A lawyer representing People’s Park activists and neighborhood groups in a lawsuit against UC Berkeley acknowledged Wednesday that their complaint no longer threatens the planned housing project at the historic site.
The Supreme Court of California heard oral arguments today in the case, Make UC a Good Neighbor v. The Regents of the University of California, which could seal the fate of UC Berkeley’s proposed project to build 1,100 student beds and at least 100 beds for formerly homeless people.
Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero presided over the one-hour hearing at the Ronald Reagan State Office Building in downtown Los Angeles, hearing arguments from opponents’ lawyer Thomas N. Lippe and UC lawyer Nicole Gordon.
The yearslong battle has been winding through the courts since People’s Park activists and neighborhood groups sued the university in 2021.
Plaintiffs argued that UC Berkeley didn’t consider alternate sites in their push to build on People’s Park, a plot of university-owned land that became a historic landmark and hub for homeless services and that it should be preserved as a public open space. They also said noise generated by future residents of the university’s housing would violate state environmental law. An appeals court agreed, but the university escalated the case to the state Supreme Court last May.
Last fall, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed AB 1307 into law to ease the project’s path through the courts. The law says universities don’t have to consider the impacts of student noise when building a housing project for them or repeatedly consider alternate sites for their project.
In light of the new law, Lippe told Justice Guerrero today that the plaintiffs concede these points regarding People’s Park, but they’re still pushing forward on the assertion that UC Berkeley should be required to consider alternatives and engage robust public input on its expansion.
“Even under your analysis, Mr. Lippe, you concede that the People’s Park project is going to be built. Is that correct?” Guerrero asked Lippe.
“This case provides no platform to stop that, I would concede that,” Lippe replied. “Whether they actually build it or not, that’s up to UC at this point and any other effort that may be made by the community. But certainly, this case is no longer to threat to stop (the project).”
Wednesday’s hearing was the first time opposing counsels have presented oral arguments to the state Supreme Court. In court, Gordon reiterated that the state’s environmental law was never intended to “police nuisances and intermittent noise violations” as upheld by the appeals court, an argument that defendants have since referred to as “people as pollution.”
People’s Park has been walled off since Jan. 3, when the university initiated a mass police operation to block access to the park with double-stacked shipping containers, sparking ongoing protests and demonstrations in the Southside. The park is still secured, and Cal has hired 24-hour APEX security officers to maintain the border, but they were barred from further construction pending the Supreme Court order.
It’s unclear whether they can move forward.
UC spokesperson Kyle Gibson said the university is not commenting on whether the plaintiff’s comments change their immediate course of action.
“Out of deference to the court, we have no comment beyond what was presented in today’s oral arguments and the written briefings,” Gibson said.
The state Supreme Court has 90 days to issue an opinion after oral argument, and the matter is submitted.
Lippe couldn’t be reached for comment following the hearing.
Harvey Smith, a spokesperson for the plaintiffs and longtime People’s Park activist, said Lippe’s argument maintains that Cal is responsible for considering alternatives to its projects. The appeals court found last May that the university hadn’t done this sufficiently for the park project.
“If the court lets the UC slide on this very special case, it’s gonna pop up again and again and again,” Harvey Smith said. “The court of appeal saw very clearly that the UC didn’t consider alternate sites.”
During the hearing, judges asked opposing counsels to clarify the distinction between residential and nonresidential projects regarding environmental law.
“It’s never OK under CEQA to police people and their noise under anything other than the local noise ordinance,” said Gordon, asking that the entire appeals court decision be reversed.
“You have to be living under a rock to not know what the controversy is surrounding People’s Park,” Chief Justice Guerrero said, acknowledging that the argument has shifted with the passing of state law AB 1307.
People’s Park attorney Lippe criticized AB 1307’s broad scope, saying it’s reasonable to require the university to consider “social noise” in its long-range development plan because Cal’s expansion involves more than residential housing.
The university is planning to add about 8 million square feet to its existing 11.8 million square feet, with 11,730 student beds around Berkeley and another 1,240 parking spaces around the university’s perimeter, according to the plan.
The university says it’s building student housing on all the sites identified in its development plan to address a major housing shortage. Currently, UC Berkeley provides 30% of undergraduates and 8% of graduate students with on-campus housing, the lowest percentage of any UC school.
The Berkeley City Council supports the university’s housing project under terms of a $82.6 million settlement in 2021.
Groups opposed to the project, which include student government leaders, founders of the park and longtime neighbors, plan to continue voicing their opposition to the university’s plans and approach with demonstrations, vigils and community events.
