In this Section, BNC publishes articles that are written either by a neighborhood representative without editing or is summarized from material that has been submitted to us. We will tell you when an article has been written by a representative or when it has been summarized.
In this post, summarized by BNC, we are updating an article that we published in our eNEWS Issue 11, late July to mid-August 2014. The article, 2707 Rose Street: A Cautionary Tale, was written by Susan Nunes Fadley. That article concerned the approval, some three years ago, of a single family home of approximately 10,000 square feet (including a 10-car garage) on a steep hillside lot on Rose Street in the North Berkeley Hills. The proposed house would be 55 feet above grade, rise 80 feet above Shasta Road, and be 100 feet in length. No geological or engineering studies had been done on the submitted proposal.
Here’s the timeline, updated:
1/28/2010 | Zoning Adjustments Board Meeting:Neighbors requested a month’s continuance and the erection of story poles in order to work out a solution with the property owners. ZAB approved the project. |
2/19/2010 | Thirty-four people appealed the ZAB decision to the City Council. |
4/27/2010 | City Council Meeting:Council approved the project on a 6-2 vote and dismissed the appeal. |
5/2010 | Neighbors formed Berkeley Hillside Preservation and went to court. Alameda County Superior Court agreed there was substantial evidence that the project would have significant impacts related to geotechnical effects and inconsistencies with the Berkeley General Plan, but nonetheless upheld the City’s approval. The neighbors appealed the court’s decision. |
2/2012 | First District Court of Appeal in a published opinion unanimously reversed the trial court and declared the City’s approval unlawful. The property owners and City appealed. |
3/26/2012 | Petition for Review was filed with the California Supreme Court by the owner’s of the property and the City of Berkeley.Case number S201116
</td style=”padding-bottom: 25px;” valign=”top”> |
5/23/2012 | The California Supreme Court granted the petition to review the case. |
1/16/2013 to 2/27/13 | Amicus curiae briefs were filed by the following (listed in no particular order): Building Industry Association of the Bay Area California Building Industry Association California School Boards Association Education Legal Alliance Regents of the University of California Board of Trustees for California State Universities Pacific Legal Foundation League of California Cities Center for Biological Diversity Association of California Water Agencies Attorney General Kamala Harris Save our Carmel River Open Monterey Project Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association Planning and Conservation League Endangered Habitat League, Inc. California Preservation Foundation Save our Heritage Organization |
5/19/2014 | Justice Pro Tempore assigned:Honorable Roger W. Boren, Second Appellate District, Division Two. |
10/31/2014 | Case ordered on the Supreme Court calendar. |
12/2/2014 | Oral arguments scheduled:9:00 am, Ronald Reagan State Office Building300 South Spring Street, Third Floor, North TowerLos Angeles, CaliforniaSusan Brandt-Hawley will argue for Berkeley Hillside Preservation.We believe, but are not positive, that Laura McKinney will argue for the City of Berkeley. |
This is how the California Supreme Court posts the case on its website:
The following case summaries are issued to inform the public about cases that the California Supreme Court has scheduled for oral argument and of their general subject matter. In most instances, the descriptions set out below are reproduced from the original news release issued when review in each of these matters was granted and are provided for the convenience of the public. The descriptions do not necessarily reflect the view of the court or define the specific issues that will be addressed by the court.
(2) Berkeley Hillside Preservation et al. v. City of Berkeley et al. (Donn Logan et al., Real Parties in Interest and Respondents), S093235 (Boren, J., assigned justice pro tempore)
#12-58 Berkeley Hillside Preservation et al. v. City of Berkeley et al. (Donn Logan et al., Real Parties in Interest and Respondents), S201116. (A131254; 203 Cal.App.4th 656; Superior Court of Alameda County; RG10517314.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in an action for writ of administrative mandate. This case presents the following issue: Did the City of Berkeley properly conclude that a proposed project was exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) under the categorical exemptions set forth in California Code of Regulations, title 14, sections 15303, subdivision (a), and 15332, and that the “Significant Effects Exception” set forth in section 15300.2 subdivision (c), of the regulations did not operate to remove the project from the scope of those categorical exemptions?
There is no way to tell when the next step will occur — will it be a continuance with further arguments and/or legal briefs, or a final decision? BNC has signed up to receive further notifications regarding this lawsuit. So, we can only say now — stay tuned!!