Legal Actions - Save Strawberry Canyon

The Long Range Development Plan (LRDP)*
Legal action concerning the LRDP — Jones et al. v. Regents of the University of California, Case No. RG07341224 (Alameda County Superior Court) challenged the adequacy of the plan's 2006 Environmental Impact Report. This complaint was filed with the court in August, 2007.

In August, 2008 the Court ruled in the plaintiffs' favor on one issue and ordered the Lab to recirculate the plan's Climate Change Analysis. The judgment may be seen here; other documents in the case may be seen by entering the case number (RG07341224) at the court's website. A Berkeley Daily Planet article describing the judgement may be read here.

Judge's decision appealed
Afterwards, the Regents appealed the decision in objection to the order to recirculate any part of the environmental review document. The Plaintiffs also appealed the decision in response to the judge's decision that the Environmental Impact Report's study of alternative sites was adequate. The appeal was heard on Feb. 23, 2010 in the California Court of Appeals 1st District. The brief summary of the appeal can be read here .

Appeals Court reverses the decision
On March 12, 2010, the California Court of Appeals reversed the previous Alameda Superior Court judgement described above. From the Court of Appeals website:

The judgment is reversed and the trial court is instructed to enter, consistent with this opinion, a new and different judgment denying plaintiffs' petition for writ of mandate. The Regents are entitled to recover their costs on appeal.

A PDF copy of the Opinion is available here. We'll post more information here as it becomes available.

* see our Threats page for more information about the LRDP and the individual projects listed below.

The EIR for the Computational Research and Theory (CRT) Facility is challenged
The first of the post-LRDP projects was the Computational Research and Theory Facility (CRT) — a 140,000 gross square foot structure located in Blackberry Canyon, drained by the North Fork of Strawberry Creek. Save Strawberry Canyon challenged the adequacy of the 2008 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) under the California Environmental Quality Act, in the Alameda Superior Court, but ultimately withdrew the complaint and instead filed a legal challenge at the federal level — Save Strawberry Canyon v. Department of Energy — due to the fact that LBNL is a national laboratory existing as a result of a contract between the Department of Energy and the University of California. Save Strawberry Canyon alleged that the EIR failed to comply with the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). A Berkeley Daily Planet article in July, 2009 described the issues involved.

CRT construction temporarily halted by Federal Court
On March 18, 2009, the U.S. District Court ordered a preliminary injunction halting construction of the CRT until the full merits of the case could be resolved later in the year. A PDF copy of the order may be seen here [1.8 MB]. A SF Chronicle article and a Berkeley Daily Planet article described this decision.

CRT construction halted pending proper environmental review
On August 17, 2009 Judge William Alsup, U.S. District Court for Northern District of California, issued his final judgment, officially halting construction on the CRT pending a Federal environmental review as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA):

Construction of the CRT project will remain enjoined until proper NEPA review is completed by the Department of Energy. This order only holds that NEPA applies. Whether an environmental assessment only versus a full-scale environmental impact statement must be completed must, in the first instance, be a decision for the agency.

Environmental Assessment issued for a new version of CRT
In December, 2009, LBNL issued a notice for the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the CRT project. In September, 2010 a Draft EA was issued. Save Strawberry Canyon submitted a letter of comments on this Draft EA in October, 2010, asserting that the Assessment is both insufficient and misleading and that, instead, the impact of the CRT project warrants the more comprehensive type of review provided by an Environmental Impact Statement.

DOE approves the Environmental Assessment
On February 25, 2011 the Department of Energy released a "Finding of No Significant Impact" (FONSI) regarding the CRT project, claiming that the Lab's Environmental Assessment was sufficient and that it does not have to prepare a more thorough Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Save Strawberry Canyon intends to challenge this finding in Federal Court, arguing that the more thorough EIS is necessary and proper. A PDF copy of the FONSI is available here and at the CRT website.

Court allows CRT construction to proceed
On March 3, 2011 the US District Court dissolved its August 17, 2009 injunction (see above) that halted construction on the CRT project. Read the court order here [49K PDF].

Save Strawberry Canyon challenges the DOE approval
On March 31, 2011 Save Strawberry Canyon filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court of Northern California challenging the Department of Energy's approval LBNL's CRT Project and their finding that the CRT Project will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment and does not require an Environmental Impact Statement. The Complaint requests that the Court order the Department of Engergy to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement consistent with federal environmental regulations required by NEPA. Read a copy of the Complaint here [710K PDF]. (The case number is C11-01564.)

On August 31, 2011 Save Strawberry Canyon filed a final brief [341K PDF] and a request for judicial notice [1.1MB PDF]. A hearing was held October 20, 2011 before Judge William H. Alsup.

On November 14, 2011 our efforts to challenge LBNL's plans for CRT received an adverse ruling in federal court (see PDF copy here), and LBNL immediately scheduled the preparation of the site (see this LBNL memo). Supporters of our efforts are encouraged to ask their representatives to intervene.

Helios Environmental Impact Report is challenged
Save Strawberry Canyon challenged the legal adequacy of the Helios Environmental Impact Report (EIR) — Save Strawberry Canyon v. Regents of the University of California — alleging that the project would cause substantial harm to wildlife habitat, extraordinary scenery, and sensitive watershed resources, and the the EIR failed to consider alternative locations in less environmentally sensitive areas. The lawsuit sought a court order to set the Helios project aside on the grounds that the Regents' approval of the EIR violated not only the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) but also violated regulations in the Fish and Game Code and the Clean Water Act.

Regents Redesign Helios Twice
After the mandatory Court settlement conference, but before going to trial, the Regents decertified the Helios Environmental Impact Report. LBNL then redesigned the building and moved it slightly, but in the same area, as shown in the map to the right. This plan was also greeting with public criticism. The Regents then announced a new plan to house the HELIOS projects in two locations, one to be located in downtown Berkeley and another to remain on an LBNL site. This plan was approved in January, 2010.

SERC: A part of the Helios project moves forward
The Helios project planned for the LBNL site is proposed to house a Solar Energy Research Center (SERC) primarily dedicated to nanotechnology research ("...focused on developing fuels from sunlight using nanoscale...energy systems" — see LBNL's project description).

SERC: New Draft Environmental Impact Report Questioned
Save Strawberry Canyon submitted comments on the SERC Draft Enironmental Impact Report (DEIR) in October, 2010, pointing out significant impacts that were not addressed and requesting that a more thorough federal environmental review (NEPA) be undertaken.

SERC: Final Environmental Impact Report issued
The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) was issued on December 22nd and was scheduled to be considered for certification by the Regents at their January 18-20, 2011 meeting in San Diego. Prior to this meeting, Save Strawberry Canyon sent a letter to the Regents urging them to restrain from moving forward on the proposed SERC project, both because the FEIR is inadequate and because plans for moving forward on SERC are premature until proper federal review is undertaken in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). See also this January 17 addendum adding a New York Times article about the possibility of "superstorms" affecting central California.

SERC: Approval of Final Environmental Impact Report approval results in lawsuit
At their January, 2011 meeting the Regents certified the SERC FEIR. Subsequently on February 22, 2011, Save Strawberry Canyon filed a lawsuit against the UC Regents in the Alameda County Superior Court challenging their approval of the Solar Energy Research Center (SERC) project and their certification of the associated Final Environmental Impact Report. See this PDF copy of the petition [900 KB]. On June 15, 2011, Save Strawberry Canyon filed an opening trail brief, available here [1.1 MB]. On August 4, 2011 a Reply Trail Brief was filed [900 KB]. A hearing was held on September 2nd, 2011 — a ruling is expected within a month. You can look the case up on the Court's DomainWeb by entering case # RG11562317 — trail documents are available there.

Ground Contamination?
See below for questions about the adequacy of ground contamination measurements in regards to the construction of SERC.

In 2009, Building 71 (constructed in 1957) was proposed to be reinforced and internally redesigned so that a new accelerator could be added to those already operating in the building — a new experimental laser accelerator designed to generate 10 billion electron volts. The site is located 448 ft. below Campus Drive in Blackberry Canyon in the northwest portion of LBNL (see this map).

Responding to an inadequate NEPA environmental review, Save Strawberry Canyon submitted two letters of comment on the BELLA project to the Department of Energy (DOE) in July 2009 (see PDF copies of the July 14 letter and the July 24 letter). In September, 2009 DOE declared that BELLA will have no significant environmental impact (see PDF copies of the announcement and related documents at the BELLA website). A legal challenge — Save Strawberry Canyon v. Steven Chu et al. was filed in early 2010 in the U.S. District Court. The federal court hearing was held December 9, 2010 and on December 17 a court order denied our motion for summary judgment to overturn DOE's approval of the Environmental Assessment of LBNL's BELLA Project.

On February 10, 2011 Save Strawberry Canyon filed a Notice of Appeal of the Dec. 17 court order. On September 21, 2011 Save Strawberry Canyon filed an opening brief in this appeal.

The Seismic Life Safety, Modernization, and Replacement of General Purpose Buildings, Phase 2 Project proposes demolishing several structures, retrofitting the Hazardous Waste Handling Facility (Bldg. 85) , and constructing a new General Purpose Laboratory (GPL). See more information about the project on our Threats page.

Letters of Comment Question the Environmental Impact Report

Save Strawberry Canyon challenges the Environmental Impact Report in Court
On January 21, 2011 Save Strawberry Canyon filed an opening brief in the Alameda Superior Court, seeking to overturn the UC Regents' approval of the Seismic Life Safety...Phase 2 Project and their certification of its Environmental Impact Report (EIR). In this brief we claim that "The Regents violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in three ways.

A PDF copy [1.5 MB] of the Trail Brief is available here. You can also look the case up on the Court's DomainWeb by entering case # RG10531315.

On March 28, 2011 Save Strawberry Canyon filed a Reply to Trail Brief, giving additional arguments which can be read here.

On July 19 Judge Vilardi issued a decision denying Save Strawberry Canyon's challege of the Regent's certification of their Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Read a PDF copy of the decision here, and a copy of the proposed judgement here. Save Strawberry Canyon disagrees with this ruling for reasons already stated in out opening brief and reply brief (see above).

Ground Contamination?
See below for questions about the adequacy of ground contamination measurements in regards to the construction of the General Purpose Lab.

Plans for Ground Contamination Measures are Questioned

Before building their new General Purpose Lab or the SERC facility, LBNL has proceeded to clear the "Old Town" site (buildings constructed in the 1940s). The necessary permits needed for proceeding with construction are based upon approved "Workplans" that include testing for ground contamination. Is this contamination testing adequate? Read these two letters (July 28 & August 2) to LBNL from the Strawberry Creek Watershed Council.

An Alternative Site?
There do exist viable alternatives to constructing new buildings, roads, and parking lots in the environmentally-sensitive and geologically-unstable Strawberry Canyon area. Read about them here.

If the Long Range Development Plan proceeds unaltered, other projects will also be built in Strawberry Canyon. With your support, Save Strawberry Canyon will continue its efforts to ensure that future development in the canyon does not endanger the natural environment, the cultural legacy of the area, or the lives of those who live and work in its surroundings.

Legal Actions & Developments