Berkeley Hillside Preserv. v. City of Berkeley 3/7/12 CA1/4

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: A131254M

Case Date: 05/23/2012

Preview:Filed 3/7/12

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

BERKELEY HILLSIDE PRESERVATION et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF BERKELEY et al., Defendants and Respondents; DONN LOGAN et al., Real Parties in Interest and Respondents. THE COURT: Respondent and real parties in interests petition for rehearing is denied. The opinion filed February 15, 2012, is modified by deleting the seventh paragraph under part II.A.3. and replacing it as follows: Although the trial courts conclusion arguably is consistent with the twostep approach set forth in Banker's Hill, we note that the Banker's Hill court did not actually employ such a two-step procedure. Instead, it "streamlined" its approach by "proceed[ing] directly to the question of whether, applying the fair argument standard, there is a reasonable possibility of a significant effect on the environment due to any . . . purported unusual circumstances." (Banker's Hill, supra, 139 Cal.App.4th at p. 278, italics added.) Indeed, much of the courts opinion focused on all the reasons an agency must apply the fair argument approach in determining whether there is no reasonable possibility of a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances (Guidelines,

Download Berkeley Hillside Preserv. v. City of Berkeley 3/7/12 CA1/4.pdf