In Save Berkeley’s Neighborhoods v. Regents of University of California (2020) 2020 WL 3467992, where the First District Court of Appeal held that the discretionary decision to increase student enrollment beyond the level analyzed in a long-range development plan EIR was a “project” requiring further CEQA environmental review.
Background
In 2005, the University of California (“University”) certified an EIR for a long-range plan to guide development on its Berkeley campus through 2020. The EIR projected student enrollment would increase by 1,650 by the year 2020. As of April 2018, actual student enrollment had grown by approximately 8,300 students. Save Berkeley’s Neighborhoods (“Save Berkeley”) brought suit against the University alleging the University violated CEQA by failing to conduct additional environmental review before approving an increase in enrollment beyond the scope of the 2005 EIR.
The trial court held that the decision to increase enrollment was not a “project” requiring subsequent environmental review and that Save Berkeley’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations because any challenge should have been raised in 2005, when the EIR was first certified. Save Berkeley appealed the decision.
Court of Appeal Holding
In a partially-published opinion, the Court of Appeal held that the University’s increase in enrollment changed the original project and triggered further environmental review, especially where the increase caused significant impacts not analyzed in the 2005 EIR. The Court further held that, though the statute of limitations to challenge the 2005 EIR had expired, the EIR’s sufficiency was not at issue in the case and overturned the trial court’s holding to that extent.
Despite the University’s argument that it had not made any land use decisions necessitating further environmental review, the Court of Appeal held that the definition of “project” under CEQA is broad and the University’s enrollment decisions were not exempt in this situation.
The Court specifically rejected the University’s argument that Public Resources Code section 21080.09, which expressly required the University to adopt the long-range development plan, essentially exempted the University’s later enrollment decisions related to that plan. Instead, the Court held that Section 21065, defining “project,” and Section 21080.09 “harmonize easily” and that Legislative history supported that the University was required to consider environmental impacts of enrollment decisions both as part of, and independent of, such a plan as increases in enrollment were likely to have a substantial impact on the environment.
The Court of Appeal found Save Berkeley stated sufficient facts to support a claim on which relief could be granted – the increase in projected enrollment constituted a change in project meriting additional environmental review – and remanded to the trial court for further review.
Key Takeaways
The First District’s holding is consistent with the principle that CEQA is to be broadly construed and widely applicable. Lead agencies that rely on previously certified EIRs should consider tiering or using supplemental or subsequent EIRs to analyze potential environmental impacts arising from changes to a project as initially described in the underlying EIR.
Questions
If you have any questions regarding this Legal Alert, please contact the following attorneys from our office, or the attorney with whom you typically consult.
Mona Ebrahimi
mebrahimi@kmtg.com | 916.321.4597
Olivia Clark
oclark@kmtg.com | 916.321.4290