United States: Berkeley Hillside: New Supreme Court Decision Defines Limits Of CEQA Exemption Challenges To Development

Today, the California Supreme Court issued the highly anticipated CEQA decision:Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley. The case addresses whether the "unusual circumstances" exception to CEQA's categorical exemptions is subject to either "fair argument" or "substantial evidence" review when evaluating if unusual circumstances exist for a real estate development project and whether those circumstances could cause one or more significant environmental impacts. The Court ruled that whether unusual circumstances exist was subject to the more deferential substantial evidence test. Accordingly, a lead agency's determination that a project does not present any unusual circumstances will be upheld in the courts as long as there is evidence to support that decision, notwithstanding conflicting evidence submitted by project opponents. Significantly, however, if a lead agency determines that unusual circumstances are, in fact, present, whether those circumstances will cause a significant environmental effect is determined under the less-deferential "fair argument" standard, making it easier for project opponents to challenge the project.

Background and Lower Court Opinions

Berkeley Hillside involved a discretionary permit to construct a single-family home in the Berkeley Hills community. The proposed home consisted of a 6,500 square-foot residence with a 3,400 square foot garage, for total structures totaling over 9,800 square feet. The City of Berkeley determined the project was categorically exempt under the Class 1 and Class 32 exemptions in CEQA Guidelines, sections 15303, subdivision (a) and 15332 .

A group calling itself "Berkeley Hillside Preservation" ("BHP") brought an action against the City and the developer, claiming the proposed home fit within the "unusual circumstances" exception to the exemptions, thus removing the project from the exemption and effectively re-triggering the need for traditional CEQA review – i.e., a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or full EIR. In support of its argument, BHP claimed the proposed home was significantly larger and required substantially more grading (due to seismic risk) than the typical homes in the community, of which only around 1 percent were larger than 6,000 square feet. BHP also submitted evidence from a geotechnical engineer who claimed the project could not be built as planned without additional construction, resulting in significant environmental impacts.

The City countered BHP's argument by pointing to contrary evidence in the record, including the report of BHP's geotechnical engineer. The trial court determined that BHP had made a "fair argument" that the project would have one or more adverse impacts, but nevertheless concluded that the proposed construction did not trigger the unusual circumstances exception because the possible impacts were not due to the unusual circumstances.

The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's decision. First, the Court of Appeal determined that "the fact that [the] proposed activity may have an effect on the environment is itself an unusual circumstance," precluding the City's reliance on CEQA's exemptions. The Court of Appeal then asked whether there was a reasonable possibility those circumstances may have one or more significant environmental impacts, holding that the "fair argument" standard, not the "substantial evidence" standard, applied to this inquiry. Thus, because BHP submitted sufficient evidence to the City to show a fair argument that the unusual circumstances created a risk of one or more significant environmental impacts, the project was no longer exempt under CEQA. In doing so, the Court of Appeal "split" with other Courts of Appeal, and joined those Courts which determined that the "fair argument" test applied when evaluating whether there was a reasonable possibility of adverse environmental effects. (See Banker's HillHillcrestPark West Community Preservation Group v. City of San Diego  (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 249, 546 (Fourth District) [discussing the split].) 

The Supreme Court's Decision: A New Two-Part Test

In Berkeley Hillside, the California Supreme Court resolved the split by holding that the unusual circumstances exception – specifically whether there was a reasonable possibility of adverse environmental impacts – is subject to the substantial evidence test. As a threshold issue, the Court determined the Court of Appeal erred in finding the presence of a possible environmental effect was "itself" an unusual circumstance. The Court reasoned that this violated the well-settled rule that statutes are construed to avoid surplus language. Thus, it is not enough to claim the project – as a whole – will have a substantial effect on the environment. Rather, a project opponent must show that the specific unusual circumstances themselves will potentially cause that substantial effect.

From here, the Court determined whether, in evaluating whether a project presents unusual circumstances, the project should be reviewed in the courts under the substantial evidence or far-less-deferential "fair argument" standard. On this point, the Court determined "it would be inappropriate for an agency to apply the fair argument standard to determine whether unusual circumstances exist. That standard is intended to guide the determination of whether a project has a potentially significant effect, not whether it presents unusual circumstances." Accordingly, if a lead agency determines a project does not present unusual circumstances, that determination will be upheld if it is supported by substantial evidence, notwithstanding contrary evidence. 
Critically, however, once a lead agency determines that a project does, in fact, present unusual circumstances, the fair argument standard determines whether those circumstances present a "reasonable possibility" of a substantial environmental impact. As a result, a determination that a project presents unusual circumstances diminishes the deference to lead agencies. Then the question becomes whether there is a fair argument that the unusual circumstances will cause a significant environmental impact.

In the end, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the lower courts, finding the Court of Appeal and the trial court had not applied the Court's two-step analysis. Notably, in a concurring opinion, two justices disagreed with the Court's two-step approach to the unusual circumstances exception, preferring a simpler test that applied the "fair argument" standard to both whether unusual circumstances exist, and whether there is a reasonable possibility those circumstances would cause a significant environmental impact. 

How to Proceed Post Berkeley Hillside

In addition to resolving a long-standing dispute, the Berkeley Hillside  case is significant and provides important guidance for California developers. First, the decision provides (or in some jurisdictions, returns) considerable deference to lead agencies in evaluating whether a project presents "unusual circumstances," thus triggering a need for further CEQA review for an otherwise exempt project. Because the "fair argument" standard is deferential to project opponents, a finding that the fair argument standard applied when evaluating the existence of unusual circumstances could have served to eliminate the primary effect of the categorical exemptions, which relieves certain classes of qualifying projects from traditional CEQA review because such projects normally do not have a significant effect on the environment.

Second, once an agency determines there are, in fact, unusual circumstances, it will be much easier for the project opponents to challenge the project to require more comprehensive CEQA review. In this regard, the Supreme Court's decision can be viewed as "frontloading" the unusual circumstances issue, making it critical for project applicants to persuade a lead agency that a project does not present any unusual circumstances. Prevailing on that question should insulate project approvals, as long as there is some substantial evidence to support it. If, on the other hand, the lead agency determines that the project does present unusual circumstances, and if there are known or expected project opponents, it will is imperative for project applicants to seriously consider asking the agency to prepare a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or EIR. Otherwise, project opponents need only show a fair argument that the project's unusual circumstances will cause a significant environmental impact.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions