[goin' medium]

Howdy All,
I just recieved this letter from the ROMP list. UCSC is thinking about expanding, and at least some of that expansion will be onto the areas we currently ride. You can be for or against it, as you see fit, but if you want your opinion heard you need to go to the meeting:

Dear friends,

As you might be aware, UCSC is planning on doubling
the square footage of their campus and increasing
student enrollment by 50%. Basically, a "second
university" will be built next the existing one - and
will cover up many of the trails above the campus.
This project dwarfs the Dream Inn remodel and Home
Depot in scope and increased traffic.

Now is your chance to voice your concerns about the
UCSC expansion. UCSC is having a public meeting on
Feb. 16th from 6-8pm at the UCSC Inn and Conference
C! enter, 611 Ocean Street. This is one of the few
chances that the community has to make comments about
the proposed growth. Please attend - even for just 30
minutes - you don't need to speak, we will hand out
signs for supporters to hold up. Please forward this
email to your friends, neighbors, and hikers/bikers
who use the trails.

How will the proposed growth affect you? First, the
university estimates an increase of 9,000 additional
car trips everyday on the westside. Imagine Mission
Street with that many cars! Or what this will mean for
your children walking to school. This traffic will
also spill over to other areas of the County, not just
the westside.

If you are a mountain biker or hiker this will affect
you. The University plans to double the campus
buildings and build on many of the trail system above
the existing campus.

The growth plans will also mean:
* 4,000 additional students seeking off campus hous! ing
* a new road and entrance on Empire Grade near the
Waldorf School
* more students parking in residential neighborhoods
meaning you might have to buy a permit to park on your
own street
* increased demand on the city's water supply

The meeting on Feb. 16th is to discuss what should be
studied in the Environmental Impact Report. This can
include traffic, housing, parking and other issues.
If we do not voice these concerns now, they do not
need to be addressed in the EIR study. Once the EIR
study is approved, the University is pretty much able
to proceed with the project. Please do not miss this
crucial meeting!

If you would like to be included on an email list for
future updates from the Coalition Limiting University
Expansion (CLUE), please email
CLUE@buildingecology.com

If you cannot make the meeting, you can mail your
comments to John Barnes, Campus Planning Director,
Physical Planning and Construction! , UCSC, 1156 High
Street, Santa Cruz, CA 96064.

For more information about the proposed growth, visit:

http://currents.ucsc.edu/04-05/01-24/lrdp.asp

 

[surfinguru]

Scott,

Thanks for the heads up on this. I do remember seeing a flyer posted at the top of the Ucon Trail a few months back showing some plans for paving the fire road to provide access to future housing projects. Unfortunatly, I didn't really read the thing in detail. (Not to mention I don't remember seeing it up there for very long.)

This is NOT a good thing! Guys, Gals, we need to rally and show up for this meeting! Pleas plan to attend.

 

[El_Chimichanga]

Damn, it's going to be impossible to get out of my driveway now...damn.

 

[punkassean]

I remember this from a while ago, I sent a detailed email stating my lack of support to the guy in charge and actually got a fast semi-desirable reply. I seem to remember that there are a few proposed options for expansion and the largest one that actually threatened the trails the most was very unlikely to happen. It is like they threw that option in there to increase the odds of getting approval for the more "realistic" plan. Kind of like starting with a high asking price knowing you plan to sell for much less. Most of the trails we ride are not even part of the UC campus and are unaffected by this proposal but I still think they shouldn't be allowed to expand into the "nature preserve" if we can't even ride there (the new rolleyes smiley looks more ghey than anything)

but da peoples gots ta get edumacted right???

 

[black noise]

This is the most retarded idea I've ever heard. Thanks for posting this, I'll be there. I know Magic Carpet and Campers probably won't be affected, but I'd rather not have a big chunk of the open forest gone.

Along with the trails we'd have a few thousand more students clogging Bay and Mission.

 

[scurban]

I highly doubt it will be approved.

 

[Raacerx]

I highly doubt it will be approved.

yeah I dont see how the people of santa cruz would let that happen. Ill hit up that meeting for sure though. The westside is already one of the most overcrowded areas Ive ever lived in.

 

[jimw]

Just a reminder - the meeting is tomorrow.

 

[jimw]

I went to this meeting. It was about half full, but there were a lot of comments from concerned citizens, all unanimously against the expansion. What's weird is that it almost seems like the feedback so far has not really been taken into account, kinda like the UC is making its plans, soliciting public comment, but not really listening, just paying lip service. Hopefully that will not be the case this time. From other comments I heard, it does seem that there is a long history of the UC not living up to its promises in terms of mitigating the environmental impact of its expansion.

I thought there would be more people from the biking community there. AFAIK I was the only one who said anything regarding the proposed development of the upper campus as it affects mountain biking, but even there you can't go into too many specifics ("uh, it would be bad to develop the upper campus because it might negatively affect the illegal mountain biking trails there"). Anyway, hopefully there was sufficient negative feedback that they reconsider their plans.

 

[Whoaohohohoh]

I went to this meeting. It was about half full, but there were a lot of comments from concerned citizens, all unanimously against the expansion. What's weird is that it almost seems like the feedback so far has not really been taken into account, kinda like the UC is making its plans, soliciting public comment, but not really listening, just paying lip service. Hopefully that will not be the case this time. From other comments I heard, it does seem that there is a long history of the UC not living up to its promises in terms of mitigating the environmental impact of its expansion.

I thought there would be more people from the biking community there. AFAIK I was the only one who said anything regarding the proposed development of the upper campus as it affects mountain biking, but even there you can't go into too many specifics ("uh, it would be bad to develop the upper campus because it might negatively affect the illegal mountain biking trails there"). Anyway, hopefully there was sufficient negative feedback that they reconsider their plans.

Although I missed the meeting, I must point out that UCSC doesn't have to follow CEQA regulations which is why they don't live up in terms of mitigating environment impacts. However the plan that they propose, which i have read will not happen the way they want it to, so in regards to that punkassean is right, they do propose really whacky plans that are way to radical making the ones they really want to happen, happen.

However, even though UC doesn't follow CEQA regulations, they do have to address your comments, so look for that in the next draft EIR they release. I will try to find the exact part I believe it is (15386) on why the UC's don't follow CEQA requirements and post that up for the board.

I would have been to the meeting if I wasn't so tired and would have brought with me my ceqa book.

 

[jimw]

However, even though UC doesn't follow CEQA regulations, they do have to address your comments, so look for that in the next draft EIR they release. I will try to find the exact part I believe it is (15386) on why the UC's don't follow CEQA requirements and post that up for the board.

This was another thing that was brought up in the meeting. Apparently there was an earlier comment period, and the latest version of the LRDP supposedly incorporated those comments, but there was no summary or discussion of what they actually changed from the previous version. It seemed like they were almost purposefully making it difficult for the community to be involved.

 

[Whoaohohohoh]

ok, i apologize apparently the Uc's do have to follow CEQA, however they have a somewhat different CEQA format to follow. There format can be found here: http://www.ucop.edu/facil/pd/CEQA-Handbook/ for all that are interested.

Jimw: Even though they make it purposefully hard for the community, you do have a right to see those comments. However they do not have to mention what they changed in a meeting, since they have already been mention in the draft EIR.

 

[goin' medium]

Thanks Jim for going to the meeting and reporting back. I couldn't make it down from Fremont. As mountain bikers we definately have a stake in the decisions that are being made. To often we don't even know there is a problem until it's too late. Thanks again to everyone that is keeping tabs on the UCSC expansion. Be sure to let us know if we need to take further action to protect the trails we ride.

Scott

 

[black noise]

Does anyone know how they would expand? I read in the Sentinel that they would almost double the buildings (off High st) but that's kinda cryptic. Would they push up into the trails or build on the big meadow? Or maybe that meadow on the left as you drive up to twin gates. It seems like the meadows would be easier/cheaper but huge open areas like that should be preserved.

 

[Whoaohohohoh]

As far as I know, they wouldn't get up that high. They plan on going up to the first set of water towers, right about where the enterence of dead campers is. If you want to, you can see the map of it at the UCSC science library.

The meadows area, wouldn't be cheaper because there is actually an endangered species that lives there, the Ohlone tiger beetle, which would never allow them to build up that high. Also the meadows can turn into seasonal wetlands, which would force them to do more mitigation. Also they are just building 2 new colleges, 11 and 12 and so the expansion isn't that big. Hope the helps you.

 

[jimw]

They also want to build a "Campus Support" building up on Empire grade near the Waldorf school (about 2 driveways before my house). This makes zero sense, as this would involve trucks and other large campus support vehicles going up that nasty stretch of Empire Grade, loading up, and going back down Empire Grade. I believe they are also proposing building a bridge from that building across the gulch to connect to the top of the expansion mentioned above (the fire roads up to that point intended to be paved BTW), which is another huge expense. To me the just seems like a stupid location for a campus support facility, and it almost seems like the only reason to put that there is to get a toehold of development in that area so that future development up there wouldn't seem like such a big deal.

The overall development is not just a couple buildings. From what I've heard from the community association in Cave Gulch, the new plan (LRDP 2005-2200) nearly couples the square footage of campus buildings (additional 4.3 million square feet). They want to increase student enrollment by nearly 50%, from 14,500 to 21,000. There is not adequate housing on-campus planned for the new students, which was a major source of complaints at the meeting.

Regarding the comment period, what I was saying was just reporting what someone else spoke about at the meeting. He wasn't saying that they should say what was changed in the meeting. He was saying that he commented on the first version, then when the next version came out which supposedly incorporated everyone's comments, there was no description or notes as to which sections of the plan we actually changed to incorporate any of those comments. So it is difficult to see if they actually were addressed without a careful re-reading of the modified document (not that that's a bad idea).

 

[goin' medium]

Howdy,
The good people at MBOSC have done a nice summary of the expansion, listing the pages that concern biking here:

http://www.mbosc.org/advocacy/ucsc.html

I does not look like any trails are directly threatened, but they do restate that mountain bikes will be allowed on FIRE ROADS, with no mention of legal singletrack. I will try to go to the MBOSC meeting on Wednesday and get more information.

Scott