241 Cal. App. 4th 943
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Real parties in interest Kapor and Kapor-Klein sought to build a large residence on a steep, wooded Berkeley Hills lot, triggering CEQA review.
- City approved use permits and certified exemptions under CEQA Class 3 (small structures/single-family residence) and Class 32 (in-fill development) with no initial finding of unusual circumstances.
- Appealants argued CEQA exemptions should not apply due to unusual circumstances and potential significant environmental effects, especially geotechnical concerns and traffic impacts.
- The trial court upheld the exemptions, and the court of appeal remanded following the California Supreme Court’s reversal, directing a proper analysis of unusual circumstances.
- On remand, the court analyzed substantial evidence supporting exemptions, concluded no unusual circumstances were shown, and found traffic-management measures did not negate the exemptions.
- The court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the writ of mandate and allowed the City’s exemptions to stand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether unusual circumstances exist to bar exemptions. | Kapor/Kapor-Klein contend unusual circumstances exist due to size, location, and setting. | City concludes no unusual circumstances; exemptions apply. | No unusual circumstances; exemptions upheld. |
| Whether traffic-management measures negate exemptions. | Traffic mitigation shows project may have significant environmental effects, undermining exemptions. | Traffic plan is a routine construction-management measure, not a mitigation that defeats exemptions. | Traffic-management plan does not preclude exemptions. |
| Whether size/setting makes project unusual for an exempt class. | Project is atypically large and distinctive for the vicinity and setting. | Evidence shows the project is not unusual relative to nearby residences; exemptions still apply. | Size and setting not unusual for purposes of exemption. |
Key Cases Cited
- Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley, 60 Cal.4th 1086 (Cal.4th 2015) (defines unusual circumstances framework and two-step review under CEQA exemptions)
- Salmon Protection & Watershed Network v. County of Marin, 125 Cal.App.4th 1098 (Cal. App.4th 2004) (illustrates when mitigation affects exemption status)
- Lotus v. Department of Transportation, 223 Cal.App.4th 645 (Cal. App.4th 2014) (mitigation measures vs. project; proper categorization)
- Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City and County of San Francisco, 222 Cal.App.4th 863 (Cal. App.4th 2013) (distinguishes mitigation from part of project; status of exemptions)
- Association for Protection of Mt. Shasta v. Ukiah, 2 Cal.App.4th 720 (Cal. App.4th 1991) (drainage/typical concerns not unusual circumstances)