TALKING POINTS/ PUBLIC COMMENT

The Santa Barbara Ranch Revised Draft EIR is substantially flawed and does not comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

A.        The RDEIR’s Project Description fails to describe and analyze the impacts of all elements of the proposed project.  For example:

1. Although it would be created by the project, the Santa Barbara Ranch Project Description does not include the Naples Planned Development District (NPD), which allows for annexation of adjoining parcels containing Naples town site lots.

2. The Project Description does not adequately describe the project’s water supply, including the proposed diversion from environmentally sensitive Dos Pueblos Creek, and it does not analyze impacts to species such as steelhead and red-legged frogs in the creek.

3. The Project Description does not adequately describe the sewage treatment plants and their operation.  Specifically, the RDEIR fails to describe or analyze the impacts of sewage sludge drying, transport and disposal.

B.        CEQA requires a description of the existing environmental setting of the project, so that project impacts can be measured against a baseline.  This RDEIR fails to adequately describe the existing environmental setting.  For example:
           

1. The RDEIR does not delineate all wetlands on the project site, as required to ensure avoidance and protection.  Some wetlands delineated in 2004-05 have been improperly deleted from the RDEIR.

2. The RDEIR does not adequately describe the Chumash Villages on either side of Dos Pueblos Creek.  Inadequate surveys of the development envelopes in these areas leaves open the possibility that artifacts or burial sites will be unearthed unwittingly when better investigations would have enabled avoidance of such areas.

3. Similarly, the RDEIR fails to describe the extent and location of suspected soil contamination from historic oil and gas operations.  Without knowing the areas of contamination, it is impossible to design the project to avoid or minimize such areas. Indeed, no effort has been made to identify areas of high contamination or to site the proposed homes to avoid such areas.

C.        The Environmental Impact Analysis in the RDEIR does not identify all impacts, and misclassifies many impacts as less than significant.  For example:

1. The impact analysis lists the County’s adopted thresholds for determining the significance of environmental impacts, but it does not employ them consistently.

2. The analysis overlooks inconsistencies with County policies which are supposed to trigger findings of significant impacts to habitats and rare species.

3. View impacts are consistently downplayed. View impacts are significant because the area is visually stunning, viewers have high expectations, and developments will block ocean and island views, mountains, ridgeline and skyline views, and introduce lighting into a currently dark night sky.

4. Mitigation measures identified to lessen impacts are improperly deferred until after EIR certification.  Many mitigation measures lack clear performance standards, robbing the public of its right to review and comment on the effectiveness and feasibility of the measures.

D.        The analysis of project Alternatives is often said to be the backbone of an EIR, and proponents must choose alternatives that meet project objectives while causing fewer impacts on the environment.  This RDEIR’s alternatives analysis is flawed.  For example:

1. The analysis fails to objectively compare impacts from the various alternatives.

2. The analysis incorrectly assumes that for an alternative to be feasible, it has to match the applicant’s desired profit.  Rather, CEQA simply holds that an applicant is entitled to a reasonable rate of return on investment.

3. The identified “environmentally superior alternative” actually results in significantly more development, increases many impacts of the project and only slightly reduces view impacts to travelers on Highway 101.

4. Alternative 2 and the Cluster Alternative lessen most of the project’s adverse impacts by shrinking the development area to avoid habitats, view-sheds and the coastal bluffs, and should be identified as environmentally superior.

5. A Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program, as described by Local Coastal Plan Policy 2-13, should be a component of every project alternative.  TDR should not be an alternative in and of itself.  Policy 2-13 requires TDR from Naples to an appropriate urban area when possible.