Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Works Blight Abatement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board waives two blight assessments after muralists and owners contest citations
Summary
At a public hearing on Chapter 80 blight assessments, Public Works staff described their notice process and the board amended a report to remove two properties after testimony from a muralist and property representatives.
The Board of Supervisors held a 4 p.m. public hearing on assessment costs for abating blighted conditions under Chapter 80 of the San Francisco Administrative Code. Public Works sought approval to add unpaid abatement costs to the county tax roll for properties where graffiti or other blight remained after notices.
Public Works presentation: Alicia Witt of Public Works described the unit's procedures: posting notices at the property, sending regular and certified mail, including date‑stamped photos and a FAQ sheet, and making outreach calls and emails to property owners, representatives and tenants. She said most owners acted to abate graffiti; the department sought assessments only where owners failed to do so.
Public testimony: Muralist Josue Rojas testified that a large, organized mural program at a Mission District property was the result of months of work with 40 artists, scissor lifts and paid costs, and that the artwork should not be characterized as graffiti. A property representative for 2408 Bayshore Boulevard said the owner did not receive a notice and asked the board to rescind a $310 citation; the person said they normally receive notices and would promptly abate when notified.
Board action: After conferring with department staff and the speakers, Public Works agreed to waive assessments for two properties identified during the hearing: 2408 Bayshore Boulevard and 2675 Folsom Street. The board amended the report and adopted the resolution with the amended assessment list.
Why it matters: The episode highlighted a recurring tension between city abatement rules and community mural projects. Muralists said organized artwork can be mischaracterized as graffiti; owners said inconsistent notice delivery can lead to surprise assessments.
What participants said: - Alicia Witt (Public Works): explained the notice and outreach process and the department's practice to seek assessments only when owners did not abate. - Josue Rojas (muralist): described organizing 40 artists, renting lifts and using funds to complete a large mural that he said beautified an abandoned building and which should not be treated as graffiti. - Property representative (2408 Bayshore): said the owner did not receive mailed notice and asked the board to rescind the assessment.
Outcome: The board amended the Public Works report to remove the two properties and adopted the resolution as amended.
Ending: Public Works staff and the speakers met during the meeting and resolved two contested cases; the board adopted the amended assessments and directed the department to continue outreach.
