Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Ceqa topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board affirms planning department’s categorical exemption for 53 State Street after lengthy Corona Heights appeal
Summary
After a multi-hour hearing with neighbors and the planning department, the Board of Supervisors affirmed the Planning Department’s categorical CEQA exemption for a two-unit redevelopment at 53 State Street, concluding the project did not present unusual circumstances requiring further environmental review.
The Board of Supervisors voted to uphold the Planning Department’s categorical exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for a proposed demolition and replacement project at 53 State Street in the Corona Heights area, rejecting an appeal from neighborhood residents.
Hector Martinez, a resident and the lead appellant, argued the demolition and construction of a new 4-story, two-unit building would be out of scale with the neighborhood, reduce private open space and tree canopy, and — together with several nearby projects — produce cumulative impacts that the Eastern Neighborhoods environmental analysis did not address. “The oversized developments like this one in our neighborhood are walling off State Street to the significant detriment of front and rear yards, side yards, trees, greenery, vegetation, wildlife, neighborhood environment, and aesthetics,” Martinez said.
Jeannie Poling, environmental planner for the Planning Department, and Sarah Jones, the department’s environmental review officer, told the board the parcel was not a historic resource and that the project fell within CEQA categorical exemptions for demolition of a non-historic single-family home (Class 1) and for the construction of up to six dwelling units in an urban area (Class 3). Poling said the Planning Commission had reviewed a revised scheme and approved it 6–0 after reductions in unit size, parking and additional setbacks. The department concluded the appellant had not provided substantial evidence of unusual circumstances or of significant cumulative impacts that CEQA would require be addressed in an environmental impact report.
Brett Gladstone, the project sponsor’s attorney, and property owner Marvin Tian described the existing house as vacant and in poor condition and said the revised project represented a reasonable, code-compliant increase in housing stock. Gladstone emphasized that the sponsor had trimmed the proposal after Planning Commission comments and that the project did not remove affordable housing or displace a substantial number of residents.
Neighbors and residents spoke at length during the hearing, with several citing loss of neighborhood character, tree and wildlife removal, and a string of nearby developments as evidence of cumulative impacts. Supporters of the project said conversion to two units would add housing supply and that the site had a history of commercial and light industrial occupancy.
After discussion, Supervisor Tang moved to affirm the Planning Department’s categorical exemption (item 19) and table related motions (items 20 and 21). The motion, seconded by Supervisor Cohen, passed in roll call. The board recorded affirmative votes for supervisors present; Supervisor Wiener was recused for this item. The board’s action leaves the Planning Department’s CEQA exemption in place and allows the project approvals to proceed.
