Exempt From Filing Fee

Government Code§ 6103]

1 OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL- UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Alison L. Krumbein, State Bar No. 229728
2 1111 Franklin Street, 8th Floor NK R
Oakland, CA 94607- 5201 t U. CALIFORNIA
SUPERIOR COURT
3 ( 510) 987- 0851 OFRIVEE
Email: Alison. Krumbein( a ucoo. edu
4 MAY 16 2024
m THE SOHAGI LAW GROUP, PLC
5 MARGARET M. SOHAGI, State Bar No. 126336 E. ES
R. TYSON SOHAGI, State Bar No. 254235
6 MARK J. G. DESROSIERS, State Bar No. 302309
U
11999 San Vicente Boulevard, Suite 150
7 Los Angeles, California 90049- 5136
Telephone: ( 310) 475- 5700
8 Facsimile: ( 310) 475- 5707
Email: MSohagic sohagi. com
0 9 Email: TSohagi@sohagi. com
Email: MDesrosiers@sohagi. com
X 10
ATTORNEYS FOR THE REGENTS OF THE
To 11 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,
03
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE
0 12
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
2 13
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, RIVERSIDE HISTORIC COURTHOUSE
14
UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD Case No. CVRI2105682
15 ASSOCIATION, an unincorporated
association, Action Filed: December 16, 2021
16
Petitioner, WRia2 JUDGMENT DENYING
17 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
V. AND COMPLAINT
18
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
13 19 CALIFORNIA; UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE, and DOES 1
20 through 10, inclusive,

21 Respondents.
s

22

0 23

24

25

26

27

28

PROPOSE159 JUDGMENT DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

 1
effiLaWaSefri JUDGMENT
2 The Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint(" Petition") filed by University

3 Neighborhood Association(" Petitioner"), challenged the approval of the University of California,

4 Riverside' s 2021 Long Range Development Plan and associated Environmental Impact Report
5 certified by The Regents of the University of California and the University of California Riverside
6 (" Respondents") under the California Environmental Quality Act. For the reasons stated in the
7 Court' s May 3, 2024 Ruling, the Petition is denied.
8 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED THAT:

9 1. The Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint filed by Petitioner University

10 Neighborhood Association is denied for the reasons set forth in the ruling attached hereto as

11 Exhibit A, and judgment entered in favor of Respondents and against Petitioner on all claims
12 asserted in the Petition/ Complaint.

13 2. Respondents are entitled to costs of suit as provided by Code of Civil Procedure

14 section 1032.

15

16 This judgment constitutes the final judgm- t of the Court in this action for all purposes.

17

18
DATE: May 12024 r Arie
U,OAORABLE HAROLD HOPP
441/
`
19

20

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
21

DATE: May 6, 2024 THE S LAW GROUP, PLC

22

23 By: 7„
TY ON SOHAGI
24
Attorneys for The Regents of the University of
25 California and University of California, Riverside

26

27

28

2
P1 C, rvaEb] JUDGMENT DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
 1 DATE: 2024 DELANO& DELANO
May(,
2
By:
EVERETT DELAANO, 111.
3
Attorneys for University Neighborhood
4 Association

wto10001100830257: DOCX
6

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3
14I ^D}- JUDGMENT DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
EXHIBIT A
 Tentative Rulings for May 3, 2024
Department 1

To request oral argument, you must notify Judicial Secretary

Vanessa Siojo at ( 760) 904- 5722
and inform all other counsel no later than 4: 30 p. m.

This court follows California Rules of Court, Rule 3. 1308 ( a) ( 1) for tentative rulings. ( See
Riverside Superior Court Local Rule 3316.) Tentative Rulings for each law & motion

matter are posted on the Internet by 3: 00 p. m. on the court day immediately before the
hearing at https:// www. riverside. courts. ca. qov/ OnlineServices/ TentativeRuiingsitentative- ruiings, php. If

you do not have Internet access, you may obtain the tentative ruling by telephone at ( 760)
904- 5722.

To request oral argument, no later than 4: 30 p. m. on the court day before the hearing you
must ( 1) notify the judicial secretary for Department 1 at ( 760) 904- 5722 and ( 2) inform
all other parties of the request and of their need to appear telephonically, as stated below.
If no request for oral argument is made by4: 30 p. m., the tentative ruling will become the
final ruling on the matter effective the date of the hearing. UNLESS OTHERWISE
NOTED, THE PREVAILING PARTY IS TO GIVE NOTICE OF THE RULING.

COUNSEL AND SELF- REPRESENTED PARTIES ARE ENCOURAGED TO APPEAR

AT ANY LAW AND MOTION DEPARTMENT TELEPHONICALLY WHEN REQUESTING
ORAL ARGUMENTS.

TO APPEAR TELEPHONICALLY: On the day of the hearing, call into one of the phone
numbers listed below, and input the meeting number (followed by #):

Call- in Numbers: 1- 833- 568- 8864 ( Toll Free), 1- 669- 254- 5252,
1- 669- 216- 1590, 1- 551- 285- 1373 or 1- 646- 828- 7666
Meeting Number: 160 638 4172

Please MUTE your phone until your case is called and it is your turn to speak. It is

important to note that you must call fifteen ( 15) minutes prior to the scheduled hearing
time to check in or there may be a delay in your case being heard.

For additional information and instructions on telephonic appearances, visit the court' s
website at https:// www. riverside, courts. ca. qov/ PublicNotices/ remote- appearances. php

Riverside Superior Court provides official court reporters for hearings on law and
motion matters only for litigants who have been granted fee waivers and only upon
their timely request. ( See General Administrative Order No. 2021- 19- 1) Other

parties desiring a record of the hearing must retain a reporter pro tempore.

Page 1 of 7
7.

UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD
ASSOCIATION VS REGENTS PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
CVRI2145682
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CEQA)
CALIFORNIA

Tentative Ruling: Grant request for judicial notice of the documents requested by respondent.
Petitioner has not opposed the request and the documents provide background information and
may be received for the limited purpose of ascertaining whether respondent considered all the
relevant factors. Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court( 1995) 9 Cat. 4 ' 559, 579.

Campus Population and Housing. Petitioner contends that the EIR failed to analyze the
cumulative effects of the increase of campus population and housing. The increase of
approximately 11, 000 students, with an additional 7, 489 beds would increase the percentage of
students living in on- campus housing from the current 27 percent to 40 percent. This would leave
and additional 3, 589 seeking off- campus housing.
students Under a Student Housing Market
off- housing 23% lived with family, 5% owned a
Study in 2018, of the remaining campus students,

home, and the remaining 73% rented. ( AR 12: 855, 866; 762: 50325.) Of those that rented, only
48% had their own bedroom, while the remaining shared with family, partner or roommate. ( AR
12: 855.) UCR reasonably assumes that not every student will need a single housing unit based
on these projections, as they will be sharing, or residing in an existing home. ( AR 12: 866- 867.)

Of the entire campus population, 23% reside on campus housing, 10% reside in the City of
Riverside, 22% reside outside the City, but within approximately 20 miles from the campus, and
the remaining 45% reside more than 20 miles. ( AR 12: 855.) Based on a survey, 81. 3% of staff

who took a at UCR maintained their current residence. ( AR 12: 867.) UCR anticipates
position
off- campus living to be continued to be dispersed through the region, with the only increase in
density to occur in the University Avenue Specific Plan. ( AR 12: 868.) City, as part of the 2021
Page 3 of 7
Housing Element amendments, adopted this Specific Plan to create multi- family housing catering
to UCR with a realistic development of 1, 315 units for up to 3, 813 students. ( AR
population,
12: 850.) UCR calculates a need of 1, 704 off campus units or less for students, and 2, 639 for all
off- campus housing demand. ( AR 12: 867.)

Irrespective of the increase of students, the Southern California Association of Governments

SCAG), the regional Metropolitan Planning Organization, has forecast a total increase of 356, 839
in the regional population, with City accounting for 55, 945. ( AR 12: 846.) SCAG anticipates an
increase of 113, 401 in housing units, with City accounting for 16, 286. ( AR 12: 286.) Due to the
fact that the Master Plan requires the Regents to accommodate a percentage of California
See San
students, this is not a growth- inducing plan, but a growth- accommodating plan.
of San Francisco ( 2018) 26
Franciscans for Livable Neighborhoods v. City and County
Cal. App. 5th 596, 630.
Additionally, the City commented on the increase student population without adequate housing,
this would impact the City and neighboring communicates due to the City' s own lack of housing.
AR 7: 571.) However, as noted in the response by UCR, City identified an increase in
development pursuant to the Regional Housing Needs Assessment ( RHNA). ( AR 7: 571- 575.)
Under Planning
the and Zoning Law (§ 65000 et seq.), local governments must prepare and
adopt for their long- term ... physical development....' (§ 65300.) One of the
general plans
essential components of a general plan is a housing element. (§ 65302, subd. ( c).)" City of Irvine
v. Southern California Assn. of Governments ( 2009) 175 Cal. App. 4th 506, 512. In Make UC A
Good Neighbor v. Regents of University of California ( 2023) 88 Cal. App. 5th 656, 692 ( review
granted May17, 2023, S279242), the court pointed out that while the University of California,
Berkeley could not force the city or regional planning agency to plan for university- driven
the city still required to its regional housing element. " In view of
population growth, was review

these statutory obligations, there is no reason to believe either entity will fail in the future to plan
for the population growth projected in the long range development plan." Ibid.; see also Santa
Rita Union School District v. City of Salinas ( 2023) 94 Cal. App. 5th 298, 341- 342 [" The impacts

that must be addressed under CEQA are the physical effects of providing the increased service,
not any possible failure to provide adequate service under applicable standards because of
insufficient public funding for which the lead agency is not even responsible."] Petitioner provides
no authority that UCR may not rely on these regional housing plans and the City' s expected
development.

Although respondent acknowledged an alternative plan of reducing development, it noted that it

was required under the Master Plan to accommodate the increase in students. ( AR 3: 174- 175.)

Nor was it feasible to increase on- campus housing due to finance, operate and demonstrate
demand for housing within the time constraints. ( AR 3: 176- 177.)

Finally, Petitioner points to City' s comment that the lack of on- campus housing would impact
quality of life by increasing noise, overcrowding, traffic and parking and physical changes from
single- family neighborhoods to mini- dormitories. ( AR 7: 572.) Respondent states that housing
would be accommodated and addressed noise, parking and travel. Petitioner fails to demonstrate
that the FEIR did not consider these issues as it does not point where in the record are UCR' s
findings not supported.

On this issue, Petitioner fails to meet its burden to demonstrate that respondent violated CEQA
by failing to evaluate growth- inducing impacts. Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth,
Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova ( 2007) 40 Cal. 4th 412, 435; State Water Resources Control Bd.
Cases, ( 2006) 136 Cal. App. 4th 674, 723. Similarly, while Petitioner may disagree with the Final
Environmental Impact Report' s conclusions regarding growth- inducing impacts, it fails to meet its
burden to demonstrate by citation to the Administrative Record that the conclusions are not
supported substantial Latinos Unidos de Napa v. City of Napa ( 2013) 221
by evidence.

Cal. App.4th 192, 206.

Page 4 of 7
Recreation. Petitioner relies on City' s comments challenging the recreation portion of the Draft
EIR. ( AR 11: 799.) City imposes a Local Park Development Impact fee to mitigate for negative
impacts with population growth that impacts increased park use, but cannot be imposed on other
government projects. ( AR 7: 586- 587.) City contended it was inconsistent that UCR
acknowledged 59% of freshman and 64% of transfer enrollees resided off- campus in a 50- mile
radius. ( AR 7: 587.) However, Petitioner ignored UCR' s response, which noted four State Parks,
two State Recreation Areas and five off-campus parks near UCR, but stated that students are
primarily expected to use on- campus recreational facilities rather than the facilities near UCR.
AR 33: 2455.) The focus was on the additional students. ( AR 7: 588.) As memberships to the

Student Recreation Center are included in tuition fees, and the campus population would have
easy access to on- campus recreational facilities, UCR concluded that there would be no
substantial deterioration in the neighboring parks. ( AR 9: 772.) It is reasonable that the campus

population would use the on- campus facilities rather than off- campus parks and recreational
facilities near the campus. The question is if there is an impact on the parks and recreational
facilities outside the radius of the campus— as pointed by City, a 50- mile radius. Here, UCR

acknowledges additional local developments that would include funds or donations for parks.
Additionally, a 50- mile radius is a large area. It is rational to determine that " displaced visitors
would be dispersed across a large region." Save Our Access- San Gabriel Mountains v.
Watershed Conservation Authority( 2021) 68 Cal. App. 5th 8, 26, 29.
Petitioner has not shown any physical change to the parks and recreational facilities ( see CEQA
Guidelines, § 15382( a) and Santa Rita Union School District v. City of Salinas ( 2023) 94
Cal. App. 5th 298, 341- 342 [" The impacts that must be addressed under CEQA are the physical
effects of providing the increased service, not any possible failure to provide adequate service
under applicable standards because of insufficient public funding for which the lead agency is not
even responsible."]) Petitioner fails to identify any physical change to the parks and recreation
facilities or to demonstrate that UCR' s findings are not supported by substantial evidence.
Transportation. The FEIR found that while there would be an increase in vehicle traffic as a
result of the increased population, it concluded that vehicle miles traveled ( VMT) would be below
regional thresholds due to multi- use development and increase in alternative modes of travel.
AR 13: 942- 943.) As such, no mitigation measures were required as there were less than
significant impacts. ( AR 13: 942- 943.)

Petitioner never challenged the vehicle miles traveled ( VMT) analysis, which was the basis for
determining a transportation impact. To exhaust administrative remedies, the grounds for
challenging the EIR must have been raised to the agency during public comment or before the
close of the public hearing. Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21177( a). An issue that is not timely raised
before the agency is waived. Central Delta Water Agency v. State Water Resources Control Bd.
2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 245, 274.) Petitioner has the burden to show the issues were first raised
administratively. Sierra Club v. City of Orange ( 2008) 163 Cal. App. 4th 523, 536. Petitioner has

waived this argument.

Air Quality. The Draft EIR concluded that there were less than significant impacts to air quality
because the 2021 Long Range Development Plan would not generate population, housing or
employment growth exceeding the 2016 ACMP forecasts. ( AR 13: 900.) The LRDP is not a

growth- inducing plan but a growth accommodating plan. The forecasts were based on Southern
California Association of Government growth projections, which include college and university
students. UCR found that the university' s population increases would represent less than 1
percent. ( AR 7: 627; 22: 2015.) The forecasts were based on SCAG growth projections, which
included college or
university students. ( AR 7: 627.) UCR found that based on SCAG' s forecast,
universities population increases would represent less than 1%. ( AR 7: 628.) Petitioner has not

demonstrated by citations to the administrative record that the conclusion if not supported by
substantial evidence.

Page 5 of 7
Mitigation.

1. Agricultural.

The 2021 LRDP proposes to convert 19. 4 acres on the West Campus ( out of approximately 1108
acres on the West and East campuses combined) to support agricultural use and research, with
secondary uses including parking, storage, utility infrastructure and related support services and
facilities. ( AR 22: 1980- 1981; AR 22: 191.)

The DEIR acknowledges the loss as significant and unavoidable due to the reduction of lands
and there are no new farmlands created in the campus vicinity. ( AR 13: 900, 22: 1981.) It
recognizes that the Arlington Heights Greenbelt and the Arlanza- La Sierra Lands as important
agricultural lands, but they are not near the campus, and the majority of UCR' s agricultural lands
will continue to be used for agriculture- base research and teaching purposes. ( AR 21: 1982.)

Although the DEIR declares this to be a significant impact, here UCR argues that it is not. This
is unpersuasive.

Petitioner' s central argument is that UCR made not attempt to evaluate potential mitigation.
Courts have deferred to agency findings that proposed mitigation measures would not be
effective. See, e. g., City of Irvine v. County of Orange ( 2015) 238 Cal. App. 4th 526, 556- 557

finding no viable mitigation for loss of agricultural land was available where increase cost of land,
water and labor made agricultural use not economically competitive).

The fact that UCR previously purchased land in the Arlington Heights Greenbelt does not undercut
the finding that it is not near the campus, the lack of availability to purchase and expense should
land become available. ( AR 3: 150- 153.) Furthermore, in the area where Arlington Heights
Greenbelt is located, the citrus groves are converted to nurseries. ( AR 21: 1974.) Thus,
substantial evidence supports UCR' s findings of no feasible mitigation measures.

2. Air Quality.
The DEIR would implement Mitigation Measure MM GHG- 1, but NOX would still exceed
SCAQMD thresholds under both construction and operations, while PM would still exceed
SCAQMD threshold for operations. ( AR 22: 2019.) It noted that a method to accurately determine
health related impacts was not scientifically feasible. ( AR 22: 2023.) Thus, it concluded that
mitigation measures are not available and the impacts are significant and unavoidable. ( AR

22: 2023.) For cumulative impacts, the DEIR found the cumulative impacts were significant and
unavoidable in the same manner. ( AR 22: 2030.)

Petitioner' s opening brief argued that UCR failed to consider mitigation and alternatives to recued
air quality impacts. However, there is no record of alternative mitigation measures with supporting
information showing greater effectiveness than the measures adopted. Tiburon Open Space
Comm. v. County of Marin ( 2022) 78 Cal. App. 5th 700, 747 n28 (" The consequence is that parties
challenging a certified EIR are able to simply say that an adopted mitigation measure is ineffective
or not good enough. But unless there is a record of alternatives, with supporting information
showing greater effectiveness, such an approach places courts in an uncomfortable if not
untenable position. ... [ H] ow do courts evaluate a claim that a mitigation measure is ineffective
when there is nothing in the record showing the existence of a more effective measure?").
Petitioner' s citation to Center for Biological Diversity v. County of San Bernardino ( 2010) 185
Cal. App. 4th 866, 876, 882- 884 is misplaced, as an alternative was identified but not adequately
addressed in the EIR. Petitioner fails to refer to any citation in the Administrative Record
demonstrating an alternative mitigation measure was available.

In reply, Petitioner cites Pesticide Action Network v. California Dept. of Pesticide Regulation
2017) 16 Cal. App. 5th 224, 233- 234 which involved the Department approving amended labels
for registered pesticides where the Department had a statutory obligation to ensure and EPA
registered pesticide conforms with labeling, is effective and will not harm human health or the
Page 6 of 7
environment. The Department was aware of the declining honey bee population, and during the
comments period, experts focused on the lack of warning of harm to the honey bees. ( Id. at 234-
236.) The Department found that while there was harm to honey bees, there was no sufficient

scientifically robust data to support a regulatory action to implement additional mitigation

measures. ( Id. at 236- 237.) The court found the Department' s failure to address alternatives,
despite the fact that the pesticide was subject to and undergoing reevaluation under the
Department' s regulations. ( Id. at 246.) The court rejected the argument that the petitioner had
the burden to identify feasible alternatives. ( Id. at 247.) The distinction in Pesticide Action was
that the Department failed to provide any explanation despite knowledge of the issue. Here, there
is no such demonstration that UCR had knowledge of a vital fact and refused to consider it.

Petitioneralso points to two measures which it says are insignificant: relying on future annual
budgets to purchase 100% clean- sourced energy and second purchase of biogas for at least 40%
of on- campus natural gas usage. Contrary to Petitioner' s assertion, there is substantial evidence
suggesting that the funding is not speculative. UCR' s comments indicate that there is a separate
UC Wide Policy Directives, which are included with the 2021 LRDP and consist as mitigation
measures which are conditions for the adoption of the LRDP. ( AR 7: 633; 17: 1886 [" As part of

UCR' s commitment to responsible stewardship of its physical resources, campus development

under the proposed 2021 LRDP would continue to be evaluated for their environmental
sustainability pursuant to the UC Policy on Sustainable Practices, as well as any future programs
that are developed by the UC, or UCR specifically, during the planning period for the proposed
2021 LRDP."].) Under the UC Wide Policy, by 2025, each campus will obtain 100% clean energy,
and at least 40% of natural gas will be biogas. ( AR 7: 633; 70: 6168.) The State has funded UCR
for the past 67 years, and the 2021/ 2022 budget had explicit funding due to the increase in
electricity cost. ( AR 7: 634.) UCR has already added solar installations, and will continue to do
so in 2021- 2022. ( AR 7: 634.) This is sufficient to show that the mitigation measures are not
speculative.

Statement of Overriding Consideration.

For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner has not shown that substantial evidence does not
support UCR' s findings and therefore the Statement of Overriding Considerations is valid.
For all of these reasons, the Court' s tentative ruling is to deny the Petition.

Page 7 of 7