The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of an environmental impact report (EIR) on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment.

This bill would specify that 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.

This bill would specify that 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.

This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of an environmental impact report (EIR) on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment.

This bill would specify that 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.

This bill would specify that 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.

This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of an environmental impact report (EIR) on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment.

This bill would specify that 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.

This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment.

This bill would specify that noise generated by the unamplified voices of residents occupants is not a significant effect on the environment for residential projects for purposes of CEQA.

Under existing law, a bank or trust company may purchase, acquire, hold, or lease real property or an interest therein only in specified circumstances, including, among others, as may be necessary or convenient for the use, operation, or housing of its head office and branch offices.

This bill would make a nonsubstantive change to these provisions.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 1307

Author:(Wicks, et al.)

As Amended Ver:June 26, 2023

2/3 vote. Urgency

SUMMARY

For purposes of residential projects reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), provides that the effects of noise generated by occupants and guests on human beings is not a significant effect on the environment. Further provides that public universities are not required, in an environmental impact report (EIR) prepared for a residential or mixed-use housing project, to consider alternatives to the location of the project if specified requirements are met.

Senate Amendments

Add a provision providing that public universities are not required, in an EIR prepared for a residential or mixed-use housing project, to consider alternatives to the location of the project if both of the following requirements are met:

1. The project is located on a site that is no more than five acres and is substantially surrounded by qualified urban uses.
2. The project has already been evaluated in the EIR for the most recent long-range development plan for the applicable campus.

COMMENTS

CEQA provides a process for evaluating the environmental effects of applicable projects undertaken or approved by public agencies. If a project is not exempt from CEQA, an initial study is prepared to determine whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment. If the initial study shows that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency must prepare a negative declaration. If the initial study shows that the project may have a significant effect, the lead agency must prepare an EIR.

Generally, an EIR must accurately describe the proposed project, identify and analyze each significant environmental impact expected to result from the proposed project, identify mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to the extent feasible, and evaluate a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. Prior to approving any project that has received environmental review, an agency must make certain findings. If mitigation measures are required or incorporated into a project, the agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program to ensure compliance with those measures.

Regulation of noise pollution dates back to ancient Greece and Rome. Noise is perhaps the original environmental impact. Noise analysis has always been a part of CEQA review. Noise is included in the original CEQA definition of "environment," dating to 1972. Noise is among the 18 environmental factors that must be evaluated by lead agencies in an initial study to determine the appropriate level of CEQA review. For many projects, such as roads, manufacturing, or a large event venue, the noise analysis may include noise from both construction and operation of the project. For residential projects, the noise analysis may consider whether the project generates noise in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, and noise generated by residents occupying the project usually would not be considered a significant effect.

On February 24, 2023, the First District Court of Appeal issued an opinion in Make UC a Good Neighbor v. Regents of University of California. The Court rejected challenges to the CEQA review of UC Berkeley's long range development plan, but directed UC to consider alternative locations, and to assess potential noise impacts from student parties, for a student housing project proposed at the site of People's Park. Even though substantial evidence of social noise impacts was presented during the project's CEQA review, UC decided to not analyze potential noise from future residents and determine if the impacts were significant or not. According to the opinion:

(UC) failed to assess potential noise impacts from loud student parties in residential neighborhoods near the campus, a longstanding problem that the EIR improperly dismissed as speculative…The Regents must analyze the potential noise impacts relating to loud student parties. Their decision to skip the issue, based on the unfounded notion that the impacts are speculative, was a prejudicial abuse of discretion and requires them now to do the analysis that they should have done at the outset…We express no opinion on the outcome of a noise analysis. The Regents must determine whether the potential noise impacts are in fact significant, and, if so, whether mitigation is appropriate; ultimately, CEQA provides discretion to proceed with a project even if some impacts cannot be mitigated.

The case is currently pending review by the California Supreme Court.

According to the Author

AB 1307 would remove the potential for litigants to challenge residential development based on the speculation that the new residents will create unwanted noises. It would also reestablish existing precedent that minor and intermittent noise nuisances, such as from unamplified human voices, be addressed through local nuisance ordinances and not via CEQA. As such, no longer could CEQA consider "people as pollution."

Arguments in Support

According to the University of California (UC), AB 1307 clarifies that social noise is not a significant environmental impact. It is a meaningful clarification to the law, as social noise complaints are properly handled through municipal noise ordinances, not CEQA. AB 1307 also clarifies that when a programmatic EIR considers sites appropriate for housing, project level EIRs, in limited and specified circumstances, are not required to reconsider the same land use policies and priorities (i.e., the alternatives analysis) in the context of the project-specific EIR. Without these changes, UC Berkeley's student housing program would be delayed indefinitely. The University supports AB 1307 as a way to ensure CEQA, when followed properly, does not become a tool against increasing housing density.

Arguments in Opposition

According to the People's Park Historic District Advocacy Group, (t)his legislation effectively rewards the University of California, Berkeley (UCB) for its blatant failure to comply at the most basic level with the heart of CEQA: the evaluation of alternatives for a project. UCB has identified and studied 13 locations for student housing that would avoid the negative impacts of its proposed project on People's Park, several of which would provide more units than are proposed for the park site. There is no need for this legislation since there is a path forward for UCB to build the much-needed student and supportive housing on a site other than People's Park, thus preserving a nationally recognized historical resource and a valuable public open space.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.

VOTES:

ASM NATURAL RESOURCES: 11-0-0

YES: Luz Rivas, Flora, Addis, Friedman, Hoover, Mathis, Muratsuchi, Pellerin, Ward, Wood, Zbur

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 16-0-0

YES: Holden, Megan Dahle, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Dixon, Mike Fong, Hart, Lowenthal, Mathis, Papan, Pellerin, Robert Rivas, Sanchez, Weber, Wilson

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0-3

YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Connolly, Megan Dahle, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Mike Fong, Vince Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones‑Sawyer, Kalra, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, Mathis, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Rendon

ABS, ABST OR NV: Chen, Lackey, Quirk-Silva

SENATE FLOOR: 38-0-2

YES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballero, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk

ABS, ABST OR NV: Eggman, Laird

UPDATED

VERSION: June 26, 2023

CONSULTANT: Lawrence Lingbloom / NAT. RES. / (916) 319-2092 FN: 0001278

 CONSENT  

Bill No: AB 1307

Author: Wicks (D), Hoover (R) and Luz Rivas (D), et al.

Amended: 6/26/23 in Senate

Vote: 27 - Urgency

SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 6/21/23

AYES: Allen, Dahle, Gonzalez, Hurtado, Menjivar, Nguyen, Skinner

SENATE HOUSING COMMITTEE: 11-0, 7/10/23

AYES: Wiener, Ochoa Bogh, Blakespear, Caballero, Cortese, McGuire, Padilla, Seyarto, Skinner, Umberg, Wahab

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 5/22/23 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: California Environmental Quality Act: noise impact: residential projects

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill specifies that public higher education institutions do not have to consider alternative locations for a project when preparing an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for a residential or mixed-use housing projects if certain conditions are met, and specifies that noise from residents does not constitute a significant environmental effect under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

ANALYSIS:

1. Provides, under CEQA, when a lead agency determines whether a project is exempt from CEQA, or if it must do an initial study to determine if a project will have significant effects on the environment. If a project has no effect on the environment or effects that can be mitigated, the lead agency prepares a negative declaration (ND) or mitigated ND (MND). If the project could have significant impacts, the lead agency prepares an environmental impact report (EIR) to evaluate and propose mitigation measures for any effects on the environment. (Public Resources Code (PRC) §§21000 et seq.)
2. Identifies noise as one of eighteen environmental factors to be consider under CEQA review. (PRC 21060.5)
3. Defines “significant effect on the environment” as a substantial, or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment. (PRC 21068)
4. Defines a “long-range development plan” (LRDP) as 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. (PRC §21080.09)
5. Defines “substantially surrounded” as cases where 75% 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. The remainder of the perimeter of the site adjoins, or is separated only by an improved public right-of-way from, parcels that have been designated for qualified urban uses in a zoning, community plan, or general plan for which an environmental impact report was certified. (PRC §21159.25)
6. Defines “residential or mixed-use housing project” as a project consisting of multifamily residential uses only or a mix of multifamily residential and nonresidential uses, with at least two-thirds of the square footage of the development designated for residential use. (PRC §21159.25)
7. States selecting a location for a public higher education campus and the approval of an LRDP are subject to CEQA and require an EIR to be prepared. (PRC §21080.09)
8. States approval of a public higher education campus is subject to CEQA and can be address via a tiered environmental analysis based upon an LRDP’s EIR. (PRC §21080.09)
9. States that using an LRDP EIR complies with CEQA’s requirements as long as the academic and campus population plans don’t take effect until after the environmental effects have been analyzed in an LRDP’s EIR or tiered analysis based upon that EIR. Enrollment or changes in enrollment, by themselves, do not constitute a project as defined in Section 21065. (PRC §21080.09)
10. Defines “public higher education” as (1) the California Community Colleges (CCC), (2) the California State University (CSU), and each campus, branch, and function thereof, and (3) each campus, branch, and function of the University of California (UC). (Education Code §66010)

This bill:

1. Specifies that noises from occupants in residential projects does not count as a significant effect under CEQA.
2. Defines an LRDP as 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. This mirrors the definition in existing law, PRC §21080.09.
3. Defines “residential or mixed-use housing project” as a project consisting of residential uses only or a mix of student residential and nonresidential uses, with at least two-thirds of the square footage of the development designated for residential uses. This is similar to the existing definition in PRC §21159.25.
4. Defines “substantially surrounded” as at least 75% 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. This somewhat broader than the existing definition in PRC §21159.25.
5. States that notwithstanding any other law or regulation, public higher education institutions – when prepared an EIR for a residential or mixed-use housing projects – shall not have to consider alternatives to the location of the proposed project if:
   1. The project is located on a site that is no more than five acres and is substantially surrounded by qualified urban uses; and
   2. The EIR for the most recent LRDP for the campus where the project is proposed has already evaluated potential areas of new development and redevelopment that could accommodate additional housing.

Background

1. The A, B, C’s of CEQA. CEQA is designed to (a) make government agencies and the public aware of the environmental impacts of a proposed project, (b) ensure the public can take part in the review process, and (c) identify and implement measures to mitigate or eliminate any negative impact the project may have on the environment.

CEQA is a self-executing statute that is enforced by civil lawsuits that can challenge any project’s environmental review. Public agencies, as well as private individuals and organizations, can file lawsuits under CEQA.

A lead agency reviewing a project under CEQA takes three progressive steps of environmental review. First, a lead agency looks the footprint of the project to determine if it can be exempted from CEQA. If it is not exempt, the lead agency then conducts an initial study, which examines 18 different environmental factors to determine if the project might have significant effects on the environment. If there are no significant environmental impacts or those impacts can be fully mitigated, the lead agency prepares an ND or MND. If there are environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated, the lead agency proceeds with the most extensive level of environmental review --a full EIR.

1. What are the categories of EIR? An EIR is the document that reflects how a particular project with affect the environment, both in its construction and operationally for years to come, but EIRs come in multiple flavors.

A project EIR, which is used most often, looks – in depth – at the environmental impacts of all phases of a specific development project (e.g., an office building or an apartment complex, etc.)

A program or programmatic EIR is a larger document that looks at a project which contains a number of sub-projects. For example, it may include some single family homes (SFH), apartment complexes, and retail shops – all of which may or may not be built at the same time – and it is not as in-depth as a project EIR, though it is broader.

A tiered EIR is one that is “tiered” off the programmatic EIR and focuses on the specific project within the larger project, operating much like a project EIR. For example, if the programmatic EIR was done for a SFH/apartment/retail project, a tiered EIR might be required when it comes time to build the retail portion of the larger project. The tiered EIR would look more in-depth at the proposal and would consider changes that may have taken place since the larger programmatic EIR was adopted.

An LRDP is used by the UC, CSU, and CCC and functions as a combination programmatic EIR and general land use plan.

1. Noise Pollution in CEQA. Noise is one of the 18 environmental factors that lead agencies must consider in an initial study. Noise effects can include both the noise associated with construction and day-to-day operation of the project. For residential projects, analyses often consider how the project might conflict with local noise ordinances, but noises made by residents themselves are not considered as an effect for CEQA review.
2. People’s Park Case. In a bid to provide more housing for its students, UC Berkeley proposed to build a student housing complex at the historic People’s Park, situated close to campus. UC certified the EIR for the People’s Park project in July and September 2021. In October 2021, Make UC A Good Neighbor filed a lawsuit to halt the project. In August 2022, the trial court sided with UC, but that decision was stayed pending Good Neighbor’s appeal. In February 2023, the First Appellate Court of California upheld the appeal, finding that the EIR failed in two regards: considering alternative sites, and considering the noise impacts of residents in the proposed project. The court upheld that failing to consider the potential noise impacts from loud student parties in neighborhoods near campus in the was “a longstanding problem that the EIR improperly dismissed as speculative.”

UC certified the EIR for the People’s Park project in July and September 2021. In October 2021, Good Neighbor filed its lawsuit to halt the project. In August 2022, the trial court sided with UC, but that decision was stayed pending Good Neighbor’s appeal

Under this ruling, the Regents would need to return to the EIR and consider alternative sites and consider the potential noise impacts of residents on the surrounding community (and provide feasible mitigation measures if it finds that there are significant noise effects from the project). While this ruling would not require the Regents to locate the building on an alternate site or address any noise from occupants—under CEQA, a project does not have to mitigate all environmental effects to move forward—it does require the Regents to go back to the EIR analysis. While the time it takes to conduct an EIR is highly variable, it is often lengthy. For example, in Los Angeles, the median amount of time for an EIR to be finalized is 23 months.

Comments

1. Purpose of Bill. According to the author, “AB 1307 would remove the potential for litigants to challenge residential development based on the speculation that the new residents will create unwanted noises. It would also reestablish existing precedent that minor and intermittent noise nuisances, such as from unamplified human voices, be addressed through local nuisance ordinances and not via CEQA. As such, no longer could CEQA consider ‘people as pollution.’”
2. Defining “Substantially Surrounded.” This bill defines “substantially surrounded” as being an area where at least 75% of the perimeter of the project is surrounded by parcels that are developed with qualified urban uses (or has an improved public right-of-way between the project and the qualified urban uses). There is no restriction on what may abut the remaining 25% of the perimeter.

That is somewhat looser than the current law definition in PRC §21159.25, which requires the remaining 25% of the site perimeter to adjoin parcels that have been designated for qualified urban uses in a zoning, community plan, or general plan for which an EIR was certified (or has an improved public right-of-way between the project and those qualified urban uses).

1. What If the LRDPs Is Out of Date? Universities have been required to prepare EIRs for their long-range plans since the 1980s. No specific update interval is required and the practice among public universities varies. The LRDP adoption dates for UC campuses are:
   1. UC Berkeley -- 2021 (2036)
   2. UC Davis – 2018
   3. UC Merced -- 2020 (2030)
   4. UC San Diego -- 2018 (2035)
   5. UC Santa Cruz -- 2005 (2020)
   6. UC Los Angeles -- 2002 (amended in 2018, 2025)
   7. UC Riverside -- 2021 (2035)
   8. UC Santa Barbara -- 2010 (2025)

In the recent UC Berkeley case, the LRDP was considered to not properly account for population growth or adequately plan for housing. This bill unconditionally relies on LRDP (UC) or master plan (CSU and CCC) EIRs that may be 15 years old and include no relevant analysis of the impacts of the proposed housing project. This is inconsistent with CEQA, where tiering or exemptions based on a prior EIR depend on the prior EIR remaining relevant, with exceptions when substantial changes occur or new information becomes available.

1. Implications of social noise. The Make UC a Good Neighbor et al. v. Regents of the University of California establishes a new precedent that noise from residents in projects should be an environmental factor considered under CEQA. Since all residences have residents and all residents make some amount of noise in their day-to-day lives, the result may be that all residential housing projects would need to conduct an EIR and specifically examine the impacts of the voices and living noises of residents in the project and surrounding areas. This could significantly slow down the CEQA process for residential buildings.

Potentially more alarming, the ruling specifically notes that noise impacts should be considered because students are noisy and more likely to party than other people. Assuming the behavior of residents, and the resultant impact of their behaviors on the environment, based on their identity sets a precedent to introduce identity-based discrimination into CEQA review.

1. Turn Down for What? 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. Berkeley County updated and strengthened its noise ordinance in 2021 to address various noise complaints. The noise ordinance defines noise as “any sound that is either loud, boisterous, unpleasant, unreasonable or that causes a disturbance of the public peace.” Violating the ordinance is penalized with a $100-$500 fine and a possible jail sentence up to 30 days. CEQA does not need to police noisy neighbors because the police already do so.

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 1700 (Hoover, 2023) states that for the purposes of CEQA, population growth from a housing project and noise impacts of that housing project are not an effect on the environment. This bill is in the Assembly Natural Resources Committee.

SB 118 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Chapter 10, Statutes of 2022) specified that student enrollment, or changes in enrollment, by itself does not constitute a project under CEQA and applies this law retroactively.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/15/23)

American Planning Association, California Chapter

Association of Environmental Professionals

Bay Area Council

California Association of Realtors

California Housing Consortium

California Housing Partnership Corporation

California State Association of Counties

California YIMBY

Circulate San Diego

City of San Jose

East Bay for Everyone

East Bay YIMBY

Eden Housing

Greenlining Institute

Grow the Richmond

Housing Action Coalition

Housing California

How to ADU

Mountain View YIMBY

Napa-Solano for Everyone

Northern Neighbors

Peninsula for Everyone

People for Housing Orange County

Progress Noe Valley

Resources for Community Development

San Diego Housing Commission

San Francisco YIMBY

Santa Cruz YIMBY

Santa Rosa YIMBY

SLO County YIMBY

South Bay YIMBY

Southside Forward

Supportive Housing Alliance

The Pacific Companies

University of California

Urban Environmentalists

Ventura County YIMBY

YIMBY Action

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/15/23)

City of Beverly Hills

People's Park Council

People's Park Historic District Advocacy Group

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: California YIMBY writes in support: “On February 24, 2023, the First Appellate Court of California voted 3-0 to uphold an appeal in the case of Make UC A Good Neighbor et al. v. Regents of the University of California, which set a new precedent that upended the process for evaluating noise impacts under CEQA. The outcome of this court case will substantially delay the delivery of housing and further exacerbate our already substantial housing crisis. More perniciously, this ruling implies that certain groups of people be considered as creating a significant environmental impact merely because of the perceived risk of their behavior. Therefore, the ruling invites subsequent litigants in CEQA cases to sue residential projects that would house “those people.” This will exacerbate the racist and classist nature of housing policy and undermine recent state efforts to confront that past.

“AB 1307 is a straightforward solution that will protect the community and limit CEQA litigation abuse.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The People’s Park Council writes in opposition: “The People’s Park Council is vehemently opposed to AB 1307. This legislation is custom tailored to allow the University of California to build over People’s Park without complying with the most fundamental requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Furthermore, we ask that you consider the possibly hundreds of other property owners throughout the state who will have their property taken by universities or colleges, without access to established environmental protections, should AB 1307 become law. Denying Californians the information about possible alternative locations for a housing project, as CEQA is intended to do, is legislative overkill.

“People’s Park is a National Register of Historic Places site and deserves individual and special attention including a project based analysis of alternative sites. Such a mandated analysis of alternative sites for this one unique project would not, in any conceivable way, obstruct California’s housing needs -- needs that we acknowledge to be real. Therefore, should AB 1307 proceed toward becoming law, we hope this body will see the reason in amending this bill to exclude properties on the National Register of Historic Places or National Landmarks.”

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 5/22/23

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Connolly, Megan Dahle, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Mike Fong, Vince Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, Mathis, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Rendon

NO VOTE RECORDED: Chen, Lackey, Quirk-Silva

Prepared by: Brynn Cook / E.Q. / (916) 651-4108

8/16/23 10:14:44

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON HOUSING

Senator Scott Wiener, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Bill No: AB 1307 Hearing Date: 7/10/2023

SUBJECT: California Environmental Quality Act: noise impact: residential projects

DIGEST: This urgency bill provides that, for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the effects of noise generated by project occupants and their guests on human beings is not a significant effect on environment, as specified.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Under CEQA, a lead agency determines whether a project is exempt from CEQA, or if it must do an initial study to determine if a project will have significant effects on the environment. If a project has no effect on the environment or effects that can be mitigated, the lead agency prepares a negative declaration (ND) or mitigated ND (MND). If the project could have significant impacts, the lead agency prepares an environmental impact report (EIR) to evaluate and propose mitigation measures for any effects on the environment.
2. Identifies noise as one of eighteen environmental factors to be consider under CEQA review.
3. Defines “significant effect on the environment” as a substantial, or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment.
4. Defines a “long-range development plan” (LRDP) as 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.
5. Defines “residential or mixed-use housing project” as a project consisting of multifamily residential uses only or a mix of multifamily residential and nonresidential uses, with at least two-thirds of the square footage of the development designated for residential use.
6. Defines “tiered” or “tiering” as the coverage of general matters and environmental effects in an environmental impact report prepared for a policy, plan, program, or ordinance followed by narrower or site-specific environmental impact reports, which incorporate by reference the discussion in any prior environmental impact report and which concentrate on the environmental effects which (a) are capable of being mitigated, or (b) were not analyzed as significant effects on the environment in the prior environmental impact report.
7. CEQA requires lead agencies with the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project to prepare a negative declaration (ND), mitigated negative declaration (MND), or environmental impact report (EIR) for the project, unless the project is exempt from CEQA. If a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency must prepare a draft EIR.
8. States selecting a location for a public higher education campus and the approval of an LRDP are subject to CEQA and require an EIR to be prepared.
9. States approval of a public higher education campus is subject to CEQA and can be address via a tiered environmental analysis based upon an LRDP’s EIR.
10. States that using an LRDP EIR complies with CEQA’s requirements as long as the academic and campus population plans don’t take effect until after the environmental effects have been analyzed in an LRDP’s EIR or tiered analysis based upon that EIR. Enrollment or changes in enrollment, by themselves, do not constitute a project.
11. Defines “public higher education” as (1) the California Community Colleges (CCC), (2) the California State University (CSU), and each campus, branch, and function thereof, and (3) each campus, branch, and function of the University of California (UC).

This urgency bill:

1. Specifies that noises from occupants in residential projects does not count as a significant effect under CEQA.
2. Provides that any institution of higher education shall not be required, in an EIR for a residential or mixed use housing project, to consider alternatives to the location of the housing project if both of the following requirements are met:
   1. The housing project is located on a site that is no more than five acres and is substantially surrounded by qualified infill uses.
   2. The housing project has already been evaluated in the EIR for the most recent LRDP for the applicable campus.

COMMENTS:

1. Author’s statement. “AB 1307 would remove the potential for litigants to challenge residential development based on the speculation that the new residents will create unwanted noises. It would also reestablish existing precedent that minor and intermittent noise nuisances, such as from unamplified human voices, be addressed through local nuisance ordinances and not via CEQA. As such, no longer could CEQA consider ‘people as pollution.’”
2. CEQA. CEQA was enacted by the Legislature and signed into law by Governor Ronald Reagan in 1970. While it has evolved into a very complex Act over the past 53 years, at its core the basic principles of CEQA are relatively simple.

It is designed to (a) make government agencies and the public aware of the environmental impacts of a proposed project, (b) ensure the public can take part in the review process, and (c) identify and implement measures to mitigate or eliminate any negative impact the project may have on the environment.

CEQA is self-executing statute that is enforced by civil lawsuits that can challenge any project’s environmental review. Public agencies, as well as private individuals and organizations, can file lawsuits under CEQA.

1. CEQA Speak. Like many areas of California law, CEQA has its own terminology. Generally speaking, an EIR is the document that reflects how a particular project with affect the environment, both in its construction and operationally for years to come, but EIRs come in multiple flavors. A project EIR, which is used most often, looks in depth at the environmental impacts of all phases of a specific development project (e.g., an office building or an apartment complex, etc.). A program or programmatic EIR is a larger document that looks at a project, which contains a number of sub-projects. For example, it may include some office buildings, apartment complexes, and retail shops – all of which may or may not be built at the same time – and it is not as in-depth as a project EIR, though it is broader.

A lead agency reviewing a project under CEQA takes three progressive steps of environmental review. First, a lead agency looks the footprint of the project to determine if it can be exempted from CEQA. If it is not exempt, the lead agency then conducts an initial study, which examines 18 different environmental factors to determine if the project might have significant effects on the environment. If there are no significant environmental impacts or those impacts can be fully mitigated, the lead agency prepares an ND or MND. If there are environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated, the lead agency proceeds with the most extensive level of environmental review --a full EIR. Noise is one of the 18 environmental factors that lead agencies must consider in an initial study. Noise effects can include both the noise associated with construction and day-to-day operation of the project. For residential projects, analyses often consider how the project might conflict with local noise ordinances, but noises made by residents themselves are not considered as an effect for CEQA review.

A tiered EIR is one that is “tiered” off the programmatic EIR and focuses on the specific project within the larger project, operating much like a project EIR. For example, if the programmatic EIR was done for a housing project, a tiered EIR might be required when it comes time to build the retail portion of the larger project. The tiered EIR would look more in-depth at the proposal and would consider changes that may have taken place since the larger programmatic EIR was adopted. According to specified findings and declarations, tiering of environmental impact reports are intended to “promote construction of needed housing and other development projects by (1) streamlining regulatory procedures, (2) avoiding repetitive discussions of the same issues in successive environmental impact reports, and (3) ensuring that environmental impact reports prepared for later projects, which are consistent with a previously approved policy, plan, program, or ordinance concentrate upon environmental effects, which may be mitigated or avoided in connection with the decision on each later project.”

3) UC Berkeley’s LRDP and student housing shortage. Each UC is required to adopt an LRDP, which is a high level planning document that helps guide decision on land and infrastructure developments. An LRDP is used by the UC, CSU, and CCC and 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, 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.

1. Make a UC a Good Neighbor v. Regents of UC. At issue in this case is whether Regents of UC adequately considered alternatives locations for a student housing and supportive housing project located on People’s Park, a UC owned property, in the City of Berkeley, and whether UC adequately assessed potential noise impacts from students. In that case, UC Berkeley analyzed the LRDP and the People’s Park project together in a single EIR. Even though substantial evidence of social noise impacts was presented during the project’s CEQA review, UC decided to not analyze potential noise from future residents and determine if the impacts were significant or not. Following the certification of the EIR, “Make a UC a Good Neighbor” and others challenged the approvals for various violations under CEQA. These arguments were rejected by the Alameda County Superior Court. On appeal, however, the First District Court of Appeals held that defendants failed to “analyze any alternative locations”.” According to the defendants, alternatives sites were already analyzed in the programmatic EIR (i.e. UC Berkeley’s LRDP EIR), including the People’s Park development. Additionally, the Court directed UC to assess potential noise impacts from student parties. According to the opinion:

“(UC) failed to assess potential noise impacts from loud student parties in residential neighborhoods near the campus, a longstanding problem that the EIR improperly dismissed as speculative…The Regents must analyze the potential noise impacts relating to loud student parties. Their decision to skip the issue, based on the unfounded notion that the impacts are speculative, was a prejudicial abuse of discretion and requires them now to do the analysis that they should have done at the outset…We express no opinion on the outcome of a noise analysis. The Regents must determine whether the potential noise impacts are in fact significant, and, if so, whether mitigation is appropriate; ultimately, CEQA provides discretion to proceed with a project even if some impacts cannot be mitigated.”

This ruling establishes a new precedent that noise from residents in projects should be an environmental factor considered under CEQA. Since all residences have residents and all residents make some amount of noise in their day-to-day lives, the result may be that all residential housing projects would need to conduct an EIR and specifically examine the impacts of the voices and living noises of residents in the project and surrounding areas. This could significantly slow down the CEQA process for residential buildings.

This bill states that for residential projects, the effects of noise generated by the occupants and the guests cannot be considered a significant effect on the environment under CEQA. By making this change, this bill would remove the potential for litigants to challenge residential development based on the speculation that the new residents will create unwanted noises.

This bill also includes a narrow exemption from CEQA’s required alternative sites analysis for university-built residential projects that were already evaluated in the university’s long-range development plan. This change will enable UC Berkeley to move forward expeditiously with its People’s Park project.

1. Here, there, and everywhere. This bill was heard in the Environmental Quality Committee on June 21 and passed on a 7-0 vote.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Wednesday,

July 5, 2023.)

SUPPORT:

California Housing Consortium (Co-Sponsor)

California Housing Partnership Corporation (Co-Sponsor)

Housing California (Co-Sponsor)
California Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis

American Planning Association, California Chapter

Amg & Associates, LLC

Association of Environmental Professionals

California Apartment Association

California Association of Realtors

California Building Industry Association

California State Association of Counties

California YIMBY

CRP Affordable Housing and Community Development

East Bay for Everyone

East Bay YIMBY

Eden Housing

Greenlining Institute

Grow the Richmond

Housing Action Coalition

How to ADU

Linc Housing

Merritt Community Capital Corporation

Midpen Housing Corporation

Mountain View YIMBY

Napa-Solano for Everyone

Non-profit Housing Association of Northern California (NPH)

Northern Neighbors

Northern Neighbors SF

Peninsula for Everyone

People for Housing Orange County

Progress Noe Valley

Resources for Community Development

San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR)

San Francisco YIMBY

San Luis Obispo YIMBY

Santa Cruz YIMBY

Santa Rosa YIMBY

Satellite Affordable Housing Associates

Slo County YIMBY

South Bay YIMBY

Southside Forward

Supportive Housing Alliance

The John Stewart Company

The Pacific Companies

University of California

Urban Environmentalists

Ventura County YIMBY

YIMBY Action

OPPOSITION:

None received.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Senator Allen, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Bill No: AB 1307

SUBJECT: California Environmental Quality Act: noise impact: residential projects

DIGEST: This bill specifies that noise from residents does not constitute a significant environmental effect under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Under CEQA, a lead agency determines whether a project is exempt from CEQA, or if it must do an initial study to determine if a project will have significant effects on the environment. If a project has no effect on the environment or effects that can be mitigated, the lead agency prepares a negative declaration (ND) or mitigated ND (MND). If the project could have significant impacts, the lead agency prepares an environmental impact report (EIR) to evaluate and propose mitigation measures for any effects on the environment. (Public Resources Code (PRC) §§21000 et seq.)
2. Identifies noise as one of eighteen environmental factors to be consider under CEQA review. (PRC 21060.5)
3. Defines “significant effect on the environment” as a substantial, or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment. (PRC 21068)

This bill:

1. Specifies that noises from occupants in residential projects does not count as a significant effect under CEQA.

Background

1. The A, B, C’s of CEQA. CEQA is designed to (a) make government agencies and the public aware of the environmental impacts of a proposed project, (b) ensure the public can take part in the review process, and (c) identify and implement measures to mitigate or eliminate any negative impact the project may have on the environment.

CEQA is a self-executing statute that is enforced by civil lawsuits that can challenge any project’s environmental review. Public agencies, as well as private individuals and organizations, can file lawsuits under CEQA.

A lead agency reviewing a project under CEQA takes three progressive steps of environmental review. First, a lead agency looks the footprint of the project to determine if it can be exempted from CEQA. If it is not exempt, the lead agency then conducts an initial study, which examines 18 different environmental factors to determine if the project might have significant effects on the environment. If there are no significant environmental impacts or those impacts can be fully mitigated, the lead agency prepares an ND or MND. If there are environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated, the lead agency proceeds with the most extensive level of environmental review --a full EIR.

1. Noise Pollution in CEQA. Noise is one of the 18 environmental factors that lead agencies must consider in an initial study. Noise effects can include both the noise associated with construction and day-to-day operation of the project. For residential projects, analyses often consider how the project might conflict with local noise ordinances, but noises made by residents themselves are not considered as an effect for CEQA review.
2. People’s Park Case. In a bid to provide more housing for its students, UC Berkeley proposed to build a student housing complex at the historic People’s Park, situated close to campus. UC certified the EIR for the People’s Park project in July and September 2021. In October 2021, Make UC A Good Neighbor filed a lawsuit to halt the project. In August 2022, the trial court sided with UC, but that decision was stayed pending Good Neighbor’s appeal. In February 2023, the First Appellate Court of California upheld the appeal, finding that the EIR failed in two regards: considering alternative sites, and considering the noise impacts of residents in the proposed project. The court upheld that failing to consider the potential noise impacts from loud student parties in neighborhoods near campus in the was “a longstanding problem that the EIR improperly dismissed as speculative.”

Under this ruling, the Regents would need to return to the EIR and consider the potential noise impacts of residents on the surrounding community and provide feasible mitigation measures if it finds that there are significant noise effects from the project. While this ruling would not require the Regents to address any noise from occupants—under CEQA, a project does not have to mitigate all environmental effects to move forward—it does require the Regents to go back to the EIR analysis. While the time it takes to conduct an EIR is highly variable, it is often lengthy. For example, in Los Angeles, the median amount of time for an EIR to be finalized is 23 months.

Comments

1. Purpose of Bill. According to the author, “AB 1307 would remove the potential for litigants to challenge residential development based on the speculation that the new residents will create unwanted noises. It would also reestablish existing precedent that minor and intermittent noise nuisances, such as from unamplified human voices, be addressed through local nuisance ordinances and not via CEQA. As such, no longer could CEQA consider ‘people as pollution.’”
2. Implications of social noise. The Make UC A Good Neighbor et al. v. Regents of the University of California establishes a new precedent that noise from residents in projects should be an environmental factor considered under CEQA. Since all residences have residents and all residents make some amount of noise in their day-to-day lives, the result may be that all residential housing projects would need to conduct an EIR and specifically examine the impacts of the voices and living noises of residents in the project and surrounding areas. This could significantly slow down the CEQA process for residential buildings.

Potentially more alarming, the ruling specifically notes that noise impacts should be considered because students are noisy and more likely to party than other people. Assuming the behavior of residents, and the resultant impact of their behaviors on the environment, based on their identity sets a precedent to introduce identity-based discrimination into CEQA review.

1. Turn Down for What? 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. Berkeley County updated and strengthened their noise ordinance in 2021 to address various noise complaints. The noise ordinance defines noise as “any sound that is either loud, boisterous, unpleasant, unreasonable or that causes a disturbance of the public peace.” Violating the ordinance is penalized with a $100-$500 fine and a possible jail sentence up to 30 days. CEQA does not need to police noisy neighbors because the police already do so.

DOUBLE REFERRAL:

If this measure is approved by the Senate Environmental Quality Committee, the do pass motion must include the action to re-refer the bill to the Senate Housing Committee.

Related/Prior Legislation

SB 118 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Chapter 10, Statutes of 2022) specified that student enrollment, or changes in enrollment, by itself does not constitute a project under CEQA and applies this law retroactively.

SOURCE:

Author

SUPPORT:

American Planning Association, California Chapter
California Association of Realtors
California Housing Consortium
California Housing Partnership Corporation
California State Association of Counties
California Yimby
East Bay Yimby
Eden Housing
Grow the Richmond
Housing California
How to Adu
Mountain View Yimby
Napa-solano for Everyone
Northern Neighbors
Peninsula for Everyone
People for Housing Orange County
Progress Noe Valley
Resources for Community Development
San Francisco Yimby
San Jose; City of
Santa Cruz Yimby
Santa Rosa Yimby
Slo County Yimby
South Bay Yimby
Southside Forward
Supportive Housing Alliance
The Pacific Companies
Urban Environmentalists
Ventura County Yimby
Yimby Action

OPPOSITION:

None received

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 1307

Author:(Wicks and Luz Rivas)

As Amended Ver:May 18, 2023

Majority vote. Urgency

SUMMARY

For purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), provides that noise generated by occupants is not a significant effect on the environment for residential projects.

Major Provisions

Provides that noise generated by occupants is not a significant effect on the environment for residential projects.

COMMENTS

CEQA provides a process for evaluating the environmental effects of applicable projects undertaken or approved by public agencies. If a project is not exempt from CEQA, an initial study is prepared to determine whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment. If the initial study shows that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency must prepare a negative declaration. If the initial study shows that the project may have a significant effect, the lead agency must prepare an environmental impact report (EIR).

Generally, an EIR must accurately describe the proposed project, identify and analyze each significant environmental impact expected to result from the proposed project, identify mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to the extent feasible, and evaluate a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. Prior to approving any project that has received environmental review, an agency must make certain findings. If mitigation measures are required or incorporated into a project, the agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program to ensure compliance with those measures.

Regulation of noise pollution dates back to ancient Greece and Rome. Noise is perhaps the original environmental impact. Noise analysis has always been a part of CEQA review. Noise is included in the original CEQA definition of "environment," dating to 1972. Noise is among the 18 environmental factors that must be evaluated by lead agencies in an initial study to determine the appropriate level of CEQA review. For many projects, such as roads, manufacturing, or a large event venue, the noise analysis may include noise from both construction and operation of the project. For residential projects, the noise analysis may consider whether the project generates noise in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, and noise generated by residents occupying the project usually would not be considered a significant effect.

On February 24, 2023, the First District Court of Appeal issued an opinion in Make UC a Good Neighbor v. Regents of University of California. The Court rejected challenges to the CEQA review of UC Berkeley's long range development plan, but directed UC to consider alternative locations, and to assess potential noise impacts from student parties, for a student housing project proposed at the site of People's Park. Even though substantial evidence of social noise impacts was presented during the project's CEQA review, UC decided to not analyze potential noise from future residents and determine if the impacts were significant or not. According to the opinion:

(UC) failed to assess potential noise impacts from loud student parties in residential neighborhoods near the campus, a longstanding problem that the EIR improperly dismissed as speculative…The Regents must analyze the potential noise impacts relating to loud student parties. Their decision to skip the issue, based on the unfounded notion that the impacts are speculative, was a prejudicial abuse of discretion and requires them now to do the analysis that they should have done at the outset…We express no opinion on the outcome of a noise analysis. The Regents must determine whether the potential noise impacts are in fact significant, and, if so, whether mitigation is appropriate; ultimately, CEQA provides discretion to proceed with a project even if some impacts cannot be mitigated.

According to the Author

AB 1307 would remove the potential for litigants to challenge residential development based on the speculation that the new residents will create unwanted noises. It would also reestablish existing precedent that minor and intermittent noise nuisances, such as from unamplified human voices, be addressed through local nuisance ordinances and not via CEQA. As such, no longer could CEQA consider "people as pollution."

Arguments in Support

According to the American Planning Association, California Chapter:

To suggest that any minor increase in noise from human voices should be analyzed in CEQA could substantially impact nearly all urban development moving forward. CEQA noise analyses are intended to examine major noise-generating activities from a proposed project, such as noise from industrial or transportation sources. General urban noise from, for example, students or other people speaking loudly or dogs barking that occupy a new housing project, are generally considered minor nuisances that are incidental to living in an urban environment and historically have not been and should not be required to be analyzed under CEQA. APA California is grateful to see a straightforward solution to this issue, which comes at a time when the state is already facing a severe housing crisis, including an increasing shortage for student housing.

Arguments in Opposition

None received.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, negligible state costs.

VOTES

ASM NATURAL RESOURCES: 11-0-0

YES: Luz Rivas, Flora, Addis, Friedman, Hoover, Mathis, Muratsuchi, Pellerin, Ward, Wood, Zbur

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 16-0-0

YES: Holden, Megan Dahle, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Dixon, Mike Fong, Hart, Lowenthal, Mathis, Papan, Pellerin, Robert Rivas, Sanchez, Weber, Wilson

UPDATED

VERSION: May 18, 2023

CONSULTANT: Lawrence Lingbloom / NAT. RES. / (916) 319-2092 FN: 0000401

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 1307

Author:(Wicks and Luz Rivas)

As Amended Ver:March 16, 2023

Majority vote

SUMMARY

For purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), provides that noise generated by the unamplified voices of residents is not a significant effect on the environment for residential projects.

Major Provisions

Provides that noise generated by the unamplified voices of residents is not a significant effect on the environment for residential projects.

COMMENTS

CEQA provides a process for evaluating the environmental effects of applicable projects undertaken or approved by public agencies. If a project is not exempt from CEQA, an initial study is prepared to determine whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment. If the initial study shows that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency must prepare a negative declaration. If the initial study shows that the project may have a significant effect, the lead agency must prepare an EIR.

Generally, an EIR must accurately describe the proposed project, identify and analyze each significant environmental impact expected to result from the proposed project, identify mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to the extent feasible, and evaluate a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. Prior to approving any project that has received environmental review, an agency must make certain findings. If mitigation measures are required or incorporated into a project, the agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program to ensure compliance with those measures.

Regulation of noise pollution dates back to ancient Greece and Rome. Noise is perhaps the original environmental impact. Noise analysis has always been a part of CEQA review. Noise is included in the original CEQA definition of "environment," dating to 1972. Noise is among the 18 environmental factors that must be evaluated by lead agencies in an initial study to determine the appropriate level of CEQA review. For many projects, such as roads, manufacturing, or a large event venue, the noise analysis may include noise from both construction and operation of the project. For residential projects, the noise analysis may consider whether the project generates noise in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, and noise generated by residents occupying the project usually would not be considered a significant effect.

On February 24, 2023, the First District Court of Appeal issued an opinion in Make UC a Good Neighbor v. Regents of University of California. The Court rejected challenges to the CEQA review of UC Berkeley's long range development plan, but directed UC to consider alternative locations, and to assess potential noise impacts from student parties, for a student housing project proposed at the site of People's Park. Even though substantial evidence of social noise impacts was presented during the project's CEQA review, UC decided to not analyze potential noise from future residents and determine if the impacts were significant or not. According to the opinion:

(UC) failed to assess potential noise impacts from loud student parties in residential neighborhoods near the campus, a longstanding problem that the EIR improperly dismissed as speculative…The Regents must analyze the potential noise impacts relating to loud student parties. Their decision to skip the issue, based on the unfounded notion that the impacts are speculative, was a prejudicial abuse of discretion and requires them now to do the analysis that they should have done at the outset…We express no opinion on the outcome of a noise analysis. The Regents must determine whether the potential noise impacts are in fact significant, and, if so, whether mitigation is appropriate; ultimately, CEQA provides discretion to proceed with a project even if some impacts cannot be mitigated.

According to the Author

AB 1307 would remove the potential for litigants to challenge residential development based on the speculation that the new residents will create unwanted noises. It would also reestablish existing precedent that minor and intermittent noise nuisances, such as from unamplified human voices, be addressed through local nuisance ordinances and not via CEQA. As such, no longer could CEQA consider "people as pollution."

Arguments in Support

According to the American Planning Association, California Chapter:

To suggest that any minor increase in noise from human voices should be analyzed in CEQA could substantially impact nearly all urban development moving forward. CEQA noise analyses are intended to examine major noise-generating activities from a proposed project, such as noise from industrial or transportation sources. General urban noise from, for example, students or other people speaking loudly or dogs barking that occupy a new housing project, are generally considered minor nuisances that are incidental to living in an urban environment and historically have not been and should not be required to be analyzed under CEQA. APA California is grateful to see a straightforward solution to this issue, which comes at a time when the state is already facing a severe housing crisis, including an increasing shortage for student housing.

Arguments in Opposition

None received.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, negligible state costs.

VOTES

ASM NATURAL RESOURCES: 11-0-0

YES: Luz Rivas, Flora, Addis, Friedman, Hoover, Mathis, Muratsuchi, Pellerin, Ward, Wood, Zbur

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 16-0-0

YES: Holden, Megan Dahle, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Dixon, Mike Fong, Hart, Lowenthal, Mathis, Papan, Pellerin, Robert Rivas, Sanchez, Weber, Wilson

UPDATED

VERSION: March 16, 2023

CONSULTANT: Lawrence Lingbloom / NAT. RES. / (916) 319-2092 FN: 0000321

Date of Hearing: April 26, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Chris Holden, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1307

Author:(Wicks) – As Amended Ver:March 16, 2023

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill provides that noise generated by the unamplified voices of residents is not a significant effect on the environment for residential projects, for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

FISCAL EFFECT:

Negligible state costs.

COMMENTS:

1) Purpose. According to the author:

AB 1307 would remove the potential for litigants to challenge residential development based on the speculation that the new residents will create unwanted noises. It would also reestablish existing precedent that minor and intermittent noise nuisances, such as from unamplified human voices, be addressed through local nuisance ordinances and not via CEQA. As such, no longer could CEQA consider “people as pollution.”

2) Background. CEQA provides a process for evaluating the environmental effects of applicable projects undertaken or approved by public agencies. If a project is not exempt from CEQA, an initial study is prepared to determine whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment. If the initial study shows the project would not have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency must prepare a negative declaration. If the initial study shows that project may have a significant effect, the lead agency must prepare an environmental impact report (EIR).

Generally, an EIR must accurately describe the proposed project, identify and analyze each significant environmental impact expected to result from the proposed project, identify mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to the extent feasible, and evaluate a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. Prior to approving any project that has received environmental review, an agency must make certain findings. If mitigation measures are required or incorporated into a project, the agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program to ensure compliance with those measures.

Noise analysis has always been a part of CEQA review. Noise is included in the original CEQA definition of “environment,” dating back to 1972, and is among the 18 environmental factors that must be evaluated by lead agencies in an initial study to determine the appropriate level of CEQA review. For many projects, such as roads, manufacturing, or a large event venue, the noise analysis may include noise from both construction and operation of the project. For residential projects, the noise analysis may consider whether the project generates noise in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, and noise generated by residents occupying the project usually would not be considered a significant effect.

The People’s Park case. On February 24, 2023, the First District Court of Appeal issued an opinion in Make UC a Good Neighbor v. Regents of University of California. The Court rejected challenges to the CEQA review of UC Berkeley’s long range development plan, but directed UC to consider alternative locations, and to assess potential noise impacts from student parties, for a student housing project proposed at the site of People’s Park. The court found that even though substantial evidence of social noise impacts was presented during the project’s CEQA review, UC decided to not analyze potential noise from future residents and determine if the impacts were significant or not. According to the opinion:

(UC) failed to assess potential noise impacts from loud student parties in residential neighborhoods near the campus, a longstanding problem that the EIR improperly dismissed as speculative…The Regents must analyze the potential noise impacts relating to loud student parties. Their decision to skip the issue, based on the unfounded notion that the impacts are speculative, was a prejudicial abuse of discretion and requires them now to do the analysis that they should have done at the outset…We express no opinion on the outcome of a noise analysis. The Regents must determine whether the potential noise impacts are in fact significant, and, if so, whether mitigation is appropriate; ultimately, CEQA provides discretion to proceed with a project even if some impacts cannot be mitigated.

Along with a large coalition of other supporters, California YIMBY writes:

The outcome of this court case will substantially delay the delivery of housing and further exacerbate our already substantial housing crisis. More perniciously, this ruling implies that certain groups of people be considered as creating a significant environmental impact merely because of the perceived risk of their behavior. Therefore, the ruling invites subsequent litigants in CEQA cases to sue residential projects that would house “those people.” This will exacerbate the racist and classist nature of housing policy and undermine recent state efforts to confront that past. AB 1307 is a straightforward solution that will protect the community and limit CEQA litigation abuse.

Analysis Prepared by: Nikita Koraddi / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 10, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

Luz Rivas, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1307 (

Author:Wicks) – As Amended Ver:March 16, 2023

SUBJECT: California Environmental Quality Act: noise impact: residential projects

SUMMARY: For purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), provides that noise generated by the unamplified voices of residents is not a significant effect on the environment for residential projects.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires lead agencies with the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a proposed project to prepare a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report (EIR) for this action, unless the project is exempt from CEQA. (Public Resources Code (PRC) 21000, et seq.)
2. Defines "environment" as the physical conditions that exist within the area which will be affected by a proposed project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, noise, or objects of historic or aesthetic significance. (PRC 21060.5)
3. Defines “significant effect on the environment” as a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment. (PRC 21068)

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Background. CEQA provides a process for evaluating the environmental effects of applicable projects undertaken or approved by public agencies. If a project is not exempt from CEQA, an initial study is prepared to determine whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment. If the initial study shows that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency must prepare a negative declaration. If the initial study shows that the project may have a significant effect, the lead agency must prepare an EIR.

Generally, an EIR must accurately describe the proposed project, identify and analyze each significant environmental impact expected to result from the proposed project, identify mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to the extent feasible, and evaluate a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. Prior to approving any project that has received environmental review, an agency must make certain findings. If mitigation measures are required or incorporated into a project, the agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program to ensure compliance with those measures.

Regulation of noise pollution dates back to ancient Greece and Rome. Noise is perhaps the original environmental impact. Noise analysis has always been a part of CEQA review. Noise is included in the original CEQA definition of “environment,” dating to 1972. Noise is among the 18 environmental factors that must be evaluated by lead agencies in an initial study to determine the appropriate level of CEQA review. For many projects, such as roads, manufacturing, or a large event venue, the noise analysis may include noise from both construction and operation of the project. For residential projects, the noise analysis may consider whether the project generates noise in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, and noise generated by residents occupying the project usually would not be considered a significant effect.

1. The People’s Park case. On February 24, 2023, the First District Court of Appeal issued an opinion in Make UC a Good Neighbor v. Regents of University of California. The Court rejected challenges to the CEQA review of UC Berkeley’s long range development plan, but directed UC to consider alternative locations, and to assess potential noise impacts from student parties, for a student housing project proposed at the site of People’s Park. Even though substantial evidence of social noise impacts was presented during the project’s CEQA review, UC decided to not analyze potential noise from future residents and determine if the impacts were significant or not. According to the opinion:

(UC) failed to assess potential noise impacts from loud student parties in residential neighborhoods near the campus, a longstanding problem that the EIR improperly dismissed as speculative…The Regents must analyze the potential noise impacts relating to loud student parties. Their decision to skip the issue, based on the unfounded notion that the impacts are speculative, was a prejudicial abuse of discretion and requires them now to do the analysis that they should have done at the outset…We express no opinion on the outcome of a noise analysis. The Regents must determine whether the potential noise impacts are in fact significant, and, if so, whether mitigation is appropriate; ultimately, CEQA provides discretion to proceed with a project even if some impacts cannot be mitigated.

1. Author’s statement:

AB 1307 would remove the potential for litigants to challenge residential development based on the speculation that the new residents will create unwanted noises. It would also reestablish existing precedent that minor and intermittent noise nuisances, such as from unamplified human voices, be addressed through local nuisance ordinances and not via CEQA. As such, no longer could CEQA consider “people as pollution.”

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

AMG & Associates
California Apartment Association
California Association of Realtors
California Building Industry Association
California Housing Consortium
California Housing Partnership Corporation
CRP Affordable Housing and Community Development
East Bay YIMBY
Grow the Richmond
Housing Action Coalition
Housing California
How to ADU
Linc Housing
MidPen Housing Corporation
Mountain View YIMBY
Napa-Solano for Everyone
Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California
Northern Neighbors SF
Peninsula for Everyone
People for Housing Orange County
Progress Noe Valley
Resources for Community Development
San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR)
San Francisco YIMBY
San Luis Obispo YIMBY
Santa Cruz YIMBY
Santa Rosa YIMBY
Satellite Affordable Housing Associates
South Bay YIMBY
Southside Forward
The Pacific Companies
Urban Environmentalists
Ventura County YIMBY
YIMBY Action

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Lawrence Lingbloom / NAT. RES. /