Summary
The California Court of Appeal reviewed challenges under the California Environmental Quality Act to the University of California, Berkeley’s 2021 long-range development plan and proposed People’s Park student-housing project. The court rejected claims that the environmental impact report needed to analyze an enrollment-cap alternative or broader geographic scope, but held that it inadequately analyzed alternatives to the People’s Park project and potential noise impacts from student parties. The court remanded for correction of those deficiencies, and the March 16, 2023 modification order stated that the modifications did not change the judgment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the EIR for the long range development plan was required to analyze an alternative limiting student enrollment.
- Whether the EIR improperly limited the geographic scope of the long range development plan and thereby piecemealed environmental review.
- Whether the EIR adequately analyzed potentially feasible alternative locations for Housing Project No. 2 that would avoid or reduce impacts to People's Park.
- Whether the EIR was required to analyze potential noise impacts from loud student parties in nearby residential neighborhoods.
- Whether the EIR adequately analyzed population growth, direct displacement, and indirect displacement impacts.
Holdings
- No. The EIR's range of alternatives was not manifestly unreasonable because the development plan was a limited, high-level land-use and infrastructure plan that did not set enrollment levels or commit to enrollment increases. CEQA did not require the Regents to analyze alternatives changing the nature and scope of that project by regulating the separate enrollment-setting process.
- No. The EIR failed to analyze a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternative locations for Housing Project No. 2 because the Regents gave only unsupported, equivocal, and incomplete reasons for rejecting alternative sites, including university-owned properties identified for student housing.
- No. The Regents could reasonably limit the plan to the UC Berkeley campus and adjacent properties while preparing separate plans for more remote properties because the properties could serve different planning purposes and could be implemented independently.
- Yes. The EIR was required to analyze potential noise impacts from loud student parties in residential neighborhoods near campus because substantial evidence supported a fair argument that adding thousands of students could worsen a longstanding noise problem.
- Yes. The EIR adequately addressed direct displacement and growth-related impacts, and the record did not contain sufficient expert evidence or factual foundation to require analysis of the claimed indirect-displacement environmental effects.
Key quotations
“We do not hold the Regents must necessarily study an alternative site or sites for the People’s Park project. We are mindful that an analysis of alternative sites is not required in all cases.” (17)
“While an EIR need not exhaustively explain its reasons for excluding an alternative from analysis, unsupported conclusory statements do not suffice.” (24)
“In sum, we conclude that, absent a viable explanation for declining to consider alternative locations, the range of alternatives in the EIR was unreasonable.” (27)
“The Regents must analyze the potential noise impacts relating to loud student parties.” (37)
“The judgment is reversed. The matter is remanded to the superior court with directions to vacate its order and judgment denying Good Neighbor’s petition for writ of mandate and enter a modified judgment consistent with our conclusions that the EIR inadequately analyzed potential alternatives to Housing Project No. 2 and impacts from noise.” (44)
Factual background
The University of California Regents adopted a 2021 long range development plan for UC Berkeley through the 2036-2037 academic year and approved Housing Project No. 2 on the site of People's Park. The plan anticipated substantial population growth and additional university housing, while Housing Project No. 2 would demolish People's Park and construct housing, community facilities, and publicly accessible open space. The EIR did not analyze alternative locations for Housing Project No. 2 and did not analyze potential noise from increased student parties in nearby residential neighborhoods, despite evidence that such parties were a longstanding problem. The EIR did analyze population growth and direct displacement but rejected claims that indirect displacement would cause additional environmental effects.
Procedural history
The Regents certified an EIR and approved the UC Berkeley long range development plan and two housing projects in 2021. Make UC a Good Neighbor filed a CEQA petition for writ of mandate, which the Alameda County Superior Court denied in August 2022 and entered judgment for the Regents. The Court of Appeal granted a stay concerning People's Park, reversed the judgment, and remanded with directions to vacate the judgment and enter a modified judgment consistent with its conclusions concerning alternatives to Housing Project No. 2 and noise impacts. The court's March 16, 2023 modification order made no change in the judgment.
Remand instructions
The superior court must vacate its order and judgment denying Good Neighbor's petition for writ of mandate and enter a modified judgment consistent with the Court of Appeal's conclusions that the EIR inadequately analyzed potential alternatives to Housing Project No. 2 and impacts from noise. The Regents must perform the required noise analysis and reconsider alternatives to the People's Park project as required by CEQA. Good Neighbor is entitled to costs on appeal.