Below is:
1) the Open Letter from tenants June 16, 2021 along with testimonials
2) statement discussing Berkeley tenant protections vs UC’s relocation policy
3) a transcript of the May 12, 2021 UC Regents Board meeting
June 16, 2021
Open Letter from Tenants at 1921 Walnut St. In Berkeley
We are the rent-controlled tenants at 1921 Walnut St. in Berkeley. For over a year throughout the Covid crisis, UCB and UC Regents have pursued plans to evict us and demolish our homes. We do not oppose UC building new student housing and in fact we support the Anchor House project as was envisioned in 2019 and earlier when it was the “Gateway” version of the project and preserved 1921 Walnut St. What we oppose is UC Berkeley’s hasty decision to alter the housing project during the pandemic, ignore broad community opposition to the new version, withhold information about the new version and UC Berkeley’s disrespectful treatment of the long-standing community at 1921 Walnut St. We ask UC to be transparent and honest about what it would like to do, to incorporate community feedback in the form of feasible mitigations and alternatives and to show respect to the people and community that has lived at 1921 Walnut St for decades.
We are long term tenants at 1921 Walnut St. All combined we have lived at 1921 Walnut St for over 68 years. We are descendants of historic Berkeley figures, we are children of refugees and first-generation college grads (UCB grad!), we are single moms, we are immigrants, we are working class people looking for the California dream, we are families – we represent the diversity of Berkeley and we are an integral part of the Berkeley community. We are also people who have struggled through the Covid crisis and we have lost our parents, we have lost work, we have experienced the devastating events of the past 15 months like everyone else – and on top of that, University of California Berkeley led by Chancellor Christ has given us vague information about our planned eviction, she has refused to meet with us when we were confused and scared to lose our homes, and she has mischaracterized our lived experiences. 1921 Walnut St. is our home and we do not want to be displaced. 1921 Walnut St. is a modest 111-year-old apartment building that has allowed us to build lives, careers, families and a community here in Berkeley. It has granted us stability through sky rocketing real estate costs in Berkeley and the opportunity to be close to grocery stores, public transportation, school and work. UC will destroy all of that and up-end our lives if they are allowed to evict us and demolish our homes. We feel UC is setting us up for failure because they are offering us a paltry short-term solution to the long-term problem UC is creating by permanently displacing us. We wish that the University would give us the respect we deserve as long-term Berkeley residents - respect that they are clearly not interested in giving us, thus far.
We all watched with dismay the UC Regents board meeting in May where UCB Chancellor Christ discussed our situation and our homes. We were horrified and devasted by how Chancellor Christ and Marc Fisher mispresented us and the situation on the ground at 1921 Walnut St. Chancellor Christ and Marc Fisher did not convey the strife caused by their action on the Walnut St residents. UCB actually gave UC Regents incorrect information about how many tenants currently live at 1921 Walnut St., how many of us do not want to be displaced and how many of us are not negotiating to leave. The Berkeley community at large has supported us for over a year, including Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguin, Berkeley City Council, The Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board, Associated Students of the University of California, Sierra Club, Berkeley Tenants Union, Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association and many more, all whom have written to UC expressing their objections and concerns. Yet, Chancellor Christ made it sound like the opposition to their project is insignificant. UCB claims to offer us tenants a “generous” relocation package, even though that package does not even conform to Berkeley rent-control protections and in fact, a private developer would not be able to simply displace us in this way (see attached statement from our attorney Erik Bauman). The new version of Anchor House will displace our community, the Chancellor and UCB has not been honest about that outcome nor has UCB attempted to mitigate that. UC Chancellor Christ brags about “robust” community engagement but that could not be further from the truth. UCB created this new version of Anchor House during the pandemic, a time when the public’s ability to participate in the process was drastically impeded. The existing community at 1921 Walnut St is a major stakeholder in the community yet UCB flatly refused to meet with the tenants. The student body through the ASUC even tried to set up a community listening session and again UCB administration flatly refused to meet with the tenants. We are ashamed of UCB’s actions and we believe that if the people of California knew the truth about how UCB is acting – they would also be ashamed. This is not how our public university should treat long-term community members, especially during a global pandemic.
Just recently we learned the UCB plans to build high-end student housing with less beds and market rate commercial spaces in the new version of Anchor House. UCB was not transparent with us the past year about these plans, even though we asked. We sent countless questions to UCB and UCB either ignored or deflected. We specifically asked how we could participate in the planning process and UCB was vague. In fact, one of us had to bring UC to court for failure to comply with CPRA requests, after waiting over 9 months to get information about UC’s plans at 1921 Walnut St and public comments about the project – to this day, UC has still not provided that tenant any information even though UC is legally obligated to provide it as California Public Records Act requests (see lawsuit here). All the while, UCB is progressing with plans to displace us. We feel that UCB did not want our community, the City of Berkeley and the Berkeley community at large to engage in the process in a substantive way. It seems to us that UCB had a pre-ordained decision and they were just “going through the motions” of community engagement while the real decisions had already been made behind closed doors.
The UC Regents will vote on the project to evict us and demolish our homes, that vote right now is scheduled for July. After seeing first-hand how UCB has informed the UC Regents on the project, we fear that UC Regents do not have accurate and complete information needed to make an informed decision. We feel that UC Regents must seriously consider the breadth, intensity and longitudinal nature of the community opposition to evicting these tenants and demolishing affordable housing units. We also feel very strongly that UCB has not been transparent or forthcoming with information about the project to the tenants or the Berkeley community, which has hindered informed public discussion on the project. It seems to us that UCB is trying to rush through this project and to get rid of us as quickly and quietly as possible, no matter the human cost. We feel that UCB is taking advantage of their privilege to destroy a vulnerable community at a vulnerable time. It feels UCB is working in the shadows because that is the only way to push through a project like this.
We are calling on UCB to halt all plans to evict us or demolish our homes and to go back to the original version of Anchor House, called Gateway. That original version preserved our homes at 1921 Walnut, could create even more beds than the new version of Anchor House and already had community support. We also call on the UC Regents to listen to the Berkeley community and to recognize that UCB has not fully informed UC Regents or the public on the situation at 1921 Walnut St. We urge the UC Regents to reach out to us directly to get full and accurate information about what’s happening here on the ground. We ask the UC Regents to preserve our homes and build student housing around us, or avail of one of the many win-win alternatives, as was their original plan for the student housing project. We ask UCB to finally meet with the tenants of 1921 Walnut St in good faith to address our concerns, to find alternatives and to mitigate impacts.
Sincerely,
Natalie Logusch, Paul Wallace, Theo Robinson, Kim Romero, Stefanie Williams, Karol Duran
Tenants at 1921 Walnut St in Berkeley, California
Here are testimonial from 5 of the current tenants at 1921 Walnut St:
1. Thanks for taking a moment to read about my housing. I've lived at 1921 Walnut St. in Berkeley for 27 years. I moved in at a time when housing in this neighborhood was not popular, and I could immediately see the charm in this building. I've always paid rent on time, and my wife and I have been good tenants. We are disappointed by the U.C. regents plan to evict us. Originally the plan was to build around our apartment. At the eleventh hour our original landlord Waterbury Properties (or F.E. Forbes though it's all the same family) decided to offer a private sale to the U.C. to offload the building. The announcement came during April of 2020, which was the beginning of Covid; needless to say a disconcerting time to receive a letter with a vague message threatening future eviction. Since then we've received one offer to date, which is paltry to the cost of living in the Bay Area. The U.C. regents have not shown any serious interest in promoting stability for displacing long-term rent-controlled Berkeley tenants.
Even more infuriating that really leads me to write to you today is having viewed a recent regents meeting on May 12th called Finance and Capital Strategies Committee that I recommend watching at the 24 minute mark which is viewable on youtube. https://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/meetings/videos/may2021/may2021.html#fin. In this video Chancellor Christ and Mark Fisher make some interesting statements (before getting stopped by their own council) that we the residents of 1921 have had negotiations with the U.C. No agreement exists as of writing this when only one offer has been made to us. They were boasting to the other regents how great it was that one of the tenants had moved to another state and bought a house. I find it extremely distasteful that Mr. Fisher implies that the U.C. helped our neighbor by a new house when the relocation benefits provided forced him out of California. This is fantasy. I'm shocked at their flippant attitude toward this eviction and the housing crisis in the Bay Area; the lack of affordable housing is the cruel result.
To get personal, as a long-term Bay Area resident, I look back at my past. I am here in Berkeley because of my grandfather Walter Robinson, who attended the University of Berkeley during the depression. To finance his education, he would wake up at four in the morning every day and heat up all furnaces across campus. And many decades before that, my third great grandfather, Thomas Starr King (who has a school named after him a few blocks from campus over on the Northside) helped save California and the West from leaving our union during the civil war. He established many institutions here in the Bay Area, such as bringing the Unitarian church out west and establishing the American Sanitary Commission, which is today known as the American Red Cross. I applaud the values that my family, neighbors, and strangers have brought to my city. I wish that that the University would give us the respect that we deserve as long-term Berkeley residents; respect that they are clearly not interested in giving us. May 24, 2021 Theo
2. I have lived in Berkeley at 1921 Walnut St. for fourteen years. I love Berkeley and have always said I could see myself growing old here. This is my home, this is my city. I am settled here, and I have built a life here. For the past 15 years I’ve had the same job, a job I love that is based here in the Bay Area. I don’t have the option to just pick up and move to another city or state. The UC Regents claim to have offered “generous” relocation plans, but it’s less than generous if you consider the cost of living in Berkeley and the Bay Area. What happens after the relocation benefits expire and we find ourselves in an unaffordable housing situation? My husband and I considered putting the money toward a down payment, but the housing market in the Bay Area is ridiculously expensive, so the relocation benefits are paltry when put into that context. The UC is setting us for failure and the fact that they are allowed to get away with this with no accountability is reprehensible. May 23, 2021 Kim
3. “I have lived at 1921 Walnut St. for 11 years. If I’m evicted, I fear I will be displaced from not only Berkeley but from the entire Bay Area or possibly California and I will loose my community, my work and everything I’ve built for the past 11 years. Berkeley is my home and 1921 Walnut St. has provided me safe, affordable and stable housing. We are not against UC building Anchor House or other student housing, we just don’t want them to destroy our homes to do it. They can build around us and that was the original plan (it used to be called the Gateway House). Throughout the pandemic, UC has refused to meet with us tenants or to even listen to our concerns. With the UC students, we asked for a community listening session and UC flatly refused. It’s insulting to hear UCB claim that they have “robust community engagement” when they literally just ignore all community concerns about their plans to demolish our homes, permanently destroy affordable housing and displace us long-term tenants. It has been terrifying and dehumanizing. I asked UCB administration many times for information and clarification of their plans and timeline. UCB refused to clarify or give requested information and told me to file California Public Record Act Requests to get information. When I did file 2 CRPA for information, UC still didn’t give me information and after 10 months of waiting, I filed a lawsuit against UC. Why do I have file a lawsuit against UC to get accurate information? The public objects to displacing and there is a very public outcry against our eviction. But UC ignores us all and refuses to give us information. It’s exhausting, stressful and dehumanizing. We are the human cost of their plans, but UC doesn’t care about what our community wants or says. It’s just so upsetting because UC does not have to do this, they have so many other options. ” May 30, 2021 Natalie
4. “My name is Stefanie Williams and I have lived at 1921 Walnut Street since August 2012. As a transfer student from the College of Alameda, I was ecstatic to be given the opportunity to achieve my dream of receiving a UC Berkeley education. No one in my family had ever accomplished this and my mother a political refugee from El Salvador and father were so incredibly proud of this accomplishment. My apartment was a saving grace. It allowed me the possibility of living close to school while also developing my independence. As a low income student I could never have been able to afford dorm living or the meal plans that go along with them. I was a barista at Yali’s across the street and attended classes in between. Being a transfer student is a very different experience and 1921 was my safe space. Even as I continued into my career, 1921 has continued to be my home and allowed me to stay in Bay Area.
In August 2020, my sister Karol Duran and her 6 year-old son Adam Campos moved in with me. As a single mother Karol had little opportunities to afford Bay Area rent prices for a one bedroom apartment, let alone rent close to her work in Oakland. Having this apartment has allowed her more time with her son and less of a commute. We are both hard working Latina women who have been doing everything we can to maintain. I was lucky enough to find this treasure and in turn also help my family. In retrospect it’s crazy how UC gave me the opportunity of a lifetime which never seemed possible as a child growing up, but now I am simultaneously at risk of losing the one place I have been able to call home for almost a decade because of the university system. It is truly unbelievable how full circle this example of give and take has been for my family and I. To boot, my father recently passed away from COVID complications and the amount of stress in losing the patriarch of the family and then to be faced with the stark reality of no longer having my home, its been a tremendous battle.
Lastly, watching the Finance and Capital Strategies Committee meeting from May 12th was incredibly disturbing. More so due to Chancellor Christ comments as she is so obviously detached from the strife caused by this project on Walnut Street residents. It was made blatantly clear that Chancellor Christ has not been paying any attention as she assumed only two people are living at 1921 currently. This is absolutely not true. The fact that she was selling the transfer housing project as and “extraordinary project she is so excited about” using buzzwords to push all the positives about the project, while simultaneously avoiding the negative implications on a community of people and dehumanizing those living on the corner of Walnut and Berkeley Way all in the name of 71 extra beds is disheartening. I am ashamed to be associated with a system whose ethics and principles of community are so questionable. The housing dilemma is an issue throughout the entire city of Berkeley and the Bay Area. It is not just an issue for the student population, but everyone else trying to survive here as well. As a former transfer student I agree it is important to develop when possible, but be mindful of the established residency of the people who have called Walnut Street home for decades, we have roots here.” -May 26, 2021 Stefanie
5. I moved to my home in October 2015 and found it an honor to move to the City of Berkeley, where I believed that this incredible institution of UC Berkeley was the pillar of the community. Coupled with my admiration of UC, I grew to love my home, its proximity to transportation; downtown; all the services; the Bay; and easy access to the surrounding amenities that the entire Bay area has to offer. A rent-controlled apartment was very important to me, as I approach retiring age, a time when our income earning years are coming to a close, or at least diminishing … for the majority of the population. During my time here at 1921 Walnut, I have included myself in quite a supportive community, engaging with neighbors and fellow tenants, like family. It has been wonderful, and so good for the soul. Conversely, in my earlier years here, I watched as my ‘pillar of the community’, UC Berkeley, developed the former parking lot bound by Shattuck, Berkeley Way and Hearst Street. The 8-storey building that they constructed, which occupies more than half the City block - kitty corner to my home, doesn’t provide one single parking spot! Directly opposite my home is the UC Bio-Sciences building – again a huge 7-storey building occupying about a third of a City block, and not one single parking spot is provided for the occupants of this building! During the construction of the newest building, the UC contractors worked day and night, weekend work was at a whim, and UC thumbed its noses at the City noise ordinances and other regulations. I could see how the privileges afforded to UC by its status were being abused, while ‘others’ are compromised and taken advantage of. This was my initial eye-opening to the ‘abuse of privilege’ by UC.
The deepest cut of all, is that UC has now purchased the building in which I live, my home. They did it during the height of the pandemic and sent all tenants notices during the ‘stay-at-home’ orders, a time when you would think that your home is a ‘safe place’. They now plan to evict me and my fellow tenants, tear down our homes – to build student housing! UC’s plan is to evict long-term Berkeley residents, from their rent-controlled homes, to make way for short-term student housing? The pillar of the community is doing this? And what does the City of Berkeley and the community have to say? The Mayor of Berkeley has written to UC expressing his objection. The City Council has written to UC expressing their objection. The Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board has written to UC expressing their objection. Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association has written to UC expressing their objection. The Sierra Club has written to the UC expressing their objection. The ASUC, the student body, has written to UC expressing their objection… and on and on. The tenants formed an association and have reached out individually and collectively to UC on numerous occasions, they have been ignored. The ASUC reached out on behalf of the tenants and were rejected. Multiple requests for a ‘listening session’ have been rejected. I have called in to give public comment at Regents meetings and have written public comment for the Regents meetings, but I believe that the voices of the tenants and the City of Berkeley are falling on deaf ears, or ears that have been manipulated and lied to. At the recent Board of Regents meeting, I believe that Chancellor Christ and her colleague blatantly lied to the Regents about the situation. Furthermore, if any ‘regular’, or ‘private party’ developer wanted to eliminate rent-controlled housing in the City of Berkeley, my fellow tenants and I could not be forced to permanently relocate. There are rules against this. The attempted strong-arming by UC, urging me to accept a temporary fix: 42 months of rent subsidy is an outrage. What happens after that? In my golden years, being straddled with the insecurity of retirement income on one side of the balance sheet, and unsustainable rents on the other side, cannot work? This short-term fix for UC is a long-term problem for me. I will be forced from the City of Berkeley, and most likely from the state of California.
There are options. UC could prioritize people over profit. Look at the ‘human’ impact of what you are doing. Some alternate suggestions are: 1. UC could leave the building at 1921 Walnut Street intact and add an additional floor to the project you had envisioned prior to purchasing 1921 Walnut. 2. UC could move the 1921 Walnut Street building to another site, preserving the building, its history, and the rent-controlled housing stock. 3. UC could build your housing elsewhere, after all, UC has many sites available which would be suitable for its housing project. 4. UC could build fewer units at this site, leave 1921 Walnut Street intact, and build more units elsewhere. June 2 2021 Paul
This is a transcript from the University of California Regents Board Meeting Finance and Capital Strategies Committee, May 12, 2021. The full video can be seen on the Regents’ website include at url: https://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/meetings/videos/may2021/may2021.html
The transcript below is the portion of the discussion F9 for the Long Range Development Plan for Berkeley where 1921 Walnut St and Anchor House was discussed. When viewing the full video of the committee meeting (url above), this transcript begins at minute 23:50. When viewing clips from the full committee meeting, minutes vary depending on the clip you are watching.
Transcript
UC Regent Lark Park
We have two discussion items, both deal with campus long range development plans, F9 for Berkeley F 10 for Riverside.
As is our custom, we're taking this opportunity to have the fuller discussion on these before the campus comes back for approval of their long range development revisions to their long range development plans.
Typically you know campuses might bring amendments to their plans, but sometimes a long period of time passes before than that.
Like these long range development plans are brought back, so I would encourage the campus actually to make a thorough presentation of.
Their plans and we have we have allotted some time 30 minutes each for each.
Campus long range development plan. Just because it it is a good opportunity to understand what the the trajectory of the campus is relative to their physical design frameworks. So with that, let's start with F9, which is the Berkeley campus' LRDP.
And Executive Vice President Brostrom, would you like to introduce the item.
Executive Vice President Nathan Brostrom
Yeah, again, as you said, this is discussion not for action, but it is the long range development plan for the Berkeley campus which is being updated from from 2005 when it was last done and it really aligns with the 2018 strategic plan that the Chancellor did and and her housing initiative from 2017 so with
That why don't I turn it over to the Chancellor Christ?
UC Regent Cecilia Estolano
You're on mute Chancellor Christ
UC Berkeley Chancellor Carol Christ
Thank you Nathan. Uh Berkeley’s 2021 long range development plan provides an updated framework on land use plan to guide future physical development on our main campus in Berkeley.
As you know, UC Berkeley is the University of California's oldest campus, with the main campus consisted comprising 1000 and 95 acres and nearly 15 million gross square feet of facilities primarily located in the city of Berkeley.
The 2021 LRDP updates the current LRDP and reflects recent strategic planning, including our recently updated strategic plan, as well as our ambitious housing initiative. Our strategic plan builds on Berkeley’s academic excellence focusing on the student experience and diversity.
It also establishes cross cutting signature research initiatives uniquely suited to Berkeley's interdisciplinary academic culture.
The 2021 LRDP incorporates our housing initiative with the most ambitious housing program in campus history. Last but not least, the 2021 LRDP adopts both campus and UC sustainability goals for buildings, infrastructure, and transportation.
The LRDP is guided by population projections and a development program. It projects moderate potential enrollment growth in anticipation of overall increasing enrollment in the University of California system.
As an urban campus with limited land resources, we want to be a low growth campus to ensure that we can provide adequate facilities to support our world renowned academic excellence over the next 15 years, the campus expects its undergraduate student population to grow annually. By only 1% or less a rate that's less than projected for the population of the surrounding region.
The maximum student population in the LRDP for planning purposes is 48,200 by the academic year 2036/37
The LRDP projects a maximum of 19,000 faculty and staff in the same period time period. This represents a potential increase of approximately 8500 students and 3600 faculty and staff.
This population will be supported by a development program of a little bit more than 2.5 million gross square feet of net.
New campus space by 11,730 net new student and faculty beds, and by 1240 net new parking spaces.
Turning now to Housing the 2021 LRDP plans for a significant amount of housing 11,730 beds which would more than double the campuses existing housing capacity. The Berkeley campus currently houses the lowest percentage of students in on campus housing in the system.
In a region with one of the tightest housing markets in the country.
The LRDP supports our housing initiative to provide two years of housing. For entering freshmen, one year of housing for entering transfer students.
One year of housing for entering graduate students and up to six years of housing for untenured faculty. The housing program accounts for nearly half of the total LRDP development program. In recognition of this critical need.
Drawing on our strategic plan, the 2021 LRDP also addresses our academic and campus life needs. The plan supports our seismic improvement program as the oldest campus in the UC system. This represents a significant amount of our capital plan as we renovate and replace our buildings.
We will incorporate programmatic flexibility and adaptability that a modern public teaching and research institution needs in order to steward our resources wisely.
In addition to our academic needs, the LRDP also supports our strategic goals to enhance diversity and student engagement in our physical spaces.
Berkeley is committed to collaboration with external entities such as the City of Berkeley, Regional Transit agencies and the Lawrence.
Berkeley National Lab in areas of shared interest and the 2021 LRDP includes objectives to guide continuing in future partnerships on capital projects.
Because the Berkeley campus is largely built out, the implementation of the development program will require densification of our existing properties while preserving unique features that give the campuses distinctive. Park like character.
The 2021 LRDP guides development through three components. Land use objectives, potential, future building areas, and a land use table.
The land use objectives provide an overall approach towards development based on our principles and goals, the potential future building areas diagram describes where development might occur and the land use tables identify what uses are appropriate for each land use zone.
While the 2021 LRDP land uses generally remain the same as in the current LRDP, the components I just described provide a streamlined but comprehensive approach to future development within our limited land resources.
The 2021 LRDP is complemented by our updated physical design framework which provides further design guidance for capital projects.
The intent of the physical design framework is to reinforce key elements of the campuses physical structure and to enhance the public.
Realm for the campus community and for the public.
It also provides an approach and process for evaluating sites for potential projects. Finally.
I'd like to touch on a robust LRDP engagement process. We understand that many people in the campus community and in the Greater Berkeley community would be interested in providing feedback on the LRDP and we responded by initiating hundreds of hours of in person engagement.
As well as significant online outreach. In person outreach has included stakeholder group meetings, regular project governance meetings, public town halls, briefings to city of Berkeley staff and officials, informal drop in sessions, and an LRDP Community Advisory group.
UM the UM during the COVID-19 pandemic in person outreach has been converted to virtual engagement, including workshops. Our LRDP
Website Has served as a repository for key planning documents and a way to learn about engagement opportunities and has also hoste Interactive outreach like surveys and virtual town halls.
Berkeley is committed to being a responsible steward of our resources and to create a welcoming and sustainable physical environment that supports our educational mission and our interdisciplinary diverse culture and community. And we're pleased to answer any questions I'd like to introduce the members of the Berkeley Campus that are here today. Mark Fisher, our Vice Chancellor for administration. John Arvin, who's in charge of capital strategies Wendy Hillis, our campus architect, and David Robinson, who's on campus counsel.
Nathan, do you want to add anything to what I just said?
Executive Vice President Nathan Brostrom
No I think we should open it.
Up for for questions and discussion.
UC Regent Lark Park
We thank you, Chancellor Christ and Executive Vice President Brostrom so.
Any questions or comments on Berkeley's LRDP?
OK, uhm.
Regent Muwwakkil you are recognized.
UC Regent Jamaal Muwwakkil
Thank you very much Chair Park and thank you for the presentation Chancellor Christ. I wanted to ask a question related to table two which juxtaposes the current LRDP and the projected LRDP under the 2021 plan, focusing specifically on the difference well on.
Both of those items details student enrollment, and faculty and staff. It seems like under the current LRDP there was.
We've grown in our undergraduate, our student enrollment quite a bit more than what's projected, and we're projecting quite a bit more growth, but contrasted with the faculty and staff or about 400 humans below what was projected, which says to me that there might be a quite a bit.
of strain people may be being stressed a bit thin in that regard, glad to hear that there is a plan to increase those numbers some more.
Accommodate the increased student enrollment. Can you talk to me a little bit about the plans as to
How to do that?
What would you do? You have any initiatives, UM, in mind, for how to successfully engage faculty and staff to meet the need?
UC Berkeley Chancellor Carol Christ
Uh, yeah, that's a wonderful question, and in fact it's just been a.
An important and unfortunate intersection between the growth as a system, but the budget challenges that the entire system has faced for, particularly the Berkeley campus.
So we've held our faculty number the same, and we've actually reduced staff by about 500 positions. I first want to emphasize.
That the that the growth that's projected in the LRDP that's currently under consideration is an outside limit. It's not saying we will grow that amount.
Now, but those are the that's the container in which our growth will occur. We in our current comprehensive campaign fundraising campaign, we're raising money for faculty positions and my budget strategy for the campus has been to come to multiply and diversify revenue sources in order to support a more robust.
Student, faculty ratio and all.
So to to provide for the staff support.
Executive Vice President Nathan Brostrom
Regent Muwwakkil, uh as Chancellor Christ noted, this is something you would see that's that's common across all UC campuses.
It was really the confluence of, you know, the the Great Recession when we had major cuts. Then we, you know, we proceeded to bring in a lot of students without really growing staff or faculty.
Commiserate so for example on Vice President Brown's institutional research.
From a site you can see both systemwide and campus. By campus you know staff student ratios, faculty to student ratios and there has been a deterioration across the across the past decade and it's one of the reasons that we are looking very looking at this.
Cohort tuition kind of proposal to give us a more sustainable financial model.
UC Regent Jamaal Muwwakkil
Thank you, I'll just end if I may chair Park with just a comment that I think that that issue and or to your point, Nathan is an issue that's represented across all campuses and I think it really impinges on our argument towards excellence.
When we have an outsized faculty student ratio, so I think a part of the future always has to be.
And limiting that number, that ratio between faculty.
And students which would.
Include hiring more faculty on our campuses. So thank you for taking that into consideration inyour LRDP
UC Berkeley Chancellor Carol Christ
Yeah, I think.
Executive Vice President Nathan Brostrom
And also faculty to staff.
because You know, the the staff supports the faculty in in their research and teaching.
UC Regent Jamaal Muwwakkil
That's the academic staff, yes.
UC Berkeley Chancellor Carol Christ
Important point Regent Muwwakkil
UC Regent Lark Park
Thank you Regent UC Regent Muwwakkil, Regent designate Zaragoza.
UC Regent Alexis Atsilvsgi Zaragoza
Thank you for recognizing me. I have a question specifically for us it's a page 1001, but for the item itself I believe page 7 and this discussion around the campuses plans for I believe what was it called
Was it called sorry? Uh, from the walnut St residence Anchor House, and so I know that there has been a lot of conversation around it.
I know personally, at least in the recent history that I've been here, it's it feels very rare for groups of students and specifically student governments to oppose the construction of projects. Usually if anything, there's opposition to pricing and different things such as that. But you know, it seems like there is a very a clear signal from a lot of students and the local community that.
They are not in support of Anchor House, at least as the location of where it's going to be built.
But do support the he building itself and and the meaning behind it. So if you can just discuss some of those conversations, the timeline what's been happening around that.
For us that would be great
UC Berkeley Chancellor Carol Christ
I certainly will, although of course Anchor House will come before the Regents for discussion. As particular project I believe in July, but I the first general point I want to make and something you probably are aware of Regent Zaragoza Berkeley has very very few sites that it can use for large residence halls and this one on the corner of Oxford and University is one of the largest. This is an extraordinary project I'm so excited about it.
It's a residence hall for transfer students. As currently designed. It has about 770 beds and it's a philanthropic gift to the university when it's made, it will be the largest gift that the university has ever received.
And it's also a gift that keeps on giving because the net savings that result from the gift will entirely be dedicated to financial aid for our neediest students and include and prioritizing transferred students. So it's really, really a wonderful gift.
The controversy about the project involves one corner of it.
Which is an apartment house you heard from two people, two current tenants of the building. I think they're the only two remaining tenants speak at the at the Regents meeting this morning about that that that by building on that that piece of the site we can add about 70 beds to the project. We did not seek to buy the apartment that the owner decided he wanted to divest himself of the apartment and came to the university and asked in the University would like to buy it.
So that's the controversial element. I don't think the the the location at Oxford and University is particularly controversial, but some people feel very strongly about the displacement of what I believe now is 2 tenants.
UC Regent Alexis Atsilvsgi Zaragoza
Right, thank you for that and I I do at least look and this is just from, you know, our public comment and the different letters that were written into us on the subjects you know.
There were concerns around communication from the school as well as the timeline. The speed in which people are asked to move out.
So the the ask for people who have been living there for 40 years or so to to move out very suddenly and with.
I don't know if there's any financial compensation for those people, but I do know you know between now and when the item comes forward. You know if we can get some potential development.
On that and try to appease those concerns, I think that would be.
You know, make it a little bit easier to ensure that this kind of a project can go through because I know a lot of students. I think all students support the the actual project itself, and there's just the concerns around how the issue has been treated so far.
UC Berkeley Chancellor Carol Christ
I certainly
Perhaps I could call on John Arvin to talk about the.
What we've offered to the tenants.
Vice Chancellor Administration at UC Berkeley Marc Fisher
I'm not sure that John joined us Chancellor.
UC Berkeley Chancellor Carol Christ
Oh, maybe could you talk about what we have?
Vice Chancellor Administration at UC Berkeley Marc Fisher
I can, so this is really important, I think. So there are the University of California. Larger institution has very generous relocation packages and we're working with individual tenants on those packages right now. As the chancellor said, I think we're down to the two tenants you heard from this morning.
Who are not engaged in that process and I will say that at least one tenant took the package, which again is fairly generous and bought a house with it. So in North Carolina.
UC Regent John A. Pérez
Madam Chair may I interject?
UC Regent John A. Pérez
And I'm sorry
UC Regent Lark Park
Regent Perez yes.
UC Regent John A. Pérez
I I'm I'm sorry to do this. I just want to make sure that because there's ongoing negotiations with respect to the remaining tenants, whether or not it's appropriate to engage in this conversation in open session, or whether it should be reserved for closed session because they're both statutory. Uh, relocation amounts, and then those that are negotiated in an adverse situation like this, so I I don't mean to cut you off at the knees, Mr. Fisher.
Just want to make sure whether or not this is the appropriate venue for that level of detail.
UC Regent Lark Park
We thank you for the question Regent Perez I will I will ask Kelly Drumm whether she wants to opine on the appropriateness of this and then separately, whether Regent designate Zaragosa would also take her take the responses offline.
Kelly Drumm
I don't think we should be opining about the status of the negotiations, but we can disclose that we are still in discussion regarding relocations.
UC Regent Lark Park
OK, with that Regent designate Zaragoza, would you be satisfied by taking a response offline? Yes.
UC Regent Lark Park
OK, thank you very much.
UC Regent Lark Park
Regent Cohen, you are recognized.