The opinion
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
CALIFORNIA
MAKE UC A GOOD NEIGHBOR et al.,
Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v.
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA et
al.,
Defendants and Respondents;
RESOURCES FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT,
Real Party in Interest.
S279242
First Appellate District, Division Five
A165451
Alameda County Superior Court
RG21110142
June 6, 2024
Chief Justice Guerrero authored the opinion of the Court, in
which Justices Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, Groban, Jenkins, and
Evans concurred.
MAKE UC A GOOD NEIGHBOR v. THE REGENTS OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
S279242
Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J.
The University of California, Berkeley (UC Berkeley)
provides student housing to the lowest percentage of students at
any University of California campus in the state. In response to
concerns regarding housing insecurity, and in light of the Bay
Area’s regional housing crisis, UC Berkeley proposes to build a
housing project on a site called People’s Park near the campus.
The project has generated opposition. Project opponents
challenge the certification of an environmental impact report
(EIR) that evaluates both the specific housing project at People’s
Park and a broader plan to guide long-term physical
development at UC Berkeley. 1 Plaintiffs Make UC a Good
Neighbor and People’s Park Historic District Advocacy Group
(collectively, Good Neighbor) contend the EIR fails to consider
the environmental impacts caused by “student-generated noise”
such as “vocal noise from house parties and from late-night
pedestrians.” They further contend the EIR failed to adequately
consider alternatives to the People’s Park location. The Court
of Appeal agreed with Good Neighbor on these points.
1
The EIR was prepared pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code,
§ 21000 et seq.). All subsequent statutory references are to the
Public Resources Code unless otherwise indicated.
1
MAKE UC A GOOD NEIGHBOR v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA
Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J.
We granted review of the Court of Appeal’s decision that
the 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.” (Make UC A Good Neighbor v. Regents of
University of California (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 656, 665 (Make
UC).)
After we granted review, on September 7, 2023, the
Legislature passed Assembly Bill No. 1307 (2023–2024 Reg.
Sess.) (Assembly Bill 1307) as urgency legislation, effective
immediately. Assembly Bill 1307 added sections 21085 and
21085.2 to the Public Resources Code. As summarized by the
Legislative Counsel, the new law provides that: (1) “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 (2) “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 if certain requirements are
met.” (Legis. Counsel’s Dig., Assem. Bill No. 1307 (2023–2024
Reg. Sess.).)
The new law has narrowed the scope of the issues
necessary for this Court to resolve. Good Neighbor concedes
that Assembly Bill 1307 applies to our consideration of the case.
Good Neighbor further concedes that the new law makes clear
that the EIR, insofar as it evaluates the People’s Park housing
2
MAKE UC A GOOD NEIGHBOR v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA
Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J.
project, is not required to examine “social noise”2 or potential
alternative locations to People’s Park. However, Good Neighbor
contends that its social noise claim as to the adequacy of the
EIR’s evaluation of the plan to guide long-term physical
development remains viable because the new law “exempts only
‘residential projects’ from CEQA analysis,” and Good Neighbor
maintains that the development plan — including its asserted
projected enrollment-driven population increase — “is not a
‘residential project’ ” within the meaning of the new law. As to
its alternative locations argument, Good Neighbor asks us to
consider its claim with respect to housing projects that the
Regents of the University of California (Regents) might carry
out in the future pursuant to the development plan.
We conclude that, based on the new law, none of Good
Neighbor’s claims has merit and we accordingly reverse the
Court of Appeal’s judgment. We hold that the new law applies
to both the People’s Park housing project and the development
plan, and the EIR is not inadequate for having failed to study
the potential noisiness of future students at UC Berkeley in
connection with this project. We decline to consider Good
Neighbor’s alternative locations argument with respect to
potential future housing projects which are simply not before us.
In short, as all parties have effectively acknowledged, this
lawsuit poses no obstacle to the development of the People’s
Park housing project.
2
We understand Good Neighbor to use the term “social
noise” to refer to noise generated by human voices during social
interactions, and we use the term in that fashion throughout
this opinion.
3
MAKE UC A GOOD NEIGHBOR v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA
Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J.
I.
A.
Each University of California campus periodically
develops a planning document referred to as a Long Range
Development Plan (LRDP) to guide “physical development,
including land use designations, the location of buildings, and
infrastructure systems, for an established time horizon.” (Ed.
Code, § 67504, subd. (a)(1).) In July 2021, the Regents approved
the LRDP at issue in this case (2021 LRDP). The 2021 LRDP
identifies UC Berkeley’s campus space, housing, and parking
needs; and it describes the land use, open space, mobility, and
infrastructure systems needed to support campus development.
The 2021 LRDP estimates future population levels at the
university for planning purposes, but it “do[es] not mandate or
commit UC Berkeley to any specific level of student enrollment
or overall growth.” For the horizon year of 2036–2037, the 2021
LRDP estimates a total campus population of 67,200. This
estimate represents an increase of 12,070 individuals over the
“current population” of 55,130 for the 2018–2019 year, including
increases of 8,490 students and 3,580 faculty and staff.
One of the 2021 LRDP’s goals is to “[i]mprove the existing
housing stock and construct new student beds and faculty
housing units in support of the Chancellor’s Housing
Initiative.”3 To that end, the 2021 LRDP plans for the addition
3
The 2021 LRDP explains that the Chancellor’s Housing
Initiative establishes a goal of providing “two years of housing
for entering freshmen; one year for entering transfer students;
one year for entering graduate students; and up to [six] years
for untenured faculty.”
4
MAKE UC A GOOD NEIGHBOR v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA
Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J.
of 11,730 new student beds to be “implemented incrementally
over the long term as resources become available for individual
capital projects.”4
In September 2021, the Regents approved a plan for the
specific redevelopment project at issue here — Housing Project
No. 2 — which sought to redevelop a site near the UC Berkeley
campus known as People’s Park.5 The proposed project includes
three primary components: (1) student housing;
(2) preservation and revitalization of green space open to the
public; and (3) affordable and permanent supportive housing to
be developed by a nonprofit partner.6 When complete, Housing
Project No. 2 is projected to add 1,113 student beds, 1.7 acres of
open landscape, and 125 affordable and supportive housing beds
(housing for lower-income or formerly homeless individuals not
affiliated with the university).
In the summer of 2021, the Regents certified an EIR (the
2021 EIR) that included both a “program” EIR (CEQA
Guidelines, § 15168)7 designed to identify and assess potential
4
By way of comparison, the 2021 LRDP notes that
UC Berkeley had constructed approximately 1,100 beds of
student housing under the prior LRDP, which was adopted in
2005.
5
Because the record contains references to both Housing
Project No. 2 and the People’s Park project, we use the terms
interchangeably.
6
Real party in interest, Resources for Community
Development (RCD), is the nonprofit partner.
7
All references to “CEQA Guidelines” are to the
administrative guidelines for the implementation of CEQA.
(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.) A “program” EIR
allows an agency to “first analyze[] ‘general matters contained
5
MAKE UC A GOOD NEIGHBOR v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA
Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J.
environmental impacts from the approval and implementation
of the 2021 LRDP,8 and a “project” EIR (CEQA Guidelines,
§ 15161)9 designed to evaluate the implementation of two
specific development projects, one of which is Housing Project
No. 2.
B.
In October 2021, Good Neighbor filed the operative
petition for writ of mandate against the Regents, the president
of UC Berkeley, and the Chancellor of UC Berkeley (collectively,
respondents); it named RCD as a real party in interest. Good
Neighbor alleged that the 2021 EIR “fails to lawfully assess or
mitigate the Project’s[10] effects on noise pollution,” and “[f]ails
to analyze a range of reasonable alternatives.” The writ petition
asked the trial court to void the approvals of the 2021 LRDP and
in a broader [initial] EIR . . . with later EIRs . . . [analyzing]
narrow projects.’ ” (Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v.
San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th
937, 960.)
8
Section 21080.09, subdivision (b) provides in relevant
part, “[T]he approval of a long-range development plan [is]
subject to this division and require[s] the preparation of an
environmental impact report.” The statute’s reference to “this
division” refers to CEQA. (§ 21080.09, subd. (b); see § 21050
[“This division shall be known and may be cited as the California
Environmental Quality Act”].)
9
A “project” EIR focuses “primarily on the changes in the
environment that would result from the development project,”
and “examine[s] all phases of the project including planning,
construction, and operation.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15161.)
10
The writ petition uses the term “Project” to include the
2021 LRDP and Housing Project No. 2.
6
MAKE UC A GOOD NEIGHBOR v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA
Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J.
Housing Project No. 2 and to void the certification of the 2021
EIR.
In a supporting brief, Good Neighbor argued the 2021
EIR’s analysis of social noise was inadequate because it failed to
adequately study “student party and pedestrian noise
disturbances.” Good Neighbor cited a report from a noise expert
who opined both that “vocal noise from house parties and from
late-night pedestrians will exceed the residential Exterior Noise
Limits adopted by the [2021] EIR as a threshold of
significance,”11 and that “there is no effective physical or
regulatory mitigation to avoid these increased incidences of
significant impacts from late night drunken pedestrians or
unruly student parties.” Good Neighbor noted that the noise
expert relied on a history of noise complaints and failed
abatement efforts documented in a letter by a leader of a
program funded by UC Berkeley called Happy Neighbors. Good
Neighbor also argued that the 2021 EIR was deficient for failing
to study alternative locations for Housing Project No. 2.
In opposition to Good Neighbor’s social noise claim,
respondents and RCD argued that Good Neighbor failed to cite
any legal authority for the proposition that the Regents were
required to study such impacts, and they maintained that no
such authority existed. They further contended that Good
Neighbor’s “argument assumes, without evidence, that
11
“A threshold of significance is an identifiable quantitative,
qualitative or performance level of a particular environmental
effect, noncompliance with which means the effect will normally
be determined to be significant by the agency and compliance
with which means the effect normally will be determined to be
less than significant.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.7, subd. (a).)
7
MAKE UC A GOOD NEIGHBOR v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA
Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J.
additional students would generate substantial late night noise
impacts simply because they are students,” and that Good
Neighbor’s supporting letters from the noise expert and the
leader of the Happy Neighbors organization were “based upon
speculation” rather than substantial evidence. Respondents
and RCD also argued that they were not required to analyze
infeasible off-site project location alternatives to Housing
Project No. 2.
The trial court denied the petition. With respect to Good
Neighbor’s social noise claim, the court found that comment
letters from the noise expert and the leader of Happy Neighbors
were unpersuasive because they were “based upon speculation.”
As to the Regents’ alleged failure to consider alternatives to
Housing Project No. 2, the court determined that the Regents’
“determination to not consider off-site alternatives [was] not a
violation of CEQA as off-site development would not satisfy
most of the project objectives, nor avoid or substantially lessen
the significant effects of the People’s Park project.”
The Make UC court reversed the trial court’s judgment
and remanded the matter with directions that the trial court
vacate its order and judgment denying Good Neighbor’s petition
for writ of mandate. (Make UC, supra, 88 Cal.App.5th at
p. 695.) The Court of Appeal further directed that the trial court
enter a modified judgment consistent with the appellate court’s
conclusions that the 2021 EIR was inadequate because it failed
to study social noise impacts and because it failed to consider
potential alternatives to Housing Project No. 2. (Ibid.)
With respect to noise impacts, the Make UC court agreed
with Good Neighbor that, as to both the 2021 LRDP and
Housing Project No. 2, “the EIR failed to analyze potential noise
8
MAKE UC A GOOD NEIGHBOR v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA
Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J.
impacts from loud student parties in residential areas near the
campus.” (Make UC, supra, 88 Cal.App.5th at p. 685.) After
noting that “CEQA includes ‘noise’ as part of the
‘ “[e]nvironment” ’ ” (ibid., quoting §§ 21060.5, 21068), and
observing that “[t]he Legislature has declared that it is the
state’s policy to ‘[t]ake all action necessary to provide the people
of this state with . . . freedom from excessive noise’ ” (Make UC,
at p. 685, quoting § 21001, subd. (b)), the Make UC court
explained that “CEQA applies to the type of noise at issue
here — crowds of people talking, laughing, shouting, and
playing music that disturbs neighboring residents” (Make UC,
at p. 685).
The Make UC court rejected arguments that Good
Neighbor’s noise impact claim was based on “opinions and
speculation that reflect an antistudent bias” and “stereotypes,”
and determined that, “[g]iven the long track record of loud
student parties that violate the city’s noise ordinances (the
threshold for significance), there is a reasonable possibility that
adding thousands more students to these same residential
neighborhoods would make the problem worse.” (Make UC,
supra, 88 Cal.App.5th at pp. 687, 688, 689.) Thus, the Make UC
court concluded, “The Regents must analyze the potential noise
impacts relating to loud student parties.” (Id. at p. 690.)
The Make UC court also concluded that the 2021 EIR
“failed to consider and analyze a reasonable range of
alternatives” to Housing Project No. 2. (Make UC, supra,
88 Cal.App.5th at p. 677.) While the Make UC court explained
that it did “not hold the Regents must necessarily study an
alternative site or sites for the People’s Park project,” the court
concluded that “absent a viable explanation for declining to
9
MAKE UC A GOOD NEIGHBOR v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA
Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J.
consider alternative locations, the range of alternatives in the
[2021] EIR was unreasonable.” (Id. at pp. 676, 683.)
C.
Respondents and Good Neighbor petitioned this Court to
review different aspects of the Court of Appeal’s decision.
We denied Good Neighbor’s petition for review, asking
whether CEQA “permit[s] the EIR to omit analysis of a lower
enrollment and population growth alternative.” Good Neighbor
argued that the Make UC court erred in concluding “that the
LRDP’s campus enrollment and population plan is not part of
the LRDP ‘project,’ ” and contended that UC Berkeley was
required to “mitigate significant off-campus impacts related to
campus growth and development.”
We granted respondents’ petition for review to consider
the Make UC court’s determinations that the 2021 EIR
improperly failed to analyze the environmental impact of social
noise from students and failed to properly consider alternative
locations for Housing Project No. 2. While the appeal was
pending in this court, the Legislature passed a new law that
impacts our review of these issues — Assembly Bill 1307, which
added two new sections to the Public Resources Code that are
discussed below.
II.
A.
“ ‘CEQA embodies a central state policy to require state
and local governmental entities to perform their duties “so that
major consideration is given to preventing environmental
damage.” [Citations.] [¶] CEQA prescribes how governmental
decisions will be made when public entities, including the state
10
MAKE UC A GOOD NEIGHBOR v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA
Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J.
itself, are charged with approving, funding — or themselves
undertaking — a project with significant effects on the
environment.’ ” (County of Butte v. Department of Water
Resources (2022) 13 Cal.5th 612, 626.) “If, after performing an
initial study, the agency responsible for CEQA compliance . . .
finds substantial evidence that a project may have a significant
environmental impact, the agency must prepare and certify an
EIR before approving or proceeding with the project.” (Id. at
p. 627.)
However, “no matter how important its original purpose,
CEQA remains a legislative act, subject to legislative limitation
and legislative amendment.” (Napa Valley Wine Train, Inc. v.
Public Utilities Com. (1990) 50 Cal.3d 370, 376.) The
Legislature may, for example, determine that a particular
aspect of a project shall not constitute a “significant effect on the
environment.” (§ 21085; see, e.g., §§ 21081.3, subd. (a)
[specifying that certain “aesthetic effects shall not be considered
significant effects on the environment”], 21099, subds. (b)(2)
[specifying that under certain circumstances “automobile delay,
as described solely by level of service or similar measures of
vehicular capacity or traffic congestion, shall not be considered
a significant impact on the environment”], (d)(1) [specifying that
“[a]esthetic and parking impacts of a residential, mixed-use
residential, or employment center project on an infill site within
a transit priority area shall not be considered significant
impacts on the environment”].)
This case requires us to consider the meaning of the
Legislature’s limitation as to the applicability of CEQA
contained in sections 21085 and 21085.2. Section 21085
provides: “For purposes of [CEQA], for residential projects, the
11
MAKE UC A GOOD NEIGHBOR v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA
Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J.
effects of noise generated by project occupants and their guests
on human beings is not a significant effect on the environment.”
Section 21085.2, subdivision (b) provides: “Notwithstanding
any other law or regulation, institutions of public higher
education shall not be required, in an environmental impact
report prepared for a residential or mixed-use housing project,
to consider alternatives to the location of the residential or
mixed-use housing project if both of the following requirements
are met: [¶] (1) The residential or mixed-use housing project is
located on a site that is no more than five acres and is
substantially surrounded by qualified urban uses. [¶] (2) The
residential or mixed-use housing project has already been
evaluated in the environmental impact report for the most
recent long-range development plan for the applicable
campus.”12
“Statutory interpretation is ‘an issue of law, which we
review de novo.’ ” (Union of Medical Marijuana Patients, Inc. v.
12
Section 21085.2, subdivision (a) provides: “For purposes
of this section, the following definitions apply: [¶] (1) ‘Long-
range development plan’ means a physical development and
land use plan to meet the academic and institutional objectives
for a particular campus or medical center of public higher
education. [¶] (2) ‘Public higher education’ means the
institutions described in subdivision (a) of Section 66010 of the
Education Code. [¶] (3) ‘Residential or mixed-use housing
project’ means a project consisting of residential uses only or a
mix of residential and nonresidential uses, with at least two-
thirds of the square footage of the development designated for
residential uses. [¶] (4) ‘Substantially surrounded’ means at
least 75 percent of the perimeter of the project site adjoins, or is
separated only by an improved public right-of-way from, parcels
that are developed with qualified urban uses.”
12
MAKE UC A GOOD NEIGHBOR v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA
Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J.
City of San Diego (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1171, 1183 (Union of Medical
Marijuana Patients).) “Our overriding purpose in construing a
provision of CEQA, as with any statute, is ‘to adopt the
construction that best gives effect to the Legislature’s intended
purpose.’ [Citation.] In determining that intended purpose, we
follow ‘[s]ettled principles.’ [Citation.] ‘We consider first the
words of a statute, as the most reliable indicator of legislative
intent.’ [Citation.] In doing so, we give the words ‘their usual
and ordinary meaning,’ viewed in the context of the statute as a
whole. [Citation.] As part of this process, ‘ “ ‘[every] statute
should be construed with reference to the whole system of law
of which it is a part so that all may be harmonized and have
effect.’ ” ’ ” (Id. at pp. 1183–1184.)
“When the language of a statute is ambiguous — that is,
when the words of the statute are susceptible to more than one
reasonable meaning, given their usual and ordinary meaning
and considered in the context of the statute as a whole — we
consult other indicia of the Legislature’s intent, including such
extrinsic aids as legislative history and public policy.
[Citations.] If there is no ambiguity, ‘ “ ‘ “we presume the
Legislature meant what it said and the plain meaning of the
statute governs.” ’ ” ’ ” (Union of Medical Marijuana Patients,
supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 1184.)
“In addition to these general precepts, a more specific
principle is directly applicable when . . . the Legislature
undertakes to amend a statute which has been the subject of
judicial construction. In such a case it is presumed that the
Legislature was fully cognizant of such construction, and when
substantial changes are made in the statutory language it is
usually inferred that the lawmakers intended to alter the law in
13
MAKE UC A GOOD NEIGHBOR v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA
Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J.
those particulars affected by such changes.” (Palos Verdes
Faculty Assn. v. Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified Sch. Dist.
(1978) 21 Cal.3d 650, 659 (Palos Verdes).)
In mandamus proceedings, a reviewing court applies the
law that is current at the time of judgment in the reviewing
court. (Citizens for Positive Growth & Preservation v. City of
Sacramento (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 609, 626 (Citizens for Positive
Growth); see Callie v. Board of Supervisors (1969) 1 Cal.App.3d
13, 19 [applying this principle with respect to injunction
proceedings because “ ‘[r]elief by injunction operates in futuro’ ”
and observing that “[t]he same equitable considerations also
have been applied in the case of mandamus proceedings”].)
B.
Good Neighbor concedes that Assembly Bill 1307 resolves
significant aspects of its claims — both with respect to the 2021
EIR’s analysis of social noise impacts and its consideration of
alternative locations to Housing Project No. 2.
With respect to social noise impacts, Good Neighbor
concedes that section 21085 “prevents [a] court from requiring
project-level CEQA analysis of the effects of ‘social noise’
associated with Housing Project [No.] 2 as sited in People’s
Park.”
Regarding the need to consider alternative locations, Good
Neighbor concedes that Housing Project No. 2 “meets the
criteria specified in new . . . section 21085.2 for exemption from
further CEQA review” and that “[t]he housing exemption for
institutions of public higher education . . . specifically intended
to preclude judicial action requiring additional alternative sites
CEQA review for Housing Project No. 2 as proposed in People’s
Park.”
14
MAKE UC A GOOD NEIGHBOR v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA
Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J.
Nonetheless, Good Neighbor contends a portion of its
claim regarding social noise impacts remains viable — namely,
the portion relating to the 2021 LRDP, including the
enrollment-driven population plan it asserts is encompassed
within the 2021 LRDP. Good Neighbor further contends that,
although its argument regarding the need to consider
alternatives to Housing Project No. 2 is “moot,” this Court
should decide the claim because it raises issues of broad public
interest that are likely to recur. We discuss these claims in turn.
C.
As an initial matter, we accept Good Neighbor’s concession
that section 21085 precludes “project-level CEQA analysis of the
effects of ‘social noise’ associated with Housing Project [No.] 2 as
sited in People’s Park.” Good Neighbor argued below that the
EIR’s analysis of the impacts of “student-generated noise” was
inadequate. But section 21085 clearly states that “[f]or purposes
of [CEQA], for residential projects, the effects of noise generated
by project occupants and their guests on human beings is not a
significant effect on the environment.”
Because Good Neighbor does not dispute either that
Housing Project No. 2 is a “residential project[]” within the
meaning of section 21085, or that this statute governs our
consideration of the merits of the social noise claim on appeal
(Citizens for Positive Growth, supra, 43 Cal.App.5th at p. 626),
Good Neighbor’s social noise claim with respect to Housing
Project No. 2 necessarily fails. It cannot be said that the 2021
EIR is inadequate for having failed to study the effects of social
noise associated with Housing Project No. 2, when no such
analysis is required under section 21085. The alleged
environmental impacts of “noise generated by project occupants
15
MAKE UC A GOOD NEIGHBOR v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA
Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J.
and their guests on human beings” at the proposed new housing
project located at People’s Park are not subject to review under
CEQA. (§ 21085.)
What remains for us to decide is Good Neighbor’s claim
that the 2021 EIR is nonetheless deficient for failing to
adequately consider the environmental impacts of social noise
resulting more broadly from the 2021 LRDP — the long-range
plan that governs physical development at UC Berkeley through
the horizon year of 2036–2037.13
According to Good Neighbor, one reason this claim
remains viable is because the 2021 LRDP does not constitute a
“residential project[]” within the meaning of section 21085.
Although the term “residential projects” is not defined for
purposes of section 21085, section 21065 defines a “ ‘[p]roject’ ”
as “an activity which may cause either a direct physical change
in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect
physical change in the environment,” when carried out directly
or indirectly by a public agency under specified circumstances.
Given that section 21060 mandates that section 21065’s
definition of project shall “govern the construction” of CEQA
(§ 21060), “we must assume that in using the defined term
‘project’ in section [21085], the Legislature intended it to bear
13
Aside from its social noise claim, Good Neighbor does not
contend that the 2021 EIR was deficient in any other aspect of
its environmental analysis of noise, either with respect to
Housing Project No. 2 or the LRDP. We note that both the draft
and final version of the 2021 EIR contain a detailed analysis of
anticipated noise, including that generated by construction and
traffic with respect to both Housing Project No. 2 and the LRDP.
Public comments were also received, considered, and responded
to during the environmental analysis of these noise impacts.
16
MAKE UC A GOOD NEIGHBOR v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA
Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J.
the definition assigned in section 21065.” (Union of Medical
Marijuana Patients, supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 1191; see ibid.
[Legislature’s “use of the defined term ‘project,’ rather than a
generic term such as ‘activity,’ suggests that the Legislature
intended to incorporate the defined concept”].)14
Unlike the term “project,” the term “residential” is not
statutorily defined within CEQA. We therefore presume that
14
We have explained that section 21060 makes certain
statutory definitions provided in CEQA binding on courts: “ ‘ “If
the Legislature has provided an express definition of a term,
that definition ordinarily is binding on the courts.” ’ [Citation.]
As a corollary of this principle, ‘[t]erms defined by the statute in
which they are found will be presumed to have been used in the
sense of the definition.’ [Citation.] In the case of CEQA, this
judicial presumption is legislatively mandated. Section 21060
expressly states that CEQA’s definitions ‘govern the
construction of this division.’ ” (Union of Medical Marijuana
Patients, supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 1191.)
By contrast, while Good Neighbor notes that the
Legislature provided a definition for “ ‘[r]esidential or mixed-use
housing project’ ” in section 21085.2 governing the consideration
of certain alternatives (id., subd. (a)(3)), the Legislature
specified that this definition applies only “[f]or purposes of this
section” — that is, section 21085.2. (Id., subd. (a).) Under these
circumstances, we decline to apply section 21085.2’s definition
of “ ‘[r]esidential or mixed-use housing project’ ” to
section 21085’s use of the term “residential projects.” (See, e.g.,
Skidgel v. California Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (2021)
12 Cal.5th 1, 23 [declining to apply statutory definition from one
section of a statutory scheme to another section where
“[n]othing suggests . . . the Legislature intended or understood
that it would” apply in such a fashion].) As we recognized in
People v. Leal (2004) 33 Cal.4th 999, 1007, a statutory definition
that “begins with the phrase, ‘[a]s used in this section,’ . . . belies
any legislative intent to apply the definition[]” outside of the
specified section.
17
MAKE UC A GOOD NEIGHBOR v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA
Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J.
the Legislature intended for it to have its “ordinary meaning.”
(In re N.R. (2023) 15 Cal.5th 520, 539 [“The Legislature’s failure
to define [a term] suggests that legislators intended for this term
to bear its ordinary meaning in this context”].) And we take the
ordinary meaning of “residential” to mean “of or relating to
residence or residences.” (Merriam-Webster Dict. Online (2024)
<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Residential> [as
of June 6, 2024];15 see In re N.R., at p. 540 [dictionary definitions
may be helpful in ascertaining the ordinary meaning of words].)
Thus, considering the individual terms “residential” and
“projects” together, the Legislature’s use of the collective term
“residential projects” in section 21085 suggests that the statute
applies to public agency activities that relate to residence or
residences that may have a significant effect on the
environment.
Contrary to Good Neighbor’s assertion that the meaning
of the term “residential projects” in section 21085 is plain, we
conclude that, even when applying the above construction, the
term may have different meanings. As used in the statute, the
term might narrowly refer to plans to add residential units to a
specific location. (See, e.g., City of Goleta v. Superior Court
(2006) 40 Cal.4th 270, 274 [developer “submitted a vesting
tentative subdivision map to the County for a multiunit
residential project within [City’s] proposed boundaries”].) Or
the term might more broadly refer to land use planning to the
extent it concerns residential development. (See, e.g., CEQA
15
All internet citations in this opinion are archived by year,
docket number and case name at <http://www.courts.ca.gov/
38324.htm>.
18
MAKE UC A GOOD NEIGHBOR v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA
Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J.
Guidelines, § 15182, subd. (c)(1) [“Residential projects covered
by this section include but are not limited to land subdivisions,
zoning changes, and residential planned unit developments”].)
Section 21085’s brevity — consisting of a single sentence —
provides limited contextual clues as to the breadth the
Legislature intended to ascribe to the term.
Advancing a narrower interpretation, Good Neighbor
argues that “[t]he Legislature could have amended CEQA to
provide that ‘for LRDPs, noise generated by LRDP population
plans is not a significant effect on the environment,’ but it did
not.” (Italics added.) This argument is unpersuasive. That the
Legislature could have specifically referred to LRDPs does not
answer the question of whether an LRDP is within the scope of
the different term — namely, “residential projects” (§ 21085) —
which the Legislature chose to use. Good Neighbor’s invocation
of the canon of statutory construction, expressio unius est
exclusio alterius, pursuant to which “the explicit mention of
some things in a text may imply other matters not similarly
addressed are excluded” (Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v.
Padilla (2016) 62 Cal.4th 486, 514), does not advance its claim
here because Good Neighbor has failed to establish that the
2021 LRDP is outside the scope of section 21085’s reference to
“residential projects.”
A broader interpretation of “residential projects”
(§ 21085) — one that encompasses land use planning to the
extent it concerns residential development — appears to better
correspond with the Legislature’s intent to specify the type of
noise that does not constitute a significant effect on the
environment, namely that emanating from “project occupants
and their guests.” (§ 21085.) In addition, by referring to
19
MAKE UC A GOOD NEIGHBOR v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA
Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J.
“residential projects” rather than LRDPs in section 21085, the
Legislature appears to have left open the possibility that certain
noise impacts from a nonresidential project (e.g., a stadium,
entertainment venue, or commercial center) planned for in an
LRDP might constitute a significant effect on the
environment. 16
Ultimately, after considering the text and statutory
context of the term “residential projects” in section 21085, we
conclude the term is ambiguous. The statute’s reference to
“residential projects” could either refer narrowly to plans to add
residential units to a specific location, or more broadly to land
use planning to the extent it concerns residential development.
We therefore consider “ ‘ “ ‘ “the statute’s purpose, legislative
history, and public policy” ’ ” ’ ” (Smith v. LoanMe, Inc. (2021)
11 Cal.5th 183, 190 (Smith)) to discern its meaning.
It is unnecessary for us to conclusively define the scope of
the meaning of “residential projects” in section 21085. Even
assuming the 2021 LRDP is not a plan to add residential units
to a specific location,17 the statute’s purpose, as revealed in its
legislative history, makes clear that the term should be
interpreted broadly enough to encompass those portions of the
2021 LRDP at issue in this case. (See 2A Singer & Singer,
Statutes and Statutory Construction (7th. ed. 2023) § 48:3
16
We have no occasion to consider whether social noise
impacts from nonresidential aspects of an LRDP might
constitute a significant effect on the environment in the wake of
the enactment of section 21085.
17
However, the 2021 LRDP does include a map identifying
specific sites for potential development, including the People’s
Park site on which Housing Project No. 2 is planned to be built.
20
MAKE UC A GOOD NEIGHBOR v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA
Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J.
[“Courts look to a statute’s contemporary history and historical
background as aids to interpretation,” to “illuminate the
circumstances under which an act was passed, the mischief at
which it was aimed, and the statute’s ‘object’ or ‘purpose’ ”], fns.
omitted; see, e.g., Delaney v. Baker (1999) 20 Cal.4th 23, 41
[noting that the meaning of a statutory phrase may depend upon
the legislative history and underlying purpose of the statute in
which the phrase is used].)
The legislative history of Assembly Bill 1307
overwhelmingly establishes that the Legislature enacted the
new law to abrogate the Make UC decision. This critical fact
guides our interpretation of the term “residential projects” in
section 21085. The legislative history is replete with references
to the Make UC decision.18 And it is quite clear that, in enacting
section 21085, the Legislature was focused on rejecting the
Make UC court’s central underlying conclusion that social noise
from residential users may constitute a significant effect on the
environment. (Compare Make UC, supra, 88 Cal.App.5th at
p. 685 [“CEQA applies to the type of noise at issue here —
crowds of people talking, laughing, shouting, and playing music
that disturbs neighboring residents”] with Sen. Com. on
18
See, e.g., Assembly Committee on Natural Resources,
Report on Assembly Bill No. 1307 (2023–2024 Reg. Sess.) as
amended March 16, 2023, page 2; Assembly Committee on
Appropriations, Report on Assembly Bill No. 1307 (2023–2024
Reg. Sess.) as amended March 16, 2023, page 2; Senate
Committee on Environmental Quality, Analysis of Assembly
Bill No. 1307 (2023–2024 Reg. Sess.) as amended May 18, 2023,
pages 2–3; Senate Rules Committee, Office of Senate Floor
Analyses, Analysis of Assembly Bill No. 1307 (2023–2024 Reg.
Sess.) as amended June 26, 2023, pages 5, 7, 9.
21
MAKE UC A GOOD NEIGHBOR v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA
Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J.
Environmental Quality, Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 1307, supra,
p. 1 [broadly stating that the bill “specifies that noise from
residents does not constitute a significant environmental effect
under the California Environmental Quality Act”].) For
example, Assembly Bill 1307’s author explained that one
purpose of the bill was to “remove the potential for litigants to
challenge residential development based on the speculation that
the new residents will create unwanted noises,” concluding
instead “that minor and intermittent noise nuisances, such as
from unamplified human voices, be addressed through local
nuisance ordinances and not via CEQA.” (Sen. Com. on
Environmental Quality, Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 1307, supra,
p. 3.)19
19
Good Neighbor argues that this statement, which is
repeated throughout several committee reports as the bill
author’s statement, “is not relevant to, much less dispositive of,
the Court’s construction of new CEQA section 21085, because
‘statements of an individual legislator, including the author of a
bill, are generally not considered in construing a statute, as the
court’s task is to ascertain the intent of the Legislature as a
whole in adopting a piece of legislation.’ ” (Quoting Quintano v.
Mercury Casualty Co. (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1049, 1062.) The
contention is without merit. “Where, as here, the author’s
statements are part of committee materials — and are therefore
relayed not merely as personal views, but instead as part of the
Legislature’s consideration of the bill — they can serve as
salient reflections of legislative purpose.” (McHugh v. Protective
Life Ins. Co. (2021) 12 Cal.5th 213, 241.) In interpreting
legislation, this court has frequently relied on a statement of the
bill’s author when such statement is contained in committee
materials. (See, e.g., People v. Braden (2023) 14 Cal.5th 791,
820; Smith, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 197.)
22
MAKE UC A GOOD NEIGHBOR v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA
Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J.
The Legislature’s intent to provide that social noise does
not constitute a significant impact on the environment for
residential projects is directly contrary to the Make UC court’s
conclusion that the 2021 EIR was inadequate for having failed
to study such noise impacts. (See, e.g., Sen. Rules Com., Off. of
Sen. Floor Analyses, Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 1307, supra,
p. 7 [stating that the Make UC court established a “new
precedent that noise from residents in projects should be an
environmental factor considered under CEQA,” but rejecting
such reasoning because “CEQA does not need to be expanded to
include noises from residents (or residents suspected of being
inherently noisy), as there are already mechanisms in place to
get noisy neighbors to quiet down”].) Indeed, the Legislature
described as “alarming” the Make UC court’s reasoning that
social noise should be considered because “students are noisy
and more likely to party than other people.” (Sen. Rules Com.,
Off. of Sen. Floor Analyses, Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 1307,
supra, p. 7.)
This clear legislative intent to abrogate the Make UC
court’s interpretation of CEQA as mandating a consideration of
social noise in this manner strongly supports the conclusion that
the Legislature intended for section 21085 to apply to the 2021
EIR’s evaluation of the residential aspects of the 2021 LRDP.
(See Palos Verdes, supra, 21 Cal.3d at p. 659 [stating that when
the Legislature substantially amends a statute that has
previously been judicially construed, it is usually inferred that
the Legislature intended to change the law].)
Good Neighbor advances a different interpretation — one
that applies section 21085 solely to the 2021 EIR’s evaluation of
Housing Project No. 2, but not to any portion of the 2021 EIR’s
23
MAKE UC A GOOD NEIGHBOR v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA
Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J.
evaluation of the 2021 LRDP. But we find nothing in the
legislative history of Assembly Bill 1307 suggesting the
Legislature intended to limit application of section 21085 in this
manner. (See Winn v. Pioneer Medical Group, Inc. (2016)
63 Cal.4th 148, 163 [“ ‘the absence of legislative history [can] be
of significance in deciphering legislative intent’ ”]; In re N.R.,
supra, 15 Cal.5th at p. 546 [same].) The absence of such
legislative history is particularly instructive because the
Legislature was aware that the 2021 EIR evaluated both the
2021 LRDP and Housing Project No. 2, and that both were at
issue in Make UC. (See Sen. Com. on Housing, Analysis of
Assem. Bill No. 1307 (2023–2024 Reg. Sess.) as amended
June 26, 2023, p. 5 [describing Make UC and noting that
“UC Berkeley analyzed the [2021] LRDP and the People’s Park
project together in a single EIR”].)
We further conclude it would have been reasonable for the
Legislature to have considered the 2021 LRDP to be a
“residential project[]” (§ 21085), at least with respect to that
portion of the 2021 LRDP challenged in this case. The 2021 EIR,
the Make UC court, and the legislative history of Assembly Bill
1307 all described the 2021 LRDP in a way that logically
correlates with the meaning of a residential project.
Specifically, the 2021 EIR described the 2021 LRDP by
noting that its “proposed development program includes . . .
approximately 11,073 student beds and 549 faculty and staff
beds,” and that it plans for a campus population of “48,200
students and 19,000 faculty and staff in the . . . 2036–37
academic year.”
Similarly, the Make UC court described the 2021 LRDP as
follows: “The 2021 plan encompasses a general strategy for
24
MAKE UC A GOOD NEIGHBOR v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA
Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J.
meeting the housing goals identified in the chancellor’s
initiative. The university anticipates (but is not committed to)
constructing up to 11,731 net new beds to accommodate a
projected increase in the campus population (students, faculty,
and staff) of up to 13,902 new residents. In addition, the plan
projects that another 8,173 students, faculty and staff will be
added to the population by the 2036–2037 academic year who
will not be provided with university housing.” (Make UC, supra,
88 Cal.App.5th at p. 666.)
The legislative history of Assembly Bill 1307 also indicates
that the Legislature was aware of the residential aspect of the
2021 LRDP. One committee analysis described the 2021 LRDP
as follows: “Each UC is required to adopt an LRDP, which is a
high level planning document that helps guide decision[s] on
land and infrastructure developments. An LRDP . . . functions
as a combination programmatic EIR and general land use plan.
UC Berkeley provides housing for only 23% of its students,
which is by far the lowest of any UC. Enrollments have
outpaced student housing development. The prior LRDP,
adopted in 2005, called for the construction of 2,600 beds
through 2021, which was 10,000 beds short of the projected
enrollment increase. The university only produced 1,119 of
those bed[s], while simultaneously increasing enrollment
beyond what was planned for in the LRDP. The most recent
LRDP, adopted in 2021, proposes to build 11,731 beds.” (Sen.
Com. on Housing, Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 1307, supra,
pp. 4–5.)
All these descriptions of the 2021 LRDP as a document
designed to plan for an increase in the number of housing units
and residents to the UC Berkeley campus area support the
25
MAKE UC A GOOD NEIGHBOR v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA
Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J.
conclusion that the Legislature intended the term “residential
projects” to apply to those portions of the 2021 LRDP at issue
here.
Public policy considerations lead to the same conclusion.
We need not wade into the contentious public debate
surrounding the implementation of Housing Project No. 2 and
the 2021 LRDP. Nonetheless, as was true with the Make UC
court, “[w]e are, of course, aware of the public interest in this
case . . . and the broader public debate about legal obstacles to
housing construction.” (Make UC, supra, 88 Cal.App.5th at
p. 665.) Given this context, we find it untenable that the
Legislature would preclude the consideration of social noise
impacts under CEQA only for projects designed to add
residential units to a specific location (such as Housing Project
No. 2) while potentially requiring the same analysis of social
noise when an agency makes broader land use planning
decisions (such as the 2021 LRDP) that encompass the specific
projects. If anything, an agency’s broader land use planning
decisions have less direct connection to the production of social
noise than an agency’s specific project adding residential units
to a specific location. We see nothing in section 21085’s purpose,
legislative history, or public policy that would support such an
anomalous result by limiting the statute’s application to
Housing Project No. 2 only.
Good Neighbor also focuses on the social noise impacts it
contends are “caused by all of the students included in the
LRDP’s projected enrollment-driven population increase,” in its
supplemental answer brief. Good Neighbor reasons that the
enrollment-driven population increase — which forms a part of
the LRDP at issue and which will bring thousands of new
26
MAKE UC A GOOD NEIGHBOR v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA
Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J.
students to the campus — is not a residential project and thus
must be evaluated for social noise impacts whether such
students are housed in UC Berkeley residential projects or not.
This argument is at odds with the Court of Appeal’s
holding regarding the limited purpose and scope of the LRDP.
The Make UC court held that these enrollment-driven
population increases were not part of the 2021 LRDP, and
therefore the 2021 EIR was not deficient for “failing to analyze
an alternative to the development plan that would limit student
enrollment.” (Make UC, supra, 88 Cal.App.5th at p. 668; see id.
at pp. 672–675.) It reasoned that “the process for setting
enrollment levels in the UC system is complicated, with
multiple players, interests, and trade-offs,” and that the LRDP
“deliberately keeps separate the complex annual process for
setting student enrollment levels.” (Id. at pp. 671, 672.) As the
Make UC court further explained, “the Regents adopted a
program EIR for a limited, high-level land use plan and made a
reasoned decision to exclude the enrollment process from the
scope of the project.” (Id. at p. 673.) We denied Good Neighbor’s
petition seeking review of the Make UC court’s conclusion that
the 2021 LRDP is not an enrollment-driven population plan, and
so Good Neighbor’s arguments focused on this issue are not
before us.
Further, the Legislature could have reasonably
determined that there was no need to specify in section 21085
that CEQA does not require an agency to study social noise
related to an increase in campus population recounted in an
LRDP because, as the Make UC court also noted, in a recent
amendment to the statute, “the Legislature exempted
enrollment and enrollment increases from the definition of a
27
MAKE UC A GOOD NEIGHBOR v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA
Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J.
project under CEQA.” (Make UC, supra, 88 Cal.App.5th at
p. 676, citing Sen. Bill No. 118 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.), Stats.
2022, ch. 10, § 1, eff. Mar. 14, 2022; § 21080.09, subd. (d).)
Finally, we reject as unsound Good Neighbor’s argument
that the new legislation “implicitly affirms . . . the [Make UC
court’s] ruling” by failing to specify the statute’s potential
application to the 2021 LRDP. (Italics omitted.) Drawing such
a negative inference is unwarranted given that the portions of
the 2021 LRDP at issue in this case are reasonably
characterized as a “residential project[]” (§ 21085). And such an
inference would stand in stark tension with the legislative
history discussed above that found the Make UC court’s holding
regarding the environmental impacts of social noise from
students and their guests to be “alarming.” (Sen. Rules Com.,
Off. of Sen. Floor Analyses, Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 1307,
supra, p. 7.)
In sum, given the Legislature’s enactment of section
21085, we conclude the 2021 EIR was not inadequate for failing
to have considered whether the impacts of social noise on
neighboring residents potentially caused by future students at
UC Berkeley constituted a significant effect on the environment
with respect to either Housing Project No. 2 or the residential
aspects of the 2021 LRDP. The Make UC court’s contrary
holdings must be reversed in the wake of the enactment of
Assembly Bill 1307.
D.
The Make UC court concluded that the 2021 EIR was
faulty for having “failed to justify the decision not to consider
alternative locations to the People’s Park project.” (Make UC,
supra, 88 Cal.App.5th at p. 665.)
28
MAKE UC A GOOD NEIGHBOR v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA
Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J.
As previously noted, Assembly Bill 1307 added new
section 21085.2, which specifies that public universities “shall
not be required, in an environmental impact report prepared for
a residential or mixed-use housing project, to consider
alternatives to the location of the residential or mixed-use
housing project” when certain criteria are met. (§ 21085.2, subd.
(b).) Good Neighbor concedes that Housing Project No. 2 meets
section 21085.2’s criteria. We accept Good Neighbor’s
concession. Further, because of section 21085.2’s application to
Housing Project No. 2, the Regents “shall not be required . . . to
consider alternatives to the location of” (§ 21085.2, subd. (b)) the
proposed new housing at People’s Park, and the 2021 EIR is not
inadequate for having failed to consider alternative locations for
this project.
In deciding this issue, we reject Good Neighbor’s framing
of the question as one involving mootness. Specifically, Good
Neighbor contends that section 21085.2 “moots” its alternative
sites claim, but we should nonetheless “decide Good Neighbor’s
claim because . . . it raises issues of broad public interest that
are likely to recur.” According to Good Neighbor, we should
consider how section 21085.2 might apply to future housing
projects that the Regents might carry out pursuant to the 2021
LRDP and we “should not allow [the Regents] to evade review of
this claim by obtaining passage of a statute that moots the
claim.”
The mootness doctrine has no application here. “A case
becomes moot when events ‘ “render[] it impossible for [a] court,
if it should decide the case in favor of plaintiff, to grant him any
effect[ive] relief.” ’ ” (In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 276,
italics added.) That has not occurred here. Section 21085.2 does
29
MAKE UC A GOOD NEIGHBOR v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA
Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J.
not make it impossible for a court to provide Good Neighbor
relief if it were to decide the case in Good Neighbor’s favor.
Instead, section 21085.2 makes clear that Good Neighbor is not
entitled to relief. Stated differently, the recent legislation does
not moot the case; it determines who prevails.
We further reject Good Neighbor’s request that we
consider the potential application of the new statute to future
projects on the ground that it is not encompassed within the
applicable issue raised in respondents’ petition for review, which
is whether the EIR “failed to justify the decision not to consider
alternative locations to the People’s Park project.” (Make UC,
supra, 88 Cal.App.5th at p. 665, italics added.) As noted, Good
Neighbor concedes that the People’s Park project “meets the
criteria specified in new . . . section 21085.2 for exemption from
further CEQA review.” The question of how section 21085.2
might apply to future housing projects — other than the People’s
Park project — is simply not before us and we do not render
advisory opinions on such issues.
III.
We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal in favor of
Good Neighbor and we remand the matter to the Court of Appeal
with directions to remand the case to the trial court to enter a
30
MAKE UC A GOOD NEIGHBOR v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA
Opinion of the Court by Guerrero, C. J.
judgment on the merits of Good Neighbor’s writ petition in favor
of respondents.
GUERRERO, C. J.
We Concur:
CORRIGAN, J.
LIU, J.
KRUGER, J.
GROBAN, J.
JENKINS, J.
EVANS, J.
31
See next page for addresses and telephone numbers for counsel who
argued in Supreme Court.
Name of Opinion Make UC A Good Neighbor v. Regents of
University of California
__________________________________________________________
Procedural Posture (see XX below)
Original Appeal
Original Proceeding
Review Granted (published) XX 88 Cal.App.5th 656
Review Granted (unpublished)
Rehearing Granted
__________________________________________________________
Opinion No. S279242
Date Filed: June 6, 2024
__________________________________________________________
Court: Superior
County: Alameda
Judge: Frank Roesch
__________________________________________________________
Counsel:
Law Offices of Thomas N. Lippe, Thomas N. Lippe; Soluri Meserve,
Patrick M. Soluri, Osha R. Meserve and James C. Crowder for
Plaintiffs and Appellants.
The Sohagi Law Group, Nicole H. Gordon, Margaret M. Sohagi, Mark
J.G. Desrosiers; Lubin Olson & Niewiadomski, Charles R. Olson,
Philip J. Sciranka; Charles F. Robinson, Rhonda S. Goldstein,
Katharine S. Essick, Alison L. Krumbein; David M. Robinson; Horvitz
& Levy, Beth J. Jay, Jeremy B. Rosen, Mitchell C. Tilner and H.
Thomas Watson for Defendants and Respondents.
Farimah Faiz Brown, City Attorney, for the City of Berkeley as Amicus
Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Respondents.
Holland & Knight and Jennifer L. Hernandez for The Two Hundred for
Homeownership as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendants and
Respondents.
Downey Brand, Kathryn Oehlschlager and Breana M. Inoshita for the
League of California Cities and the California State Association of
Counties as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Respondents.
Buchalter, Douglas C. Straus and Alicia Cristina Guerra for Real
Party in Interest Resources for Community Development.
Counsel who argued in Supreme Court (not intended for
publication with opinion):
Thomas N. Lippe
Law Offices of Thomas N. Lippe, APC
50 California Street, Suite 1500
San Francisco, CA 94111
(415) 777-5604
Nicole H. Gordon
The Sohagi Law Group, PLC
11999 San Vicente Boulevard, Suite 150
Los Angeles, CA 90049
(310) 475-5700