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

Update on legal action to protect People’s Park, July 21, 2022

The First Appellate Court with the help of the People’s Park Historic District Advocacy Group has just taken down another of University of California’s (UC) attempts to take the park. On Friday, UC had asked Judge Roesch for permission to erect a fence around the park and Roesch denied them, saying I’Il see you both in court on July 29, 2022.

Well, UC was back with another complaint on Saturday demanding an expedited rehearing or Motion to Remand and saying they were improperly denied their request for a bond to cover increased construction cost incurred by the stay.

Today the First Appellate court said: NO REHEARING OR REMAND, and NO BOND. Their order instructed our team to file a response to UC Motion to Remand by August 3rd. We may see that response sooner than August 3rd. Remember the trial on the merits is July 29, 2022.

Letter from David L. Axelrod, Attorney for the Petitioners

July 21, 2022

To:
The PEOPLE,
PEOPLE’S PARK COUNCIL,
MAKE UC A GOOD NEIGHBOR, and
People’s Park Historic District Advocacy Group

Blurb – For Immediate Release

Re: Make UC a Good Neighbor, et al. v. City of Berkeley, et al., and U.C.

The above-referenced case started out as a Petition in Alameda Superior Court by People’s Park advocacy groups for a Writ of Mandate against Berkeley City Council, the Mayor, and the City itself, for violation of the Ralph M. Brown Act by the City’s adoption of a secret sell-out agreement with the University of California (UC) in violation of applicable California open-meeting laws.

Soon thereafter, the Court, by Judge Frank Roesch, expanded the action to include the University of California (UC), and later permitted or encouraged causes of action against UC for breach of contractual agreements with People’s Park representatives, namely the People’s Park Council and People’s Park Project/ Native Plant Forum.

As of today, July 21, 2022, in ruling on the City’s Demurrer, Judge Roesch has thrown out the Petition against the City, while the Complaint against UC remains intact. In doing so, Judge Roesch declined to enforce Berkeley’s Measure N, and also concluding that Berkeley’s Measure L does not apply to People’s Park. On behalf of the Petitioners, we argued that the City Respondents have violated Measure N by surrendering to UC, rather than upholding applicable laws, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Measure L, which expressly applies to all “vacant public land . . . used de facto as open space . . .,” whether or not owned by the City.

Judge Roesch also ruled that the Petitioners had failed to file a government claim within six (6) months of the City’s wrongful act. On behalf of the Petitioners, we argued that The Government Claims Statute does not apply to our Petition for Writ of Mandamus, which simply seeks a stay, declaratory judgment, and other equitable relief, rather than being a claim for monetary damages resulting from foreseeable losses that have not yet actually occurred.

Judge Roesch also ruled in favor of a Motion to Strike large segments of the amended Petition, even though the Motion had been untimely filed five (5) days after the deadline approved in a Stipulation of the parties and an Order of the Court.

Robert Perlmutter, attorney for the City, tried to keep the City in the case as a “real party in interest,” but the Court denied this request. Accordingly, the City Respondents are now totally excluded from this case.

The only question is whether to appeal now, based upon the dismissal of all causes of action against the City entities, or to appeal after final judgment is entered in the case in chief. The only remaining now is the Defendant UC. This lawsuit, like People’s Park itself, appears to be hanging by a thread at this time.

As requested by the Petitioners, Judge Roesch did properly take Judicial Notice of the Stay Order issued by the Court of Appeal in a closely-related CEQA case, temporarily preventing destruction of the Park by UC. But he also stated that the Order was “irrelevant” to the Demurrer. Perhaps a similar order, but broader and longer lasting, can be sought in what is the newly revamped and evolved iteration of our case at law aiming to save the Park.
May 1000 parks bloom!!

For Plants and Peace,

DAVID L. AXELROD,
Attorney for the Petitioners,
PEOPLE’S PARK COUNCIL,
MAKE UC A GOOD NEIGHBOR, and
People’s Park Historic District Advocacy Group

Posted on

Presentation by People’s Park Historic District Friday, August 27, 2021, 6–9 pm, Canessa Gallery, San Francisco

Last Friday two lawsuits were filed in Alameda County Superior Court against UC Berkeley and the UC Regents. Two community groups and AFSCME Local 3299 are challenging the impact of growth plans of the university. Previously another filing was done on the Berkeley City Council’s violations of the Brown Act, in formulating and adopting the City’s recent secret “settlement agreement” with the University of California.

The evening’s panel will discuss both legal and community organizing actions to stop implementation of UCB’s Long Range Development Plan (LRDP), a plan that seeks to destroy People’s Park and other irreplaceable neighborhood and community assets in Berkeley.

Panelists include historians, preservationists and activists – Charles Wollenberg, Lesley Emmington, Carol Denney, Joe Liesner and Harvey Smith.

The exhibit includes photographs, art work, posters and memorabilia from over 50 years of spirited community involvement in preserving the irreplaceable open space of the park.

People’s Park is at the center of sixteen other officially recognized city landmarks, which collectively are a de facto historic district. They represent the heritage of the 1960s and the larger theme of a century of town/gown relationships. Berkeley became a major target of the New Right conservative backlash with Ronald Reagan promising to “clean up the mess in Berkeley.”

UC’s plans also threaten three historic buildings, including a rent-controlled apartment building, in another project funded by an anti-rent control developer.

The university has exceeded its agreed enrollment limits, creating enormous housing displacement throughout the city. The university has responded to years of state budget austerity by monetizing its public assets in a corporate-like growth that has also become a drain on city resources.

UCB proposes to cover People’s Park with a 17-story concrete monolith, probably to be erected by a private housing firm that will profit from student occupants. This would destroy both a historical and cultural legacy and much needed open space when reasonable alternatives are available.

If Berkeley all but invented the sixties, surely the city and its university should be able to commemorate that decade by preserving People’s Park as the heart and soul of a vital historic district.

Presentation by People’s Park Historic District
Friday, August 27, 2021, 6–9 pm
Canessa Gallery
708 Montgomery Street, San Francisco

Masks and Covid vaccination required.

For more information, contact Harvey Smith at 510-684-0414.

Sponsored by the People’s Park Historic District Advocacy Group.

Posted on

People’s Park and Neighborhood Groups Challenge UC’s 2021 LRDP

In a lawsuit claiming the nearly total inadequacy of the University of California’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on its 2021 Long Range Development Plan and Housing Project #1 and Housing Project #2 (LRDP) a team of lawyers representing Make UC a Good Neighbor and the People’s Park Historic Advocacy Group (PPHDAG) are seeking to void approval of the LRDP and the EIR, and thereby stop all activities proposed in that LRDP. This legal action is of great importance to supporters of People’s Park since it would mean significant delays for any attempts to destroy the Park by erecting three buildings on that beloved site. It would also keep our friends at 1921 Walnut Street in their rent controlled homes for the time being.

The lead attorney in this suit, Thomas Lippe, has prevailed in two California Environmental Quality Act cases against the University of California and, because his most recent victory against UC concerned plans to build on Upper Hearst, Mr Lippe is very familiar with the 2021 LRDP. This suit wast filed on August 20, 2021 in the Superior Court of California in and for the county of Alameda.

It describes the nearly total failure of the EIR for the 2021 LEDP to adequately either describe or address the environmental effects caused by the program or projects proposed in the LRDP. Among its contentions are that the EIR fails to make required findings, fails to propose and evaluate adequate mitigation measures, fails to respond in good faith to the public comments received in response to the draft EIR, and fails to lawfully assess the LRDP’s effects on traffic, noise, air pollution, population and housing, parks and recreation, or historic and cultural resources.

This site will post any response from UC or upcoming court dates as they are announced.

— joe liesner, secretary People’s Park Historic District Advocacy Group

Donate to Lawsuit at:
People’s Park Historic District Advocacy Group
P.O. Box 1234
Berkeley, CA 94701-1234

More information at peoplesparkhxdist.org

Full text PDF:
Make UC A Good Neighbor, et al., v The Regents – LRDP Petition.pdf