Public Comment

The University of California at Berkeley is billing its new development plans as housing-centric in the hopes that Berkeley residents and housing activists will look no farther. We recommend that everyone pull back the curtain on UCB’s current plans and take a good hard look at what they are really doing. Once you do so, you will agree that UCB’s proposed plan is a really bad deal for Berkeley -- both as to housing and as to proposed development generally. 

UCB’s planned Helen Diller Anchor House (fondly known in some circles as UCB’s Taj Mahal) is a perfect example of this bait-and-switch strategy. The project, which UCB pitches as necessary transfer student housing, in fact will house comparatively few students. Instead, the 16-story dark-grey tower that is a block long, a block-wide, and by a New York City architectural firm adept at maximizing development income out of tight spaces, will contain hundreds of thousands of square feet (and several floors) of commercial retail, office, and event space complete with underground parking that UCB has already arranged to lease via Baird & Warner to generate tax-free rental income in direct competition with private landlords who must pay taxes to the City (something UCB believes it does not have to do). The “donor” of the project has arranged to “manage” the building in exchange for money and control of the property. Student rents – paid for primarily by federal Pell grant funding – will go to pay for building operations. 

To conceal its income-producing plan, UCB has fitted the “dorm” with luxury appointments to attract rent-paying students. Every student will have their own bedroom; all student apartments will be fitted with their own kitchen and in-suite washer and dryer in addition to a living room. Oh, and that in-suite living room is in addition to the multiple private student lounges on each floor, some complete with large screen televisions (!), in addition to yoga rooms, a roof garden, balcony, and large fitness center. (Two blocks is apparently too far for these lucky students to have to walk to get to the regular student gym.) 

Who will pay the price for all this luxury? Well, first of all, there are the families who have resided at the rent-controlled, landmark-eligible apartment building at 1921 Walnut Street, some for generations. UCB has already sent them eviction notices. Where will they go? Likely outside of Berkeley given the City’s tight housing market and that UCB has already leased most of the new apartment units either recently completed or under construction. It is also worth noting that the UC Regents approved the Anchor House plan based on specs that did not include the 1921 Walnut Street property; UCB’s planning department acted unilaterally to purchase the property and evict the tenants (seems like a bit of an over-step, no?) 

The second category of loser, of course, is Berkeley’s citizens, who will lose three historic (and one landmarked) buildings, rent-controlled apartments available to the public, and property tax revenue associated with the parcels UCB has acquired over time. They will also find themselves paying higher taxes and user fees to pay for the services UCB will consume. UCB does not pay property taxes – or any taxes at all for that matter – but does use City services and infrastructure. So, yes, Berkeley taxpayers will foot the bill for the additional services required for all of UCB’s new buildings including Anchor House and the estimated 25,000 new students, staff, and faculty that UCB will add over the next two decades. Residents will also have to fight increased traffic on Oxford Street -- where UCB has plans for huge structures in addition to Anchor House – and around Clark-Kerr Campus where they plan to add a large number of parking spaces. 

Existing Berkeley businesses will also lose out. They will have to compete with UCB’s new retail and commercial tenants; notably, UCB can rent to large retail chains without regard to City Restrictions. UCB can also charge competitive rents and obtain more funding because they don’t pay taxes over to the City either for the student apartments or commercial tenants. Still think this sounds like a good idea for Berkeley?  

BAHA and numerous other community groups think UCB’s plans are a BAD deal for Berkeley. We urge UCB to go back to UCB’s original plan for the Oxford/University “Anchor House” that it agreed to with the City and that made use of the existing historic buildings while providing the same number of student housing units as provided in the new “Taj Mahal” iteration. New housing and landmarks can co-exist; it just requires more creativity than this latest plan offers!