Berkeley May Sue UC Campus

The city of Berkeley prepared to sue the University of California campus within its borders after a Board of Regents committee Tuesday approved a controversial growth plan that would dramatically expand university facilities over the next 15 years.

The committee’s action is almost certain to be seconded by the full panel of regents Thursday, intensifying what may be the most contentious town-versus-gown conflict in Berkeley history.

“We’ll see you in court,” Mayor Tom Bates muttered after the unanimous vote by the regents’ Committee on Grounds and Buildings. The panel members disregarded his suggestion to allow a few more months of negotiations.

City officials have long argued that they bear the brunt of the cost for the university’s growth and receive no tax benefits from the exempt institution. University officials counter that they contribute to Berkeley’s economic health through jobs, purchasing and visitors’ hotel stays.

At issue is UC Berkeley’s long-range development plan, which calls for the addition of 2.2 million square feet of academic and research facilities -- more space, Bates notes, than in the Empire State Building.

The city and public had weighed in extensively on a draft of the plan released last year. The final version landed Jan. 3, and negotiations between Bates and campus officials continued this week.

In the last week, City Council members authorized a lawsuit if negotiations failed. In a closed session after the regents voted Tuesday, the council pledged to pursue a lawsuit “if all else fails,” and will meet with outside counsel next week.

City officials also secured a letter from 21 state Senate and Assembly members, who called on the regents’ chairman to delay approval.

Berkeley officials’ primary concern is the plan’s lack of specifics -- it is not clear what precisely would be built or where or when. That makes it difficult for the city to plan for future burdens on sewers, fire services and streets. The city wants the university to commit to conducting specific environmental impact reports on projects that exceed a certain size; to further reduce the plan for additional parking spots, which campus officials already agreed to drop from 2,300 to 1,800; and to agree to contribute more money to city services.

Bates had met in recent days with UC President Robert Dynes and Chancellor Robert Birgenaux to share the city’s concerns, but hoped to stave off a regents vote on the plan until March.

University officials counter that the process has been democratic. The plan grew out of an earlier outline that stressed the need for state-of-the-art facilities to achieve academic and research goals, Birgenaux told the panel.

The plan cannot specify what facilities will be built because there is no telling what twists technology and science will take, he said. For instance, the campus had no idea until recently that it would need a facility for stem cell research, he said.

Still, the university is committed to healthy relations with the city that hosts it, Birgenaux said. “We care about the quality of the city and its environs just as much as any other resident in the city or possibly more,” he told the committee.

Critics are unconvinced. City streets are already gridlocked, council members say, and the dollars that the campus currently contributes to sewers and fire service are inadequate. The lack of specifics in the plan enhances existing suspicions.

“We want to know now. We don’t want to know later,” said Councilwoman Linda Maio.

Irene Hegarty, UC Berkeley director of community relations, said the campus is committed to continuing negotiations with the city even after the plan is approved.