SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — The University of California, Berkeley can build student housing in a park long known as a community for homeless residents and for anti-war and free speech movements, the California Supreme Court said.
The state's high court ruled Thursday in favor of the University of California's plan for the site of the recently demolished People’s Park in Berkeley. It reversed a state appellate court’s decision agreeing with a challenge from two community organizations claiming that the university's environmental impact study for the project failed to consider alternative sites or the impact of "social noise" from the students on the neighborhood.
Attorneys for one of those organizations, Make UC A Good Neighbor, did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the ruling Thursday.
The university said in a statement Thursday that it will soon resume construction on the project, which may lead to housing to accommodate up to 13,902 new residents.
“The housing components of the project are desperately needed by our students and unhoused people, and the entire community will benefit from the fact that more than 60% of the 2.8-acre site will be revitalized as open park space,” the university said. “We are grateful for the strong and ongoing support this project has received from the majority of Berkeley students, community members, advocates for the unhoused, the city’s elected leaders, the state Legislature and the governor.”
The litigation follows years of contention on the park's use from community groups who say that while there isn't enough housing available to accommodate the current student population, the university should have better studied the impacts of adding more than 10,000 students to the neighborhood.
Additionally, advocates for homeless residents fought the university’s attempts to clear the park, which became a haven for people in dire straits. The organization Defend People’s Park helped homeless people maintain a community kitchen and distribute basic necessities. But the university in January cleared the park amid protests, deploying hundreds of police officers to remove homeless residents and protesters and erecting shipping containers around its perimeter to prevent public access.
The California Supreme Court said in the Thursday ruling that based on a newly approved 2023 bill, Assembly Bill 1307, none of the appellants' claims held merit to stop the development project. The appellate court’s prior decision prompted the California Legislature to pass the new law to make it clear that residential noise cannot be considered a significant environmental effect under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The law also removed a requirement that, when meeting certain specifications, public universities must examine alternative sites for housing projects.
Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero authored the Thursday opinion, with unanimous concurrence from the six other justices, which remands the case to the state appellate court with direction to enter a judgment in favor of the university.
“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,” the court said. “We decline to consider Good Neighbor’s alternative locations argument with respect to potential future housing projects which are simply not before us.”
Harvey Smith, a member of the other appellant, The People’s Park Historic District Advocacy Group, said the new law's authors never contacted his community members until the bill was passed. He called it a “backroom deal” from the Legislature.
“We can’t say we’re surprised, but of course we’re disappointed,” Smith said. “This case shows that the rich and powerful can prevail in court. It undermines your faith in what should be a very public process, it makes you realize it is not a level playing field.”
Smith said he is also concerned the case sets a precedent that elected officials can make laws pertaining to a specific development which is currently in question in the courts.
“This was a tailor-made bill for this project, but it does have implications,” Smith said. “You have to ask — if I don’t have deep pockets and influence, is it even worthwhile to pursue a case?"
The decision prompted mixed responses from many in the San Francisco Bay Area. The housing organization East Bay YIMBY — a chapter of YIMBY Action — wrote on X, formerly Twitter, that the decision is “Great news for student housing!” But others said that student housing is already costly in Berkeley — where a median one-bedroom apartment costs $2,245 — and questioned if enough students will come to the city to justify the project.
Follow @nhanson_reports
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
Additional Reads
-
-
Contempt over lies June 25, 2024
-
Cat killing conviction reversed June 25, 2024 -
