Skip to main content

Home Forums Splitboard Talk Forum Shameless Self Promotion

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 16 posts - 1 through 16 (of 16 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #569167
    Ecobrad
    Participant

    Here’s a recent newspaper article in my local paper. I’ve been working pretty hard to come to a consensus with the regulatory agencies, environmental groups and my bosses. It appears we’ve got a deal. There are also articles in the Sac. Bee, SF Chronicle, Modesto Bee etc. if you want more info…not that I think you would though. 😉

    Saturday, October 06, 2007

    Merced Sun-Star

    University scales back footprint for final campus

    Move is to appease concerns about building on sensitive wetlands

    By Victor Patton
    UC Merced officials have scaled back their initial 910-acre plan by about 100 acres — a move they hope will appease the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and environmentalists concerned about conserving federally protected wetlands.

    Friday’s announcement by UC Merced officials is the latest chapter in the university’s quest to obtain a wetlands development permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to expand the campus beyond its existing 105 acres.

    The permit is needed because the footprint for those expansion plans includes building on top of vernal pools that contain endangered species like the fairy shrimp — pools that environmentalists say are some of the most rare and valuable of their kind in the world.

    Under the university’s new expansion plans, 330 acres of land east of Lake Yosemite will be removed from the campus’ expansion plan, while 230 acres of land southeast of Bellevue and Lake roads originally designated for the campus’ university community will be added to the campus footprint.

    In addition, 310 acres of grazing land will now be added to the 1,850 acres northeast of Yosemite Avenue and Lake Road that has been designated for the university community.

    The updated plans mean the university’s campus will be 810 acres at buildout by the year 2035 — a campus that officials say will be slightly denser than the campus’ original plan, but will accommodate 25,000 students and will not sacrifice future academic programs or services.

    University officials also say the 330 acres of land they are removing from the expansion plan will reduce the amount of environmentally sensitive wetlands affected by development from about 121 acres to 81 acres.

    UC Merced also plans to permanently reserve the portion of land that it owns, which is being removed from the expansion plan, solely for environmental conservation purposes, according to Brad Samuelson, UC Merced’s director of environmental affairs.

    The 2,160-acre university community will include an entertainment district, in addition to housing, commercial and retail development.

    News of UC Merced’s updated expansion plans follows months of talks between university officials, federal officials, environmental groups and local community leaders.

    Under the federal Clean Water Act, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers can only permit UC Merced to destroy vernal pools if the university agrees to take measures to mitigate or lessen any environmental impacts.

    The new plan was devised after UC Merced Chancellor Steve Kang, who took the reins of the university in March, asked his staff to examine the main priorities of expanding the campus and what measures needed to be taken to ensure a clear resolution, according to Janet Young, assistant chancellor and chief of staff.

    “We’re trying to plan ahead, knowing that this university will be here for centuries,” Young said. “We feel very strongly that we’re on a good course to achieve our objectives.”

    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers officials reacted positively to news of the updated plans, while local environmentalists said they are cautiously optimistic.

    “I really think they have worked very cooperatively with everyone, so I think it will help them out a lot,” said Dave Killam, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers spokesman.

    UC Merced officials have also consulted with the California Endangered Species and Habitat Alliance, made up of seven protection organizations.

    “Anything that decreases the impacts to wetlands and endangered species is a step in the right direction,” said Barbara Vlamis, executive director of the Butte Environmental Council, an organization that has taken a primary role in protecting vernal pools. “We’re very happy they’ve been open to discussing these things with us before moving forward with the application process.”

    Carol Witham, director of VernalPools.org, called the university’s updated plans a “good faith, consensus footprint,” although she would also like to see assurances the protected wetlands the university is setting aside will remain untouched by developers.

    “I still wish that it could be moved even further, but I support the efforts they’ve gone through to get us where we are at,” Witham said.

    “We look forward to seeing new plans and participating in the public review process on the new campus,” said Lydia Miller, president of the San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center.

    Less than 10 percent of the vernal pools that were once in California remain, Witham said. Vernal pools are unique because they house several species of plants and animals that have adapted unique mechanisms to deal with flooding that occurs in the winter and extremely hot temperatures during the summer.

    “For the brief few weeks that most people would ever notice them, they are a unique California landscape,” Witham said.

    The university will likely submit an application for the wetlands development permit with the updated expansion plans by the end of this year, according to Patti Waid Istas, UC Merced spokeswoman.

    Members of the Merced County Board of Supervisors said the university still has to receive their approval for the new plan before it can move forward, with regard to 52 acres of county-owned property contained in the revised footprint for the campus. Supervisor Deidre Kelsey and County Executive Officer Dee Tatum said they had only found out about the new plans Friday from a university press release. He said the issue has yet to be agendized.

    “Just like any other project, whether it’s UC Merced or any other, obviously the Board of Supervisors takes their role very seriously as it relates to local land use,” Mark Hendrickson, the county’s spokesman, said.

    In response to the county’s concerns, Kang sent a letter to Board of Supervisors Chairman John Pedrozo reiterating the university’s pledge to work in “good faith” with the county to resolve any questions about the new expansion plan.

    Killam, of the Army Corps of Engineers, said it is unknown when the Army Corps will release its draft environmental impact statement in relation to the project, or when the corps’ Col. Thomas Chapman will render a record of decision about whether to grant a wetlands development permit to the university.

    The plan must also be reviewed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Department of Fish and Game before it can move forward.

    Once the corps’ draft environmental impact statement is released, the public will have 60 days to comment.

    After reviewing public comments, the corps will then release a final draft environmental report statement, followed by a 30-day public comment period.

    #598950
    digdug
    Participant

    Way to go Brad, great news. Hope you can help strengthen the connection to downtown.

    #598951
    UTAH
    Participant

    good on ya

    #598952
    jimw
    Participant

    Nice! Now that you’re done with that, can you please come down here and talk some sense into UC Santa Cruz??

    #598953
    ryon
    Participant

    good job, I wish some of that sort of thinking would fly in Idaho. Lands being gobbled up like crazy and abused. Nice work 😀

    #598954
    Ecobrad
    Participant

    Thanks guys.

    UC Santa Cruz’s problem is that it’s located in the middle of neighborhoods and there’s no real public entrance. That and the fact SC is as “no growth” as they come. Lessons learned from Santa Cruz and the other campuses is what led to the campus being located adjacent to the master planned 2,160-acre University Community. The community will be 7 times as dense as typical San Joaquin development and will accomodate 100% of the induced growth from the campus. The idea is that students, staff, and faculty will be able to walk and bike to work. Great idea aye? Did I mention it will be affordable as well. At all of the other UC campus the majority of the staff and faculty have to commute in dozens, if not more, miles because the price of housing around the campus is soooo expensive.

    PS I’d love to work for UC Santa Cruz. Their not as bad as you hippies think. What, they want to grow from 15,000 to 18,000 students over the next couple decades? California’s population growth will be 10 times that. Not in my backyard! Shit, without UCSC Jim wouldn’t have any trails to ride.

    #598955
    jimw
    Participant

    @Ecobrad wrote:

    Thanks guys.
    UC Santa Cruz’s problem is that it’s located in the middle of neighborhoods and there’s no real public entrance. That and the fact SC is as “no growth” as they come. Lessons learned from Santa Cruz and the other campuses is what led to the campus being located adjacent to the master planned 2,160-acre University Community. The community will be 7 times as dense as typical San Joaquin development and will accomodate 100% of the induced growth from the campus. The idea is that students, staff, and faculty will be able to walk and bike to work. Great idea aye? Did I mention it will be affordable as well. At all of the other UC campus the majority of the staff and faculty have to commute in dozens, if not more, miles because the price of housing around the campus is soooo expensive.

    PS I’d love to work for UC Santa Cruz. Their not as bad as you hippies think. What, they want to grow from 15,000 to 18,000 students over the next couple decades? California’s population growth will be 10 times that. Not in my backyard! Shit, without UCSC Jim wouldn’t have any trails to ride.

    Well this is obviously getting off topic for this board, but living here I thought I had a clue about the UCSC master plan, having gone to a couple meetings about it and having used to live in an area that was going to be directly affected by the proposed growth… which BTW was a hell of a lot more than what you stated. The plan was IIRC to double in a lot less time than a couple decades. There are, or at least were, also plans to develop a lot of the upper campus (which is where certain mtb trails would exist, if they actually existed). Things may have changed significantly in the last year; I hope that’s the case.

    As far as mtb trails go, them existing doesn’t have much to do with UCSC IMO. They certainly don’t condone them. It sucks no matter where you try to get trails built here. All of the good singletrack is illegal, and almost all of the existing trails cross private property, UC land, and state park usually all in the same trail, which is part of the problem with getting any of them legalized.

    It would be great if UCSC had something more akin to the University Community you’re talking about. Aside from developing on the upper campus, the housing issue for faculty/students (impact on local town) is going to be huge.

    #598956
    powderjunkie
    Participant

    Congrats Brad :thatrocks:

    I gotta get out there during the blooming period and have you show me around.

    #598957
    Ecobrad
    Participant

    I’m not super familiar with UCSC’s master plan but I’m pretty sure they only plan to increase their student population to 18 or 19,000 students for the life of the plan (they’re usually 25 years). Their plan goes to great lengths to lessen the impacts on the surrounding community but since the campus was so poorly concieved, IMHO, from the begining it’s a little to late now. It was supposed to be a little liberal arts college that has turned into a major research university. One thing that I think is lost on the locals is that Santa Cruz would be just another suburb of San Jose without UCSC. I know several residents that used to commute to SJ but now work at the University.

    Anyways, if the land where all the kick ass trails aren’t located were privately owned there wouldn’t be any trails. I guess that was my point.

    PJ–The bloom is amazing!

    #598958
    jimw
    Participant

    @Ecobrad wrote:

    I’m not super familiar with UCSC’s master plan but I’m pretty sure they only plan to increase their student population to 18 or 19,000 students for the life of the plan (they’re usually 25 years). Their plan goes to great lengths to lessen the impacts on the surrounding community but since the campus was so poorly concieved, IMHO, from the begining it’s a little to late now.

    Well, I’m telling you that this was not the case with the original plan. It was much more in the vein of “we are doubling our student/faculty population (can’t remember the timeline but I seem to recall it was a lot shorter than 25 years), we don’t care what the community thinks, and oh environmental impact? Oh it’ll be fine, don’t worry about it.” There were certainly some major development proposals that were planned for the immediate future. I hope it’s changed since then.

    It’s not like I’m saying UCSC sucks and should just go away, and that I’m a tree-hugging hippie like you seem to want to imply. It’s just that the people who are in charge of UCSC’s master plan seem to be very disinterested in the impact on the community. I don’t have any huge vested interest in them doing one thing over the other, I don’t own any property here or anything, so I think I’m at least being somewhat objective about it.

    Anyways, if the land where all the kick ass trails aren’t located were privately owned there wouldn’t be any trails. I guess that was my point.

    There are plenty of great trails near there that go through private land, and state park. From what I’ve seen, I don’t think it would be much different w/o the university. The area is not conducive to major development, and the locals who live there wouldn’t want/let it happen, and it’s too expensive anyway. In any case, here, it’s always a major hassle getting trails built anywhere, and there will always be illegal trails built, private property or not. Not that I am necessarily in support of that.

    #598959
    Ecobrad
    Participant

    we don’t care what the community thinks, and oh environmental impact? Oh it’ll be fine, don’t worry about it.”

    Allright, this is the last go around. I think we actually agree on most of this stuff. UCSC has never said it was going to grow to 30,000 students though (double it’s current population). I just looked it up, the DRAFT 2005 Long Range Development Plan is through 2020 and increases the student population by 6,000 students to 21,000. There’s some quite a bit of development planned but that should be expected with a major research University. As far as the environmental effects, I haven’t read the EIR but I would hope that they’ve engaged the community to discuss all of them. I’ve heard they’re doing some innovative things regarding transportation, water, etc. You can never please all the people all the time though.

    I’m not trying to be accusatory by saying this but do you think the local media has skewed the local community against the LRDP?

    Sooo, you gonna show me the trails on private property?

    BTW–I’ve seen the lines your ride/board and your no tree loving hippie (my comments were geared toward SC in general, where btw, I’d love to live)

    #598960
    SanFrantastico
    Participant

    @Ecobrad wrote:

    …endangered species like the fairy shrimp…

    Great accomplishment! I’m glad you were able to help the gay shrimp. But isn’t that kind of outdated terminology?

    Putting the poo in swimming pool since 1968.

    #598961
    jimw
    Participant

    @Ecobrad wrote:

    I think we actually agree on most of this stuff.

    Yeah, I think you’re right… sorry for going off on it but I guess it was a bit of a hot button for me. I should’ve gone on a ride before responding! 🙂

    #598962
    Ecobrad
    Participant

    @SanFrantastico wrote:

    @Ecobrad wrote:

    …endangered species like the fairy shrimp…

    Great accomplishment! I’m glad you were able to help the gay shrimp. But isn’t that kind of outdated terminology?

    The butt-packer shrimp shall survive because of us. 😆 😆

    Actually, ill advised students are pushing for a mascot change to the fairy shrimp. I can see it now, students limp wristing pink handkerchief yelling “GO FAIRYIES”

    #598963
    Will
    Participant

    Good job on all of this Eco, not a bad job to have bro.

    If you do become the fairy shrimp you’ll have to arrange an exhibition game with the banana slugs.

    #598964
    Ecobrad
    Participant

    @Will wrote:

    Good job on all of this Eco, not a bad job to have bro.

    Thanks Will. I feel pretty lucky about my job. I first started working for the Univ. in 2003 as a manager (this was prior to construction, students, etc). My old boss left a couple years ago and pushed for me to get his job, which BTW, was a huge stretch for me. I’ve had the most to learn regarding the technical issues related to the Clean Water Act, Engangered Species Act, etc. Where I think I’ve stepped in and helped the most is mediating, so to speak, between all the stakeholders. One day I’ll be at a meeting here in the Central Valley with local ranchers who want to kill any species if it gets in the way of $ and the next I’m sitting down with VP lovers who could care less about anything else. I have the advantage of being a local (I grew up in Merced and come from an ag background) and an environmentalist. In the end, the best thing about my job is that my end product is an educated youth–something the Central Valley is lacking in.

    We’ll kick the slugs in the attenna!

Viewing 16 posts - 1 through 16 (of 16 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.