Page One

Hungry for revenue, Berkeley is seeking to charge the University of California for millions in unpaid city services as it also plans to challenge the university’s Long Range Development Plan for being too massive and too vague. 

In a closed-door meeting Tuesday night, the City Council will discuss the legal implications of sending its largest landowner bills for sewer hook-ups and parking lot operations. 

Mayor Tom Bates said the issue of sewer fees will come to a head in March when the city recalculates fees for residents and businesses. “We will send UC a bill in March and we will pursue legal action if they don’t pay us,” he said. 

The prime hope for a legal triumph, councilmembers said, is a lawsuit by the East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD) against UC Berkeley over how much it can charge the university for sewer treatment. The case, Bates said, is currently before the State Court of Appeals. 

“If East Bay MUD wins it seems pretty guaranteed that the city would have a good case too when it comes to sewers,” Councilmember Kriss Worthington said.  

“They’re not going to give us any money unless they’re forced to,” said Councilmember Dona Spring. 

As a state entity, UC has held that it is exempt from city taxes and fees. Currently, UC Berkeley pays the city $450,000 a year for sewer services as part of a 15-year deal that expires this year. According to a report last year by city consultant Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., providing sewer service to the university will cost Berkeley over $2.6 million this year and $3.8 million by 2014. However, city leaders are only asking for between $1.4 and $2.1 million in sewer fees. 

“We think that’s a range we could go to court with,” Bates said. 

He said city staff was still calculating an estimate of parking lot revenues it believed UC Berkeley owes the city. Berkeley taxes private parking lot operators ten percent of their revenues. Bates believes the university should pay the same tax on nights and weekends when university lots are primarily used for recreational events like football games and performances rather than for the university’s educational mission. 

“Clearly for those events they should pay what every other parking lot operator pays,” Bates said. 

With the city facing multi-million dollar budget shortfalls in upcoming years, an annual payment from the university approaching $2 million could help lift the city out of the red.  

On Wednesday, in a separate action, the city is scheduled file a lawsuit against the university, challenging the adequacy of its Long Range Development Plan. City officials contend the plan is purposely vague about specific developments and fails to deal properly with the impact of further growth on surrounding neighborhoods. 

Since December, city leaders have sought to extract payments from the university in return for not going ahead with the lawsuit challenging the university’s development plan. But with no further negotiations scheduled and the city facing a Wednesday deadline to file suit, Bates said a lawsuit was inevitable. 

A lawsuit would please neighborhood leaders who fear that a settlement would not provide enough money to lessen the effects of a university building boom. 

“Money isn’t the only thing,” said Wendy Alfsen of Berkeleyans For a Livable University Environment. “UC’s plan would have significant and severe impact on neighborhoods.” 

UC’s plan projects 2,600 new dormitory beds, between 1,800 and 2,300 new parking spaces and 2.2 million square feet of new academic and administrative space—three times more than called for in its 1990 plan. 

The city is planning to sue under the California Environmental Quality Act, on the grounds that the university has not identified the specific projects it plans to build and therefore couldn’t adequately provide mitigations to lessen their impact. 

If the city were to prevail in court, UC Berkeley could be compelled to redo its analysis, although once the judge approved the revised report the university could proceed with its development plans. 

While the council will discuss potential conflicts in closed session, Tuesday’s regular council meeting contains mostly items that appear likely to win broad support among councilmembers. 

Spring has proposed that the city apply to a $953,216 state grant program for a final feasibility study on the cost of opening up Strawberry Creek between Oxford Street and Shattuck Avenue. The long-discussed project would coincide with the possible construction of a hotel and convention center on the site of the current Bank of America office at the corner of Shattuck and Center Street.  

Mayor Bates is proposing a resolution calling on the state to proceed with the original design for the new east span of the Bay Bridge. Last month, Governor Schwarzenegger, citing over $2 billion in cost overruns on the project, proposed scrapping the design for a simpler version. 

The council is also expected to give final approval to the Ed Roberts Campus, a two story complex which will contain offices to serve disabled residents. Neighbors have appealed the 86,057-square-foot project, slated to rise at the Ashby BART station fronting Adeline Street. The appellates wrote that they aren’t seeking to stop the project, but want to make sure that it includes measures to mitigate its effects on nearby residents, and they want to correct what they see as mistakes in the planning process. 

Also Tuesday, the council will conduct a public hearing on the Berkeley Police Department’s agreements with other law enforcement agencies and private security organizations. Under Berkeley law the city is supposed to conduct such public hearings every year, but hasn’t done so since 1986. Councilmember Spring said local attorney Jim Chanin, a former Police Review Commissioner, sought the hearing for fear that the BPD was sharing private information about his clients with other law enforcement agencies.›