SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) — Rushing to override a student enrollment freeze imposed by an Alameda County Superior Court judge last year, state lawmakers in both legislative houses voted Monday to change an environmental review law that has thwarted a planned expansion and jeopardized the admission of some 5,000 applicants to the University of California, Berkeley, this fall.
Judge Brad Seligman ordered the university to cap its enrollment at 42,347 and halt construction of the planned conversion of a campus-adjacent parking structure into additional classrooms and faculty housing.
The California Supreme Court let the ruling stand this month when it declined to take up the case, prompting the Legislature to step in as the university stands to lose $57 million from the enrollment cuts, which could affect its ability to offer financial aid.
"We had an activist judge that handed down a very draconian decision,” said Assembly Budget Committee chair Phil Ting, a Democrat from San Francisco. “We thought it was important to act swiftly.”
The decision stems from a lawsuit by a group of Berkeley residents trying to keep the university’s expansion at bay, claiming the campus failed to assess the environmental hazards of construction noise and traffic on the surrounding community, as well as the effect more students will have on housing and homelessness in the area.
The neighborhood group brought a lawsuit under the California Environmental Quality Act, also known as CEQA, which was enacted in 1970 to ensure that environmental effects are considered before building and development projects are approved.
But the law has also been used by development opponents to delay or halt housing and transit projects.
“How on Earth did our system of law in California enable people to use an environmental law to dictate how many students are allowed to attend a UC campus? The answer is that tragically, a critically important law has been distorted beyond recognition to empower anyone with enough money to hire a lawyer to block or delay even the most environmentally sustainable project,” said state Senator Scott Weiner, a Democrat from San Francisco. “The train wreck we are resolving today was very high profile. But what happened at Berkeley was not even remotely unique. What happened at Berkeley happens every day in the state of California. In many ways, tragically CEQA is the law that swallowed California.”
The legal fight between UC Berkeley and city dwellers has highlighted the growing tension between ever-rising enrollment numbers without a commensurate increase in housing.
Phil Bokovoy, president of Save Berkeley’s Neighborhoods said Monday during a public comment session in the Assembly, that unfettered growth has driven up rents and displaced local residents.
"We oppose increasing UC Berkeley’s enrollment for the simple reason that the university does not have the capacity to handle more students. These additional students will put more pressure on the local housing market and increase rents for everybody," he said. "We don't want new students to have to live in cars and campers and hotel rooms.”
Senator Buffy Wicks, a Democrat from Oakland, said the lawsuit was the result of “misguided NIMBYism” for which students are being forced to pay the price. “That’s what this lawsuit was about. These are kids who have spent their lives trying to get into this university. The thought they would be denied because of NIMBYs who don’t want to have them in our community, the community I represent, is appalling. The same folks that brought forth this lawsuit to sue the university for not providing enough housing actually fight the UC when they want to build that housing. Let’s not forget what drove this lawsuit. And let’s also make sure that we as a body act when it is time for us to vote on housing production bills.”
Follow @MariaDinzeo
