Extra

To: Mayor Arreguín and Councilmembers:

I write on behalf of Berkeley Citizens for a Better Plan (BC4BP) to ask that the City slow down any settlement of the proposed new UCB LRDP, first obtain UCB’s final Environmental Impact Report, and includeall of the necessary terms of any settlement in a legally enforceable document. BC4BP is sponsored by BAHA and many other organizations and individuals concerned about UCB’s proposed LRDP with its astonishingly damaging impacts on the City of Berkeley and its residents.¹

Between April 2019, the start of UCB’s 2021 LRDP preparation and April 7, 2020 when UCB held a scoping session for preparing an EIR², it engaged in forums, surveys, and other public relations events, but failed to comply with Public Records Act requests for documents and architect plans related to the draft LRDP.³ Concerned about UCB’s suspicious withholding of information and documents, BAHA began extensive online research and on August 26, 2020, wrote to the Mayor and then met with him, the Vice Mayor, and staff to explain that UCB’s plan for a huge increase in enrollment was likely to harm Berkeleyans by: “(1) imposing enormous added pressure on already strained city services with their attendant costs; (2) substantially increasing demand for housing while reducing the number of rent-controlled units available to city residents; and (3) destroying key cultural and historic structures, and negatively impacting other historic structures located near UCB’s new development project sites.”  

The first time UCB provided the draft LRDP to the public was on February 23, 2021 and on March 8, 2021 it issued the Draft EIR (DEIR). Prior to the close of the comment period on April 26, 2021, less than two months ago, BAHA submitted over 5,000 pages of documents—a 160-page comment letter and appendices of the research documents it had collected. The City submitted a 65-page letter from its planning director. The next step in the CEQA process requires UCB to respond to the allegations, facts, and questions contained in these letters and any others submitted by the public.  

The LRDP is shocking, not only in its negative impacts for all Berkeleyans, but in the arrogance of the Chancellor pursuing these development plans. For example, the LRDP combined with the research completed by BAHA and BC4BP demonstrates that the so-called student housing in the gateway planned luxury high-rise building (Anchor) is full of luxury suites and amenities consistent with a $750-1,500 per night hotel stay, including each student having a private bathroom and each apartment for up to four students having a full kitchen and laundry equipment, and throughout the building, multiple lounges with full-size televisions, billiard rooms, cafes, private gyms, and substantial commercial space to compete with downtown Berkeley’s business district. Tens of thousands of square feet that should be used for student beds has instead been squandered away in this lavish development. It also requires evicting rent controlled tenants of a building UCB intends to demolish just to enable the luxurious lifestyle of wealthy students residing in this building.  

Another deplorable example is the requirement for pile driving the foundation for a (no doubt second luxury) 17-story building on the People’s Park location. The pile driving would last 22 days, and the EIR admits it will damage the nationally landmarked Anna Head School building and Bernard Maybeck’s masterpiece First Church of Christ Scientist. The EIR flicks away the problem by stating that UCB will pay some money for the damage after construction, without explaining how the church will use that money to find to buy irreplaceable art objects and special windows, once destroyed.  

BC4BP has prepared an extensive website using lay terms, that also includes the supporting research documents. It goes live next week.⁴ Before the City settles around the 2021 LRDP, the public needs an opportunity to review it and the Final EIR which will include the legally required public comment letters and UCB’s detailed responses. The City should not settle until after the Regents rule on the project, which still leaves plenty of time under CEQA for settlement discussions, and may resolve at least some of the impacts short of litigation.  

As an experienced and old land use attorney, I agree that settlement of lawsuits is always advisable if it means obtaining enforceable and beneficial results, rather than just another EIR report. However, the timing matters—settlements without all of the information or that represent “cutting and running” with no real benefit are not better than CEQA litigation, especially here where a court is likely to force UCB to include feasible and enforceable mitigations almost everywhere in the DEIR where it is claiming inability to mitigate negative impacts because of alleged “overriding considerations.”  

While UC has legal control over its properties under the California Constitution, and not the City, California courts have become fed up with the UC Regents’ arrogance and noncompliance with CEQA. Regents have lost many recent cases as a result, forcing them to either scale back, substantially delay, or abandon altogether their planned development projects. The Legislature also has come to the end of its patience with UCB’s financial waste, scandals, and depravity, resulting in large reductions of public funding over recent years. The latest state auditor report is highly damning, and includes despicable behavior related to UCB’s admissions practices. Most of the problems have been laid squarely at the current Chancellor’s feet and yet the Regents have done nothing to replace her. For all of these reasons, the City has strong leverage in these negotiations about an incredibly cruel, financially irresponsible, and environmentally damaging LRDP.  

UCB, as one of the world’s premier learning institutions, should be able to manage its growth in a way that does not negatively impact its host city. In its communications with City of Berkeley Mayor Arreguín, BAHA made the following specific requests prior to release of the draft LRDP: Seven Principles  

1. Ensure that the UC Regents pay the City fairly and fully for all lost tax revenues and increased service costs associated with the planned massive enrollment increase. We urge Your Honor to use all means possible to obtain those payments, including seeking assistance from Governor Newsom and Berkeley’s representatives in the state legislature, who have discretion over the state budget that UCB relies upon for a portion of its funding;  

2. Demand that UCB reduce the total projected UCB enrollment of 48,200 students through competent management, including reassignments to other campuses, a new campus, online education, or other means; or provide a complete, transparent, and realistic plan for student and faculty housing to accommodate the new projected enrollment, rather than relying on Berkeley’s already strained housing market and City services to absorb (magically) more students and staff;  

3. Request UCB substantially expand the geographic area of the proposed “new student housing” projects as the current plan reflects all new construction within one mile of the center of the main campus, which is already densely developed and which contains a disproportionate number of important historic and cultural resources including numerous landmarked structures. UCB owns and/or leases many more acres both within the City of Berkeley and outside it. Therefore, there is no need to pursue a plan that will result in eviction of non-student tenants, demolition of rent-controlled housing, and the use of master leases for most new housing to pit students against non-students for affordable housing. The LRDP also would produce large high-rise developments in current low-rise residential neighborhoods, thus destroying much of the character and fabric of the City. Expecting students to commute to campus from more than one mile is realistic and will not substantially diminish the campus experience particularly for graduate students and even seniors and juniors who have already formed solid relationships with faculty and their fellow students and may be more focused on their academic studies;  

4. Ask UCB to prioritize construction of new housing on non-landmarked properties including, but not limited to 1995 University Avenue (previously Golden Bear Ford dealership— this site has a surface parking lot which covers one-half of the block on the north side);  

5. Negotiate a binding Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with UCB to preserve and maintain the Anna Head School building, the Clark Kerr Campus, UC Garage, and Smyth House, including their grounds, for the next 50 years, thereby preserving these historic structures and sites for future generations of students and citizens alike and removing the current uncertainty as to the plans regarding these iconic sites;  

6. Request that UCB substantially revise plans for the 17-story student housing behemoth on People’s Park that is inconsistent with the low-rise surrounding neighborhood and will overshadow all neighboring structures including the national landmark gem First Church of Christ Scientist by Bernard Maybeck and its facade wisteria; and  

7. Request that UCB provide more information and more transparency about its current enrollment and development plans. The information supplied by UCB to date, regarding its proposed LRDP is inadequate to understand all of the potential negative impacts. UCB should arrange for several public meetings (rather than the public relations presentations given to date) to explain exactly what it intends to do with the 13 properties that it describes tersely as “Housing Opportunities”; disclose on its website existing agreements with donors and developers concerning future student housing sites; and provide details on how it intends to acquire additional property and negotiate arrangements with private owners to accommodate the large number of additional student housing units proposed that cannot be built on current UC sites.  

Thank you for considering our comments. 

² Required under the California Environmental Impact Act (CEQA).  

³ See, https://lrdp.berkeley.edu/recent-updates?field_openberkeley_news_type_tid_op=or& 

⁴It was completed two weeks ago but a technical issue prevented its release at that time.