Make UC A Good Neighbor v. Regents of the University of California (2024) 16 Cal.5th 43
In response to a proposed development that would increase student housing, Make UC a Good Neighbor and People’s Park Historic District Advocacy Group (“Good Neighbor”) brought a lawsuit against the Regents, the President, and the Chancellor of the University of California, Berkeley (“UC Berkeley”) alleging UC Berkeley’s certification of an EIR for the development violated CEQA. Following an appellate court decision in favor of Good Neighbor, the California Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. While the case was pending, the Legislature passed Assembly Bill No. 1307 adding two sections to CEQA directly relevant to the case. In Make UC A Good Neighbor v. Regents of the University of California (2024) 16 Cal.5th 43, the California Supreme Court held that the amendments to CEQA invalidated Good Neighbor’s claims.
Each University of California periodically creates a Long Range Development Plan (“LRDP”) that guides “physical development, including land use designations, the location of buildings, and infrastructure systems, for an established time horizon.” In 2021 the Regents of UC Berkeley approved a new LRDP. One of the LRDP’s stated goals is to “[i]mprove the existing housing stock and construct new student beds and faculty housing units.” In furtherance of this goal, the Regents approved a plan to redevelop a site near the campus known as People’s Park, which would create an estimated 1,113 new student beds. The Regents certified an EIR addressing both the LRDP generally, as well as the People’s Park project specifically.
Good Neighbor filed a petition for writ of mandate against UC Berkeley alleging the EIR violated CEQA by: (1) not analyzing social noise attributable to student parties and late-night pedestrians; and (2) failing to consider alternative locations for the People’s Park project. Following the trial court’s denial of the petition, the First District Court of Appeal found in favor of Good Neighbor.
The California Supreme Court granted UC Berkeley’s petition for review. While the appeal was pending, the Legislature passed Assembly Bill No. 1307, which added two new sections to CEQA, both of which were directly relevant to the case at hand. Section 21085 provides that “for residential projects, the effects of noise generated by project occupants and their guests on human beings is not a significant effect on the environment.” Section 21085.2, subdivision (b) provides that “institutions of public higher education shall not be required, in an [EIR], to consider alternatives to the location of [a] residential or mixed-use housing project” so long as certain requirements are met. The resolution of the case required the court to determine the applicability of these new sections to UC Berkeley’s EIR.
Good Neighbor Conceded the Amendments Resolved Some of Their Claims While Maintaining There Was More for the Court to Decide
Good Neighbor conceded that section 21085 exempts the EIR from needing to analyze social noise with respect to the People’s Park project, and that section 21085.2 exempts the EIR from needing to consider alternative locations for the People’s Park project. However, Good Neighbor contended that: (1) the portion of its claim relating to the LRDP was still viable, as the LRDP does not qualify as a “residential project” for the purposes of section 21085; and (2) though section 21085.2 invalidated the claim that the EIR needed to consider alternative locations for the People’s Park project, the court should still decide the claim because it “raises issues of broad public interest that are likely to recur.” The court found each of these arguments unpersuasive.
Section 21085 Applies to the Residential Aspects of the LRDP At Issue
The court determined that the term “residential projects” in section 21085 is ambiguous, and so turned to legislative history to decide if the LRDP was within the scope of the term. The court explained that it was unnecessary to conclusively define the scope of the term “residential projects,” as the legislative history made it clear the purpose of the amendments was to abrogate the lower court’s decision. The legislative history indicated the Legislature was “focused on rejecting the [Court of Appeal’s] central underlying conclusion that social noise from residential users may constitute a significant effect on the environment,” and that social noise issues should be addressed through “local nuisance ordinances and not via CEQA.” As the Legislature was aware that the EIR evaluated both the LRDP and the People’s Park project, and did not account for each individually, the court concluded that the Legislature intended section 21085 to apply to both. The court acknowledged that an LRDP could contain nonresidential aspect, such as a stadium or entertainment venue, which may not be exempt from having to consider the impacts of social noise on the environment, but as the residential aspects of UC Berkeley’s LRDP were at issue in this case, the court held the EIR was not inadequate for failing to address social noise.
The Impact of Section 21085.2 on Future Housing Projects Was Not Before the Court
The court then turned to Good Neighbor’s contention that, though section 21085.2 invalidated its claim that the EIR was inadequate for failing to consider alternative sites for the People’s Park project, the court should still consider the potential application of the section to future projects. The court explained that it does “not render advisory opinions” on issues not before it. As Good Neighbor conceded its claim was no longer viable, the court would not consider the application of section 21085.2 to future projects.
The Court Left Open Issues Not Relevant to its Determination
Choosing to deal solely with the issues before it, the court left open questions regarding the impact of the CEQA amendments on future projects. The court did not conclusively establish the scope of section 21085, nor the potential impact of section 21085.2 on future projects, choosing to let courts address these issues if and when they arise. The legislative history made it clear the Legislature sought to abrogate the Court of Appeals decision, so the Supreme Court effectuated that intent and reversed the Court of Appeals judgment in favor of Good Neighbor.
Jack Sandage is a Law Clerk at Abbott & Kindermann, Inc and J. Gage Marchini is a Senior Associate Attorney. For questions relating to this article or any other California land use, real estate, environmental and/or planning issues contact Abbott & Kindermann, Inc. at (916) 456-9595.
The information presented in this article should not be construed to be formal legal advice by Abbott & Kindermann, Inc., or the formation of a lawyer/client relationship. Because of the changing nature of this area of the law and the importance of individual facts, readers are encouraged to seek independent counsel for advice regarding their individual legal issues.