San Francisco supervisors probe slow sidewalk repairs after residents report falls and confusion about complaint process
Loading...
Summary
The Board of Supervisors' Land Use & Transportation Committee heard department briefings and public testimony on hazardous sidewalks, timelines for repairs, and roles of property owners and city agencies. Planning and public-works staff described current response times and programs; the committee continued the item for follow-up.
Chair Myrna Melgar convened a Dec. 13 hearing on the condition of San Francisco sidewalks, saying residents — especially seniors and people with disabilities — report hazardous walkways and a complaint process that feels opaque.
Jennifer Walsh, facilitator of the SF Sidewalk Search Party and a program director at Community Living Campaign, told the committee her group surveyed 165 city residents (89% seniors or people with disabilities) and found 55% frequently encounter unsafe sidewalks and 78% judged sidewalks poorly maintained. “I use a wheelchair, and I have personally tipped over into the streets two different times due to construction and empty tree wells,” Walsh said, citing repeated falls and construction-related hazards.
Michael Lennon, manager with San Francisco Public Works’ Bureau of Street Use and Mapping, described the city’s complaint intake and repair process. He said obstructions to the public right of way receive an initial response goal of three business days and defects receive a five-business-day service-level response. Inspectors issue an initial notice with a 30-day repair window and, after reinspection, a final notice giving property owners 15 days before the city may abate the defect and place a lien to recover contractor costs.
Lennon noted most sidewalk responsibility falls to adjacent property owners under the city’s code (Public Works Code 706), with limited exceptions such as street-tree damage covered by the city after passage of Prop E. He said the city aims to inspect and repair sidewalks on a 25-year rolling basis — a program launched around 2007–08 — and currently runs one contractor for repairs with plans to advertise for additional contracts in the next fiscal year.
Nicholas Crawford, Bureau of Urban Forestry, described a targeted, tree-focused approach. He said the city used an inventory of trees and sidewalk conditions to form priority quadrants and relied on a slicing (grinding) technique to address smaller uplifts. Crawford reported crews and contractors have addressed roughly 40,000 tree-related trip hazards and repaired about a half-million square feet of sidewalk, while emphasizing uplift due to roots is ongoing.
Representatives from SFMTA and the city traffic office said construction permits and temporary paths of travel are governed by a construction manual known as the “Blue Book,” and SFMTA tracks construction-related complaints and works with construction managers to keep paths accessible. Kate McCarthy, SFMTA public outreach manager, said construction teams and project inspectors are required to maintain a minimum four-foot path where feasible and that outreach teams target responses within about 48 hours for some project inquiries.
Deborah Kaplan of the Mayor’s Office on Disability said sidewalk access is an ADA and California civil-rights issue with legal liability under Title II of the ADA and that MOD maintains a transparent complaint process with an emphasis on confirming resolution within 30 days when possible. She warned that reorganizations (for example proposals to move units under a new sanitation agency) require a clearly assigned ADA coordinator to avoid slowing complaint response.
During public comment seven callers described personal injuries, long waits for repairs and temporary measures that create hazards — including a months-long temporary asphalt surface and missing metal plates that could trap canes or cause falls. Speakers urged clearer public-facing information (how to identify who is responsible and what the colored pavement marks mean), faster abatement of marked hazards, and better proactive inspection in underserved neighborhoods.
After public testimony the committee voted to continue the item to the call of the chair for follow-up. The roll call recorded three ayes (Peskin; Preston; Melgar). The committee requested departments provide clearer public guidance on the color codes/markings, clarify timelines between 311 marking and repair, and return with additional detail on contracting and proactive inspection plans.
