Posted on

Appeals Court Decision, February 24, 2023

Congratulations People’s Park Supporters!!!

The Appeals Court issued their final decision today. We won the most important point in the case for the continuation of the Park. The court’s order, attached below, finds that UC’s Environmental Impact Report did not adequately analyze feasible alternative sites for Housing Project #2. Therefore, as stated in the Disposition on page 44, our claim that UC needs to look more carefully at other places to build Housing Project #2 is upheld and the case goes back to the trial court. Our current understanding is that the trial court (judge Roesch) will give instructions to UC as to how it can comply with this appeals court decision. In later days we will get a fuller understanding of what those instructions will look like. One possibility could be that UC will write another EIR with a more complete analysis of other places to build. Most importantly no construction can take place at People’s Park now or until this decision is final. After this is final either side can take additional legal steps that will delay construction even further. Because we are all interested in the timeline of future developments I include the information below from the lawyer.

Upcoming deadlines:

  • Last day to file Petition for Rehearing in Court of Appeal: 3/13/23
  • Opinion Final: 3/26/23
  • Last day to file Petition for Review in Supreme Court: 4/5/23

Appeals Court Decision, February 24, 2023:
https://www.peoplespark.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Appeals-Court-Decision-February-24-2023.pdf

Posted on

Legal Update on People’s Park – January 12, 2023

On January 12, 2023 the Court of Appeal heard Oral Arguments on the CEQA case of Make UC a Good Neighbor and People’s Park Historic District Advocacy Group VS the Regents of the University of California. There were not any points in the arguments of either side that were different than the briefs and supporting letters that had previously been submitted by the parties. The attorney/justices interaction was very interesting. The entire 82 minute hearing is at:

https://jcc.granicus.com/player/clip/3368?view_id=41&redirect=true&h=e8920a278fccbe9f40ea13a15f093f12

For us interested in preserving People’s Park as an open space in perpetuity the hearing is very reassuring. The UC lawyer tried to gain traction for their contention that the “revitalization” (read destruction) of the park was always the core goal of Housing Project #2 and therefore the Environmental Impact Report had no obligation to analyze other alternate sites for that housing because only by building on People’s Park could the project revitalize the park. Justice Burns was especially unaccepting of this claim and interrupted and contradicted their lawyer continuously. In short, it would be very surprising if we don’t win on the alternative site issue, which would mean the EIR has to be redone.

The other meaningful exchange was about the issue of noise. Our contention that Housing Project #2 would have a significant negative impact on noise levels in the neighborhood because of the common occurrence of student parties is being critiqued as a “social” impact as opposed to an environmental impact. UC claims that the burden of predicting, analyzing and mitigating for these kinds of social noise is discriminatory and that it will delay or stop new building projects. Even the Chief Justice Terri Jackson asked about the possibility of a new building for a church being made to analyze the effect of tambourine shaking.

Our lawyer made the point that noise is noise. He also made the point that the fair argument standard should be applied. Finally he noted that anti-discrimination law is an established means by which any environmental impact can be evaluated.

This question of whether social impacts should be included in CEQA suits is complex and can be looked at from many angles. It seem to be the way developers and their political allies are going to attempt to weaken or throw out CEQA.

Posted on

Briefs and Replys in the Legal Efforts to Protect People’s Park

Appellants Opening Brief – filed 2022-09-06.pdf
https://www.peoplespark.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Appellants-Opening-Brief-filed-2022-09-06.pdf

Respondents Opposition Brief – 2022-09-26.pdf
https://www.peoplespark.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Respondents-Opposition-Brief-2022-09-26.pdf

Lippe Rebut UC Reply – filed 2022-10-06.pdf
https://www.peoplespark.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Lippe-Rebut-UC-Reply-filed-2022-10-06.pdf

Posted on

Legal updates and Letters to Governor Gavin Newsom and Senator Nancy Skinner, August 5, 2022

August 5, 2022

The First Appellate court ordered today a temporary stay against all construction, further demolition, tree cutting, and landscape altering activities, unless such landscape alterations are necessary for public health and safety reasons. Their order included that our request for a stay on the erection of a security fence was denied, meaning UC can legally erect a security fence. The court said the temporary order is to give them time to review the petition for writ of supersedeas that our attorney filed yesterday at 1 PM. The temporary stay does not affect or extend to activities at Anchor House. The court also deferred any decision on UC’s request that Make UC a Good Neighbor and People’s Park Historic District Advocacy Group post a bond as UC is requesting to cover the increased cost of construction they claim are incurred by this delay. In addition the court ordered that before the parties bring and disputes about the scope of this temporary stay they meet and confer to attempt to resolve such disputes.

August 3, 2022

Our lawyer filed a request for a Writ of Supersedeas at about 1 PM August 3, 2022.. 

The actual wording is:
Petition for Writ of Supersedeas and request for immediate, temporary stay; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; exhibits filed separately
Immediate, temporary stay requested by 3 PM on August 3, 2022; staying demolition, tree cutting, landscape alteration and construction at People’s Park.

A rally and march was held at Sproul Plaza at 5 PM, August 3, 2022. Details to come. 

The university has committed several illegal operations today. Among them are towing the cars legally parked on Haste and Dwight and closing off the streets surrounding the park. The City of Berkeley can not, and did not, relinquish their jurisdiction for those streets to UC. When stopped by an agent (police or security) ask for evidence that they have been granted authority to close the street. When they can offer none you have the right to pass through. Be safe, of course.

Donate: Support the legal actions to save People’s Park with a Venmo or GoFundMe contribution

Letters to Governor Gavin Newsom and Senator Nancy Skinner from Attorney David L. Axelrod

August 3, 2022

To: GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM,
Office of the Governor,
021 O Street, Suite 9000,
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: DEMAND TO SAVE PEOPLE’S PARK, BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA

Dear GOV. NEWSOM:

Hello. I need to speak to Gov. GAVIN NEWSOM immediately, in order to seek prompt action for the protection and preservation of PEOPLE’S PARK in Berkeley, California, a designated historic landmark. I spoke with Gov. NEWSOM a few years ago about this issue, in Sonora, California, while he was still Lt. Governor.

The threat of the PARK’S destruction by UC Berkeley administrators, police, agents and contractors is now ongoing and urgent. Native specimen trees are being sawed down and community gardens are being ripped up, even as I speak. Please respond ASAP.

THANK YOU.

DAVID L. AXELROD,
ATTORNEY for PEOPLE’S PARK COUNCIL,
PEOPLE’S PARK HISTORIC DISTRICT ADVOCACY GROUP,
and MAKE UC A GOOD NEIGHBOR
1714 Canyon Terrace Lane, Folsom, California 95630

August 3, 2022

To: Sen. NANCY SKINNER,
Capitol Office,
Sacramento, CA 95814

Re: DEMAND TO SAVE PEOPLE’S PARK, BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA

Dear Sen. Skinner:
Hello. I need to speak to you immediately, in order to seek prompt action for the protection and preservation of PEOPLE’S PARK in Berkeley, California, a designated historic landmark. I have spoken with you about this issue many times, in Berkeley, California, including during the period while I served as your appointee to the Berkeley Parks & Recreation Commission.
The threat of the PARK’S destruction by UC Berkeley administrators, police, agents and contractors is now ongoing and urgent. Native specimen trees are being sawed down and community gardens are being ripped up, even as I speak. Please respond ASAP.
THANK YOU.

DAVID L. AXELROD,
ATTORNEY for PEOPLE’S PARK COUNCIL,
PEOPLE’S PARK HISTORIC DISTRICT ADVOCACY GROUP,
and MAKE UC A GOOD NEIGHBOR
1714 Canyon Terrace Lane, Folsom, California 95630