Supervisors pause planning‑code overhaul to allow more community notice and multilingual changes

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on June 19 voted to continue consideration of a proposed planning‑code omnibus that would streamline review for some projects, including 100% affordable housing, after multiple supervisors said parts of the 70‑page draft reduce neighborhood notice and public review.

Supervisor Aaron Peskin, the item's lead critic, moved to continue the ordinance for one week so the city attorney could draft amendments addressing three concerns he enumerated: restoring some neighborhood notice, preserving postcard or similar notice for small "pop‑out" projects, and reversing reductions in the type or size of neighborhood notice. Supervisor Ronan and others also asked the city attorney to prepare a multilingual notice amendment requiring project posters and mailed notices to include the address/block and lot number, application number, basic project details and hearing information in multiple languages.

Peskin told colleagues "the ordinance would reduce the type and size of neighborhood notice," and said the planning department acknowledged limited outreach on the draft. Several supervisors, including Jeff Sheehy, Katy Tang and Sandra Lee Fewer, said they support the larger aims of process improvements but urged stronger community engagement and mandatory pre‑application meetings for certain small projects. Tang said much of the existing city practice already uses 20‑day notices, but she expressed concern about lifting many 10‑day notices to 30 days if the board moves in that direction.

Supervisor London Breed accepted the motion for a one‑week continuance. Supervisor Cohen seconded the motion. The board agreed to continue the item to the June 26 meeting to allow staff and the city attorney to prepare the requested amendments.

Why it matters: The ordinance would change review procedures across residential, commercial and mixed‑use districts. Supporters said the streamlining would speed the production of affordable housing and free staff to concentrate on larger projects; critics warned that shorter or smaller notices and eliminated postcard notices would reduce transparency and neighborhood input, harming trust in the planning process.

What was decided: The board continued consideration to a June 26 meeting and asked the city attorney and planning staff to draft specific amendments on notice length, the postcard/posting requirement and multilingual content.

Ending note: Supervisors said they generally endorse the goal of process improvement but want changes that preserve meaningful community notice and required pre‑application engagement where appropriate.