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 CEQA determination after appellant withdraws San Jose Avenue appeal
Summary
After the appellant withdrew an appeal, the board affirmed the Planning Department’s community plan evaluation and tabled related items; neighbors and the sponsoring supervisor reported project modifications, including retaining a historic façade and replacing proposed parking with an additional rent‑controlled unit.
The Board of Supervisors on Dec. 8 affirmed the Planning Department’s community plan evaluation under CEQA for a proposed project at 350–352 San Jose Avenue after the appellant withdrew an appeal.
Supervisor Mandelman (item sponsor) described the project as an expansion of a circa‑1875 structure from four units to 13 units over four floors, noting that the project had been modified during discretionary review and through a settlement with neighbors. Modifications cited in remarks included: retaining the historic façade; relocating the historic structure 23 feet toward San Jose Avenue to reduce shadow and light impacts on adjacent Jury Commons Park; replacing proposed parking with an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) to yield an additional rent‑controlled unit; and scaling back decks to address privacy concerns.
Action and vote: The board voted to affirm the Planning Department’s determination (item 33) and table items 34 and 35; the roll call recorded 11 ayes.
Public comment: Two callers were taken on the item; one caller criticized the limitations of remote public comment generally and the placement of items on the agenda but did not offer project‑specific technical objections.
Next steps: With the appeal withdrawn and the CEQA determination affirmed, project approvals will proceed under the Planning Department’s discretionary review and any settlement terms negotiated with neighbors. The board tabled related motions to reverse the exemption determination and to direct preparation of findings (items 34 and 35) because the appeal was withdrawn.
