An appellate court has ruled a judge cannot prohibit the University of California from increasing enrollment and enlarging its Berkeley campus to bring in more students and faculty, over the objections from an activist group that expansion will harm adjacent neighborhoods.
The May 19 decision was authored by Justice Sandra Margulies, with concurrence from Judge Raymond Swope and Justice Kathleen Banke, of California First District Appellate Court. The decision favored the Regents of the University of California in an action brought against them by the group Save Berkeley's Neighborhoods (SBN). The president of SBN is Phil Bokovoy, according to the organization's website.
The case involves the possible environmental impact of proposed expansion of the University of California's Berkeley campus.
In 2018, the Regents decided to demolish a parking structure and build a new parking structure with apartments above it, as well construct an academic building next to the new parking-apartment structure. The additional buildings were to accommodate the Regents' plan to increase enrollment.
In 2019, SBN went to Alameda County Superior Court to head off this project, claiming the Regents' plan would lead to more off-campus trash and noise, displacement of nearby non-student tenants by student-tenants and increased homelessness, traffic and burdens on public safety services. In addition, SBN asserted the new structures would not fit aesthetically with adjacent historical buildings.
In summer 2021, Judge Brad Seligman ruled against the Regents, ordering them to refrain from increasing enrollment for the 2022-2023 academic year above the enrollment of the 2020-2021 year.
On appeal, Justice Marguiles overturned Seligman, saying a March 2022 state statute "renders unenforceable the trial court's order voiding any decisions by the Regents to increase student enrollment and suspending any further increases in student enrollment."
Marguiles defended the Regents, noting they were "consistent" in their "discussion of the project and the scope of its environmental review." Marguiles added the project was a "component of a larger framework for UC Berkeley's development and growth."
In Marguiles' view, quoting the Regents, '"the benefits of the Project outweigh the Project’s significant adverse environmental effects' for various reasons.'" Those reasons included to "'support a vital intellectual and engaged community'" and to “provid[e] housing for UC Berkeley faculty and staff that is easily accessible to campus.'"
Further, the expansion project was intended to “'recruit and retain top-tier graduate and professional students, expert faculty and scholars, as well as ensuring the ongoing success and sustainability of the School’s programs,'" Marguiles said, quoting the Regents.
Marguiles sent the case back to superior court for it to be dismissed.
Save Berkeley's Neighborhoods was represented by Thomas N. Lippe, of the Law Offices of Thomas N. Lippe, of San Francisco.
The Regents were represented by in-house attorneys Charles F. Robinson, Alison L. Krumbein and David M. Robinson, as well as by Nicole H. Gordon, Margaret M. Sohagi and Mark J.G. Derosiers, of Sohagi Law Group, of Los Angeles.
Friend-of-the-court arguments in support of SBN were filed by the cities of Goleta and Santa Cruz. The University of California has a campus in Santa Cruz and a campus in Santa Barbara, which is next to Goleta.