Environmental Considerations in the City of Berkeley & UC Berkeley Campus

__Picture1

Your 1st Page:

Aaron’s presentation (and Todd too) highlighted significant environmental factors influencing and shaping the built environment in Berkeley. For example: zoning; building heights; open views; sustainability; downtown development; ride sharing; how some projects of economic values can be justified despite their environmental impacts; (A) to (F) continuum of traffic/movement flow; . . . and urban management. In one page, (i) pick two of the of the most significant factors in your views and provide a critical overview on what you like or dislike about them, (ii) can they contradict the social and ecological values discussed in earlier classes, and (iii) what recommendations you may suggest to the city improve that.

__10_UCB_LRDP-CRP class

Your 2nd Page,

As a metaphor, Todd presented how the UC Berkeley is similar to Texas or DC. Aaron’s elaborated on that too. Explain how the campus planning overlap with the surrounding out-of-campus built environment. Elaborate on how the UC-Berkeley investment can have an impact on the downtown. Lastly, give one suggestion to improve this relationship.

#Env_Plan

In addition to the readings, the presentations can be found here:

8 thoughts on “Environmental Considerations in the City of Berkeley & UC Berkeley Campus

  1. There are many interesting environmental factors that influence and shape the built environment in Berkeley and on the UC Berkeley campus.Two of the most significant influences are transportation and zoning. I am specifically interested in both of these influences after living in and working for Austin, Texas, where the city is growing rapidly and struggling to keep up with the influx of people and cars.
    Transportation is a huge issue across the United States and especially in dense urban areas such as San Francisco and the East Bay. It was very interesting that Berkeley receives a “D” grade for levels of service at intersections and from what Aaron Sage explained it appears this is the standard grade for most urban areas. This struck me as an important facet to investigate and understand why the status quo is such a low grade. The process used to be that this type of problem would be solved by simply widening the road to add in more lanes for traffic, a mindset we studied and discussed in the urbanization and deforestation readings. Recently, there has been pushback from communities and cities against the car ruling the road and dictating the design of the city. It was refreshing to hear both Aaron Sage and Todd Henry note that cities are now pushing for a shift towards transit use and redesign of cities instead of widening roads.
    It was also interesting to learn about CEQA reform SB375 that allows for streamlined approval process for transit oriented development. This is an important reform for CEQA to better address the current issues that are facing dense urban areas. Aaron Sage mentioned that one of the drawbacks of CEQA is that it can actually deter sustainable or innovative design; law and policy lag behind marketplace demand and transformations.
    This is especially apparent with the discussion about ride-sharing services and their impact on city functions and designs. The concept of waiting to figure out a response to the increase in rideshares and the prediction that personal car ownership will decline shows the restrictions government agencies face when dealing with current market forces and innovations. There is not a clear solution to improving this gap as we saw in the City vs Country readings, where urban planners could not comprehend or predict how the internet would quickly and forcefully reshape cities and the world. One suggestion would be that cities embrace globalization and use data and ideas from other cities that are struggling with the same issues to respond to these changes more rapidly.
    Zoning in Berkeley focuses on maintaining a city core and reducing sprawl. Zoning restrictions include building heights allowed in certain areas of the city. It was interesting how these restrictions directly influence the design and architecture of buildings, further evidence of how policy can directly change the built environment. It was also interesting to note that projects can be passed even if not meeting all of the CEQA requirements or zoning regulations by simply paying extra money or offsetting the issue in another manner. This is similar to what we learned about in the readings regarding LEED and other environmental certifications. In an ideal world these loopholes would not exist, but for practical reasons the law must allow such exceptions.
    One of the main differences between the planning agenda of the city and UC Berkeley is the “client”. UC focuses on a specific population of students that are gathering in one area for the purpose of learning where the city must serve many different populations that are doing business, living, eating and working in the city. Todd Henry expressed how this comes into play in regards to housing needs. Students need a place to live and eat, but UC must focus on providing education and places for learning. This means that UC “spills” over into the city to help meet the needs of their students and faculty. This type of relationship is mutually beneficial and also has disadvantages.
    A disadvantage of these relationships can be seen in other states, the University of Texas, Austin (UT) has a similar relationship to the city as does UC Berkeley and the city of Berkeley. There are similar issues regarding bikeshare systems and dockless bikes. Austin wants UT to use the same bikeshare system that is all around the city, but the school wants to implement a dockless system. A simple programmatic shift causes two different agencies to react in different ways, mostly this is derived from the difference in populations being served.
    Aaron Sage discussed how the city has filed lawsuits against UC, after EIRs completed failed to address traffic, fire and sewer demands. UC puts a strain on city resources and must be cognizant of these effects with their planning actions. However, UC and the city of Berkeley worked together, both financially and operationally, to create the Downtown Area Plan for Berkeley. These types of collaborative efforts should continue while also encompassing the needs and values of both populations. Sharing data, information and working together on planning efforts will continue to lead the city and UC in a good direction.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Aaron and Todd covered numerous environmental factors in Berkeley. The open views and continuum of traffic flow are fascinating factors, while sustainability and urban management are two significant factors. This blog post elaborates further on one exciting favor, open views, and one important factor, sustainability. As we discussed in class, landmarks in Berkeley sometimes has its significant value, or noteworthy event took place. For example, the Sather Tower (known as The Campanile) is a cognitive anchor, marker, or reference point for orientation. The Campanile appear in descriptions of meeting points or routes and as the remarkable objects of an environment in tourist brochures. This landmark brings the social value of tourism. I usually take my friends who visit me in Berkeley to top of the Campanile. In guest speakers’ slides, I noticed the picture of the Bay view taken from the bottom of the Sather Tower and learned how city planners put in their effort to secure the sight for people. Why not go up the Sather Tower and enjoy the Bay view? The tower opens from Mon-Sat for several hours, only accept cash under five dollar bill, and the access may be limited to people with acrophobia. Therefore, we should secure this Bay view, but Berkeley Hill or Lawrence Hall of Science are alternate locations where people can visit for the same or even better sight.

    The City of Berkeley (CoB) has some programs that help save natural resources and provide sustainable lives to Berkeley Community. In 2006, Berkeley voters issued Berkeley Climate Action Plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This includes zero net energy consumption by increasing energy efficiency or replacing to renewable energy, providing public transit (i.e., cycling), reducing wastes to landfill, and preparing for the impact of climate change. These programs bring environmental and ecological benefits to the community. Similarly, in the past five years, new policy norms in South Korea advocated sustainable development and green growth strategies in city planning. Songdo and Sejong are two new cities designed to incorporate sustainable development principles such as alternative transportation, abundant green space, and carbon efficient buildings. Coming from hydrology and water resources management background, the rainwater harvesting, greywater reuse, stormwater, and storm drains, protecting local creeks and waterways stood out to me the most in CoB webpage. As our speaker mentioned, CoB encourages people to implement bioswales, permeable paving, rain gardens, and rainwater catchment to drain clean water to the San Francisco Bay. The webpage helps the community to follow up with the program. I recommend including the estimated cost, which can be useful information for those who are interested in actually implementing these systems. Both open views and sustainability do not contradict the social and ecological values; they instead support these values.

    Over the years, the UC Berkeley (UCB) and the CoB adopted some resolutions and ordinance that have helped to increase the sustainability of Berkeley community. We briefly discussed finding a designated car share pick-up location and building a hotel on University Avenue and Oxford Street. I would like to elaborate on these two topics and show how the UCB investment can have an impact on the downtown. Unfortunately, I have never experienced Korean college life to speak from own experience, but I read and heard from the media that Korean college faces a similar challenge: student housing. Currently, we have no designated pick-up spot for car share such as Uber or Lift either on-campus or off-campus. UCB and CoB are paying attention to this issue, but do not have a specific plan towards the car share pick-up place. I witnessed designated car share pick-up location at San Francisco International Airport in California and Austin Bergstrom International Airport in Texas. Having these designated spots reduced the traffic for non-carpool vehicles. In class, we discussed collecting records of pick-up locations in the Uber or Lift system to pick a potential designated pick-up spot for the car share. Sometimes care share drops people off at the bus station while bus emerges to the bus lane to pick-up and drop off passengers. This delays traffic and increases the risk of an accident. If UCB plans to take this action, then UCB will have to consult with CoB first and figure out the logistics not only on-campus but off-campus as well since increasing number of students use car-share to get to their next classes or home through the city.

    California, Texas, and Washing DC are not the only cities that lack residential areas for the college students. As we discussed in class, college is responsible for providing both education and living space for students, but mostly due to a tight budget, campus planning works with city planning to resolve student housing demands. For example, several student housings are under construction in Berkeley. Due to rising housing price in the Bay area, most students cannot afford new places without getting financial aids. As one of the two speakers mentioned during the lecture, UCB plans to construct hotel to contribute to the city’s economy, participate in the robust downtown area, provide more places for visitors to stay and make a profit. Currently, the campus is still in negotiations with a prospective hotel developer and has not finalized the details of the project. This location is a golden spot for student residential since it’s a block away from campus. Berkeley has Hotel Shattuck Plaza, Graduate Berkeley, Holiday Inn Express and Suites Berkeley, and more. These are not brand new but has their historical values. These hotels may lack space during the conference or events held in Berkeley, and this happens in Texas or Washington DC. Therefore, I think UCB should consider using this area for student’s education or housing purpose. CoB and UCB share an overarching audience: the Berkeley Community. Therefore, my only one suggestion for them is to involve Berkeley Community as much as possible as a bridge between them.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. In Todd and Aaron’s presentation they discussed the issue of new high-rise buildings being planned for downtown and how that will impact key views from Berkeley’s campus. The initial study stated no impact but the view was only considered from the top of the Campanile, a place most students go only once if at all. The view from the steps and avenue leading from the tower is enjoyed by probably thousands of people every day but it was not considered. I’m a little upset that there’s even a question of whether this view is culturally significant. It’s certainly very inconveniently placed for any development in the downtown area, but it was part of the development plan of the campus to present this view – it’s something we’ve learned about in our coursework even – and so it’s doubly a built art and significant site. I’ve sat at these steps at sunset, I just happened to be by, and there were about thirty people sitting there meditating on the view. I think the loss of this view would have a psychological impact on those people who obviously go out of their way to enjoy it. I can’t help but suspect that the original survey was done without total integrity on the part of the consultant because it’s hard not to notice the avenue and its view. This indicates to me that a certain amount of “ground trothing” is necessary to verify the claims of consultants, rather than accepting what they report wholesale. When lawsuits could be the result and money has already gone into initial building designs it’s wasteful to leave something this big to chance.

    Downtown is developing very quickly and many tall buildings are being planned. UC Berkeley has planned tall dorm towers that will impede views of the residents living on the hill, and City of Berkeley has planned buildings that will impede historic views from campus. I’m sure there’s a great deal of negotiation and propitiation going on between the university and city and the surrounding residents and it’s no wonder that the new city council is less favorable towards development than the previous.

    Viewsheds are not necessarily environmental but they do serve to keep us connected to our environment. The connection between our urban spaces and the Bay that receives all of our runoff and trash is what ties all of the communities of the region together as one coherent unit. I would say that maintaining viewsheds to the Bay is not only important for Berkeley’s residents and the history of landscape architecture but for Berkeley as a part of the greater Bay Area, lest it become “inward looking.”

    The other issue that I think everyone is finding interesting and provocative is the new Uber/Lyft option for getting around. I think it’s important to integrate all of our methods of transportation and single and multiple passenger vehicles are not going away any time soon in favor of mass transit. While Uber and Lyft currently have the advantage of being accessible on people’s phones, other forms of local transit (the perimeter and hill shuttles, buses, taxis) do not. I suggest that all of these get aggregated into one location and possibly encourage the development of a real-time vehicle tracking app for shuttles and busses in addition to Lyft/Uber and taxis. I tried to take the shuttles the other day and wasted so much time waiting. It would have been much faster to take Lyft rather than risk a shuttle but if I could look and see where the shuttles are in their routes I might choose to wait for the cheaper option rather than take a single-passenger option. Also, these options can’t take up vast amounts of curb space, they should find a way to compete with each other and share a single area so passengers can get on/off safely and see the menu of options.

    One thing that I noticed when I first moved to the area are the “Nuclear-Free Zone” signs on the perimeter of the city. I thought this was particularly ironic considering there is nuclear research going on right up the hill at Lawrence Berkeley Labs. I’m sure the signs are a futile gesture in protest of the research and evidence of contention between the city and the university. At the same time that the university needs to be sensitive to the desires of the community in which it resides, the city also needs to understand how much of its material prosperity and high property values come from being co-located with the university. As long as university planning continues to take into account positive impacts to the surrounding area I think the city will probably remain positive towards the school. Once one-sided decisions start being made this relationship can’t help but be negatively impacted. There’s no benefit to a contentious relationship between organizations that so clearly rely on each other through direct and indirect means.

    Texas has always had great pride in its lack of regulations and emphasis on competitiveness. Now might be a good time to reflect on the give-and-take of beneficial regulation in the wake of the hurricane that wrought havoc on Houston. Chemical plants next to schools and residences catching on fire, the need for Federal assistance, and the impacts of fossil-fuel driven climate change. There is, I believe, something to be learned from Texas right now and UC Berkeley should be very wary of perceiving itself to free to act in spite of local laws. I think it would be better to think of itself like Switzerland, neutral and mutualistic towards its neighbors while maintaining strong boundaries.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. The City of Berkeley is justifiably one of the most forward-thinking cities in the United States. This being said, cities in the United States often fall behind in comparison to cities in other advanced nations in Europe, Asia, etc. Berkeley has many goals that promote sustainability and equity. The drive to make these goals more rigorous exists amongst city staff and residents, but must coexist with the wants and needs other others who have a relationship with the City.

    In the topic of transportation, Berkeley has historically been a progressive leader, adopting and innovating advances in sustainable transportation. Berkeley supported regional transit with BART, and unlike many other jurisdictions provided funding to underground much of the system within the city. Implementing Bicycle Boulevards, Berkeley championed the concept of using calmer neighborhood streets paralleling major streets as bicycle corridors.

    This progressive momentum in recent years has waned. A prime example being the rejection of East Bay Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). BRT is a transit system that mimics the speed and capacity of a rail system, but instead uses buses that travel in dedicated lanes, where they are able to avoid traffic. Combined with other enhancements, BRT allows for rail like efficiency at a much lower cost. Unfortunately, due to resistance from merchants and residents fearing loss of parking, loss of revenue during construction, and general dislike of change, East Bay BRT was rejected in Berkeley. The project was to span from south of the UC Berkeley campus through Oakland, to San Leandro. It is now being constructed, omitting the city of Berkeley, exemplifying the city’s general loss of momentum towards sustainable transportation options.

    The Bay Area has increasingly become an unaffordable place to live. Cities like Berkeley with strong regional and local transit systems, and walkable/bikeable neighborhoods is where more people should be living. Densifying transit-oriented places provides housing that is much more sustainable that automobile dependent suburbs. New market-rate construction is occurring in Berkeley, but this is not affordable to many people. Housing should not be considered a reward for “hard work” but instead a human right. Sadly, in a capitalistic market, there is no reason why a developer would not want to maximize their profits.

    Campus planning efforts overlaps with that of the city because of the sheer size and influence of the University, as well as the dispersal of many campus owned sites throughout the city. Within the 2020 Long Range Development Plan, the areas classified as City Environs, and Adjacent Blocks, and Housing Zone, are all areas that are not on the main campus. For this reason, these sites should fall under the design guidelines of the city.

    The efforts of the University have effects on the city. A great example is the AC Transit passes University affiliates are provided, allowing for unlimited use of AC Transit busses. This pass is provided for many reasons, one being reducing the amount of parking that the University must provide by reducing driving demand. The transit pass benefits the city as well by reducing car traffic on city streets (imagine if a larger portion of students arrived by car). The University pays AC Transit for the passes, forming a large and continuous customer base for the transit agency. The more people ride transit, the more robust the system can be for everyone, including and not-including university affilates.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. The City of Berkeley and the University of Berkeley California have been working hand-in-hand to develop and improve the place. Berkeley as a place has an image of a University town/city and the improvements of the city are directly influenced by the main set of city dwellers which include a large number of students and university affiliates. When it comes to a planning for the city’s growth, the council has to take into account both its main image and economic driver, the University and the other city dwellers who have lived in the area for long.

    Aaron’s presentation showed us how factors like view corridors and traffic congestion/curb-side management influenced the City but were directly associated with the needs and concerns of the University, and its population kept in the best of interest. Even though view corridors were not of any environmental impacts, the City of Berkeley was sensitive enough to recognize the impact of such an aspect in their decision making. I believe that, from an environmental standpoint, even though the City of Berkeley has a good and well-connected public transportation system in place compared a lot of other cities, there are still improvements that could make the lives of the dwellers better, and that could even reduce the usage and requirement of cars and parking spaces within the city. This could be done by a survey and analysis of the existing public transportation and by understanding the needs of the people using it, be it improving the frequency of buses by need and time, an introduction of city or University-sponsored bikes, or improvement of sidewalks, or even congestion-charging car usage like in the City of London. Another aspect with should be considered is the population density of the city. With growing student population becoming an added layer to the housing crisis in the Bay Area, City of Berkeley’s supply for housing should cater to the population by trying to include more micro-units which could be rented out by both students and other city-dwellers. With growing population, it is also beneficial to think about modular and incremental housing units which would include only ride-share parking spaces, as the supply of land is a concern. Redevelopment plans should look to increase housing stock in the coming years for Berkeley to be sustainable as a city.

    Todd’s presentation showed us how the University is an entity of its own, with its own decision-making system in terms of development and growth. The University owned downtown area overlaps quite well with the other uses in the City. With the City trying to better the infrastructure and resources to suit its growth, the Unversity, the main economic driver of the City is very present in all its decision making. But I believe that the strain of the growth of the University should not be mirrored on to the city and that the University, with its own visions and goals, should be open to mixed-use joint-ventures with the City as land availability is a constraint. This could be through converting existing ground levels of University buildings to accommodate City uses such as retail or services or offices or by designing the new development buildings to accommodate similar uses.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. The tradeoffs of development are common considerations in the sustainability discourse. Cities like Berkeley have progressive policies that aim to attain sustainability and equity but don’t necessarily achieve environmental integrity. Nonetheless, zoning and policies are put in place to mitigate the impact of new development—that while responding to population growth and needs—can also have negative social and environmental impacts.

    Transit oriented development for example is used as a growth management and in some cases sustainability strategy. The rationale is that by concentrating mixed used development in one area close to public transportation a more integrated and walkable community is created. This reduces the need for car ownership and decreases incentive to sprawl, which in turn reduces pollution and environmental damage. I think transit oriented development can be good, but it doesn’t always provide equal social benefits. For example, although there is usually some provision for developing affordable housing in transit-oriented development areas, development tends to be centered on high cost luxury apartments. This has the potential to displace residents due to rising housing costs.

    Additionally, despite the focus on public transportation, transit oriented development does increase density, which puts additional pressure on area resources and infrastructure. Affordable housing is a huge issue in the Bay Area and should be considered at every attempt for new development. The first thing the city can do is make sure residents have rent protection. In case of new mixed use or residential development on city owned land, I think the city should dictate that it meet additional criteria that go above existing inclusionary zoning policies. Finally, I think developers need to be more responsive to community needs regarding not only housing but also sustainability. Community Benefits schemes should accompany new development and should be focused on achieving sustainability goals devised by the community. For example, developers should contribute to a fund that allows households to install solar panels.

    UC Berkley has a huge social and environmental impact on Berkeley. In order to attract more students, universities are often interested in ensuring that its neighborhood is thriving and providing for the needs of its student body. UC has an invested interest in the area outside its campus boundary as seen by its commitment to working on the Berkley Downtown Plan. Additionally, I assume this is the only time UC would be truly open to public critique, which makes this partnership between the university and the city even more worthwhile.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Aaron and Todd introduced a lot of useful information in doing regional planning, i.e. the difference between CEQA and NEPA, the EIR process, the Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) and many important environmental factors influencing urban planning. Among all these environmental factors, the most important one is the transportation which was the stimulus for NEPA and CEQA. Transportation is such a broad issue that it not only influences the construction of streets and urban landscape but also the methods of travelling.

    The recent changes include The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (Sustainable Communities Act, SB 375, Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008) and VMT. SB 375 proposes to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through coordinated transportation and land use planning with the goal of more sustainable communities. It also encourages more transit stops and transit priority projects which is good for combining different methods of transportation and mitigating the impact of traffic. The measurement of Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) provides planners another way of assessing the sustainability of project and enriches the EIR process. If a project significantly reduced VMT, then it would not be considered as an important factor in the EIR. On the contrary, if a project increased VMT, then it would definitely be regarded as an important factor.

    In China, the usual way to solve traffic by government is to widen the street while this widening would also cause the expansion of urban boundary and encroachment of land for other uses. Although it may be assertive to claim that in China traffic results in the rapid urban expansion, it would be fair to say that traffic congestion is a crucial factor in urban planning. However, Berkeley provides a good example of arranging city transportation by adopting multiple ways of transportation, such as BART and biking. Though it still ranks “D” just as common cities in California, I still see its attempt to reduce the impact of traffic without widening the streets. For example, the left turn on Shattuck Avenue west and the divergence of traffic makes the best use of space. What Berkeley government could do to further improve the transportation is to adopt more public transit to reduce the use of private cars.

    Another interesting factor is the viewshed which is a more subjective evaluating indicator that may vary from person to person. Normally viewshed would not become an important factor in the EIR process. Even if it became an important factor, like a building blocking the view, planners would usually remove this factor for the projects. However, sometimes if a building or some views become landmarks, or some crucial historic events happen there, then the proposed plans must take viewshed into consideration.

    UC Berkeley is exempted from local regulatory rules and environmental laws but it also has to obey many rules which are even more than the rules employed by city government. UC Berkeley also need to work collaboratively with local government on planning and land use compatibility. Most of the downtown building owned by UC Berkeley are planned for replacement. And UC investment can also have a huge impact on downtown landscape and environment. Due to the high renting price in the Bay area, I wish that there would be more construction plans of dorms for international students. However, I suggest UC Berkeley still work cooperatively with Berkeley government to solve this problem because no one would like to hear the complaints of local residents.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. In Aaron and Todd’s presentation, they shared us many factors shaping the urban environment in Berkeley. In my opinions, the projects justified mechanism and transportation are two of the most significant factors.
    From their introduction, the investors no matter what kinds of environmental influence they will cost have always justified projects in city Berkeley. This process may frustrate us that environmental protection such as SEQA is powerless compared with the power of investment. At first place, I may want to bring forward some strategies to perfect the environmental management system and then against the power of marketing. However, when I realized that marketing power arisen from the purchasing power of publics, I tended to think that the imbalance between development and environmental protection due to the fact that the information isolation/ignorance/blocking between publics and environmental planning. The person purchasing the house in the tall building may not know what kinds of negative environmental effects on them.
    Transportation is another factor influencing the building environment at Berkeley. It’s a little bit surprised that Berkeley rank D for levels of service at intersections as other American urban areas. I used to think that Berkeley is a leader in sustainable transportation development since the public transportation in Berkeley such as Bart and Bus is more prevalent than the city outside the Bay Area. This problem could be derive from the fact that private car still plays a dominant role in our daily life. One suggestion would be improving the efficiency of sustainable transportation for residents. For example, the bus frequency is a little bit low in Berkeley. It would take me about 10 minutes to wait for the bus everyday, which leads me towards less sustainable option Uber or Lift during the emergency time. The expensive and undeveloped sharing bike system prevents users to use it every day. In China, the majority transportation in urban areas is public transportation like bus, BRT subway and sharing bike. The high frequency, high density and low cost of public transportation in China lead citizens to use them. Undeniably, Chinese government spend huge amount of money on public transportation. Almost all companies running the subway, bus and BRT system belong to government. There is no way to run the high frequency and density public transportation system without financial support from public tax. Besides, the main reason of Chinese government spending money on public transportation is the high density of urban area in China. Public transportation seems to be the best way to sustain the high-density urban area. That’s why high-density area like Japanese cities and Europe cities rely on public transportation. Hence, when we discus the public transportation oriented development in America, we have to figure out who will support it and which sustainable transportation system has more advantage in low-density urban area. I am looking forward Aaron and Todd to introduce us more public transportation management system in Berkeley.
    California, Washington DC and Texas are similar cities where the majority city area are used for one specific function such as education and administration. The overlap between to UC Berkeley and City Berkeley is a good sign. It could boost mutual cooperation between them. In the 2020 Development Plan, many future developing areas are outside the UC campus. In this circumstance, UC Berkeley has to work with the Cities Berkeley. For example, UC Berkeley would devote some money or consultants in some projects. Hence, the UC Berkeley representing UC students/staffs and City Berkeley standing for local residents could communicate at every stage of projects. The suggestion of this cooperation from me may be the broader involvement of different stakeholders. It’s surprise for me that investors instead of campus members who actually see the bay view every day conducted the suitability analysis of high building which blocking the Bay Area view.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s