Posted on

We Will Write the History of People’s Park, Not UC!

The outrageous paramilitary occupation and destruction of People’s Park proceeds each day behind a fortress of barbed wire, 24/7 security guards and a giant Trump-style border wall. With little regard for the displaced community, the history that is being erased or the gentrification that is being furthered, the University and its functionaries make no apologies. In a tiny gesture of recognition, the University has hired Walter Hood, a UCB professor and renowned Black artist to create a “commemorative monument” to serve as a reminder of the space that was retained by the people for almost 55 years. Turns out, nobody who actually used, cared for and supported People’s Park wants anything to do with this whitewashing of history.

Yes, the Walter Hood Design Studio reached out to the People’s Park Council and others for input on how to create a history of the Park. Why can’t we all just sit together in a focus group and work together to tell the story of People’s Park? We could give them all of our choicest anecdotes and timelines. They can then pick through what we give them, choose what they want, present it however they will and claim that we collaborated with them in the telling. We say, “NEVER!”

Is UC really ready to tell the history of how in 1967, it illegally used eminent domain to steal the land and tear down the radical cooperative houses that once stood on what became People’s Park? Is UC ready to explain how many times it has used violence and even lethal violence over the past 55 years to prevent the people from claiming this land for use by the community? Is UC ready to talk about the ways that it claimed ownership and yet neglected to maintain the property and prevented others from caring for the land and the community with SLAPP suits and threats of arrest? Is UC ready to tell the history of how an educational institution that was chartered to provide free and public education to every Californian became a “research university” that has been privatized by corporations and war profiteers? Shall we tell the history of how UC has continued to increase the number of students and manipulated the housing market to ensure that the cost of housing yields huge profits for developers and landlords and forces marginalized and poor people out of Berkeley?

Imagine someone destroying your home, your community, or your sacred space and then asking for your “input” on how they tell the story of your destruction? Would you help your destroyer write your epitaph? We refuse. We who love the park and have served our community for years declare definitively that we will NOT help you whitewash history and THE STRUGGLE CONTINUES!

People’s Park Council, August 17, 2024

Posted on

PRESS RELEASE: Farewell, Carol Christ

For Immediate Release
July 23, 2024

Contact: Harvey Smith, peoplesparkhxdist@gmail.com, 510-684-0414

Many fluff pieces have been celebrating the tenure of Carol Christ as chancellor of UC Berkeley, particularly extolling her fundraising prowess. However, there is a dark side to her seven years at the helm, chief among them her obsession with People’s Park, which according to a former Berkeley mayor began decades ago.

Obviously the relationship between UC and People’s Park over its long history has not been an easy one; it has veered from uneasy accommodation to outright antagonism. However, there were times when a positive future for the park could have been assured as an internationally-recognized asset to Berkeley and the university.

According to former UCB Vice Chancellor for Real Estate, Bob Lalanne, who left his position in 2016, building on People’s Park was off the table, and in fact there were proposals considered to improve it and make it more inviting for the entire community. This was reversed when Carol Christ took the helm in 2017, and as statements indicate it became her vanity project. A recent L.A. Times article stated she “is proud of her relentless efforts to build housing at Berkeley’s iconic People’s Park.” She also repeated in the article some of the misinformation that she and her PR flak Dan Mogulof have been spewing about the park. Early this year she also told the Times that the park’s “redevelopment” will go down as “one of the most important things I’ve done.”

Besides the misinformation, Christ and Mogulof have committed major acts of omission, never mentioning the park’s listing on the National Register of Historic Places and its recognition by the country’s leading preservation organization, the National Trust for Historic Preservation.

Likewise the anti-environmental act of destroying a park with its many redwoods, oaks and other trees brings to mind the attitude of Ronald Reagan who stated, “If you’ve seen one redwood tree, you’ve seen them all.”

Carol Christ will go down in the annals of history arm-in-arm with Ronald Reagan, who formulated the original attack on the park, the invasion of Berkeley by the National Guard, and the killing and maiming perpetrated by the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office.

People’s Park was created after the Civil Rights and Free Speech Movements in the midst of the Vietnam Anti-War movement and preceded the first Earth Day. It is tied to and symbolizes all these movements. We can only wonder what possessed Chancellor Christ to recently speak in conversation about Free Speech with Condoleezza Rice, George W. Bush’s Secretary of State, champion of the Iraq War and accused war criminal. Was this another snub to the history of the park?

Park supporters have outlived the tenure of Christ as chancellor, but the UC machine will keep moving to acquire more property in Berkeley with disregard for our city’s historic properties and the housing displacement caused by its increasing enrollment.

People’s Park Historic District Advocacy Group, the People’s Park Committee, and many others have pointed out why the People’s Park construction project is an avoidable bad idea. Those many reasons will not be repeated here, but it is clear that the project was never about housing but about destroying the park and its historic legacy. If constructed on an alternative site, it would be nearly completed by now.

The inappropriate location of the project and the resultant delays have wasted millions of dollars of public funds due to increasing construction costs, legal and police costs, and the shipping container wall with razor wire. This money could have been better spent in so many ways, chief among them increasing the budget for returning the Native American remains and artifacts hoarded by Cal and legally mandated by the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act passed by Congress over thirty years ago.

We are not alone in our criticism of UC corporate-like expansion and its façade of social concern. Book length critiques can be found in Tony Platt’s The Scandal of Cal and Christopher Newfield’s The Great Mistake. Likewise Davarian Baldwin’s book In the Shadow of the Ivory Tower analyzes universities’ growth, resulting gentrification, policing, and monetization schemes.

We honor fact-based research and support social justice. We think of these as values that should be associated with UC Berkeley. Therefore, it is disappointing in the extreme when UC Berkeley behaves like a greedy and abusive corporation without a conscience, but with a big budget for public relations and legal representation.

Long Live People’s Park!

Posted on

Response to Chancellor Lyons from People’s Park Historic District Advocacy Group

July 9, 2024

Dear Chancellor Lyons:

We are disappointed that you will not meet with us. Your predecessor also never deemed it necessary to meet with those who support the preservation of People’s Park. Because she was not able to achieve total destruction of the park before she left her position, you will inherit that distinction. We do not know how aware you are of the background that led us to this point, but we’d like to explain that like the Free Speech Movement and other controversial issues at Cal, the battle for People’s Park will not disappear once the heavy equipment rolls onto the site.

Despite the misstatements by Dan Mogulof regarding the “strong support” manufactured for the project, our Open Letter, which the People’s Park Historic District Advocacy Group began circulating in 2021, stands in stark contrast. Many have signed on since, and many other supporters have joined in the effort to protect People’s Park. The nearly 150 signatures on the Open Letter include Berkeley residents, UCB professors, three former Berkeley mayors, three former Berkeley city councilmembers, many former Berkeley commissioners, Cal alumni and students, attorneys, architects, historians and many others who are concerned about the threatened destruction of People’s Park.

Additionally, several student groups support preservation of People’s Park – Pay Your Workers Campaign, Historic Preservation Club, Cal ACLU, and Suitcase Clinic. Add to that, two resolutions from the ASUC opposing destruction of the park, the Berkeley Faculty Association’s questioning of the project, and the many editorials in support of the park in the Daily Cal. Support has also come from the country’s leading preservation organization – The National Trust for Historic Preservation.

These park advocates are clearly not the profile of “privileged NIMBY neighbors” claimed by the UC administration. They have all recognized a particularly bad plan when so many viable alternative sites for student housing are available. UC has given the community the false choice of having either a park or a dorm when we can have both.

Respecting the State Supreme Court decision is difficult if one understands that AB 1307 undercut park proponents’ win in the State Court of Appeal. AB 1307 was nothing more than a sweetheart, backroom deal concocted by Assemblyperson Buffy Wicks. She had absolutely no contact with the plaintiffs in the court case or with any park proponents in the district she purportedly represents. There were no legislative committee hearings that aired arguments on the bill, pro and con. The bill can only be described as a piece of special interest legislation with the special interest being none other than UC.

This outcome is disappointing because the nonprofit, community-based organizations were only asking for a public process under the California Environmental Quality Act. The Court of Appeal clearly saw that UC pursued a private process in determining it had no alternative other than to build on People’s Park. Our groups hired legal representation at great expense to advocate for transparency from UC. We played by the rules, and when UC did not like the outcome, it got the rules changed.

This begs the question – Is the project about student housing or about destroying the park? This is particularly evident when the millions of wasted dollars of public funds are considered due to delays, legal and police costs, and the shipping container wall with razor wire.

In order to meet its housing goal, UCB has claimed that it wants to build as much student housing as soon as possible. However, as an indication of its outrageously poor planning to reach the goal, UCB chose People’s Park as Housing Project #2 and then admitted early on that it would certainly experience delays due to the controversial nature of the project. Anchor House, Housing Project # 1, is nearly completed. If any of the many alternative sites had been chosen for Housing Project #2, it would likewise be nearly complete.

Cal touts that 1.7 acres of the park would remain open space after development. However, the increasingly densely populated Southside needs probably at least three times the acreage of People’s Park to meet urban green space standards at the international, national, state or city level. Stripping much-needed open space from students and the community is particularly perverse because it is unnecessary. We also know that beyond the ever-growing borders of the Cal campus there is still a “Berkeley community.”

Cal states it has “secured housing vouchers from the City of Berkeley for this project” neglecting to explain that housing vouchers come from the federal Housing and Urban Development voucher program. Vouchers would only be available if UC completed an environmental impact report in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, a requirement UC refused for its original supportive housing project. Since UC has destroyed a site on the National Register of Historic Places, this will likely be a major deterrent for any potential nonprofit housing developer.

Not only are the proposed buildings out-of-keeping with the area, they overshadow a National Landmark (Bernard Maybeck’s First Church), a building by famed architect Julia Morgan, the Anna Head complex by the founding member of Berkeley’s Ratcliff architectural dynasty, and many other historic structures that surround People’s Park.

The university claims to honor the historic importance of the park but does so by destroying a place that is an official city landmark, recognized by the State Historic Resources Commission. And People’s Park is also listed on the federal government’s National Register of Historic Places as a site of such national importance that it’s worthy of preservation. So UC’s idea of honoring this historic place is to destroy it.

Chancellor Lyon, inviting us to give “input and ideas regarding planning” for commemoration of the park would make us complicit in UC’s perpetration of the death and wounding of park protectors, the tremendous waste of millions of dollars in delays due to inappropriate siting of the project, and the delay of the construction of much needed student and supportive housing .

Many who consider themselves part of the Cal family honor fact-based research and support social justice. We think of these values as having been strengthened by experiences at Berkeley. Therefore, it pains most Cal-affiliated people when UC Berkeley behaves like a greedy and abusive corporation without a conscience, but with a big budget for public relations and legal representation.

Obviously corporations can make expensive miscalculations, e.g., Ford’s Edsel. UC campuses likewise have made costly planning errors, e.g., UCSB’s “Dormzilla.” However, both of these mistakes were recognized and the projects were terminated. Harm only comes when a bad decision is stubbornly sustained at the cost of institutional integrity.

Yes, this project has been well underway due to Carol Christ’s efforts, but you will inherit the mantle of the person who implemented it. If any of these details are unclear or need further elaboration, we would be happy to explain. We understand you delegating to Dan Mogulof a reply to our request for a meeting. However, we would deeply appreciate a personal reply to the critical issues raised in this letter.

Sincerely,

Harvey Smith, BA ’67, MPH, ’84, UC Berkeley
President, People’s Park Historic District Advocacy Group
peoplesparkhxdist@gmail.com, 510-684-0414

Posted on

The False Narrative of People’s Park

by the People’s Park Historic District Advocacy Group

An analysis of the nonfactual presentation in UC Berkeley’s flyer “A Renewed People’s Park for All” reveals the irrationality of the People’s Park project and the venality of UCB administration in pursuing it. This is amplified by the undercutting of park proponents’ win in the State Court of Appeal by AB 1307 and its subsequent impact on the recent State Supreme Court decision reversing that win.

Moreover, an immediate concern is whether UC has done an adequate archeological investigation of the park. Given a recent official filing with the Northwest Information Center of the State Office of Historic Preservation showing evidence of Native American artifacts in or near the park, UC should present information to the public describing what steps it has taken to ascertain it will not continue its long history of destruction of historic Native sites, graves and objects.

AB 1307 was nothing more than a sweetheart, backroom deal concocted by Assemblyperson Buffy Wicks. She had absolutely no contact with the plaintiffs in the court case or with any park proponents in the district she purportedly represents. There were no legislative committee hearings to air arguments on the bill, either pro or con. The bill can only be described as a piece of special interest legislation with the special interest being none other than UC.

This outcome is disappointing because the nonprofit, community-based organizations were only asking for a public process under the California Environmental Quality Act. The Court of Appeal clearly saw that UC pursued a private process in determining it had no alternative other than to build on People’s Park. Our groups hired legal representation at great expense to advocate for transparency from UC. They played by the rules, and when UC did not like the outcome, it got the rules changed.

This begs the question – Is the project about student housing or about destroying the park? This is particularly evident when the millions of wasted dollars of public funds are considered due to delays, legal and police costs, and the shipping container wall with razor wire.

In order to meet its housing goal, UCB has claimed that it wants to build as much student housing as soon as possible. However, as an indication of its outrageously poor planning to reach the goal, UCB chose People’s Park as Housing Project #2 and then admitted early on that it would certainly experience delays due to the controversial nature of the project. Anchor House, Housing Project # 1, is nearly completed. If any of the many alternative sites had been chosen for Housing Project #2, it would likewise be nearly complete.

Cal claims extensive public engagement and input on the project. However, it was only earlier this year that teach-ins were held on campus that included student groups, faculty and community groups that provided an open and balanced analysis of what it would mean to destroy People’s Park. In 2021, People’s Park Historic District Advocacy Group circulated an Open Letter with nearly 150 signatures that includes Berkeley residents, UCB professors, three former Berkeley mayors, three former Berkeley city councilmembers, many former Berkeley commissioners, Cal alumni and students, attorneys, architects, historians and many others who are concerned about the threatened destruction of People’s Park. Their representative views were never considered by campus administration.

Additionally, several student groups support preservation of People’s Park – Pay Your Workers Campaign, Historic Preservation Club, Cal ACLU, and Suitcase Clinic. Add to that, two resolutions from the ASUC opposing destruction of the park, the Berkeley Faculty Association’s questioning of the project, and the many editorials in support of the park in the Daily Cal. Support has also come from the country’s leading preservation organization – The National Trust for Historic Preservation.

Cal touts that 1.7 acres of the park would remain open space after development. However, the increasingly densely populated Southside needs probably at least three times the acreage of People’s Park to meet urban green space standards at the international, national, state or city level. Stripping much-needed open space from students and the community is particularly perverse because it is unnecessary.

Cal states it has “secured housing vouchers from the City of Berkeley for this project” neglecting to explain that housing vouchers come from the federal Housing and Urban Development voucher program. Vouchers would only be available if UC completed an environmental impact report in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, a requirement UC refused for its original supportive housing project. Since UC has destroyed a site on the National Register of Historic Places, this will likely be a major deterrent for any potential nonprofit housing developer.

Not only are the proposed buildings out-of-keeping with the area, they overshadow a National Landmark (Bernard Maybeck’s First Church), a building by famed architect Julia Morgan, the Anna Head complex by the founding member of Berkeley’s Ratcliff architectural dynasty, and many other historic structures that surround People’s Park.

The university claims to honor the historic importance of the park but does so by destroying a place that is an official city landmark, recognized by the State Historic Resources Commission. And People’s Park is also listed on the federal government’s National Register of Historic Places as a site of such national importance that it’s worthy of preservation. So UC’s idea of honoring this historic place is to destroy it.

Many who consider themselves part of the Cal family honor fact-based research and support social justice. We think of these values as having been strengthened by experiences at Berkeley. Therefore, it pains most Cal-affiliated people when UC Berkeley behaves like a greedy and abusive corporation without a conscience.

Corporations can make expensive miscalculations, e.g., Ford’s Edsel. UC campuses likewise have made costly planning errors, e.g., UCSB’s “Dormzilla.” However, both of these mistakes were recognized and the projects were terminated. Harm only comes when a bad decision is stubbornly sustained at the cost of institutional integrity.

Learn about The People’s Park Historic District Advocacy Group and make a donation here.
https://www.peoplesparkhxdist.org/donate-now/

Posted on

People’s Park Last Stand? The Struggle Continues! Save the Heart and Soul of Berkeley – Panel Discussion, June 19, 2024

The Struggle Continues! Save The Park!
PANEL DISCUSSION
June 19, 2024, 7pm
1939 Addison Street, Berkeley

Featured Speakers Include:
Jovanka Beckles – State Senate Candidate
Joe Liesner – People’s Park Historic District Advocacy Group
Margot Smith – State Assembly Candidate
Moni Law – Affordable Housing and Police Accountability Activist
Jonah Gottlieb – office of District 7 Councilmember Lunaparra
Aidan Hill – Longtime People’s Park Gardener

Video of the Panel Discussion
https://fb.watch/sQvoIa2bEY/?mibextid=cr9u03

This event is available in person and via Zoom link
Join Zoom Meeting: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81963341496
Meeting ID: 819 6334 1496

Join us for a panel discussion and community meeting to confront the impending UC destruction of Berkeley’s most iconic landmark. Speakers will expose state manipulation of the housing market, suppression of information about the archeological significance of People’s Park, collusion of elected leaders in the theft of the land and discuss the legally required and urgent need for open space in the Southside area.

People’s Park supporters cry “Foul!” in response to the California State Supreme Court’s recent ruling to allow the University of California (UC) to destroy the park. We pledge to continue the fight to save it.

Native American site of significance: People’s Park sits in Huichin, the name given the land by indigenous inhabitants of the Confederated Villages of Lisjan (local Ohlone nation). Derby Creek, which ran through the Park site, was filled in and culverted about 1901. The creek’s location suggests that an indigenous village was located in this area, and that significantly more recent remains or artifacts could be found during excavation. This would be grounds for another California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) challenge to UC’s construction plan. Many have suggested UC cede the Park to the Sogorea Te Land Trust as part of rematriation of lands lost to settler colonialism. UC “owns” the most real estate in California, all stolen from indigenous peoples. Adding insult to injury, after decades of struggling to fulfill commitments to more easterly native peoples, the US government refused to recognize any tribes in California so it would not have to provide any previously promised benefits, minimal as they were.

Desperately needed open space: Although the park has served as a place of last resort for unhoused and poor people, what the community desperately needs is open park space. Reducing People’s Park violates Berkeley’s Measure L, passed in 1986, which requires preservation and maintenance of the public parks and open space which exist in Berkeley, and acquisition of more open space in neighborhoods having less than the minimum amount of open space relative to population. People’s Park is the only public green space in the densely populated Council District 7, often referred to as Southside. It has served as refuge for many immigrants, starting with African-Americans in the 60’s and 70’s.

Historical Legacy: People’s Park was officially listed on the National Register of Historic Places on May 24, 2022, recognized in the letter of designation “as nationally significant for its association with student protests and countercultural activities during the 1960s.” In addition to this over half-century legacy of political and cultural events, the historical, architectural and environmental assets of this irreplaceable open space include a bio system of flora and fauna and a surround of highly significant architecture. Despite this, the current University administration remains intent on destroying the Park as one more part of making Berkeley unlivable for most.

Corrupt decision: UC has tried to avoid or undermine the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process for its proposed People’s Park housing project. When noise impact was identified as a likely disqualifier, it sought and won a special exception via having the Legislature amend CEQA to allow UC to proceed. UC is making profit from student housing while there is NO actual low-income housing to help the displaced people. There are over 3,000 vacant units in Berkeley, many held off-market for speculation. And hundreds of dorm rooms are vacant due to the high price. UC plans to increase enrollment by 20,000 students over the next decade, with no agreement from the City or its residents, who will suffer most.

People’s Park Community
We Ain’t Going Anywhere!

Posted on

Supreme Court Oral Argument April 3, 2024 – Session One – Make UC A Good Neighbor v. Regents of University of California, S279242

Supreme Court Oral Argument April 3, 2024 – Session One, Apr 3, 2024

This is a recording of the oral argument for Make UC a Good Neighbor et al. v. The Regents of the University of California et al. (Resources for Community Development et al., Real Parties in Interest), S279242.
Heard by the Supreme Court of California on April 3, 2024 in Los Angeles, CA.

Make UC A Good Neighbor v. Regents of University of California, S279242. (A165451; 88 Cal.App.5th 656, mod. 88 Cal.App.5th 1293a; Alameda County Superior Court; RG21110142.)

Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action.

This case presents the following issues:

  1. Does the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) (CEQA) require public agencies to consider as an environmental impact the increased social noise generated by student parties that a student housing project might bring to a community?
  2. Under CEQA, when a lead agency has identified potential sites for future development and redevelopment in a programmatic planning document, is the agency required to revisit alternative locations for a proposed site-specific project within the program?

Supreme Court Oral Argument April 3, 2024
NEWS RELEASE: Video/Photos: Make UC a Good Neighbor v. The Regents of the University of California

The California Supreme Court today heard the case during oral argument in Los Angeles.
By Merrill Balassone, April 03, 2024

https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/news-and-events/videophotos-make-uc-good-neighbor-v-regents-university-california

Posted on

Condensed Review of the Supreme Court Briefs for Housing Project #2 at People’s Park

(links to the numbered briefs follow below).

Of the five points that were appealed to the Court of Appeals NOISE and ALTERNATIVE SITES were reversed in our favor and on April 3, 2024 the Supreme Court will be reviewing those two points as requested by UC.

Documents 1-6 are the different requests to the Supreme Court for review of the Court of Appeals (COA) Opinion.

In UC Opening Merits brief (Document 7) they claim that noise generated by occupants of a residential project should not be considered in CEQA as an environmental impact. UC asserts that such noise would open the flood gates for discriminating against residents. UC further claims that noise complaints have existing city laws governing such complaints. On the alternative sites claim UC states that the Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) provides adequate analysis of alternative sites for Housing Project #2 and no more specific site specific analysis is required. As stated UC asserts their right to prioritize People’s Park as their choice on which to build student and supportive housing.

Make UC a Good Neighbor and People’s Park Historic Advocacy Group’s (OUR) answer to UC Merits brief (Document 8) argues that it is an abuse of discretion by UC to not consider sites that are potentially feasible locations for Housing Project #2; that UC’s feasibility criteria have been changed during the appeals process for their legal convenience; and that UC administration had considered alternatives and rejected them without treating them in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). OUR argument to the noise issue is that noise is already recognized as an environmental impact in CEQA; and that both UCB and the City of Berkeley have been dealing with serious undergraduate noise problems for years.

Next in UC’s reply to OUR answer (Document 9) UC cites case law (Goleta) in which alternative sites for a project that are analyzed in a programmatic document, such as an LRDP, need not be re-analyzed in site specific project analysis. In the current case that would mean no EIR was necessary for the People’s Park project regarding alternative sites.

Then on September 7, 2023 Governor Newsom signed AB 1307 (Document 10) thereby creating the new CEQA statutes 21085 and 21085.2. 21085 struck noise made by human beings as occupants of a residential project from consideration as a significant environmental impact. 21085.2 changed CEQA so that a housing, or mixed use, project of an institution of higher education need not consider alternative sites in a project EIR if alternative sites were treated in a higher level programmatic EIR.

As stated by UC attorney Jeremy Rosen (Document 11) “The Legislature passed this urgency legislation to overrule the Court of Appeals opinion in this matter with respect to People’s Park.

In Documents 12 OUR attorney objects to UC’s request that the Supreme Court examine the legislative history of AB 1307 to determine aspects of its intention.

In Document 13 OUR attorney requests that supplemental briefs, requested by the Court for argument regarding the effect of AB 1307 on the COA’s Opinion are not submitted simultaneously.

In UC’s Opening Supplemental brief (Document 14) UC asserts that AB 1307 confirms the merits (correctness) of their briefs. Without much argument or referral to case law they state that CEQA should not be expanded to allow noise of residential projects occupants to be considered an environmental impact (21085), and that Housing Project #2’s EIR need not consider alternative locations for that residential project since is student housing for an institution of higher education, and since alternative locations were discussed in the LRDP (21085.2).

Document 15 is another request for the Court to examine the legislative history of AB 1307.

In what may turn out to be the most critical filing for the preservation of People’s Park, Document 16 is OUR answer to UC’s supplemental brief. In that answer brief we concede that, being a residential project, both the noise (21085) and the alternative site (21085.2) changes in CEQA legally apply to Housing Project #2 at People’s Park. With those two new CEQA statutes in effect both claims on which we had prevailed in the COA are moot, i.e. no law exists under which the Supreme Court can rule for relief on OUR claims.

In that same answer brief (Document 16) OUR attorney builds a detailed case supporting OUR noise claim as an environmental impact in CEQA law. OUR assertions stem from the fact that 21085, as written, applies to residential projects. OUR noise claim arises from an LRDP project of increased enrollment for UCB. As explained, it is the increased number of students partying on the streets, and other locations in the Southside (not in student residences), that creates a negative environmental impact.

Should the Supreme Court concur with OUR argument on the noise issue the EIR could be returned to the Superior Court for modification.

The Justices of the Supreme Court may question the attorneys on issues dealing with background and structure of AB 1307 or how the new statutes effect previous court rulings.

Documents 18 thru 24 are amicus briefs from various government institutions and one other request for consideration of legislative history which I will not cover.

As this summary of 1/3 (Supreme Court only) of our attorney’s efforts indicates this has been a costly law suit. We are indebted to them for excellent representation of People’s Park, but also simply indebt to them for a large sum of money. Please donate whatever you can using this QR link below to our Venmo account or go to peoplesparkhxdist.org for our GoFundMe donation link. THANK YOU from PEOPLE’S PARK HISTORIC DISTRICT ADVOCACY GROUP

Venmo QR code

Viewing the Oral Arguments at April 3, 2024 Supreme Court session opens at 8:30 am here:

https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/case-information/oral-arguments/webcast-library

S279242 – MAKE UC A GOOD NEIGHBOR v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA (RESOURCES FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT)

(Links to the numbered briefs follow below)

  1. Respondents’ Petition for Review Filed on March 28, 2023 https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/supremecourt/default/documents/1-40-s279242-resps-pet-rev- 032823.pdf
  2. Appellants’ Petition for Review Filed on April 4, 2023 https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/supremecourt/default/documents/2-90-s279242-apps-pet-rev- 040423.pdf
  3. Appellants’ Answer to Petition for Review Filed on April 12, 2023 https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/supremecourt/default/documents/3-100-s279242-apps-answer- pet-rev-041223.pdf
  4. Respondents’ Answer to Petition for Review Filed on April 24, 2023 https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/supremecourt/default/documents/4-115-s279242-resps- answer-pet-rev-042423.pdf
  5. Respondents’ Reply to Answer to Petition for Review Filed on April 24, 2023 https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/supremecourt/default/documents/5-120-s279242-resps-reply- answer-pet-rev-042423.pdf
  6. Appellants’ Reply to Answer to Petition for Review Filed on May 3, 2023 https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/supremecourt/default/documents/6-160-s279242-apps-reply- answer-pet-rev-050323.pdf
  7. Respondents’ Opening Brief on the Merits Filed on June 16, 2023 https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/supremecourt/default/documents/7-400-s279242-resps- opening-brief-merits-061623.pdf
  8. Appellants’ Answer Brief on the Merits Filed on August 4, 2023 https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/supremecourt/default/documents/8-530-s279242-apps-answer- brief-merits-080423.pdf
  9. Respondent, The Regents of the University of California, Reply Brief on the Merits Filed on August 24, 2023 https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/supremecourt/default/documents/9-570-s279242-resp-regents- univ-ca-reply-brief-merits-082423.pdf
  10. Respondent, The Regents of the University of California, Request for Judicial Notice Filed on August 24, 2023 https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/supremecourt/default/documents/10-580-s279242-resp- regents-univ-ca-req-jud-notice-082423.pdf
  11. Respondent, The Regents of the University of California, September 8, 2023, Letter Filed on September 8, 2023 https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/supremecourt/default/documents/11-590-s279242-resp- regents-univ-ca-090823-ltr-090823.pdf
  12. Appellants’ Opposition Filed on September 8, 2023 https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/supremecourt/default/documents/12-600-s279242-apps-opp- 090823.pdf
  13. Appellants’ September 8, 2023, Letter Filed on September 8, 2023 https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/supremecourt/default/documents/13-610-s279242-apps- 090823-ltr-090823.pdf
  14. Respondent, The Regents of the University of California, Supplemental Brief Filed on September 20, 2023 https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/supremecourt/default/documents/14-665-s279242-resp- regents-univ-ca-supp-brief-092023.pdf
  15. Respondent, The Regents of the University of California, Request for Judicial Notice Filed on September 20, 2023 https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/supremecourt/default/documents/15-670-s279242-resp- regents-univ-ca-req-jud-notice-092023.pdf
  16. Appellants’ Reply to Supplemental Brief Filed on October 4, 2023 https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/supremecourt/default/documents/16-695-s279242-apps-reply- supp-brief-100423.pdf
  17. Appellants’ Opposition Filed on October 4, 2023 https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/supremecourt/default/documents/17-710-s279242-apps-opp- 100423.pdf
  18. Appellants’ Request for Judicial Notice Filed on October 4, 2023 https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/supremecourt/default/documents/18-720-s279242-apps-req- jud-notice-100423.pdf
  19. Amicus Curiae Brief of City of Berkeley Filed on October 4, 2023 https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/supremecourt/default/documents/19-760-s279242-ac-city- berkeley-100423.pdf
  20. Respondent, The Regents of the University of California, Reply to Supplemental Brief Filed on October 9, 2023 https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/supremecourt/default/documents/20-780-s279242-resp-reply- supp-brief-100923.pdf
  21. Amicus Curiae Brief of The Two Hundred for Homeownership Filed on October 16, 2023 https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/supremecourt/default/documents/21-810-s279242-ac-the-two- hundred-for-homeownership-101623.pdf
  22. Amicus Curiae Brief of League of California and California State Association of Counties Filed on October 16, 2023 https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/supremecourt/default/documents/22-850-s279242-ac-league- ca-cities-et-al-101623.pdf
  23. Amicus Curiae, The Two Hundred for Homeownership, Notice of Errata Filed on October 20, 2023 https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/supremecourt/default/documents/23-870-s279242-ac-two- hundred-homeownership-notice-errata-102023.pdf
  24. Appellants’ Response to Amicus Curiae Brief Filed on October 25, 2023 https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/supremecourt/default/documents/24-880-s279242-apps-resp- ac-brief-102523.pdf

PDF of this document
https://www.peoplespark.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Review-of-Supreme-Court-Briefs-for-Housing-Project-2024-04-02.pdf

Posted on

Supreme Court of California hears arguments on People’s Park CEQA case April 3

The Supreme Court of California will hear the Oral Arguments in our People’s Park CEQA case in Los Angeles on April 3, 2024 at 9 am. The attorneys will make points and respond to questions posed by the justices.

An important area of discussion is how the new CEQA regulations (21085 and 21085.2) created by AB 1307 affect the decision of the Court of Appeals (COA) that the Supreme Court is reviewing. For one example, 21085.2 can be seen as making the return of the EIR for Housing Project #2 at People’s Park back to the trial court, as the COA has ruled, a moot point. On another point it could be argued that the criteria for enactment of 20185.2 was not met and the COA decision is still enforceable. The issues in the case are quite complex due to AB 1307.

See the People’s Park Documents archive for information on the case.

Posted on

People’s Park National Trust Letter – December 22, 2023

National Trust for Historic Preservation®

December 22, 2023

Harvey Smith
People’s Park Historic District Advocacy Group
P.O. Box 1234
Berkeley, CA 74701-1234

Re: People’s Park, Berkeley, CA, and Make UC a Good Neighbor v. Regents of the University of California, No. S279242

Dear Mr. Smith,

The National Trust for Historic Preservation (“National Trust”) wishes to express our support for the preservation of historic People’s Park in Berkeley, California. People’s Park is listed on the National Register of Historic Places as nationally significant for its association with student protests and countercultural activities during the 1960s. The National Register of Historic Places is fundamentally a land-use planning tool that is intended to help prevent the loss of and harm to historic resources, and People’s Park’s inclusion on it should encourage just such a positive outcome. The National Trust is committed to advocating for significant historic places like People’s Park, and we hope that our support helps emphasize the national significance of People’s Park and the importance of exploring all possible opportunities for its preservation.

The National Trust was chartered by Congress in 1949 as a private charitable, educational, and nonprofit organization to “facilitate public participation” in historic preservation, and to further the purposes of federal historic preservation laws. See 54 U.S.C. § 312102(a). With over one million members and supporters, the National Trust works to protect significant historic places and to advocate for historic preservation as a fundamental value in programs and policies at all levels of government. In addition, the Chairman of the National Trust has been designated by Congress as a member of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (“ACHP”), which is responsible for overseeing federal agency compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, id. §§ 304101(8), 304108(a).

One of the National Trust’s core areas of advocacy is the defense of local, state, and federal historic preservation laws. We understand that the People’s Park Historic Advocacy Group is currently involved in a lawsuit challenging, among other things, the inadequate analysis of alternatives under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The National Trust wishes to express our support for the full exploration of all potential alternatives that result in the preservation of People’s Park. The exploration of alternatives is a core protection provided to historic places by CEQA. For projects that are not dependent on a single location, such as the proposed construction of student housing, a robust alternatives analysis can often identify superior win-win solutions that allow both preservation and new construction. We hope that just such a solution can be identified that enables both the construction of new student housing in Berkeley and the preservation of People’s Park.

The National Trust would be happy to work with the People’s Park Historic Advocacy Group to help envision historic preservation opportunities at People’s Park and to advocate for its preservation. People’s Park is a unique historic place that is integral to the story of both Berkeley and the nation, and the National Trust supports the work that the Advocacy Group is doing to prevent its destruction. Please feel free to share this expression of our support in any way that may be helpful, and we look forward to continuing to work with your organization.

Sincerely,

Rob Nieweg
Senior Vice-President
Preservation Services & Outreach

Elizabeth S. Merritt
Deputy General Counsel

Chris Cody
Associate General Counsel

600 14th Street NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20005
E law@savingplaces.org P 202.588.6035 F 202.588.6038 SavingPlaces.org

View the PDF version of the letter

Posted on

Alert to Defend People’s Park – December 30, 2023

The People’s Park Council sent out a text alert today, December 30, at 1:30 pm. It is a “heads up” for imminent attack on People’s Park. (Background info: Several sources have warned the call is out for a large number of police to be at the Park, 5 am, Tuesday January 2.) The People’s Park community refers people to the www.peoplespark.org web site, and also announces a December 31 Noon meeting at People’s Park for all to organize for park defense. Note: Please keep your phone ringer on especially on the night of January 1, 2024.

Text SAVETHEPARK to 41372 — and share this number! If possible, disable your phone’s “Do Not Disturb” for the first week of January to ensure you get nighttime alerts.