88 Cal.App.5th 656
Cal. Ct. App.2023Background
- UC Berkeley adopted a 2021 Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) and certified a hybrid program/project EIR; the LRDP estimates up to ~11,731 net new student/faculty beds and projects campus population growth but does not set or cap enrollment.
- The LRDP included a site-specific Housing Project No. 2 to build student housing on People’s Park (demolition of a locally designated historic landmark), ~1,113 student beds plus services and 1.7 acres public space.
- Plaintiffs (Make UC a Good Neighbor & People’s Park Historic District Advocacy Group) sued under CEQA, challenging the EIR’s alternatives, scope, and impact analyses; trial court denied the writ; plaintiffs appealed and a supersedeas stayed demolition.
- The Court of Appeal held the EIR’s range of alternatives for the LRDP was adequate (no enrollment-cap alternative required), but found CEQA defects as to People’s Park site alternatives and failure to analyze noise from loud student parties; it rejected the piecemealing and most displacement claims.
- The court remanded: Regents must (at minimum) justify why alternative sites for Housing Project No. 2 were not analyzed and must analyze potential noise impacts from student parties; displacement/growth analyses were largely upheld.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EIR must analyze an LRDP alternative that limits campus enrollment | LRDP must include an alternative capping enrollment because population drives environmental impacts | LRDP’s purpose excludes enrollment-setting; enrollment is set in a separate complex annual process and statute exempts enrollment from being a CEQA project | Held: No. Range of alternatives need not include an enrollment-cap because it would change project scope and LRDP’s objectives; EIR complied with the rule of reason |
| Whether EIR must analyze alternate sites for Housing Project No. 2 (People’s Park) | EIR should analyze feasible alternative locations to avoid demolishing a historic resource | Regents said alternative sites would reduce beds, be constrained by parcel size, or create other historic impacts (reasons given in EIR) | Held: EIR inadequate. Regents failed to provide factual, supported reasons for not analyzing alternate sites; must analyze or justify infeasibility |
| Whether LRDP was improperly piecemealed by limiting geographic scope | Plaintiffs argued campus and remote UC properties should be in a single plan to avoid piecemeal review | Regents grouped proximate campus properties for legitimate planning reasons; separate plans can serve different purposes | Held: No piecemealing. Court defers to Regents’ discretion to group campus-area properties separately from remote properties |
| Whether EIR must analyze noise impacts from loud student parties in nearby neighborhoods | Plaintiffs cited long record of chronic party noise and enforcement data, arguing adding students could worsen neighborhood noise | Regents called claims speculative and based on bias; argued CEQA applies only to discrete crowd-noise facilities | Held: EIR inadequate. Substantial evidence (city findings, enforcement data, neighborhood reports) supports a fair argument that adding students could worsen party noise; Regents must analyze and, if necessary, mitigate |
| Whether EIR adequately addressed population growth and displacement (direct and indirect) | Plaintiffs argued EIR failed to analyze indirect displacement (market-driven) and related environmental effects like homelessness and need for replacement housing | Regents relied on mitigation via Relocation Assistance Policy for direct displacement and ABAG/city planning duties for regional impacts | Held: Mostly adequate. EIR’s mitigation for direct displacement acceptable; indirect displacement theory lacked the factual/expert foundation required under fair-argument standard and EIR’s growth analysis met CEQA’s general-level requirements |
Key Cases Cited
- Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California, 47 Cal.3d 376 (discusses CEQA’s purpose and EIR adequacy)
- In re Bay-Delta, 43 Cal.4th 1143 (program EIRs, tiering, and rule of reason for alternatives)
- Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, 52 Cal.3d 553 (EIR must consider feasible alternatives)
- Marin Mun. Water Dist. v. KG Land California Corp., 235 Cal.App.3d 1652 (lead agency need not consider alternatives changing project nature)
- Rio Vista Farm Bureau Center v. County of Solano, 5 Cal.App.4th 351 (program EIR tailored to plan scope; site-specific alternatives not always required)
- Watsonville Pilots Assn. v. City of Watsonville, 183 Cal.App.4th 1059 (reduced development alternative may be required where it fills a gap in range of alternatives)
- California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz, 177 Cal.App.4th 957 (presumption EIR complies; challenger bears burden on alternatives)
- Keep Our Mountains Quiet v. County of Santa Clara, 236 Cal.App.4th 714 (CEQA covers crowd noise and music impacts)
- Joshua Tree Downtown Business Alliance v. County of San Bernardino, 1 Cal.App.5th 677 (lay opinion insufficient to establish complex economic-to-environment causal chains)
- Visalia Retail, LP v. City of Visalia, 20 Cal.App.5th 1 (fair-argument standard and limits on speculative displacement evidence)