Board upholds planning's CEQA exemption, clears way for Mid Valencia curbside protected bikeway

The Board of Supervisors on Jan. 28 affirmed the Planning Department's determination that the Mid Valencia curbside protected bikeway project is statutorily exempt from CEQA review, rejecting an appeal filed by local merchants.

The decision followed a multi-hour public hearing that included a 10-minute presentation by the appellant's counsel, extensive public comment from merchants and neighbors expressing economic and access concerns, a planning-department staff presentation explaining the legal basis for a statutory exemption under CEQA section 21080.25, and a project overview from SFMTA.

Appellant counsel Julio Ramos, representing neighborhood group Vamanos, argued that the project could affect historic resources and cited —unusual circumstances— and economic harm to Valencia merchants, noting the proposed change would remove parking and alter the character of the corridor. —We're talking about people here,— David Quimby, a Valencia merchant, told the board, saying he had spoken with roughly 200 merchants and reported losses and concerns about outreach and timing.

Planning Department senior environmental planner Jennifer McKellar described the agency's factual findings that the project meets the statutory exemption criteria created to streamline environmental review for active-transportation and sustainable-transportation projects. McKellar explained differences between a statutory exemption and a categorical exemption and said the substantial-evidence standard applies to the Planning Department's factual findings. The department also stated statutory public-notification requirements apply only to much larger projects; planning estimated the Mid Valencia work at up to $2.5 million, under the $50 million threshold that would trigger additional statutory outreach.

SFMTA project manager Paul Stennis summarized the project's goals and history: the agency piloted a center-running bikeway in the corridor, evaluated safety data and outreach, and concluded a curbside, side-running protected design better balanced safety, merchant access and parklet placement. Stennis said the center-running configuration reduced bike and pedestrian crashes by about 20% in early evaluations but that community feedback and further design work led SFMTA to propose the curbside design. He described outreach door-to-door with hundreds of businesses, two open houses, ongoing construction working groups and proposed mitigation measures during construction, including weekly progress notices and an —open for business— marketing campaign with OEWD.

Supporters of the project—including local bicycle-safety advocates, the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition and neighborhood residents—urged the supervisors to deny the appeal and allow construction to proceed, citing safety benefits on a corridor classified by SFMTA as part of the city's high-injury network. —Protected bike lanes are my lifeline,— Erin Feberling, a bicyclist and District 9 resident, told the board.

After rebuttal from the appellant, Supervisor Fielder moved to affirm the Planning Department's statutory exemption determination for the Mid Valencia curbside protected bikeway (Item 26) and table Items 27 and 28. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Dorsey and passed on roll call (10 ayes; the motion passed without objection after appropriate recusals were recorded earlier for unrelated items). The board's approval upholds the exemption and allows SFMTA to proceed toward construction, subject to its standard permitting and implementation steps.

The board's action resolves the narrow legal question before it: whether the Planning Department's factual finding that the project meets the statutory exemption was supported by substantial evidence. Supervisors and staff repeatedly framed the decision as a legal determination, distinct from ongoing policy debates about parking, parking-management choices, or longer-term commercial recovery on Valencia.