The student housing issue was discussed on this board, but I assume the mods can move this to the O/T board. if the discussion gets ugly.

The City of Berkeley, which supports increasing dorm and student housing, had its Housing Element in its General Plan rejected by the State. California law requires that each county and city in the state develop and adopt a General Plan. The General Plan consists of a statement of development policies and setting forth objectives, principles standards, and plan proposals. It is not CEQA based, but required by the State Constitution.
The purpose of a general plan is to guide land use planning decisions. Under state law, subdivisions, capital improvements, development agreements, and many other land use actions and entitlements must be consistent with the adopted general plan.

The reason for rejection is somewhat ironic for a progressive city like Berkeley, which is Berkeley does not plan for new or additional housing, in the City's wealthy areas. Increased housing in all areas now is mandated under anti-Nimby legislation passed by the State to attack the housing shortage. Housing advocates have applauded the State action.

It is not clear what all this means. Typically, when a General Plan is late, new projects can't get entitlements, and that obvisouly impacts the new student housing. But the new law says screw all that, the State is imposing a penalty on cities that don't get in line. Instead, developers can build without City authority which has huge consequences to a City like Berkeley which likes to control its growth. The City says the penalty laws don't apply to Berkeley without citing any authority (which on the surface seems like BS) and that no developer will build in Berkeley because they fear the City would win in court (which sounds like Berkeley would assert State constitutional arguments or some technical defense). Berkeley may want to to what Newsom did to Huntington Beach on housing.
Huntington Beach loses housing case with state of Californiahttps://www.latimes.com socal daily-pilot news story

Thus, Cal could initiate any project it wants without City approval (recall with housing, CEQA has been removed). I don't think Cal would do that, and would simply do the housing projects the City supports. But the City is an odd situation because there are laws against selective enforcement, so arguably the City can't allow Cal to do project's it supports, but not allow projects it doesn't like. So things are murky as the article below suggests:


The state rejected Berkeley's housing plans. What happens ...https://www.berkeleyside.org 2023/02/01 berkeley-...

By the time any new student housing gets constructed, I'll probably have grandkids and Fox will still just need 1 more year to rebuild the roster due to Covid

City of Berkeley zoning doesn't apply to UC projects so the Berkeley Housing Element isn't an issue. The big issue is the appeals court decision in the People's Park case could disrupt campus student housing construction, and potentially other projects as well. Activist judges are a major problem, but there is a lot of optimism that state legislation will fix some CEQA issues that come about if the decision ends up as is feared.

Yeah, the People's Park housing case is troubling, to say the least. The NIMBY abuse of CEQA, which the court has so far bought into, will require a fix from the state legislature.

🧵 Some thoughts on today's oral argument in Berkeley "students are pollution" CEQA case.

tl,dr: The justices think "student noise" is a CEQA impact but they're struggling w/ civil rights implications. "Gentrification impacts" got less attention.
1/23https://t.co/NBvTX53PdS https://t.co/9buGDMFIOD

— Chris Elmendorf (@CSElmendorf) January 13, 2023

I will always remain baffled as to why the NIMBYs would rather have an open air drug market than student housing there, but I guess it takes all kinds.

eastcoastcal said:

---

By the time any new student housing gets constructed, I'll probably have grandkids and Fox will still just need 1 more year to rebuild the roster due to Covid

---

Lots of student housing is recently completed or under construction, both UC and non-UC, including Cal's Anchor house, which is making good progress:

https://hoodline.com/2022/02/construction-underway-on-massive-new-student-housing-building-at-uc-berkeley/

https://www.apartments.com/the-durant-new-berkeley-ca/00cs0t2/

https://www.berkeleymet.com/

The City of Berkeley is also adding housing in the downtown area at an impressive rate:

https://www.berkeleyside.org/2023/01/08/berkeley-housing-construction-interest-rates

maxer said:

---

I will always remain baffled as to why the NIMBYs would rather have an open air drug market than student housing there, but I guess it takes all kinds.

---

Gotta score your hits somewhere

maxer said:

---

I will always remain baffled as to why the NIMBYs would rather have an open air drug market than student housing there, but I guess it takes all kinds.

---

lol about 2 hours ago my friend and I were walking past the park to go to a coffee shop and we got chased by a homeless guy

she and I were walking on the other side of the street and the guy pops his head of of his tent, see us, starts screaming, and starts running at us

yay berkeley

CaliforniaEternal said:

---

City of Berkeley zoning doesn't apply to UC projects so the Berkeley Housing Element isn't an issue. The big issue is the appeals court decision in the People's Park case could disrupt campus student housing construction, and potentially other projects as well. Activist judges are a major problem, but there is a lot of optimism that state legislation will fix some CEQA issues that come about if the decision ends up as is feared.

---

So you're going to make me make this more complicated. So be it.

General plans must go through a CEQA process. Cal may be exempt technically from the Bekeley General Plan (more to come), but must file and have approved its own equivalent of the general "Plan" under State law. Indeed, it is Cal's own long range development Plan that is the basis for the People's Park dorm project litigation, where opponents contended environmental impact reports for UC's long-range development Plan, which lays out how it will accommodate a growing student population over the next 15 years, were inadequate.

Here is a standard line from Cal's EIR on its Plans:

Although the University is constitutionally exempt from local land use regulations when using its property in furtherance of its educational purposes, it is University policy ...for consistency with local plans and policies. Therefore, this section outlines the plans and policy goals of the cities of Berkeley...

I acknowledge that the People Park decision, which seems an outlier, is problematic (at the risk of understatement). Nevertheless, Cal's desire to be such a good neighbor by tying their long term development Plan CEQA documents to conformance with General and Specific plans of its neighbor cities has created the mess described in the article I attached. And Cal's desire to be such a good neighbor has created other problems as Cal football fans know so well. At some point I wanted to avoid the complexity, but you have student housing that is somewhat exempted from CEQA under new laws, in contrast with Cal that has agreed generally to meet City General Plans in Cal's CEQA documents in its long run Plans You tell me what happens, when the Berkeley General Plan then tanks?

maxer said:

---

I will always remain baffled as to why the NIMBYs would rather have an open air drug market than student housing there, but I guess it takes all kinds.

---

Guessing they like elsewhere in Berkeley and dont want those junkies peddling crack in their own neighborhood park.

eastcoastcal said:

---

maxer said:

---

I will always remain baffled as to why the NIMBYs would rather have an open air drug market than student housing there, but I guess it takes all kinds.

---

lol about 2 hours ago my friend and I were walking past the park to go to a coffee shop and we got chased by a homeless guy

she and I were walking on the other side of the street and the guy pops his head of of his tent, see us, starts screaming, and starts running at us

yay berkeley

---

….and she looked at you and said, "He looks pretty fast, I don't think we can't outrun him…and you replied, "The way I look at it, I just have to outrun you."

wifeisafurd said:

---

CaliforniaEternal said:

---

City of Berkeley zoning doesn't apply to UC projects so the Berkeley Housing Element isn't an issue. The big issue is the appeals court decision in the People's Park case could disrupt campus student housing construction, and potentially other projects as well. Activist judges are a major problem, but there is a lot of optimism that state legislation will fix some CEQA issues that come about if the decision ends up as is feared.

---

So you're going to make me make this more complicated. So be it.

General plans must go through a CEQA process. Cal may be exempt technically from the Bekeley General Plan (more to come). but mush file its own equivalent of the General Plan. Indeed, it is Cal's own long range development Plan that the basis for the People's Park dorm project litigation, where opponents contended environmental impact reports within UC's long-range development Plan, which lays out how it will accommodate a growing student population over the next 15 years, were inadequate.


Here is a standard line from Cal's EIR on its Plans:

Although the University is constitutionally exempt from local land use regulations when using its property in furtherance of its educational purposes, it is University policy for consistency with local plans and policies. Therefore, this section outlines the plans and policy goals of the cities of Berkeley...

I acknowledge that the People Park decision, which seems an outlier, and is problematic (at the risk of understatement). Nevertheless, Cal's desire to be such a good neighbor by tying their long term development Plan CEQA documents to conformance with General and Specific plans of its neighbors has created the mess described in the article I attached. And Cal's desire to be such a good neighbor has created other problems as Cal football fans know so well. At some point I wanted to avoid the complexity, but you have student housing that is somewhat exempted from CEQA under new laws, in contrast with Cal that has agreed generally meet City General Plans in its long run Plans in Cal's CEQA documents. You tell me what happens, when the Berkeley General Plan then tanks?

---

On the list of 99 problems, this ain't one. That's the way I see, but I'm no legal expert or environmental planner, just a finance person trying to get stuff done. I'll ask some people that know more to see what they think. Of course legal people will throw out any argument to see what sticks. Cal does pay lip service to Berkeley zoning in the EIR but city zoning hasn't been a limitation on any project. PP could have been 20 stories if cost wasn't an issue. By the time the next housing project after PP is ready for CEQA approval, I would bet this city housing element issue will be settled. All I know is California loves to make lawyers rich with the laws here.

bearister said:

---

eastcoastcal said:

---

maxer said:

---

I will always remain baffled as to why the NIMBYs would rather have an open air drug market than student housing there, but I guess it takes all kinds.

---

lol about 2 hours ago my friend and I were walking past the park to go to a coffee shop and we got chased by a homeless guy

she and I were walking on the other side of the street and the guy pops his head of of his tent, see us, starts screaming, and starts running at us

yay berkeley

---

….and she looked at you and said, "He looks pretty fast, I don't think we can't outrun him…and you replied, "The way I look at it, I just have to outrun you."

---

i
me celebrating from a block away as she fought off the homeless man

"Students are pollution" is the perfect encapsulation of how Berkeley residents see the University.

bluehenbear said:

---

"Students are pollution" is the perfect encapsulation of how Berkeley residents see the University.

---

More students = more noise = more traffic = more crime = less voting power for Berkeley homeowners = potential reduced property values.

Even though that final situation isn't the case in a valuable city like Berkeley, the other several factors can hold true, and that's why NIMBYs will oppose development tooth and nail.

LessMilesMoreTedford said:

---

bluehenbear said:

---

"Students are pollution" is the perfect encapsulation of how Berkeley residents see the University.

---

More students = more noise = more traffic = more crime = less voting power for Berkeley homeowners = potential reduced property values.

Even though that final situation isn't the case in a valuable city like Berkeley, the other several factors can hold true, and that's why NIMBYs will oppose development tooth and nail.

---

It's not all about property values. Like you said, noise, crime, traffic, and things like that are quality of life issues. I own a property in an area that is being overdeveloped and while my property value is skyrocketing my ability to peacefully enjoy my own property is declining. THAT is why I oppose development. I don't care about my property value.

dimitrig said:

---

LessMilesMoreTedford said:

---

bluehenbear said:

---

"Students are pollution" is the perfect encapsulation of how Berkeley residents see the University.

---

More students = more noise = more traffic = more crime = less voting power for Berkeley homeowners = potential reduced property values.

Even though that final situation isn't the case in a valuable city like Berkeley, the other several factors can hold true, and that's why NIMBYs will oppose development tooth and nail.

---

It's not all about property values. Like you said, noise, crime, traffic, and things like that are quality of life issues. I own a property in an area that is being overdeveloped and while my property value is skyrocketing my ability to peacefully enjoy my own property is declining. THAT is why I oppose development. I don't care about my property value.

---

That is an astute comment. I live part time in a private area that is being dramatically mansion-sized primarily by people moving from the Bay Area and New York (someone also had the audacity to sell to an actor type). The "native" types want the scale of the remodeling to be reduced dramatically, even though every broker says having the most expensive houses in Orange County will improve the value our our ridiculously over-priced, much smaller houses even more. There also is an issue, particularly in areas close to the beach, of constant construction noise and traffic. So to many in our neighborhood, it is about quality of life, not properly values.

That said, CEQA is intended to be a disclosure process so you know the environmental impacts and your elected or appointed leaders can make rational decisions. That is, however, not how CEQA is being used. Instead approved projects are subject to endless litigation with the hope the project proponents will give-up. That has consequences, including having the State more and more take over local land use decisions and also remove projects or project types from CEQA review, weakening what was once, for many, well intentioned legislation. The general plan adoption is a little different issue with the State demanding more housing growth and density across all areas (including wealthy areas) and cities like Berkeley fighting that, that may have unintended consequences on projects in Berkeley, including possibly student housing. In that regard, Cal would want Berkeley to have its entire general plan approved as soon as possible, to remove any uncertainties.

CaliforniaEternal said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

CaliforniaEternal said:

---

City of Berkeley zoning doesn't apply to UC projects so the Berkeley Housing Element isn't an issue. The big issue is the appeals court decision in the People's Park case could disrupt campus student housing construction, and potentially other projects as well. Activist judges are a major problem, but there is a lot of optimism that state legislation will fix some CEQA issues that come about if the decision ends up as is feared.

---

So you're going to make me make this more complicated. So be it.

General plans must go through a CEQA process. Cal may be exempt technically from the Bekeley General Plan (more to come). but mush file its own equivalent of the General Plan. Indeed, it is Cal's own long range development Plan that the basis for the People's Park dorm project litigation, where opponents contended environmental impact reports within UC's long-range development Plan, which lays out how it will accommodate a growing student population over the next 15 years, were inadequate.


Here is a standard line from Cal's EIR on its Plans:

Although the University is constitutionally exempt from local land use regulations when using its property in furtherance of its educational purposes, it is University policy for consistency with local plans and policies. Therefore, this section outlines the plans and policy goals of the cities of Berkeley...

I acknowledge that the People Park decision, which seems an outlier, and is problematic (at the risk of understatement). Nevertheless, Cal's desire to be such a good neighbor by tying their long term development Plan CEQA documents to conformance with General and Specific plans of its neighbors has created the mess described in the article I attached. And Cal's desire to be such a good neighbor has created other problems as Cal football fans know so well. At some point I wanted to avoid the complexity, but you have student housing that is somewhat exempted from CEQA under new laws, in contrast with Cal that has agreed generally meet City General Plans in its long run Plans in Cal's CEQA documents. You tell me what happens, when the Berkeley General Plan then tanks?

---

On the list of 99 problems, this ain't one. That's the way I see, but I'm no legal expert or environmental planner, just a finance person trying to get stuff done. I'll ask some people that know more to see what they think. Of course legal people will throw out any argument to see what sticks. Cal does pay lip service to Berkeley zoning in the EIR but city zoning hasn't been a limitation on any project. PP could have been 20 stories if cost wasn't an issue. By the time the next housing project after PP is ready for CEQA approval, I would bet this city housing element issue will be settled. All I know is California loves to make lawyers rich with the laws here.

---

Don't blame the lawyers.
California is a very diverse state not just ethnically. There are lots and lots of people with very different social and economic goals and ideas. Everyone wants the laws written from their perspective. And there are many different lobbying groups with the money to help each group fight for their ideas and objectives

The laws that we wind up with are determined by people elected to support those different ideas and objectives. Is there any wonder why law making has been compared to sausage making. They reflect a lot of different groups with different ideas and objectives (which quite often conflict with one another.

We lawyers have the tasks of interpreting these confusing laws in a manner most favorable to our clients. Then we have to convince a judge )often many judges because of the appellate process) that our interpretation is correct.

It would be much easier to interpret the laws if the laws were made be one omnipotent dictator instead of all these pesky legislators and lobbyists.

Blame democracy not the lawyers

How far is peril from the campus, and is there public transit available?

GivemTheAxe said:

---

CaliforniaEternal said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

CaliforniaEternal said:

---

City of Berkeley zoning doesn't apply to UC projects so the Berkeley Housing Element isn't an issue. The big issue is the appeals court decision in the People's Park case could disrupt campus student housing construction, and potentially other projects as well. Activist judges are a major problem, but there is a lot of optimism that state legislation will fix some CEQA issues that come about if the decision ends up as is feared.

---

So you're going to make me make this more complicated. So be it.

General plans must go through a CEQA process. Cal may be exempt technically from the Bekeley General Plan (more to come). but mush file its own equivalent of the General Plan. Indeed, it is Cal's own long range development Plan that the basis for the People's Park dorm project litigation, where opponents contended environmental impact reports within UC's long-range development Plan, which lays out how it will accommodate a growing student population over the next 15 years, were inadequate.


Here is a standard line from Cal's EIR on its Plans:

Although the University is constitutionally exempt from local land use regulations when using its property in furtherance of its educational purposes, it is University policy for consistency with local plans and policies. Therefore, this section outlines the plans and policy goals of the cities of Berkeley...

I acknowledge that the People Park decision, which seems an outlier, and is problematic (at the risk of understatement). Nevertheless, Cal's desire to be such a good neighbor by tying their long term development Plan CEQA documents to conformance with General and Specific plans of its neighbors has created the mess described in the article I attached. And Cal's desire to be such a good neighbor has created other problems as Cal football fans know so well. At some point I wanted to avoid the complexity, but you have student housing that is somewhat exempted from CEQA under new laws, in contrast with Cal that has agreed generally meet City General Plans in its long run Plans in Cal's CEQA documents. You tell me what happens, when the Berkeley General Plan then tanks?

---

On the list of 99 problems, this ain't one. That's the way I see, but I'm no legal expert or environmental planner, just a finance person trying to get stuff done. I'll ask some people that know more to see what they think. Of course legal people will throw out any argument to see what sticks. Cal does pay lip service to Berkeley zoning in the EIR but city zoning hasn't been a limitation on any project. PP could have been 20 stories if cost wasn't an issue. By the time the next housing project after PP is ready for CEQA approval, I would bet this city housing element issue will be settled. All I know is California loves to make lawyers rich with the laws here.

---

Don't blame the lawyers.
California is a very diverse state not just ethnically. There are lots and lots of people with very different social and economic goals and ideas. Everyone wants the laws written from their perspective. And there are many different lobbying groups with the money to help each group fight for their ideas and objectives

The laws that we wind up with are determined by people elected to support those different ideas and objectives. Is there any wonder why law making has been compared to sausage making. They reflect a lot of different groups with different ideas and objectives (which quite often conflict with one another.

We lawyers have the tasks of interpreting these confusing laws in a manner most favorable to our clients. Then we have to convince a judge )often many judges because of the appellate process) that our interpretation is correct.

It would be much easier to interpret the laws if the laws were made be one omnipotent dictator instead of all these pesky legislators and lobbyists.

Blame democracy not the lawyers

---

You're right of course, but conveniently leaving out the fact that the more lawsuits filed by people with money, the more billable hours billed by lawyers. Win-win!