Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 21 JANUARY 2014

Contaminated But Remediated Soil And Cortese Listing Does Not Compel Preparation Of EIR

Sheppard
Sheppard
Contributor
Sheppard

Sheppard

Businesses turn to Sheppard to deliver sophisticated counsel to help clients move ahead. With more...

View firm profile
Explore more from Sheppard

As 2013 came to a close, the California court of appeal in Parker Shattuck Neighbors v. Berkeley City Council (1st Dist., Div. 4, 12/30/13, A136873) ___Cal.App.1st___, 2013, upheld the City of Berkeley’s decision not to require an EIR in connection with a mixed use development project for two reasons: (1) appellants Parker Shattuck failed to identify substantial evidence to create a fair argument that the disturbance of contaminated soil would have a significant effect on the environment; and (2

United StatesEnvironment

As 2013 came to a close, the California court of appeal in Parker Shattuck Neighbors v. Berkeley City Council (1st Dist., Div. 4, 12/30/13, A136873) ___Cal.App.1st___, 2013, upheld the City of Berkeley's decision not to require an EIR in connection with a mixed use development project for two reasons: (1) appellants Parker Shattuck failed to identify substantial evidence to create a fair argument that the disturbance of contaminated soil would have a significant effect on the environment; and (2) the site's inclusion on the Cortese list did not automatically trigger the preparation on an EIR.

The Project

As proposed, the Park Place project consisted of 155 residential units and over 20,000 square feet of commercial space. The site was currently occupied by a car dealership, and prior uses had included service stations and a service garage.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from