|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
San Francisco building inspectors were given the power yesterday to impose fines on the spot for careless removal of lead paint from the city's older buildings. The move highlighted a series of initiatives announced by city officials to crack down on property owners and painting contractors who violate a 1998 cleanup law. City officials have been under pressure to get tough with offenders. A recent Chronicle investigation found that the city had not imposed a single fine since the law went into effect 18 months ago, even though some violators had been caught as many as five times. The law requires special anti-contamination measures by owners and contractors working on the exteriors of pre-1979 buildings, most of which contain lead paint. Exposure to lead paint has been linked to stunted development in children, as well as to circulatory and nervous disorders in adults. Key among the new moves was bolstering the enforcement hand of inspectors in the field. Previously, inspectors issued a notice of violation, pending the outcome of a hearing to decide on possible maximum fines of $500 a day. Now, officials can serve notice of immediate fines, subject to appeal by the alleged offender. City officials pointed out that such a step generally will be reserved for severe cases or for contractors who are repeat offenders. Other heightened enforcement steps will require inspectors to go after contractors who are not adequately removing paint and empower officials to turn offenders over to the Contractors' State License Board. Critics of the city Department of Building Inspection, which enforces the program, have complained that contractors who did slipshod work often escaped punishment and, in many cases, were never identified. Chief Housing Inspector Peter Burns said the new steps are designed to ``assure that we get compliance.'' ``It gives the inspector in the field the latitude to judge the condition and to notice the person accordingly, whether there's a need for immediate notice of violation or a notice of penalty or whether there should be time given to abate,'' he said. The law requires that contractors place special mesh or similar barriers around buildings to prevent dispersal of paint chips and that debris be removed regularly. Both the city and tenants of buildings must be notified of work in advance. Through the end of June, the city had issued 341 violations on removal practices. Most of the problems were corrected quickly. But several major enforcement cases had languished for months, generating complaints from citizen advisers to the program. Now, all but three have been cleared up, and decisions in those are due soon. City legislators who sponsored the 1998 law have also voiced alarm over lax enforcement. A hearing by the Board of Supervisors' Public Health and Environment Committee into city response is scheduled for September 23.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
|
|
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
