Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ceqa Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
PLUM denies appeal over Walnut Acres flag‑lot subdivision; categorical exemption sustained
Summary
The committee rejected an appeal challenging a Class 32 CEQA exemption for a flag‑lot infill subdivision in the Walnut Acres neighborhood, finding the appellant provided insufficient substantial evidence to overcome the exemption; the committee sustained the South Valley Area Planning Commission’s approval.
The Planning and Land Use Management Committee denied an appeal challenging the Department of City Planning’s use of a Class 32 categorical exemption for a proposed flag‑lot infill subdivision in Walnut Acres, sustaining the South Valley Area Planning Commission’s prior determination.
City Planning associate zoning administrator Jonathan Hershey told the committee that the project met the five conditions required for a Class 32 exemption and that neither unusual circumstances nor cumulative impacts had been demonstrated in the record. The appellants, David Lowery and Susan Prestine, argued the project violated local RA‑zoning midpoint lot‑width requirements and would eliminate area animal‑keeping (horse‑keeping) designations as well as create precedent for additional subdivisions.
Hershey and the applicant’s representative, Aaron Belliston, said the project had already undergone multiple reviews (including a unanimous South Valley Area Planning Commission vote) and that the appeal lacked substantial technical evidence. The applicant noted prior approvals and argued neighbor concerns alone do not constitute substantial evidence under CEQA.
After a short public comment period and committee deliberation, the chair said he opposed denying the community’s preferences but concluded the administrative record supported the exemption and that denying it would likely lead to costly litigation the city would lose. The committee voted to deny the appeal (record shows four ayes) and sustain the CEQA exemption for the project located at 23139–23141 West Collins Street.
What was at issue: The appellants argued the exemption was improperly applied because the project is inconsistent with zoning and community plan policies (including horse‑keeping designations), may remove animal‑keeping rights, and raises cumulative impact concerns if similar parcel splits follow.
What the committee found: Planning staff and the South Valley Area Planning Commission’s record, including an arborist report and prior findings, did not show unusual circumstances or substantial evidence of a significant environmental effect that would bar a Class 32 exemption.
What’s next: With PLUM’s action, the project’s environmental clearance stands and the applicant may proceed with the permitted discretionary approvals already granted; appellants retain any judicial remedies available under CEQA.
