A new, powerful Citizen Portal experience is ready. Switch now

Board continues Ashton Avenue sidewalk-encroachment appeal to get DPW, planning and survey clarifications

May 15, 2024 | San Francisco City, San Francisco County, California


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Board continues Ashton Avenue sidewalk-encroachment appeal to get DPW, planning and survey clarifications
The San Francisco Board of Appeals continued appeal 20-367 (1 Ashton Ave) to June 26, 2024, after hearing a dispute over whether a private subsurface utility easement or the city's recorded right-of-way governs a fence, pergola and other improvements that DPW has characterized as encroachments.

The appellant submitted a licensed-surveyor boundary showing a 9-foot subsurface utility easement and argued that historic documents and monument evidence show no 15-foot public sidewalk in the location at issue. Javier Rivera of the Public Works Bureau of Street Use & Mapping told the board the private survey aligns with the official record dimensions and that the sidewalk/right-of-way as measured from the back of curb to the property line is 15 feet and that permitted or permitted-but-unpaved sidewalks exist across the city.

Deputy City Attorney Jen Huber cited Public Works Code sections 7.23 (obstruction of public right-of-way) and 7.06 (fronting-owner maintenance responsibilities) to explain the department's enforcement authority. Planning staff (Deputy Zoning Administrator Tina Tam) explained that a pending variance for the property’s trellis depends on the property-line determination and that features in the public right-of-way fall under DPW's minor-encroachment permit process.

Several commissioners said the parties and departments should clarify whether the permit application triggers "development" rules — which could require appraisal or basal-area replacement for trees — or instead is "maintenance," which generally triggers 1:1 replacement under DPW code. The Board asked DPW and BUF to provide the development/maintenance checklist, any hearing-officer rationale for the previously issued denial, and any supporting documentation. Parties may submit up to a three-page brief and limited exhibits ahead of the continued hearing.

The motion to continue to 06/26/2024 passed 4-0.

View the Full Meeting & All Its Details

This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.

Watch full, unedited meeting videos
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
Permanent access to expanding government content
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee