response to comments on the draft...

Response to Comments on the Draft EIR

Isla Vista Master Plan Final EIR RTC-1

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR

The Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Isla Vista Master Plan (IVMP) for the Santa Barbara County, California was originally made available for public review and comment for a period of 52 days from May 10 through June 30, 2006. That comment period was extended for an additional 14 days, for a total of 66 days from June 30, 2006 through July 14, 2006. The County held two public hearings to receive comments on the Draft EIR before the Isla Vista Project Area Committee/General Plan Advisory Committee (IV PAC/GPAC). The hearings were conducted on May 31, 2006 and June 8, 2006, in the Community Room in Francisco Torres residential complex. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(a), “the lead agency shall evaluate comments on environmental issues received from person who reviewed the Draft EIR and shall prepare a written response.” This chapter provides responses to those oral comments received through the public hearing process and written comments received during the public comment period that address environmental issues. Numerous comments were also made during the CEQA process that relate to the project description, characteristics and design specifications. Responses to these types of comments are not a required part of the CEQA process and are not addressed in this EIR in detail. They are however, the focus of a separate document titled “Isla Vista Master Plan Project Related Comments.” This section is organized in two parts: 1) written comments received within the comment letters, and 2) oral comments received during the public hearing process. Written comments are presented in the order that they were received by the County, except for the last letter. Revisions and clarifications to the EIR made in response to comments and information received on the Draft EIR are indicated by strikeout text, indicating deletions, and underline text, indicating additions, as illustrated in this paragraph. Corrections of typographical errors have been made throughout the document and are not indicated by strikeout or underline text. Revisions and clarifications are included as Errata pages within this document.

COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED ON DRAFT EIR

The City received letters from the following organizations and individuals during the public review period from September 28, 2006 through October 28, 2006:

1. Steve Johnson, via email on June 1, 2006 2. Eric Cardenas, June 7, 2006 3. Norma Geyer, Embarcadero Company, via email on June 14, 2006 4. Ralph Fertig, President, Santa Barbara Bicycle Coalition, via email on June 14, 2006 5. Tamara S. Babcock, District 5 Development Review Coordinator, California Department

of Transportation, June 19, 2006 6. Rosa Muñoz, PE, Utilities Engineer, California Public Utilities Commission, June 23,

2006



7. Karen Dorfman, via email on June 25, 2006 8. Adam Rudder, June 27, 2006 9. Rick and Janet Stich, June 27, 2006 10. Spencer Conway, via email on June 27, 2006 11. Larry L Eng, Ph.D. Regional Manager, South Coast Region, California Department of

Fish and Game, June 29, 2006 12. Frances Gilliland, Air Quality Specialist, Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control

District, July 3, 2006 13. Gene Lucas, Executive Vice Chancellor, University of California Santa Barbara, July 12,

2006 14. Dale Sumersille, General Manager, Isla Vista Recreation & Park District, July 13, 2006 15. Malcolm Gault-Williams, via email on July 13, 2006 16. Fred Stang, via email on July 13, 2006 17. Steve Maas, Manager of Strategic Planning & Compliance, Santa Barbara Metropolitan

Transit District, via email on July 14, 2006 18. Kathryn Miller and Michael Honer, via email on July 14, 2006 19. Diane Conn, via email #1 on July 14, 2006 20. Diane Conn, via email #2 on July 14, 2006 21. Diane Conn, via email #3 on July 14, 2006 22. Michael Bean, via email on July 14, 2006 23. Jenny Jett, via email on July 14, 2006 24. Harry and Sandra Reese, via email and fax on July 14, 2006 25. Steven Salsberg, via fax on July 14, 2006 26. Steve Wagner, Community Services Director, City of Goleta, July 14, 2006 27. Carmen Lodise, via fax on July 14, 2006 28. Ken Warfield, via fax on July 14, 2006 29. Gerry Winant and Ann Sanders, July 9, 2006.

Each letter has been assigned a number code, and individual comments in each letter have been coded as well to facilitate responses. For example, the letter from the Steve Johnson as letter 1, with comments noted as 1-1, 1-2, etc.

From: Steve Johnson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 11:33 AM To: Goldstein, Jamie Subject: Parking on Estero Road for proposed IV Community Center

Jamie,

I apologize for not bringing this concern to your attention sooner;

I've just read the IVMP DEIR in sufficient detail to notice the following on page 2-30 (p 172 of the PDF file):

Forty-four spaces will be provided along the western half of Estero Road, which would be restricted for community center use and residents living on Estero Road,

I own four houses on Estero Road (6787 and 6789 Estero), and have an acute concern about availability of parking for my residents. Can you tell me how many parking spaces will be allowacated for my 4 houses? Estero Road is severely impacted due to faulty zoning the County enacted in 1988 which allowed R2 development along Estero Road. As a result, there is a 10-bedroom duplex to the east of my houses which provides only 4 parking spaces, and (apparently) a 10-bedroom duplex (6793 Estero) to the west that provides 4 spaces (but the residents gang-park in the driveway).

In the worst case, the neighboring duplexes could house 20 students, and generate a demand for 40 parking spaces, while only providing 12 at best.

My 4 houses contain a total of 9 bedrooms, and I provide 14 parking spaces.

The formula for assigning parking spaces is of great interest to me.

Also, I think the DEIR should spell out how many of the proposed 44 spaces would actually be available to Community Center users.

/steve

--Steve Johnson 319 W. Cota St Santa Barbara CA 93101 805-962-1895 (home) 805-455-4826 (cell) 877-840-2578 (fax) mailto://[email protected] http://stevej.com

Letter 1

1-1

1-2



1. Steve Johnson, via email on June 1, 2006 Response 1-1 As stated in the Isla Vista Community Center – Traffic, Circulation and Parking Study (Appendix M of the EIR) on page 24, 10 of the parking spaces would be allocated to the adjacent residences on Estero Road. The 10 spaces will be available to all residents on Estero Road, and will not be allocated on a per-parcel basis. These 10 spaces were determined using an estimate of 2 on-street spaces per parcel. As there are 5 private parcels located on Estero Road, hence 10 on-street spaces for adjacent residents and their guests to use. Existing zoning and parking standards on the property adjacent to Estero Road constitute baseline conditions for the environmental analysis for the IVMP. The proposed project includes changes in zoning and parking standards that are anticipated to result in more parking spaces for new development than required by the current R-2 zoning. Response 1-2 In response to the comment, on page 2-30 of the Final EIR, a sentence has been added after the fourth sentence of the last paragraph to read as follows:

Forty-four spaces will be provided along the western half of Estero Road, which would be restricted for community center use and residents living on Estero Road, subject to encroachment permit from County Public Works Department. Ten of the 44 spaces would be allocated to the adjacent residents on Estero Road.

The revision does not affect any of the impact conclusions contained in the EIR.

June 7, 2006

Mr. Jeff Lindgren County Executive Office 105 East Anapamu St., Room 406 Santa Barbara, CA 93101

Re: IVMP DEIR Comments

Dear Mr. Lindgren,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the DEIR for the Isla Vista Master Plan. My comments will focus on a specific component of the plan, namely, the consideration of moving the current ampetheater in Anisq’oyo Park to Perfect Park.

As a UCSB student who graduated in 1998, I have fond memories of many community events centered around Anisq’oyo in general, and the amphitheater in specific. While I understand the intent of the IVMP, and the drive to instill in Isla Vista a greater sense of community, I do not agree with leveling the current amphitheater and re-building it in another location.

My concerns are as follows: Much time, money, and energy was spent to restore and propagate native plants and habitat at the current Perfect Park site. I participated in this endeavor, spearheaded by Isla Vista Recreation and Park District (IVRPD), with 20-30 volunteers from UCSB’s Environmental Affairs Board over a two-year period, nearly 10 years ago. The project at that time was intended as a long term site for native plants and passive recreational use.Moving the amphitheater to this location would undo years of planning and hard work, and would be a waste of money that could be better spent elsewhere. The Perfect Park Peace Monument is a testament to the peaceful protests of the 60’s and 70’s. The monument, like the native gardens at Perfect Park, took years of planning, fundraising, art competitions, and more. The Peace Monument’s dedication/inauguration a few years ago finalized this effort. The current location of the monument would be threatened by a proposed amphitheater here, and funds would not be available to rebuild it.As someone who played music on the existing stage, and as someone who organized countless musical and community events at Anisq’oyo Park, I can state unequivocally that the current location is one of the most ideal places in Santa Barbara County to play music outdoors. The backdrop, the atmosphere, and the history all make this site very unique…one that is unparalleled in the rest of the County. The DEIR makes no promises that if the current location is leveled, it will be rebuilt near Perfect Park. The language used does not guarantee the amphitheater’s re-creation, instead only saying that the amphitheater “may be” rebuilt. This is disturbing. I believe that Pardall Rd., and the buildings along it (bordering the back of the current stage), can be re-designed to incorporate pedestrian traffic and greater accessibility in the park without dramatically altering the current stage and amphitheatre layout. This would

Letter 2

2-1

enhance “community” use and facilitate increased use of the park without destroying this unique asset of Isla Vista Businesses undoubtedly benefit by the current amphitheater’s location, both in direct sales as well as in the high level of visibility created by events at the stage. Because most events happen on the weekends and end by 10pm due to the ‘noise ordinance,’ the argument that it is “too loud” simply does not hold water. This is a community park intended for community events, and noise is to be expected. The lack of major events during the week and the continued noise restrictions placed on Isla Vista (unfairly) by the County should be seriously considered by project staff when considering comments from community members who say that the noise burden is too great.

I applaud the County and the IVRPD’s efforts to date to address some glaring needs in Isla Vista. Housing, parking, cleanliness and other important issues must be addressed, and this process is the vehicle by which to create a better Isla Vista. This being said, some things are better left undone, and as the saying goes, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

The amphitheater at Anisq’oyo Park is a unique community asset that has provided enjoyment for tens of thousands of Isla Vistans over the last decade and beyond. On any given Earth Day, Dia de Los Muertos, or other important community celebration, when the amphitheater is packed with 1,000 people, no one would state that its current location is a bad one.

I urge you and your staff to leave the amphitheater and current stage in Anisq’oyo Park, while addressing other, more important issues, to the community of Isla Vista.

I can be reached at 805.957.9559 with any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Eric Cardenas Santa Barbara, Ca.

Cc: IVRPD

2-1Cont.



2. Eric Cardenas, June 7, 2006 Response 2-1 The commenter’s opinion regarding the IVMP’s relocation of the amphitheater is acknowledged. As none of the comments in the letter relate to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the EIR, no response is required. The letter will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration.

From: Norma Geyer [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 10:54 AM To: Lindgren, Jeff Subject:

June 14, 2006 Comments in regards to the Isla Vista Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report

ANISI OYO PARK POND

The pond in Anisq Oyo Park was created by digging a hole and filling it with water. The pond does not have an outlet. Water is collected from street runoff and forms a filthy, stagnant environmental hazard. Mosquitoes breed in this water and the potential for West Nile Virus is high. My office is two blocks from this pond and every summer we get large black mosquitoes from this stagnant pond. The mosquitoes also travel as far away as the university campus and are found in the offices and classrooms. The children’s playground is located less than twenty feet from the pond therefore putting the children at risk for West Nile. For verification of the potential West Nile problem as it applies to this pond, please contact the Mosquitoe Abatement District.

The Anisq Oyo Park pond also contributes to poor air quality and various members of the public have complained to Air Pollution Control over the years. The water has a foul odor.

No resolution was ever passed declaring the Anisq Oyo Pond as an environmental sensitive habitat. Therefore it is not an ESI and should not be mitigated. We do not need this pond to be moved somewhere else in Isla Vista only to recreate the same problems. The Board of Supervisors needs to eliminate this health hazard.

DENSITY

How will the addition of the San Clemente project affect Isla Vista? The University has not agreed to help upgrade El Colegio road and the traffic is already over capacity.

We do not have the infrastructure to support an increase in population. We do not have completed sidewalks. The lighting in Isla Vista is poor. We do not have underground utilities. The sewage pipes are in poor condition. El Colegio, the main road into Isla Vista, needs to be upgraded.

PARKING

The parking problem in Isla Vista affects business owners and residents on a daily basis. (As I type this a Red Bull delivery truck is blocking my drive-way). We need vacant lots around town designated to parking. We do not need any more open space. Any trade for density credits should be made so that parking lots could be created.

Norma Geyer Embarcadero Company 6504 Pardall Rd #4 Isla Vista, Calif 93117

Letter 3

3-1

3-2

3-3

3-4

3-5

3-6



3. Norma Geyer, Embarcadero Company, via email on June 14, 2006 Response 3-1 According to the Mosquito and Vector Management District of Santa Barbara County, the pond in Anisq’ Oyo is not considered an environmental hazard [Mosquito and Vector Management District of Santa Barbara County, 2006]. As described on page 4.5-5 of Draft EIR, under the Phase Three: Restoration and Enhancement of Wetland Area project description, the downtown park improvements catalyst project includes restoration efforts that would assist in resolving water quality issues. Response 3-2 The odor issue is an existing condition of the pond and not a result of the proposed project. As described on page 4.5-5 of Draft EIR, under the Phase Three: Restoration and Enhancement of Wetland Area project description, the downtown park improvements catalyst project includes restoration efforts that would assist in resolving the current odor problem.

Response 3-3 Anisq’ Oyo’ Park was adopted by the County into the Environmentally Sensitive Habitat (ESH) Overlay as part of the Goleta Community on July 20, 1993 by Ordinance #4112 for Article II, and also by Resolution #93-402 for the Coastal Plan. As stated on pages 4.5-13 to 4.5-14 of the Draft EIR, under the Impact PARK-BIO-1 discussion, both the Goleta Community Plan Development Standards and the Santa Barbara Coastal Plan require setbacks from ESH areas. However, the proposed project includes a new policy, specific to downtown Isla Vista, that allows the buffer to be modified to allow for redevelopment where development already exists in the buffer area so long as the following conditions are met.

• The new structure does not encroach further into the buffer zone than an existing legal or legal nonconforming structure that it is replacing.

• The new structure is designed to minimize wetland impacts to the maximum extent feasible.

• If proposed development nonetheless significantly impacts the wetland or buffer area, mitigation measures to enhance the wetland or buffer shall be required.

Implementation of the IVMP would result in improved conditions for the Anisq’ Oyo’ wetland ESH through additional pre-treatment of storm runoff prior to it entering the wetland, increased wetland transition zones, and overall habitat enhancement. The IVMP does not propose to move the ESH in Anisq’ Oyo’ Park to a new location somewhere else in Isla Vista.



Response 3-4 The environmental impacts of the San Clemente Graduate Student Housing project were previously analyzed in San Clemente Graduate Student Housing and El Colegio Road Improvements EIR (February 2004). This project was included in the cumulative impact analysis for each relevant impact area discussed in the IVMP EIR. As stated on page 3.13-44 of the Draft EIR, two improvement options have been developed to accommodate future traffic volumes on El Colegio Road. One option is to install roundabouts at all of the intersections on El Colegio Road between Camino Del Sur and Stadium Road. The County of Santa Barbara’s proposed roundabout improvement project has been reviewed in the San Clemente Graduate Student Housing and El Colegio Road Improvements EIR (February 2004). The second option is to widen El Colegio Road between the UCSB campus and Camino Corto Road. As identified in Section 3-13 of the Draft EIR, as the completion of improvements to El Colegio Road can not be guaranteed at this time, impacts from the IVMP to this roadway and related intersections are considered significant and unmitigable – a statement of overriding considerations must be approved prior to adoption of the IVMP. Response 3-5 Infrastructure impacts related to the IVMP are analyzed in the EIR in Section 3.12, Public Services and Utilities. Development under the IVMP will participate in funding, or constructing, infrastructure improvements to accommodate increased development.

The IVMP proposes a prioritization and implementation strategy to construct new sidewalks throughout Isla Vista.

The proposed project does not include additional street lights. Lighting in Isla Vista is funded through property taxes and a separate benefit assessment particular to the Isla Vista community. New development will provide increased funding for street lighting, and may install new street lights as an optional safety enhancement.

In downtown Isla Vista, and on portions of the Embarcadero Loop, overhead utility lines have been placed underground. Funding to underground utility lines on El Colegio Road has been appropriated; these improvements are anticipated. Funds for other undergrounding projects are generated through taxes paid by public utility companies. These funds are allocated by the County Board of Supervisors to each Supervisorial District. New development is generally required to underground utilities.

The wastewater and sewage residual impact from the project would result in a significant impact (Class I) because the implementation of the planned sewer facility repairs and rehabilitations as identified in the 2003 GWSD Capital Facilities Engineering and Financial Plan are the responsibility of the Goleta West Sanitary District (GWSD) and out of the County’s jurisdiction. The County cannot force another jurisdiction to act; therefore, the mitigation implementation, while it is anticipated to occur, cannot be guaranteed. Therefore,



implementation of the IVMP would result in significant and unavoidable (Class I) waste water impact.

As identified in Section 3-13 of the EIR the baseline and project-related impacts to El Colegio Road are forecast to exceed the roadway design capacity for a two-lane arterial roadway. Mitigation Measure CIR-1.4.1 would address the IVMP impact on this roadway by installing improvements on El Colegio Road, along with developing the Phelps Road connection. Nevertheless, as identified in Section 3-13 of the Draft EIR, as the completion of improvements to El Colegio Road can not be guaranteed at this time, impacts from the IVMP to this roadway and related intersections are considered significant and unavoidable – a statement of overriding considerations must be approved prior to adoption of the IVMP. Response 3-6 As summarized on page 3.13-50 of the Draft EIR, 3,262 new parking spaces would be created at project build out, while total additional parking demand at project build out would be 2,857. In addition, the proposed project and proposed Parking Program would result in an estimate of 655 existing spaces being made available. As a result, the project is expected to result in increased parking availability. Further, the IVMP proposes a downtown parking structure to accommodate increased parking needs from new development. Therefore the parking impacts from the proposed project are less than significant (Class III).

From: Ralph Fertig [[email protected]] Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 9:59 PM To: Jeff Lindgren Cc: Jamie Goldstein; Brownfield, Lisa Subject: Isla Vista EIR comments

July 14, 2006

Mr Jeff Lindgren IVMP EIR Comments 105 East Anapamu Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101

Dear Mr Lindgren,

Please consider these comments about the Draft Environmental Impact Report on the Isla Vista Master Plan.

The importance and community benefits of bicycling cannot be overemphasized. People in Isla Vista get around mostly by foot and bicycle. Bicycling is the major way to travel onto UCSB campus. Over 70% IV residents are students, nearly all attending UCSB.

The Draft EIR describes the traffic problems generated by more housing. But it doesn't seem to ask where residents of the new housing come from. How many students now renting in Goleta or Santa Barbara would move to IV when new housing becomes available? And how many automobile trips might be reduced as a result? How will those new residents then get around? Only after those questions are answered can the net change in car trips be calculated. Isla Vista is not an average community, and stock figures for car trips generated by new housing cannot be applied.

The "level of service" considers only the convenience of motorists. Mitigation measures identified in the EIR frequently mean adding new lanes to streets, especially multiple turn lanes at intersections. These might provide convenience for motorists, but what about other users who exist in large numbers in the area? What about pedestrians and bicyclists whose safety is compromised by the suggested environmental mitigations? Those residents might become so intimidated by the proposed motorist-centric measures that they will choose to drive out of concern for their own safety.

The Sueno Bicycle Boulevard is a good idea because it will install traffic calming measures that help people on foot and bike. However, these are measures that should apply throughout the entire eastern Isla Vista area, not just one street.

For El Colegio Road, mitigation for projected traffic can use either the Opticos' designs for a string of roundabouts, or the addition of extra lanes to the road and installation of traffic signals.Roadway safety of bicyclists for both designs is not a concern because nearly all people on

Letter 4

4-1

4-2

4-3

4-4

4-5

bicycles will be either on the bikepath parallel to El Colegio, or on quieter Isla Vista streets to the south. The rejection of the roundabout configuration because of bicyclists' behavior at intersections should not be made because there will be very few bicyclists present there.

Thank you for your consideration.

Ralph Fertig, President Santa Barbara Bicycle Coalition PO Box 92047 Santa Barbara, CA 93190 805-962-1479

4-5Cont.



4. Ralph Fertig, President, Santa Barbara Bicycle Coalition, via email on June 14, 2006 Response 4-1 Project objectives are focused on reducing reliance on automobiles in Isla Vista, creating incentives to develop housing near community amenities, and applying pedestrian friendly improvements. Most of the project objectives are aimed at responding to the unique pedestrian and bicycle community of Isla Vista described by the commenter. Response 4-2 The EIR mitigates project impacts associated with buildout of the proposed project, thereby recognizing the impact of new residents in the community of Isla Vista. The trip generation and distribution model for the residents of the housing created under the Master Plan was developed based on existing trip generation and distribution patterns measured in the Isla Vista area. The traffic models for both Alternative 6 and the proposed project use a trip generation reduction factor of 5% for ADT and 20% for peak hour trips as compared to standard rates. No further trip reduction factor is warranted. Future traffic was forecasted using Santa Barbara County's Goleta Traffic Model. The model forecasts volumes based on anticipated land use/circulation changes that are envisioned for the Goleta/Isla Vista area. The traffic model includes 4 trip types for the Isla Vista area: 1) Home-Based-Work, Home-Based-College, Home-Based-Non-Work, and Non-Home-Based). Traffic studies of the Isla Vista community found that the vehicle trips generated by housing units in Isla Vista are lower than other parts of the community and that the distribution is weighted more heavily to and from UCSB. Thus, the trip generation and distribution model accounts for the unique trip making characteristics between the housing units in Isla Vista and the presence of UCSB. The existing trip generation and distribution models are applied to the new housing units planned under the Master Plan and therefore assume that trip making patterns would be similar to those of today. Completing an analysis as suggested by the commenter would be purely speculative in nature and difficult to accurately analyze. However, the points raised in the comment are consistent with the project objectives to develop housing near schools, employment, and other amenities, thereby reducing automobile dependency in Isla Vista. Response 4-3 The comment implies that both level of service calculations and mitigation measures only account for motorists and not others, such as pedestrians and bicyclists. As stated on page 3.13-5 of the Draft EIR, bicycle volumes were accounted for in the level of service calculations for the Pardall Road/Embarcadero Del Mar and Pardall Road/Embarcadero Del Norte intersections. These level of service calculations for the Pardall Road/Embarcadero Del Mar and Pardall Road/Embarcadero Del Norte intersections consider bicycle volumes because Pardall Road is a main bike route in Isla Vista with a Class II bike lane that connects to the UCSB bikeway network. With regards to mitigation measures focusing on motorists,



Mitigation Measures CIRC-1.1.1 and CIRC-1.4.1 include the provision of Class II bike lanes, and Mitigation Measures CIRC-1.2.1 and CIRC-1.3.1 acknowledge that roadway capacities are dependant upon many factors include level of pedestrian and bicycle traffic. No further environmental analysis is required. Response 4-4 The Sueno Bike Boulevard is one of several projects intended to improve cycling conditions in Isla Vista. Because this road is heavily traveled by bicyclists, the intent of these improvements is to signal the presence of bicyclists to motorists driving along the street and to provide a major west-east bike travel corridor from Isla Vista neighborhoods to the downtown area and UCSB Main Campus. The IVMP directs the County and RDA to consider traffic calming measures on other yet-unidentified streets in Isla Vista. Response 4-5 As this comment does not relate to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the EIR, no response is required. The commenter’s opinion will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration.

Letter 5

5-1

5-5

5-3

5-2

5-4

5-6

5-7

5-8

5-9

5-10

5-11

5-12

5-13



5. Tamara S. Babcock, District 5 Development Review Coordinator, California Department of Transportation, June 19, 2006 Response 5-1 Traffic generated by future developments under the Master Plan would not impact the streets and intersection in Lompoc (located about 50 miles to the north of Isla Vista). Rather than apply the methods and criteria outlined in Caltrans' "Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies," the County of Santa Barbara and City of Goleta adopted methodologies, level of service standards, and impact thresholds were applied since the traffic that would be generated by the Master Plan would affect the facilities located within those jurisdictions. Response 5-2 The traffic counts, which are used to present Existing Conditions, were current at the time that the NOP was issued and the traffic analysis was prepared. It is also noted that the existing traffic counts do not affect the traffic forecasts. Future traffic was forecasted using Santa Barbara County's Goleta Traffic Model. The model forecasts volumes based on anticipated land use/circulation changes that are envisioned for the Goleta/Isla Vista area. Response 5-3 The ICU level of service methodology was adopted by the County and all of the cities within the County as a standardized method for assessing intersection operations. A committee was formed in the 1990's that included representatives from the County, the cities within the County, and Caltrans to develop a uniformed method for assessing intersection operations. The ICU method was developed and agreed upon by the parties involved in the process, including Caltrans. Response 5-4 The Goleta Transportation Improvement Plan (GTIP) is the mechanism for collecting funds for implementation of improvements in the project area. The County's GTIP and the City of Goleta GTIP identify the future improvement needs, the cost of the improvements, and the associated fees to fund the improvements. Developments approved and constructed in the study area would be required to pay the GTIP fees which are used to construct improvements to County, City and State facilities. However, as discussed in Section 3-13, since the City of Goleta’s incorporation, traffic impact mitigation fees for development projects within the City have been paid to the City of Goleta, and not to the County’s GTIP. As a result, the amount of GTIP fees from anticipated development solely within the unincorporated portions of the Goleta Valley is not sufficient to fund the development of all of the transportation improvements listed in the GTIP. Therefore, the payment of these fees does not guarantee the above roadway improvement will be completed prior to the identified impact occurring. Since the County can not ensure



implementation of this mitigation, this impact remains a significant, adverse impact and a statement of overriding considerations must be approved prior to adoption of the IVMP. Response 5-5 Please see Response 5-1. Potential impacts to the study-area street network were identified using the County of Santa Barbara and City of Goleta adopted methods, standards, and thresholds. The County and City GTIPs include funding for projects that would improve operations at the interchanges that connect the surface street system to the U.S. 101 freeway system as well as measures to reduce traffic in the region. Also see Response 26-2, which shows that the developments included in the IVMP would not significantly impact the U.S. 101 freeway ramp nodes (intersections) at the Storke Road, Los Carneros Road, or Fairview Avenue interchanges Response 5-6 The City of Goleta’s General Plan EIR shows that existing volumes on the roadway are 20,800 ADT and future volumes are forecast to increase to 27,200 ADT. The segment of Los Carneros Road north of Hollister Avenue is not under Caltrans jurisdiction. Potential impacts to this segment were reviewed based on City of Goleta thresholds (see also Response 26-2). These volumes are considered acceptable for the 4-lane roadway based on the City's standards. Response 5-7 State Route 217 operates at LOS A-B during peak hour periods. The traffic that would be added by the IVMP developments would not significantly degrade operations of this facility. The assessment of potential impacts to SR 217 falls under the CMP impact analysis. Response 5-8 Pursuant to the FHWA guidelines, a mini-roundabout has a minimum inscribed diameter of 46 feet. The geometry of the subject intersection treatments indicate they are not roundabouts, but rather traffic circles. The EIR has been revised to reflect this correction. Response 5-9 The missing figure appears to be an oversight that occurred during the production of the document. The figure has been added to the Final EIR document. Response 5-10 Historically the U.S. 101/Storke Road interchange operates at an acceptable level of service, and is expected to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS in the future. Buildout of the



developments envisioned under the Master Plan are anticipated to add 41 P.M. peak hour trips to the U.S. 101/Storke Road interchange. These traffic additions would not change the levels of service at the U.S. 101/Storke Road interchange and thus not generate a significant impact based on the City's thresholds. U.S. 101/Fairview Avenue interchange is located more than 2.5 miles to the northeast of the project area. Further, the interchange is does not serve as a direct highway access point to and from the project area. The IVMP is anticipated to generate less than 10 P.M. peak hour trips to U.S. 101/Fairview Avenue interchange. These traffic additions would not change the levels of service at the U.S. 101/Fairview interchange and thus not generate a significant impact based on the City's thresholds. Moreover, the Final EIR for the City of Goleta General Plan (2006) indicates that the U.S. 101/Storke Road interchange is forecast to operate in the LOS B-C range with buildout traffic volumes, which is considered acceptable based on City and County standards. The Final EIR for the City of Goleta General Plan indicates that the U.S. 101/Fairview Avenue interchange is forecast to operate in the LOS D-E range with buildout traffic volumes. Response 5-11 U.S. 101 is a regional facility and the County and City of Goleta are participating in the 101 In Motion study. Future operations and capacity needs are addressed in that document. The County and City GTIPs include funding for projects that would improve operations at the interchanges that connect the surface street system to the freeway system as well as measures to reduce traffic in the region (funding for alternative transportation measures). The GTIPs also includes funds for widening the U.S. 101 mainline within the Goleta area. However, as explained in Response to Comment 5-4, the payment of these fees does not guarantee the above roadway improvement will be completed prior to the identified impact occurring. Since the County can not ensure implementation of this mitigation, this impact remains a significant and unavoidable and a statement of overriding considerations must be approved prior to adoption of the IVMP. Response 5-12 As the comment notes, the project would have no effect on biological resources within the State Highway right-of-way. As discussed on pages 3.5-18 through 3.5-21 of the Draft EIR, with the implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2, the impacts on the ESH vernal pool habitat along the south side of Del Playa Drive would be reduced to less than significant levels (Class II). Response 5-13 The County has no jurisdiction to construct any of the mitigation improvements within the State Highway system that are identified in the IVMP. Should the County propose any future work in the Caltrans right of way, detailed project information will be submitted to Caltrans during the Encroachment Permit application and review process.

Letter 6

6-1



6. Rosa Muñoz, PE, Utilities Engineer, California Public Utilities Commission, June 23, 2006 Response 6-1 The County will encourage early consultation with the Public Utilities Commission for new development or improvements adjacent to or near the Union Pacific Railroad Company right-of-way during the design phase to consider safety to motorist and pedestrians.

-----Original Message----- From: Karen Dorfman [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 10:38 AM To: Lindgren, Jeff Subject: IVMP Comment

Dear Mr. Lindgren and to all it may concern,

As a homeowner in Isla Vista, I would like to comment on the I.V. Master Plan. I'll be brief:

1) The last thing in the world that Isla Vista needs is more density. Police and fire personnel are already totally overwhelmed. Couches are routinely burned with no one held accountable. Trash is everywhere. Break-ins, firecrackers in dry weather, and mailbox explosions receive barely a response from the police. It's a disgrace known only to permanent residents here. There is almost no police response to anything but the worst of crimes. And I'm not blaming the police. There are just too many bizarre crimes out here for them to respond to. Only morons blinded by greed, ignorance, or their own career interests could justify increasing the density of this often troubled area.

2) I do NOT support the replacement of the lovely peaceful Isla Vista gardens and orchard with a soccor field, skateboard park, and so called "nature preserve" that is sure to be SMALLER than the current gardens and orchard! In my opinion, it would be tragic to cut down the fruit trees of this established orchard. Get some classes involved in maintaining the trees if this is a concern. Isla Vista needs open green space, and not all green is alike. Soccer fields already exist in nearby parks. The University chose to get rid of one. That shouldn't be Isla Vista's problem.

Please include my comments in the public debate.

Sincerely,Karen Dorfman

Letter 7

7-1



7. Karen Dorfman, via email on June 25, 2006 Response 7-1 The commenter’s opinions are acknowledged. As these comments do not relate to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the EIR, no response is required. The commenter’s letter will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration.

June 27, 2006

Mr. Jeff Lindgren County Executive Office 105 East Anapamu St., Room 406 Santa Barbara, CA 93101

Re: IVMP DEIR Comments

Dear Mr. Lindgren,

First off, I want to thank you for all of your excellent work - - as well as the opportunity to voice my opinion re: the DEIR for the Isla Vista Master Plan.

My hopes are that this letter will help assist in making another important decision– that involving the potential move of the existing amphitheater in Anisq’oyo Park to Perfect Park.

I am a former UCSB student, and one-time Isla Vista Recreation and Park District employee who spent many years enjoying both the Isla Vista and Santa Barbara communities. During this time, I helped organize events, concerts, festivals and fundraisers to help the community at large, such as Earth Days and Dia de Los Muertos/Halloween Concerts in the Park. The joy and pleasure that both I and the community shared from these events are priceless… and helped launch many successful careers and friendships.

I am not opposed to the possible redesign Anisq'oyo Park, but there is no real need to move the amphitheater to Perfect Park. That decision, I believe would be a waste of time and money.

I will briefly share some of my concerns with the proposed move of the amphitheatre.

First off, moving the amphitheatre to Perfect Park would erase years of hard work, money and planning with regards to native plants and habitat. Money that could be better use in other areas.

Secondly, DEIR does not guarantee the amphitheatre will be re-created if removed from its current location. DEIR goes only as far as saying it “maybe” rebuilt. Not to mention, that the Perfect Park Peace Monument (symbolizing years of peaceful protests planning) would be threatened by the planned location of the proposed amphitheatre. Further funds would not be available to refurbish it.

The history and beauty of the park is second to none – it possesses a magnificent landscape and is remarkably sound venue acoustically. No wonder that several now-famous musicians returned time and time again to support the community the park. Its current location no doubt helps local businesses in both direct sales and the high visibility events in the park create. Noise ordinances, already in place, help regulate the volume of events, as does the 10 pm event curfew. The venue brings art, food, music, culture and thousands of friends together. Losing this community outlet

Letter 8

8-2

8-1

would be a HUGE loss. One that would upset students and the majority of the town’s residents terribly.

Again, I am a huge supporter of the effort and accomplishments the County and IVRPD has made to help improve Isla Vista. However, I strongly urge you to keep the amphitheater and current stage set-up in Anisq’oyo Park, while addressing other, more important Isla Vista issues.

Thank you kindly for taking the time to hear my comments and I welcome any feedback and/or questions you may have.

Sincerely,

Adam Rudder

[email protected]

8-2Cont.



8. Adam Rudder, June 27, 2006 Response 8-1 Please see Response 2-1. The commenter’s opinion regarding the IVMP’s relocation of the amphitheater is acknowledged. As none of the comments in the letter relate to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the EIR, no response is required. The letter will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration.

County Executive Office June 27, 2006105 East Anapamu Street #406Santa Barbara, CA 93101

To Whom It May Concern,

The purpose of this letter is to provide comments on the adequacy of the draftEIR on the environmental consequences associated with the implementation ofthe IVMP in Isla Vista. We appreciate the effort, the quality, and the depth of thisEIR as we offer our comments.

As a format, the comments will be numbered as follows:

1. Noise, Class I impact, 3.10: As the overall purpose of the redevelopment ofIsla Vista is to improve the quality of life for the residents, the summarizingcomment in the EIR that “….the increase in noise associated with the plannedbuild out is difficult to quantify” as there are no specific noise generation modelsfor residential development” , followed with the EIR comment that: “however,with an incease in population, general community noise will likely increase” iscompletely inadequate.

This statement minimizes to downright ignores the effect of the potential forsignificant increased noise for the residents of the community should thepotential buildout occur. Noise pollution currently degrades the Isla Vistaenvironment greatly with the population as it is. The level of noise now canalmost be considered an assault to one who lives in the community andexperiences it. The EIR cannot deliver an insubstantial statement on noise whenit plays the role it does in Isla Vista. The demographic of the community and theimpact of increased population of this demographic must be accounted for in theconsideration of the impact of noise.

2. Public Service, 3.12: The EIR states that full potential buildout could add4,355 new residents and then adds that “this population increase would notcreate a significant impact on service levels……..” for police protection.

This is inadequate. As stated in the EIR, 25% of all serious crime in the Countyoccurs in Isla Vista. The Grand Jury report found that the IVFP has notmaintained control of the community. As residents, we would support both ofthese descriptive statements. The community currently has to deal with an

Letter 9

9-1

9-2

unacceptable level of physical assaults, rapes, robberies, etc that occur on amonthly basis within this ½ mile radius.To simply state in the EIR that the new ratio of l:1,0552 residents is still withinthe “level of service ratio” when crime statistics and common sense show thatIsla Vista is already an unsafe community, particularly on the week ends whenalcohol consumption is high, is irresponsible. An increase of 4,355 new, collegeage residents would create a Class I significant impact on the police protectionservice requirements to create a safe environment for the the community.

1.4 Type of EIR: The EIR states that this is a “program and project” EIR,indicating that subsequent EIRs for redevelopment projects in Isla Vista will notbe required unless a “subsequent EIR or a supplement to an EIR would berequired by Section 15162 or 15163.” As lay persons interested in this project, wehave no idea what requirements are listed in these sections. We request, for alllay people interested in this document, that the EIR provide a brief synopsis ofwhat these contain.

4.1 Affordable Housing: The IVMP has identified 10 potential sites foraffordable housing in Isla Vista. These sites were recommended by the PAC.As a member of the PAC, I can unequivocally state that it was my intention onthe PAC to simply identify potential sites….not to imply that I/we endorse thatall 10 sites be built out. The implication in the EIR and in the SB News Press thatthe PAC has approved the build out of all ten sites is a mistake and ismisleading. Isla Vista already has a density of 67 residents per acre and thecommunity cannot bear the effects of the build out of all 10 sites. This was notspecifically recommended. It was my intention that one or two of the sites mightpossibly be built.

Also, on page 2 16 of the EIR, is a list of the “catalyst projects” recommended inthe IVMP (approved by the PAC). Nowhere is Affordable Housing listed as a“catalyst project”. However, very prominently in the EIR, Affordable Housing islisted as a “catalyst project”. Unacceptably, the author of the EIR hasindependently created Affordable Housing as a catalyst project. This is an EIR ofthe IVMP, which does not include Affordable Housing in its list of “catalystprojects.” Therefore, all references to Affordable Housing as a catalyst projectshould be removed.

3.12 Land Use: Simply, the colored graphics on Land Use Designations are verydifficult to integrate with the accompanying text, making this very crucial part ofthe EIR difficult for most readers to understand. Mr. Goldstein provided the PAC

9-2Cont.

9-4

9-6

9-3

9-5

with an additional color graphic identifying the areas of I.V., which utilized thesame terminology as the EIR. This made the EIR more easily understood and werequest that this graphic be included in the final EIR.

4.2 Catalyst Projects/Dowtown/Outdoor Dining: The Outdoor Dining LeaseProgram proposal states that a “limited amount of public ROW can be leased byprivate businesses for oudoor dining provided certain conditions are met.”

Consideration in this proposal should again be given to the demographic of IslaVista. The conditions for the private business are not listed in the EIR. If they donot include provisions to limit loud music and other controllable noise levels, theplan will not provide the environment envisioned. A good portion of the“outdoor dining” in I.V. consists of sharing a pitcher of beer with friends whilelistening to music, etc. Without some control of alcohol permitting and/or noise,the results of the “outdoor dining” project may make living untenable for theresidents living in the proposed mixed use buildings above these privatebusinesses. It is our hope that some mention could be made in the EIR regardingcontrolling of alcohol permits and noise control requirements for the outdoordining.

4.6 Pardall Street Trees: While not really a comment on the EIR, there is asection on the choice of street trees for Pardall. We hope that the PACsubcommittee on street trees is included in discussions regarding the finalchoices on which trees to plant. Throughout the IVMP process, it becameapparent that these choices are extremely important to the community and wewould like to see an avenue created that will allow for a collaborative process inthe final choice of street trees on the Pardall.

4.2 Traffic and Circulation, Pardall: The EIR should include an environmentalimpact evaluation on the Option of closing Pardall Road to through traffic, that ismaking Pardall “pedestrian only”. This option has been identified by thecommunity as well as by consultants hired by the County.

6.0 Alternatives: This is a comment on Alternatives 4 and 5. These Alternativesreduce the set back on Del Playa and state that “parking for new development inthis area would be located off site and would be required to pay a fee in lieu ofproviding on site parking”. The EIR states that “parking related impacts wouldremain equal” as the number of off site parking spaces would be equal to theprevious on site parking spaces. However, nowhere in Alternative 4 and 5 is

9-6Cont.

9-7

9-8

9-9

9-10

there a requirement that a parking structure/location for parking be provided. Ifthere is no parking structure then there definitely is a significant impact.Therefore, language should be inserted that decreased setbacks on Del Playahave significant traffic and circulation impacts if a parking structure/area hasbeen has not been provided. Language should also be inserted that eitherAlternatives 4 and 5 should require a parking structure/area for theirimplementation at all, or that they are infeasible without a parkingstructure/area.

Did the EIR consider the increased downtown traffic and circulation impacts of aparking structure utilized for residential parking by those living outside thedowntown?

ES 73, Class II III Impacts/Loss of Privacy: The EIR states that the build out ofthe IVMP will “not generally result in a substantial change in the communitywith regard to loss of privacy. These impacts are considered less than significant,(Class III).” The EIR assessment is based on the long term provisions to increasethe amount of public open space. This is an inadequate assessment.

Loss of privacy is not only due to lack of physical space, but lack of personalspace of all kinds. With the potential build out, the impact of the added noisealone would be greater than a Class III. Again, the impact of the demographic ona community needs to be considered. Is it not a loss of privacy when just oneperson talks on a cell phone next to you? For Isla Vista to be honestly developedinto the model we would like to see, these sorts of realistic assessments need tobe made in the EIR.

3.1 Housing: In considering the jobs housing balance, there can be noassumption that those moving into the community will be members of thegeneral work force, with their families or individually. This is particularly true ifthe noise and the police protection elements are not adequately mitigated.

4.2 Downtown IV, Bike/Car Interface: In viewing the “project simulation”graphic on Pg. 4.2 15, for the IV downtown, I noted the lack of cars, bikes, andpedestrians pictured. It occurred to me at that time, that the IVMP (and thus theEIR) has not adequately addressed the circulation of bikes in IV, nor made plans,particularly in the downtown areas for increased bike circulation. There are noplans to mitigate the interface of bikes/cars/pedestrians on Pardall or on thesurrounding streets. This is a big omission that should be addressed by the EIRand by the PAC. As there is currently a chaotic interface of bikes and cars in the

9-10Cont.

9-11

9-12

9-13

downtown, and throughout IV, the planned buildout will only increase this,thereby raising considerably the potential for accidents. This issue needs somemitigation.

In closing, we would like to express our appreciation for your consideration ofthese EIR comments.

Sincerely,

Rick and Janet StichResidents, Isla Vista

9-13Cont.



9. Rick and Janet Stich, June 27, 2006 Response 9-1 The EIR provides adequate analysis of noise impacts. While the commenter’s frustration with current noise impacts is acknowledged, there are no professionally accepted analytical tools available to quantify noise disturbances from community noise / human behavior. Nevertheless, impact NSE-2 on pages 3.10-7 and 3.10-8 of the Draft EIR describe the potential for increased ambient noise in the project area. Mitigation Measures NSE-4 and NSE-5 address noise sensitive uses such as residential, schools, churches, and places of public assembly. Nevertheless the EIR acknowledges the noise impacts resulting from the project would be significant and unavoidable, and a statement of overriding considerations must be approved prior to adoption of the IVMP. No further analysis is necessary. Response 9-2 As stated in the EIR, the County uses a threshold of significance for a police protection impact as determined by the County Sheriff’s Department. The threshold is a ratio of 1:1,200 police officers to persons. A potentially significant impact would occur if the service ratio of one officer per 1,200 people could not be provided. Build out of the IVMP would add a maximum of 1,447 new housing units, which translates to 4,355 new residents, assuming an average household size of 3.01 persons per unit. With the current 21.5 officers, the population increase would not create a significant impact on service levels as the ratio of police officers to people would be 1:1,052. The County regards this impact to be less than significant. Additionally, Santa Barbara County collects fees from development projects to offset the impact of that new development on existing service levels. Separate fees are collected for various types of impacts, including fees to construct new Sheriff facilities and for new equipment. Therefore as increased population and development occur, funds for additional staffing and facilities are anticipated. In addition, the County’s adopted FY 06/07 CIP includes a project to expand Foot Patrol facilities in Isla Vista. With new development increased fund will be made available to construct these new facilities. Response 9-3 In summary, Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines requires a subsequent EIR for a project when an EIR has already been prepared and certified and one or more of the following conditions occur: 1. substantial changes to the proposed project will require major revisions to the EIR; 2. substantial changes to circumstances under which the project is undertaken will require major revisions to the EIR; or 3. new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time of the EIR was certified as complete, becomes available. A subsequent EIR must receive the same circulation and review as the previous EIR. Section 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines allows for the Lead Agency to prepare a supplemental EIR rather than a subsequent EIR, if any of the three conditions under Section 15162 apply



but only minor revisions would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the proposed project in the changed situation. A supplemental EIR augments a previously certified EIR to the extent necessary to address the conditions described in section 15162 and to examine mitigation and project alternatives accordingly. It is intended to expand on the previous EIR. While a supplemental EIR must receive the same circulation and review as the previous EIR, the supplemental EIR may be circulated by itself without recirculation of the previous EIR. The decision-making body would consider the previous EIR as revised by the supplemental EIR. Response 9-4 As noted in the Draft EIR, the IV PAC recommended ten potential sites for affordable housing. Although the zoning proposed under the IVMP allows for potential development of any of the sites, the IVMP does not require additional affordable housing beyond the existing affordability requirements (Coastal Land Use Plan 5-10). The EIR analyzes the potential for all ten of the affordable housing sites to be developed as required by CEQA in order for the decision makers and the public to understand the full potential environmental impact of the proposed project. The level of affordability on each individual site will be subject to the discretion of the land owners, consistent with adopted County policy. Response 9-5 The IVMP lists the ten affordable housing sites on page 4-62 of the Draft IVMP as housing catalyst projects. Therefore, the ten housing sites were properly analyzed in the Draft EIR as part of the proposed project.



Response 9-6 The map Mr. Goldstein provided the PAC at the May 31st environmental hearing has been added to Section 3.1 of the Final EIR.



Response 9-7 As stated on page 4.2-4 of the Draft EIR, the Outdoor Dining Lease Program would allow for a limited amount of outdoor dining in the public right-of- way (ROW). In order to address the increased noise from outdoor dining, a ROW encroachment permit would be required for outdoor dining in a public right-of-way, and conditions on the permit will limit activities in the ROW, such as use of amplified music, hours, decibels, etc as needed to ensure compatibility with neighbors and surrounding uses. Encroachment permits are revocable for violations of permit conditions by the County Road Commissioner. The following text has been in included on page 4.2-4 of the Final EIR as a clarification to the Right-of-way (ROW) Lease Program for Outdoor Dining.

The Outdoor Dining Lease Program is proposed to create a ROW encroachment permit process so that a limited amount of public ROW can be leased by private businesses for outdoor dining, provided certain conditions are met. The ROW encroachment permit will include conditions to limit activities in the ROW, such as use of amplified music, hours, decibels, etc as needed to ensure compatibility with neighbors and surrounding uses. Outdoor Dining Program goals include:

• Creating activity in the public realm. • Supporting the Isla Vista commercial district. • Enhancing a pedestrian character of the downtown. • Ensuring compatibility with neighbors and surrounding uses.

The clarification does not affect any of the impact conclusions contained in the EIR. Response 9-8 As this comment does not relate to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the EIR, no response is required. The commenter’s opinion will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. Response 9-9 Closing Pardall Road is not part of the IVMP project description and therefore was not evaluated as part of the project analyzed in the EIR. Per Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Draft Program EIR examines a range of reasonable alternatives that “would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate comparative merits of the alternatives.”

Closing Pardall Road was proposed after the notice of preparation was released and the draft EIR circulated. The design for Pardall Road will go though a public review process that



allows for extensive public comment and project refinements. If this process results in a changed project, further environmental review may be required. Response 9-10 All catalyst and infrastructure projects, policies, and plan amendments identified in the proposed Draft IVMP, including the parking structure, are included in Alternatives 4 and 5. Alternatives 4 and 5 include the development of a remote parking lot and are not feasible without such a facility.

Response 9-11 As noted in the Draft EIR in Section 3.1, Isla Vista is currently a developed urban community, and the changes in land use identified in the IVMP will not significantly alter the existing land use patterns. As a result, this growth would not generally result in a substantial change in the community with regard to privacy. Section 3.10 of the Draft EIR describes the potential for increased ambient noise in the project area.

Response 9-12 The regional jobs/housing balance is calculated based on the number of jobs compared to residential units on the South Coast of Santa Barbara. The calculation does not assume where workers live, or the type of residents occupying the units. As stated on page 3.1-17 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would result in increased residential opportunities in an area where the jobs/housing balance ratio is greater than 1.35:1. The IVMP would increase the number of residential opportunities in that area, and it is reasonable to conclude most of the residents will work on the South Coast. Response 9-13 The Isla Vista Master Plan does not propose significant changes to roadways. However, the proposed project includes changes to the County roadway design and policy capacity standards that include roundabouts as intersection control devices, sidewalk improvements, traffic calming features, and other streetscape improvements. Please refer to the following pages in the Draft EIR:

1. Pages 2-4 and 2-5: Subsection 2.3.1 Transit and Circulation of the Project Description – identifies specific street catalyst projects in the Isla Vista Master Plan

2. Pages 2-23 and 2-24: Catalyst Project #2 Pardall Road and Embarcadero Loop Streetscape Improvements – provides a description of the pedestrian paseo that will connect Anisq’ Oyo’ Park to Pardall Road, traffic calming measures, and streetscape amenities proposed in the Draft IVMP to enhance public spaces.



3. Pages 2-31 and 2-32: Sueno Bicycle Boulevard – describes the implementation of a bicycle boulevard along Sueno Road.

4. Page 3-13.19: Small Roundabout Design – identifies the intersection the Isla Vista Master Plan is proposing to construct small roundabouts.

The EIR adequately addresses the bicycle circulation in Isla Vista. Project design components address bicycles, cars, and pedestrians interface. No additional analysis is necessary.

From: Spencer Conway [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 10:28 PM To: Lindgren, Jeff Subject: Draft EIR Comments

County Executive Office June 27, 2006 105 East Anapamu Street #406 Santa Barbara, CA 93101

To Whom It May Concern,

The purpose of this letter is to provide comments on the adequacy of the draft EIR on the environmental consequences associated with the implementation of the IVMP in Isla Vista. I attended the EIR meetings on May 31 and June 8, 2006 which was a challenge because I work two jobs. I appreciate the effort, the quality, and the depth of this EIR, but I disagree with some of your basic conclusions and I am offering these comments.

I have lived in various parts of Isla Vista for over 40 years and have noticed deleterious changes over the years mostly involving increased crime, decreased safety, increased noise, and increased trash all associated with increased population density.Particularly, my comments are as follows:

1. Public Service: The EIR states that full potential build-out could add 4,355 new residents and then adds that “this population increase would not create a significant impact on service levels……..” for police protection. It took 1/2 hour for the police to respond to my call of a burglar attempting to break into my home while I was at home. July 4 has come and gone, but the nightly fireworks continue; last night, July 12, there were loud explosions with large firework displays until 1:00 AM. I didn't bother calling the police because they don't seem to be able to respond quickly enough to do anything about it in the West end of Isla Vista. This is a terrible fire risk at this time of year.This is inadequate. As stated in the EIR, 25% of all serious crime in the County occurs in Isla Vista. The Grand Jury report found that the IVFP has notmaintained control of the community. As residents, we would support both of these descriptive statements. The community currently has to deal with an unacceptable level of physical assaults, rapes, robberies, etc that occur on a monthly basis within this ½ mile radius. To simply state in the EIR that the new ratio of l:1,0552 residents is still within the “level of service ratio” when crime statistics and common sense show that

Letter 10

10-1

10-2

Isla Vista is already an unsafe community, particularly on the week-ends when alcohol consumption is high, is irresponsible. An increase of 4,355 new, college-age residents would create a Class I significant impact on the police protection service requirements to create a safe environment for the community.

In a conversation on June 8 with a County Fire Captain at Station 17 on the UCSB campus, I was told that 3 cars (not couches) were set on fire on one of the weekend preceding the June 8 meeting. This is serious and IV is set up for crisis if something is not done; the police will not be able to control the situation. I lived a block from the bank of America when it was burns during the IV riots in 1970 when the mobs got so out of control that they rendered the police and fire department useless and I can see that happening again with the large groups on weekend nights. This fire captain said that there are no plans at this time to increase fire protection even though the University is building a huge residential project on El Colegio, which is also eliminating a large expanse of athletic fields.The draft EIR ignores the impact of the UCSB and its increased building directly adjacent to Isla Vista. Currently there is a tremendous trash problem with furniture, appliances, and household trash on the street of IV. The current laws are not being enforced and the trash builds up. The slack law enforcement gives the residents the message that it is okay to trash the joint and disobey any laws.

2. Noise: As the overall purpose of the redevelopment of Isla Vista is to improve the quality of life for the residents, the summarizing comment in the EIR that “….the increase in noise associated with the planned build-out is difficult to quantify” as there are no specific noise generation models for residential development” , followed with the EIR comment that: “however, with an increase in population, general community noise will likely increase” is completely inadequate.

This statement minimizes to downright ignores the effect of the potential for significant increased noise for the residents of the community should the potential build-out occur. Noise pollution currently degrades the Isla Vista environment greatly with the population as it is. The level of noise now can almost be considered an assault to one who lives in the community and experiences it. The EIR cannot deliver an insubstantial statement on noise when it plays the role it does in Isla Vista. The demographic of the community and the impact of increased population of this demographic must be accounted for in the consideration of the impact of noise.

10-2Cont.

10-3

3. Housing: The IVMP has identified 10 potential sites for affordable housing in Isla Vista. These sites were recommended by the PAC. The implication in the EIR and in the SB News-Press that the PAC has approved the build-out of all ten sites is a mistake and is misleading. Isla Vista already has a density of 67 residents per acre and the community cannot bear the effects of the build-out of all 10 sites. This was not specifically recommended. It was my intention that one or two of the sites might possibly be built.

Also, on page 2-16 of the EIR, is a list of the “catalyst projects” recommended in the IVMP (approved by the PAC). Nowhere is Affordable Housing listed as a “catalyst project”. However, very prominently in the EIR, Affordable Housing is listed as a “catalyst project”. Unacceptably, the author of the EIR has independently created Affordable Housing as a catalyst project. This is an EIR ofthe IVMP, which does not include Affordable Housing in its list of “catalyst projects.” Therefore, all references to Affordable Housing as a catalyst project should be removed.

4. Confusing language and a monstrous document that took too much time to read:The EIR states that this is a “program and project” EIR, indicating that subsequent EIRs for redevelopment projects in Isla Vista will not be required unless a “subsequent EIR or a supplement to an EIR would be required by Section 15162 or 15163.” As lay persons interested in this project, we have no idea what requirements are listed in these sections. We request, for all lay people interested in this document, that the EIR provide a brief synopsis of what these contain. Most all of the proposed alternative created more density with more impacts and more problems. this is unacceptable.

Isla Vista would improve dramatically if the current laws were enforced. As a long-term resident of Isla Vista, I want a clean and safe neighborhood.Santa Barbara needs to take care of Isla Vista and not increase the population pressure.Sincerely,Spencer Conway925 Camino LindoIsla vista, CA 93117

10-4

10-5

10-6

10-7



10. Spencer Conway, via email on June 27, 2006 Response 10-1 This comment provides an introduction to the commenter’s letter on the Draft EIR, and his opinion regarding current conditions in Isla Vista. No response is required. Response 10-2 Please see Response 9-2 addressing Sheriff service levels. Fire protection impact is discussed on page 3.12-11of the Draft EIR; buildout of the IVMP will exceed the County’s threshold of significance for adequate fire protection services. Mitigation Measure Fire-1 recognizes the need for additional Fire personnel for the Isla Vista/UCSB response area. Despite this mitigation, future funding for Fire personnel in the Isla Vista/UCSB response area is not guaranteed to keep up with demand increases and the impact remains significant and unavoidable. A statement of overriding considerations must be approved prior to adoption of the IVMP. Solids waste impacts are discussed in Section 3.12.7 of the Draft EIR; buildout of the IVMP will result in significant and unavoidable impacts to solid waste and a statement of overriding considerations must be approved prior to adoption of the IVMP. The commenter’s opinion regarding existing conditions related to improper trash disposal will be forwarded to the decision makers. Please note the County recently adopted an ordinance making it unlawful to place indoor furniture outside any residential or commercial structures. Response 10-3 Please see Response 9-1. Response 10-4 Please see Response 9-4. Response 10-5 Please see Response 9-5. Response 10-6 Please see Response 9-3. It is unclear which of the six project alternatives the commenter is referencing. The Draft EIR analyzes a range of alternatives to the proposed project with differing land use densities in Section 6.0.



Response 10-7 The commenter’s opinion regarding existing conditions and the merits of the proposed project will be forwarded to the decision makers in the Final EIR for their consideration.

Letter 11

11-1

11-2

11-3

11-4

11-5

11-6



11. Larry L Eng, Ph.D. Regional Manager, South Coast Region, California Department of Fish and Game, June 29, 2006 Response 11-1 The commenter’s description of the proposed project area, project impacts to Anisq’Oyo’ Park ESH, white-tailed kite, Cooper’s hawk, and southern tarplant, and mitigation measures is acknowledged. While the proposed project is expected to result in removal of a unknown amount of tree and vegetation (BIO-6), the removal of 105 trees and 16 oak trees and the 3:1 mitigation tree replacement ratio is related specifically to the development of the Community Center catalyst project. Response 11-2 The County acknowledges the commenter’s role as a trustee agency and understands the proposed Isla Vista Master Plan does not qualify for the CDFG filing fee exemption. Response 11-3 Please see Response 13-9. In response to the comment, and comment 13-9, Mitigation Measure BIO-3 has been revised to read as follows:

Mitigation Measure BIO-3: For construction activity on vacant parcels within 300 500 feet of the eucalyptus windrows at the eastern edge of Isla Vista Camino Majorca and/or Estero Park, requiring a coastal development permit and occurring between March February 1 and August 15, project area, project applicants shall fund biological surveys to identify any presence of raptor nesting and/or roosting sites in eucalyptus windrows or other native vegetation or trees. The surveys shall be conducted 2 weeks prior to the start of ground clearing or grading activity. If survey results indicate the presence of raptor species nesting or foraging within or adjacent to any of these parcels, a 300 500-foot “no construction disturbance zone” measured from each raptor nest or roosting site shall be maintained during construction activities. Conducting these surveys will decrease the likelihood that raptor reproductive cycles are impacted by construction activities proposed in this project.

The revision does not affect any of the impact conclusions contained in the EIR. Response 11-4 The DEIR erroneously referred to the Estero Park Tree Report as Appendix J; the correct reference is Appendix D, and the EIR has been revised to correct this reference. The Technical Appendix to the Draft including Appendix D, Survey and Assessment of Estero Park, has been mailed to the CDFG.



The County’s Oak Tree Protection and Regeneration Program (Article IX, Chapter 35 of the County Code) does not apply to the Coastal Zone or urban areas such as Isla Vista. Instead, Section 35-140 of the County Code requires a Coastal Development Permit for the removal of any tree in the Coastal Zone that is six inches or more in diameter measured four feet above the ground and six feet or more in height, and mitigation is identified on case by case basis based the biological context of each tree. The 16 oak trees potentially removed as a result of the Community Center Catalyst Project (see Impact CC-BIO-1) would be within an urban park context, rather than representing components of any sensitive biological riparian, oak woodland, or oak savannah habitat. For this reason the 3:1 ratio, identified specifically for the urban park context, is a more appropriate ratio. Likewise, any oak trees removed as a result of IVMP buildout (see Impact BIO-6) would likely occur along streets and sidewalk strips where oak trees have been planted as ornamentals. Attempting to implement a replacement ratio of 10:1 to mitigate the loss for each street tree would be infeasible, as insufficient room exists to plant this many trees in sidewalk strips. Additionally, the goal of replanting removed oaks at a 10:1 ratio to recreate equivalent habitat would not be required in an urban context. Finally, successful establishment of oak trees within an urban landscaped context is much more likely, where irrigation and maintenance would be managed. This is in contrast to irrigation that may or may not be standardized in rural contexts, where consistent irrigation applications can be problematic due to irrigation infrastructure maintenance demands (or regular use of water trucks), and where grazing animals maybe a substantial cause of immature sapling destruction. No change to the EIR is required. Response 11-5 Comment is noted. When Mitigation Measure BIO-5 is implemented, County staff will utilize the CDFG guidelines in determining when to require sensitive plant species surveys. Response 11-6 The comment is noted. The County will stress the importance for new development projects to undergo early consultation with the CDFG and the CEQA requirement for a lead agency to conduct informal consultation with all responsible and trustee agencies prior to the Initial Study for a proposed project (CEQA Guidelines §15180).

Letter 12

12-1

12-2

12-3

12-4

12-5

12-6

12-7

12-8

12-9

12-10

12-11

12-12



12. Frances Gilliland, Air Quality Specialist, Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District, July 3, 2006 Response 12-1 Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control District’s (APCD) support of the project goals is acknowledged. No response is required. Response 12-2 In response to the comment, the following text found in Section 3.4.1 of the EIR has been revised:

The Air Pollution Control District (APCD) is required to monitor air pollutant levels to ensure that federal and state air quality standards are being met. The project area is located in the South Central Coast Air Basin (SCCAB). In January 1998, the EPA designated Santa Barbara County as a “serious” ozone non-attainment area for its exceedence of the federal ozone standards. The US EPA officially revoked the federal one-hour ozone standard on June 15, 2005. However, The County is now an attainment area for the federal one-hour and eight-hour ozone standard, but continues to be a non-attainment area for the state one-hour ozone and particulate matter 10 microns or less (PM10 ) standards. There is not yet enough data to determine our attainment status for either the federal standard for particulate matter less than 2.5 micros in diameter (PM2.5) or the state PM2.5 standard.

Table 3.4-2 has been updated in the Section 3.4 of the EIR. These revisions do not affect any of the impact conclusions contained in the EIR. Response 12-3 The list of streets and parking policies and actions on page 3.4-3 of the Draft EIR was erroneously included in this section of the EIR. This list has been relocated to Section 3.13 of the Final EIR. Response 12-4 In response to the comment, the first sentence of the first paragraph on page 3.4-6 of the Final EIR, has been revised to read as follows:

The APCD has a network of 20 17 air quality monitoring stations. Prior to July 1998, the Exxon-10 air monitoring station located at the UCSB West Campus just west of the project area, monitored a full complement of criteria air pollutants except carbon monoxide.

The revision does not affect any of the impact conclusions contained in the EIR.



Response 12-5 In response to the comment, the second and third paragraphs on page 3.4-6 of the Final EIR have been revised to correctly reference Table 3.4-1.

Response 12-6 In response to the comment, the fourth full paragraph on page 3.4-6 of the Final EIR has been revised to read as follows:

The state particulate matter standard for PM10 was exceeded six two times in the County in 1999. However, only one exceedence was observed at the El Capitan monitoring station (PM10 is not measured at the Goleta-Fairview monitoring station).

The revision does not affect any of the impact conclusions contained in the EIR. Response 12-7 In response to the comment, the following text has been moved from page 3.4-2 to Section 3.4.2 in the EIR.

The Clean Air Plan (CAP) for the County is prepared by and updated by the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (APCD). The 1998 CAP, prepared in response to the requirements of the California Clean Air Act and the Federal Clean Air Act, was adopted as part of the State Implementation Plan. This plan was superseded by the 2001 CAP, which was adopted by the EPA in 2003. A 2004 update of the CAP was adopted in December of 2004. The update does not affect the 2001 CAP, which remains effective for federal requirements.

Response 12-8 In response to the comment, the first sentence of the second paragraph on page 3.4-15 of the Final EIR has been revised to read as follows:

Table4 3.4-3 summarizes the total daily operational emissions (vehicle + area) associated with full build-out of the proposed IVMP.

The revision does not affect any of the impact conclusions contained in the EIR. Response 12-9 In response to the comment, Table 3.4-3 has been revised in the Final EIR as follows:



Table 3.4-3

Estimated IVMP Trip Generation and Operational and Area Emissions (Mitigated) ROG

(lbs/day) NOX

(lbs/day) PM10

(lbs/day) Area Area Area Area

Natural Gas 0.88 11.48 .02 Hearth – No summer emissions - - 0 Landscaping 0 0 - Consumer Products 70.79 - - Architectural Coatings 24.23 - -

Subtotal 95.90 11.48 0.02 ROG

(lbs/day) NOX

(lbs/day) PM10

(lbs/day) Land Use Units ADT Trips Vehicle Area Vehicle Area Vehicle Area

Student Condo/Townhousea 441 2,456 6.60 7.20 40.33

Student Apartmenta 752 4,798 12.66 14.12 79.12 Affordable Housing Site 241 1,412 3.77 4.14 23.23

Downtown Commercial 51,485 sf 2,240 5.12 6.21 34.15

I.V. Community Centerb 42,550 sf 248 0.67 0.70 3.84

Single-Family Housing 13 124 0.31 0.37 2.07

Total 29.14 95.90 32.73 11.48 182.74 182.740.02

Emission Threshold 25 - 25 - None -

Total Operational Emissions (vehicle + area)

125.04 44.21 182.76

a ADT rate discounted 5% and P.M. peak hour trip rate discounted 20% to account for bike/pedestrian/bus trips b Trip generation as reported in the I.V. Community Center traffic study (ATE, May 2004) sf – square feet

In addition to the area source emission totals, an error in the total PM10 was corrected. The revisions do not affect any of the impact conclusions contained in the EIR. The comment is noted regarding changes in discount rates; no changes to the rates have been made.



Response 12-10 In response to the comment, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.3 on page 3.8-7 of the Final EIR has been revised as follows: Mitigation HAZ-1.3: If previously unknown soil and/or groundwater contamination is found to exist onsite during excavation and/or as a result of any assessment, work is to cease immediately in the impacted area and a workplan to determine the lateral and vertical extent of the contamination shall be submitted to FPD and a site remediation plan shall be submitted to the FPD or the RWQCB for review and approval. Construction contingency plans and a Site Health and Safety Plan shall be prepared as necessary. The APCD shall be contacted to determine the permitting requirements. Undertaking these measures will serve to protect the health and safety of project workers as well as residents living adjacent to Master Plan project areas. The revision does not affect any of the impact conclusions contained in the EIR. Response 12-11 In response to the comment, Mitigation Measures HAZ-2.1 and HAZ-2.2 on page 3.8-7 of the Final EIR have been revised as follows: Mitigation Measure HAZ-2.1: Prior to remodeling/demolition activities of a residential building with less then four units or an institutional, industrial, or commercial building involving pre-1979 structures, the applicant shall determine whether the structure(s) proposed for demolition contains asbestos that is friable (i.e. brittle) during demolition or disposal. If the structure does contain friable asbestos, a contractor who is state-certified for asbestos removal shall remove the asbestos. Determining the existence of ACBM’s and removing them safely will be important in preserving the long term health of both construction workers and residents associated with potentially contaminated structures. Mitigation Measure HAZ-2.2: Prior to remodeling/demolition activities of a residential building with more than four units or an institutional, industrial, or commercial building involving pre-1979 structures, a APCD Asbestos Demolition and Renovation Compliance Checklist will be completed and a certified asbestos consultant shall conduct asbestos sampling and develop a plan for removal, as deemed necessary by the APCD and County Fire. Depending upon the amount and type of asbestos and the type of project, advanced notification to the APCD may required before asbestos is disturbed and/or removed. Notification requirements may also include notifying local residents and occupants of buildings where asbestos work is being done. The revisions do not affect any of the impact conclusions contained in the EIR.



Response 12-12 Table 5.2-1 discusses the IVMP’s consistency with adopted Comprehensive Plan, Coastal Act and Coastal Land Use policies. A discussion of the IVMP’s consistency with the CAP can be found in Section 3.4.4 (Impact AIR-3) and Section 5.3 of the EIR.

Letter 13

13-1

13-2

13-2Cont.

13-3

13-4

13-5

13-5Cont.

13-6

13-8

13-9

13-7

13-13

13-9Cont.

13-10

13-11

13-12

13-14

13-15

13-16

13-17

13-18

13-19

13-19Cont.

13-24

13-25

13-20

13-21

13-22

13-23

13-25Cont.

13-26

13-27

13-28

13-29

13-29Cont.

13-30

13-31



13. Gene Lucas, Executive Vice Chancellor, University of California Santa Barbara, July 12, 2006 Response 13-1 University of California Santa Barbara’s (UCSB) support of the project goals is acknowledged. No response is required. Response 13-2 UCSB’s comment regarding its goal to retain and recruit faculty and staff is acknowledged. IVMP includes Housing Policy 4, which directs the County to facilitate the production of for-sale housing in Isla Vista. As discussed in Section 3.1 of the EIR, the purpose and intent of the proposed draft zoning district for Isla Vista identifies the production of housing available to a broad cross section of the Isla Vista community, including UCSB faculty and staff. Response 13-3 UCSB Office of Budget and Planning submitted cumulative project information to the County in September 2003. The baseline for the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR consists of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project as they existed at the time the notice of preparation was published on October 16, 2003, including the list of past, present, and probable future projects known at that time. No changes need to be made to the baseline or cumulative project list. Response 13-4 Cumulative impact analysis does not require the effect of specific pending and approved projects to be analyzed separately, or by individual jurisdiction. A cumulative impact consists of an impact that is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts. Therefore, all projects in Table 2.3-7 of the Draft EIR were analyzed together. Together, the cumulative projects analyzed in the Draft EIR will ultimately generate 3,351,485 sf of commercial and industrial development and 3,313 new residential units throughout the Goleta Valley, UCSB and Isla Vista area. Response 13-5 Please see Response 13-4. Response 13-6 In response to this comment, Section 2.3.7 of the EIR has been revised to include the following sentences: “The schedule in Table 2.3-3 provides and estimated timeframe for catalyst projects by numerous agencies and does not provide a definitive schedule. This timeframe for project



implementation was the best prediction based on consultation with the various responsible entities, such as UCSB, IVRPD, MTD, and other County departments.” Response 13-7 The campus road in Figure 3.13-1 shown extending east off Ocean Road is shown as a roadway on the UCSB’s current campus map. The gated connection between Ocean Road and Sabado Tarde does not allow general public access and is not shown on UCSB’s current campus map. The Figure is not intended to depict any change to the existing road network, rather it is a summary of the existing jurisdictional authority and street network. No change to the EIR is necessary. Response 13-8 Section 3-13 of the EIR has been revised to address the potential traffic impacts generated by the Master Plan on the UCSB campus roadway system. As demonstrated in the revised analysis, key campus intersections are forecast to operate at LOS D or better, which meets UCSB standards (LOS C-D). Campus roadways segments are forecast to operate at LOS C or better with Baseline + IVMP traffic. While the campus has not adopted roadway segment standards, LOS C meets adopted County standards. In general, air quality impacts are assessed by regional air basin, not on a jurisdiction-specific basis. The EIR for the IVMP assesses the impacts resulting from buildout of the IVMP to the air quality of the South Central Coast Air Basin. Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District no longer considers localized Carbon Monoxide (CO) hotspots a potential impact because the County has been in attainment of the State CO standard for many years and ambient CO levels have declined significantly. No revisions to the EIR are necessary. Response 13-9 Please see Response 11-3. The County would welcome a copy of the final UCSB nesting survey, please forward it when it is complete. Without full review of that data, the County is not prepared to withdraw the requirement for a buffer on the eastern edge of Isla Vista at this time. There are numerous historical observations of raptors nesting in the eucalyptus windrow on eastern boundary of Isla Vista. The Draft EIR incorrectly applied the buffer in Mitigation Measure BIO 3 to eucalyptus windrows on the western boundary of the project area. However, this was an error. No buffer in necessary for the western windrow as the land use designations for that area will remain single family residential, there are few undeveloped parcels, and therefore, only minor development is anticipated. The Final EIR has been revised to apply the mitigation measure to only the windrow on the eastern project boundary.



In response to the comment, and comment 11-3, Mitigation Measure BIO-3 has been revised to read as follows:

Mitigation Measure BIO-3: For construction activity on vacant parcels within 300 500 feet of the eucalyptus windrows at the eastern edge of Isla Vista Camino Majorca and/or Estero Park, requiring a coastal development permit and occurring between March February 1 and August 15, project area, project applicants shall fund biological surveys to identify any presence of raptor nesting and/or roosting sites in eucalyptus windrows or other native vegetation or trees. The surveys shall be conducted 2 weeks prior to the start of ground clearing or grading activity. If survey results indicate the presence of raptor species nesting or foraging within or adjacent to any of these parcels, a 300 500-foot “no construction disturbance zone” measured from each raptor nest or roosting site shall be maintained during construction activities. Conducting these surveys will decrease the likelihood that raptor reproductive cycles are impacted by construction activities proposed in this project.

The revision does not affect any of the impact conclusions contained in the EIR. Response 13-10 Devereux Beach at Coal Oil Point is an existing heavily used regional recreational area. The proposed project’s possible contribution to increased recreational use of Devereux Beach and indirect impacts on Western Snowy Plover is cumulative in that the distance between the project area and plover habitat indicates that the project will not have a direct impact on this resource. However, possible increased use of the beach by additional residents to the project area combined with similar use generated by any new residential development within the Goleta Valley and within the greater Santa Barbara South Coast area could have a cumulative impact. It is impossible to quantify the extent to which any related future project would contribute to increased indirect impacts on the Western Snowy Plover. The number of new residents that would walk or bicycle the 0.75 miles on Devereux Beach past the plover nesting area cannot be quantified or reasonably estimated. However, it is reasonable to assume the number of new recreationalists generated from build out under the Master Plan who walk to this beach would be far less than the maximum Master Plan build out anticipated 3,313 residents, due to the distance involved in getting from the Plan Area to this beach, and the lack of any attractive recreational facilities such as bathrooms, picnicking, and play structure facilities that are available at other local beaches such as Goleta Beach County Park, Haskell’s Beach, or the Bacara Resort (i.e., bathrooms). The cumulative impact is appropriately differentiated from other project-specific biological resource impacts that could occur within or adjacent to the project area, such as at Anisq’ Oyo Park, Camino Corto Open Space, and the Del Sol Reserve and Open Space. These areas are within the Master Plan area would be impacted directly by project buildout. Those impacts are discussed in Section 3.5 of the EIR.



As identified in the draft EIR, Section 3.5 (Cumulative Impacts), the docent program is already in effect to mitigate impacts to Western Snowy Plover from human and domestic pet disturbance. This existing program helps to mitigate the potential cumulative effects of visitors from the existing residential population adjacent to the plover nesting area by limiting public access to the plover nesting habitat. In addition, the following mitigation measures have been added to the final EIR. Mitigation Measure BIO-C-1: The Redevelopment Agency shall cause interpretive panels to be constructed and installed at the following beach access points in Isla Vista.

1. Camino Majorca 2. Escondido Pass 3. Camino Del Sur 4. Camino Pescadero 5. El Embarcadero

Those interpretive panels shall include information about how to avoid snowy plover habitat as well as other information pertinent to snowy plover biology and habitat. The placement of these panels will ensure all existing, and any future, users that walk to Devereux Beach on the beach, or through UCSB property, will encounter information regarding the snowy plover prior to reaching Devereux Beach. A citation to the Ellwood-Devereux Coast Open Space and Habitat Management Plan (URS, 2004) has also been added to the EIR. These revisions do not affect any of the impact conclusions contained in the EIR. Responses 13-11 As discussed in Section 3.9.1 of the EIR, surface runoff from the western edge (roughly west of Camino Corto Road) of the project area drains to Devereux Slough. The IVMP does not propose land use changes west of Camino Corto Road. Currently there are less than five vacant parcels within the project area west of Camino Corto Road, in the Devereux Slough drainage basin, and those parcels are zoned for single family development. New development in this area will be subject to existing County water quality policies, outlined in Section 3.9 of the EIR. Therefore, no impacts to the biological resources or surface runoff in the Devereux Slough would result from the proposed project. Response 13-12 Please see Response 13-11 Response 13-13 Please see Response 13-8



Response 13-14 Please see Response 13-8 Response 13-15 Please see Response 13-8 Response 13-16 Revised Figure 3-13.9b depicts the project traffic for the movements that would be affected by the IVMP. The Baseline + Master Plan are shown on Figure 3.13-11 and the results of the intersection analyses are displayed in Table 3.13-7. No changes to these figures are necessary. Response 13-17 The references to the tables in the Traffic and Circulation section of the EIR have been revised starting on page 3.13-17 of the Final EIR to address typographical errors. The revisions do not affect any of the impact conclusions contained in the EIR. Response 13-18 The factual basis for the analysis of cumulative impacts is built upon the proposed project analysis. All feasible project mitigation measures have been included in the EIR and all mitigation measures will contribute to reducing cumulative impacts. To the extent cumulative impacts remain significant and unavoidable a statement of overriding considerations must be approved prior to adoption of the IVMP. Response 13-19 The text has been revised on page ES-4 of the Final EIR, under the Summary of Project Impacts heading, in response to the comment. All of the environmental issue areas that the Draft EIR analyzed were added to the paragraph because some of the issue areas were omitted by error. The revisions do not affect any of the impact conclusions contained in the EIR. Response 13-20 Please see Response 13-3. The cumulative projects are separated by jurisdiction in Table 2.3-7 of the EIR, with the associated square footage associated with each development. Jurisdictional specific development totals are not necessary for an adequate cumulative impact analysis.



University development was included in the totals for commercial/industrial or residential, as appropriate, to summarize the potential cumulative impacts of all proposed and pending development throughout the Goleta Valley, UCSB and Isla Vista area. Precise land use designations are not necessary when determining regional cumulative impacts of proposed development. No further clarifications or revisions are necessary. Response 13-21 The Visual Aesthetic Impact Guidelines (Santa Barbara County Thresholds Manual 2002) and the thresholds of significance, found on pages 3.2-13 and 3.2-14 of the Draft EIR, were used in the analysis of the proposed project for both project specific and cumulative impacts. The view corridors are identified in Section 3.2 (Cumulative Impacts) of the EIR. Substantial development along any of the identified corridors will substantially change the aesthetic character of the area and is therefore considered significant and unavoidable; a statement of overriding considerations must be approved prior to adoption of the IVMP. Response 13-22 Please see Responses 13-3 and 13-21. Response 13-23 Please see Response 13-8. Response 13-24 Section 3.6.5 of the EIR identifies how the significance of cumulative impacts to Cultural/Historic resources was determined. The EIR for the IVMP evaluates the significance of the cumulative contributions of full IVMP buildout. The EIR does not analyze the significance of UCSB development. Response 13-25 Section 3.7.3 identifies the thresholds of significance used to determine both project specific and cumulative geologic hazard impacts. Section 3.7 (Cumulative Impacts) of the EIR identifies how the significance of cumulative impacts to Geologic Hazards was determined. The EIR for the IVMP evaluates the significance of the cumulative contributions of full IVMP buildout. The EIR does not analyze the significance of UCSB development. Response 13-26 Section 3.9.3 identifies the thresholds of significance used to determine both project specific and cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts. Section 3.10.3 identifies the thresholds of significance used to determine both project specific and cumulative noise impacts.



Section 3.11.3 identifies the thresholds of significance used to determine both project specific and cumulative parks, open space and recreation impacts. The Cumulative Impacts section of each of these sections of the EIR identifies how the significance of cumulative impacts was determined. The EIR for the IVMP evaluates the significance of the cumulative contributions of full IVMP buildout. The EIR does not analyze the significance of UCSB development. The County acknowledges UCSB’s efforts to provide recreation facilities. Response 13-27 Please see Response 13-8 Response 13-28 Please see Responses 4-1 and 4-3 Response 13-29 University parking policies do not allow Isla Vista residents to purchase a quarterly parking pass. In addition, UCSB parking pricing makes it highly unlikely on-campus parking will provide spill-over parking for Isla Vista. Since the development of on-campus parking structures is expected to result in limited additional parking supply for the IVMP, such parking was not included in the cumulative analysis. Response 13-30 In response to the comment, the first sentence of the second paragraph after the Community Demographics heading on page 3.1-3 of the Draft EIR has been replaced with the following text:

According to UCSB Office of Budget and Planning (Metz, 2006), 8,739 UCSB students live in Isla Vista and another 1,525 students live in UCSB-owned housing in the Redevelopment Project Area (Francisco Torres, El Dorado, and Westgate). SBCC Office of Student Life Estimates the number of SBCC students living in Isla Vista to be approximately 3,000 (Amy Henry, SBCC Office of Student Life, 2006). Based on these sources, the SBCC and UCSB student population in Isla Vista is estimated at approximately 13,000.

In response to the comment, the first sentence in the first paragraph regarding Available Parking on page 3.13-9 has been revised in the FEIR, so the paragraph reads:



Over the last several years staff has conducted informal Several studies surveys that document the available parking supply in Isla Vista, although the data on both on-street and off-street parking availability varies. Demand for each Census Block Group is calculated by multiplying the existing population by 65%, the auto ownership rate based on the analysis above. Parking demand from non-residents, UCSB commuters, or retail uses, are not incorporated into this analysis.

The revision does not affect any of the impact conclusions contained in the EIR. In response to the comment a footnote reference has been included on page 3.1-8 of the Final EIR in the paragraph regarding the Del Playa Bluffs.

The revision does not affect any of the impact conclusions contained in the EIR. In response to the comment, the following references have been added to the FEIR in Section 10:

Santa Barbara County. 1994. Proposed 6645 Del Playa, 93-SUP-024 and 6531 Del Playa, 94-SUP-004 94-EIR-5. Prepared for the Gillespie Caisson Foundation System and the Younger Caisson Foundation System by Santa Barbara County. July.

University of California, Santa Barbara, 1990. Long Range Development Plan.

The revision does not affect any of the impact conclusions contained in the EIR. In response to the comment, Section 11 has been updated to include the following reference:

Henry, Amy, SBCC Office of Student Life, 2006

Metz, Jennifer, Office of Budget and Planning, September 2003, September 2006 The citation on page ES-19 of the Draft EIR for the Ellwood/Devereux EIR was included on page 10-5 of the Draft EIR. These revisions do not affect any of the impact conclusions contained in the EIR. Response 13-31 Please see Response 13-3. Time sensitive references in the EIR refer to the most recent data available for each issue area as of October 16, 2003, the date of the NOP for the EIR. No revisions are necessary. Response 13-32 The comment is noted. The County will continue to provide notice to UCSB on all upcoming IVMP environmental review

Letter 14

14-1

14-2

14-3

14-4

14-5

14-6

14-7

14-7Cont.

14-8

14-9

14-10

14-11

14-12

14-13

14-14

14-15

14-15Cont.

14-16

14-17

14-18

14-19

14-20

14-20Cont.

14-21

14-22

14-23



14. Dale Sumersille, General Manager, Isla Vista Recreation & Park District, July 13, 2006 Response 14-1 This comment provides an introduction to the Isla Vista Recreation & Park District’s (IVRPD) comments on the Draft EIR. No response is required. Response 14-2 As discussed in Section 3.11.1 of the EIR, Santa Barbara County collects fees from development projects to offset the impact of that new development on existing service levels. Separate fees are collected for various types of impacts. For example, fees are assessed to offset a project’s effect on the County road network, County administration buildings, and the County’s park/recreation system. The County collects two types of park fees on new development projects, a Development Mitigation Fee and a Quimby Fee, and only one or the other fee is assessed on a project. The Park’s Development Mitigation Fee is assessed on new housing units, whether for-sale or rental. The Quimby Fee is only assessed on new parcels of land, created during the subdivision process. Quimby Fees would likely only be generated on a new condominium projects in Isla Vista. Those two park fees are established by the County to mitigate the potential impacts to service levels from the new development. The Parks Development Mitigation Fee and Quimby Fee rates are set by the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. Those rates are based on a calculation of the amount of funding required to off-set the recreational impacts of new development. By law, jurisdiction cannot require additional assessments beyond the actual amount necessary to mitigate impacts from new developments. The rate was last considered by the Board of Supervisors in 1998; since that time the fee has been adjusted annually at the Engineering Cost Index. Those adjustments occur on July 1. In 2006, the fee was increased by 3.8%. The Board of Supervisors has the option of reviewing fees from time to time and adjusting them as they see fit. Isla Vista has several voter-approved assessments on existing development intended to provide for additional recreation facilities in the community. Those fees, which are collected and managed by the Isla Vista Recreation and Park District, are not intended to mitigate the effects of new development, rather provide for enhanced levels of recreation. New development projects, when completed, will also be subject to those same existing assessments for enhanced recreation. Should the community desire to provide for increased enhanced recreational amenities, beyond the levels currently approved, additional assessments or taxes would likely require voter approval. Additional assessments on new development projects by the County, beyond the existing fees, are not legal.



Parks Development Mitigation Fee and a Quimby Fees are collected for specific Recreation Demand Areas. Isla Vista is located within the South Coast Recreation Demand Area. The fees from new development or subdivisions in Isla Vista are consolidated with fees from development projects throughout the South Coast.

Since 1980 the County has received more than $2.1 million in Quimby and Recreation Impact Mitigation fees. Of that total, approximately $80,000 has been spent in Isla Vista.

Total Quimby allocated since 1980

Total Recreation Impact Mitigation fees allocated since 1980

South Coast Recreation Demand Area Total

$2,019,350

$161,860

Isla Vista area $79,300 $5,300 Response 14-3 Please see Response 14-2. Response 14-4 Mitigation Measure Fire-2 requires new development to pay standard Fire Department fees and addresses the impact of new development and the necessary funding for fire protection services. In addition, new development in Isla Vista will be subject to the Fire Special District Assessment which locks in 10% of 1%property tax specifically to the Fire Department to provide services to Isla Vista. No revisions are necessary. Please also see Response 10-2. Response 14-5 The County would take the lead for funding, construction, and maintenance of the bluff trails on the properties owned by the County, as shown on Figure 3.11-1 and identified as proposed or existing trails on Figure 3.11-4 in the EIR. No new trails are proposed on IVRPD owned land, as illustrated in Figure 3.11-4. With regards to the funding part of this comment, please refer to Response 14-3. Response 14-6 Please see Response 9-2. Response 14-7 The comment is noted. The information provided in comment 14-7 is now included in the Final EIR as part of your comment.



Response 14-8 The commenter’s opinion regarding the present design and configuration of the downtown park is acknowledged. Section 3.11 and 4.5 discuss the existing setting of the downtown parks. IVRPD has retained a design firm to develop a concept plan for the downtown parks. A public workshop to gather community input was held in June 2006, another public workshop to review draft concepts plans is tentatively scheduled for early 2007. The commenter’s opinion will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. Response 14-9 Please see Response 14-8. Response 14-10 The comment is noted. As this comment does not relate to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the EIR, no response is required. Response 14-11 Please see Responses 14-7 and 14-8. Response 14-12 Please see Response 14-8. Currently, the location of the uses in Phase 2, such as the children’s playground and the monument, has not been established. Response 14-13 The existing runoff problem around the Embarcadero Loop is an existing condition, and is not caused by the proposed project. Surface water and storm water impacts resulting from the project are discussed in Section 3.9 of the EIR. No further analysis or mitigation is required. Response 14-14 Please see Response 14-8. Because the wetland provides limited wildlife and vegetation habitat, as discussed in Section 4.5.2 of the EIR a habitat management plan is not necessary to reduce impacts from improvement or maintenance activities in the parks. Implementation of mitigation measures PARK-BIO-1a, PARK-BIO-1b, PARK-BIO-2, and PARK-BIO-3 will reduce impacts to downtown parks biological resources to less than significant. Response 14-15 Information regarding the Isla Vista Community Center was provided by IVRPD. The Frisbee golf course does not qualify as an historic resource according to the County Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual. The IVRPD may choose to implement the



recommended Mitigation Measure CC-REC-3, to explore options for relocating a Frisbee golf course within Isla Vista or on the UCSB campus. Although the loss of the Frisbee golf course is not considered significant, project-related impacts to the Frisbee golf course can be mitigated by relocation. Response 14-16 Table 4.4-5 was incorrectly formatted; the rows for the project trip generation were not aligning with the IV Community Center component. Table 4.4-5 has been revised in response to the comment. The information, assumptions, and conclusions from Table 4.4-5 were derived from Isla Vista Community Center Project Traffic, Circulation and Parking Study, (Associated Transportation Engineers, May 14, 2004) prepared for the IVRPD.

Response 14-17 Water quality impacts associated with the community center parking lot construction would be mitigated by Section 3.9 mitigation measures HYD-1, HYD-2, and HYD-3, and the site specific Mitigation CC-HYD-1. All of theses mitigation measures require the use of permeable surfaces to the maximum extent feasible.

Response 14-18 While the community gardens and Sueno Orchard are viewed as important components of the community, they do not qualify as an agricultural resource in the County’s Environmental Threshold and Guidelines Manual. Impacts to the community garden and Sueno Orchard are discussed in Sections 3.11, 3.2, and other impact issue areas in section 4.4. The Watershed Environmental Biological Assessment for Estero Park (March 2004) indicates the park is relatively small and surrounded by urban development, so birds were the only wildlife surveyed at the park. The birds surveyed would still be able to use the landscaped trees planted as part of the community center project using predominately California native trees.

Response 14-19 None of the bird species listed in the comment are considered sensitive. The majority of the birds listed in the comment are included in the Draft EIR on pages 3.5-4, 4.4-16, and 4.4-17. The Say’s phoebe and Anna’s hummingbird are the only two birds that were not listed in the Draft EIR and both have been added to the Final EIR on pages 3.5-4 and 4.4-16. A site visit of Perfect Park by a County biologist in February 2006 concluded that the park does not meet any of the Environmentally Sensitive Habitat criteria under the Local Coastal Plan. There are no unique, rare, or fragile communities; no rare and endangered species or their habitats; no specialized wildlife habitats; no outstanding representative natural



communities; and no biological-productivity or structurally important areas. At slightly more than half an acre, the site is too small to be considered a viable wildlife habitat. Response 14-20 The comment is noted. The information provided in comment 14-20 is now included in the Final EIR as part of your comment. Response 14-21 Currently, there is an imbalance between active and passive recreational opportunities in Isla Vista. Development of the Community Center, and associated active recreation facilities, would help to reduce the imbalance. While the passive recreational space does not provide the same function as active recreational space, both types of open space are valuable assets to the community and provide undeveloped areas for residents to enjoy. Also, as stated in the Watershed Environmental Biological Assessment for Estero Park (March 2004), the park is relatively small and surrounded by urban development, so birds were the only wildlife surveyed at the park. The birds surveyed were not sensitive, and would still be able to use the landscaped trees that would be planted as part of the community center project using predominately California native trees. Response 14-22 This comment is unclear and the County does not understand how the calculations are derived in the table. No further response is required. Response 14-23 The comment is noted. As this comment does not relate to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the EIR, no response is required. The commenter’s opinion will be forwarded to the decision makers. As of November 1, 2006 the County had not received a copy of IVRPD policies.

From: Legendary Surfer [[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 1:35 PM To: Lindgren, Jeff Subject: DEIR Draft IVMP 2003 - Comments by Malcolm Gault-Williams

Jeff Lindgren ~ I received an "out of office" reply in attempting to send this to Jamie Goldstein by the comment deadline of 7/14/2006. The automatic reply indicated you are handling some of his correspondence while he is away. Below, please find my comments on the DEIR for the draft IVMP 2003. Please email me back that you have received this... Thanks much, Malcolm

TO: Jamie Goldstein, Deputy Director, [email protected] 105 E. Anapamu St., Room 303 • Santa Barbara, CA 93101 • (805) 884-8050 • FAX (805) 568-2016

FR: Malcolm Gault-Williams • [email protected] • (805) 966-3376

DT: 13 July 2006

RE: Comments on the Draft EIR of the Draft Isla Vista Master Plan (2003)

By way of introduction, I am Malcolm Gault-Williams, a former resident of Isla Vista on-and-off between the years 1969-1993 and an Isla Vista historian. In the mid-1980's, I was elected to two governmental bodies: the last Isla Vista Community Council (IVCC) and the Isla Vista Recreation and Park District (IVRPD). Additionally, I was appointed to the last Isla Vista Municipal Advisory Committee (IVMAC) by the Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors. While my book "DON'T BANK ON AMERIKA: The History of the Isla Vista Riots of 1970" remains the definitive study of the student movement in Isla Vista and at UCSB, 1968-1971, this study also covers the subject of how Isla Vista was developed during the first half of the 20th Century. I bring these credentials to your attention so that you understand that the following comments and observations I have on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) on the Draft Isla Vista Master Plan 2003 ("The Plan") come from a person who not only has a long history of involvement in Isla Vista, but is a former elected official from that community, has served the community and its residents for a number of years, and one who has studiedthe historical causes for the situation Isla Vista finds itself in, today.

That Isla Vista has long needed a redevelopment plan backed up with suitable financial resources has been recognized since at least 1970 (UC Trow Commission Report, 1970). That the County of Santa Barbara is committed to implement a master plan redevelopment for Isla Vista is certainly a positive and long-overdue development for the community as a whole. A reading of The Plan shows that much staff time has been devoted to this end. In short, an Isla Vista Master Plan meeting the needs and desires of its residents is a great opportunity for Isla Vista.

Letter 15

15-1

This opportunity being recognized, however, I am compelled to draw your attention to the fact that both The Plan and its DEIR are based on two fundamentally flawed assumptions. These are: 1) That Isla Vista needs more housing; and 2) That increased vehicular parking wouldbenefit the community.

1) HOUSING

Isla Vista comprises Santa Barbara County's most densely populated community. It is probably the most densely populated community north of Los Angeles and south of San Francisco. How would an increase in its population benefit this area that is already impacted by overcrowding? How is it to be justified? Any substantive increase in the level of additional housing in Isla Vista must certainly be recognized as a renewed effort on the part of the University of California to house more of its student population in I.V. It was precisely this intent that caused Isla Vista's overcrowding in the first place, in the 1960's. Additional housing in Isla Vista would be a boon for UCSB, enabling it to increase enrollments. So, the question must be asked: who is to benefit from increased housing in Isla Vista? It's residents or the University of California?

It is not additional housing that is needed in Isla Vista, it is improved housing. Toward that end, a studied Project Alternative similar to the DEIR's Alternative 6 should be considered, where incentives are given existing property owners to upgrade their buildings, but withoutthe sizeable increase in population densities outlined in the DEIR and its other proposed alternatives (excepting Alternative 1 "No Plan").

2) PARKING

To my knowledge, there has never been a majority expression on the part of Isla Vistans for more parking in Isla Vista. In fact, the opposite has been true. Community leaders representing their constituencies have consistently moved ahead to find more open space, enhance that open space, and encourage the use of bicycles over motorized vehicles. Much of the recent problems with parking have been caused by students and staff at the University who choose to park for free in Isla Vista rather than pay for parking at UCSB. Instead of listening to these voices addressing a basically University parking problem, the county needs to consider the historical positions the community has taken toward vehicular use in Isla Vista over the course of the past 36 years.To this end, a project Alternative built around AUTO-REDUCTION should be included in the DEIR on the 2003 Isla Vista Master Plan.

IN SUMMARY/FORMAL REQUESTS:

1) I formally request that a Project Alternative based on HOUSING & BUILDING INCENTIVES WITHOUT INCREASES TO LOCAL POPULATION be included in the DEIR of the 2003 Draft Isla Vista Master Plan.

15-1Cont.

15-2

15-3

15-4

Also:2) I formally request that a project Alternative built around AUTO-REDUCTION be included in the DEIR on the 2003 Draft Isla Vista Master Plan.

Sincerely,

Malcolm Gault-Williams

(805)[email protected] http://www.legendarysurfers.com/sr/ 1019 Quinientos Street #2 Santa Barbara, California 93103

--MALCOLM GAULT-WILLIAMS [email protected] [email protected] Malc's Jukebox: http://music.yahoo.com/lc/?rt=0&rp1=0&rp2=1286643444

15-4Cont.



15. Malcolm Gault-Williams, via email on July 13, 2006 Response 15-1 The commenter’s support of redevelopment in Isla Vista is acknowledged. As this comment does not relate to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the EIR, no response is required. The commenter’s opinion will be forwarded to the decision makers. Response 15-2 The policy issues raised by the commenter related to the merits of the proposed project will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration.

Alternative 2 proposes some additional incentives for property owners to upgrade, but without the same increase in density as the proposed project. While Alternative 2 would potentially result in 904 new residential units, this alternative reduces residential build out by reducing proposed residential land use densities when compared to the proposed project. The form-based land use regulations would still be adopted as part of the project, but would be modified to allow lower residential densities.

Per Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Program EIR examines a range of reasonable alternatives that “would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate comparative merits of the alternatives.”

County staff worked with the County Board of Supervisors, the Project Area Committee, and the Development Agency Executive Director, and Treasurer to develop the range of reasonable alternatives that are feasible and would meet most of the project objectives. No additional project alternatives are necessary.

Responses 15-3

The proposed project emphasizes reducing automobile dependency in Isla Vista through: managing the quantity and location of parking in both residential and commercial areas, providing convenient and affordable public transit services, developing a “car-sharing” program, and improving the pedestrian and bicyclist environment. On-site parking standards for the downtown are proposed to be modified to encourage occupation by people who do not own cars. Parking standards in residential areas are proposed to be adjusted to more accurately account for actual parking demand.

Please see Response 15-2.

Responses 15-4 Please see Response 15-2 and 15-3.

Fred Stang 1 IVDEIR and IVMP Comments

COMMENTS ON ISLA VISTA MASTER PLAN AND DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

By Fred Stang Former Isla Visa Resident (1972-1976)

IVCC Councilperson (1974-1975) [email protected]

Implementation of this Isla Vista Master Plan would take the community in a direction irrevocably away from its roots and its enduring traditions, as articulated through the years by its residents and elected leadership.

The Uniqueness of Isla Vista and Its Historical AntecedentsSince the early 1970s, when a tradition of community activism arose in response to

events nationwide and on the University of California at Santa Barbara (“UCSB”) campus, Isla Vista (“IV”) has been in a process of developing a vision of what “community” means. As a result of these efforts, IV has made for itself a unique identity and character, which has put its stamp on local institutions, co-ops, park developments and public events.

Simultaneously, IV faced unique challenges, due to haphazard original development of residential and commercial buildings, a large “transient” student population, and its nature as, to a large degree, a residential area for students attending UCSB.

Over time, the IV community came to stand for certain common ideas, which were maintained by long-term residents and which incoming students mostly embraced as they proceeded through their educational careers. The IV experience became a part of these students’ educations. Many become active themselves in IV politics, on the Isla Vista Community Council (IVCC”) when it was active, the Isla Vista Recreation and Parks District (“IVRPD”) and other community organizations.

Whenever elections or polls were held in IV, the majority of residents voted to support, maintain and perpetuate these common ideas of what “IV” should be. They are the essence of what makes IV unique.

They include as a central idea that alternative transportation should be encouraged rather than the use of automobiles, especially to get around within IV, which is small enough that walking and bicycling are more appropriate and practical means of transportation within IV than driving. This idea was implemented in various ways, often via community action (creating mini-parks in the middle of streets and placing strategically located speed bumps, for example) and often by social means (developing a “bicycle culture”). Mini-buses came into being in the mid-70s to help IV residents travel to and from Goleta and Santa Barbara and to hook up with the transportation networks of these communities.

Automobile Use, “Natural Growth” Land Areas and Population Density in IVThe discouragement of automobile usage within IV is the major physical component

defining how IV “feels” when you are living in or visiting the community. A second major component is the idea that “open” and “natural growth” land areas should be encouraged versus

Letter 16

16-1

16-2


manicured, extensively landscaped and “semi-paved” parks and open land spaces. A third major component has been managing the density of the population of IV.

Any Isla Vista Master Plan (“IVMP”) needs to take these ideas into account if Isla Vista is to retain its local character. The current Master Plan falls short of accomplishing this and goes too far in proposing changes that would irreparably alter the physical and psychical “landscape” of IV. Some of these proposed changes have the support of some long-term residents of IV and their outlook is important, since they represent the enduring rather than “transient” population of the community, but among these long-term residents opinion is split. Overall, the majority of Isla Vistans have made it clear that there are particular changes they do NOT want. In terms of the physical layout of IV, two of the above-mentioned ideas-in-action (reducing automobile usage and having “natural-growth” open spaces) would be adversely impacted by the proposed IVMP. Certainly, the IVMP does not have much to offer in terms of managing the population growth of IV and mitigating its effects. It is just assumed that IV needs to expand its residential capacity to whatever degree UCSB and Santa Barbara County desire. If completed, the IVMP’s proposed changes would be irrevocable and IV would never have the character that its residents desire and have sought for many long years.

Parking Alternatives and Reduction of Automobile Use in IVFor me, the single most significant adverse impact would be carrying out the building of

a parking lot followed by a parking structure. To have a large parking lot in the middle of such a small and densely populated area cannot help but destroy the “feel” of the community. The same is true of a parking structure, which would make up in height and massiveness for its reduced expansiveness. Either the lot or the structure would encourage the use of automobiles for transportation within IV and discourage pedestrian and bicycle traffic.

Table ES-1 of the Executive Summary of the IV Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) lists seven “significant and unavoidable” impacts of the IVMP. Four out of these seven are caused by increased automobile usage within IV. They have to do with Air Quality, Parking, Noise, and Traffic. Air quality deterioration will mainly be due to increased automobile usage, resulting in vehicle emissions. Most of the noise impact that is not construction-related will be due to increased automobile usage. Unavoidable parking and traffic problems are clearly due to increased automobile usage.

The mitigations offered do not help much. They consist of using solar panels, designed to maximize the availability of natural light and to use natural gas and advanced combustion fireplaces. This means that reducing the use of natural wood-burning fireplaces, etc, is to be seriously considered as a mitigation to the addition of a great number of automobiles, which is clearly inadequate. For the most part, the IVMP just accepts that these impacts will have to be tolerated.

No consideration is given to alternative parking arrangements. There is no mention of UCSB having any responsibility for providing parking within its land use. The DEIR acknowledges that “parking problems in the downtown and residential areas have been exacerbated by the UCSB staff and students parking for free in Isla Vista rather than on campus, and by an escalating car ownership rate among Isla Vista residents, particularly students.” (UCSB benefits from IV in other more intangible ways as well. Students selecting UCSB are often also selecting IV as the place they would like to live for a significant portion of their lives. The construction of more “green” buildings on campus is an indication of a common interest with IV concerns.)

Further, no consideration is given to providing parking outside “Isla Vista proper.” There are open land spaces between IV proper (demarcated at El Colegio Road) and Hollister Avenue and between Storke Road and Los Carneros Road. A parking lot or low-lying parking structure (perhaps partially underground) could be built there, with a shuttle provided to drop-off points in

16-2Cont.

16-3


IV proper. (It would have to be low-lying to prevent impeding the view from IV proper.) UCSB could provide parking spaces and shuttles as well.

In both possibilities, it is easy for parkers to use shuttles or bicycles to get to the main parking areas, then travel from there to more remote locations. This would maintain a vision of IV traffic as consisting to a large degree of pedestrian, bicycle, mini-bus and shuttle transportation, with automobile usage minimized to as great a degree as it can reasonably be.

Parks, Open Land Areas and the “Natural Growth” PrincipleOn the matter of proposed park alterations, the illustrations indicate a very “suburban”

landscaped look, with paved walkways, manicured grassy areas and very “blocky” structures. In some cases the proposed “after” simulations look worse than the real “before” pictures. The DEIR acknowledges that some areas and structures of IV have a historical interest. Certainly over 35 years of community development proceeded under certain guidelines that did not include the idea of creating out of IV a semi-paved, fully “designed” and landscaped appearance, but rather emphasized that IV have a “natural” and less “cosmeticized” look, with “natural growth” encouraged in its parks. I doubt that IV residents want to feel like they are “on-campus” when they are traveling about their town.

IV has managed, often with limited resources, to allow for bicycle paths, walkways, mini-parks and other developments to be built without damaging the overall feel of the parks that are allowed to have more natural growth. The natural growth areas have been maintained by Isla Vistans (mainly through the IVRPD) to protect against natural hazards that fully “wild” areas would present (stagnant water, rampant insect life, and the like).

I believe most IV residents would like to see an IVMP that preserved and improved such natural growth areas rather than proposing an excessive “manicuring” of these areas. Certain familiar structures should be incorporated into new designs. Renovating them might be called for but taking them down completely is not necessary or desirable.

Population Density of IVA further concern I have with the IVMP and the alternatives considered in the DEIR is

that it is assumed that IV will accommodate itself to the population growth of UCSB and its accompanying need for expanded residential units. While this is to some degree inevitable since IV is a university community, no plans are considered that would mitigate an increase in IV’s population. IV is already a dense population area and needs a curb on population growth rather than a plan that claims that IV is “ideal” for expanded residential development. Housing on campus and the option for students to reside in Goleta have not been articulated in the IVMP and DEIR, which leads one to the conclusion that the Plan does not have the best interests of Isla Vista at heart, but rather the interests of UCSB and Santa Barbara County, especially in this area of concern.

Community Continuity and Vision for IVA feeling of continuity is important to any community. IV has had some difficulty with

providing such a feeling because of the haphazardness of most of the original development (which provided a wretched basis for the beginning of community planning in IV) and because of the “transient” nature of the student population (which is not always conducive to continuity).

Before Santa Barbara County and UCSB took up this recent interest in the long-term development of IV as a community, the groundwork was laid by Isla Vistans often working on a shoestring budget and doing the best they could with what they had. They were able to provide a vision whether or not they could always afford to implement that vision. That vision is historically central to Isla Vista’s local identity.

16-3Cont.

16-4

16-5

16-6


SummaryAny proposed Master Plan for Isla Vista needs to take into account the unique identity,

traditions and character of Isla Vista as well as its unique problems. What is good in Isla Vista needs to be preserved. Improvements should be based on and carried forward from the basis already laid down by Isla Vistans themselves. Taking seriously the above-raised concerns about parking, automobile traffic, natural land use and expanded residential development would go far toward preserving and improving the look and feel of Isla Vista, which is what a clear majority of Isla Vista residents want.

FORMAL REQUESTS (3 in all)

1. I formally request that a project Alternative built around auto-reduction be included in the DEIR on the 2003 Isla Vista Master Plan.

2. I formally request that an Alternative for park and open land usage and design modeled on the “natural growth” principle be included in the DEIR on the IVMP. This would include renovating specific “historically significant” structures, rather than simply developing all land areas from scratch, in the interest of providing continuity to the community.

3. I formally request that Alternatives to housing all the increased student population of UCSB in IV be included in the DEIR on the IVMP, based on the idea that IV does NOT have to accommodate itself entirely to the population growth needs of UCSB. Housing students elsewhere (on campus, Goleta, etc) would be specified as an alternative to expanding IV’s already overdeveloped and crowded residential areas.

ADDENDUM

Please note that I have also endorsed Carmen Lodise’s commentary on the IVMP and IV DEIR regarding Auto-Reduction. – FS

16-9

16-8

16-7



16. Fred Stang, via email on July 13, 2006 Response 16-1 Please see Responses 4-1 and 14-7. The commenter’s opinions are acknowledged. As this comment does not relate to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the EIR, no response is required. The commenter’s opinion will be forwarded to the decision makers. Response 16-2 Please see Response 4-1. The commenter’s opinions are acknowledged. As this comment does not relate to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the EIR, no response is required. The commenter’s opinion will be forwarded to the decision makers. Response 16-3 To the extent details regarding the proposed parking structure are currently known, the environmental impacts associated with the project is assessed in Section 4.3. Significant impacts to air quality, traffic, and parking can be attributed to automobile use. Noise Impacts NSE-1 is related to increased operational noise associated with new residential units and commercial uses as well as increased vehicle trips. Your comments regarding the proposed mitigation measures will be forwarded to the decision makers. Please see Response 13-29 regarding UCSB parking. In addition, the County has approved a parking permit program intended to reduce the impacts of UCSB parking on the Isla Vista community. It is unclear what other ‘alternative parking arrangements’ the commenter would like the County to consider. The property suggested by the commenter for a parking structure is located in the City of Goleta and is not under the jurisdiction of Santa Barbara County. The commenter’s opinion regarding the preferred location for a parking structure will be forwarded to the decision makers. Please see Response 4-1. Response 16-4 The assessment of aesthetic impacts involves qualitative analysis that is inherently subjective in nature. Different viewers may have varying opinions and reactions to changes to a view-



shed and the appearance of new buildings and structures. The commenter’s opinion regarding visual impacts of the proposed project will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. Response 16-5 The commenter’s opinion is acknowledged. As this comment does not relate to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the EIR, no response is required. The commenter’s opinion will be forwarded to the decision makers. Response 16-6 The commenter’s opinion is acknowledged. As this comment does not relate to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the EIR, no response is required. The commenter’s opinion will be forwarded to the decision makers. Response 16-7 The commenter’s opinion is acknowledged. As this comment does not relate to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the EIR, no response is required. The commenter’s opinion will be forwarded to the decision makers. Response 16-8 The housing goal and policies of the IVMP are not intended to support housing for students only. Specifically, the IVMP states, “Housing Goal: Produce new housing that is well-designed and affordable to all sectors of the Isla Vista community, including families, students, area workers and UCSB faculty and staff, and improve existing housing stock through creative public private partnerships.” Please also see Responses 14-8, 15-3, 20-33, 23-4 and 27-5. Response 16-9 The comment is noted that commenter endorses Carmen Lodise’s comments on the IVMP and the Draft EIR (Letter 27). The commenter’s opinion will be forwarded to the decision makers.

Steve Mass IV Master Plan Draft EIR Comment.txtFrom: Steve Maas [[email protected]]Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 1:57 PMTo: Lindgren, JeffSubject: FW: IV Master Plan Draft EIR Comment

Attachments: Letter IVMP DEIR Comment.pdf

Jeff,I am forwarding this comment to you because of the out-of-office auto reply from Jamie.Thank you, Steve Maas

______________________________________________From: Steve MaasSent: Friday, July 14, 2006 01:55 PM To: Jamie Goldstein ([email protected]) Cc: Sherrie Fisher Subject: IV Master Plan Draft EIR Comment

Jamie,The attached file is a letter from MTD commenting on the Isla Vista Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. The original of the letter will follow in hard copy. Please contact me if you have any questions.

Thank you, Steve Maas

<<Letter IVMP DEIR Comment.pdf>>

Steven E. Maas, AICP Manager of Strategic Planning & Compliance Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District 550 Olive Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Phone: (805) 963-3364 Fax: (805) 962-4794 E-Mail: [email protected]

Page 1

Letter 17

17-1

July 14, 2006

Jamie Goldstein Santa Barbara County 105 E. Anapamu St., Room 303 Santa Barbara, CA 93101

Dear Mr. Goldstein:

The Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District (MTD) has the following comment on the Isla Vista Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report.

Impacts to public transit service within Isla Vista and the neighboring City of Goleta, and associated mitigation to meet the increased demand for public transit service that will be created by the project, are not analyzed. The analysis of project impacts should focus not only on impacts to vehicle users but should also include impacts to local and express MTD transit services and the users of the services.

Enhanced public transit service would result in a reduction of traffic impacts within Isla Vista and the City of Goleta. Students of both the University of California at Santa Barbara and Santa Barbara City College can ride MTD buses for free, as their registration fee includes a bus pass. Thus, enhanced transit service is likely to result in substantial increases in ridership.

It is important to note that public transit service (as is the case with all other modes of transportation) requires a public subsidy. Each hour of service that MTD provides recovers, on average, approximately 42 percent of the operating cost through the farebox revenue. Public subsidies must provide the remaining 58 percent of the cost for each hour of service. MTD is already utilizing all of the funds that are available to the agency for transit service. Thus, any enhancement to transit service will require additional public subsidy to be provided to MTD.

Sincerely,

Steven E. Maas, AICP Manager of Strategic Planning & Compliance

17-2

17-3

17-4

17-5



17. Steve Maas, Manager of Strategic Planning & Compliance, Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District, via email on July 14, 2006 Responses 17-1 This comment provides an introduction to the Steve Mass’ comments on the Draft EIR. No response is required. Responses 17-2 This comment provides an introduction to the Steve Mass’ comments on the Draft EIR. No response is required. Response 17-3 In response to the comment, new text has been added and existing text revised in Section 3-13 of the EIR regarding the existing transit setting. Completing an analysis on impacts to public transit for both vehicle users and Metropolitan Transit District (MTD) transit services and the users of the services as suggested by the commenter would be purely speculative in nature. It would difficult to analyze impacts on potential ridership, when it is not known how many, or where, new residents would travel to and from. Further, the County does not have thresholds to analyze impacts on public transit.

Changes proposed in the Draft IVMP seek to further cultivate Isla Vista as a transit hub by enhancing key transit supporting urban design elements. Isla Vista’s residential density provides sufficient customers within walking or bicycling distance of transit stops to allow the transit system to run efficiently. Transit stops are centrally and conveniently located and service allows riders to reach their destinations easily. The network of interconnected streets and scale of buildings create a pedestrian and bicycle friendly environment. In general, the cost of providing transit service decreases as population densities increase. Since Isla Vista is one of the most dense urban communities within MTD’s service boundaries, as the population of Isla Vista increases the cost of providing increased service is expected to become more cost effective. Response 17-4 Ridership would most likely increase with enhanced public transit service and traffic impacts would be reduced as a result. As noted in Section 3.13 of the EIR, because the proposed residential units would be occupied by college students, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) rates for average daily trips (ADT) were reduced by 5% and the ITE rates for the P.M. peak hour were reduced by 20% to account for alternative modes of transportation that are commonly used by college students that reside in the UCSB/Isla Vista area (i.e. bicycle, bus, walking). This is consistent with factors contained in the Goleta Traffic Model and for other traffic studies completed for UCSB student housing projects within the Isla Vista area.



Response 17-5 Please see Response 17-3. MTD will benefit from GTIP fees generated by new development in the proposed project area. Those fees can be used to fund non-operational capital improvements.

From: Kathryn Miller [[email protected]] Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 2:56 PM To: Lindgren, Jeff Subject: comments on IVMP DEIR

Attachments: IV Draft EIR.doc

Hello,I faxed my comments on the IVMP DEIR to Jamie Goldstein's office but later was told via Diane K. to send them to you. Enclosed is a copy of our statement regarding the master plan DEIR for Isla Vista. ThanksKathryn Miller 874 Fortuna Lane Isla Vista, CA

Letter 18

Draft EIR/IVMP Kathryn Miller / Michael Honer p.1

County Executive Office 105 East Anapamu Street Room 303 Santa Barbara, CA 93101

July 14, 2006

To Jamie Goldstein, Deputy Director and members of the County Executive Office:

The purpose of this letter is to provide comments on the adequacy of the draft EIR on the environmental consequences associated with the implementation of the Isla Vista Master Plan. Thank you for your thorough document, which has allowed us, as homeowners in Isla Vista, to carefully reference particular items in our comments.

In addition to our comments below we would like to formally request that an Auto-Reduction Project Alternative be studied (submitted by Carmen Lodise) and want to be on record as supporting all the points set forth by Isla Vista home owners Rick and Janet Stich in a letter to the County dated June 27, 2006.

2.0 Project Description

We believe that the addition of 1,447 new units and approximately 4,355 people and therefore approximately 4,355 cars is an ecologically disastrous concept with unknown consequences not addressed in your Draft EIR. Project 1 (no change) and Project 2 (minimum build out) are the only acceptable proposals.

Section 3.12 Land Use and Population

How will Policies 5-5 through 5-10 be monitored and enforced?

Section 3.1.3 Thresholds of Significance

“There are no adopted County thresholds for land use, population and housing impacts”

We think all these points mentioned in Section 3.1.3 must be studied thoroughly before going forward on ANY redevelopment plans for Isla Vista. Specifically:

Section c. “Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.”

Section d. “Induce substantial population growth in an area.”

18-1

18-2

18-3

18-4

18-5

Draft EIR/IVMP Kathryn Miller/Michael Honer p. 2

The Master Plan proposes to add a substantial increase in population to an area that already has 18,000-20,000 people packed into approximately 1/2 square mile.

We feel that “Loss of privacy, noise nuisance levels, and traffic” have not adequately been considered or studied. As residents we feel that the current level of noise pollution is already at an all-time high, especially during weekend evenings and early mornings. We don’t see this addressed in relation to the addition of a population that will surely add to this current level of noise.

Section 3.1.4 Project Impacts

According to the DEIR “while currently there are no habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans applicable to the project site,” the indirect effect of adding a substantial number of people, buildings and cars will most directly affect the adjacent beach, ocean and creek habitats.

Who are you kidding? It’s already an extremely stressed ecosystem. I have ample documentation to prove this.

Section 3.5 Biological Resources

We believe that wherever the following words appear in the DEIR: “potentiallysignificant indirect impacts on biological resources, potentially significant impacts and adverse but less than significant levels”, that these areas need to be revisited, carefully studied and placed in the context that these are our current standards which most likely will become more stringent in the near future as we further evaluate the effects of the built environment on our wildlife habitats.

Section 3.5.2 Regulatory Framework

“Build-out under the Goleta Community Plan (GCP) was found in the GCP EIR (Santa Barbara County 1992) to result in significant, unavoidable (Class I) impacts on environmentally sensitive habitats, foraging areas, nesting and breeding areas, plant life diversity, animal species, wetlands (through loss) and stream quality (resulting from degradation due to urbanization).”

We are all interconnected and inter-dependent. Is this information being disregarded? The mitigation efforts offered up do not offset potential damage from building and stressing the biological systems in place.

18-6

18-7

18-8

18-9

18-5Cont.

Draft EIR IVMP K. Miller/M. Honer p.3

Policy BI0-GV-11

“Wetland areas and surrounding habitats that have been damaged by pollution and artificial stream channelization shall be restored to their natural condition to the maximum extent feasible.”

We ask who will enforce this and what are the standards set for ‘maximum extent feasible’?

Section 3.7 Geologic Hazards

3.7.1 “There are few defined natural drainage courses in the project area. Almost all the run off in the project area is conveyed to the Pacific Ocean through urban infrastructure such as street gutters and drains”.

We know urban build-up only adds to urban run-off pollution including liquid, chemical, and solid debris. We don’t feel this has been addressed adequately if the IVMP is implemented.

Section 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality

3.9.1 “There are few defined natural drainage courses in the project area. Almost all the run off in the project area is discharged to the Pacific Ocean”.

“The primary source of water pollution comes from the untreated run off flowing through gutters and storm drains into natural stream courses…These inputs contain high bacterial counts and viruses, are toxic to marine life and carry garbage and silt that litter the ocean and its beaches and kill or injure wildlife.”

“Public works emptied 1.2 tons of trash from the first Continuous Deflective Separation (CDS) unit (on Del Playa) after only 10 months of operation.”

We ask how will the county address and adequately correct problems relating to the build-out and increased water contamination and pollution to contain and clean run off before it goes into the creeks and the ocean? This section does not even begin to address all the materials (furniture, trash, etc.) that are jettisoned from the apartments along Del playa directly onto the beach at its current level of density.

3.9 Impact HYD-3IVMP

“Projects that increase impervious surfaces by less than 25% are generally considered to be insignificant; however, due to the storm drain capacity issues

18-10

18-11

18-12

18-13

DEIR IVMP K. Miller/ M. Honer p.4

that currently exist in Isla Vista, run off from these projects could create a potentially significant impact.”

“The implementation of the IVMP will contribute a significant amount of this cumulative growth to the area (1,447 housing units and 51,485 sf of commercial development). As a result the project’s cumulative impacts to hydrology and water quality are significant and unavoidable.”

Build out would necessarily increase surface run off. We find this unacceptable.

3.10 Noise

Impact NSF-2 “However, with an increase in population, general community noise will likely increase.”

What is in place to address this issue that is already intolerable on weekend nights? The noise from traffic, transportation and the airport pale in comparison to the noise generated by a significant per cent of Isla Vista residents. The DEIR does not address this at all.Please do further studies on this matter as it impacts the type of people who could potentially move into this area to establish a better balance in age groups.

Thank you for considering our comments on the IVMP DEIR.

Sincerely,

Kathryn Miller and Michael Honer Residents, Isla Vista

18-13Cont.

18-14



18. Kathryn Miller and Michael Honer, via email on July 14, 2006 Response 18-1 The comment provides an introduction to the Kathryn Miller’s comments on the Draft EIR. No response is required. Response 18-2 The comment is noted that commenter endorses Carmen Lodise’s and Rick and Janet Stich’s comments on the IVMP and the Draft EIR (Letters 9 and 27). The commenter’s opinion will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. Response 18-3 The land use/zoning designation changes proposed in the Draft IVMP could increase potential residential build-out from approximately 646 new units under current zoning to a maximum of 1,447 new units. This development could potentially result in a population increase of 4,355 people. The Draft EIR for the IVMP analyzes all environmental impacts of the proposed project at the full build-out scenario and identifies all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the impacts associated the implementation of the IVMP. The comment is noted that the commenter prefers Alternative 1, No Project Alternative and Alternative 2, Reduced Residential Build-out to the proposed project. The commenter’s opinion will be forwarded to the decision makers. Response 18-4 Policies 5-5 through 5-10 are existing County policies and the project does not propose any changes to them. Policies 5-5 through 5-10 are enforced during the entitlement process. As proposed projects move toward approval they are reviewed for compliance with County policy. No additional analysis is required. Response 18-5 As identified on page 3.1-16 of the Draft EIR, criterion c) from CEQA Appendix G does not apply to the proposed project because there are no habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans applicable to the project site. Additionally, criterion d) from CEQA Appendix G is analyzed on page 3.1-17 of the Draft EIR. No additional analysis is required. Response 18-6 See Response 9-1. The EIR provides adequate analysis of noise impacts. Impact NSE-2 on pages 3.10-7 and 3.10-8 of the Draft EIR describe the potential for increased ambient noise in the project area. Furthermore, Mitigation Measures NSE-4 and NSE-5 address noise sensitive



uses such as residential, schools, churches, and places of public assembly. No further analysis is required. Responses 18-7 Biological resources impacts are analyzed in Section 3.5 of the Draft EIR. The mitigation measures recommended for the biological resources impacts of the proposed project are reasonable and adequate and all impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level. The appropriate level of technical studies has been complete for the project and all studies are included in the technical appendices of the Draft EIR. No further analysis is required. Responses 18-8 Please see Response 18-7 Response 18-9 The statement of the significant and unavoidable biological resources impact from the Goleta Community Plan EIR was provided for a background on the County policies and development standards listed on pages 3.5-12 and 3.5-13 of the Draft EIR. This significant and unavoidable (Class I) impact is not a result of the proposed project. The proposed project does not result in any Class I biological resources impacts. Response 18-10 Policy BIO-GV-11 is an existing County policy and the project does not propose any changes to this policy. Policies are specific statements that implement goals and guide decision-making. Policies indicate a clear commitment by the local legislative body and are intended to guide discretionary County actions and programs. No additional analysis is required. Responses 18-11 and 18-12 Hydrology and water quality impacts, including runoff are adequately analyzed in Section 3.9 of the Draft EIR. The mitigation measures recommended for hydrology and water quality impacts include site planning measures, pollution prevention measures and treatment control measures to maximize infiltration and filter water to remove pollutants from runoff before it enters the storm drain system. These measures are reasonable and adequate and all project impacts would be mitigated to less than significant levels. No further analysis is required. Responses 18-12 Please see Response 18-11



Response 18-13 As acknowledged in Section 3.9 of the EIR, buildout of the project would result in significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts to hydrology and water quality, in part due to increased surface runoff. Mitigation Measures HYD 1-3 are intended to mitigate the project-specific impacts of the proposed project. No revisions to the EIR are necessary. Response 18-14 Please see Responses 9-1 and 18-6.

From: diane conn [[email protected]] Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 4:33 PM To: Lindgren, Jeff Cc: Dale Sumersille; Jeff Yolles; Eric Cummings Subject: IVRPD IVMP EIR comments

Attachments: 2582661361-IVRPD ivmp eir comments 2.DOC

hi Jeff,these comments have a few minor clarifications. however, i was not able to confer with the comment group. so i have submitted them before the deadline, but i'll check back in with you in the event that any item is not acceptable to the other people who have worked on the comments. thanks very much for your work on this project.best regards,diane comm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Want to be your own boss? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.

Letter 19

19-1

July 14, 2006

To: Jeff Lindgren From: Diane Conn Re: Isla Vista Master Plan Environmental Impact Report Comments Transmitted via email: "Lindgren, Jeff" [email protected]

The Isla Vista Recreation and Park District (IVRPD) submits these comments to the May 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared by the County of Santa Barbara for the Isla Vista Master Plan.

Public Entity Funding Issues

Funding of Recreational Resource Impacts. On page ES-52, Impact 3-11 -- Impact Rec-1, the Draft EIR states: “Build out of IVMP will increase demand for recreational facilities and neighborhood parks.” One of the mitigation measures is REC-1.2, which states in relevant part, “….the RDA and County Parks Department shall meet with IVRPD staff every five years review funding and IVRPD maintenance of county owned parks, open spaces, coastal access points and trails.” In addition, Open Space Policy 1 commits the parties to provide a park system that shall be enhanced to meet social and community needs and to provide more active recreational places. As discussed in the 1998 Master Plan, the cultural and ethnic diversity of the District community has grown with accompanied and increased demands for programs to serve the youth and the greater numbers of adults residing within the community. These changes require the provision of new forms of recreation. As a consequence, the IVRPD requests additional specificity as to park funding options, such as the imposition or increase in Quimby Act, Development Mitigation Fee Act and Redevelopment Agency funding of the additional demands on park services and resources. Without additional study and analysis, IVRPD cannot confirm that current sources of funding are sufficient to properly maintain future and additional recreation programming that will be needed for Isla Vista residents.

Funding for Recreational Resource Impacts. Page 3.11-6 discusses Quimby Fees and Park Development Mitigation Fees as sources of capital funding for parks, open space and trails. The IVRPD has the following questions regarding the amounts and uses of those fees. To date, what fees have been generated in Isla Vista since 1980? What fees have been spent in IV parks or directed to the IVRPD? What fees are anticipated to be generated based on the development of the IVMP and each alternative? Please clarify the permitted uses of park development mitigation fees and whether they can be used for maintenance. What type of mechanism could be established to direct some of these funds to the IVRPD? Are these fees intended to mitigate the impact of development arising from the IVMP to Parks, Open Space and Recreation?

Fire Protection Services. On Page ES-10, Impact 3-12 – Fire Protection Services, the Draft EIR states that “IVMP build out will increase demand on fire protection services.” In Mitigation Measure Fire 1, the Draft EIR states: “When funding is

County of Santa Barbara July 14, 2006 Page 2

903847-1

available, county shall provide for additional fire personnel for the UCSB/Isla Vista response area….” Not only due to the density of housing in the Isla Vista area alone, but due to the structural conditions (ES-94), funding of additional fire personnel needs to be developed through the land use entitlement and permit process. This could be accomplished with a fire services fee imposed on new development that is enacted pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act or imposed as an ad-hoc condition on discretionary development projects.

Trails, Bluffs and Plant Community Impact Funding. On page ES-54, Impact 3-11 - Parks, Open Space and Recreation, the Draft EIR states under Impact REC-2: “Expansion of the trail network could have impacts to bluff top erosion and sensitive plant communities.” The Draft EIR provides Mitigation Measure REC 2.1 that provides for construction of trails with pervious surfaces, signage and other elements. It also calls for maintenance of the bluffs. The IVRPD requests clarification as to which entity is taking the lead for funding and for this construction, signage, and maintenance. A condition on development is needed that would assist in these projects and funding obligations. This could be accomplished by the inclusion of this responsibility within the scope of the Quimby Act fees, the Mitigation Fee Act fees, or other funding mechanisms.

Police Service Funding. On page ES-81, Impact 3-12 related to Public Service and Utilities, the Draft EIR provides under Impact Police –that IVMP build out will not require an increase on police services. Due to the high crime rate, the high density and the large college age population in Isla Vista, funding of additional law enforcement is needed.

Downtown Parks Improvements (Anisq’Oyo, Perfect and People’s Park)

Summary of History of A-O and Perfect Park. IVRPD suggested that the environmental setting section regarding the Downtown Parks could be augmented to include information about the history and development of the parks. The following is a brief summary of some of some relevant historic information regarding the A-O and Perfect Parks. Perfect Park is a historical place in IV. It was the gathering place for many concerts, demonstrations and rallies from 1968-1972. On June 10, 1970 there was a demonstration there by all members of the Isla Vista community who were dissatisfied and fed-up with the curfew and the harassment by the sheriffs and police that occupied the town. While people were peacefully assembled, they were gassed, assaulted and beaten by the sheriff’s on their way to jail. This violent day was the beginning of the Trow Report and subsequent hearings that led to providing needed infrastructure to Isla Vista, including the IVRPD, IV Food Coop, IV Medical Clinic, IV Community Federal Credit Union, IV Foot Patrol, sidewalks and lighting. In 1993-4, the IVRPD General Manager attempted to bulldoze Perfect Park in order to install a volley ball court. At this time, the same thing was happening in People’s Park in Berkeley. Residents in Isla Vista organized to stop this, mobilized to elect an Isla Vista-friendly IVRPD Board, and then designed, contoured and planted Perfect Park, in cooperation with the IVRPD. To further


903847-1

commemorate Perfect Park, and the tradition of peaceful protest, organizing and empowerment, the Perfect Park Monument Implementation Committee was formed to plan and fundraise for a monument. The monument stands there today in honor of a place with rich historical and cultural meaning. It was designed to provide privacy, peace and quiet in an urban environment.

Impacts of Downtown Park Improvements. IVRPD suggests that the Environmental Setting regarding the Downtown Parks could be augmented to discuss how those parks operate in their present design and configuration. The park currently serves as a place of tranquility and seclusion in what is a congested urban environment. Many people in Isla Vista live with multiple roommates and in congested conditions. As a consequence, some members of the community believe that removing the contours of the park, and opening up the park visually, has the potential of reducing the seclusion that people may currently experience when using the park and thus will make the park less of a getaway from the urban environment.

Impacts from Current Users of the Park. Additional information regarding the current conditions in the park includes the following: One of the greatest barriers to the community’s use of the park is the people who occupy the park who are mentally ill, drunk, drugged, dirty and who regularly harass or shake down people who want to use the park. Some of these people are houseless, some are not, but they congregate together, take care of each other, and find a tolerant atmosphere in Isla Vista. They can panhandle, support their habits and spend the day in the park. Sometimes they use the bathrooms and sometimes they urinate and defecate in the parks. The antagonism between some IVRPD staff and individuals who occupy the park has led to vandalism. As a consequence, IVRPD regularly needs to repair bathroom doors, sinks etc. The IVRPD recognizes that people have a right to be in the park. However, until some positive intervention is done which changes this dynamic, people will not use certain areas of the park.

Use of Public Parking Lot near Downtown Parks. We are informed that the public parking lot adjacent to the downtown parks is restricted by a CUP with specific provisions to provide parking for the St. Athanasius Church; current parking in that lot is available by permit only.

Additional Clarifications. The AO Park amphitheatre slopes are often used by children as an informal slide, in addition to the slide that is there and therefore operates as an informal but active type of recreational use. There are 6 bathrooms (2 handicapped with sinks, 2 toilet only,. one urinal, 1 bathroom room with two sinks), at AO, the only public bathrooms in IV open 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Maintained trails in Perfect Park wind through native vegetation, specific to the IV mesa. There is also a monument to peaceful protest here that was a project of the IVRPD.


903847-1

Clarification of Noise Impacts from Amphitheater. The Draft EIR indicates that businesses now endure noise impacts from amphitheatre events. To date, the IVRPD has only received complaints from one businesses owner. Most of the businesses benefit from events at AO, because people buy food and beverages from those businesses.

Clarification of runoff problems. There is a runoff problem around the loop, especially because of soapy water and other materials that occasionally get dumped into the streets at those locations. It is recommended that Project Clean Water develop an education program to work with businesses owners and operators to reduce this problem.

Wetland Improvements. With respect to Impact Park BIO-1, and in order to improve this wetland, a design that engineers water circulation is necessary. In addition, a habitat management plan to maintain it and to harvest it without large machinery should be part of this plan, to increase its function and to reduce impacts from maintenance that reduces its function.

Comments Related to Estero Park Improvements

Frisbee Golf Course. On page 4.4-25, under Impact CC-REC3, the Draft EIR discusses the impacts from the loss of the Frisbee Golf Course from Estero Park. The Frisbee Golf Course is a unique recreational activity, that has been compatible with open space and habitat. It is a cultural resource as well as a recreational resource. This course has brought more visibility to Isla Vista residents of the existence of the IVRPD than many other projects. In the past, people have organized successful tournaments. This course was designed by the inventor of the Frisbee, Ed Hendrick, now deceased. In that respect, it operates as an historical resource. Originally, the IVRPD planned to install an 18 hole course, but there wasn’t a string of parks in close proximity that could be used. Holes were proposed on Camino Corto Open Space, and that was rejected due to objections by people on the west end, referring to the Camino Corto Master Plan and biological resource limitations. In addition, Frisbee golf is an activity accessible to all, regardless of physical ability. The loss of this course is a recreational impact, as well as a cultural and historical impact.

Trip Generation Rates for Community Center. Table 4.4-5 provides the number of employees who drive to and from Estero Park facilities. Are the numbers switched? The Draft EIR assumes no increase in cars used from IVTC staff. What is the source of that assumption? Some staff members drive now. The EIR table needs to adjust numbers to reflect drivers into Isla Vista. Community Center Parking Lot Construction. In order to fully mitigate water quality impacts, all parking surfaces and other hardscape must be permeable to the maximum extent feasible.

Comments on Impacts to Specific Environmental Resources


903847-1

Agricultural Resources. On page 4.4-15, the Draft EIR provides that there are no agricultural resources in the Isla Vista Community. While there are no parcels zoned “Agricultural”, the community gardens and Sueno Orchard are agricultural resources, for the gardener and for the community. The community gardens have been cultivated for over 30 years. These gardens provide subsistence farming for families. Gardening provides healthy, fresh food, it is also a recreational, educational and cultural activity. Sueno Orchard is not only home to many fruit trees, but has also served as a space for green art. It is also a space where active and passive activities can work in the same space. Both the gardens and Sueno orchard are unique open spaces that serve particular constituencies in Isla Vista. In addition, it is reported to the IVRPD that these spaces are used by birds and reptiles, mostly lizards and frogs.

Biological Resources. In the biological assessment by Watershed Environmental, the following sensitive species were noted and should be added to EIR: northern mockingbird, red-shouldered hawk, California towhee, yellow-rumped warbler, western scrub jay, white-crowned sparrow, Say’s phoebe, American crow, house finch, and Anna’s hummingbird. In addition, bluebirds come through Estero Park, in the spring or fall. In addition raptors, including hawks, and potentially a falcon, have been seen hunting at Perfect Park. There are numerous oak trees there, and hummingbirds and butterflies also utilize Perfect Park. Along the border between People’s Park and Perfect Park there is a row of sycamores that is planted in a natural drainage that may qualify as a wetland or environmentally sensitive area. These trees were not just planted for landscaping. The trees along the west side of People’s Park were planted to provide a screen and reduce park and street noise for the IV medical clinic.

Cultural/Historic Resources. On pages 4.4-19 – 4.4-20, the Draft EIR discusses the impacts of the project on the Red Barn. The Red Barn is a historical feature that served a farm that existed in Estero. The Pink House that was demolished, was the original farmhouse. (The existing bathrooms are a remnant of the house.) In addition, at one time the area where the IVTC is now, and the playing fields were once successfully dry farmed, while under IVRPD ownership. This area has a history of being cultivated for agriculture.

Impact on Open Space. On page 4.4-24, under Impact CC-REC-1, the Draft EIR states that the impact on open space resources is mitigated because the acreage is being replaced with active recreational opportunities. As noted above, currently the open space in Estero not only provides space for passive recreational use, it also provide habitat for biological resources. Please clarify how active recreation use mitigates loss of open space when they provide different functions.

Solid Waste. On page 3.12-26 with respect to Impact SW-2 Park improvements, the Draft EIR states: “IVRPD anticipates an additional need of approximately two 15 to 30 gallon trash cans to be emptied three times per week”. This table demonstrates the


903847-1

increase in trash can collection for the IVRPD, under the various scenarios, with the baseline at 64 - 35 gallon* cans picked up three times weekly. ( = increase).

IVMP 23% Alt 1 10% Alt 2 14.6% Alt 3 16.6% Alt 4 23% Alt 5 24% Alt 6 46% 14.72* 6.4* 9.3* 10.6* 14.72* 15.36* 29.44*

Regulatory Framework. The District has the following policies relating to park use and operations: Policy Manual Sections 3123 (Open Space); 3130 (Tree Maintenance Policy); 3140 (Organic Policy); 6020 (Environmental Review Guidelines); and 7000 (Public Information Program). By separate letter, we will forward copies of those documents to you for your information.

If you have any follow-up questions regarding this document, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Very truly yours

Diane Conn Vice-ChairIVRPD

cc: Chairperson Burns and Members of the Board of the IVRPD Kevin G. Ennis and Roxanne Diaz, Co-General Counsel, IVRPD



19. Diane Conn, via email #1 on July 14, 2006 Response 19-1 Letter 19 is the same as the comment letter submitted by Dale Sumersille, General Manager of the Isla Vista Recreation & Park District, on July 13, 2006 (Letter 14). Please refer to the responses to Letter 14.

of 8

July 14, 2006

To: Jeff Lindgren From: Diane Conn Re: Isla Vista Master Plan Environmental Impact Report Comments Transmitted via email: "Lindgren, Jeff" [email protected]

It is challenging to comment on a Programmatic EIR because so much of the funding for the necessary mitigations is not in place – because we are looking at the framework for the projects, not the actual projects. The Isla Vista Master Plan outlined goals, some of which are analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). I think that all the goals should be analyzed, so that the EIR is adequate, but more importantly, so they are given the attention they deserve.

One goal in the IVMP is to make Isla Vista as sustainable as possible. IV is a tenant community. Landlords do not have incentives to have energy efficient buildings, because for the most part, tenants pay the utilities. Tenants don’t have the incentive, because the investment doesn’t pay off. If the zoning is allows any increase in density, one of the benefits to the residents should be healthy and efficient housing.

The majority of the housing on the east side of IV, the 6500 blocks, are in pretty good shape. The housing that needs rehabilitation is in the 6600 and 6700 blocks, where the apartments were built in the 1960’ or 70’ under the substandard S1 zoning, or the houses were summer homes, and not really built to serve two people per bedroom. However, as I read the “density incentives” they favor the east side. The EIR should analyze how the incentives will work to favor the 6600 and 6700 blocks, or if they don’t, how they serve the goal to rehab the housing that needs it.

The increased density is based on 3 people per unit; however as I understand form-based zoning, one unit is a 2 bedroom house/apartment. In Isla Vista, there is routinely 2 people per bedroom, (often more). The IVMP EIR seems to assume that with more housing the density per unit will be reduced. However, the density is not controlled by the available housing, it is the rent. Unless the rent goes down, people will continue to live 2 per bedroom. If one calculates the density increases as described in the EIR at 4 people per unit, it substantially increases the impacts. The EIR should at least acknowledge that the current 2 people per bedroom could also be an impact of the zoning changes that allow greater density.

Isla Vista Community Center – Estero Park Plan

While the EIR applies Goleta Community Plan (GCP) and Local Coastal Plan (LCP) policies, it fails to apply Isla Vista Recreation and Park District Policies to this analysis. This results in a flawed analysis, and requires the IVRPD to do a separate analysis, unless the EIR includes IVRPD policies.

Letter 20

20-1a

20-2

20-3

20-4

20-1b

of 8

Table 4.4-3 Project Information: does not clearly identify Sueno Orchard; chart should be configured so that reader can better compare the trade-offs. How is event and resident parking identified in Proposed/Current Uses (footprint) sections?

Agricultural Resources:

Biological Resources Wildlife: In the biological assessment by Watershed Environmental, the following sensitive species were noted and should be added to EIR: northern mockingbird, red-shouldered hawk, California towhee, yellow-rumped warbler, western scrub jay, white-crowned sparrow, Say’s phoebe, American crow, house finch, and Anna’s hummingbird. In addition, bluebirds come through Estero, in the spring or fall.

Significant Impact: the EIR fails to identify the impact of converting garden and open space to a soccer field. Currently this area of Estero provides meaningful habitat for birds, reptiles and mammals. A soccer field will reduce this function to almost zero, because of the high maintenance required for a soccer field and due to the change in activity. This loss of habitat should be identified in the EIR and the impact appropriately classified.

Impact CC-BIO-1: Mitigation Measure (MM) CC-BIO-1 MM infeasible because fails to identify where replacement trees will be planted; does not identify tress that may or may not survive relocation. In addition, while all tress are protected by county ordinances, trees protected by Article II, or other county or LCP provisions, should be identified in EIR. This is especially relevant for trees slated to be removed in Sueno Orchard and Estero Playing field.

MM BIO-3: The buffer for raptor nesting should be 500 feet, not 300. this is the buffer that was identified for the Comstock project, and was increased based on recent information on raptor needs. See California Coastal Commission Staff Report, 12/20/04,Application No .Applicant 4-04-085.

Cultural/Historic Resources The Red Barn is a historical feature that served a farm that existed in Estero. The Pink House that was demolished, was the original farmhouse. (The existing bathrooms are a remnant of the house.) In addition, at one time the area where the IVTC is now, and the playing fields were once successfully dry farmed, while under IVRPD ownership. This area has a history of being cultivated for agriculture.

The EIR fails to identify the loss of Sueno Orchard as a cultural/historic resource. It currently provides food, and combines active and passive use for IV. People regularly used this orchard, and people have carried watered by hand to water the trees. This space has not been maintained regularly by IVRPD grounds staff in the last four years, since the watering system failed. Previously, the trees were regularly maintained by clearing the grass in the root perimeter, fed and mulched, and watered. When this

20-7

20-6

20-8

20-5

20-9

20-10

20-11

of 8

happened, Sueno Orchard was much healthier than it is today. The EIR needs to identify and quantify the impact to the community of the loss of this orchard.

MM CC-HYD-1: In order to fully mitigate water quality impacts, all parking surfaces and other hardscape must be permeable to the maximum extent feasible.

Impact CC-REC-1: please provide the basis for the comment: ”the impact on this resource is mitigated because the acreage is being replaced with active recreational opportunities.” As noted above, currently the open space in Estero not only provides space for passive recreational use, it also provide habitat for biological resources. How does active recreation use mitigate loss of open space when they provide very different functions? The EIR needs to provide a basis for this statement in order to be a feasible mitigation.

Parking: western lot on Estero proposes 44 spaces for community center staff, event parking and residents. How many for residents? How many residents now use west Estero?

Note: page 4.4-6 top paragraph ends mid-sentence, seems to continue on next page.

Most of the impacts and mitigation measure focus on vehicle traffic. One of the assumptions for the Community Center is that people will walk and bike to events and services. Currently there are no bike lanes on Camino del Sur, and on Camino Corto, there are only bike lanes from El Colegio to Abrego. Improvements to Traffic and circulation should also increase safety and traffic flow for bicycles. Ideally, there would be bike lanes from El Colegio to Del Playa on at least one, if not two, north south laterals. The EIR is inadequate because if fails to address the increase in bike traffic and how the traffic and circulation element will mitigate the impacts.

Anisq’oyo, People’s Park and Perfect Park Proposed Plan (AOPP)

General Comments

While the current AOPP plan is conceptual, the EIR is inadequate because it does not specifically analyze the impacts, mitigations and benefits of each Phase as proposed in the AOPP. It is not clear what and where facilities are in each plan, nor the justification for moving the amphitheatre in Phase 2, and no amphitheatre at all in Phase 3. The EIR must analyze each plan, or eliminate it/them. If a project level analysis is not part of this EIR, could the EIR please include an explanation of the ensuing process and if further CEAQ review will occur, and what, if any, of these issues will be evaluated. There is considerable confusion and anxiety about this process, and it would be helpful to address that in some way.

Page 4.5-2: The underlying premise of this project is the “it does not serve as the community’s focal point.” And “There is poor connectivity to the downtown retail

20-11Cont.

20-12

20-13

20-14

20-15

20-17

20-16

20-18

of 8

businesses surrounding the park.” The response to these assumptions is to level the park, take out vegetation, move the amphitheatre, and remove Perfect Park features.The IVMP EIR is inadequate because if fails to state any study or assessment that supports either premise. Furthermore, the mission of the IVRPD is not to serve the retail businesses, it is to serve the people of Isla Vista. If that also benefits the businesses, great, but in proposing a change on IVRPD property, the mission and policies of the district must be part of the analysis. The EIR is inadequate because it fails to analyze the EIR AOPP according to IVRPD policies and mission.

Project Description, page 4.5-1: The IVMP EIR identifies “poor connectivity” between AO and the businesses. However, the Project Description fails to note that the fences, that are the most obvious barriers, were put up by the business owners along the north side of the park and around Embarcadero Hall. From what I understand, the businesses put up the fence to separate them from the people who occupy the park and urinate and defecate in the northeast area of the park (called cool corner). The EIR is inadequate because if fails to identify the primary physical barriers to the connectivity between the businesses and AOPP, the rational for their erection, and what would facilitate eliminating them.

PARK AES-1: Another governing principle is that if AOPP is leveled, then a view of the ocean will enhance downtown IV. The only view is down the embarcadero ramp, because there are apartment buildings that block the view. This principle should be eliminated. It’s illusory at best, and should not be used to justify leveling of AOPP.

What this plan also fails to address is that what people need in IV is privacy, and peace and quiet. The majority of people, student or not, live in crowded quarters, with little or no privacy. In addition, the most common reason people leave IV to live in downtown or in Goleta, is the noise. They are tired of the noise. Areas of AOPP are designed to provide privacy, peace and quiet. This also facilitates habitat. Perfect Park is an example of a very small area that provides a place where people and plants and animals can co-exist. The EIR in inadequate because if fails to identify privacy and peace and quiet as qualities provided by AOPP that contribute to the quality of life for people in IV. It is also inadequate because if fails to identify impacts associated with the loss of these qualities, if AOPP changes.

Aesthetics and Visual Resources The EIR should recognize that once inside the park, the trees, berms and vegetation provide a park environment that reduces the impacts of the streets: noise, vehicle exhaust and signage. It also provides privacy, peace and quiet that are needed and valued Aesthetic qualities of the AOPP complex.

Impact PARK-AES-2: this “beneficial impact” is highly subjective. Again, it fails to recognize that privacy, peace and quiet are needed in the downtown by residents. In addition, merely thinning some of the vegetation could provide increased visibility without completely redesigning the park. The split-rail fence provides a boundary that keeps trash and noise from entering the park. The EIR should analyze the impact to

20-23

20-18Cont.

20-21

20-22

20-19

20-20

of 8

removing the fence and opening up the park, i.e. Increasing noise and trash, and how those impacts will be mitigated.

Biological Resources: the analysis of AOPP is difficult to evaluate because the resources in each park are not analyzed separately. In discussing trees and landscaping, it is difficult to ascertain if the EIR is discussing only the pond, or trees throughout the parks. The EIR is inadequate because if fails to specifically address the biological resources in each park, and specify which resource is in what area of the park.

Information pertinent to this analysis includes: Perfect Park has native planting specific to the IV mesa. In addition raptors, including hawks, and I believe a falcon, have been seen hunting at Perfect park. There are numerous oak trees there, and hummingbirds and butterflies also utilize Perfect Park. Along the border between People’s Park and Perfect Park there is a row of sycamores that is planted in a natural drainage that may qualify as a wetland or environmentally sensitive area. These trees were not just planted for landscaping. The trees along the west side of People’s Park were planted to provide a screen and reduce park and street noise for the IV medical clinic. I have seen night herons at Anisq’Oyo pond.

Mitigation Measure Park-Bio-3/Residual ImpactThe conclusion here may pertain to Anisq’Oyo, but not to Perfect Park. The EIR is inadequate because it fails to analyze each park and it specific biological resources. It is also inadequate because it fails to analyze the impacts to each park and it’s resources and to provide mitigation measures, as appropriate.

The plan suggests moving the amphitheatre to Perfect Park. However, there is no impact analysis of Perfect Park regarding its biological as well as cultural/historical resources.

Cultural/Historic Resources:

.The EIR is woefully inadequate in that it does not include the history of how Anisq’Oyo Park was purchased and built, and why the amphitheatre and pond took the shape they did. The same is true for Perfect Park. Under the Historic Resources guidelines, both 1, 2, 6 and 7 apply. AO Park is unique, historically and culturally. This must be evaluated in order to analyze any move so that would retain it special qualities. The plan for Perfect Park is unclear, but if there are going to be any changes, the EIR must analyze it in order to be adequate. I provide the following as a brief summary of some of the relevant historic information.

Perfect Park is a historical place in IV. It was the gathering place for many concerts, demonstrations and rallies from 1968-1972. On June 10, 1970 there was a demonstration there by all members of the IV community who were fed up with the curfew and the harassment by the sheriffs and police that occupied the town. While people were peacefully assembled, they were gassed, sexually assaulted and beaten

20-23Cont.

20-24

20-25

20-26

20-27

20-28

of 8

by the sheriff’s on their way to jail. This violent day was the beginning of the Trow Report and subsequent hearings that led to providing needed infrastructure to IV, including the IVRPD, IV Food Coop, IV Medical Clinic, IV Community Federal Credit Union, IV Foot Patrol, sidewalks and lighting. In 1993-4 the General Manager of the IVRPD, attempted to bulldoze Perfect Park in order to install a volley ball court, without any prior public input. At this time the same thing was happening in People’s Park in Berkeley. Residents in IV organized to stop this, mobilized to elect an IV friendly IVRPD Board, and then designed, contoured and planted Perfect Park, in cooperation with the IVRPD. To further commemorate Perfect Park, and the tradition of peaceful protest and the tradition of organizing and empowerment, the Perfect Park Monument Implementation Committee was formed to plan and fundraise for a monument. The monument stands there today in honor of a place with rich historical and cultural meaning. It was designed to provide privacy, peace and quiet in an urban environment. It has also been successful in providing habitat for birds, lizards, insects, including butterflies. It is a small but thriving habitat in an urban environment, combining cultural, historical and biological resources in 1.11 acres.

Parks, Open Space and Recreation

Page 3.11-6: this section discusses Quimby Fees and Park Development Mitigation Fees as sources of capital funding for parks, open space and trails.

1. to date, what fees have been generated in IV since 1980.2. to date, what fees have been spend in IV parks, or directed to the IVRPD.3. what fees are anticipated to be generated, based on the development in the

IVMP and each alternative?4. How can park development mitigation fees be used ? are they restricted? Can

they be used for maintenance? 5. What mechanism could direct these fees to the IVRPD?

If these fees mitigate the impact of development to Parks, Open Space and Recreation, the EIR should answer the above questions and analyze how these fees can be used to mitigate impacts to Parks, Open Space and Recreation from the proposed increase in density.Table 3-11.6: Does this table include UCSB facilities? If not, it should. Close to half of IV’s population is UCSB students, and they pay quite a bit per quarter to support these facilities. More importantly, people in IV used these facilities, and they have supported community members as well as students. In addition this will provide more accurate information regarding what active recreation is readily available to Isla Vistans; to not include it presents an inaccurate picture. It is also important to document the role UCSB plays in providing services to IV. In addition, to some extent, Santa Barbara City College students are served by SBCC; there are recreational facilities there that are available for their use. In attempting to assess the active recreational needs in Isla Vista, it is important to recognize the resources in place, before seeking funds for more facilities.

Impact REC -1 : Page 3.11-17: the IVPM EIR states that the additional funding from the per bedroom property tax will compensate the IVRPD for the increase in maintenance due to the increase in density. However, there is no analysis of the funds that would

20-30

20-28Cont.

20-29

of 8

actually be generated, and whether or not the increase in person hours would actually correspond to the increase in maintenance. The EIR cannot draw this conclusion without an analysis based on reliable information.

Mitigation Measure REC -1.2 stated that the RDA, County and IVRPD shall meet to review and ensure adequate funding stream. However there is no mention of where additional funds might be found and directed to IVRPD. Without a viable funding stream, this Mitigation Measure is not feasible.

Solid Waste page 3.12-26, Impact SW-2 Park improvements: “IVRPD anticipates an additional need of approximately two 15 to 30 gallon trash cans to be emptied three times per week.This table demonstrates the increase in trash can collection for the IVRPD, under the various scenarios, with the baseline at 64 -35 gallon cans picked up three times weekly.( = increase).

in pop. Density

IVMP23%

Alt 1 10%

Alt 2 14.6%

Alt 3 16.6%

Alt 4 23%

Alt 5 24%

Alt 6 46%

35 gallon cans 14.72 6.4 9.3 10.6 14.72 15.36 29.44

This not only contradicts the statement in the IVMP EIR, it also illustrates the increase in maintenance for the IVMP and the 6 alternatives. The increases in densities that are proposed will significantly increase a demand for park maintenance. They will also increase repairs to park infrastructure due to increased use. The IVMP EIR needs to analyze the impacts to the IVRPD, (as stated above in Impact REC -1), and identifyreliable, viable mitigation measures, that need to include funding for increased maintenance to the IVRPD, in order to adequately mitigate the impacts of increased density to the IVRPD. Otherwise the IVMP EIR is inadequate.

AlternativesIn order for the Estero Park Plan/Community Center Plan analysis to be adequate, the EIR must identify viable alternatives. Possible Alternatives could include:

1. No Project, (standard) 2. Purchase of an already developed site that could accommodate, or be modified

to accommodate all or part of the community center, within the same or similar fiscal range.

3. Identify several sites that could serve the components of the center, on IVRPD property or private property that could be acquired within the same or similar fiscal range.

4. Possible alternative sites for the skatepark are People’s Park and Pardall Gardens.

5. Alternative for soccer field: work with local entities to provide community access to Isla Vista School Soccer fields and UCSB fields (or to increase access if available now).

6. The IVRPD looked at the obstacles and advantages of sponsoring a soccer league. The study found that the most effective and efficient way to provide Isla

20-30Cont.

20-31

20-32

20-33

of 8

Vista youth with access to soccer league participation, was to provide scholarships. Due to financial restraints of the last 5 years, no action was taken. However this study illustrates an option that serves the needs of the community without additional costs of building a soccer field, maintaining a soccer field, and displacing other uses. .

In order for the AOPP Downtown Park Plan analysis to be adequate, the EIR must identify viable alternatives. Possible Alternatives could include:

1. No Project, (standard) 2. creating an amphitheatre at another park 3. I’m stumped!

20-33Cont.



20. Diane Conn, via email #2 on July 14, 2006 Response 20-1a Section 2 of the EIR has been revised to include the IVMP objectives as they appear in the draft IVMP. The objectives of the IVMP will be considered by the Board in determining the feasibility of the proposed project, project alternatives, and mitigation measures. This EIR serves as a program EIR as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, for the purposes of analyzing program-wide effects of the policies and regulations proposed in the IVMP. As CEQA requires project-level analysis of individual public and private projects to the extent details regarding such projects are know, catalyst projects are analyzed in the EIR at a project-level of detail. Response 20-1b As this comment does not relate to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the EIR, no response is required. The commenter’s opinion will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. Response 20-2 The EIR analyzes impacts of the density proposed by the project. The proposed project includes up-zoning throughout Isla Vista, except in the R-1 neighborhood on the west side of Isla Vista, including the 6600 and 6700 blocks. As this comment does not relate to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the EIR, no response is required. The commenter’s opinion will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. Response 20-3 Based on the 2000 U.S. Census data, the EIR uses 3.01 people per unit for the EIR analysis of project population increases. The proposed project includes new zoning standards for Isla Vista to encourage the production of smaller bedrooms designed for single bedroom occupancy. Response 20-4 The County requested copies of the policies from IVRPD staff and Directors during a meeting in June 2006. Although copies of the policies were not provided for analysis, it should be noted that IVRPD policies regulate operations and park use on their land only and that , IVRPD has no land use authority to permit development. Santa Barbara County implements such land use authority through the Goleta Community Plan and the Local Coastal Plan.



Response 20-5 Information in this table was provided by IVRPD. The County contacted the IVRPD staff seeking clarification regarding this comment. IVRPD staff was not able to understand the comment or provide additional information to revise the table. No revision is necessary. Response 20-6 Please see Response 14-19 Response 20-7 Please see Responses 14-18 and 14-21 Response 20-8 Mitigation Measure CC-BIO-1 originates from the report “Survey and Assessment of Estero Park Trees” (Appendix D of the Draft EIR), which was prepared by registered consulting arborist Bill Spiewak for IVRPD. The report identifies all 179 trees in Estero Park and recommends that several trees that are both small and in poor condition should be removed in addition to mitigation measures for construction of the Community Center. Many trees in Estero Park fit the standards for protection under Article II and Section 35-140 of the County Code would also apply to the removal of trees in Estero Park. Section 35-140 requires a Coastal Development Permit for the removal of any tree in the Coastal Zone which is six inches or more in diameter measured four feet above the ground and six feet or more in height. Project specific impacts resulting from the construction of the Community Center are analyzed to the maximum extent feasible in the Draft EIR. However, changes to the design of the Community Center have been proposed by the IVRPD after the notice of preparation was released and the draft EIR circulated. The design for Pardall Road will go though a public review process that allows for extensive public comment and project refinements. If this process results in a changed project, further environmental review may be required. Response 20-9 Please see Responses 11-3 and 13-9 Response 20-10 Please see Response 14-20



Response 20-11 Please see Response 14-18. While Sueno Orchard is viewed as an important community component, it does not qualify as a historic or cultural resource in the County’s Environmental Threshold and Guidelines Manual. Response 20-12 Water quality impacts associated with the community center parking lot construction would be mitigated by Section 3.9 mitigation measures HYD-1, HYD-2, and HYD-3, and the site specific Mitigation CC-HYD-1. All of theses mitigation measures require the use permeable surfaces to the maximum extent feasible. Response 20-13

Please see Response 14-21 Response 20-14 Please see Responses 1-1 and 1-2 Response 20-15 In response to the comment, the section has been reformatted to fix the typographical error. Response 20-16 Please see Response to letter 4. Response 20-17 Please see Response 14-8. The EIR analyzes impacts resulting from developing the current conceptual plan for AO Park. In the event there are changes to that project, those changes may necessitate additional environmental review pursuant to the standards set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15162, as explained in Response 9-3. Responses 20-18 Please see Response 14-8 As required by CEQA, the EIR analyzes the proposed Anisq’Oyo’ Park improvements and IVMP policies related to the park. The analysis in Section 4.5 of the EIR adequately addresses the project’s environmental impacts.



Comments regarding the proposed project in AO Park should be directed to IVRPD during the park planning process. Responses 20-19 Please see Responses 14-8 and 20-18. Response 20-20 Please see Responses 14-8 and 20-18. Response 20-21 Please see Response 14-8. Response 20-22 Please see Response 14-8 The views of Anisq’Oyo’ Park and the existing visual resources of the park are adequately described Sections 3.2 and 4.5 of the EIR. Response 20-23 Section 4.5 of the EIR adequately analyzes the proposed Anisq’Oyo’ Park improvements, including the removal of the split-rail wooden fence bordering the park. Response 20-24 Biological resources impacts associated with buildout of the proposed project and changes to downtown parks are extensively analyzed in Section 3.5 and 4.5 of the Draft EIR. As downtown parks are physically connected, these impacts were appropriately considered together. If site planning for the park results in a changed project, further environmental review may be required. Please see Response 14-8. Response 20-25 Please see Response 14-19. Response 20-26 Please see Response 20-24.



Response 20-27 Please see Responses 14-7 and 20-24. Response 20-28 In response to the comment, on page 2-30 of the Final EIR, the following paragraphs have been added to read as follows:

Prior to 1972, Perfect Park was the only developed park in Isla Vista (Ziegler-McPherson 1998). In June 1970, Perfect Park was associated with the social protests referenced in the comment. Since Anisq’oyo' Park was bought and developed after the events of the early 70s it does not have any significance in relation to those events or to any other significant historical events that we are aware of. In the early 1970’s, Perfect Park was generally an undeveloped open space that allowed large groups of people to congregate. Since that time Perfect Park has been graded to create rolling topography, landscaped with dense vegetation in places, and park improvements have been installed, including an approximately 50-space parking lot. Therefore, the historical context of Perfect Park has been compromised since the 1970s when demonstrations occurred. The proposed project for Perfect Park includes relocation of a public amphitheatre to this site. The amphitheatre would be used for community assembly and events, recreating the site’s original association with the social protest demonstrations held in the 1970s. The existing Perfect Park Peace Monument would be relocated and integrated into the new amphitheater. Therefore the proposed improvements to Perfect Park will not result in an adverse effect to historic or cultural resources.

The revision does not affect any of the impact conclusions contained in the EIR. Please also see Response 14-7. Response 20-29 Please see Response 14-2. Table 3-11.6 does not include UCSB facilities because the proposed project does not have control over UCSB recreation facilities. However UCSB facilities are considered and discussed in Section 3.11 as regional recreation facilities currently available to UCSB affiliates. Response 20-30 Please see Response 14-2.



CEQA does not require analysis of economic impacts, therefore, analysis of bedroom property tax funding is not required in the EIR. Response 20-31 Please see Response 14-2. IVRPD’s contract to maintain County Parks is updated on an annual basis. Should costs to maintain County property increase, future contracts will reflect this increase. County park maintenance is funded from a variety of sources, including the County General Fund. The mitigation measure is reasonable and adequate to address the recreational impact of the proposed project. Response 20-32 Please see Response 14-22. To the extent the comment addresses impacts to recreation facilities resulting from the need for increased park maintenance, this impact does not trigger the County’s significance threshold for recreation resources impacts identified in the County’s Threshold and Guidelines Manual set forth in Section 3.11.3. Response 20-33 Please see Response 15-2. Per Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Program EIR examines a range of reasonable alternatives that “would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate comparative merits of the alternatives.” CEQA does not require the EIR to consider alternatives to the particular components of a project, but rather focus on the alternatives to the project as a whole.

County staff worked with the County Board of Supervisors, the Project Area Committee, and the Redevelopment Agency Executive Director, and Treasurer to develop the range of reasonable alternatives that are feasible and would meet most of the project objectives. No additional project alternatives are necessary.

1

From: diane conn [[email protected]] Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 5:02 PM To: Lindgren, Jeff Subject: bob potters speech for history section

Attachments: 278059815-Dedication_of_Perfect_Park_Monument Potter.doc

please include in perfect park history section,thanks,diane

Letter 21

21-1



21. Diane Conn, via email #3 on July 14, 2006 Response 21-1 The comment requests that the June 10, 2003 speech from Bob Potter for the dedication of the Perfect Park Peace Monument be included in the history section of the EIR. This speech is available for public review at the Santa Barbara County Redevelopment Agency office, 1105 Santa Barbara Street, 2nd Floor. The speech is not included here because it contains abusive language which may be offensive to some people.

From: Michael Bean [[email protected]] Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 4:35 PM To: Goldstein, Jamie; Lindgren, Jeff Cc: Michael Bean Subject: IVMP: Draft EIR: IV as Model of Sustainability (comment)

Dear Mr Goldstein and Mr Lindgren:

Please accept my comment on the County of Santa Barbara's Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Isla Vista Master Plan.

--Michael Bean

* * *

Section 2.2: Project Objectives --- In a series of workshops facilitated (circa 2000-2001) by Opticos Design at the request of Santa Barbara County, over a hundred Isla Vista residents articulated a set of eight objectives which were to guide the County's Redevelopment Agency and the Project Area Committee in developing the Isla Vista Master Plan.

One of these goals was to foster a new identity for Isla Vista as a model of ecological and cultural sustainability at the community scale, a university town which would demonstrate practical ways of living as though we care about passing a livable world on to our children and grandchildren. Somewhere in the Opticos-RDA-PAC/GPAC-ROMA process, this objective seems to have been edited out of the Project Objectives.

It's lamentable that this got dropped out. Please re-instate it!

It seems to me and everyone I've spoken to that 'densification' is clearly the main objective of the present plan. Please consider how sustainability can serve as the central organizing theme for a IV Master Plan that Isla Vistans would love to support. If the IVMP is sincerely re-thought to create an Isla Vista which educates everyone who studies, lives, or visits here in ways to live joyously and responsibly on a finite planet, I imagine the EIR could list a host of very positive environmental and societal impacts.

Sincerely,

--Michael Bean

Letter 22

22-1

22-2



22. Michael Bean, via email on July 14, 2006 Response 22-1 Please see Response 20-1a. Response 22-2 As this comment does not relate to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the EIR, no response is required. The commenter’s opinion will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration.

Jenny Jett [email protected] July 14, 2006

Jamie Goldstein Jeff Lindgren

Draft EIR Comments:

1) First of all, I think it’s misguided for SB County to devise a Master Plan, prepare, and then approve an EIR for IV. We should have had cityhood a long time ago, and we tried three times, but we weren’t allowed to have it. This has now put us in this position which is unfair at the least.

2) I disagree that one of the “objectives” of the IVMP is supported by any significant amount of residents here. This objective is to “ improve the interface with UCSB by strengthening physical and visual connections at the edges”. I attended all the early IVMP meetings, and subsequently more meetings than most residents here, and the only people that I heard express an interest in this objective were UCSB officials, and did not live here. The vast majority of residents and students that I have spoken to on this matter have expressed the idea that they like the change in atmosphere between UCSB and IV, and the clear border between the two.

3) I don’t think the IVMP will meet the remaining objectives. For example, “to increase the quality of life for residents”. So far the IVMP has caused a significant amount of stress on the residents here that know what’s going on. It is not being run democratically. After an outpouring of residents opposed to the “parking program” at the county board meeting, the board still approved the plan. The parking plan will not help because it doesn’t guarantee a place to park on the street at night, and this is when there is the biggest problem. There were a lot of other intelligent comments made at that meeting also. The stress of the county not listening to the residents is too much. The DEIR does not adequately address parking and traffic problems. The DEIR does not show what times cars are leaving and coming to IV. DEIR assumes that UCSB students/staff parking in IV is the big problem, but the big problem is at night. (although new UCSB housing without parking has contributed to day and night parking problems) Increased density without good parking and traffic solutions just increases stress and therefore decreases quality of life. Construction noise and pollution also significantly decreases

Letter 23

23-1

23-2

23-3

quality of life. Asbestos removal should be Fail-safe. DEIR does not show how this will be achieved. Other issues too numerous to mention.

4) Another goal of IVMP “to promote a more diverse population” . The DEIR does not adequately address how this will happen. We already have quite a diverse population, both ethnically and economically. DEIR does not show how this will be protected. Will the IVMP be enlightened, or like other “face-lift” gentrification disasters that have happened across the country? For example, there are a few “over 50 year old buildings” out here that are occupied by Latino families. If these are demolished and rebuilt, will the same families be able to come back -at the same price?DEIR does not address this. Also, at one of the original meetings about 20 homeless people showed up to ask for a legal campground. They had more votes on the board than anything else on the “wish list”. This has been ignored. They have lost almost all space they can sleep due to development in recent years, and this has affected our community also. I have a list of all the places that are lost to them. The homeless and Latino population of IV are very important because the money they spend when everyone else is gone on break, and because of their valuable contribution to the recycling effort. Other reasons too.

5) Building up empty lots takes away open space that is used for other purposes. Lot 5 on 4.1-5 has been used for years as a pedestrian/bicycle path, and a play area for children in the trees. The same goes for other undeveloped space.

6) The history of IV has not been adequately addressed in the DEIR. There is historical significance to many sites that has not been addressed. Anisq’oyo park/amphitheater, The Red Barn, The Gardens, and Perfect Park are just a few . Carmen Lodise’s History of Isla Vista was not listedin the bibliography. There are also other sources that should have been researched.

This has been rushed. Forgive me if I am in factual error on anything, but there wasn’t enough time for me. Hope all will work out, I really care about IV.

Sincerely,Jenny Jett

23-3Cont.

23-4

23-7

23-5

23-6



23. Jenny Jett, via email on July 14, 2006 Response 23-1 As this comment does not relate to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the EIR, no response is required. The commenter’s opinion will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. Response 23-2 The development of the Draft IVMP was a three year collaborative process involving the County, the County Redevelopment Agency, UCSB, IVRPD, local organizations, and the community at large. While some residents may not agree with some of the objectives of the IVMP, others individuals and groups have assisted in formulating the objectives that provide a foundation for the project. The commenter’s opinion will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. Response 23-3 Insofar as this comment does not relate to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the EIR, no response is required. The commenter’s opinion will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. Section 3.13 analyses the potential traffic and circulation impacts associated with buildout of the proposed project. That analysis includes an assessment of peak hour intersection levels of service, peak hour roadway operations, and parking impacts, and identifies mitigation measures to reduce traffic impacts. Section 3.13.1 in particular acknowledges that parking is generally perceived as scarce in Isla Vista and that residents compete with commuters and visitors for limited on-street parking. This section identifies changes in parking policies and standards from the IVMP that will impact existing parking demand and trip generation. In Sections 3.4.4 and 3.10.4 construction noise and pollution impacts resulting from the proposed project are analyzed and mitigation measures to reduce impacts are identified. Section 3.8.4 identifies impacts associated with release of asbestos fibers associated with buildout of the proposed project and mitigation measures to reduce those impacts. A Mitigation Monitoring Program must be adopted concurrently with the project that identifies each mitigation measure, the agency responsible, and a timeline for implementation. Response 23-4 Section 3.1 of the EIR discusses land use, population and housing impacts associated with buildout of the proposed project. In addition, the IVMP has a stated goal of providing a



variety of housing types that appeal to a range of household sizes and income levels and identifies the production of additional affordable housing. The commenter’s opinion will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. Response 23-5 Section 4.1 of the EIR assesses the environmental impact of development on the proposed affordable housing sites, including the inner block lot on Picasso identified as “Lot 5” in the EIR. Development of other vacant parcels is assessed in the other issues areas of Section 3 of the EIR. It should be noted that all but one of the vacant properties identified for development in the proposed project are currently zoned to allow housing and privately owned. The EIR does not analyze impacts of unpermitted uses on private vacant parcels. The recreational impacts associated with development of the publicly owned Pardall Gardens park are called out in Impact DT-REC-1 in Section 4.2 of the EIR. Response 23-6 Section 3.6 assesses the historic and cultural resource impacts associated with buildout of the proposed project. A reference to Carmen Lodise’s book has been added to the EIR reference section. See Responses 14-7, 14-8, 14-18, 14-20, and 20-28. Response 23-7 The commenter’s opinion will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration.

July 14, 2006

To: County Executive OfficeFrom: Sandra L. Reese

Harry Reese6746 Sueno RoadIsla Vista, CA 93117(805) 685-3603 • [email protected](805) 729-2422 • [email protected]

Re: Draft EIR for the IVMP

The purpose of this letter is to provide comments on the adequacy of the draft EIR on theenvironmental consequences associated with the implementation of the IVMP in Isla Vista. Iappreciate the effort, the quality, and the depth of this EIR as we offer our comments.

In addition to our comments below we want to formally request that an Auto-Reduction ProjectAlternative be studied (submitted by Carmen Lodise) and want to be on record in support of all thepoints set forth by Isla Vista home owners Rick and Janet Stich in a letter to the County dated June27, 2006.

Noise1. Noise, Class I impact, 3.10: The redevelopment plan of Isla Vista states that its purpose is toimprove the quality of life for the residents. With the increase in population that this plan requires,the assessment that “general community noise will likely increase” does not address the noise issuesat all, and is completely inadequate.

Noise pollution currently degrades Isla Vista. The plan has proceeded without studying thenoise sufficiently, and there is no provision in the EIR that acknowledges this fundamentaloversight.

As item 1.1 states: “the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among theexperts.” Quite clearly to us, the EIR does not offer a reasonable alternative to the noise situationthat increased population (of any projected number) would generate.

As anyone knows who has studied the history of Isla Vista, conventional residentialdevelopment is not the model for Isla Vista.

The level of noise now is an assault to current residents and visitors.We recommend for an alternative study of noise to be placed in the record before any aspect

of this IVMP is approved. The EIR cannot deliver an insubstantial statement on noise when it playsthe role it does in Isla Vista. The demographic of the community and the impact of increasedpopulation of this demographic must be accounted for in the consideration of the impact of noise

2. 4.2 Catalyst Projects/Downtown/Outdoor Dining: The Outdoor Dining Lease Programproposal states that a “limited amount of public ROW can be leased by private businesses foroutdoor dining provided certain conditions are met.”

Letter 24

24-1

24-2

24-3

24-4

2

Consideration in this proposal should be given to the demographic of Isla Vista. Theconditions for the private business are not listed in the EIR. If they do not include provisions to limitloud music and other controllable noise levels, the plan will not provide the environmentenvisioned. A good portion of the “outdoor dining” in I.V. consists of sharing a pitcher of beer withfriends while listening to music, etc. Without some control of alcohol permitting and/or noise, theresults of the “outdoor dining” project will make living untenable for the residents living in theproposed mixed use buildings above these private businesses. It is our hope that some mentioncould be made in the EIR regarding controlling of alcohol permits and noise control requirementsfor the outdoor dining.

3. ES-73, Class II-III Impacts/Loss of Privacy: The EIR assessment inadequately states that thebuild-out will not generally result in a loss of privacy. How did you ever come to this ridiculousconclusion? With the potential build-out, the impact of added noise alone would be greater than aClass III. The impact of the demographic on a community needs to be considered.

We ask you to make the proper study that addresses the specific needs of this community.You have not made that study, nor have you provided a mitigation that makes any sense. We askyou to make a study of noise that is generated by the 18-25 year olds who make up the majoritypopulation in Isla Vista and who play recorded and live music through loud speakers out of opendoors directed toward the street.

The EIR states that the build-out of the IVMP will “not generally result in a substantialchange in the community with regard to loss of privacy. These impacts are considered less thansignificant, (Class III).” The EIR does not address the noise problems that people create, and it doesnot offer an alternative to this lack of appropriate study.

4. 3.1 Housing: In considering the jobs-to-housing balance, there can be no assumption that thosemoving into the community will be members of the general work-force. This is particularly true ifthe noise and the police protection elements are not adequately mitigated. UCSB has placed a toppriority on faculty housing in its LRDP for the next 20 years. Faculty are discouraged from living inIsla Vista because of the noise. The EIR neglects to address the connection between noisy, rowdybehavior of the student population and the reasons that faculty decide not to live in Isla Vista. Thisomission should be corrected.

Estero Park3.11 Parks, open space and recreation:First, the information about Estero Park is out of date and in many instance incorrect. Until theassertions, as stated, are proven to be accurate and factual, anyone reading this portion of theproposed plan, would have to reject the entire analysis. We ask you to re-write this entire sectiondealing with the parks, especially Estero Park. For example, the proposed community center withover 42,000 sf of building space to house Isla Vista Youth Projects and One-generation (an inter-generational daycare service) is no longer viable. These organizations have re-located to other sites,or pulled out of project consideration entirely. An alternate plan for Estero Park activities needs to

24-4Cont.

24-6

24-5

24-7

3

be drawn so that the integrated character of Estero Park is not destroyed in an effort to “balance”active and passive sports activities.

Process

While many meetings have been held, we have some serious objection to the process of gatheringinformation and then applying it to the plan. We agree with Section 1.1 that the “ EIR shouldsummarize the main points of disagreement among the experts.” To achieve this stated purpose, wethink it is essential for the RDA to bring this document to the permanent residents of Isla Vista in amore positive and forthright manner than it has done in the past. We mean no disrespect for theefforts that you all have made, but the recent gathering of the unofficial Estero Park Task Force is aclear signal that many people have been left out of the process.

1.4 Type of EIR: The EIR states that this is a “program and project” EIR, indicating thatsubsequent EIRs for redevelopment projects in Isla Vista will not be required unless a “subsequentEIR or a supplement to an EIR would be required by Section 15162 or 15163.” As lay personsinterested in this project, we have no idea what requirements are listed in these sections. Werequest, for all lay people interested in this document, that the EIR provide a brief synopsis of whatthese contain. With the cooperation of the Isla Vista Commission, and selected IVRPD ad hoccommittees, the work of the RDA can be brought to the concerned citizens in a better way than ithas been delivered in the past.

We have many more comments to make, and for the record, we would like to requestadditional time to answer every single point that we do not have time to address here. I am certainthat many more people feel the same way. We can help with this part of the process, if allowed.Thank you.

24-7Cont.

24-8

24-9

24-10



24. Harry and Sandra Reese, via email and fax on July 14, 2006 Response 24-1 The commenter’s acknowledgment of staff’s effort is appreciated. The commenter’s opinion will be forwarded to the decision makers. Response 24-2 The comment is noted that commenter endorses Carmen Lodise’s and Rick and Janet Stich’s comments on the IVMP and the Draft EIR (Letters 9 and 27). The commenter’s opinion will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. Response 24-3 Please see Response 9-1. Response 24-4 Please see Response 9-7. Response 24-5 Please see Response 9-11. Response 24-6 Please see Response 9-12. Performing an analysis of the reasons why certain persons choose to reside or not to reside in the project area as suggested by the commenter would be purely speculative in nature and is not required by CEQA. Response 24-7 The proper baseline for analysis of the proposed project is the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published (CEQA Guidelines § 15125). Environmental impacts associated with Estero Park were analyzed based on the description of the project at the time the notice of preparation was published for the project, as summarized in Section 4.4 of the EIR. If the IV Community Center project at Estero Park changes from this description, additional environmental review may be required before the revised project can be approved. (Pub. Res. Code § 21166; CEQA Guidelines § 15162). Response 24-8 The development of the Draft IVMP was a three year collaborative process involving the County, the County Redevelopment Agency, UCSB, IVRPD, local organizations, and the



community at large. As this comment does not relate to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the EIR, no response is required. The commenter’s opinion will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. Response 24-9 Please see Response 9-3. Response 24-10 The Draft EIR was circulated to local, state, and federal responsible, trustee, and other agencies, utility providers, interested organizations, and the general public for a period of 45 days for review and comment, starting on May 10, 2006. The public review period was extended to July 14, 2006, giving the public a total of 66 days to comment on the IVMP Draft EIR. Further comments may be provided during the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisor’s adoption hearings.

Letter 25

25-1

25-3

25-2

25-4

25-5

25-6

25-6Cont.

25-7

25-7Cont.

25-8

25-9

25-9Cont.

25-9Cont.

25-10

25-10Cont.

25-10Cont.

25-11

25-12

25-13

25-14

25-15

25-16

25-17



25. Steven Salsberg, via fax on July 14, 2006 Response 25-1 The comment provides an introduction to the Steve Salsberg’s comments on the Draft EIR. No response is required. Response 25-2 Please see Responses 4-2. Response 25-3 The Embarcaderos are generally 40’ in width, comparable in width to most of the streets in northeastern Isla Vista. The Embarcaderos generally have contiguous sidewalks and Class II on-street bike paths. The traffic impacts to the entire roadway network are analyzed in detail for both the project and Alternative Six in Sections 3.13 and 6.0, respectively. This analysis includes both ADT and peak hour trip reduction factors. Specifically, trip reduction factors for Alternative Six were examined using PM Peak Hour Trips (PHT) rates based on on-campus housing data. The PM PHT were calculated using a figure that averages the Goleta Traffic Model rate and the on-campus housing rate to determine a rate that takes into account the tendency of future residents to walk or bike. Therefore, Section 3.13 and 6.0 provide the information and analysis requested by the commenter. Response 25-4 Economic analysis provided in the Technical Appendix Q suggests future development will involve more owner-occupied units as compared to current development. Nevertheless, Alternative 6 will result in increased traffic noise, construction noise, and population numbers, as compared to the proposed project. Therefore, impacts related to noise would be increased relative to the proposed project. No further environmental analysis is required.

Response 25-5 As analyzed under Alternative 1 (“No Project Alternative”), the land use/zoning designation changes proposed in the Draft IVMP could increase potential residential build-out from approximately 646 new units under current zoning to 1,447 new units under the proposed project. Residential build-out and density under each alternative is summarized in Table 6-1.2 of the EIR, and as seen in this table, allowable density in the proposed project will be increased from the No Project Alternative. The EIR determines impacts to resource areas based on the number of new units allowed by the proposed project and each alternative at buildout, and, using data from the 2000 Census, the population increase associated with the IVMP and each alternative is determined. The Census indicates the average number of people per unit in Isla Vista is 3.01. Those data were



used to determine parking impacts in Section 3.13 and impacts to other resource areas in Section 3 of the EIR. A table summarizing the impacts of buildout for each alternative can be found in Table 6.2-1. Existing Student Residential zoning in Isla Vista regulates the number of bedrooms per acre, which currently limits the development of large multi-bedroom units. The proposed zoning for Isla Vista would allow up to 40 bedrooms per acre, while the existing SRH zoning district only allows 35 bedrooms per acre. If, as the commenter suggests, the EIR overestimates the density increase by analyzing bedrooms per acre the analysis is consistent with CEQA in that the analysis examines the worst case scenario in determining impacts. The commenter’s opinion is acknowledged regarding the proposed project and Alternative 6. The commenter’s opinion, calculations, and analysis will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. The Draft IVMP proposes new on-site parking requirements for downtown residential and commercial uses, as shown in Table 2.3-9 of the EIR. and parking impacts are discussed in Impact CIRC-3 of the EIR. The parking requirements and impacts are adequately analyzed in the EIR. Responses 25-6 Please see Response 25-5. Responses 25-7 Please see Response 25-5. Responses 25-8 Please see Response 25-5. Responses 25-9 Please see Response 25-5. Responses 25-10 Please see Response 25-5. Response 25-11 While CEQA allows the economic effect of a physical change in the environment to be used to determine whether that physical change is significant, CEQA generally prohibits economic and social effects to be treated as significant effects on the environment. The commenter’s opinion regarding the changing economic costs of development is acknowledged. The



commenter’s opinion will be forwarded to the decision makers. No further environmental analysis is required. Response 25-12 The IVMP allows for the development of larger unit sizes to accommodate families. The IVMP does not discriminate against large households – large units are not prohibited, but rather are “weighted” in the density adjustments to more accurately reflect their impact on traffic, parking and other infrastructure (e.g., water, wastewater and other utilities). Please see Response 25-5 Response 25-13 Please see Response 25-12. The commenter’s opinion is acknowledged. The commenter’s opinion will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. Response 25-14 Please see Responses 25-4 and 25-12. The commenter’s opinion is acknowledged. The commenter’s opinion will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. Response 25-15 Policy direction in the proposed plan calls for a review of a parking program after it has been in place for 2.5 years. The EIR analyzes the environmental impacts of the parking program as currently proposed under the proposed project and each alternative. If the Board choose to revise the parking standards in the future, additional environmental review may be required before such changes could be approved. (Pub. Res. Code § 21166; CEQA Guidelines § 15162). Response 25-16 The Draft IVMP emphasizes reducing automobile dependency in Isla Vista through managing the quantity and location of parking in both residential and commercial areas; encouraging in-fill and mixed-use development, providing convenient and encouraging affordable public transit services; developing a “car-sharing” program; and improving the pedestrian and bicyclist environment. The trip generation factors used in the proposed project in Section 3-13 use reductions from the standard vehicle trip generation rates to reflect this reduction in automobile dependency. Response 25-17 Please see Response 25-6.

Letter 26

26-1

26-2

26-2Cont.

26-3

26-4

26-5

26-6

26-9

26-10

26-8

26-7

26-11

26-15

26-14

26-17

26-12

26-16

26-13



26. Steve Wagner, Community Services Director, City of Goleta, July 14, 2006 Response 26-1 The comment provides an introduction to the Steve Wagner’s comments on the Draft EIR. No response is required. Response 26-2 The traffic study for the draft EIR includes analysis for key intersections within the City where the proposed project has the potential to generate significant impacts based on City thresholds. Section 3-13 of the EIR has been revised to address the potential traffic impacts to the additional intersections along the Storke Road, Los Carneros Road, and Fairview Avenue corridors requested by the City of Goleta. As demonstrated in the revised analysis, the IVMP would not impact these intersections based on City of Goleta impact thresholds. Response 26-3 Please see Response 4-2. Response 26-4 Please see Response 4-2. The commenter recommends the trip distribution model be revised, yet no data are provided to substantiate the recommendations. The trip generation and distribution model for the residents of the housing created under the Master Plan was developed based on existing trip generation and distribution patterns measured in the Isla Vista area using the Santa Barbara County’s Goleta Traffic Model and accepted traffic engineering methods. Response 26-5 Please see Responses 4-2 and 26-4. Response 26-6 Please see Response 4-2. The trip generation and distribution model for the residents of the housing created under the Master Plan was developed based on existing trip generation and distribution patterns measured in the Isla Vista area. Therefore, SBCC student trips are incorporated into the model. Response 26-7 Please see Response 4-2.



Response 26-8 Please see Responses 17-3 and 17-4. The County acknowledges the City’s view that accessible and frequent transit could lead to a reduction of traffic impacts within both the County of Santa Barbara and the City of Goleta. The future year traffic forecasts assumes the existing modal split of vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit trips measured in the community. Assuming the existing mode split characteristics will remain constant in the future (i.e., the percentage of vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit trips will not significantly change) provides a reasonable worst case for CEQA traffic impacts analysis. Response 26-9 The residual impact for CIRC-2 in the draft EIR states the impact to US 101 SB Ramps/Los Carneros remains significant as the project is located outside of the County’s jurisdiction, therefore implementation of the mitigation can not be guaranteed. This section of the draft EIR is accurate. The text in mitigation measure CIRC 2 suggesting that projects within the unincorporated community of Isla Vista would be subject to City of Goleta GTIP fees is incorrect. This is mitigation measure is revised in the final EIR to read:

U.S. 101 SB Ramps/Los Carneros Road: The U.S. 101 SB Ramps/Los Carneros Road intersection is forecast to operate at LOS E with Baseline P.M. peak hour volumes. The IVMP would add 189 trips to the intersection during the P.M. peak hour, which exceeds the City’s project-specific impact threshold of 10 trips. An improvement project for this intersection is contained in the City of Goleta GTIP. The improvement project would widen and re-stripe the northbound approach to provide two through lanes and a separate right-turn lane. The intersection would operate at LOS C (0.77 V/C) under the Baseline + IVMP PM peak hour scenario with this improvement. The IVMP would participate in the funding of the improvement via the payment of City of Goleta GTIP traffic fees.

Response 26-10 The County acknowledges the City of Goleta’s interest in the development of a traffic mitigation agreement to share traffic fees by future projects to address the impacts on streets and/or intersections in both jurisdictions. The County is currently updating its GTIP fee for unincorporated portions of the Goleta Valley. As part of that process, Public Works staff is working with the City of Goleta on a possible fee-sharing agreement, but meanwhile impacts will remain are Since the City of Goleta’s incorporation, traffic impact mitigation fees for development projects within the City have been paid to the City of Goleta. The EIR contains adequate traffic mitigation measures for impacts related to Goleta roadways and intersections.



Response 26-11 Please see Response 26-10. Response 26-12 The estimate of 385 vehicles is the peak number of cars parked that would occur at one time. The estimate of 700-1388 is an estimate of the total number of vehicles that park in IV over a 24-hour period. Using a higher number would result in a less conservative analysis, since the number is being used to estimate the increase in daytime parking spaces that will available as a result of the elimination of daytime spillover parking. Response 26-13 You comment regarding the allocation of future traffic impact mitigation fees will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. UCSB is currently connected to the Goleta-Santa Barbara area to the east via a Class I bike path and the Class I-II system that extends along Fowler Road-Fairview Avenue. Response 26-14 Figure 3.13-11 of the EIR has been revised to include those intersections. Response 26-15 The EIR identifies the traffic impacts in the City of Goleta. The class of each impact is identified in the Residual Impacts discussion which follows each impact and mitigation measure. The potentially significant impacts to roadways and intersections in Goleta are identified in the Residual Impacts discussion as significant project-specific impacts, as those impacts are outside of the County’s jurisdiction and implementation of mitigation measures for these impacts cannot be guaranteed by the County. No revision to the EIR is necessary. Response 26-16 Necessary revisions have been made throughout the EIR to ensure consistency based on the changes made to address the City of Goleta’s comments. Response 26-17 The City’s interest in working with the County to establish a traffic impact fee mitigation sharing agreement is acknowledged, and the comments will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration.

Letter 27

27-1

27-2

27-3

27-3Cont.

27-4

27-4Cont.

27-5

27-6

27-7

27-8

27-9

27-9Cont.

27-10

27-10Cont.

27-11

27-11Cont.

27-12

27-12Cont.

27-14

27-13

27-15



27. Carmen Lodise, via fax on July 14, 2006 Responses to comments in Mr. Lodise’s comment letter address the main point outlined in individual comments. The comment letter frequently transitions between statements regarding the commenter’s opinion to comments regarding the project alternatives. In many of the comments, the commenter emphasizes the letter’s main opinion regarding the lack of an “Auto-Reduction” project alternative. This specific comment regarding the project alternatives can be found in Response 27-5. Response 27-1 The commenter’s opinions are acknowledged. As these comments do not relate to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the EIR, no response is required. The commenter’s letter will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. Response 27-2 The commenter’s opinions are acknowledged. As these comments do not relate to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the EIR, no response is required. The commenter’s letter will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. Response 27-3 The commenter’s support for some of the projects included in the IVMP is acknowledged, and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. Response 27-4 The commenter’s documentation for historic community support for auto reduction is acknowledged. Response 27-5 The policy issues raised by the commenter related to the merits of the proposed project will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration.

The commenter’s opinion regarding the PAC is acknowledged. Please note that four of the original 13 PAC members were elected by members of the community. On January 31st, 2007, the GPAC reaffirmed their support for the Plan The planning process for the IVMP included many public meetings to define the vision and the goals of the Plan. The IVMP emphasizes reducing automobile dependency in Isla Vista through implementation of many projects and programs outlined in Sections 2 and 3.13 of the EIR.

Per Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Draft Program EIR examines a range of reasonable alternatives that “would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project,



but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate comparative merits of the alternatives.” CEQA does not require the EIR to consider multiple variations on each alternative, particularly when the relative advantages and disadvantages of another alternative can be assessed from the information provided for an alternative presented in the EIR. The EIR includes alternatives that reduce automobile usage.

County staff worked with the County Board of Supervisors, the Project Area Committee, and the Redevelopment Agency Executive Director and Treasurer to develop a range of six reasonable alternatives that are feasible and would meet most of the project objectives.

No additional project alternatives are necessary.

Response 27-6 The commenter’s opinions are acknowledged. As these comments do not relate to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the EIR, no response is required. The commenter’s data will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. Response 27-7 Please see Response 27-5.

The proposed project includes a number of elements intended to reduce automobile usage. For example, reduced parking standards, carshare, and MTD improvements are components of the proposed project. Public comments made prior the CEQA process were considered by staff, the PAC/GPAC, and the Board of Supervisors in developing the proposed project and range of EIR alternatives.

Responses 27-8 The commenter’s opinion is acknowledged. As this comment does not relate to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the EIR, no response is required. The commenter’s opinion will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. Responses 27-9 The commenter’s list of past alternative transportation projects is acknowledged. To the extent this comment relates to the issue of project alternatives, the comment is addressed in Response 27-5. Otherwise, this comment does not relate to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the EIR, and no response is required. The commenter’s opinion will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. Responses 27-10 The commenter’s opinion regarding historic planning efforts is acknowledged. To the extent this comment relates to the issue of project alternatives, the comment is addressed in Response 27-5. Otherwise, this comment does not relate to the environmental analysis or



conclusions in the EIR, and no response is required. The commenter’s opinion will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. Responses 27-11 The commenter’s opinions regarding Isla Vista demographics and politics acknowledged. As this comment does not relate to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the EIR, no response is required. The commenter’s opinion will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. Response 27-12 Please see Response 27-5. The alternative suggested by the commenter would not meet project objectives as identified in the IVMP. Completely eliminating automobiles in the downtown could hinder efforts to redevelop and to provide an economically viable commercial core. In accordance with the project objectives, the Plan does include a number of elements designed to reduce reliance on the automobile. These include development of a car-sharing program, improvements to MTD transit service between Isla Vista and popular destinations, and streetscape and bicycle network improvements designed to improve safety and enhance the pedestrian and bicycle environment. Response 27-13 Please see Response 27-5. This comment suggests that an alternative for UCSB to restrict car usage by students should be analyzed in the EIR. The County has no authority to compel UCSB to take any specific action. Therefore, Per Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR did not examine alternatives which are not feasible or within the County’s authority to implement. Response 27-14 Please see Responses 27-5 and 27-12. The alternative suggested by the commenter would not meet most of the project objectives as identified in the IVMP. Response 27-12 includes a partial list of some of the project elements designed to reduce reliance on the automobile. Response 27-15 Please see Responses 27-5, 27-12, 27-13, and 27-14. Response 27-16 Please see Response 27-5. The support of the other persons listed for additional project alternatives is acknowledged and the comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration.

Letter 28

28-1

28-2

28-3

28-4

28-4Cont.

28-5

28-6



28. Ken Warfield, via fax on July 14, 2006 Responses 28-1 Please see Responses 9-1, 9-11, and 18-6. Response 28-2 Please see Responses 9-1, 9-11, and 18-6. Isla Vista is currently an urban community and changes due to the proposed project would not increase noise levels considerably. Impact NSE-2 on pages 3.10-7 and 3.10-8 of the Draft EIR describe the potential for increased ambient noise in the project area. Furthermore, Mitigation Measures NSE-4 and NSE-5 address noise sensitive uses such as residential, schools, churches, and places of public assembly. No further analysis is required. Response 28-3 Please see Responses 9-1, 9-11, 18-6, and 28-2. Response 28-4 As this comment does not relate to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the EIR, no response is required. The commenter’s opinion will be forwarded to the decision makers. Response 28-5 As this comment does not relate to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the EIR, no response is required. The commenter’s opinion will be forwarded to the decision makers. Response 28-6 Please see Responses 9-1, 9-11, 18-6, and 28-2.

Letter 29

29-1

29-2



29. Gerry Winant and Ann Sanders, July 9, 2006. Response 29-1 The comment is noted. As this comment does not relate to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the EIR, no response is required. The commenter’s opinion will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. Response 29-2 See Response 9-4. The commenter’s opinion is acknowledged. As this comment does not relate to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the EIR, no response is required. The commenter’s opinion will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration.



RESPONSES TO ORAL COMMENTS RECEIVED AT PUBLIC HEARINGS REGARDING THE EIR

The IV PAC/GPAC held public hearings on the Draft EIR on the following dates: May 31, 2006 June 8, 2006

Only those comments made regarding environmental issues and the EIR are addressed below. The C indicates comment and R means response. May 31, 2006 Public Meeting C-1: What is the difference between the EIR and Technical Appendices? R-1: Technical Appendices, generally, are the technical studies upon which certain issue analyses in the Environmental Impact Report are based.. C-2: Does the EIR include changes to the permit parking program or is there another separate process? R-2: The County undertook an independent process to consider a permit parking program for Isla Vista. In Fall of 2006 the California Coastal Commission up-held an appeal of the permit parking program, thereby terminating the County’s permit parking program for Isla Vista. The County is no longer engaged in a process to develop a permit parking program in Isla Vista. Impact CIRC-3 in the final EIR has been revised to reflect the change in status of the parking permit program. This revision does not affect any of the impact conclusions contained in the EIR. C-3: In regards to redevelopment, how does this plan tie in to the County’s redevelopment goals? R-3: The IVMP describes objectives and projects that guide the County redevelopment efforts in Isla Vista. Please refer to the “Community Objectives” in the Isla Vista Master Plan. C-4: Based on the project, there will be an adverse effect on the ducks and other wildlife on the pond in Anisq’ Oyo’ Park (AO Park) from cement slurry caused by redevelopment. How does the EIR address this issue? R-4: Please see Response 14-14. Section 4.5, Downtown Parks, of the Draft EIR describes restoration and enhancement of wetland area as an element of the downtown park catalyst project. The restoration effort would improve water quality and habitat quality in the pond in AO Park.



C-5: How does this project tie in with University of California Santa Barbara (UCSB) proposal on Ocean Road? How is this project integrated in this document? R-5: As a joint sponsor of this planning effort and funding partner, UCSB has conceptually supported the goals and projects identified in the Draft IVMP. The following is a list of Isla Vista / UCSB Interface catalyst projects that are identified in the IVMP:

• Extension of bicycle, pedestrian, and public transit networks into UCSB;

• Modified bike and pedestrian tunnel at Pardall Road and Ocean Road intersection;

• Ocean Road faculty and staff housing; and

• Community parking lot partnership.

C-6: Eight principles were articulated in the Isla Vista Master Plan. It stated that Isla Vista should be model sustainable university town. There were also principles on ecological, cultural sustainability. However I did not see objectives or principles in the EIR? Where are these missing issues? R-6: Please see Response 20-1a. C-7: Pedestrian and bicycling are major modes of transportation in Isla Vista. The mitigation measures identified in the EIR may provide convenience for motorists, but what about pedestrians and bicyclists? Safety of bicyclists needs to be considered in the EIR. R-7: Please see Responses 4-1, 4-3 and 4-4. C-8: The EIR doesn’t address where residents from new housing will come from. How many trips will it produce or change in the number of housing units? R-8: Please see Response 4-2. C-9: Isla Vista is very difficult to navigate for visually-disabled persons. Sidewalks widths are inconsistent and create obstacles for visually-impaired persons. When it rains, street flooding also becomes an issue for visually-impaired persons. Addressing these needs will make it easier for visually-impaired persons. R-9: Improvements in the public right-of-way will comply with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. As this comment does not relate to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the EIR, no response is required. The commenter’s opinion will be forwarded to the decision makers. C-10: Where is the blight in Isla Vista? How do you define blight? R-10: The 1990 Preliminary Report for the Isla Vista Redevelopment Project defines blight in two categories: structural blight and economic blight. The Preliminary Report states a blighted area is characterized by one or more specific condition which cause a reduction of, or lack of, proper utilization of the area to such an extent that it constitutes a serious physical,



social, or economic burden ton the community which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise acting alone. Specific structure and economic blight factors are called out in the 1990 Preliminary Report include: Structure Blight Factors

• Age, obsolescence – deterioration/dilapidation • Defective design and character of physical construction • Faulty interior arrangement and exterior spacing • Inadequate provisions for light, ventilation and open space • Open space and parking

Economic Blight Factors

• Inadequate public improvements • Street improvements • Inadequate community and cultural facilities/recreation improvements

The report also noted that many residential structures were in need of rehabilitation. C-11: The EIR does not address humans? Why? R-11: An EIR identifies and focuses on the significant effects of the proposed project on the environment. Significant effect on the environment means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. Thus, CEQA requires an analysis of the physical changes in the environment, regardless of whether or not such changes affect humans. C-12: Cement production is a large producer of carbon dioxide. Increased construction affects air quality. R-12: Section 3.4, Air Quality, of the EIR analyzes all project related air quality impacts.. C-13: Concerned about sustainability in the community, speaker would like to see steps that introduce solar power. R-13: Please see Response 22.1. The comment will be forwarded to decision makers for their consideration. C-14: Encourage UCSB Chancellor to have freshmen leave autos behind to reduce vehicular and parking impacts in Isla Vista. R-14: Please see Response 27-13. As this comment does not relate to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the EIR, no response is required. The commenter’s opinion will be forwarded to the decision makers.



C-15: Concerned about the removal of amphitheater. Speaker does not want staged moved. Speaker has a petition with 800 signatures that do not want amphitheater moved. R-15: Please see Responses 2-1, 8-1, and 14-8. C-16: Master Plan is taking out parking lot. R-16: Section 2, Project Description, of the EIR describes the proposed project, which includes implementation and construction of at least one public parking lot. C-17: Commenter is concerned about Isla Vista being one of the most populated areas west of the Mississippi. Adding people and increasing density is a concern. Noise, automobile pollution, and airplane pollution are also major concerns. UCSB is also building more housing, which leads to more pollution. R-17: Sections 3.1 (Land Use, Population, and Housing), 3.4 (Air Quality), and 3.10 (Noise) analyze the impacts of the project on the aspects of the environmental raised by the commenter. To the extent the comment does not relate to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the EIR, no response is required. The commenter’s opinion will be forwarded to the decision makers. C-18: What happens when a major earthquake occurs? Is it possible that Isla Vista may become an island? There are only two evacuation routes. If there were landslides north and south of Santa Barbara, Isla Vista would be landlocked. Isla Vista is small village between ocean and mountain – no way to get out except two roads. This creates a dangerous situation. UCSB is proud to have an earthquake plan, but no one has mentioned anything about an Isla Vista earthquake plan. Why are we planning to put hundreds of more people in Isla Vista, but not have an emergency plan? How will we get people out in case of an emergency? How do emergency crews come in as well? R-18: Section 3.12 (Public Services and Utilities) analyzes the impacts of the project on public services, including emergency services, in Isla Vista. To the extent this comment does not relate to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the EIR, no response is required. The commenter’s opinion will be forwarded to the decision makers. C-19: After living here for many years, Isla Vista is densely populated, very crowded, and missing sidewalks. A lot of properties need to be revitalized. There needs to be a better way to motivate landowner to revitalize their properties without increasing density standards. R-19: Please see Response 15-2. C-20: Up zoning of buildings as an incentive to rebuild is a concern because Isla Vista is already too dense. Can we rezone grandfathered buildings (nonconforming) to remodel? Parking program has cumulative impacts and needs to be looked together with the Master Plan. R-20: Please see Response R-2.



Your opinion regarding the up-zone will be forwarded to the decision makers. Section 3.13, Traffic and Circulation, of the EIR contains a cumulative examination of the parking impacts throughout the community and takes into account all proposed development, and projects, anticipated to impact the project area. In particular, impact CIRC-3 describes the parking impacts anticipated to result from the project. C-21: Opposes increases in densities in Isla Vista. There is no infrastructure to support increases in density. Infrastructure needs to be upgraded. In addition, density adds to increased noise level. R-21: Please see Responses 3-5 and 9-1. C-22: Emergency service levels are also too low and inadequate. There are also inappropriate behaviors by students occurring in Isla Vista. More criminal activities occur in Isla Vista than elsewhere in Santa Barbara County. R-22: Please see Responses 9-2 and R-18. The EIR uses the CEQA and County’s Environmental Threshold and Guidelines Manual for the threshold of emergency service levels and emergency service providers were consulted during the preparation of the EIR. To the extent the proposed project will result in significant and unmitigable impacts on fire protection services, a statement of overriding considerations must be approved prior to adoption of the IVMP. C-23: Pond needs to be filled in Anisq’Oyo’ Park. It attracts mosquitoes because of stagnant water. R-23: Please see Response 3-1. C-24: Access easements (bike and pedestrian paths) owned by the County need to be opened up and improved. R-24: As this comment does not relate to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the EIR, no response is required. The commenter’s opinion will be forwarded to the decision makers. C-25: Isla Vista Master Plan should dovetail (aggressive coordination) with UCSB’s project on Ocean Road. Eucalyptus trees will be removed. Traffic issues. R-25: Please see Response R-5. C-26: Businesses have indicated that when there is music in the park, businesses have increased profits. Don’t mess with pond.



R-26: As this comment does not relate to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the EIR, no response is required. The commenter’s opinion will be forwarded to the decision makers. C-27: County needs to be more detailed with these urban design standards. Incentive and codes for builders to use most modern, most effective, and best strategies for water quality, low-flow shower heads, efficient landscape management, rooftop gardens, waste management, and other sustainability improvements. Need for lighter ecological footprint and set example for California and the whole world, but don’t penalize homeowners. Use for new construction and remodels. R-27: Sections 3.9 (Hydrology and Water Quality) and 3.12 (Public Services) of the EIR analyze the water quality, water supply, wastewater, and solid waste impacts associated with the proposed project, and provides numerous mitigation measures to address many of the issues raised by the commenter. To the extent this comment does not relate to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the EIR, no response is required. The commenter’s opinion will be forwarded to the decision makers. C-28: Concerned about this process. As an undeveloped property owner, the GPAC formation did not adequately address or respect the under or undeveloped property owner. R-28: As this comment does not relate to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the EIR, no response is required. The commenter’s opinion will be forwarded to the decision makers. C-29: Agriculture was not adequately addressed in the EIR. It was not responded in the EIR and dismissed. Needs to be addressed and reconsidered in each Alternative. Fossil fuel may be outstripped, gas prices have increased. Food will be grown here to avoid transportation costs. We should have more rooftop gardens. R-29: Please see Response 14-18. To the extent the comment does not relate to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the EIR but rather to the merits of the project, no response is required. The commenter’s opinion will be forwarded to the decision makers. C-30: The No Project Alternative needs to be revised to indicate that it would not result in 4,000 new habitants. R-30: The Proposed Project would allow construction of up to 1,447 new residential units that could lead to up to 4,355 new residents in Isla Vista. The No Project Alternative would continue to allow for the construction of up to 646 new units as currently allowed under existing zoning. The 646 potential new units could lead up to 1,944 new residents in Isla Vista. No revisions to the EIR are necessary. C-31: Buildings are in noncompliance due to previous down zoning. Go back to original density and build a parking structure to increase incentives. People don’t redevelop because of rezoning and parking issues. We need to identify a place to store cars. The Plan has no real



incentives. People want chain stores, but those are not viable in Isla Vista. We need to go back to the pre-1990 zoning standards and build a parking structure. R-31: As this comment does not relate to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the EIR but rather to the merits of the project, no response is required. The commenter’s opinion will be forwarded to the decision makers. C-32: We need additional student comments. I would also like to requests to increase comment period from 45 to 60 days. County has agreed to study Anisq’oyo' Park, but not to act on redoing park. Disappointed that proposed changes and associated mitigation were not adequately presented to the public and walked through. The East side of Isla Vista is mostly apartment buildings. Rehabilitation needs to be done in 6600 blocks. Don’t understand logic with 5 story buildings on eastside. Increased density incentives are not necessary. R-32: See Response 24. To the extent this comment does not relate to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the EIR but rather to the merits of the project, no response is required. The commenter’s opinion will be forwarded to the decision makers. June 8, 2006 Public Meeting C-33: Why will the “No Project’ yield additional residential units in Isla Vista? R-33: The “No Project” Alternative does not mean no construction of new residential units; rather, it means the proposed development regulations would not be applied to new development in Isla Vista. Current development regulations would continue to apply. Currently (2007), without the proposed regulations, there is additional capacity for residential development to occur based on the existing Santa Barbara County zoning regulations. C-34: Wouldn’t the number of bedrooms make a difference in the number of new residents? R-34: The variable density approach in the Proposed Project recognizes that Isla Vista population increases are based on bedrooms and not specifically units.

C-35: It was worded in the presentation that the Board of Supervisor will put a section in the EIR on how the positive effects will override the negative impacts. How and why does this occur?

R-35: If the Board of Supervisors wishes to adopt the project despite the potential for significant and unmitigable impacts to the environment, they can adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations where those remaining significant adverse impacts will be weighed against the project benefits. C-36: How the alternatives were presented, there is no increase to commercial square footage; does that mean there will be no new businesses?



R-36: There is no change in commercial square footage between the alternatives. However, there is additional capacity for commercial development to occur in the downtown in each alternative. The anticipated amount of additional commercial square footage is approximately 50,000 square feet regardless of which alternative is chosen. C-37: Will there be transit improvements with MTD. What about funding for shuttles services? R-37: Please see Responses 17-3, 17-4, and 17-5. The Draft IVMP provides policy directing the County and Redevelopment Agency to work with MTD on a number of improvements on Isla Vista’s five bus routes, including:

• Increasing transit service by reducing wait times from 30-minute to 15 minutes; • Providing better night service between Isla Vista and popular destinations; • Simplifying Isla Vista routes; • Marketing service by improve route branding; and • Utilize smaller buses or electric shuttles • Improving the comfort of bus stops

The County’s Program CIRC-GV-2.2 calls for the Community Planning and Development Department to coordinate with the County Public Works Department to form a working group with MTD, the Association of Governments, the Airport and UCSB to study the potential for the creation and joint funding of free electric or other "clean-air" shuttle service. They will also evaluate if it is feasible to implement such a system along major travel corridors in the Goleta Valley, especially Hollister Avenue as well as to Isla Vista. The funding of transit improvements is not part of the analysis in the EIR because this is an ongoing program for the County. However, MTD will benefit from fees generated by new development in the proposed project area, which can be used to fund non-operational capital improvements. C-38: The EIR describes vehicle movement but what about bicycle routes and bicycle densities. R-38: Please see Responses 4-1, 4-3, and 4-4. C-39: Population is under estimated in the DEIR when compared to economic analysis. R-39: Please see Response 13-30. The Economic Study, Appendix O of the EIR, overestimated the population in IV. The sources for the Draft EIR population estimate are now included in the Final EIR.

C-40: The biggest concern about the Isla Vista Master Plan was the proposed increase in density, which in turn, will increase the propensity of injuries to the public. With an increase in density comes an increased fire safety issue. In addition, additional crowds in streets will yield disasters. There was one occasion where a person committed personal injuries to pedestrians when he ran them over with his automobile. Although he was diagnosed as psychotic, the large crowds on the streets due to high population densities, was a factor that caused the injuries.



R-40: Please see Responses 10-2, 14-4, and R-22. C-41: What considerations were given when coming up with the alternatives? R-41: Per Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR examines a range of reasonable alternatives that “would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate comparative merits of the alternatives.”

County staff worked with the County Board of Supervisors, the Project Area Committee, and the Development Agency Executive Director, and Treasurer to develop the range of reasonable alternatives that are feasible and would meet most of the project objectives.

C-42: Why is there an alternative that consists of not doing the downtown catalyst projects or vice versa? R-42: Please see Response R-41. C-43: Would like to add additional time to respond to comment period of EIR. Historical value of Anisq’Oyo’ Park is not addressed in EIR. R-43: Please see Responses 14-7 and 24-10. C-44: What type of wildlife – native plants and animals – is considered in the EIR? Does the plan mention that we should have more native species? R-44: Section 3.5, Biological Resources, of the EIR analyzes impacts to biological resources resulting from the implementation of the IVMP. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 in particular reduces impacts to native species and Mitigation Measure CC-BIO-1 requires the replacement of native trees species that are impacted by the development of the proposed community center. C-45: MTD needs to be addressed. R-45: Please see Response 17-3. C-46: Under mitigation strategies, the document needs a definition of feasibility. Alternative 5, if housing density is increasing, why does the population number mirror today’s numbers. R-46: CEQA requires that mitigation measures be feasible. (Pub. Res. Code § 21002; CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4.) A mitigation measure is considered feasible if it is capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors. (Pub. Res. Code § 21061.1; CEQA Guidelines § 15364 Section 6.0, Alternatives, of the EIR discusses and compares each Alternative considered in the EIR. Residential Densities and Build-out are compared in Table 6.1-2.



C-47: Concern with beach cliff erosion with Alternatives 4 and 5. Consider safety aspects as well. R-47: The project proposes no change to zoning or land use designations for the bluffs. Section 6.0, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR discusses the impacts of Alternatives 4 and 5. Alternatives 4 and 5 are anticipated to have a beneficial impact on bluff erosion when compared to the proposed project because developers would have an incentive to relocate their structures closer to the street edge and out of the 75 year bluff erosion zone. Alternative 5 would allow for additional potential development on the south side of Del Playa Drive if some of the underdeveloped properties redeveloped. However, this development would need to comply with the 75-year bluff erosion setback. C-48: In the Plan, is there any increase in emergency access for Isla Vista? Increasing densities will increase problems in Isla Vista. R-48: Emergency access modifications are not part of the proposed project. Section 3.12 (Public Services and Utilities) analyzes the impacts of the project on public services, including emergency services, in Isla Vista. To the extent the comment does not relate to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the EIR but rather to the merits of the project, no response is required. The commenter’s opinion will be forwarded to the decision makers. C-49: When amphitheater was built, public safety was taken into consideration. The commenter would like to leave the park alone. R-49: Please see Responses 2-1, 8-1, and 14-8. C-50: Looking at trends in car ownership in Isla Vista, parking demand has increased because there is no viable alternative to auto use. Need a traffic model and mode splits to analyze parking and traffic impacts. R-50: Please see Responses 4-2 and 4-3. Section 3.13 of the EIR analyzes the potential impacts on traffic and parking resulting from the proposed project. C-51: UCSB is building 3,000 units on El Colegio Road, but the Fire Captain indicated there is no fire safety increase. UCSB is big gorilla over Isla Vista. R-51: Please see Responses 10-2, 14-4, R-18, R-22, and R-48. C-52: Growth is occurring in Isla Vista, if no housing occurs in Isla Vista, UCSB will provide the housing. Housing is needed in IV. Housing is expensive because of limited housing options due to economic reality. What happens when there is a cap on housing? The housing costs will go up.



R-52: As this comment does not relate to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the EIR, no response is required. The commenter’s opinion will be forwarded to the decision makers. C-53: Wants the public know that eminent domain is not included in the project. R-53: The proposed project includes an amendment to the 1990 Redevelopment Plan for Isla Vista. If approved, the amendment results in changes to Sections 400, 501, 503 and 512 of the Redevelopment Plan.

The purpose of the amendment is to:

• Further clarify that the Agency cannot use eminent domain to acquire land;

• Allow the Agency the flexibility to acquire land from willing sellers for commercial, housing and mixed use projects; and

• Permit the Agency the ability to assist in development or redevelopment projects for purposes and uses consistent with the objectives of the Plan.

Eminent domain is not part of this project and the main purpose of proposed amendment to the Redevelopment Plan is to clarify this fact. C-54: Objectives for EIR should be reviewed and meet community objectives outlined in the Master Plan. R-54: Please see Response 20-1a. C-55: Increase bicycle safety strategies, with increased density and population. EIR did not adequately address overlap with bicyclists, pedestrians, and autos. R-55: Please see Reponses 4-2, 4-3 and 4-4. C-56: EIR does not consider noise by residents and households. R-56: Please see Responses 9-1 and 18-6. C-57: Public service impacts on police services may be closer to Class I than Class II. With buildout, there is no need for police increase is an inadequate evaluation. No model to come to this conclusion; this is a dis-service. R-57: Please see Response 9-2. C-58: Alternative 4 and 5 – easement 5 feet and off-street parking are impacts unless parking structure is provided, but not in downtown – too far and unsafe. Pardall Road impact on pedestrian and bicyclists. R-58: Please see Responses 9-10 and R-50.



C-59: Affordable housing – ten sites identified. Two or three should be built, not all ten. R-59: Please see Response 9-4. C-60: Noise should be considered for outdoor dining right-of-way. R-60: Please see Response 9-7. C-61: Disagree with privacy loss is a Class III impact. R-61: Please see Response 9-11, C-62: Program v. Project EIR, when approved this EIR will be used to approve projects. Would like it spelled out clearly when another EIR is required. What will require another EIR? R-62: Please see Response 9-3. C-63: Isla Vista has blight; the answer is redevelopment. R-63: As this comment does not relate to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the EIR, no response is required. The commenter’s opinion will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. C-64: Traffic circulation – EIR talks about increased traffic. Alternative 2 talks about average daily trips. It does not take into consideration the units (population) outside of Isla Vista that might be built. Traffic circulation will have a higher impact that is currently stated. More commuters coming in, and increases in UCSB enrollment increases trips and additional parking demand. R-64: The baseline analysis in Section 3.13 includes all of the reasonably foreseeable future development within the Isla Vista-Goleta area. This includes projects outside of the Isla Vista Project Area. The complete list of projects analyzed is contained in Section 2.0, Project Description, of the EIR. The 9,107 ADT and 730 PM PHT added to the study-area roadways and intersections as a result of Alternative 2 do not change the cumulative traffic impact as analyzed in Section 3.13 of the EIR. C-65: Alternative 3 – Biological resources: vernal pools – Not everyone is taking pets to vernal pool – some are taking them to beach. Analysis not based on anything – remove or reanalyze. R-65: The Biological Resources section of Alternative 3 recognizes that there would be less disturbance to existing biological resources in the western residential portion of the project area under Alternative 3, which focuses new development within the downtown area, than



under the proposed project. The commenter’s opinion will be forwarded to the decision makers. C-66: Alternative 5 increases density in Del Playa. How can more density mean fewer cars and fewer trips? Alternative 5 will meet project objectives and air quality, in lieu of parking fees and more traffic trips. How did this outcome come about? R-66: Section 6.0, Alternatives, in the EIR describes the anticipated impacts of Alternative 5, including an increased number of auto trips in the project area. The comment incorrectly states that car trips generated by Alternative 5 would decrease. C-67: The old zoning mixed with form based zoning serves community with reducing blight and improving buildings that need to be renovated. May be better alternative than the project if you are trying to stimulate development on Del Playa. Anisq’Oyo’ Park does not function or flow. If Isla Vista is blighted and the park is a great resource, but you cannot go through park, it is not well lit and the design is not safe. Needs to be redesigned, whether they move amphitheatre or not. R-67: As this comment does not relate to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the EIR, no response is required. The commenter’s opinions will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. C-68: Agree with need to define “feasibility” of mitigation. R-68: Please see Response R-46. C-69: Some of the mitigations don’t sound convincing for example: 3.12 –services and fire protection. Additional services will be added “when funding is available”. Human services: mitigation measures are not solid. R-69: Please see Responses 9-2, 10-2, and 14-4. C-70: Cultural and historic significance of the park should not be only under parks and recreation impacts, but under cultural and historic resources. R-70: Please see Responses 14-7 and 20-28. C-71: Park is a community asset and should be given more consideration. R-71: As this comment does not relate to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the EIR, no response is required. The commenter’s opinion will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. C-72: Presented a resolution by Associated Students of UCSB in support of reduced residential densities alternative (Alternative 2). Strongly opposed Alternative 1, Alternative 3,



and Alternative 6. Read and submitted resolution. Impacts of development are extremely under-estimated, but doing nothing should not occur as well. R-72: As this comment does not specifically relate to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the EIR but rather to the merits of the project, no response is required. The commenter’s opinion will be forwarded to the decision makers. C-73: No posters were seen on campus regarding this meeting and difficult for students to attend due to finals. Ask that comment period be extended. R-73: Please see Response 24-10. C-74: Need a recreation demand area so fees stay in project area. R-74: Please see Response 14-2. C-75: Transportation fees also need to be kept in project area. R-75: Please see Responses 5-4 and 26-10. C-76: Another alternative that should be explored is closing Pardall to automobiles and only open to pedestrian and bicyclists. R-76: Please see Response 9-9. C-77: There are deficiencies in the EIR. Parks- increase in density has an impact on solid waste to parks. It means additional trash must be emptied once a week. This is insufficient. Solid waste impact to park is under estimated. Mitigation is inadequate. Who will enforce trash regulations? R-77: Please see Responses 10-2 and 20-32. C-78: If development occurs, trees will be lost. A mitigation ratio (1 to 1) for new trees and native trees and properly enforced. R-78: Section 3.5, Biological Resources, describes the relevant local policies that protect native species and vegetation and identifies mitigation measures to ensure protection and/or replacement of native trees within the project area. Section 4.4 specifically identifies mitigation measures that will reduce impacts to trees in Estero Park to less than significant levels (including replacement of native trees at a ratio ranging from 5:1 to 3:1 and non-native trees at a ratio of 1:1). The commenter’s opinion will be forwarded to the decision makers. C-79: People leave Isla Vista because of noise. Increase population will increase noise issues. R-79: Please see Responses 9-1 and 18-6.



C-80: What about older students, families, and staff? Need incentives for theses types of residents. R-80: The proposed project and the project alternatives were developed to meet the objectives of the IVMP including, “A variety of housing types should be provided that appeal to a range of household sizes, and income levels.” As this comment does not relate to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the EIR, no response is required. The commenter’s opinion will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. C-81: Concerned about hazardous materials monitoring. Who does it and who pays for it? R-81: Section 3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the EIR analyzes potential impacts of the IVMP at build out and recommends mitigation measures. The impacts discussion describes how older buildings and construction activities will be monitored, contaminants identified and hazardous materials disposed in accordance with County Fire, Air Pollution Control District and other responsible agency regulations and policies. C-82: Circulation - how does road widening and traffic circles mitigate impacts on El Colegio, but won’t mitigate Embarcadero Del Mar, which is unsafe for bikes. This needs to be addressed in EIR. R-82: Please see Responses 4-3 and 4-4. Section 3.13, Traffic and Circulation, of the Draft EIR describes the potential improvements identified for the El Colegio Road corridor (roundabouts or 4-lane roadway) that would improve design capacity and circulation on Embarcadero Del Mar south of El Colegio Road. Mitigation Measure CIRC-1.6.1 in particular would improve Isla Vista intersections along El Colegio Road and would mitigate impacts on both El Colegio and Embarcadero Del Mar. C-83: Disappointed in the lack of vision by students. Surprised by resident’s selfishness by not agreeing to allow affordable housing for residents. Need housing for people who work here. Speaker would object to primarily student housing. New housing would reduce air pollution impacts. Less people driving from farther areas. R-83: As this comment does not relate to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the EIR, no response is required. The commenter’s opinion will be forwarded to the decision makers. C-84: Encourage sustainability as a factor in the EIR. R-84: Your comment will be forwarded to decision makers for their consideration. CEQA is intended to analyze the physical environmental impacts of a project. The IVMP includes policies encouraging sustainable development the effects of which were analyzed in the EIR.



C-85: Emphasize that visitors that come on weekends will add more density. Concerned by lack of specific funding for services. Community center is necessary. R-85: Please see Responses 9-2, 10-2, and 14-4. As this comment does not relate to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the EIR, no response is required. The commenter’s opinion will be forwarded to the decision makers. C-86: Quimby fees should stay in Isla Vista for recreation demands. Create a recreation demand area? EIR shows a lack of impact to recreation areas in alternatives section. Utilize Quimby Fees in Isla Vista. R-86: Please see Responses 14-2.

response to comments on the draft...

Documents