RSS Feeds

Get your real-time updates here...
feed image
feed image
feed image
feed image
feed image
feed image

Search

Poll

How's your job situation?

(10 votes)

  • 40%
  • 30%
  • 20%
  • 10%
  • 0%
  • 0%
Please wait...

News Ticker

20 Cats, One Dog Confiscated From Davenport Home

Wednesday, November 12

Animal Services rescued 20 cats and one dog from a home on Whitehouse Creek Road on Sunday after receiving a tip from a concerned neighbor. Horrendously unsanitary conditions inside...

more...

Local Fellowship Joins Interfaith Effort to End Torture

Tuesday, November 11

The National Religious Campaign Against Torture, a coalition of 300 religious institutions across the nation, has declared Nov. 12 National Day of Witness for a Presidential Order to Ban Torture....

more...

Oodles of Openings in Local Government

Friday, November 7

After all the time and money candidates spent getting elected, it's comforting to know that citizens can still get involved in local government just by showing up. Santa Cruz...

more...

More in: The Ticker

100%
-
+
3
Show options

Sudoku

Sponsored Links

Lawsuit Settled Between UCSC and City | Print |  E-mail
Written by Chris J. Magyar   
Friday, 08 August 2008
The city of Santa Cruz garnered unprecedented legal guarantees from UC Santa Cruz in a settlement reached this month, slated to be announced on August 13, according to insiders close to the deal. In four-way negotiations that were encouraged by the Santa Cruz County Court, the university, city, Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCO), and Coalition to Limit University Expansion (CLUE) all agreed on several binding legal limits relating to housing, water, traffic, and enrollment. Here are the complete provisions of the agreement, all in effect until the Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) expires in 2020:

Enrollment

UCSC will not grow beyond 17,500 undergraduates, and 19,500 students total. Phase-in targets limit the pace of the growth as well.

Housing

UCSC must provide housing for 67 percent of its student body in excess of 15,000. (Previous agreements capped at 50 percent.) If this housing requirement is not met within a 2 percent margin of error, enrollment is frozen.

UCSC may only use 225 off campus beds for the purpose of meeting the above requirement, and must pay $199 per bed to the city with 2 percent annual increases.

The city and CLUE will not oppose housing development west of Porter College.

The city will adopt rental regulations within two years, or UCSC's housing limitations are void.

Expansion

UCSC will apply to LAFCO for water and sewer services in the north campus area, and the city will not oppose the application, though CLUE reserves the right to challenge during the process.

If LAFCO does not approve the expansion, or imposes conditions UCSC doesn't like, or takes more than 18 months, or someone challenges the expansion in court, all parties are allowed to pursue further legal action regarding north campus construction.

If LAFCO denies the application or the university is otherwise blocked from developing north campus, the housing restrictions above are void.

Water

UCSC will pay the same water fees as everyone else, and treated the same as any other applicant in terms of allocation of new water supply. (A 1965 agreement gave the University of California free access to water supplies, regardless of jurisdiction.) If the city declares there is not enough water resource for new development, UCSC must halt development, just like everyone else, and halt enrollment increases.

UCSC will implement water conservation measures within five years.

Traffic

The number of average daily vehicle trips (ADT) to and from UCSC must not exceed 28,700, or 3,900 more than there are now. UCSC will pay $1.4 million to the city for the extra trips, in order to fund improvements to corridors and intersections leading to campus. UCSC will also pay $419,000 for new development at 2300 Delaware and Long Marine Lab.

If the above number of ADT is exceeded, UCSC must take mitigation actions such as adjusting the number of students and workers on campus or implementation of alternative transportation. The university will also pay triple fines for every ADT above 28,700.

If UCSC is prevented from developing north campus, or if legal actions prevent UCSC from meeting its housing requirement, or the bus system reduces its services to campus below 25 percent of all ADT, the total allowed ADT will increase to 30,000, and the penalties will not apply.

Traffic counts will be conducted at the expense of UCSC every three years or 1,000 new students, whichever happens first.

UCSC will pay for another $107,500 worth of widening efforts on Mission (in addition to the $216,500 it's already paid), all the costs of improving Heller & Empire Grade, all the costs of any new entrance to campus, 40 percent of the costs to repair Bay Street, and all the costs of improving entry to the Marine Science Campus at Delaware and Shaffer. 

UCSC and the city will each chip in $500,000 toward alternative transportation improvements, and both will also pay $50,000 to work with CLUE to find new methods of easing traffic congestion around campus and the Westside.

General Agreements

The next LRDP must identify alternate sites for campus growth.

The current (2020) LRDP will go through without a lawsuit by any of the parties.

UCSC will not develop a corporation yard on Empire Grade north of West Entrance.

Measures I and J will be considered satisfied.

UCSC will withdraw its legal fight against the city regarding 1965 water contracts.

UCSC will not renew its lease at the University Inn when it's up in 2011, opening those hotel rooms to Transient Occupancy Tax.

The biomedical facility will be built without challenge from any of the parties.

Enforcement mechanisms will be determined for all these provisions by November 1.

Reactions from all parties and a deeper explanation of how the city was able to win concessions from the university will be explored in an article for the August 14 edition of Good Times. Stay tuned...

Trackback(0)

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (3)

Subscribe to this comment's feed
These out of control private-public partnerships a
0
So, it looks like the University gets to continue its corporate privatization & development program unopposed, is how I read it.

Development of north campus? Yes. Expansion of the University? Yes. Any mention of the labor issues at the UC? No. A privately controlled biomedical sciences building, built almost entirely for the benefit of the QB3 Bioscience Public-Private Partnership Program - the UCSC flagship for corportate privatization of the university? Yes.

Privatization and narrow-minded obsession with patents are the real issues with American academics these days. It's actually not so dissimilar to the kind of ideological control of science that existed in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia - except now the new controlling ideology is commercialization and privatization, mostly under the guise of "public-private partnerships."

Thus, what you see is a steady realignment of UCSC research with existing corporate interests. Renewable energy research? Not interested. Pantent-able knock-offs of existing drugs and medical devices for private industry? Wonderful!

Pollution mitigation? Research into pesticides and Parkinson's, diesel fuel and asthma, depleted uranium and kidney and brain damage, PCBs in marine mammals? No, you won't see that kind of research being done at the new Biomedical Building. Nor will you see research into any non-patented medical treatments.

Where's the money in that? That might even hurt other interests that partner with the university, as well. I mean, if you show that aspirin is more effective and safer than the latest pharmaceutical blockbuster Vioxx-Celebrex knockoff that your funding relies on, noone's gonna be happy with you (except some patients, maybe). Furthermore, now that the courts have handed the UC the power to judge whistleblower complaints themselves, we can expect even less transparency and more corruption.

Some scientists at the university have forgotten what Ernest Rutherford (experimental discovered of the atom's structure) said a century ago: You cannot serve God and Mammon both. Now they're just running around with dollar signs in their eyes. Since these are the people who now run the administration, courtesy of the Regents, the rest of them are mostly powerless to do anything about it, or are just fellow travelers.
Ike Solem , August 10, 2008
...
0
P.S.

Unfortunately, the UC will now be relying on the idiotic actions of some unknown persons who firebombed a family on the upper West Side in order to justify their plans. Employees of the University Ministry of Truth will surely use this convenient event to paint all opponents of UC expansion and privatization as violent radicals.

The timing couldn't have been better, could it? Funny thing is, last time I saw animal rights protesters in Santa Cruz, I believe they were picketing Kentucky Fried Chicken, and they weren't wearing any black face masks, either. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find out that the real perpetrators had some ulterior motive.

Who wears black face masks and instigates violence, again? You need to a flashplayer enabled browser to view this YouTube video
Ike Solem , August 10, 2008
\"Such a deal!\" NOT!
0
The University asserts that the agreement specifies:

"The University will provide new beds to house 67% of the students above 15,000 (the previous commitment was 50%) such that if overall enrollment reaches 4,500 new students as projected in the 2020 LRDP UCSC will provide 3,000 new beds."

Note that the commitment for housing includes a four-year lag time between the enrollment growth and the housing. Thus, the additional students will be here for four years before the beds are provided for them on campus!

While the increase over 50% is accurate relative to the proposed housing in the LRDP, the 1988 LRDP committed to housing 70% of students on campus. It currently houses less than 50% of students on campus.

And what happens if the housing commitment is not met? "If the housing commitment is not met within four years of the enrollment growth, the University will, within a 2% margin of error, freeze
enrollment at the previous year's level until the housing commitment is met."

Since the agreement limits enrollment to 16,360 in academic year 2011-2012 compared to 14,400 in 2003-2004 when the EIR on the LRDP was prepared. Thus, roughly 2,000 additional students can be admitted without any additional housing being provided on campus, and the percentage of students housed can fall to 44%, even farther below the 49% UCSC claimed were housed in 2004 when enrollment was supposedly around 14,400 students.

The agreement also allows UCSC to disregard the housing portion of the agreement if for any reason it is not able to develop the Upper Campus.

UCSC agreed to apply to LAFCO for the approvals required by State law for development of the Upper Campus. HOWEVER, if the decision by LAFCO does not permit the development, UCSC reserves the right to file a law suit challenging LAFCO's jurisdiction over the matter. The Agreement also requires the City to assist UCSC in the application to LAFCO and forbides the City from opposing the application.

Thus, there is no guarantee that housing on campus will be provided.

CLUE has not agreed to support the application to LAFCO, has retained its right to oppose it, and CLUE members are likely to strongly oppose the application based on the grounds provided in their law suit as well as their comments on the Draft EIR for the LRDP.


UCSC has demonstrated that it does not keep its promises to the community. While the agreement has provisions for its enforcement, something that has not existed in the past, the community will need to continue its watchfulness as the University may once again fail to fulfill its commitments.

While much of the credit has been given to the City and County for the concessions by the university, CLUE played a major role with its separate law suit and the other law suit by 9 individual litigants as well as the Bonny Doon Rural Association and CLUE. CLUE's attorney, Steve Volker, has been very successful in many environmental law suits for over 20 years, and he has been involved in numerous other law suits against the University of California.

CLUE has shown itself to be an important player in the future of the Santa Cruz community.

The University can no longer run roughshod over the community.

The settlement fails adequately to address all the critical issues and all our concerns:
It does not address
* habitat preservation and endangered species,
* groundwater and wastewater pollution and control,
* logging
* additional traffic on Santa Cruz's Westside for Deleware Street and Marine Lab developments
* air pollution and violation of the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District's air quality plan
* Greenhouse gas emissions contributing to Climate change
* community noise from traffic and more students living off-campus

The University can no longer plan and implement expansion plans that adversely affect the community and the environment without addressing the community's concerns as represented by CLUE's effective presence, ability to file important legal actions, and ear to the broader community, not just the concerns of the City Council.
Hal Levin , August 10, 2008

Write comment

smaller | bigger
security image
Write the displayed characters

busy


Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
 

Most Recent Comments

Does Obama Do Yoga?
If the past 4 years of yoga in Santa Cruz with Mark Stephens has any indication of the next 4 years of an Obama Administration, our country has a major crisis we better begin to prepare for. I took a...

Los Dryheavers head to Mexico
the cranks de califaztlan are the best

Does Obama Do Yoga?
Does Obama do yoga? I think that this is a good question. If he doesn't, he sure had me fooled. If he does, how "cool" would that be! And not just for all of us yoga junkies, here in santa cruz, who...

Student Activists Flyer at Chamber of Commerce Dinner
Thank you Elizabeth for exposing this on going struggle up on the hill. It is sad that the University of California received an award for organization of the year while it has continuously failed to ...

Neighbors concerned about Neary Lagoon
Didn't I see something about psychically affecting the water in that Santa Cruz hit movie, "What the @#$%^ Do We Know Anyway?" Answer: not very bleeping much! It's swampy water, it's natural. Don't b...

From Our Archives

  • Tripped Out: David Arquette rides the movie wave and hopes to make a splash filming ‘The Tripper’
  • Greening Credit Cards: Corporations helping the environment through affinity programs can also be endangering the environment
  • Feeling Gorgeous Yet?: Man, woman, straight, gay, bi, curious—the craving to look perfect strikes a haunting universal chord
  • Landmark Nosh: No one can claim to have ‘been there and done that’— food and wine-wise—unless they’ve sampled Masters of Food & Wine
  • Outback Outlaws: Aussie western ‘The Proposition’ a brooding morality play
  • He, She, You, Us: New UC Santa Cruz group hopes to inspire gay youths
  • When Pigs Fly: One-of-kind KPIG spreads the lard toward San Francisco
  • AFFORDABLE HOUSING: A lawsuit against Santa Cruz County over the lack of affordable housing has some residents hopeful. But adpoting a bona fide housing plan that would put more affordable units on the ground remains an enigma.
  • When Bad Is Good: Steven Johnson argues that our culture is getting steadily more complex
  • Back to the Bash: The Calabash Awards moves into its sixth year of recognizing ethnic arts
Latest Forum Posts
TopicsByCategoryDate
2009 NEWPORT BEACH FILM FESTIVAL-THANKS...NewportCommunity Bulletin Board11-06-08
Re:the latest lie prop 8 promotesanonymousNews10-30-08
Re:the latest lie prop 8 promoteswere all equalNews10-27-08
Re:the latest lie prop 8 promotescmagyarNews10-19-08
Re:the latest lie prop 8 promotesScottNews10-19-08
Powered By PageCache
Generated in 0.50716 Seconds