Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley

Good Law
194 Cal. Rptr. 3d 212·2015 Cal. App. LEXIS 953·241 Cal. App. 4th 943
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 23, 2015No. A131254California6,731 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Streeter, J.

-Real parties in interest and respondents Mitchell Kapor and Freada Kapor-Klein secured permits from respondent City of Berkeley (City) to build a large home on a large lot in the Berkeley hills, and appellants Berkeley Hillside Preservation and Susan Nunes Fadley challenged the project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.). 1 The first time we considered this challenge, we concluded, contrary to the City’s determination, that the project presented unusual circumstances, thus triggering an exception to CEQA’s categorical exemptions (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15300.2, subd. (c); see id., § 15000 et seq., guidelines for implementation of CEQA (Guidelines)) and requiring the preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR). The Supreme Court reversed, held that a potentially significant environmental effect is not alone sufficient to trigger the unusual circumstances exception, and provided detailed guidance on the applicable standards of review in a challenge to an agency’s determination that the unusual circumstances exception is inapplicable. The court remanded to us so that we could properly analyze whether the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.