Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Works Encroachment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances change to Public Works Code to allow supervisors to seek hearings on major encroachment revocations
Summary
The Land Use Committee forwarded an ordinance amending the Public Works Code to let five supervisors schedule a Board hearing to consider revoking a major encroachment permit when the Director of Public Works has not acted; DPW expressed no objection and the committee moved the item without recorded opposition.
The San Francisco Land Use Committee on Jan. 28, 2019, voted to forward an ordinance amending the Public Works Code to allow five members of the Board of Supervisors to schedule an administrative hearing before the Board to consider revoking a major encroachment permit if the Director of Public Works has not taken timely action.
Jeremy Spitz of the Department of Public Works, legislative affairs, told the committee that "the director of public works has reviewed this legislation and has no objections" and described the change as a policy decision for the Board. Chair Aaron Peskin framed the amendment as a due-process measure meant to provide an elected-body route when the director does not schedule hearings or issue timely decisions.
Vice Chair Supervisor Asha Safaei asked for a small technical change to notice language, proposing that mailed notice of the director's decision be sent "by certified" mail to reduce missed notices. She also asked whether revocations have occurred historically and whether the 60–90 day window for the director to schedule an administrative hearing is sufficient to prepare cost estimates and identify responsible parties; Safaei described the certified-mail language as a "friendly amendment."
Deputy City Attorney John Givner advised the committee he would check whether certified mail is required elsewhere in the Public Works Code and said the amendment could be made before the full Board next Tuesday. On the scope of technical determinations, Givner said that, under state law, the city engineer (within DPW) "has exclusive authority to determine engineering design issues," and that the ordinance need not redefine that authority.
Jeremy Spitz later confirmed the department expects a 60–90 day window is sufficient to produce cost and restoration estimates. After no public comment, the committee voted to forward the ordinance to the full Board with recommendation; the motion was taken "without objection." The clerk noted items acted on will appear on the Feb. 5 Board of Supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated.
