Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environmental Review Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
CEQA Appeals Reform Draws Deep Debate; Committee Tables Narrow Ordinance After Wide Public Comment
Summary
A proposal to raise the signature threshold for certain CEQA appeals and allow limited temporary or reversible public projects to proceed during appeals drew extensive debate and dozens of public callers. The committee voted to table the item for further consideration after divided remarks from supervisors and legal concerns raised by advocates.
The Land Use & Transportation Committee spent much of its May 17 meeting on a narrowly framed ordinance that would raise the signature threshold to file CEQA appeals for a limited set of projects and allow certain temporary or reversible public actions to proceed while an appeal is pending.
Sponsor Supervisor Matt Haney said the changes would apply only to a small class of projects — including SFMTA and Port projects where the Board of Supervisors is not the approving authority, and temporary or reversible actions (no more than 180 days) — and would preserve the right to appeal while preventing repeated single-person filings that, he said, had delayed pandemic-response transit projects. "These projects were all responsive to the COVID emergency and were slowed down significantly," Haney said, describing multiple appeals of emergency transportation projects in 2020.
Planning and SFMTA staff supported a carefully scoped change. Veronica Flores said the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval; SFMTA planning director Sarah Jones said the change would ensure staff time is spent on implementation rather than repetitive appeal responses.
Opponents, including environmental and equity groups and CEQA practitioners, warned the change would illegally curtail the statutory right that allows any person to appeal a discretionary environmental determination and risk precommitment — projects moving forward while appeals are pending could become effectively unreviewable if they are short-term pilots that later are extended or formalized. Attorney Richard Drury told the committee, "This ordinance is just illegal," citing state CEQA law and due-process concerns.
Public comment ran long and split the room: numerous transportation and climate advocates, bike- and pedestrian-safety groups and many residents urged reform to prevent 'frivolous' or single-person appeals from holding up safety and climate-related projects; environmental, tenant, racial-equity and neighborhood groups opposed the ordinance as a barrier for grassroots organizations and a weakening of CEQA protections.
After discussion, Supervisor Peskin moved to table the item for further study; the motion to table passed (Peskin and Preston — ayes; Melgar — no). The committee closed public comment and adjourned.
Next steps: The ordinance was tabled in committee to allow additional legal and policy review before returning to the committee or the full board.
