News

$1 million for branch libraries; lawsuit pending

December 1, 2010 7:00 am by Frances Dinkelspiel

Interior of the Claremont branch library

Just months before renovations begin on two of Berkeley’s branch libraries, the Neighborhood Library Campaign announced that it has raised more than $1 million  – almost a third of its $3.5 million goal — for the restoration work.

The funds will be used to repair the oak furniture in the Claremont and North branch libraries, buy new desks, chairs and tables, change out fluorescent lights, and acquire other equipment for the North and West branches, according to Linda Schacht Gage, the chair of the Neighborhood Library capital campaign.

“It shows that the community is behind us,” said Gage.

The $1 million came from a group of about 100 people, and the campaign will now branch out more broadly to ask for support. The Friends of the Berkeley Public Library donated $150,000 and the filmmaker Saul Zaentz contributed $25,000, she said. Then, in late November, one donor gave $200,000 and another contributed $250,000, putting the fund over the $1 million mark. Both will remain anonymous for a while, said Gage.

But the good fundraising news is shadowed slightly by recent challenges to the city’s plans to renovate its four branch libraries by 2013. A group calling itself Concerned Library Users filed a lawsuit against Berkeley in September (you can download a PDF of the nine-page filing), contending that funds from Measure FF cannot be used to tear down and rebuild the South and West branches, which the city wants to do.

Measure FF, which city voters passed in November 2008, specified the city would use the $26 million in raised funds to “renovate, expand, and make seismic and access improvements,” to the library’s four branches, according to Susan Brandt-Hawley, the lawyer for Concerned Library Users. There was no wording in the measure that talked about tearing down and rebuilding the branches, she said. The group is seeking an injunction to stop the city from spending Measure FF funds on any demolition.

“The use of bond funds for demolition is contrary to the language of Measure FF,” said Brandt-Hawley.

City Attorney Zach Cowan declined to speak to Berkeleyside about the lawsuit. But in June he told the Berkeley City Council that the city could not use Measure FF funds to tear down the South and West branches. Money from another city fund would have to be used, he said.

Berkeley plans to close and remodel the Claremont and North branches starting in the spring of 2011. Once they are completed in 2012, the city plans to tear down and replace the South and West branches.

Concerned Library Users is also suing the city to force it to do an Environmental Impact Report on the impacts of tearing down the South and West branches, since their demolition will affect a historic or potentially historic resource. That aspect of the suit may be settled soon because the city is in the process of finishing an EIR, said Brandt-Hawley.

Concerned Library Users is also suing the city over its summer action to allow libraries to seek a use permit, rather than a variance, for the branch library reconstruction. The city should have done an Environmental Impact Report on the new law since it made it easier to demolish historic structures, according to Brandt-Hawley.

Concerned Library Users was formed in August after the Berkeley City Council adopted the new law. The size and composition of the group is not clear. The only person whose name was attached to the group in the lawsuit is Judith Epstein, who lives in the Claremont area of Berkeley.

Gage said that Epstein has never come to express her concerns to the Library Board and she suspects that she is the sole member of Concerned Library Users. In the past, Epstein has expressed opposition to the library’s use of RFID devices on books, said Gage. Those are the barcodes in books and DVDs that trace an object’s whereabouts.

“The real question is: what is she after?” said Gage.

Brandt-Hawley said Concerned Library Users is a real group, but did not want to provide any details about them. “They have a right to privacy,” said Brandt-Hawley. “This is a controversial matter and they want their privacy protected. It is a group. It is not just Judith Epstein. It is a group of people who care a lot about the libraries. It is inappropriate to assume it is just one person.”

The group is also appealing a Zoning Board decision that the city only needed to obtain a use permit, rather than a variance, to remodel the Claremont and North branch libraries. The City Council will take up that issue at its December 7 meeting.

The bigger question for Gage, who has been deeply involved in raising funds for the Berkeley Public Library for years, is whether the lawsuit will drain funds from Measure FF money and make it difficult to finish the renovation of the branches. If money has to be spent on lawyers rather than remodeling, there might not be enough to go around.

“There is not a lot of wiggle room,” said Gage. “$26 million will not go a long way.”

UPDATE 12/1/2010: Brandt-Hawley called Berkeleyside to say that Concerned Library Users and the City of Berkeley have come to a settlement on one portion of the lawsuit. CLU had contended that the city should have done an EIR before adopting a new law permitting the libraries to get a use permit, rather than a variance, to proceed. Brandt-Hawley said she could not release any details because the City Council has to vote on the settlement on Dec. 13. However, the deal will allow the renovation of the Claremont and North branches to move forward.

CLU’s appeal on the ZAB ruling has now been moved to Dec. 14. (And wouldn’t be necessary once the two parties sign a settlement agreement.)

17 Comments

Print Friendly
Tagged , , , , , , ,
  • Elisabeth Watson

    Thanks to everyone who has contributed and those who will contribute as revitalize our branch libraries. Our branch libraries will provide state of the art library services to everyone in Berkeley, within easy reach of our homes and businesses.

    That is, unless we are forced to consume our construction and renovation resources on lawyers and costly delays. The public has had extensive input into each of the branch redevelopment plans and that input has been incorporated into each design. As a contributor to the campaign and a supporter of our libraries, I want to see each of the 4 branches renovated or rebuilt, based on what plan provides the most cost effective means of delivering the outstanding services we’ve learned to expect.

    I hope our community can resolve our disagreements quickly so that we can move ahead with this great project. To do so, we need to understand what desires and needs are so pressing that we should abandon the plans that the community has worked so hard to create. I’ve seen the plans, attended public meetings, and gotten answers to my questions from city council members and library staff. As a result, I want to see our branches rebuilt or renovated, as needed.

    For those who oppose demolition based on ballot wording, wording that we’ve had years contemplate before and after we voted, what do you want? And can you explain how it would be good for our community?

  • DC

    Typical Berkeley anti-development stuff.

    As an architect, I can safely say that demo/rebuild is often waaaaaaaay cheaper than renovation. Remodeling rather than demo often makes sense – for small scope; for an important/landmarked building; for a building that must stay open and cannot relocate or close during construction – but for many locations and uses demo/rebuild is often far more effective. You end up with a better planned and built space, and often one that is cheaper as well. In my remodel projects, I carry a large contingency for “hidden conditions” and even so, sometimes that budget is not enough.

  • http://instructables.com lee

    I can’t wait to see the West Berkeley library rebuilt, there is very little room. it’s more of a take-out library. My family loves going there and spending time reading books. Please stop this ridiculous lawsuit. Lee

  • max

    Important clarification needed: RFID tags do not “trace an objects whereabouts”. This is a myth spread by a tiny, eccentric batch of library haters, mostly from out of town. RFID tags transmit a weak signal that contains no personal information, and that’s only used when you check out a book.

  • Berkeley Public Library Friend

    Thanks for this fine and informative article that will help to unravel for many, what has been a somewhat confusing issue, as it relates to the BPL branches. Email a short letter of support to your Councilperson(s), the City Clerk, the Mayor in time for the December 7th City Council meeting.
    .
    http://capwiz.com/grassrootsnetroots/officials/locality/?entity_id=734&state=CA

    Paper letters of support can be mailed, or dropped off, at the following address:

    Berkeley City Council
    City Clerk’s Office
    2180 Milvia Street
    Berkeley, CA 94704

  • http://www.ThisIntoThat.com Jim Rosenau

    This is a bit of a tangent but I am confused by the addition planned for the North Branch. When I look at the floor plan all new space is dedicated to staff work areas. There appears to be no new space for patrons, books or any other media on display. Am I misunderstanding this? If not, what is the anticipated benefit to patrons provided by the increased work space for staff?

  • Berkeley Public Library Friend

    For more excellent coverage of this issue, read the Thursday, December 2nd article in the Berkeley Daily Planet by Jane Scantlebury, Berkeley Public Librarian.

  • http://twitter.com/Weezus Rachel A.

    Jim, I’m a N. Berkeley branch user and got a chance to learn about the new addition. My recollection (which likely isn’t comprehensive) is that the addition is going to provide both staff space (the current staff area will be the holds section), bathrooms, book processing area, larger teen space, and a meeting room that can be used by the community. I came away really excited about how the renovations are going to enhance the building and its significant usage.

    Regarding the staff space, right now there is no private room in the library (i.e. with a door) where staff can have meetings, have private conversation (e.g. staff reviews, etc.). I think we’ve got great library staff at N. Berkeley and I’m glad that they’ll finally have appropriate space.

    And–perhaps most importantly–the grove of trees (known by many small humans in the area as “The Enchanted Forest”) will not be impacted by the renovation and addition.

    If I can find a link to more detailed information about the renovation or tours, I’ll post it here.

  • http://twitter.com/Weezus Rachel A.

    Here is the link to lots of information about the four branch libraries and plans:

    http://www.berkeleypubliclibrary.org/about_the_library/b-renovation.php

  • Pingback: Berkeley reaches partial settlement with library critics | Berkeleyside

  • Gus

    Maybe I’m getting old, but I remember a time when journalism was about verifying facts. I’ve been a taxpayer long enough to know that Measure FF funds cannot be used to defend against the lawsuit about their misuse. Measure FF funds can only be used to “renovate, expand, and make seismic and access improvements” to our branch libraries.
    The City Attorney gets a budget from the City for all legal work the City needs, including the defense of lawsuits. We, the taxpayers, fund the City Attorney’s office every year whether or not there are lawsuits. Recently, there have been quite a few, and most were quite a bit more expensive than this one. Just check the City Council agendas, and you’ll be surprised to see how the City’s mistakes add up.
    I have met a number of members of CLU, and to me, the discussion of who belongs to CLU and who doesn’t is purely misleading. It avoids the real issues about why the City didn’t tell voters the truth. CLU has a lot of community support and deservedly so. I am grateful for all the hard work that Judith Epstein and her group are doing to make the City keep its promises to us, especially in such a toxic environment.

  • Bruce Love

    Gus,

    Can you provide more specific information about the exclusion of FF funds from legal defense? I am specifically wonderign this: A city accountant surely could identify some part of the city attorney’s “marginal costs” in this case as being specific to the measure FF projects. For example, maybe the city makes photocopies in the FF matter, or files papers with the court that require a fee, or pays some share of the cost of an arbitrator, or hires an outside attorney or paralegal to help… and can’t those plausible marginal costs of the legal stuff be charged against the FF bond funds as a “cost of doing business” for the authorized purposes of FF?

    In other words: how are you sure that FF funds aren’t being eaten by the legal challenge and are you sure that, legally, FF funds may not be used wrt to the legal challenge?

    I’d like to believe that FF funds can not and are not being used for the legal defense but looking at the record, I don’t think there is anything much more to FF than the text of the ballot measure itself and that is pretty vague.

  • Gus

    Bruce, these are good questions.
    The City deals with a lot of lawsuits, and most have nothing to do with bond funds. There’s a general procedure for funding legal expenses, which is independent of the cause of action. The City Attorney’s office has a fund for outside counsel. It also has money for photocopying and clerks. The Plaintiffs pay to copy the record. They can pay the City for this service or make their own arrangements. The Plaintiffs also pay to file the case in court, having initiated the action. The point is that the Measure FF lawsuit is not treated in a unique way, just because it involves bond funds.

    You are correct that Measure FF is short, but it is also tightly written. I see nothing vague in the language. A lawsuit is not part of “the cost of doing business” of Measure FF. When a Measure FF expenditure needs to be authorized, there’s an item on the Council agenda for approval. Since the lawsuit was filed in late summer, there have been no expenditures of Measure FF bond funds related to the lawsuit, despite the hours the City Attorney spent on the case and the partial settlement. The latter was paid out of the City’s Public Liability Fund, which has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to settle cases over the last year, but only $9000 for this one to date. There’s a tremendous amount of misinformation about this case, and I suspect that it’s not all unintentional.

  • Thomas Lord

    Thanks, Gus, that’s helpful.

    You wrote: “There’s a tremendous amount of misinformation about this case, and I suspect that it’s not all unintentional.”

    I’m sure I can’t speak to anyone’s intention but I think you are right about there being some misleading accounts of things.

  • Name Withheld

    Whatever the specifics, the Concerned Library Users group sounds like a bunch of sour pickles.

  • max

    Please don’t give sour pickles such a bad name! Judith Epstein’s “group” is out to deprive us people who live in the less affluent parts of town access to new libraries. She’d prefer that the cinderblock bunkhouse at South & Tool and the ugly University Ave. branch stay as-is. Why should she care? She certainly won’t be there when the storytimes are so overflowing the librarians have to hand out tickets, or heaven forbid when an earthquake topples the old buildings.

  • Bookworm

    “Max” is wrong about Judith Epstein and Concerned Library Users. He doesn’t want you to know that Concerned Library Users submitted alternative designs for the South and West Branch Libraries that provide for bigger and better libraries than the City’s designs – for no more money. They’ve been on the public record since January 31st, but maybe “Max” doesn’t want you to know about the truth. These designs are seismically safe and ADA accessible, and each has a Children’s Room, a Teen Room, a Meeting Room, and extra space for patrons, staff, books, and computers. A discussion about these designs and pictures can be found at http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2011-03-02/article/37407?headline=How-a-Public-Process-Led-to-New-Designs-for-the-South-and-West-Branch-Libraries
    Why does “Max” not tell the truth? Maybe it’s because he wants South and West Berkeley to have inferior libraries, but he doesn’t have the courage to say so.

    Note: this comment has been edited to remove some objectionable language.