The California Supreme Court, on June 6, 2024, reversed the First District Court of Appeal’s decision regarding UC Berkeley’s Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) EIR. The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision clears the way for UC Berkeley to resume construction on the controversial residential development at People’s Park and to implement its long-term campus plan.

In addition to a program-level analysis of the LRDP, the EIR included a project-level analysis of the People’s Park Project, a student housing and supportive services project planned to be constructed on People’s Park in Berkeley. The trial court had issued a ruling in favor of the University, denying the petition for writ of mandate and upholding the EIR. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s judgment and issued a writ of mandate identifying two purported deficiencies in the EIR.

First, the Court of Appeal found that the EIR did not sufficiently justify the decision not to consider alternative locations for the student housing project at People’s Park, even though the LRDP analysis included extensive discussion of potential locations for various University-related land uses, including housing. Second, the court found that the EIR violated CEQA because it did not assess potential “social noise” impacts from residents and their guests, in light of evidence in the record that student parties had generated violations of the City’s noise ordinance in the past. The Supreme Court granted the University’s petition for review to consider these two issues. For more background on the Court of Appeal’s decision, read Downey Brand’s previous post here.

Legislative Intervention

Following the Supreme Court’s grant of review, the Legislature passed AB 1307 to directly address the pending case. AB 1307 clarified that “social noise” generated by occupants and guests of residential developments is not a significant environmental effect under CEQA. AB 1307 also stated that institutions of public higher education are not required to consider alternatives to the location of a proposed residential or mixed-use housing project if the project meets certain requirements and was evaluated in the campus’s most recent long-range planning document.

The Legislature’s enactment of AB 1307 in September 2023 narrowed the Supreme Court’s scope of review. Good Neighbor conceded that AB 1307 applied to the People’s Park development and that the new law resolved the claim that the EIR failed to analyze “social noise” impacts of the project. But Good Neighbor maintained that UC Berkeley’s LRDP was not a “residential development” as defined by AB 1307 and argued that the EIR was deficient for not analyzing social noise impacts from the LRDP more broadly. Good Neighbor also argued that AB 1307 “mooted” its alternatives sites argument, but asked the Court to rule on the issue because it satisfied the mootness exception for issues likely to recur. The Court rejected all of Good Neighbor’s arguments.

UC Berkeley’s Long Range Development Plan Falls Within AB 1307

The California Supreme Court rejected Good Neighbor’s argument that UC Berkeley’s LRDP was not a “residential project” within the meaning of AB 1307. While Good Neighbor contended that the term “residential project” plainly placed the LRDP outside the scope of AB 1307, the Supreme Court disagreed and found the term to be ambiguous because it was susceptible to multiple meanings.

Since the term “residential project” was ambiguous, the Supreme Court relied on AB 1307’s legislative history to determine that UC Berkeley’s LRDP fell within the ambit of AB 1307. According to the Supreme Court, the legislative history was replete with references to the Court of Appeal’s decision. This led the Court to conclude that the Legislature intended to reject the First District’s underlying determination that social noise from residential users constituted a significant environmental effect within the context of UC Berkeley housing, generally, not just in the development at People’s Park. Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that AB 1307 abrogated any potential responsibility for the University to analyze the impacts of social noise in the EIR.

The Mootness Doctrine Does Not Apply to Good Neighbor’s Project Alternatives Claim

The California Supreme Court rejected Good Neighbor’s contention that UC Berkeley’s failure to consider alternative housing locations satisfied the mootness exception for issues likely to recur. While the mootness doctrine exempts disputes that are capable of repetition, the Supreme Court determined that the mootness doctrine did not apply to Good Neighbor’s case from the outset, which rendered consideration of the exception unnecessary.

A case only becomes moot when subsequent events make it impossible for a court to grant effective relief to the plaintiff. AB 1307 established that Good Neighbor was not entitled to relief, indicating that recent legislation did not render the matter moot. Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that the Legislature required Good Neighbor to lose on the issue of whether UC Berkeley’s alternative sites analysis was adequate. As the Court put it, “[s]tated differently, the recent legislation does not moot the case; it determines who prevails.”

Conclusion and Implications

The Court of Appeal’s opinion alarmed many CEQA practitioners by expanding the already-broad reach of CEQA to include potential noise created by project occupants and visitors. In addition to requiring even greater time, expense, and technical analysis in every EIR, the ruling would have created a dangerously slippery slope for project opponents to challenge projects based on the argument that certain populations are particularly “noisy.” AB 1307 and the Supreme Court’s decision show that the Legislature and the judiciary are willing to place reasonable limits on what CEQA requires; indeed, a reassuring trend.

[View source.]