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

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.

Posted on

People’s Park Update – December 2023

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:

  1. 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.
  2. For further updates, text “@pplspark6” to 81010
  3. Come out to the park to meet people and get prepared.
  4. Form Affinity Groups so that you and your friends can engage in creative resistance to help save the park. Diversity of tactics is encouraged!
  5. Please donate to:
    People’s Park Council: https://account.venmo.com/u/PeoplesParkCouncil
    People’s Park Historic District Advocacy Group: https://gofund.me/ae2351ea or http://www.peoplesparkhxdist.org/donate-now/
  6. Visit defendthepark.org and peoplespark.org for info & resources.
  7. Follow us on Instagram! https://www.instagram.com/peoplesparkberkeley/

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.

Let a thousand parks bloom!

People’s Park Council

Posted on

Press Release: Wicks legislation may kill Berkeley low income housing project

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.”

Posted on

Revitalizing our People’s Park in Berkeley

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!

photos from August 4, 2022

Posted on

People’s Park 54th Anniversary, music, speakers, green space gathering, Sunday, April 23, 2023, 11 AM to 7 PM

People's Park 54th Anniversary poster illustration of people gathering to celebrate the park

People’s Park 54th Anniversary
(in memory of Michael Delacour)
Sunday, April 23, 2023, 11 AM to 7 PM

Climate Event, Yukon Hannibal and Drummers, Welcome by Eddie and talk about Michael, Jordan Huez, Speakers, Hali Hammer and Randy Berge, Max Ventura, dress, and George Franklin, Marika Sage, Speakers, Moth Morgue, Speakers – Aidan Hill, Cheryl Davila, others, Driftwood Dave duo, Speakers – Alan Haber, Odile Hugonot, others, Evelie Delfino Såles Posch, Carol Denney, Speakers, Afterthought, Andrea Mallis, astrologer, FiLTHMiLK, Speakers – Russell Bates and others, Andrea Prichett group, Speakers, Jazmin, Speakers, Gurschach, Closing

11:00-12:00: Climate Event
12:00-12:30: Yukon Hannibal and Drummers
12:30-12:40: Welcome by Eddie and talk about Michael
12:40-12:55: Jordan Huez
12:55-1:10: Speakers
1:10-1:25: Evelie Delfino Såles Posch
1:25-1:35: Max Ventura, dress, and George Franklin
1:35-1:50: Marika Sage
1:50-2:05: Speakers
2:05-2:20: Moth Morgue
2:20-2:35: Speakers – Aidan Hill, Cheryl Davila, others
2:35-2:50: Driftwood Dave duo
2:50-3:05: Speakers – Alan Haber, Odile Hugonot, others
3:05-3:20: Hali Hammer and Randy Berge
3:20-3:35: Carol Denney
3:35-3:50: Speakers
3:50-4:05: Afterthought
4:05-4:15: Andrea Mallis, astrologer
4:15-4:45: FiLTHMiLK
4:45-5:00: Speakers – Russ and others
5:00-5:15: Andrea Prichett group
5:15-5:30: Speakers
5:30-6:00: Jazmin
6:00-6:15: Speakers
6:15-6:45: Gurschach
6:45-7:00: Closing

Download posters:

Poster (color) 54th Anniversary People’s Park, 2023, version 2
https://www.peoplespark.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/poster-54th-Anniversary-PeoplesPark-colorV2.jpg

Poster (black & white) 54th Anniversary People’s Park, 2023, version 2
https://www.peoplespark.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/poster-54th-Anniversary-PeoplesPark-bwV2.jpg

Please also come this related event:

Broad Community Meeting to Save the Park

We hope to see people from many organizations as we work toward long term stewardship and maintenance of the park in perpetuity. This is to build an inclusive community wide planning and working group to revitalize our park and to create a commons for all.

SATURDAY, APRIL 29, 1–4 PM
Community Meeting Room in Berkeley Central Library
2090 Kittredge Street, Berkeley, CA 94704

54th Anniversary Celebration: We are Peoples Park! Berkeley, CA

Posted by People's Park Community on Sunday, April 23, 2023
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

Lawsuit Update, November 22, 2022

On PROGRESS (or lack thereof) in the Matter of MAKE UC A GOOD NEIGHBOR, PEOPLE’S PARK HISTORICAL DISTRICT ADVOCACY GROUP, and PEOPLE’S PARK COUNCIL vs. BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL, MAYOR JESSE ARREGUIN, CITY OF BERKELEY, and REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA d.b.a. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT BERKELEY, Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG21105966:

Our lawsuit on behalf of three (3) People’s Park groups commenced over a year ago, August 2, 2021, as a Petition for Writ of Mandate against the Berkeley City Council and Mayor for violation of the California open-meeting law (the Ralph M. Brown Act) and for violation of certain laws, including Berkeley Measure L and Measure N (true copies of which are attached to this email message).

Berkeley Measure L and Measure N (PDF)

The case, originally a Petition against the City Defendants, has now morphed essentially into a Complaint for Breach of Contract against the University of California (“UC”).

Under the purview of Hon. Frank Roesch, an Alameda Superior Court judge, People’s Park’s pleadings have now been amended four (4) times in response to demurrers and other motions designed to defeat the people’s efforts to challenge the Berkeley City Council and Mayor’s secret agreement with UC, a deal by which the City corruptly colluded with UC to sell out the public interest in controlling overcrowding, in receiving equitable compensation for City services, in maintaining low-income housing, and in preserving parks and open space within the City limits, most notably, People’s Park.

On behalf of People’s Park Council and the two other non-profit community groups, I filed the 4th Amended Petition and Complaint on November 17, 2022, and directed a copy to David M. Robinson, Chief Campus Counsel for UC Berkeley. I then appeared before Judge Frank Roesch the following morning in a Zoom hearing for Case Management and Compliance. The next Case Management Conference is set for February 3, 2023, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 17.

The current incarnation of this People’s Park lawsuit, namely the 4th Amended Petition and Complaint, largely consists of an action against the Regents of the University of California (UC) alleging breach of contact. Specifically, UC breached multiple agreements with People’s Park Council and with the founding Park gardening group, People’s Park Project/ Native Plant Forum, agreements that date back as far as 1978 and 1979.

At least two (2) of these agreements were written and signed by representatives for People’s Park and the UC Berkeley campus administration, the Letter of Agreement dated May 8, 1978, and the Letter of Understanding, dated January 5, 1979. Some of the other agreements, both written and verbal, expressed and implied, were described in an open letter dated August 31, 1979, from Associate Vice Chancellor T. E. “Ted” Chenoweth to his boss, Vice Chancellor R. F. “Bob” Kerley. True copies of all three (3) contractual “Letters” are attached to this email message.

3 Letters of Agreement – University of California, Berkeley Campus Chancellor’s Office and the People’s Park Project/Native Plant Forum (PDF)

UC had systematically breached its solemn agreements with People’s Park organizations for many years, even before the most recent wanton and tragic acts of destruction, especially those wrought last summer, 2022. We will pursue the ongoing action for breach of contract, as well as planning to claim property damages in a separate proceeding.

Breach of contract may not be a crime, it’s true, but destruction of property and vandalism ARE indeed crimes. UC has wantonly and brazenly acted to destroy People’s Park, harming and killing trees, shrubs, wildlife habitat, and many other landscape features, including damage to the ramp for the People’s Stage.

These living items belong to the people, by and through the People’s Park organizations and volunteers who created them, bought and paid for them, installed and planted them. These items were and are NOT the property of UC or the Campus Administration. The People’s Park agreements that UC has violated are proof of UC’s knowledge, intent, and malice that underlie their recent wave of senseless damage, destruction, and desecration.

UC has willfully stifled and vandalized the fruits of our creativity. UC has also heartlessly employed unfortunate social ills and challenges, such as homelessness and drug use, as a cynical weapon to discredit and defame People’s Park and the Park community, blaming the victim for the very problems of neglect that UC has fostered and focussed upon the sacred ground of People’s Park.

With unity, persistence and love, we can hold UC accountable for these wrongs, and commence the process of transforming the Berkeley campus administration from a purveyor of public corruption and higher ignorance, into an institution of higher learning and public cooperation.

Wishing good luck and a happy holiday to all,

David

DAVID L. AXELROD,
Attorney at Law

Documents:

Berkeley Measure L and Measure N (PDF)

3 Letters of Agreement – University of California, Berkeley Campus Chancellor’s Office and the People’s Park Project/Native Plant Forum (PDF)

Posted on

Opinion: Breaking the impasse on People’s Park

This statement is published at:
https://www.berkeleyside.org/2023/01/10/opinion-peoples-park-student-housing-alternate-site

We suggest UC Berkeley commence construction of the student and supportive housing planned for the park on an alternate site as soon as possible.

By Shirley Dean and Gus Newport
Jan. 10, 2023, 8:01 a.m.

Although UC Berkeley has stated it wants to build 8,000 student housing beds as soon as possible, the university has picked a site, knowing it would be vigorously opposed, and now has caused months of delay. We suggest it commence construction of the student and supportive housing planned for People’s Park on an alternate site as soon as possible. Indeed, UCB has identified up to 15 alternative sites.

The National Register of Historic Places has recognized the value of People’s Park. The park has an over half-century legacy of cultural events; town, gown and political events; a biosystem of flora and fauna; a surround of highly significant architecture; and a role as an everyday community recreation site.

UC has been defeated in the courts in many of the California Environmental Quality Act challenges to its campus development plans. These court decisions have made it clear that UCB is not doing an adequate job of identifying and mitigating the impacts of its development in Berkeley.

Additionally, UC’s reckless demolition of most of the historic trees in People’s Park on Aug. 3 has threatened a key element of the HUD funding for the supportive housing portion of the project due to the lack of agreement to do the required federal environmental review, thus putting that project in jeopardy.

UCB’s almost 50% increase in enrollment (almost 15,000 students) means that the Southside of Berkeley desperately needs the open space of People’s Park. Based on the city’s recent population growth, concentrated in the areas nearest the campus, and the city’s standard of 2 acres of park and open space per 1,000 residents, the Southside neighborhoods need approximately 18 acres of new, accessible open space.

City planners agree increasingly dense urban areas need more parks, not fewer. Furthermore, the park is needed as a shelter during earthquakes, fires and pandemics – Berkeley will face them all again.

Now is the time to develop a feasible plan of action based on cooperation between the state, the University of California and Berkeley residents who host its flagship campus.

The park’s future should include proper maintenance, user development, and interpretation to provide Berkeley residents and visitors with information on all aspects of People’s Park — Berkeley’s incredible architectural legacy and the political and cultural history of activism on the Southside. Like other parks, it should become a welcoming recreation resource for anyone in the community – housed or unhoused city residents, students, and visitors of all backgrounds and income levels.

Both the city of Berkeley and UC Berkeley celebrate the Free Speech and Sixties history of the Telegraph Avenue corridor. It is an asset to the city and the university and draws visitors from around the globe to Berkeley. Preserving and enhancing the park can only add to its value as a treasured Berkeley attraction.

With the park’s permanence assured, its future could evolve in collaboration with the People’s Park Council, the long-standing consensus-based group of stewards and advocates for the park, with California Indian tribes, and with a land trust or conservancy. Financing for this vision could be through federal or state funds for parks.

Whatever future model is adopted for People’s Park, it is clear that the plan to destroy the park and the possibility of continuing conflict between park users and the university are neither desirable nor inevitable. Community members can develop a partnership with an enlightened public agency to preserve and enhance People’s Park in a way that honors its culture and heritage and provides valuable open space for the Southside neighborhood. With goodwill and hard work, this future is possible.

Shirley Dean and Gus Newport are former mayors of the city of Berkeley.