UCSB gave members of the public a chance to comment on its Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) Wednesday night, June 4, at the Isla Vista Theater, having presented it the day before to the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. Following a brief presentation on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) by Crawford, Multari & Clark's Chris Clark—hired by UCSB to complete the study—the 40 or so community members who showed up had a chance to air their grievances with the University's planned expansion. Based on an increase of 5,000 students from the current enrollment of 20,000, the LRDP would include an additional 1,600 faculty and staff on top of the current 3,350 now employed. Clark's study noted a number of significant impacts, including impacts to Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA), cultural, biological, and traffic impacts, and an estimated increase in water consumption of 856 acre feet per year—a consumption rate he said may exceed the Goleta Water District's projected water supply.
The majority of the people who came to speak at the hearing—which was officiated by Tye Simpson, UCSB's Director of the Office of Campus Planning and Design—were Storke Ranch residents opposing a potential connection between Phelps and Mesa Roads. Wearing pink badges on their shirts and lapels, they said that their relatively quiet street would see quite a bit more traffic if the road were opened up, endangering the many children who regularly use the playground on Phelps Road. While an official study counted up to 3,400 cars per day already traveling on Phelps Road—with the number projected to increase to 7,500 after the University's expansion—residents of Storke Ranch said that their end was considerably more quiet than the section of Phelps that is on the other side of Storke Road—and they’d like it to stay that way. A couple of the homeowners had conducted independent surveys of the number of cars traveling on their street during a 24 hour period, and both obtained the same result: 33. Residents also expressed concern that opening the road would increase the number of unsafe student drivers on the street. "The majority of accidents are caused by drivers ages 18 to 23," said Dawn Hymendinger, an ER nurse at Goleta Valley Cottage Hospital.
Some participants from the commentary said that there is a lower enrollment-increase option that was not addressed by the EIR, and felt that reducing the increase in student and faculty/staff population would be a better way to mitigate impacts from the University's planned expansion. A suggestion offered by one commenter, and echoed by one or two others, was that UCSB explore the option of opening a satellite campus in Santa Ynez, Santa Maria, or some other place where the pressures of increased population density might not be felt so acutely. "I think they're being fairly honest about unavoidable impacts to water, commuting, traffic, and housing, and they have a smaller growth potential that they haven't put on the table," said Dick Flacks, a professor of sociology at UCSB.
With the prospect of additional water consumption by the new, larger campus, the concern has been raised that there might not be sufficient water available from the Goleta Water District. Currently, UCSB is GWD's largest water consumer. "There are a few things we'll have to do to address that," said Marc Fisher, the Assistant Vice Chancellor of Facilities Management. "First, we need to reassess our water needs. Second, we can examine the possibility of outside water purchase, and third, we're looking at an extension of the reclaimed water system." UCSB purchases reclaimed water from GWD for its landscaping, and could possibly find other uses for reclaimed water. "It's really critical that we get the community involved. We're getting closer."
Double-clicking on any word or phrase in this story will open a reference window with definitions and links to other reference material.

Print friendly
E-mail story
Contact an Editor
iPod friendly
Comments
Bookmark This
Previous Month


Comments
Discussion Guidelines
Disappointed at the turnout. This is the single largest new development project ever proposed in the Santa Barbara County South Coast and the no-growthers who oppose every little apartment complex fail to show. As proposed they have an insurmountable water problem. CEQA is very sensitive to the type of comments made by Mr. Fischer here. If they are truly going to "reassess" their water needs and consider other water sources not specificaly addressed in the DEIR, they will need to prepare a new one and go through the process again. It will be very interesting to watch if they actually do that. Our only real hope for reasonableness on this Project is the Coastal Commission and it is my information that they are in fact paying attention and they have historically not acquiesced to the University as most others (apparently including our local no-growthers) do.
sbreader (anonymous profile)
June 7, 2008 at 1:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
sbreader.... you bet UCSB intentionally scheduled the meeting the day after the June 3 election, which guaranteed the activists would all be pooped.
Not even Doreen Farr and Steve Pappas, who would have gotten free publicity and attracted votes, bothered to show up.
The Coastal Commission is in UCSB's pocket.
pardallchewinggumspot (anonymous profile)
June 9, 2008 at 8:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
... I love a good conspiracy as well as anyone ... but if the hearing was scheduled a week earlier it'd be the week before elections conventionally the busiest time for politicos, the day before was the election itself, a week later would have been during final exam week which is then followed by end of the quarter and summer break with many not present.
And if they scheduled the hearing weeks before they did there wouldn't have been enough time read the nearly 2,000 pages of studies. If UCSB is so dang smart they should fix the calendar.
wingnut (anonymous profile)
June 9, 2008 at 1:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
UCSB also stated that the increased traffic would be more than Los Carneros, Storke Rd, Hollister Avenue, and El Colegio can handle, even with "enhanced" intersections. Rather than the large parking structures in each of the several new and redeveloped student and faculty housing complexes, maybe they should invest with the cities of goleta and santa barbara to build clean reliable public transportation that travels often enough to make it useful.
charcosa (anonymous profile)
June 10, 2008 at 6:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
A few administrators in a room with a calendar is not much of a conspiracy... a week or two earlier would have been fine, but then the candidates for 3rd District Supervisor would have focused a good amount of attention on the hearing, which UCSB did not want.
pardallchewinggumspot (anonymous profile)
June 10, 2008 at 12:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I believe at the very least that any expansion at the university should include a desalination plant that would provide water for the complete campus. A transit system that doesn't rely on just vehicles but more so a busing system or something similar.
chainsaw (anonymous profile)
June 11, 2008 at 5:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Post a comment