Laserfiche WebLink
Page 2 -- November i0, 2004 <br /> <br /> Environmental _Impact--Neig]aborhood group wants building to be one <br /> story, shorter <br /> Claims neighborhood aesflzetics demmM it <br />Circ, rio~: Bowmar~ v. Cip: of Berkeiey, Cou:r of Appe~l of C~!¢btv~ia, ]sr. App. <br />Dist., Div. -' No. AdOo9~50,"~n"~,:u~"~ <br /> <br />C.~WO~N-iA (09/20/04) ~ Tae Ciq/ot Berxe4ey aurhonze~ ,~fforaaole Hous- <br />N~ Associates ro const~cr a housing complex for senior citizens. The project <br />mvoived the demolition oi' a vacant one-story building on one of Berkeley's <br />most heavily used :horough~ares. In its place, Aifordable Eousing would build <br />a fouI'-Stoqg residential development. <br /> A neighborhood group opposed the project, stating ir would support a <br />three-sto~ ~xed-use building, but not a four-story one. ir claimed a ~our-story <br />buildNg would haiti the aesthetics ot' the neighborhood and be a violation of <br />the Ca~'o~a Envffo~ental Quality Act. Under the Act, aesthetic concerns <br />requ~ed the filing of aa Enviro~ental impact Report, which the city was not <br />requi~g for the project. <br /> The neighbors sued, and the cou~ ruied in favor of the city. <br /> The neighbors appealed, aruuing aesthetic concerns under the Cali~'ornia <br />Envmo~entai Quality Act invalidated the project. <br />DEC, ION: Affirmed. <br /> ~e aesthetic difference between a four-story and a t~ee-story building ton <br />a co~ercial [or on a major thoroughfare in a devel0ped urban area would not <br />have a sigmficant environmental impact. <br /> W~ere scemc views or envbonmenrally sensitive areas were concerned, <br />aesthetic considerazions were not discounted as having environmental im- <br />pacts merely because they invob/ed subjective judgments. <br /> But in enacting the Cati~'ornia Environmental Quality Act, the legislature <br />did not intend ~o require an Environmental Impact Report where the sole <br />envffo~enral impact was the aesthetic meht of a building in a highly devei- <br />oped area. To hold otherwise would mean an Environmental impact Report <br />would be required for every urban building that was nor exempt under the <br />Act, if enough peopie could be marshaied to complain about how it wouid <br />look. <br /> ~ne p~oject had :dzeadv been subiect ~o d~orough design-review, and aes- <br />thetic issues h~e the one ~=ise,~ ilere we:e ordinarily the province of local de- <br /> <br /> iD92, <br /> <br />84 <br /> <br /> <br />