51 Cal.App.5th 226
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Save Berkeley’s Neighborhoods (Save Berkeley), a local nonprofit, sued the Regents of the University of California alleging UC Berkeley increased student enrollment far beyond levels analyzed in a 2005 LRDP program EIR without further CEQA review or mitigation.
- In 2005 the Regents certified a program EIR for the campus LRDP projecting an enrollment increase of 1,650 students and 2,500 new student beds by 2020.
- Beginning in 2007, Save Berkeley alleges the Regents repeatedly approved discretionary enrollment increases; by April 2018 actual enrollment grew by ~8,300 students (roughly five times the 2005 projection).
- Save Berkeley filed a petition for writ of mandate and declaratory relief challenging the lack of subsequent CEQA review; the trial court sustained the Regents’ demurrer without leave to amend, holding Pub. Resources Code §21080.09 relieved the Regents from CEQA obligations for subsequent enrollment increases.
- The Court of Appeal reversed: it held §21080.09 does not exempt enrollment increases from CEQA, concluded Save Berkeley adequately alleged that increased enrollment triggered the need for further environmental review, and remanded with directions to overrule the demurrer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether discretionary increases in student enrollment beyond figures analyzed in an LRDP EIR constitute a CEQA "project" or project change requiring subsequent/environmental review | Save Berkeley: enrollment increases are changes to the project that caused new or greater environmental impacts and thus trigger CEQA (subsequent/supplemental or tiered EIR) | Regents: enrollment changes were contemplated in the LRDP EIR; §21080.09 confines enrollment analysis to LRDP EIRs and does not make subsequent enrollment decisions a CEQA project | Held: Enrollment increases can be a CEQA project/change; Save Berkeley pleaded facts showing substantial changes that could require further CEQA review. |
| Whether Pub. Resources Code §21080.09 exempts universities from CEQA review for post‑LRDP enrollment increases | Save Berkeley: §21080.09 requires analysis of enrollment effects in LRDP EIRs but does not strip CEQA obligations for later enrollment decisions | Regents: §21080.09 limits enrollment analysis to LRDP EIRs and, absent a physical development project, shields later enrollment changes from CEQA review | Held: §21080.09 does not exempt subsequent enrollment decisions from CEQA; it requires enrollment effects be considered in LRDP EIRs but does not preclude CEQA review of later decisions that are projects or cause new/increased impacts. |
| Timeliness — whether Save Berkeley’s challenge was barred by CEQA’s 180‑day limitations period | Save Berkeley: alleged it lacked actual or constructive notice of the enrollment increases until Oct 30, 2017, so the action is timely within 180 days of discovery | Regents: the project commenced in 2007; the suit filed in 2018 is time‑barred | Held: On demurrer, the statute‑of‑limitations defense cannot be resolved because Save Berkeley pleaded lack of notice; demurrer improperly sustained on this basis. |
| Mootness and discovery | Save Berkeley: relief remains effective because mitigation and review of ongoing impacts remain possible; sought documents about enrollment decisions | Regents: subsequent Goldman School EIR addressed increases; past classes cannot be mitigated; discovery requests were overbroad | Held: Court rejects mootness arguments (Goldman EIR not in record; mitigation not foreclosed). Appellate court found Save Berkeley failed to show trial court abused discretion in denying the broad discovery requests. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Marina v. Board of Trustees of California State University, 39 Cal.4th 341 (Cal. 2006) (public universities must mitigate environmental impacts of campus growth)
- Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California, 6 Cal.4th 1112 (Cal. 1993) (EIR presumptively complies with CEQA after limitations period; CEQA procedural requirements)
- Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist., 1 Cal.5th 937 (Cal. 2016) (EIR purpose is informed decisionmaking and public participation)
- Union of Medical Marijuana Patients, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 7 Cal.5th 1171 (Cal. 2019) (statutory interpretation of CEQA guided by legislative intent and deference to Natural Resources Agency guidance)
- Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd Dist. Agricultural Assn., 42 Cal.3d 929 (Cal. 1986) (action challenging agency failure to prepare later EIR may be filed within 180 days of discovery that project differs substantially from EIR)