Paving Our Way to a Greener Future
Breanna Deutsch and Lauren Buchanan
Last Updated: 12/6/08 Section: Campus
6,000 students and 3,300 faculty and staff members: these numbers represent the fast-growing number of students at the Claremont Colleges. More students mean more cars, larger classes, increased housing needs, and so on. Thus, the colleges are in need of expanding their facilities to accommodate the rising number of students. Harvey Mudd in particular has felt the impact of an expanding student body. This year they were 55 parking spaces short, a huge inconvenience for students. As a solution to the shortage in parking and facilities, Harvey Mudd has purchased 11.5 acres of land from Keck Graduate Institute; these 11.4 acres are part of the 86 acres that make up the Bernard Field Station.
The proposal for the new facilities and a parking lot has come with zealous opposition. Certain students, college faculty, and citizens of Claremont argue that the construction would compromise the integrity of the Bernard Field Station. A portion of the land supports an ecosystem called coastal sage scrub. This is the root cause for much of the controversy. Coastal sage scrub is a globally rare and disappearing ecosystem, and a number of the species that call this ecosystem home are disappearing along with it. In California it can only be found in small isolated locations. Although Harvey Mudd only bought 11.5 of the 86 acres, those opposed to the project stress that the habitat is fragile and construction of that magnitude would be harmful.
Another issue of concern is the effect the new development would have on the use of Bernard Field Station by the colleges for laboratory and research purposes. Various science classes use this land to conduct experiments, and if building on a section of the property had a damaging effect that spread throughout the 86 acres, then science classes might find it necessary to conduct experiments in another outdoor location. However, Mudd promises to maintain a portion of the property for habitat preservation purposes.
Of course there is another side to this argument: it is the argument of those who are in favor addressing the need for parking and updating the school.
Harvey Mudd officials recognize that the Bernard Field Station environment houses a rare and fragile ecosystem. They also recognize, however, that accommodating the demand for parking as the college expands is necessary, which is why they have proposed a plan for the construction of a so-called "green" parking lot. It would have photovoltaic shades that generate electricity, plug-ins for electric vehicles, and bioswales to capture potentially hazardous run-off to mitigate its impact on the environment and the adjacent field station. All of the green technology would be state of the art and represent a movement toward more environmentally friendly constructions.
Further, the existence of the coastal sage scrub might be at risk regardless of whether the parking lot is constructed. Much of the ecosystem has already been damaged, particularly in the southwestern portion where it has been crossed by several bulldozed fire roads. The coastal sage scrub ecosystem found at Bernard Field Station covers a relatively small amount of land, which in itself is detrimental to the ecosystem. According to studies, areas of coastal sage scrub that cover less than 247 acres lose their native vertebrate species within a few decades. Isolated canyons in southern California have been found to lose at least one-half of their bird species within 20 to 40 years after isolation. Since the Bernard Field Station is only 86 acres, and since not all of it is covered by coastal sage scrub, it has been judged an unsustainable habitat in any case.
Of course, cost is always an issue. Scripps will be the first to admit that multilevel parking lots are expensive: they recently spent 10.5 million dollars to build one. Ground level parking would be a much less costly alternative. Each space would cost only $4,000 in contrast to $45,000 per space for multilevel parking. The Bernard Field Station would provide an ideal location for ground level parking.
So whose decision is it? The 11.5 acres that are currently subject to debate were owned by Keck Graduate Institute before they were sold to Mudd. The institute had allowed the land to be used for scientific purposes. According to the Bernard Field Station website, however, the Station is only "permitted to use an adjacent 11 acres belonging to the Keck Graduate Institute of Applied Life Sciences (KGI) until KGI needs the property for its own institutional uses." KGI has recently sold the land to Harvey Mudd because it believed its institutional objectives could best be served by liquidating a portion of this asset.
Brenda Barbara Hill, the former CEO of the Claremont University Consortium, explained that the original purpose of the land was for development such as what is being considered. "The land in question was purchased and given to The Claremont Colleges in the 1930s for one purpose: the development and expansion of the consortium as additional colleges were added or current ones grew," she said.
She added, "In the early 2000s there was protest over the possible development of a portion of the North Campus Property, its proper name, by the Keck Graduate Institute which resulted in part in a legal settlement agreement signed by CUC, the City of Claremont and the Friends of the Field Station that provides for a 50 year commitment to retain a portion of the land as a biological field station, allowing the remainder-including the land currently under discussion for development-to be developed as a need arises."
The need has arisen, so it appears that development will move forward, possibly as early as this summer. But if history repeats itself then the college may encounter some obstacles: protests regarding construction on the Bernard Field Station are not foreign to the Claremont Colleges. Back in 2001 Keck Graduate Institute was granted permission by the consortium to build its campus on a plot of land in the Bernard Field Station, but relentless student protests caused the Institute to construct its campus elsewhere.
This time, the opposition to the construction is already strong, with multiple Facebook groups, student clubs, and petitions around campus devoted to the issue. But the need to use the land is very compelling: there is no question that a parking lot needs to be built and that the colleges must accommodate their growing student body. If expansion is to continue, then Harvey Mudd needs to find some way to deal with the increasingly inconvenient parking situation. If the opponents of development do not buy the argument that the parking area will be sustainable, then they should suggest some other way to accommodate student parking; but with limited land available, Bernard Field Station may be the only option.
Breanna Deutsch is a freshman at Scripps College and a staff writer for the CI. Lauren Buchanan is a freshman at CMC and a staff writer for the CI.
The proposal for the new facilities and a parking lot has come with zealous opposition. Certain students, college faculty, and citizens of Claremont argue that the construction would compromise the integrity of the Bernard Field Station. A portion of the land supports an ecosystem called coastal sage scrub. This is the root cause for much of the controversy. Coastal sage scrub is a globally rare and disappearing ecosystem, and a number of the species that call this ecosystem home are disappearing along with it. In California it can only be found in small isolated locations. Although Harvey Mudd only bought 11.5 of the 86 acres, those opposed to the project stress that the habitat is fragile and construction of that magnitude would be harmful.
Another issue of concern is the effect the new development would have on the use of Bernard Field Station by the colleges for laboratory and research purposes. Various science classes use this land to conduct experiments, and if building on a section of the property had a damaging effect that spread throughout the 86 acres, then science classes might find it necessary to conduct experiments in another outdoor location. However, Mudd promises to maintain a portion of the property for habitat preservation purposes.
Of course there is another side to this argument: it is the argument of those who are in favor addressing the need for parking and updating the school.
Harvey Mudd officials recognize that the Bernard Field Station environment houses a rare and fragile ecosystem. They also recognize, however, that accommodating the demand for parking as the college expands is necessary, which is why they have proposed a plan for the construction of a so-called "green" parking lot. It would have photovoltaic shades that generate electricity, plug-ins for electric vehicles, and bioswales to capture potentially hazardous run-off to mitigate its impact on the environment and the adjacent field station. All of the green technology would be state of the art and represent a movement toward more environmentally friendly constructions.
Further, the existence of the coastal sage scrub might be at risk regardless of whether the parking lot is constructed. Much of the ecosystem has already been damaged, particularly in the southwestern portion where it has been crossed by several bulldozed fire roads. The coastal sage scrub ecosystem found at Bernard Field Station covers a relatively small amount of land, which in itself is detrimental to the ecosystem. According to studies, areas of coastal sage scrub that cover less than 247 acres lose their native vertebrate species within a few decades. Isolated canyons in southern California have been found to lose at least one-half of their bird species within 20 to 40 years after isolation. Since the Bernard Field Station is only 86 acres, and since not all of it is covered by coastal sage scrub, it has been judged an unsustainable habitat in any case.
Of course, cost is always an issue. Scripps will be the first to admit that multilevel parking lots are expensive: they recently spent 10.5 million dollars to build one. Ground level parking would be a much less costly alternative. Each space would cost only $4,000 in contrast to $45,000 per space for multilevel parking. The Bernard Field Station would provide an ideal location for ground level parking.
So whose decision is it? The 11.5 acres that are currently subject to debate were owned by Keck Graduate Institute before they were sold to Mudd. The institute had allowed the land to be used for scientific purposes. According to the Bernard Field Station website, however, the Station is only "permitted to use an adjacent 11 acres belonging to the Keck Graduate Institute of Applied Life Sciences (KGI) until KGI needs the property for its own institutional uses." KGI has recently sold the land to Harvey Mudd because it believed its institutional objectives could best be served by liquidating a portion of this asset.
Brenda Barbara Hill, the former CEO of the Claremont University Consortium, explained that the original purpose of the land was for development such as what is being considered. "The land in question was purchased and given to The Claremont Colleges in the 1930s for one purpose: the development and expansion of the consortium as additional colleges were added or current ones grew," she said.
She added, "In the early 2000s there was protest over the possible development of a portion of the North Campus Property, its proper name, by the Keck Graduate Institute which resulted in part in a legal settlement agreement signed by CUC, the City of Claremont and the Friends of the Field Station that provides for a 50 year commitment to retain a portion of the land as a biological field station, allowing the remainder-including the land currently under discussion for development-to be developed as a need arises."
The need has arisen, so it appears that development will move forward, possibly as early as this summer. But if history repeats itself then the college may encounter some obstacles: protests regarding construction on the Bernard Field Station are not foreign to the Claremont Colleges. Back in 2001 Keck Graduate Institute was granted permission by the consortium to build its campus on a plot of land in the Bernard Field Station, but relentless student protests caused the Institute to construct its campus elsewhere.
This time, the opposition to the construction is already strong, with multiple Facebook groups, student clubs, and petitions around campus devoted to the issue. But the need to use the land is very compelling: there is no question that a parking lot needs to be built and that the colleges must accommodate their growing student body. If expansion is to continue, then Harvey Mudd needs to find some way to deal with the increasingly inconvenient parking situation. If the opponents of development do not buy the argument that the parking area will be sustainable, then they should suggest some other way to accommodate student parking; but with limited land available, Bernard Field Station may be the only option.
Breanna Deutsch is a freshman at Scripps College and a staff writer for the CI. Lauren Buchanan is a freshman at CMC and a staff writer for the CI.
Viewing Comments 1 - 2 of 3
Ramon Martinez
posted 12/29/08 @ 10:23 PM PST
This is a joke right? Like one of those Onion style ironic pieces, right? No? Really? I mean, from the oxymoronic title to the simply false first sentence (the college's themselves aren't substantially growing; they've had the same student body numbers for decades, and CMC itself just capped class size's last year) I would have figured, even for the Independant, that this was some kind of prank? But no? Ok, well then I'm compelled to run through your guys' piece, pointing out a few things before I get into what I really want to write about, which is the alternative vision being developed to help save both the CUC and the Bernard Field Station. (Continued…)
Ilan Wurman
posted 12/31/08 @ 7:03 PM PST
Dear Ramon,
Indeed, most of your letter does not come off as "attack-y," which is why I am still surprised by your brash introductory paragraph. After all, you provide some interesting insight and your opinion on the issue, but ultimately nothing you say directly contradicts anything these writers have said. (Continued…)
Post a Comment