Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Street Safety Bikeways topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds planning department: Fell and Oak bikeways declared categorically exempt from CEQA
Summary
After a multi‑hour appeal hearing with dozens of public speakers and detailed technical back‑and‑forth, the Board of Supervisors voted 11–0 to affirm the Planning Department’s categorical exemption determination for the Fell and Oak Street bikeways project.
The Board of Supervisors on Dec. 11 affirmed the Planning Department’s categorical exemption determination for the Fell and Oak bikeways project, rejecting an appeal that had argued the work required fuller CEQA review because of unusual circumstances and potential cumulative impacts with nearby bike projects.
The appeal hearing began with appellants’ counsel arguing that the project— which includes new bike lanes, buffers, raised planters, bulb‑outs and parking changes—was not a minor alteration and therefore could not rely on the class 1 and class 4 categorical exemptions. Appellants also argued the project could produce cumulative impacts when viewed in combination with the Masonic Avenue bike project and should not have been “piecemealed” from the broader San Francisco Bicycle Plan review.
Marnie Sussman, representing the San Francisco Pedestrian Coalition and appellants, filed a supplemental letter asking the board to require an environmental impact report. Appellant Ted Lowenburg, who said he cycles extensively in the city, pressed that the proposed route mixes traffic of substantially different speeds and that safer alternatives (for instance Hayes/Page/Scott alignments) exist.
Planning staff and SFMTA staff defended the exemption. Brett Bollinger, environmental planner at the Planning Department, said the changes are minor alterations to existing rights‑of‑way (class 1c) and the creation of a bike lane on an existing right‑of‑way falls within class 4h. The department relied on a traffic analysis that concluded the project would not produce significant traffic impacts or materially slow transit because no trip generation is created and level‑of‑service calculations remained acceptable in the modeled scenarios.
MTA project manager Luis Montoya described the project’s safety measures, including 12 bulb outs, enhanced crosswalk markings, advanced limit lines and signal timing adjustments. Montoya said the MTA conducted multiple community meetings and that the board of the SFMTA had approved the plan unanimously on Oct. 16. He stressed that the Oak route is the flattest, most direct crossing from the Panhandle to the Wiggle and that Page and Hayes routes are longer and in some places substantially steeper for cyclists.
Public comment included a mix of supporters—district neighborhood associations, transportation advocates and people who said the changes would calm the highest‑speed streets near Golden Gate Park—and opponents—residents and merchants alarmed by the removal of approximately 90 on‑street parking spaces and concerned about safety at the proposed buffer planters and impacts to emergency and delivery access. Speakers on both sides urged the board to weigh safety for pedestrians and cyclists against impacts to motorists and business deliveries.
After rebuttals and questions, Supervisor Elsberg (motion) and Supervisor Campos (second) asked the board to affirm the Planning Department’s determination. The roll call showed 11 ayes and no nays; the board denied the appeal and affirmed the categorical exemption.
The decision ends the appeal but leaves open additional design refinements during implementation, and the MTA said it will continue coordination with fire, DPW and local stakeholders on final details.
