Upper Hearst Development: Residential and parking at Hearst and La Loma avenues. Image: Solomon Cordwell Buenz
The Regents of the University of California are scheduled to vote Wednesday on the Upper Hearst Development project to create campus housing, a parking garage and a new academic building for the Goldman School of Public Policy on the north side of UC Berkeley.
The vote is part of the board’s agenda for its May 14-16 meeting at the Mission Bay Conference Center at UCSF. The board is slated to consider whether to approve the project design for Upper Hearst and certify its final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR).
According to the latest designs, from architecture firm Solomon Cordwell Buenz, the project includes a five-story, 150-unit residential building over a three-story “mostly subterranean” parking structure, as well as a four-story academic building over one basement level. The project also includes “a Minor Amendment (#4) to UC Berkeley’s 2020 Long Range Development Plan to accommodate the proposed housing land use on the project site.”
The city of Berkeley has taken issue with campus population estimates included in the project documents and recently said it might sue the university if the two sides can’t find a way to see eye to eye.
According to UC Berkeley, faculty members will be the primary target audience for the residential units, which also will be available to visiting scholars and postdoctoral students if there is room. The bulk of the garage, 90 spaces, will be reserved for building residents.
Monday, the city sent a 29-page letter to the regents, calling the final SEIR “inadequate” and saying the document “does little to address the concerns raised in the City’s comments, especially concerns related to the Project’s impacts on City services.”
The city of Berkeley has said the university’s annual fiscal impact on the city “has increased from an estimated $11 million in 2003 to over $21 million in 2018.” In response to that claim, the city argues, “the University asserted simply that it is exempt from ‘local regulations and local taxes.’ But this assertion does nothing to undermine the City’s calculations. Moreover, it fails to address the significant environmental impacts associated with this new burden on public services, including the need for new facilities.”
Mayor Jesse Arreguín and Berkeley Councilwoman Susan Wengraf are expected to address the regents during public comment Wednesday morning.
In early May, the university released new designs for the Upper Hearst Development. Some of them appear below.
Upper Hearst Development: The residential and parking building as seen from La Loma Avenue and Ridge Road. Image: Solomon Cordwell BuenzUpper Hearst Development: The academic building on Hearst Avenue. Image: Solomon Cordwell BuenzUpper Hearst Development: The academic building on Hearst Avenue. Image: Solomon Cordwell Buenz
Note: The Upper Hearst Development is primarily aimed at faculty members, according to UC Berkeley. Berkeleyside corrected the story Tuesday night to reflect this.
Plans for a new Kaiser Permanente medical office at 2621 10th St. have been approved in Berkeley. Seen here: The San Pablo Avenue frontage. The complex also has frontage on 10th Street. Image: Gould Evans
Berkeley officials approved plans Tuesday night for a 61,000-square-foot Kaiser Permanente medical office building on San Pablo Avenue south of Parker Street after property owner Wareham Development agreed to give four months of free rent to several of its struggling tenants who have to move.
Shortly after 11 p.m., the Berkeley City Council voted 8-0-1 in favor of Kaiser’s plans in response to a motion by Mayor Jesse Arreguín. Arreguín said he is confident the medical offices, at 2621 10th St., will bring significant benefits to Berkeley and that the city will find a way to keep the impacted local businesses in town. West Berkeley Councilwoman Cheryl Davila, who represents the district where the medical facility would be located, was the lone abstention from the vote.
Kaiser Permanente could open in Berkeley as soon as 2021, Wareham Development executive Chris Barlow estimated after the vote. The project, designed by San Francisco architecture firm Gould Evans, rises three stories and would offer adult family medicine services, pediatrics, mental health care, a pharmacy and other outpatient offerings as well as a café. In an April 30 letter to the mayor, Kaiser said it expects the new facility to employ more than 136 people and serve its 58,000 members who live in Berkeley. Berkeleyside broke the news in December about the health care giant’s interest in Berkeley.
As part of the late-night deal — brokered from the dais by Councilwoman Susan Wengraf — Barlow agreed, with just a touch of hesitation, to give three of Wareham’s Carleton Street tenants free rent from July through October. The relief was palpable at the end of the night, as Barlow exchanged vigorous handshakes with the owners of two of those businesses — who have repeatedly expressed dismay about the loss of their longtime locations and concerns about the future — in recognition of the hard-won agreement.
“We’re delighted that, after a long process, that the council has approved this project,” Barlow said after the vote. “We think it’s going to be a fabulous asset to the city of Berkeley and its citizens and we look forward to bringing it to completion.”
City staff listen to council during Tuesday’s appeal hearing on Kaiser Permanente. Photo: Emilie Raguso
No one from Kaiser Permanente has addressed city officials during council or zoning board meetings about the project over the past six months or so. But the medical provider assured the mayor, in Tuesday’s letter, that it is “engaged in definitive efforts … to extend our health services into the Berkeley community.” Kaiser told the mayor this would not be possible, however, without a council vote to approve its use permit.
Tuesday’s vote partially overturned a zoning board vote in January that granted the medical center its use permit but rejected its plans for an off-site parking lot on the Pardee Block, just west of 10th Street between Carleton and Pardee streets, catty-corner to the proposed medical offices. Zoning board members said, at the time of that vote, that they could not bear to see the loss of businesses on the block — Mobility Systems, Saab Replay and Commercial Titan Wraps — which said their survival would be in jeopardy as a result of Wareham’s plans.
Barlow has explained to officials repeatedly, in meeting after meeting, that the leases for those businesses would be up this year or, in the wrap shop’s case, that early-termination terms in its lease had been clear: He said the businesses would need to leave in 2019 no matter what the city wanted. Wareham has long had plans to develop the Pardee Block and has been direct about that with tenants, Barlow has told officials previously. Wareham appealed the zoning board vote soon after it happened, which is how it came before council Tuesday.
The view from the northeast, with San Pablo on the left and Parker in the foreground. Image: Gould Evans
Kaiser Permanente, which is headquartered in Oakland, was founded in 1945. It describes itself as “one of the nation’s largest not-for-profit health plans, serving 12.2 million members.” Wareham submitted an application in late 2016 for a medical office and research facility at 1050 Parker St., now listed in project documents by the 10th Street address. Kaiser later expressed an interest to Wareham, which led to a change in course for the project after its use permit was initially approved, Barlow said.
During the two-hour appeal hearing, a few people told council the project was at odds with the West Berkeley Plan, which the city adopted in 1993. The loss of manufacturing and industrial uses in West Berkeley, as described in that plan, has been a consistent issue of neighborhood concern over the years. But public comment on the item was relatively brief. It was also, at times, emotional, as proponents of the Carleton Street businesses told officials how much their services matter.
Despite a range of opinions on the medical center’s proposal itself, there was widespread agreement Tuesday night that the city’s own parking requirements for medical facilities were a significant hurdle. But Barlow also told council a consultant had independently reviewed the city’s parking ratio in light of Kaiser’s needs and similar projects nearby and found it to be reasonable. Kaiser plans to offer 115 vehicle parking spots, primarily for patients, on-site in a surface lot, and another 88 spaces for staff catty-corner on the Pardee Block in another surface lot. There will also be parking for nearly 50 bicycles.
Some community members and council members contended Tuesday that Kaiser Permanente can easily afford to build a parking structure, perhaps underground, which would take less space and leave existing businesses alone. Barlow said that would not be possible because it would cost $55,000 to $65,000 per spot and delay the project.
Officials made it clear during their comments that they want the city to push hard to keep the Carleton Street businesses in Berkeley if possible. As part of the council vote, City Manager Dee Williams-Ridley promised the city’s Office of Economic Development would do what it could to help locate appropriate new spaces. Mayor Arreguín said he had faith in the possibility of a local solution for all the businesses.
The fate of Mobility Systems in particular — a more than 40-year-old auto dealer and repair shop focused on the needs of the disability community — drew significant attention Tuesday night. One person described it as a vital community service. Another speaker, Kelly Hammargren, broke down in tears recounting how important a disability van was to the quality of her husband’s life.
Councilman Ben Bartlett remarked that he saw Mobility Systems as a health care provider in its own right. He said he’d like to see Kaiser Permanente step up to help ensure the business can stay in the city.
Mobility Systems owner William Fryckman told Berkeleyside he was relieved after the vote and had been heartened by the significant support evidenced by city officials and the community. Fryckman says he already lost $40,000 when he tried to move to a nearby location but was ultimately stymied by the city. He told the city it would likely take work to tackle the challenge.
Saab Replay’s owner, Randy Roche, told council that businesses on the block and their neighbors have a strong sense of community that he will be sad to lose. Roche said two of the employees in his repair shop have been there since it opened more than 20 years ago. A newer employee, holding his young daughter in his arms, told council how much his Saab Replay job means to him and what a special place it is to work.
Roche told council he had known since he bought the shop 10 years ago from the original owner that he would one day have to move: “I don’t want to demonize Wareham. They’ve been very fair to us over the years,” he said.
Although Saab ceased operations in 2012, Roche said Berkeley is one of the biggest markets in the nation for owners of the vehicle. Saab Replay is the last specialty Saab shop in the state, he added. Roche concurred with Fryckman’s experience about the challenge of finding new space in Berkeley for auto uses due to the city’s restrictive zoning code and also because many landlords would rather rent to cannabis businesses, breweries and art galleries.
Councilwomen Sophie Hahn and Kate Harrison said they were only supporting the project in its current form grudgingly. They both argued in favor of finding a way to reduce the city’s parking requirements, but staff said the available data did not support that approach.
“I feel terrible about this. I hate this choice,” Harrison said from the dais before the vote. She said she also wished the city had looked closer at land-value recapture, but that the time for that had passed.
Hahn called Barlow’s agreement to let the businesses have four months of free rent a “devil’s bargain.” She said she was disappointed because she thought Wareham could have tried harder to find another viable option and let the businesses on the Pardee Block stay on. But she said there weren’t a lot of options at this point.
“I don’t think denying this solves any of the problems we have,” Hahn said, “And I think we have some real problems with loss of this kind of space.” She said it would ultimately, however, be up to Wareham — as the property owner — to decide what to do with the block.
Davila asked Wareham if it could provide parking across the street from the medical office at its Fantasy Studios property. As an alternative, she said Wareham should investigate whether it could lease parking at the Bank of America site nearby. Barlow said neither option was a possibility for multiple reasons.
Davila also asked Barlow to throw in a fifth month of free rent to the Pardee Block businesses. He declined.
Berkeley has grappled in recent years with the prospect of reduced access to medical care with the planned closure of Alta Bates hospital by 2030. Other medical facilities have opened in the city in the past five years, but community members say they can’t fill the void of a full-service hospital.
Tuesday night, most of the other action items on the agenda were postponed due to the lateness of the hour or because of scheduling changes requested by council.
Mayor Arreguín also announced, at the beginning of the meeting, that the Berkeley City Council had, Monday in closed session, granted the city attorney the authority to initiate a lawsuit against the University of California regents over some of its student housing plans and associated campus population estimates. Berkeleyside broke that news during the council meeting.
Upper Hearst Development proposal. Image: Solomon Cordwell Buenz
Update, May 1, 2:40 p.m. In a statement Wednesday afternoon, Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguín wrote that “this lawsuit is not about the Upper Hearst Project, but about holding the University accountable.” He said council members are very much in favor of university efforts to add housing, but that “The Upper Hearst Development is a worthy project and should not be saddled by a flawed EIR or cramming the issue of greater student enrollment into the report.” See the full statement on the mayor’s website.
Update, May 1, 1 p.m. The Berkeley mayor’s brief announcement Tuesday night about a council decision to give the city attorney authority to file a lawsuit against UC Berkeley provoked statements Wednesday from the university and city staff to clarify what each side sees as the key issues at play. The original story, filed Tuesday night, appears below. This is the third update.
Berkeley city spokesman Matthai Chakko said Wednesday afternoon that the lawsuit under consideration is primarily focused on what the city describes as the “dramatic impact of exponential population growth” at UC Berkeley and the university’s failure to plan for it. Chakko cited a third-party analysis, requested by the city, that put the university’s “net fiscal impact” on the city, in 2018 alone, at more than $21 million. That relates to everything from city police, fire and public health services to wear and tear on city streets to exacerbating the housing crunch, Chakko said.
A spokesman for UC Berkeley told Berkeleyside earlier in the day (scroll down) that campus impacts have been lower than projected. He said UC Berkeley paid the city close to $1.8 million during the current fiscal year and would continue to make similar payments into the foreseeable future.
But Chakko took issue with the idea of lower-than-projected impacts. He said the university previously projected a 5% population growth rate that is now estimated to hit 29%. He said the Upper Hearst Development itself — referenced Tuesday night by the mayor in his remarks — is not the city’s main worry, but rather what appears to be an attempt by the university to hide its “massive population growth” in that project’s environmental analysis. That’s why the city believes the Upper Hearst EIR is flawed and why it’s considering filing suit, he said.
Update, May 1, 10:48 a.m. Dan Mogulof, UC Berkeley’s assistant vice chancellor of executive communications, told Berkeleyside on Wednesday morning that “the campus is prepared to successfully defend its position in court,” but hopes it will not come to that.
Berkeley’s mayor announced Tuesday night that the city is prepared to sue the regents over a proposed development on Hearst Avenue and a recent environmental report. (Scroll down for the original story.)
Mogulof said in a prepared statement Wednesday that the university “is ready to continue payments for the mitigation of its impacts at current levels pending completion of a new Long Range Development plan” (LRDP) — and has informed the city of this — even though a recent supplemental environmental impact report found that campus impacts have been lower than projected.
Mogulof told Berkeleyside in February that the university paid the city of Berkeley $1,770,698 in 2018-19, which included payments from the Chancellor’s Partnership Fund for projects deemed to improve the quality of life in Berkeley. Those payments are set to continue for at least two more years while the new LRDP is underway.
“We hope that continued dialogue will lead the City to decide that litigation is unnecessary, and not worth the extraordinary expense,” Mogulof said in Wednesday statement. He described the university’s work with the city to date as “continued, constructive collaboration.”
“Rather than relying on the zero-sum outcomes of litigation,” he said, “we see great value for our institutions and communities in continued dialogue and negotiation.”
Original story, Tuesday, April 30: The Berkeley City Council says it is prepared to sue the University of California regents over a campus housing project proposed north of UC Berkeley and a supplement to UC’s 2020 development plan, the mayor announced Tuesday evening.
Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguín told the public that the closed session council vote, which took place Monday, was unanimous.
Arreguín told the public, at the beginning of Tuesday evening’s regular council meeting, just before 6:50 p.m., that officials voted to authorize the city attorney to initiate litigation against the regents, who make up the 26-member governing board of the University of California.
The lawsuit would focus on the 150-unit Upper Hearst Development that the Goldman School of Public Policy is working on at Hearst and La Loma avenues, and the university’s amendment to its Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for its 2020 Long Range Development Plan, which is related to the Upper Hearst project.
The mayor warned the university earlier this month, in a letter, that UC Berkeley should not include a jump in student enrollment in the update to the environmental impact report for the new academic and housing complex on Hearst Avenue. The 1-acre residential and academic complex involves the demolition of the entire parking garage that’s currently at the site. The university has said it hopes to start work as soon as September.
The jump to 44,735 students on campus by 2022-23 differs significantly from the 2020 Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) the university signed off on in 2005, and to which the city of Berkeley agreed, Arreguín wrote in the letter. His position was that UC Berkeley should prepare a separate report on the enrollment increase rather than use the environmental analysis for the Upper Hearst project as a way to update the 2020 plan.
“Increase in campus headcount by 11,285 students and its impacts were not studied in the 2020 LRDP and are, therefore, not ‘consistent’ with the project,” Arreguín wrote. The 2005 report said “the student population would grow by only 1,650 students between the 2001/02 academic year and then stabilize at that number by 2010. Instead, the student population has increased by almost seven times over that studied in the 2020 (report).”
UC officials have argued that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the university to include updated enrollment figures in its examination of Upper Hearst. They also contend that the impact of increased enrollment has been less than what was expected in the 2005 LRDP and that the university has actually reduced its impact on the city in many ways, including a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, solid waste and water use.
Dan Mogulof, a campus spokesman, told Berkeleyside by email earlier this month, that “CEQA requires that the campus compare the potential impacts of a housing project such as the Upper Hearst Project with existing environmental conditions at the time the CEQA review occurs. Those environmental conditions most certainly include the current campus headcount. It is only by comparing the project with these baseline physical conditions that the campus can determine whether an impact is significant.”
Read the stories below for more detailed information. Berkeleyside will continue to follow the story.
Note: UC Berkeley says the housing element of the Upper Hearst project is focused on faculty. It will be made available to visiting scholars and postdoctoral students only if there is room. Berkeleyside updated this story May 14 to correct the record.