Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ceqa Appeals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission backs higher CEQA appeal threshold for SFMTA and Port projects, allows limited reversible work during appeals
Summary
The Planning Commission unanimously recommended a CEQA appeals ordinance that would let agencies advance certain reversible or time‑sensitive public‑health projects while appeals are pending and raise the threshold for appeals of SFMTA and Port projects (50 resident signatures or five supervisors).
The San Francisco Planning Commission on Feb. 25 voted unanimously to recommend a co‑sponsored ordinance that alters the city’s CEQA appeal process for certain public projects, notably those by the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) and Port Commission. Staff and SFMTA officials said the change would preserve departments’ ability to advance reversible safety or temporary measures while appeals are pending and raise the filing threshold for CEQA appeals of SFMTA and Port matters to the level used by the Board of Supervisors.
"These are the kinds of changes that we would want to maintain our ability to go forward with in a timely way so that we’re not subjecting the public to delays," Sarah Jones, planning director at SFMTA, told the commission, citing slow‑streets and emergency transit measures implemented during the COVID‑19 pandemic as examples.
Under the proposal, projects meeting narrowly defined criteria—public‑safety or health measures, temporary activities lasting no more than approximately six months, or reversible actions that do not involve physical construction—could proceed while a CEQA appeal is pending. The ordinance would also require higher thresholds to file appeals for SFMTA or Port projects: either 50 San Francisco resident signatures or sign‑on by five supervisors, consistent with procedures used when the Board of Supervisors chooses to review certain SFMTA actions.
Members of the public offered mixed reactions. Supporters, including the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition and Streets for People Bay Area, said appeals had delayed emergency transit changes and slow‑streets projects, while the Sierra Club testified in opposition, arguing CEQA protections should not be reduced.
Staff provided appeal data for 2015–2020: 97 appeals filed, 53 denied, eight upheld and 34 withdrawn; staff cautioned that the dataset is citywide and not disaggregated by agency in the packet. Commissioners asked staff to clarify the data and the legal basis for the proposed thresholds; staff and SFMTA representatives pointed to a 2017 Board of Supervisors practice establishing the 50‑signature threshold for review of certain MTA actions.
The commission voted to recommend the ordinance to the Board of Supervisors by unanimous roll call.
