The state Supreme Court says activists can't stop universities from building housing for students and other expansion projects simply because college students are too noisy.
In the decision, issued June 6, the California Supreme Court said a new state law effectively ends a challenge to a proposal by University of California at Berkeley to redevelop the People's Park site to allow for new student residences.
The legal challenge was launched in 2021 by local community groups, including those known as Make UC A Good Neighbor and the People's Park Historic District Advocacy Group, who filed suit in Alameda County Superior Court.
The lawsuits asserted UC Berkeley fell short of the mandates of state environmental review rules.
UC Berkeley began the proposed People's Park project with the goal of building new student housing, ostensibly to address a housing crisis at the university, which offers housing to the lowest percentage of students among all schools within the University of California system.
The project was also needed to respond to a general dearth of housing in the Bay Area, in general, according to court documents.
However, the legal challenges have largely placed the project on hold for years, as opponents of the project assert the school did not adequately account for environmental impacts on the surrounding community caused by "student-generated noise" at the new students residences.
Particularly, opponents noted the potential for noisy "house parties and from late-night pedestrians."
And opponents asserted the so-called environmental impact report (EIR) prepared by the school did not "adequately consider alternatives to the People's Park location" for the housing.
EIRs are required for all such new large development projects under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
After failing in Alameda County court, the opponents secured a win in California's First Appellate District court.
In that ruling, the court agreed that UC Berkeley's EIR was "faulty," for the same reasons identified by opponents, including noise-related concerns.
The California Supreme Court agreed to take up the matter.
In the meantime, however, California state lawmakers responded quickly to the appeals court's ruling, enacting new legislation which explicitly states that California public colleges and universities do not need to account for student noise when conducting environmental reviews for proposed new student residences.
The law, known as Assembly Bill 1307, was enacted in September 2023. It states: "The effects of noise generated by project occupants and their guests on human beings is not a significant effect on the environment for residential projects for purposes of CEQA" and "institutions of public higher education, in an EIR for a residential or mixed-use housing project, are not required to consider alternatives to the location of the proposed project..."
In response to the new law, the project opponents attempted to argue that AB1307 doesn't shut down their lawsuit. They asserted the law applies to "residential projects" only, but the People's Park project should not qualify as such a residential project. They assert the project should still be further reviewed under CEQA to include potential impacts from "social noise" caused by an increase in enrollment that the People's park project would generate.
They further asserted their concerns about "alternative locations" also should be applied to "housing projects that (UC Berkeley) might carry out in the future pursuant to the development plan."
A unanimous state Supreme Court, however, said AB1307 indeed yanked the legal rug out from under the People's Park opponents' case.
They said the law clearly applies to the challenge to the People's Park project, and so the appellate court's "contrary holdings must be reversed in the wake of the enactment of Assembly Bill 1307."
Further, the state high court rejected the opponents' attempt to argue AB1307 may "moot" their "alternative sites claim" for this case specifically, but the Supreme Court should still take up that aspect of the case, because the law doesn't block the state high court from ordering colleges and universities to include alternative sites in their EIR under CEQA for future housing projects.
The court noted the Good Neighbor plaintiffs asserted their claim still "raises issues of broad public interest that are likely to recur."
Supreme Court justices, however, said even that reasoning crumbles in the face of AB1307.
That law, the justices said, "makes clear that Good Neighbor is not entitled to relief."
"Stated differently, the recent legislation does not moot the case; it determines who prevails," the high court said.
The state Supreme Court overturned the appellate court's ruling and directed the lower courts to enter judgment in favor of UC Berkeley, allowing the People's Park project to move forward.
The decision was authored by California Supreme Court Justice Patricia Guerrero.
Project opponents have been represented by attorneys Thomas N. Lippe, of San Francisco; and Patrick M. Soluri, Osha R. Meserve and James C. Crowder, of Soluri Meserve, of Sacramento.
UC Berkeley has been represented by attorneys Nicole H. Gordon, Margaret M. Sohagi and Mark J.G. Desrosiers, of the Sohagi Law Group, of Los Angeles; Charles R. Olson and Philip J. Sciranka, of Lubin Olson & Niewiadomski, of San Francisco; Beth J. Jay, Jeremy B. Rosen, Mitchell C. Tilner and H. Thomas Watson, of Horvitz & Levy, of San Francisco; and attorneys Charles F. Robinson, Rhonda S. Goldstein, Katharine S. Essick, Alison L. Krumbein and David M. Robinson, of the University of California Office of the General Counsel.