The university has denied eight of the 17 recently evicted residents of Santa Cruz Residence Hall an appeal, forcing them to now pack up and leave their rooms by 2 p.m. today.

The accused residents of the hall’s 1300 wing said university officials allege they have caused hundreds of dollars worth of damages to the hall and have harassed hall employees. Those accused said they filed an appeal with Vice Chancellor Michael Young on Thursday morning in hopes of having their stay extended until a hearing could be scheduled. Young did not return phone calls seeking comment Thursday.

Of the eight who were denied an appeal, at least three said they will leave by this afternoon, but had no alternative housing options. The nine residents who lodged successful appeals will remain in the hall until a hearing with university officials can be scheduled.

Wilfred Brown, executive director of Housing & Residential Services, said the 17 who were selected for eviction violated housing rules and regulations. He said he ultimately made the decision to send eviction letters to the residents.

“The facts kept piling up and this was the time… to put an end to this,” Brown said. “Their behavior is not indicative of what we believe a student who lives in the community should be doing.”

Listed in the complaints against the students are: repeated consumption of alcohol in residence halls, urination in the hall, vomiting in the hall and destruction of the hall bathroom, said Cameron Snyder, one of those who was given a letter of eviction. The 17 were also accused of harassing resident assistants.

Santa Cruz RAs declined to comment, citing a gag order from supervisors.

Daniel Howard, one of the residents who was denied an appeal, said he was not responsible for any of the charges brought against him. Furthermore, he said he has not been presented with any evidence of his guilt nor has he heard from any witnesses.

“I’ve had people [I don’t know] identify me as a sex offender and a bigot,” Howard said. “They’re blaming me for feces on the wall… and peeing under [the resident director’s] door… I’ve been found guilty without a trial.”

One resident said he felt there was an inconsistency in the university bureaucracy because some residents who had no citations, or at most one citation, were denied an appeal, while others with as many as three citations were allowed to stay.

A few of the residents said they were not sure where they could live or move their personal belongings. Three of those evicted said they would be living in cars beginning today until they could find somewhere better. One resident said he would be dropping out of UCSB because he had become “disillusioned” with the efficiency and fairness of its bureaucracy.

Snyder said although he was allowed to stay in the hall until a hearing could be scheduled, he felt the entire process of selecting a guilty party was arbitrary.

“Without my friends the 1300s won’t be the same,” Snyder said. “[I guess] they have to pin the blame on someone.”

Brown said despite what the residents said of their record, the reports and complaints against them were reason enough to dismiss them from the residence halls.

“We obviously would rather not be in this place,” Brown said. “But at the same time we didn’t put ourselves in this place — they did.”