Court backs owners planning large home

The California Supreme Court has left intact a ruling limiting environmental review of large single- family homes, such as the nearly 10,000- square- foot house a Berkeley couple want to build on a steep hillside.

Mitchell Kapor, founder of Lotus Development Corp., and his wife, Freada Kapor- Klein, plan the home and adjoining 10- car garage on a Rose Street lot with a 50 percent slope. The project has been on hold since 2010 during arguments over whether Berkeley must prepare an environmental impact report, which would include public comments and possible changes to prevent environmental harm.

California law requires environmental reports for major construction projects, but exempts single- family homes and “infill” projects in urban areas except under “unusual” circumstances. In the Berkeley case, a state appellate court ruled in 2012 that a report was needed because of the possibility of significant environmental impact, but the state’s high court disagreed in a 5- 2 ruling March 2.

To find “unusual” circumstances, Justice Ming Chin wrote, a court must conclude either that the project’s size or location were so unconventional that it needed an environmental study, or that it will — and not just might — have a significant impact. He also said courts should respect the conclusions of local agencies, such as the Berkeley City Council, which studied the project and concluded no report was needed.

The court told the appellate panel to take another look at the Berkeley plans under the new standards, leaving open the possibility of an environmental study. But the ruling strengthened the authority of local agencies to exempt such projects from environmental review, and opponents of the plan, a group called Berkeley Hillside Preservation, asked the justices for a rehearing, with support from conservation groups.

They had hoped to persuade Gov. Jerry Brown’s two new appointees to the court to support them.

Justices Mariano- Florentino Cuéllar and Leondra Kruger did not take part in the earlier ruling and could have provided the decisive votes to reconsider the case. But Wednesday, the court denied reconsideration, with only the two previous dissenters, Justices Kathryn Mickle Werdegar and Goodwin Liu, voting for a new hearing.

The case is Berkeley Hillside Preservation vs. City of Berkeley, S201116.