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:
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?
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
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
Viewing the Oral Arguments at April 3, 2024 Supreme Court session opens at 8:30 am here:
Compiled from video footage taken by Aidan Hill, and audio from KPFK
On April 23rd, 2023 the long embattled People’s Park community in Berkeley California celebrated its 54th Anniversary, and paid tribute to one of its founders, Michael Delacour, who passed away on March 9th, 2023.
With an introduction by Michael Novick of Pacifica community radio station KPFK 90.7 FM Los Angeles, when it was aired there on Somethings Happening on June 6th, 2023.
What follows are the voices of
Tiny Gray Garcia
Ed Monroe
David Axelrod
Odile Hugonot
Alan Haber
Andrea Prichett
Aidan Hill
Albert from the boilermakers union
Carol Denney
Stevie B
Cheryl Davila
Reggie
Andrea Mallis
Hali Hammer
and others remembering Michael Delacour.
For more information about Michael and People’s Park, and to watch the full 8 hour video of the anniversary, please browse to PeoplesPark.org online, or better yet, come visit Berkeley in person and help plant some trees in People’s Park!
People’s Park is currently barricaded by stacked shipping containers topped with razor wire and guarded round-the-clock, following a midnight raid in early January by combined police forces from UC, CSU, Alameda County, San Francisco City and County and the California State Highway Patrol, organized by the UC Berkeley administration. Why? “The existing legal issues will inevitably be resolved, so we are taking this necessary step now to minimize the possibilities of conflict and confrontation, and of disruption for the public and our students, when we are cleared to resume construction,” said Chancellor Carol Christ (The Berkeleyan, January 16, 2024). Like others in the flood of official campus public relations communications with which students, faculty and staff have been inundated since the Chancellor’s 2017 announcement of plans to build student housing on the park, this response falls short of explaining why there is such fear of “conflict and confrontation” and such strong opposition to these plans, even from students whose interests the plans are supposed to serve.
For a broader range of perspectives on what was and is going on at People’s Park, Teach-Ins have been organized by UC Berkeley students (January 24) and by community groups (February 4). Please join us for the next one. There will be ample time for Q and A. Fiat Lux!
Presenters:
Harvey Smith, organizer of the People’s Park Historic District Advocacy Group and project advisor for The Living New Deal, UC Berkeley Department of Geography
Tom Dalzell, labor lawyer and author of The Battle for People’s Park, Berkeley 1969
Tony Platt, author of The Scandal of Cal: Land Grabs, White Supremacy and Miseducation at UC Berkeley and affiliated scholar at Berkeley’s Center for the Study of Law and Society
Steve Wasserman, publisher of Heyday Books and park activist since 1969
Sylvia T, recent UC Berkeley graduate, independent archival researcher and People’s Park defender
Sara Pech, Historic Preservation Club, a UC Berkeley student group
Representatives from the Suitcase Clinic, a UC Berkeley student group
Moderator:
Kristin Hanson, Professor of English, UC Berkeley
Please note that although masking is no longer required on campus it is much appreciated.
Media outlets are reporting that UC Berkeley intends to attack People’s Park in the first week of January 2024. Yes, 16 months after UC’s failed attempt in August of 2022 to fence and destroy the park, they have regrouped and now they are ready to go back on the offensive.
We won’t let them destroy it!
Park defenders are preparing to protect People’s Park once again, as we have successfully done for the past 54 years. While there are still some issues winding their way through the courts, the situation has changed since 2022. State politicians such as Buffy Wicks, Nancy Skinner and Gov. Gavin Newsom have worked to change the law to enable UC Berkeley to ignore environmental law and finish their conquest of People’s Park.
The university will rely on hordes of riot police to do their dirty work. Do not be afraid! Come join us! When it comes to the park, the people have always prevailed — but we can’t do it without you.
Now is the time to prepare and get ready to mobilize. Get supplies together in preparation for a late-night, or early morning, resistance. Tell your friends about the Park and encourage them to join you.
Get connected in the following ways:
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.
For further updates, text “@pplspark6” to 81010
Come out to the park to meet people and get prepared.
Form Affinity Groups so that you and your friends can engage in creative resistance to help save the park. Diversity of tactics is encouraged!
Protecting People’s Park affirms Berkeley’s radical tradition and the park’s place in our hearts and social fabric. It is listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places as a place of major historic and cultural significance and value, and is home to free daily food servings, basketball, and companionship of plants, animals, and humans.
Press Release: Wicks legislation may kill Berkeley low income housing project Date: August 23, 2023
For Immediate Release
Contact: Harvey Smith, People’s Park Historic District Advocacy Group, 510-684-0414, peoplesparkhxdist@gmail.com
State Assembly Member Buffy Wicks (D, East Bay), a vocal backer of housing for the poor and unhoused, has introduced a bill that may likely kill a supportive housing project for the homeless proposed by UC Berkeley on People’s Park, a federally recognized historic site listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
Federal law generally bans the use of Federal funds on housing projects proposed on National Historic sites unless the developer submits to an extensive Federal review, including consideration of alternative sites. UC Berkeley has declined to participate in this process, so HUD has determined at this time that federal funds would not be available for the project
Harvey Smith, president of the People’s Park Historic District Advocacy Group, said “We have urged UC to use an alternative site, just one block away, that would accommodate both the student housing and the supportive housing, and which would be eligible for Federal funding with no need for a Federal review. This would be a win-win solution for the university and the community.”
The university’s Project #2 plans to construct about 1000 units of student housing and more than 100 units of supportive housing for low income people in Berkeley’s People’s Park, site of one of the major social, political, and cultural conflicts of the 1960s. The park, owned by the university, has remained public open space since 1972.
Construction is currently blocked by a California State Appeals Court decision in a lawsuit brought by plaintiffs who favor building the project on a more appropriate university owned site. The court required the university to seriously consider more than a dozen alternative properties, and the university has appealed the decision to the State Supreme Court. The non-profit chosen by the university to build the supportive housing has dropped out of the project and no replacement developer has been named. Generally, long term supportive housing projects require a significant level of Federal funding
Wicks’ bill, AB1307, attempts to allow the university to build the project in People’s Park without considering alternatives. The park is an official historical landmark, recognized by both the Berkeley City and California State governments. It is also on the National Register of Historic Places, a list established by federal law to designate sites of such national historical importance that they deserve preservation.
Supporters of Peoples Park have urged UC to move the project to the decrepit Channing parking structure, a 1.7 acre university property located just one block west of the park. It’s now occupied by a sixty-year-old parking structure that must be taken down for seismic reasons. The university has designated the site for eventual student housing but has no specific project or designated funding for that purpose.
Harvey Smith said, “We urge Wicks to drop her amendment and urge the university to build the project in an appropriate alternative location. This would assure the construction of both much-needed student and supportive housing. And it would preserve an invaluable historic resource, consistent with federal preservation policy. Finally it would also preserve the only public open space in Berkeley’s most densely populated neighborhood.”
A misguided disaster struck People’s Park and many trees dear to us were chopped down, killed. We will continue to revitalize the park with resources anyone can contribute.
The dryness in summer is hurting trees, bushes, community gardens with flowers, herbs and vegetables, and happens when UC keeps the water turned off. Park gardeners do what they can in transporting water bucket by bucket. Please contact us if you are able to help out. Every bucket makes a difference, and it can be a great group activity if you get your friends together to do a bucket brigade. Send us photos to post when you do this!
Michael Delacour visioning the future of People’s Park — photo: Nacio Jan BrownMichael Delacour circa 1970 — photo: Nacio Jan BrownMichael Delacour speaks at a student organization gathering at People’s Park – photo: Harold AdlerMichael Delacour and friends at People’s Park – photo: Harold AdlerMichael Delacour speaking to students at People’s ParkMichael Delacour talking with police officer in People’s ParkGina and Dusk DelacourGina dancing with cat in arms in the sunshine at a People’s Park eventMichael Delacour and Gina at People’s Park eventPeople’s Park gathering on the sunny lawn for music and speakersWave Gravy clowning around at People’s Park eventMichael Delacour and Matt at Free Box construction in People’s ParkMichael Delacour and Charles Gary at Free Box construction in People’s ParkMichael Delacour at Free Box construction at People’s Park
It is with great sadness that we’re sharing the news that Michael Delacour, one of the founders of People’s Park, died Thursday, March 9, 2023.
From Odile Hugonot Haber, who lived with Michael for 6-1/2 years in the 1980s, and who shared some pre-People’s Park history:
Michael Delacour was born in San Diego. His mother I think was born in England.
Maybe her father, Michael’s grandfather lived on the cliff of San Diego in a big house.
He was a Professor of art, maybe had been involved in prints. He had been brought from England by the University of San Diego.
His mother Jean maybe, married his father, maybe a student then. He had bought a fishing boat. He He loved fishing in the sea, and they lived on money inherited from the grandfather. Michael remembered going on his boat with him. His father died of a heart attack and his mother was a widow, with 4 children, 2 boys and 2 girls.
Michael was recruited or sent to the national guard as a youth. Then he told me that he worked in a giant Naval factory in San Diego that built missiles. He thought it was amazing how many people worked there together in this giant workplace. He learned working there with other people. He got married very young to Leslie and they had 3 children Kathy, Vanessa and David.
When his work sent him to work elsewhere, his wife left him, and met a German man.
Michael was heartbroken and got very depressed and took care of his 3 children.
He was depressed and they gave him shock treatment therapy. It was very hard for him.
Then he went to Berkeley just when the anti-war movement got started. He became a boiler maker and was very active in the boilermaker union. He got active in the antiwar Vietnam peace movement and when the Free Speech movement started moving to People’s Park. He got involved with the Park. He had an important role in the creation of the People’s Park.
For most of his life he watched People’s Park and was very active in it. He was generally very active politically and once he ran to be mayor of Berkeley. He had a different slogan posted high on telephone polls, they were silk screen or painted.
He was part of the Rank and File coalition and wrote articles in the Rank and File’s news,
Michael always regretted his lack of education and felt slighted by it. Michael believed in direct action and was good at it.
From Max Ventura:
Michael and I met as part of Campaign Against Apartheid, which intersected a lot with the park and the larger movement, and Odile and Michael and I were part of the Homeless Direct Action Collective (HDAC, pronounced headache), a true headache for the politicians in town. Based in the park, we did two occupations of Provo Park, what now is referred to as Civic Center Park: Loniville, and Loniville 2 to demand the City help those on the streets. Yup.. back in the mid-80’s. Getting no action via the city, we took to squatting houses which had been vacant for years, some 10-15. Many privately owned.. land speculation… but many city-owned. Michael, with all his skills, got water and electricity going. We used to joke that we had luxury squats. He also brokered an arrangement with one of our large squats, 2 units, so that it was able to be a squat fairly longterm. While many of our squats were very public to press the political choices politicians were making, we all and Michael also supported quiet squats, to simply allow people indoor shelter. Michael always related not only to the working class, but the most vulnerable in our society, and always was ready to go, chomping at the bit, to take direct action to make a society for all.
Michael was struck by how all those workers in the missile factory worked together as a team, in that case to help facilitate death, but he took that knowledge of the power of working together and recast it as part of the anti-war movement, and the building of People’s Park. If he’s looking down now, he’d probably be yelling at us all as we write about him, calling us elitists because we can write. How many times he yelled that at me when he wasn’t asking me to write something and then when I reminded him I have exactly zero plumbing or electrical or mechanical skills which he used all the time in the movement, he’d nod. Often, the next moment he’d be chuckling, glad to be recognized for his invaluable skills and work. Only a couple years ago when there was water backing up in pipes to the park, he was out there leading a few of us in trying to pinpoint the source of the issue. Always hands-on. “Everyone Gets a Blister!”
Michael was about DOing, not just talking, and that is, perhaps, his most important legacy. People’s Park is his legacy. People around the world are inspired by it. We look forward to our celebrating him further April 23rd at our 54th anniversary!
From Isis Feral:
I met Michael when I was a teenager in the Campaign Against Apartheid in the mid-1980s. Another example of Michael fighting on behalf of the oppressed was more recently when, together with his late wife Gina, he joined my dad and me in court to advocate for the release of one of our family members, who had been incarcerated in a psychiatric institution, where she was being forcibly drugged, and threatened with conservatorship. Thanks to their determined solidarity, we were able to bring her home that day.
From Lisa Teague:
This 2018 article by Tom Dalzell has a lot of old photos and information about Delacour family history, as well as Park history:
We dedicate this year’s People’s Park 54th Anniversary to Michael Delacour as a celebration of his life and work.
Michael Delacour Presente!
Help Dusk Delacour, Michael Delacour’s son with a contribution
A GoFundMe account has been created to help pay for the costs of Michael Delacour’s cremation, memorial and to help his son, Dusk, to get set up in a new location. Please give what you can and help spread the word. In this way, may we honor our comrades and each other. https://gofund.me/dfff700c
This 2018 article by Tom Dalzell has a lot of old photos and information about Delacour family history, as well as Park history.
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
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:
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.
