UC Berkeley Comes Under Fire For Memorial Stadium Expansion
The City of Berkeley and the University of California are once again at odds.
The Berkeley Daily Planet is reporting on a recently released city report that lambasts the university as a money-hungry institution willing to sacrifice the safety of students and alumni for what it deems to be an irrationally high-powered fundraising drive.
In the document presented to the Planning Commission Wednesday night, Marks slams the university for its “dismissive attitude toward the City of Berkeley and its citizens” and assails a document he said is full of critical flaws and factual errors.
The target of his criticism is the draft environmental impact report (DEIR) prepared by Design, Community & Environment, a Berkeley planning firm headed by David E. Early—the same firm that drafted the university’s 2020 Long Range Development Plan…
Marks said “fund-raising considerations and concerns of alumni” rather than compliance with CEQA seemed to be driving the process, starting with a conceptual design for the 132,500-square-foot Student Athlete High Performance Center that were sketched out two years ago—well before the start of the EIR process.
Had the university’s concern been the safety of students, officials would have begun by retrofitting the seismically unsafe stadium—a building constructed directly over the Hayward Fault.
“But it is our understanding that Phase II of the project that includes the Stadium retrofit remains unfunded, while fundraising proceeds on Phase I, construction of a new fitness center attached to the crumbling and dangerous stadium,” Marks wrote…
I think the city actually brings up some serious points here. But, to be honest, I feel a lot of this is the nature of the Berkeley beast. The money that the university receives for these types of projects usually has all kinds of strings attached for it.
It would be interesting to see if the administration really did structure the plan deliberately. But, even that still isn’t within the purview of the city government to analyze. The moral merits of a plan should not influence how the city decides to act on the university’s expansion proposals. And, at this point, the more that this process is dragged on by the university, the more risk that students using Memorial Stadium could be exposed to during events.
The report brings up some other of the more shady elements of the plan:
“The skimpy information that the DEIR includes is difficult to find, inconsistent and frequently underestimates the magnitude of projects,” offering only “snippets of information” about crucial details, Marks wrote.
One example he cited was the parking lot planned for a site northwest of the stadium beneath Maxwell Family Field.
The DEIR “does not indicate the specific size of the Maxwell Field parking structure, which will probably be more than 325,000 square feet,” he wrote.
One snippet related to the mammoth garage is a fleeting mention of a 12- to 15-foot-high wall around three sides of the structure that would be out of character with its historic surroundings, including the recently landmarked Memorial Stadium…
In addition to the training center parking structure and eventual stadium retrofit, the project includes construction of a 186,000-square-foot building that would join offices and functions of the university’s law and business schools.
Marks wrote that the document is also notable for what it doesn’t include, such as the cumulative impacts of the projects when added to other nearby and pending projects, including major renovations at Bowles Hall, just across from the parking structure, and the planned demolition of the Bevatron at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, a short drive up the hill from the stadium complex.
As a Greek who sells football parking for prices so high it’s probably illegal, I am upset that the university is undercutting this lucrative industry that is integral to the Greeks for their beer money… er, I mean, operating budgets. But it is interesting that the university is potentially circumventing the process to this extent, especially given the recent decision holding universities accountable for their effects on the surrounding communities.
Ben - I wouldn’t mind giving up beer money for a retrofitted stadium - as long as they have beer dispensing vendors in it!
Comment by Ian — August 2, 2006 @ 7:37 am
I’m gonna disagree. The city WANTED to find problems. I don’t think any report they issue is going to be a fair one. All the city cares about is noise, traffic, and keeping out valuable tax-paying businesses. They’re completely against any expansion. They basically wish the school would wither up and die, or at least that’s the way it sounds because they always issue big defamatory and over dramatic quotes about anything the university does.
The retrofit is obviously very important and an argument that it should be done first is probably decent, but like you said, the funding for stuff like this is complicated. It’s not like the donor just cuts a 50 million dollar check and they start construction the next day. I also think it’d be impossible to get anything at all done in berkeley without a little circumvention. If it takes 2 years for the city to approve a Chipotle moving into telegraph, imagine how long it’d take if the school had to run every tiny detail of building a stadium past them.
Comment by Simon — August 2, 2006 @ 8:05 pm
I’m with Simon. I don’t trust anything the city says in regards to University building projects. that doesn’t mean that the project doesn’t have it’s problems, I just don’t trust the city for that criticism. Additionally, while I too would prefer the stadium retrofit first (particularly considering my seats are not on solid ground but on the concrete structure) the reality is that there WON’T be money for the retrofit unless the football program continues to succeed.
And for the football program to succeed it need to attract the best recruits.
And to recruit the best recruits you need good facilities.
And Tedford has been doing his best to recruit without those facilities by using the promise of better facilities, soon to come.
And Tedford can’t use that carrot forever so we’d better start building soon.
So, it’s never as simple as “do the stadium first”. And I’m sure the city would still be complaining about the project if it was the stadium retrofit. The complaints would just come from a different pile.
Comment by Ken Crawford — August 3, 2006 @ 9:08 am
As sad as I am to leave California, I am glad to get away from the Berkeley City Council. What a worthless government.
Comment by bobby gregg — August 3, 2006 @ 9:54 am
At the press conference announcing the renovation, they addressed this issue. To say that they are ignoring the safety of students by putting the retrofit second is willfully distorting the facts. The stadium building is currently used to house students and staff in the athletic program. They’re the ones that are in that stadium all the time throughout the year. By building the “performance center”, those students and staff members will be located outside the structurally-questionable stadium building, and therefore will be safer. At that point the larger issue of the stadium — which is occupied only a few times a year for a few hours — can be addressed.
Even as someone who’s kind of skeptical about how long it’ll be before we really see “phase two,” I am still inclined to buy that argument.
Comment by Jason — August 5, 2006 @ 8:31 am
I dont buy that argument. While I support all of the projects except the parking garage, which I think should be located somewhere else, like in the Downtown, it does not make any sense to me why the University is not putting the renovation of the actual stadium first.
There are serious seismic problems in that part of campus and it is important to make sure that everyone who uses the stadium is safe. After that is accomplished, then it makes sense to build the training facility and additional buildings.
These other projects do not have the same kind of critical nature as making sure that Memorial Stadium is seismically safe.
Additionally, regardless of what people think about the city government, the University did manipulate the draft environmental impact report. Many of the issues the City raised were legitimate and need to be addressed by the University. In order for anybody to build anything they need to make sure it wont have significant impacts on the environment. By requiring UC to do a through analysis and address the impacts it ensures that students, neighbors and visitors all benefit.
Comment by Jesse Arreguin — August 6, 2006 @ 4:23 am
I meant to say thorough analysis, my apologies.
Comment by Jesse Arreguin — August 6, 2006 @ 4:27 am