Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Ceqa topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appellant withdraws Broderick Street CEQA appeal; board affirms planning department exemption and tables related items
Summary
An appellant withdrew a CEQA categorical exemption appeal for a project at 2655 Broderick Street; the board heard the appeal, heard no public support for the appellant, and voted to affirm planning's exemption determination while tabling related items pending additional discussions.
The Board of Supervisors held a 3:00 p.m. special order public hearing on Feb. 24 to consider an appeal of a categorical exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) issued by the Planning Department for a project at 2655 Broderick Street. The appellant, Irving Zaretsky, filed a notice of withdrawal of his appeal on Feb. 23 and did not appear to make a statement; the Board nonetheless conducted the hearing to allow public comment.
Supervisor Mark Farrell said he had met with the appellant and project sponsor and that Mr. Zaretsky had agreed to withdraw the appeal without prejudice; Farrell said his office would convene the appellant, sponsor and Department of Building Inspection staff to attempt a negotiated resolution on outstanding technical issues.
The project sponsor’s attorney asked the Board to act promptly, saying the city had spent resources preparing the appeal briefing and that staff was available to explain the exemption determination. No members of the public spoke in support of the appellant during the hearing. Planning Department staff indicated they had no further remarks.
Following the hearing the Board, on motion by Supervisor Farrell (seconded by Supervisor Campos), approved item 28 (affirming the Planning Department’s exemption determination) and tabled items 29 and 30 (motions to prepare findings and related administrative items) as consistent with the Deputy City Attorney’s advice. The clerk confirmed the board had properly disposed of items 27–30.
Why it matters: The procedural disposition brought the appeal to a close without a decision on merits because the appellant withdrew. The board’s action affirmed the Planning Department’s CEQA exemption finding and directed follow-up meetings between staff, appellant and sponsor to address outstanding technical issues outside of the formal appeal process.
