. We also note that the County's own projections for the Ekwill Street Extension PSR assumed that 50% of the right turns will occur during the red phase at the northbound Kellogg to eastbound Hollister intersection in year 2007.

As indicated in my October 5th letter, the University remains committed to working collaboratively with County staff and its consultants to identify a set of improvements that will facilitate development in the Old Town Goleta area while addressing the State's long-term interest in maintaining and enhancing regional freeway links to all the campuses of the University system. We hope to be able to recommend, along with the County and other stakeholders, that this set of improvements be considered by the California Transportation Commission, the lead agency charged with decision-making under Highway Code Section 517.1, as the project for the environmental impact report to be prepared by the Commission.1 Moreover, due to the differing State, local and private interests involved, there appears to be a particular need for the Commission's objective and independent consideration of whether Route 217 should be down-graded. Accordingly, until the Commission has completed its analysis and decision making process, we believe it is premature for the County or other agencies to begin the preparation of an implementation EIR, or to begin other processes for implementation of Route 217 infrastructural changes.

As you know, we have met with Caltrans staff to discuss these issues. Caltrans has informed us that it will be undertaking a more active role in the relinquishment process, and that Caltrans shortly will be convening a meeting with the County, University and other interested parties to gain a better understanding of the perspectives and issues involved. We look forward to meeting with the County and Caltrans and continuing to work together. In the interim, please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,


Robert W. Kuntz
Assistant Chancellor


cc: Chancellor Henry T. Yang
R. Gregg Albright
Mark Chaconas
Matt Dobberteen
Scott Cooper
William F. Derrick
Harry Nelson
Highway 217 Review Committee Members