Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sidewalk Encroachment Ashton topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues Ashton Avenue sidewalk-encroachment appeal to get DPW, planning and survey clarifications
Summary
The Board continued an appeal (1 Ashton Ave) over whether a 9-foot subsurface utility easement or a 15-foot public sidewalk governs encroachments; the Board requested DPW and planning provide additional materials, the hearing-officer rationale and the department's development-vs-maintenance checklist and continued the item to June 26, 2024.
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.
