Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Blight Abatement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears dozens contest graffiti fines; DPW waives 33 assessments and amends list
Summary
At a public hearing about blight abatement assessments, property owners and merchants complained that Department of Public Works notices and appeals processes failed them; DPW waived 33 assessments after hallway meetings and the board adopted the amended report by unanimous vote.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on Tuesday heard more than two dozen public comments from property owners, managers and small‑business representatives who said they were wrongly cited or had inadequate notice before fines for graffiti and other blight were posted to property tax rolls.
Alicia Witt, a representative of San Francisco Public Works’ graffiti unit, told the board that Chapter 80 of the Administrative Code requires property owners to keep buildings free of graffiti and describes the city’s process of posting a notice, allowing 30 days to abate, and charging a $362 blight fee that may be placed on the tax roll if unpaid. ‘‘We give courtesy emails and calls,’’ Witt said, adding that inspectors take date‑stamped photos to document whether graffiti remained beyond the compliance window.
Speakers at the hearing said the city’s outreach and record keeping often failed. ‘‘I never got anything by mail. I can’t find any evidence it was posted,’’ said Justina Horwath, who asked that her name be removed from a citation tied to 2201 Market Street. Owners of commercial corridors and small merchants, including speakers representing Chinatown associations, asked why notices are not sent in Chinese and why the same fee applies whether a tag is on a roof or a storefront.
Business owners and nonprofit tenants described repeated tagging and high abatement costs. ‘‘We have received over a dozen notices in 18 months,’’ said Brian Goldstein, facilities manager for the San Francisco Ballet, describing repeated fines on a warehouse property. Marcel Yang, a Mission Street business owner, said some graffiti is too high to reach safely and requires renting equipment or hiring a contractor.
Supervisors asked DPW staff whether fines differ by location or height of the graffiti. Witt replied that once a 30‑day notice is posted and the same graffiti remains, the $362 fee applies regardless of whether the tag is on a first‑floor wall or a higher story; DPW staff said they document the location with photos.
After public comment, DPW staff worked in the hallway with property owners who had come to the hearing. When the department returned to the chamber, Witt said DPW had waived 33 properties based on the conversations and corrected records where ownership information was wrong. The board accepted the department’s amendments and adopted the amended report on item 19; the clerk recorded a 10‑0 vote.
Several supervisors said the situation exposed a need for better outreach and an improved appeals process. Supervisor Sauter urged DPW to include district numbers on lists so supervisors can more quickly identify local properties, and Supervisor Fielder urged consideration of a different treatment for rooftop or otherwise inaccessible graffiti. DPW staff said they will collect emails from property owners at hearings and work to improve translation and communications.
The board closed the hearing and directed DPW to return with an amended list where warranted; the adopted resolution will allow the city to place outstanding assessment liens on properties that remain on the list.
