Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Chapter31 Amendments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission pauses chapter 31 changes after public concerns over notice, deadlines and appeal fees
Summary
Planning Commission heard public opposition to proposed Administrative Code Chapter 31 amendments that would shorten appeal timelines, increase fees and formalize general‑rule exclusions; commissioners agreed to a one‑week continuance for staff to refine language and address notice and timing concerns.
The commission took public testimony on proposed amendments to Administrative Code Chapter 31 on Oct. 19 after receiving a large contingent of neighborhood and advocacy testimony urging delay and rework.
Lisa Gibson of the Planning Department outlined the draft ordinance governing appeals of environmental determinations to the Board of Supervisors. Multiple public commenters — including attorney and neighborhood advocates — said the draft shortened appeal windows, imposed filing fees (cited as $400), and introduced complexity that would substantially reduce the public’s ability to meaningfully appeal categorical exemptions and negative declarations. Speakers raised concerns about circulation thresholds (e.g., exemptions for projects over five acres), the timing of when an appeal period should begin (whether when a motion is issued or when the commission action is published), and the availability of final resolutions and plans at the time appeal clocks start.
Commissioners and members of the public discussed procedural fixes: adding a line to staff actions that makes the "motion issued" date explicit, giving more time for circulation in some cases, and clarifying notice rules. Planning staff agreed to return with proposed clarifications and recommended continuance. By consensus the commission continued the item one week (to Oct. 26) so staff could incorporate suggested changes and respond to specific points raised by speakers such as Sue Hester, the Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods, and preservation advocates.
Commissioners stressed that the intent of the ordinance was to bring certainty and avoid multi‑year circular appeals while preserving legitimate public appeal rights; public speakers said the draft swung too far toward process tightening at the expense of public review.
The commission’s one‑week continuance seeks to strike a balance between procedural clarity for applicants and preservation of meaningful public appeal opportunities.
