UC Berkeley officials regularly receive questions
from the community, press, and others regarding
the 2020 Long Range Development Plan and Tien
Center Environmental Impact Report. As part
of our effort to keep all members of the community
fully informed, we have created this document,
which will be updated with new questions and
made available to the public as additional
inquiries are received.
Also available is a Fact
Sheet that summarizes key data and major concepts of
the draft 2020 LRDP and EIR.
Q: Why prepare a Long Range Development Plan
and EIR, and why do it now?
University of California campus prepared an LRDP
and accompanying Environmental Impact Report during
the period 1988-90, with a planning horizon of
2005. As we approach this horizon, a new LRDP
is necessary to ensure campus development beyond
2005 continues to be shaped by a coherent vision
for the future of UC Berkeley.
One major impetus to updating
the LRDP is the need to accommodate higher levels
of UC enrollment. Due to the dramatic growth in
the numbers of college age Californians, the University
as a whole must accommodate an increase of 63,000
students over base year 1998 to meet its mandate
under the California Master Plan for Higher Education.
State law (Public Resources Code Section 21080.09)
requires environmental effects relating to changes
in enrollment to be evaluated in an LRDP EIR.
Another impetus is the recent
completion of two visionary campus documents.
The Strategic Academic Plan outlines the key challenges
the campus faces in sustaining and promoting academic
excellence, and recommends principles and initiatives
to address those challenges. The New Century Plan
builds upon the Academic Plan and sets out policies
and guidelines for the campus' physical development.
Together, the Strategic Academic Plan and the
New Century Plan describe a long-term vision for
UC Berkeley: the role of the new 2020 LRDP is
to describe what we plan to do in the next 15
years to realize that vision.
Q: The campus and its environs are already densely
urbanized. How would growth fit within this context?
UC Berkeley is an urban campus, and the city around
us is as much a part of the Berkeley experience
as the campus itself. The quality of city life,
including its diverse and dynamic mix of students
and other community residents, is a large part
of what makes UC Berkeley a unique and desirable
place to learn, work, and live. Although the 2020
LRDP will not commit the University to any specific
project, it will include policies and design guidelines
to ensure our future projects respect and enhance
the unique character of both campus and city.
For an example of an illustrative future scenario
based on sensitive, contextual development, go
to the New Century Plan link.
Q: How would the 2020 LRDP compare to the 1990-2005 LRDP with respect to campus headcount?
In terms of population, the 1990-2005 LRDP was
a "no growth" plan: campus headcount (the number
of people enrolled or employed at UC Berkeley)
was projected to be slightly lower in 2005 than
in 1990. As we know, however, the dramatic growth
in the state's college-age population has in fact
led to significant enrollment growth on all UC
campuses, including Berkeley. UC Berkeley is in
the process of absorbing a 4,000-student increase
in enrollment by 2010, most of which has already
been accommodated. Once the full increase is accommodated,
the 2020 LRDP will propose that the campus stabilize
UC Berkeley has also experienced
steady growth in research in the public interest,
and we expect this trend to continue. The importance
of our research lies not only in its benefits
to society, but also in providing our students
with direct experience in critical inquiry, analysis,
and discovery: this experience is what makes a
research university education unique, and it is
integral to our educational mission. By 2020,
as a result of growth in both enrollment and sponsored
research, campus headcount during the regular
academic year may grow by up to 12% over what
it is today.
Q: What would this growth mean in terms of space
Despite no expected growth in campus headcount,
the 1990-2005 LRDP proposed an increase of up
to 723,000 net gross square feet in academic and
support program space. In 2002, the campus amended
the LRDP to accommodate another 325,000 gsf of
net new space in the replacements of Stanley Hall
and Old Davis Hall. To date, roughly 1,000,000
gsf of the space proposed under the 1990-2005
LRDP is complete, under construction or in design.
By 2020, we estimate the space
demands of campus academic and support programs
may increase by up to 2,200,000 net gsf, or roughly
18% over current and approved program space. New
space is required not only to accommodate our
increase in enrollment, but also to support continued
expansion of research and research-based education,
and provide space for several new and exciting
academic initiatives. However, some of this increase
is necessary just to make up for the space deficit
we already have on campus: due to budget constraints,
our investment in the campus has not kept pace
with our recent growth in enrollment and research.
Q: So why not build somewhere other than Berkeley? What are the plans at the other UC campuses?
In the long term, the new campus at UC Merced
will begin to absorb a significant share of future
growth. However, due to our current budget situation,
the opening of the Merced campus has been delayed
at least a year. The other UC campuses are responding
to the same challenges as Berkeley, and their
recent LRDPs show rates of future growth equal
to or greater than Berkeley. For example, UCLA
just completed an updated LRDP which anticipates
growth of up to 1,200,000 gsf of program space
through 2010. In its recently published draft
LRDP, UC Davis anticipates growth of up to 2,500,000
gsf of program space by 2015.
Q: How would the parking objectives in the 2020
LRDP compare to the 1990-2005 LRDP?
In 1990, the campus had 7,450 existing parking
spaces. The 1990-2005 LRDP proposed another 1,010
spaces, which would have brought our total number
of spaces to 8,460. Today, the campus has roughly
7,600 existing and approved auto parking spaces.
By 2020, our parking objectives include up to
2,300 new spaces, which could bring our total
up to 9,900 spaces, or up to 1,440 more than envisioned
in the 1990-2005 LRDP. These additional spaces
are necessary to accommodate future growth not
envisioned in the 1990-2005 LRDP.
Because the state provides
no funds for campus parking, the full cost of
parking construction, operation and maintenance
must be supported by revenues. Our goals to improve
the parking supply must therefore be balanced
by the need to maintain reasonable fees for those
who must drive to campus, and to avoid building
surplus capacity. The 2020 objectives may be adjusted
in the future to reflect changes in market conditions
and parking demand, but any substantial increase
over the above maxima would require an amendment
to the 2020 LRDP.
Q: What would the plan do to discourage single
occupant vehicle commuting to campus?
The campus worked in partnership with the community
and the City of Berkeley to develop the Transportation
Demand Management study, completed in March 2001.
The final report presented a range of transportation-promoting
measures that inform both campus transportation
programs and our partnerships with the city. Recent
initiatives include: a revitalized carpool program
that grew by 120% in 2002-2003, from 220 people
to 498 people (124 people turned in single user
permits to participate in the carpool program);
the AC Transit class pass for students; expanded
subsidies and pretax purchase of transit tickets;
City Car Share pods for use by faculty, staff
and students; planned installation this year of
secure bike-parking cages, and bike parking monitored
by security cameras; and joint promotion of bus
rapid transit along a major corridor serving the
campus and environs.
Q: How would the housing objectives in the 2020
LRDP compare to the 1990-2005 LRDP?
In 1990, the campus had 5,800 existing and planned
beds of single student university housing. The
1990-2005 LRDP proposed another 2,350-3,410 new
beds of single student housing, which would have
brought our total number of single student beds
Today, the campus has nearly
7,200 beds of single student housing existing
or under construction. By 2020, our housing objectives
include up to 2,500 new single student beds within
a mile of campus or within 20 minutes by transit.
Our housing objectives also include up to 1,100
new single student beds at University Village
in Albany: these would be entitled under a separate
master plan. Together, these objectives could
bring the campus' inventory of single student
beds up to 10,800, or up to 1,590 more than the
maximum envisioned in the 1990-2005 LRDP. As in
the 1990-2005 LRDP, our inventory of student family
units is planned to remain at its current level,
but the 2020 LRDP may include provisions for construction
of up to 200 units of family-suitable housing
for faculty and/or staff.
Because the state provides no
funds for campus housing, the entire cost of housing
construction, operation, and maintenance must
be supported by revenues. Our goals to improve
the amount and quality of housing must therefore
be balanced by the need to keep rents at reasonable
levels, and avoid building surplus capacity. The
2020 objectives may be adjusted in the future
to reflect changes in market conditions and demand
for campus housing, but any substantial increase
over the above maxima would require an amendment
to the 2020 LRDP.
Q: Why will the new EIR for the 2020 LRDP also
examine the Tien Center?
A new East Asian Library was anticipated in the
1990 Long Range Development Plan. Today, planning,
funding and the opportunity to honor a cherished
campus leader combine to make the Tien Center
proposal particularly timely. No other campus
development proposal has reached a similar stage
of certainty. The Tien Center will be an excellent
example of how the campus will use the policies
and guidelines in the 2020 LRDP to shape a real
Q: Where would the funding for build-out of the
2020 LRDP come from?
Some campus projects, including our extensive
program of seismic improvements, are supported
largely or entirely by state funds. Some projects
are built entirely with donor funds, and many
are financed through a combination of these and
other sources, including special research initiatives
such as the California Institutes for Science
and Innovation. Many "auxiliary" campus programs,
such as housing, parking and transportation, athletics,
and recreation do not receive funding from the
state, and must be supported entirely by donor
funds and revenues such as rents and fees.
Q: What does the recent decline in state revenues
imply for future campus growth?
Over the past three years, while UC systemwide
enrollment has grown by 18 percent, state budget
support has declined by 14 percent. This is an
enormous challenge for every UC campus including
Berkeley. The near-term prospects for higher education
funding in California are uncertain, but it is
important to remember the 2020 LRDP is a framework
for a period of 15 years, and only a few short
years ago the state economy, and the state budget,
were very robust. We can not predict the pace
at which the new investments described in the
2020 LRDP will occur, but we are convinced they
are critical to the future of the campus.
Q: How will the campus LRDP relate to the LRDP
for Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is a United
States Department of Energy facility, a discrete
institution with its own management structure
and federal reporting requirements to the DOE.
The University of California, and not the Berkeley
campus, manages LBNL for the DOE. However, LBNL
and UC Berkeley are neighbors and both reside
on land owned by the Regents of the University
of California. Research initiatives sometimes
link the two institutions, and some researchers
have joint appointments at LBNL and UC Berkeley,
yet our missions are clearly distinguishable and
our institutional histories and cultures are unique.
UC Berkeley is working closely with LBNL to ensure
the combined environmental effects of our respective
plans are accurately analyzed and appropriately