In recent years, the legislature has seen fit to decree enrollment increases at UC. It seems the judiciary wasn't properly informed about the decree.
From the San Francisco Chronicle: A judge has sided with Berkeley’s objections to a planned University of California development, ruling that UC must consider reducing enrollment as one option to protect the community from the impact of the project. Friday’s ruling by Alameda County Superior Court Judge Brad Seligman involved a relatively modest development at the northeast corner of campus, a new classroom building for graduate students and a housing structure to replace a parking garage at the corner of Hearst and La Loma avenues. But it has implications for UC Berkeley’s long-range plans, and specifically who should bear the cost.
As Seligman noted, the university filed an environmental plan with the state in 2005 projecting that its enrollment at Berkeley would level off sometime before 2020, when it would be about 33,450. Instead, enrollment has risen steadily, with 42,347 students as of last fall, according to university officials. On Friday, the UC Board of Regents is scheduled to consider a proposed environmental review of a 15-year plan that, according to the university’s current estimates, would increase enrollment to 48,200 students by 2036, in addition to 19,000 faculty and staff.
That plan “will have a devastating impact upon the city,” said Arlene Silk, a member of a community group called Berkeley Citizens for a Better Plan. She said it would cause “huge expenses for Berkeley citizens, for police, fire and public safety” and would endanger historic buildings...
Full story at https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Judge-sides-with-Berkeley-s-objections-to-a-16310110.php.
It seems no one told the judge about the legislature and its enrollment decrees. You never know what can happen when folks are misinformed:
Or direct to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gC29ArkGG0.
No comments:
Post a Comment