Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ceqa topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee upholds CEQA categorical exemption for 121-unit Sunset Boulevard project
Summary
The committee denied an appeal by SAFER and sustained the director of planning’s class 32 categorical exemption for a 121-unit mixed-use project on Sunset Boulevard that includes 13 extremely low-income units, finding the record supports the exemption and that recommended project features reduce impacts below significance.
The Planning and Land Use Committee denied an appeal and sustained the director of planning’s determination that a proposed five-story, 121-unit mixed-use project on Sunset Boulevard qualifies for a Class 32 (infill) categorical exemption under CEQA.
Project description: the proposal calls for demolition of existing buildings and construction of a five-story mixed-use building with 121 dwelling units, including 13 units reserved for extremely low-income households under the Transit Oriented Communities program, approximately 3,603 square feet of ground-floor commercial space, 79 vehicle parking spaces and bicycle parking.
The appellant, represented by Chase Preciado on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER), argued the Class 32 exemption is inapplicable because the project’s noise and vibration studies indicate potential significant effects at nearby residences, and because proposed “best management practices” aimed at construction equipment noise are not proper substitutions for environmental review. SAFER’s air-quality expert also argued indoor formaldehyde emissions from building materials could present a cancer risk exceeding regional thresholds.
Planning staff (Eric Morales) and the applicant’s representative (Gary Benjamin, Alchemy Planning and Land Use) countered that the administrative record contains substantial evidence that the project qualifies for the Class 32 infill exemption, that project features and best-management practices reduce potential construction impacts below significance, and that modeled construction noise levels fall below the city threshold (staff cited a maximum noise level of 78.5 dB against a city threshold of 80 dB). The City Planning Commission and director of planning had previously sustained the exemption and denied earlier appeals.
Action taken: the committee voted to deny the appeal and sustain the director of planning’s determination that the project is exempt from CEQA under Class 32. The roll call recorded five ayes.
Ending: With the committee’s vote, the project may proceed under the director’s exemption and the administrative record’s conditions; opponents may pursue other remedies outside the planning hearing, such as seeking further administrative or judicial review.
