On June 6, 2024, the Supreme Court of California ruled in favor of the UC Regents and its new student residential housing development plan for the People’s Park location in Berkeley. This decision, in conjunction with the California legislature’s urgency legislation, AB 1307, may have finally concluded the years long battle waged by Make UC a Good Neighbor (Good Neighbor), an activist group created to fight the development, against the UC Regents.
The Supreme Court considered the matter after granting review of the Court of Appeals decision finding that the environmental impact report (EIR) was faulty because it: (1) “failed to assess potential noise impacts from loud student parties in residential neighborhoods near the campus,” and (2) failed to justify the decision not to consider alternative locations to the People’s Park project.” The UC Regents certified the EIR in the summer of 2021. It included both a program EIR “to identify and assess potential environmental impacts from the approval and implementation” of the development plan and a project EIR to evaluate the implementation of the specific development projects. The specific development project included (1) student housing; (2) preservation and revitalization of green space for the public; and (3) affordable and permanent supportive house to be developed by a nonprofit partner.
However, after the Court granted review of the issue of the EIR’s faultiness, the legislature passed AB 1307 on September 7, 2023. AB 1307 provides: (1) the effects of noise generated by human beings is not a significant effect on the environment for purposes of CEQA; and (2) institutions of public higher education do not need to consider alternatives to the location of a proposed project if certain requirements are met. Thus, AB 1307 significantly narrowed the scope of the Court’s review.
Good Neighbor conceded that AB 1307 applied and that the new law made clear that the EIR is not required to examine social noise or potential alternative locations for residential projects. Yet, Good Neighbor contended that the development plan is not a “residential project” within the meaning of the new law and therefore could not be exempt from CEQA analysis. Good Neighbor also asked the Court to consider housing projects the UC Regents might pursue in the future under this development plan.
The Court noted that the term “residential project” is not defined in CEQA, meaning the court will use the term’s ordinary meaning. When the Court applied the ordinary meaning of “residential project,” it concluded that the development plan and proposed student housing clearly meets the definition.
As to Good Neighbor’s request that the Court examine future projects, it looked to the Legislature’s intent in passing AB 1307. The Legislature clearly intended AB 1307 to abrogate the appellate court’s decision in favor of Good Neighbor; specifically, their decision that social noise from residential users may constitute a significant impact on the environment. The Legislature was also aware of the UC Regent’s future planned projects. The Court concluded that the EIR was not inadequate for failing to consider the impacts of social noise in accordance with AB 1307.
The Supreme Court’s decision marks another step forward in addressing California’s student housing crisis, particularly at UC Berkeley where the UC campus houses the lowest percentage of its students as compared to other UC campuses. Colleges and community college districts therefore do not need to consider the effects of student noise, or alternatives to a proposed location if certain requirements are met, for purposes of CEQA.
Make UC A Good Neighbor v. The Regents of the Univ. of Cal. No. S279242 (Cal. Jun. 6, 2024)