Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Abatement Paint Lead 1250 Masonic topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Francisco board upholds abatement order for 1250 Masonic Avenue
Summary
The Abatement Appeals Board voted 5–1 to uphold a director's 30-day order of abatement for exterior peeling paint and a faulty handrail at 1250 Masonic Avenue after the department cited repeated noncompliance since 2007 and the owner declined to present certified lead-test results.
The Abatement Appeals Board upheld a director’s order of abatement for 1250 Masonic Avenue on June 16, voting 5–1 to sustain the department’s finding that repeated exterior paint failure and a faulty front handrail created a public-safety and health concern.
DBI senior housing inspector Matthew Green told the board the department received an anonymous complaint in March 2007 and observed extensive peeling exterior paint and a loose handrail during subsequent inspections. The department said it issued a notice of violation, a final warning and then, after failed reinspections, a 30-day order of abatement that the property owner appealed.
Property owner Robert Rees testified he bought the house in 1970 and said he stripped old paint down to bare wood and has been performing incremental repairs. Rees said he could not afford a contractor estimate he provided (roughly $35,000 for a full job), that portions of the property are inaccessible because an adjacent parcel is in probate, and that much of the failed paint is limited to west-facing surfaces. Rees also disputed the department’s presumption of lead-based paint and said he would continue the work on a cash basis.
DBI told the board it operates under a San Francisco code presumption that buildings erected before 1979 may contain lead-based paint, and that the owner may present a state-certified lead-risk-assessment showing otherwise. The inspector said the department would accept such a laboratory test and — if it demonstrated no lead hazard — would consider additional time for repairs; the department said no such certified test had been submitted.
Commissioners pressed the owner for documentation that he had sought financing or hired a contractor earlier, and asked whether the handrail had been reinspected (the department said it had been repaired and approved). The board’s decision to uphold the abatement reflects the department’s finding of long-term noncompliance and the absence of certified testing proving the exterior paint is free of lead hazards.
The board recorded a 5–1 roll-call vote to uphold the order. President Frank Lee said a written decision will be issued with the board’s findings and any follow-up instructions.
