Lawsuits show why CEQA reforms needed

Plans for housing at University of California campuses have become a legal battle over just where, and if, it will be built.

In a recent Editorial, we discussed how UC Santa Cruz is attempting to create 3,700 more beds for student and staff housing by 2028. But those plans, and the plight of students in one of the most expensive rental markets in the nation, have been diverted as local citizens file lawsuits to stop the development.

UCSC is not the only UC campus grappling with a housing dilemma and a determined citizenry that wants to limit future growth. Litigation has halted for now UC Berkeley's plans to build student and supportive housing at Berkeley's People's Park – famed as the site of 1960s protests and more recently partially occupied by people who are homeless.

Last week, the state Supreme Court agreed to hear the case that will decide whether Cal can move forward with building student and supportive housing at the site.

Berkeley residents filed a lawsuit to stop the plan, which would create 1,100 student beds and a 100-bed supportive housing project at the park, and a state appellate court had agreed the campus violated its obligation under the California Environmental Quality Act to evaluate alternative sites for the housing or to assess the noise impact that more students would have on the surrounding neighborhoods. The appellate court ruling has landed in the laps of state Supreme Court judges.

Amid all this, earlier this month a developer walked away from the supportive housing element of the project over court delays. UC Berkeley, though, says it remains committed to building at People's Park, one of several sites identified for building more housing to serve the school's 45,300 students. Currently, UC Berkeley, which has an enrollment of 45,300 students, provides 30% of undergraduates and 8% of graduate students with on-campus housing, the lowest percentage of any UC school.

In contrast, UCSC houses half of its more than 19,000 students on campus.

Gov. Gavin Newsom has waded into this debate, and the role that CEQA-based lawsuits have had on housing development throughout California. In an amicus brief filed with the court, Newsom stated, “The courts have an important role in ensuring that CEQA is not warped to serve purposes that the Legislature never intended” and that CEQA should not be used to block “necessary progress or to deny to others safe, healthy and affordable housing.”

On Friday, Newsom signed an executive order that aims to limit the time opponents can obstruct projects in court with challenges under CEQA.

Lawsuits filed by Santa Cruz residents have sought to stop the contested Student Housing West project, including one filed last month against UC Regents who had approved the development earlier in April despite a still-pending lawsuit.

In addition to environmental concerns over plans for building in the campus's East Meadow, opponents contend the new housing will not be affordable, with projected rents as much as twice as high as rates for similar off-campus housing.

Opponents also argue that Santa Cruz voters already have weighed in they want UCSC enrollment capped at the current level, and that the city will be overwhelmed by more students, leading to even more expensive housing and burdens on the local water supply.

They contend UC could build more housing for the Santa

Cruz campus on land UC owns in Marina, or even a satellite campus in Watsonville. UCSC officials say these are not practical options. The campus plans for enrollment to increase by nearly 9,000 students to about 28,000 by 2040.

The city of Santa Cruz has another stake in this, since it is basing its response to state mandates to construct more affordable housing on UCSC's plans. Meanwhile, a number of local residents have voiced concerns about city housing development plans in the downtown area.

The notion that local cities and counties, much less UC, can build their way out of a deepening housing crisis faces significant resistance as the UC court cases show. That's why reforming CEQA is the best path forward.