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

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

PRESS RELEASE – People’s Park Teach-In at UC Berkeley on February 26, 2024

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

“What’s Going On?”

A Teach-In on People’s Park

7-9 p.m., Monday, February 26, 2024
Maud Fife Room – 315 Wheeler Hall, UCB

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.

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.”


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

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)

The Future of People’s Park: panel discussion, February 26, 2021

The Future of People’s Park panel discussion was presented online by the People’s Park Historic Advocacy Group with Berkeley community members on February 26, 2021. Here’s a video of the discussion, archived on the People’s Park YouTube channel.

Presenters:

  • Harvey Smith – author of “Berkeley and the New Deal”, People’s Park Historic District Advocacy Group (event host)
  • Tom Dalzell – author of “The Battle for People’s Park Berkeley 1969”, “Quirky Berkeley” series, union leader, lawyer
  • Steve Wasserman – Participant and Activist during 1969, publisher of Heyday Books, career in publishing, editing and writing
  • Maxina Ventura – member of People’s Park Council (formerly Committee), Homeopath, environmental activist
  • Aidan Hill – Former Berkeley Mayoral Candidate, UCB Student/Graduate, candidate for District 7
  • Joe Liesner – long-time People’s Park activist, Food Not Bombs volunteer

Participants:

  • Joseph Copeland – raised near People’s Park, son of “People‘s Park” author Alan Copeland
  • Chuck Wollenberg – People’s Park Historic District Advocacy Group, Berkeley historian
  • David L. Axelrod – attorney at law, Sierra Law Office

UC Berkeley plans to build a high rise on People’s Park, which would destroy the historic and cultural legacy and an irreplaceable natural environment, has brought together writers, historians, students and park activists to oppose this ill-considered project.

Presenters share the historic background of the park, give details on the effort to recognize its national landmark status (**formally received this status May 2022), and share plans for revitalizing this invaluable public green, open space.

Event Transcript (text format)
https://www.peoplespark.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Future-of-Peoples-Park-February-26-2021-Event-Transcript.txt

Event Chat (text format)
https://www.peoplespark.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Future-of-Peoples-Park-February-26-2021-Event-Chat.txt

People’s Park Historic District Advocacy Group
https://peoplesparkhxdist.org

People’s Park website
https://peoplespark.org

Appeal Filed to Preserve People’s Park!

Make UC A Good Neighbor and the People’s Park Historic District Advocacy Group (PPHDAG) filed their joint opening brief to the appellate court this week against UC Berkeley under the California Environmental Quality Act challenging UC’s Long Range Development Plan and construction of housing on People’s Park.

We’ve said it before, but this excellent legal work needs to be supported. Please refer any and all to our DONATE NOW! page at http://www.peoplesparkhxdist.org/donate-now/

The appeal focuses on UC’s failure to analyze in its Environmental Impact Report (EIR) a lower-enrollment alternative or any alternative locations for the housing proposed at People’s Park. The lower-enrollment issue is similar to that at UC Santa Barbara, where the City of Goleta and Santa Barbara County have both sued the university for not complying with an agreement to build enough housing to keep up with its expanding student population. With the alternative location issue, UC is required to adequately assess alternative sites for student housing, which it has not done.

UC has twenty days to reply to our appeal brief. However, be assured UC Berkeley will continue its cynical and misleading public relations campaign on Housing Project #2 (People’s Park) belied by UC’s own planning documents. The goal is building 8,000 new student beds. However, UCB’s own Draft EIR includes a chart listing sixteen possible construction sites and proposed new beds provided by them. They total 13,566. The 1,100 hundred beds at the People’s Park site could easily be accommodated at these other sites.

The prime alternative site is just over a block away at the UC-owned Ellsworth Parking Structure, which UC says can provide up to 2,980 beds. Preserve a parking lot over a park’s much-needed urban recreational space? Why in the midst of extreme climate change must the trees and birds be part of a sacrifice zone? Urban planners agree that overcrowded urban areas like the Southside require more urban parks, not less, to promote human health and wellness and are needed in a time of drought, wildfires, pandemics and pending earthquakes.

Despite UCB’s claims of support, its student survey has been negatively critiqued in the Daily Cal, which has also written many well-researched articles and editorials denouncing the destruction of the park. Students were the primary participants in the recent effort to stop the fencing off the park. The Berkeley Faculty Association is also a critic of the plan to build on People’s Park.

UCB has described the housing crisis as “dire” and “acute.” We all realize that more affordable housing is needed, but most new housing is market rate and beyond the means of most students and the community. The crisis, however, can hardly be described as “acute” by UC Berkeley when it has known about its low ratio of housing per student for well over a half-century.

Campus messages portraying People’s Park as an area of frequent crime on the Southside is quickly countered by facts. A review of data from the Crimemapping website over a six-month period from January through June, 2022 for a 20-block area surrounding the park revealed that 94% of crime occurred outside of People’s Park. Crimes do occur there, but at a lower rate than the surrounding neighborhood. Keep in mind that the promoter of the image of the park as “crime-ridden” is the same institution that was fined $2.35 million in 2020 for underreporting campus crime.

The Chancellor’s message to the campus at the beginning of the semester was noteworthy in that it made absolutely no mention of People’s Park being added to the National Register of Historic Places. The value of the park as a cultural and historic site is beyond Berkeley, beyond California. It is nationally recognized and sought out by visitors from all over the world.

Now is the time for UC Berkeley to stop the delay in student housing construction by moving Project #2 to an appropriate location and to work with the community to make People’s Park a park that all can be proud of. The world is watching.

— Harvey Smith, People’s Park Historic District Advocacy Group
http://www.peoplesparkhxdist.org/donate-now/

Response to Chancellor Carol T. Christ’s August 15 message to students about People’s Park

In the dead of night, UC moved on the park — barricading city streets, blocking access to sidewalks, and fencing the park. Protected by riot police, heavy equipment was brought in. Peaceful protesters sat in front of that equipment to keep the park open and prevent further deforestation of the trees, which UC last did in 2018. People peacefully demonstrated against the heavy machinery and destruction of the trees. They had already witnessed the changing climate in the park after much of the east side forest was demolished by UC just a few years before. Students — of UC Berkeley, local colleges, and high schools — and other community members, including Berkeley neighbors and former residents of the park were outraged by the violent closure and destruction of this community resource.

The university has presented the project as an all-or-nothing: either people will sleep in squalid conditions on the street, or they will build housing on the park. This is a false dichotomy. The park is a vibrant community center, park and recreation space — one of the few accessible and open to everybody, including the poor who suffer within a rapidly gentrifying East Bay. Hundreds of people use the park daily, gathering to play basketball or music, to share food, and community. None of these resources are preserved in the university’s plans, which would turn our park into a sterile dorm lawn. Maximo Martinez Commons is a courtyard just one block north and similar to the one proposed for People’s Park. When was the last time you or your friends used that space?

We need People’s Park to remain a community-run, user-developed and user-defined park. That is why dozens of community groups — such as the Berkeley Student Cooperative, the largest non-profit provider of affordable student housing in the city — stand with People’s Park in opposition to the university’s plans. Homeless advocacy groups such as Consider The Homeless, Berkeley Outreach Coalition, Suitcase Clinic, Berkeley Free Clinic, Berkeley Copwatch, and others stand in solidarity with the park defense.

The UC Regents actually refused Capital Strategies’ attempt to have a $53 million contingency fund available for crowd control, and unforeseen relocations of new residents, and other circumstances in the demolition of People’s Park. Those millions could instead be spent acquiring land for supportive housing sites right in Berkeley, or adding additional housing on a site recommended by the Chancellor’s Housing Commission. And what about the Ellsworth garage, equally close to campus, which has to be demolished due to earthquake danger? In their survey not long ago, 92% of undergraduates did not rank People’s Park as their top site for housing development. If building housing was the university’s top priority, they could have already begun construction on a different site equally close to campus.

Over decades, the UC has approached the park with malice and destructive intent. In spite of this, people have stewarded the land and grown more gardens, community, and lifelong relationships. For 53 years, every time the fences have gone up, they’ve come down! People’s Park is not just some empty real estate lot. People’s Park remains a user-developed park, open for everyone to gather, host events, or hang out and have lunch. Nothing has changed. Come out and see for yourself. We will rebuild once again. Help repair the park according to your own desires. Re-connect with the land!

— People’s Park Council (PeoplesPark.org)