Page One

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), which sits on the hill overlooking Berkeley is planning to build a six-story, 94,000-square-foot molecular foundry in Strawberry Canyon for the study of nanoscience. If such a construction was to take place elsewhere in the city, we would all be pouring over plans, discussing it with neighbors, attending public hearings, and writing to our mayor and councilmembers to make sure that the concerns of increased traffic and noise, environmental impacts and infrastructure degradation were adequately addressed. 

But this has not happened. There has been very little public notice on this specific development, and even less fair public process. 

The molecular foundry is not a recent idea of LBNL or the Department of Energy, yet Berkeley residents only learned of it this past winter. The draft report on the development was dated Dec. 9, 2002, and was received by the Panoramic Hill Neighborhood Association in mid-December.  

The lab’s press release was dated Dec. 18, announcing a public comment period from Dec. 10 to Jan. 21. During much of this time the Berkeley City Council was on winter recess, and the public remained in the dark about the project. 

The lab’s first request to meet with neighbors of the adjacent Panoramic Hill was on Jan. 13. The lab’s first presentation to the City Council was on Jan. 14.  

This is inadequate public notice, and the inadequacy is compounded by the fact that the lab insisted they did not have to hold any formal public hearing on the environmental impacts of the proposed development. A building of this size is a construction that merits public review. The potential impacts, from traffic and noise to environmental degradation in the canyon could be severe. The public and the city should have been working with the lab on this for years, not against it for months. 

The lab’s Dec. 9 “Draft Tiered Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration” was available on the lab’s Web site, but not the documents that were the basis for the “tiered” report. Compounding the problem, these underlying documents were old and out-of-date environmental impact reports. In addition to violating California Environmental Quality Act guidelines, this lack of access to documentation, and lack of current documentation is inappropriate public notice, and unfair public process. 

Given the above problems with notice and access to documents, how much do the people of Berkeley know about the proposed molecular foundry development, and how much should we know? It is too late at this point to stop or move the molecular foundry. The project is going ahead without an environmental impact report. 

What can be done in the future to help mend the relationship between the lab and the community? How can we become better neighbors? Here are some ideas: 

As promised several years ago, the lab will produce its 2002 — yes, 2002 — long range development plan, with adequate notice and public comment and input from both city staff and neighbors. This should give neighbors some advance warning as to future developments, and perhaps the chance to participate early on in the planning process. 

On the molecular foundry development, the lab will work with environmentalists and creek advocates to design a building that respects the environmental integrity of Strawberry Canyon Watershed, and will continue this process on future developments. Another design idea would be to incorporate green building techniques to enhance energy conservation. 

The whole hill area where the lab sits has evolved into an industrial park. That doesn’t sound too bad for a cash-strapped city needing a healthy business environment. But the lab and UC Berkeley pay no property taxes to the City of Berkeley. Another wish would be for the lab and the university to incorporate a cost of doing business into their federal grants as a payment to the city in lieu of taxes. This is not a novel idea, and is done by other universities. 

The lab will work with neighbors and the city to develop a public transportation system that will mitigate the impact of increased car traffic through our neighborhoods. This could include shuttle buses from locations outside of Berkeley. 

Another way to be a good neighbor would be to use local labor and local companies in construction projects, and even if they are not the lowest bidder, factor in the benefits to Berkeley in the bid. The revenues to Berkeley may just come in handy when our aging infrastructure, the sewers and roads that the lab requires, needs money for repairs.  

The lab should be encouraged to get active in our public schools. Given the talent at UC Berkeley and LBNL, Berkeley should have the most advantaged science and math students in the country. Assistance should not be limited to bringing in the best and the brightest as interns. The challenge is to get all students excited about math and science. How many of the lab’s glossy posters on genomics were distributed to the science classrooms at Berkeley High? Don’t worry, I took two from the lab’s May 8 presentation, and will get them to the AP biology teacher tomorrow. 

The wish list could go on. It is essentially a plea to be a good neighbor. Neighbors have a right to know.  

Anne Wagley is the calendar editor for the Berkeley Daily Planet. She serves on the City of Berkeley’s Housing Advisory Commission and Peace and Justice Commission.