Committee recommends transferring existing Van Ness sidewalks from state to city jurisdiction

Supervisor Malia Cohen said the committee considered an ordinance to acquire state property so sidewalks along portions of Van Ness Avenue would fall under city jurisdiction. Department of Public Works planner Javier Rivera said the department’s review identified about 83 sidewalk segments, a little over two miles, stretching roughly from Plum on the south to Lombard on the north, and emphasized the transfer would apply only to existing sidewalks, not future expansion.

Anne Marie Rogers of the Planning Department framed the change as a design and livability issue: she described repeated instances where Caltrans encroachment reviews have required removal of bay windows, awnings and other façade features after local approvals, leaving blank street walls that undermine the city’s aims for active, pedestrian-friendly streetscapes. “When a project that would extend over the state right of way is considered, it is first approved by the planning commission,” Rogers said, then noted Caltrans has sometimes denied encroachment permits and required removal of façade details.

Members heard public comment from planners and neighborhood advocates who said local review would preserve San Francisco’s characteristic building depth and streetscape. Larry Badner of Badner Urban Planning said the relinquishment would produce “clear public benefit here with no actual harm” and helped make the city’s Van Ness vision possible. Tim Cohen of the Housing Action Coalition also urged quick approval.

Supervisor Erin Peskin asked whether the city would take on new maintenance liability; Rivera replied the city already maintains Van Ness sidewalks under current arrangements with Caltrans and would not be assuming new maintenance obligations. Christopher Tom from the City Attorney’s Office added that, under city code, fronting private property owners retain responsibility for sidewalk condition and that Public Works’ role would focus on implementation and enforcement of those codes.

With those clarifications, the committee moved the item to the full Board with a recommendation and the motion passed without objection. The full Board will consider the ordinance at its next meeting, as noted in committee procedure.

The committee record shows the change covers only existing sidewalks and that any future sidewalk expansions would require a separate relinquishment from the state.