The AIA Los Angeles chapter has issued an open letter to the President of the University of California, voicing opposition to the proposed UCSB Munger Residence Hall. The project, which has gained an intense media spotlight both within and beyond architectural spheres, would see the construction of bedrooms for 4,500 students, 94% of which would not have access to natural light.

The letter, penned by AIA LA President Mitra Memari, describes the proposal as one which will “create harmful and unhealthy living conditions for its residents,” setting a “negative precedent, literally and symbolically, for generations to come.”

“We urge UCSB to follow best design practices supported by numerous studies, and not advance the Munger Hall project further,” the letter continues. “We recommend that UCSB reconvene its design review board to re-examine best practices in design as well as explore innovative housing solutions that will support a healthier place for the residents to call home.”

The letter is careful to note the context within which the proposal sits, where an ongoing housing crisis across California has led to a legally-binding requirement for USCB to supply housing for all new students in a timely manner. However, the letter concludes that “the resources and methodologies exist to resolve this crisis without initiating further harm.”

The letter, which covers the 4,500 members of the AIA LA, is only the latest in a string of opposition to the Charlie Munger-designed and funded scheme. Last month, the AIA Santa Barbara published its own letter condemning the scheme as “inhumane.”

Last week, meanwhile, eight former UC campus architects published a letter against the project. The national spotlight placed on the scheme was itself the consequence of the resignation of architect Dennis McFadden from the USCB’s Design Review Committee over the scheme.

Amid the letters of opposition, the University of California has recently rejected a public records request to release the agreement it holds with Charlie Munger over the scheme, as they determined the agreement to be “preliminary and conceptual in nature.”

Since the story broke at the end of October, the project has generated an active thread over on the Archinect Discussion Forum. Readers are invited to share their views on the scheme and its surrounding controversy here or in the comments below.