Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Share Article
Facebook
Twitter
Google+1
del.icio.us.
Digg!
Yahoo! Buzz
Diigo
google
newsvine
reddit
technorati
Yahoo!
MyspaceThis month, UCSB will almost certainly win approval from the UC Regents to proceed with an ambitious expansion plan that is likely to attract more than 10,000 new residents to the Santa Barbara area. The Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) calls for 5,000 more students, 1,400 more staffers, 300 more professors, and 2.2 million more square feet of building — which will nearly double the academic space — on the existing campus by 2025.
Next week, on September 7, both the Goleta City Council and the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors will consider whether to officially support UCSB’s plan. The public is invited to speak at these two hearings on Tuesday, offering everyday citizens one of their last chances to give input on the plan, which has been making the rounds for more than three years. (The next opportunity to speak is when the UC Regents meet in San Francisco on September 14.)
To bring the community up to speed on the hopes and fears for UCSB’s LRDP, The Independent provides this special report.
Paul Wellman (file)
Henry Yang
Chancellor Yang’s Legacy
In 1994, Henry Yang was hired from Purdue University, where he had been dean of engineering, to be the fifth chancellor of UCSB. His assignment was to move the institution up the academic ranks, and he quickly succeeded: Five Nobel Prize winners now call the campus home, and UCSB, according to recent reports, is the ninth best public university in the country and the 32nd best in the world. In pursuing community support for the LRDP, Yang is now hoping to win approval for what could become his greatest legacy.
The UC Regents require that each of their 10 campuses produce a long-range plan every 15 or 20 years. Yang and his administration began working on this LRDP more than a decade ago. The plan not only proposes a tremendous increase in onsite housing but also calls for sweeping pedestrian passageways and structural details that will architecturally unify a campus that has developed in a notoriously rag-tag fashion since it was established in 1945 on a former Marine Corps Air Station.
courtesy ucsb
Rendering of Tower Mall.
The process began with a “strategic academic plan,” explained Vice Chancellor Gene Lucas, because many departments “felt that they had not grown to their optimum size to reach their full academic potential.” Meanwhile, the UC Regents were tasking the university system with accommodating 50,000 more admissions over the next 15 years. UCSB officials believed they could handle 5,000 of them, growing at roughly 1 percent annually, which is in line with the projected growth rate for Santa Barbara. Included in that 5,000 is 1,380 new graduate students.
courtesy ucsb
Rendering of Campus Quad.
The next step was designing a campus plan that reflected these academic needs and determined which old buildings could be replaced and where new ones could sprout up. With those basic ideas on paper, it became show-and-tell time to the community, which Lucas and Marc Fisher, UCSB’s associate vice chancellor for campus design, began doing more than three years ago.
courtesy ucsb
Rendering of Pardall Mall.
All told, the administration has already made more than 60 presentations, evidence of Yang’s strong focus on town-and-gown relations. “We do not act unilaterally, without talking to — and more importantly, listening to — our friends and neighbors in the community,” explained Yang.
But as the only UC campus fully inside the state’s coastal zone, UCSB must also submit the plan to the California Coastal Commission. Expected to review the LRDP sometime next year, the Coastal Commission is legendarily strict in its interpretation of the state’s coastal protection laws — unlike the reportedly rubber-stamping Board of Regents — and will take into serious consideration the input of area agencies and watchdogs. “Given the time to get through the Coastal Commission approval process,” Chancellor Yang explained, “we feel there is adequate time to address everyone’s concerns and issues.”
Paul Wellman (file)
Dick Flacks
Sustainability: Greening or Greenwashing?
UCSB has long been considered a mecca for eco-minded thinking. So when longtime professor Dick Flacks attended an April 2008 public hearing on UCSB’s LRDP in Isla Vista Theater, he was “struck” by the lackluster turnout. No one from Santa Barbara’s large environmental community seemed to be keeping tabs on the region’s biggest planning process, so Flacks — then an active member of the Santa Barbara County Action Network (SBCAN) — cofounded Sustainable University Now (SUN), which is pushing the green envelope as far as it can with the LRDP and has helped activate the environmental and sustainable communities within the UCSB campus and the region at large.
“This is not an attempt to stop the university from what it wants to do,” said Flacks, who appreciates UCSB’s need to expand and believes Yang sincerely wants to have good community relations. Instead, Flacks contended, SUN just wants to help UCSB do it right and ensure that the sustainability measures aren’t just a greenwashing of a massive development scheme. What’s lacking, SUN worries, are specific sustainability benchmarks regarding such matters as alternative transportation, water, and sewage.
Despite the critiques, the members of SUN believe that they will not have to sue in order to get their demands met, which is what activists did after UCSB’s last LRDP in 1990. Flacks said that UCSB has offered to extend the period in which a lawsuit can be filed against the LRDP from 30 days after the UC Regents’ approval to six months, although Yang would not confirm as much.
Yang did, however, say that his discussions with SUN have been “positive and productive,” explaining, “Not only do we expect that we will be able to reach a collaborative agreement, but we are also hopeful that, as a whole, SUN will publicly support our LRDP.”
At the end of the day, SUN just wants to make sure that the UCSB expansion is worth it for the everyday citizen. Said Flacks, “If the community has to pay a price for this growth — say in water supplies or traffic or air pollution — it needs to know that price is worth it for the advancement of the human race, not just prestige.”
Paul Wellman
John McInnes
Water: Not Enough?
One of the most serious concerns regarding the LRDP has been raised by the Goleta Water District. In an early phase of planning, the district provided UCSB with water estimates it believed could accommodate the expansion. However, after the recent election of a more sustainably minded board and the hiring of a more cautious manager, the district sent UCSB a 38-page letter explaining why the original data was wrong. The letter, as well as another sent to the Regents this week, contends that UCSB was not only underestimating the campus’s future usage but was overestimating — and, frankly, incorrectly calculating — the future supply. The current water board now believes UCSB’s expansion is liable to exhaust the available water supply in the entire Goleta Valley.
DOCUMENT
The new district manager, John McInnes, who graduated from UCSB with a degree in environmental science in 1986, questions UCSB’s claim that there will be no net increase in water usage. Goleta Water District Boardmember Lauren Hanson, who’s trying to make sure the district is “prudent and cautious with water supply,” worries that UCSB may try to rely on State Water, which she said would be irresponsible because State Water is already over subscribed.
‘The university is essentially a very large developer who wants to come in and add a small town on top of what’s already here. … Almost anyone concerned about anything can be concerned about UCSB.’ — Lauren Hanson, Goleta Water Board
UCSB did not respond directly to these charges, but officials said they are continuing to reduce potable water usage, replacing existing plumbing fixtures with ones that use very little or no water, proud that 90 percent of the campus is irrigated with reclaimed water, and are in talks with the district to use reclaimed water for toilets. Plus, explained Yang, if there’s not enough water, the LRDP dictates that UCSB “shall halt further development … so that water demand remains within the available supply.”
Still, Hanson was concerned when, at one meeting, a UCSB administrator said he hoped the university would not be held to a higher standard than other Goleta Water District customers. So Hanson came up with her own questions for UCSB: “You’re the self-proclaimed sustainability campus. You’re the ones who need to prepare your students for the future of global climate crisis. Shouldn’t you be holding yourself to a higher standard?”
Paul Wellman
Kathleen Werner
Sewage: Too Much?
There’s only so much sewage that the Goleta Sanitary District’s wastewater treatment plant can handle, and UCSB admits that, by 2025, the expansion may be generating more poop, pee, and sink and shower water than the system can handle. UCSB’s announced solution? Simply pursue a permit for more capacity, since the Regional Water Quality Control Board told UCSB, “[T]here do not appear to be any restrictions or impediments to increasing the permitted capacity of the treatment plant in an amount sufficient to serve full build-out of the LRDP and projected cumulative growth.”
DOCUMENT
DOCUMENT
But it may not be that simple. “They make it sound easy, but it isn’t,” said the Goleta Sanitary District’s laboratory supervisor Kathleen Werner, because the plant’s entire infrastructure is built around handling a specific amount of flow. Complicating matters further is that the treatment plant is already six years into a 10-year, $50-million upgrade that will allow secondary treatment of the entire 9-million gallons of capacity. (Currently, the plant can only run 4-million gallons through the secondary process each day, although about 5 million arrives at the plant on average. The overflow receives a primary treatment before being jettisoned into the ocean.) “We’re at the point that if we aren’t full secondary by 2014, we start getting fined some outrageous amounts of money,” explained Werner, who said that the LRDP popped onto the district’s radar mid-upgrade. “We were not really able to put a halt to it and redesign the whole plant facilities.”
So could UCSB buy more capacity from other agencies that use the plant, such as Goleta West Sanitary? That’s also unlikely, said Werner. “Any agency would be foolish to sell [their] capacity to the only wastewater treatment plan in Goleta.” It’s possible, however, that UCSB simply might not overextend the plant at full build-out. But as it stands, the sewage issue remains unresolved.
Paul Wellman
Wheels: Four, Two, or None?
Professor Flacks believes the LRDP’s approach to transportation is “very 20th-century with respect to the automobile.” Weighing in on that problem is Coalition for Sustainable Transportation (COAST). Its executive director, Courtney Dietz, herself a graduate of UCSB’s Bren School of Environmental Science, wants to see freshmen cars banned, bike parking promised for all new buildings, more telecommuting allowed, and classes shifted to off-peak hours.
The administration says the housing plan, which will accommodate all 5,000 of the new students, as well as the additional faculty and staff, is a critical part of the solution. “We believe that building housing adjacent to the campus is the most viable and sustainable approach to reduction of automobile usage,” argues Yang. “We will provide the largest proximate workforce housing program on the South Coast.”
DOCUMENT
Alt Trans Troubles
Letter to Chancellor Yang about LRDP.
Source: UCSB Transportation Alternatives Board
But some question whether or not the university will be able to keep kids from bringing their cars to campus nevertheless. UCSB already has an existing transportation system — Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) — which was commissioned by Yang in 2004 and is charged with “providing alternative commuting options” for faculty, students, and staff. Many contend, however, that the administration has not put its money where its mouth is.
TAP, according to multiple sources, remains “woefully underfunded,” and its annual reports have been occasionally ignored by the university’s administration. TAP’s board has been complaining for years that the program’s source of funding, which comes from automobile parking fees and fines, is too erratic to depend on and simply not enough money to do what they need to do. Not to mention that the funding arrangement is a bit odd. “That’s kind of a paradox, right?” asked Flacks. “We need automobile use so we can fund against automobile use, too?”
But so far, none of the critics wants a big fight. Dietz, like Flacks, is eager to work with UCSB. “I don’t think anyone in this community can say that the university isn’t a great addition,” Dietz said. “It’s one of the largest employers and a lot of us have worked or graduated from there. But we really just feel that this is an invaluable opportunity for them to step it up and be an environmental leader on sustainability — not just in our community, but for the UC system. And we’re not seeing that with this plan they’ve come up with.”
The same can be said for alternative energy, argued the Audubon Society’s Darlene Chirman, who pointed to the recently passed state law, AB 32, that mandates drastic cutbacks in energy usage. “They say they’re going to meet that although the data is harder to see,” she said. “They don’t have anything specific in the plan. We would like specific promises, such as saying that this particular building would commit to alternative energy.”
UCSB’s administrators deflect the criticism by stating that the LRDP is strictly a land-use document and not meant to address sustainability issues. For those, they direct people to the recently adopted “Campus Sustainability Plan,” which is a “companion document” that “is consistent or bests the goals set by the Regents for the University of California in its policies on green buildings.” The administrators also cite the fact that they are currently spending $20 million on alternative energy projects, setting the record for using less energy per square foot than comparable institutions in California, and that the school is a leader in energy conservation research.
Paul Wellman
Sherrie Fisher
The Bus: Getting Thrown Under?
Few agencies are as freaked out by the expansion as the Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District (MTD), which runs the South Coast’s bus system, including six lines that service UCSB. “We can’t wait until the day you’re standing at the street corner and you don’t get a ride to try and beef up service,” said MTD’s manager Sherrie Fisher. She explained that UCSB accounts for more than 10 percent of the system’s 8-million annual trips but that the LRDP claimed there would be no significant impact to bus service. “We need at least a two-year window of time in order to order new vehicles and rearrange our service.”
DOCUMENT
There is a student registration fee that already kicks $900,000 to MTD each year. At the same time, student ridership has risen 40 percent in just the past year with the current student body. Fisher estimates that the expanded campus will cost $700,000 more annually to keep the service at its current and at times overloaded levels. Of that, $200,000 would come from the registration fee, leaving UCSB with a $500,000 bill. “This amount of money is what we feel is the bare minimum,” said MTD’s Steve Maas.
Until recently, UCSB has remained mostly silent on the matter, although Fisher has heard threats of UCSB starting its own bus service. “We don’t think it’s the way for them to go,” she explained, “but if they choose to do that, we need to know.” That’s because MTD would likely lose the student fees and then have to curtail bus service in parts of the Isla Vista and Goleta communities.
“It’s really a matter of dollars,” said Fisher. “If we don’t have the money, either people won’t be able to get on the bus, which would be very sad, or we have to find ways to move dollars around, and we’re not comfortable moving them from another part of the community.”
After weeks of worry, however, UCSB finally seems to be addressing MTD’s concerns. “Things are looking better,” said Fisher on Monday. “It’s looking like we’re getting attention to the subject. We don’t have any detailed answers yet, but it’s a complex, good discussion.”
Paul Wellman
Roger Aceves
Neighbors: Cultivating Cooperation?
Two jurisdictions will be receiving the bulk of UCSB’s expansion impacts: the County of Santa Barbara, which encompasses Isla Vista and parts of the Goleta Valley; and the City of Goleta, which includes pretty much everything else nearby. Both were initially very concerned with the LRDP, but after months of intense negotiations, both jurisdictions are now optimistic that UCSB will accommodate their concerns, largely because, as Dianne Black, of the county’s Planning and Development department, put it, UCSB administrators have “acted in good faith and have been reasonable in their negotiations and upfront and helpful.”
In general, the agreement amounts to UCSB giving money to both jurisdictions to help pay for impacts. Specifically, the county is negotiating over additional resources for firefighting and law enforcement, and hammering out a “cooperative relations agreement” regarding Isla Vista, particularly with regard to parking, pedestrian and bicycle access, and a number of community programs. Housing is also a concern being addressed in these negotiations, explained Goleta City Manager Dan Singer, including mitigations that cover “pacing of growth with housing so that it doesn’t happen too abruptly.”
Both the city and county are quite concerned about traffic, as the additional 2,170 estimated trips per day seemed like a lowball estimate. Pointing to the intersection of Storke and Hollister roads — but also mentioning all of the other exit and entry points to UCSB that will need to be adapted — Goleta City Councilmember Roger Aceves explained, “It’s incredibly impacted now, and we’re talking about more students going to UCSB. That’s going to require significant improvements.” So, together with UCSB staff, they are developing plans for the expected rise and also for any unexpected rise, should the trips actually be more at full build-out.
And as of press time, it appears such an agreement will indeed be inked on September 7. “I’m confident that at our Tuesday meeting, we’ll have a plan that we can all support,” said Aceves.
Tony Mastres
Henley Gate, exit view
Previous Month
Comments
10,000 new Progressive Democrat voters -- what's not to like? Of course, they will assume that someone else will use alternative transportation while they commute to campus in their Piouses and Government Motors Votes.
revisionist (anonymous profile)
September 2, 2010 at 7:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Bravo to Kettmann and the Indy for this blowout story that needs to be published.
UCSB should reach out to SBCAG and CalTrans now about supporting the schedule revision to the Pacific Surfliner train, which now is proposed to arrive at Goleta train platform at 0745 each weekday morning instead of at about 1100. MTD could add a bus stop there with a simple deal with UCSB, or UCSB could run a few biodiesel-powered shuttle vans there.
At least "revisionist" here is not trying the traditional COLABian argument that all those new students and staff should not be able to vote in Santa Barbara County but instead somehow should be required to vote in the jurisdiction from whence they came, even if they never voted there.
David_Pritchett (David Pritchett)
September 2, 2010 at 11:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It's surprising that so many people are concerned about proposed Bishop Ranch development, but there doesn't seem to be much ado about UCSB's proposed development that will provide nearly 3 times the units of Bishop Ranch.
And with the people who will be added to the community to serve all the new UCSB population, the total population added to this region will be about the same as adding the entire population of Carpinteria to the South Coast, about 12,000 people in all.
Seems like folks who care about other big projects - Bishop Ranch, La Entrada, Villages at Los Carneros, etc. should really care about UCSB's relatively much larger plans and impacts on the South Coast.
Richard_Saunders (anonymous profile)
September 2, 2010 at 5:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Seems like folks who care about other big projects - Bishop Ranch, La Entrada, Villages at Los Carneros, etc. should really care about UCSB's relatively much larger plans and impacts on the South Coast."
-- Richard_Saunders
That line of thinking seems a bit simplistic. Its not just about numbers. Those numbers are always considered in context.
1,000 people in one location might be OK but not in another. There are development plans, zoning, and community goals that need to be considered. Otherwise you might find yourself with an all-night 7-11 built next to your house.
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
September 2, 2010 at 7:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"10,000 new Progressive Democrat voters -- what's not to like?"
-- revisionist
Well, you've always got Bob Jones University!
Or for $9.95 a month, you can attend "Glenn Beck University":
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_16...
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
September 2, 2010 at 7:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"1,000 people in one location might be OK but not in another. There are development plans, zoning, and community goals that need to be considered. Otherwise you might find yourself with an all-night 7-11 built next to your house." East Beach
Exactly. Zoning regulations (laws) are frequently ignored by folks here on the comment boards.
Kingprawn (anonymous profile)
September 3, 2010 at 12:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
R.I.P. Goleta Valley
As Acheves said, it's all over but the crying....
September 7. “I’m confident that at our Tuesday meeting, we’ll have a plan that we can all support,” said Aceves.
What he's not admitting is that UCSB couldn't care less and doesn't need COG's support.
UCSB is determined to have their way which will destroy the quiet, low density enviroment of the place 30K people paid a premium and sacrifced to be able to live here instead of the nightmare density of L.A.
This developement will turn The Good Land into San Fernando Valley style student ghetto.
Why do you think there are so many hotel projects in the works? Because "they" know that it won't be just the low numbered fraud of the bedcount, it's all the additional bodies and car trips that will be required to support the students and teachers and staff.
What do we do in an emergency to evacuate that many people down a narrow three lane highway? Most of you probably don't remember when the 101 was closed for weeks when the train crashed the bridge. Or the painted cave fire tha tin 2 hours blew from the peaks to the ocean like an avalanche coming down the mountain?
UC is bad as any OC developer and yet we simply have to bend over and take it because our local government is impetant in their ability to prevent the local destruction by the State overlords...I'm sure "they" will get a raise and retirement bump for once again screwing the majority of the public that just wants to live in peace without the government standing on their necks constantly taking from them and giving back nothing!
sa1 (anonymous profile)
September 3, 2010 at 4:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
How many gravel hauling trucks with bad breaks will be descending on Hollister and Storke for the next ten years? Has anybody considered that impact? And we're being asked to consider another two thousand homes in Bishop Ranch?
Where are all these new people going to buy their groceries? At the one Albertson's that is already maxed when the kids are back? Go by and look at how small that parking lot is. There are no grocery stores in any of the development plans that I've seen. Just more and more high density housing. Camino Real Marketplace is 3/4 full most of the time already as far as parking. Ready to drive around for ten minutes just to find a spot on the opposite side of where you want to go?
Traffic on 101 is already a nightmare on the weekends. Are we all really ready to see bumper to bumper anytime you want to move around The Good Land?
sa1 (anonymous profile)
September 3, 2010 at 5:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
UCSB is already too big. This plan adds salt to the wound. How about a new UC campus in a place where people want it? UC Modesto or UC Stockton?
But wait, developers won't profit as much there because of lower housing prices.
Georgy (anonymous profile)
September 3, 2010 at 6:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
@sa1
Paging Bill Wallace. There was consensus in Goleta in the 70s and 80s to stop all development during his tenure as 3rd district supervisor. Something changed in the 90s -- what? why? Doreen Farr is completely silent about ever-denser development -- because she knows that the people likely to live in dense housing will be Democrats, while Republicans prefer single-family homes and open space?
It would be fascinating for the Independent to interview Mr. Wallace and see what he thinks of all this development.
revisionist (anonymous profile)
September 3, 2010 at 7:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
For anyone curious about Dick Flacks, his local blog can be found here:
http://sb.city2.org/blogs/rflacks ('step by step')
Great piece by the way Matt. I'd be curious to see an actual map (more than the renderings) of the proposed expansion. Is there a Google overlay?
sleeptest (anonymous profile)
September 4, 2010 at 9:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I love UCSB and I'm a proud alumni. But as a 30 year + SB resident and tri-county native, it baffles me that people still put their heads in the sand when it comes to our area's H20 supply. It's not there now, never has been, and there's never going to be more. What UCSB wants to do is not compatible nor sustainable with our area. The impact is too much, plain and simple. Tone this monster way way down while the UC Regents would better serve the educational needs of the people by building more campuses in other places that need development and can support it.
surfrmom (anonymous profile)
September 4, 2010 at 10:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Geez, your article should have been subtitled " Will Local Doom & Gloom Crybabies Prevent Another Institution From Fulfilling Its Mission and Contributing to Society ? "
Think Cottage Hospital Modernization, St. Francis Workforce Housing, Botanic Garden, etc.
If our predecessors had shared this kind of mindset we wouldn't have any of the institutions and infrastructure that make your current life on the South Coast possible in the first place!
sbbrian (anonymous profile)
September 4, 2010 at 4:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
+1 sbbrian
Well said.
And it seems all those distressed crybabies missed the part in the beginning of the article that says UCSB's 1% growth projection is in line with the projected growth rate for the rest of Santa Barbara over the next 15 to 20 years.
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
September 4, 2010 at 6:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
EB, How is this a relevent statistic? It is a meaningless palative propagando. The UC justification is full of it. If Cal politicians hadn't given away the farm in pillaging the state coffers for welfare and state employees feeding like pigs at the trough, we'd have the money to simply build a new campus where there is room.
SBB, Grow up, nobody is stopping UCSB from it's mission and they sure as hell have nothing to do with my life on the south coast. The infrastructure needs in SB has been put on the back burner in favor of higher county salaries and welfare. Had they taken care of the local infra needs first then looked at wage increases within reason, we also might be able to absorb some growth. Literally none of the so called mitigation was implemented when The Marketplace went in, why should we believe that UCSB would bother to honor the mitigation promises and why should we think that the local councils would force them to?
sa1 (anonymous profile)
September 5, 2010 at 12:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The story that needs to be told. Great job Matt! The effect on local agencies, housing and transportation makes the LRDP one of the most important issues in the coming years.
nelshenderson (anonymous profile)
September 5, 2010 at 7:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Revi,
The change in the 90's was hooking up to the State water teat followed by the viticulture crowd of landowners who then brought in thousands of illegal, low paid laborers (along with their anchor babies) to work their vineyards.
We are paying the price at so many levels now for a small cohort of already wealthy families to game the system. The public has to pay for all the support services for these illegal workers while the grape owners pay little in taxes (thanks to prop 13) and wages. Chamberlin, Firestone and Parker made out big. Parker added insult to injury by pushing low wage tourists jobs in town excaberbating the low wage tax base problem. That's why they fought so hard against splitting the county. They need South Coast money to subsidize their North county alcohol making businesses. Of course the faux-Chumash are laughing all the way to the bank while buying off every State Pol in sight while they also pay little to nothing in taxes.
sa1 (anonymous profile)
September 5, 2010 at 12:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"EB, How is this a relevent statistic? It is a meaningless palative propagando."
-- sa1
That is your own angry and misinformed characterization. Why do you think that statistic was included in Matt's original article in the first place?
It informs the reader that the growth being planned for by UCSB in their LRDP is consistent with the growth anticipated for the rest of Santa Barbara. They are not planning to grow, for example, 5 or 10-times faster than the community they are a part of.
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
September 5, 2010 at 1:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ok, EB let me try it this way.
1% growth of what? Over which time frame? All the housing looks to be built within 8 years starting now. How do you compound 1% over 8 years and come up with an increase of 25% of the student and faculty population as projected in the LRDP? Have you read the LRDP on housing?
Students: 20,000 | 25,000 - (25% increase)
Grad Students: 2,870 (13 percent of all students) | 4,250 (17 percent) - (48% increase)
Faculty: 1,000 | 1,400 - (40% increase)
Staff: 3,631 | 5,031 - (39% increase)
Assignable Square Footage*: 2.7 million sq. ft. | 4.9 million sq. ft. - (81% increase)
Parking Spaces: 10,580 | 14,230 - (35% increase)
Playing Fields: 26 acres | 31 acres - (19% increase)
Student Beds: 6,700 | 11,100 - (66% increase)
Student Family Units: 704 | 943 (34% increase)
Faculty/Staff Units: 226 | 2,100 (829% increase... Whoa!)
So show me your math EB that proves the above amounts are equal to 1% growth...
PS I have a wharf down in SB I'd sell you at a big discount...(Labor Day Sale!) Interested?
sa1 (anonymous profile)
September 5, 2010 at 5:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Frightening. Goleta, it's time for a "show me the water" ordinance.
LegendaryYeti (anonymous profile)
September 5, 2010 at 5:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
First, excellent story Matt!!
Next, I think surfrmom has it right. This will not be sustainable; are we to think that oversubscribed state water is the answer? Particularly when other non-university private development is factored in?
GoletaEngineer (anonymous profile)
September 5, 2010 at 9:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The battle seems almost hopeless. UCSB has become the worst curse visited upon this community that we have. I applaud SUN for doing what little it can do but feel that Mickey Flacks is wrong in saying that they are not trying to stop UCSB from doing what they want but merely to make sure they do it right.They are making plans that will destroy our community and there is no right way to do that. Either we throw every obstacle we can find in their path or resign ourselves to greatly diminished quality of life. More traffic, more crime, more air and water pollution, huge impacts on already dwindling water supply. A true catastrophe.
Noletaman (anonymous profile)
September 8, 2010 at 9:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"1% growth of what? Over which time frame? All the housing looks to be built within 8 years starting now. How do you compound 1% over 8 years and come up with an increase of 25% of the student and faculty population as projected in the LRDP? Have you read the LRDP on housing?"
-- sa1
Now that I'm back in town, the irony of the pot calling the kettle black when it comes to propagandizing is more than clear.
sa1 repeatedly asks what the 1% growth number is all about. But it is merely a rhetorical gimmick to score points ala the Bill O'Reilly spin zone.
If sa1 really did read the LRDP, he would know that the target 1% growth rate is an *annual* rate (1% per year) over the LDRP period (out to 2025). Just because the growth rate may not be exactly 1% every year (it may be smaller or larger in any given year, but the end result averaged over the LDRP period is 1%) is a red herring plain and simple.
And the fact that the projected increase from 20K to 25K students is 25% is yet another red herring. If your $20K investment portfolio yielded 25% after 15 years, you would have done poorly because thats only a 1% gain per year., even if 25% *sounds* like a lot (another Bill O'Reilly trick). Remember, this 1% is the same rate we're projected to be growing in Goleta and Santa Barbara as well!
And what sa1 so conveniently fails to point out is that the target 1% growth rate is a *reduction* from the previous LRDP period (1995-2007) when it was 1.5% per year (page 43 in the LRDP).
As to the increase in housing, parking lots, and other facilities on campus, that is also a red herring. If one reads the LRDP, its clear that UCSB is demolishing lots of "low density" structures and replacing them with higher density buildings to provide more infrastructure for the student population. In fact, UCSB currently houses 30% of their students - but with the new replacement structures, they'll be housing 50% of their students and more of their vehicles! Isn't that what we locals want from UCSB? To be a good neighbor and take more responsibility for their student population?
I laughed when I saw sa1's numbers. Just because the CD player in your new car weighs 75% more than your old car doesn't mean your new car is going to be that much heavier!
Finally, if the target 1% growth rate out to 2025 really mirrors the anticipated growth rate for Goleta and Santa Barbara, then why isn't anyone crying foul about growth outside of UCSB? After all, 1% per year from 20,000 students is a much smaller number than 1% per year from the 150,000 to 175,000 people living here!
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
September 12, 2010 at 1:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Based on what I've seen as a practicing engineer"
"And what sa1 so conveniently fails to point out is that the target 1% growth rate is a *reduction* from the previous LRDP period (1995-2007) when it was 1.5% per year"
Dude,
25,000 is the result of 20,000 compounding annually at 1.5% growth per year.
None of the other building projects are close to that low a figure. The problem isn't the net growth of just the student enrollment, it is as you say that 30% lives in the IV area now and within 8 years, much more than 50% will be able to.
This is a huge negative impact to the people in this area. There is no real change to the plan other than moving a few deck chairs around on the Titanic.
Emperor Yang is the one playing spin doctor here.
The approvals and negotiations were never about amending the size of the expansion, just how much would the city's and agencies be able to extract as "mitigation fees".
Once they get the mitigation funds from UC, they will then be turned over to the general funds and mysteriously disappear into the hands of the employee unions. Long forgotten eight years from now what happened to the money.
sa1 (anonymous profile)
September 16, 2010 at 4:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)