Gold Rush Era Building Demo'ed in San Francisco--Clear Case of Demoliton by Neglect

[Wolf]

This is an interesting story, because the brother of the demo company's owner was able to get the city to issue a demo permit on one of the oldest buildings in San Francisco--predated the 1906 earthquake--a real survivor that is no more.

It was interesting to watch this story unfold. It looks like a successful case of "demoliton by neglect."

This is a clear case where the owners beat out the tree huggers and leaf lickers. But there's going to be backlash.

What do you guys think about this?

S.F. cottage's demise spurs calls for new rules

The demolition of an 1861 building on Russian Hill is an example of what San Francisco officials say is a serious problem: Hundreds of owners are letting residential properties deteriorate or remain vacant, posing safety hazards, harming historic resources and spurring a drive for new legal powers to force corrections.



As a small group of protesters looked on, a wrecking crew used a backhoe Monday to demolish a cottage that had been listed as a historic resource. The workers left behind a pile of debris and a clear view of Angel Island on the spot where the Victorian had stood on Lombard Street for 148 years.

Dilapidated residences mark the city like festering sores, even in well-off areas. Across the street from the Lombard lot sits another empty Victorian-era home in blatant disrepair. A front window is broken, and missing stairs have left a 20-foot drop from the front door. A few blocks away on Union Street, another empty house has been boarded up. There is no exact tally of the number of vacant or deteriorating homes, but "it is a severe problem," said Debra Walker, a member of the city's Building Inspection Commission and a declared candidate for supervisor in 2010. A building inspection official said there are hundreds of them.

City has little recourse
Although the decay often occurs in plain sight, city officials have little power to intercede. Now Walker is pushing to amend the city's anti-blight ordinance to require owners of houses vacant more than 90 days and commercial properties vacant more than one year to register them with the city, pay an annual fee, and keep the properties clean and secure. Owners also would be required to prominently post contact information on the building.

Building inspectors would receive police training and have new powers to inspect properties and fine owners, said a Building Inspection Department official.

The legislation would require approval by the commission and the Board of Supervisors. Board President David Chiu plans to ask the city attorney's office today to draft the measure, his spokesman said.

The matter took on urgency last week when the imminent demise of the Russian Hill cottage mobilized preservationists.

One of the city's oldest buildings, the two-story residence at 1268 Lombard originally was a one-story Italianate Victorian cottage. A second floor was added, and the home was covered with brown shingles.

In 1945, John B. Molinari, a San Francisco judge who served on the state Supreme Court, bought the property. After his death in 2004, ownership passed to his heirs in a family trust managed by John L. Molinari, a former San Francisco supervisor.

For years the family rented out the house. But as they prepared to remodel it in the late 1990s, engineers told them the foundation was shaky, Molinari said. The family applied for a permit to demolish it, but the city denied it on the ground that house was a historic resource.

Expensive repairs
Faced with the prospect of costly repairs, the family chose to leave the property vacant, though they installed a new roof, Molinari said.

In November 2007, the family sold it for $1.3 million to a partnership of developer Michael Cassidy and James Nunemacher of Vanguard Properties.

Scaffolding and a tarp soon went up.

In March 2008, a neighbor complained to the building department that the cottage was abandoned. "Back of building is open, which is accessible for intruders, etc. Safety concern," the complaint said. In April, city officials ordered Cassidy and Nunemacher to board up the building, city records show, and they did.

Last week, neighbors were surprised when a large orange backhoe parked by the building. It belonged to Granite Excavation & Demolition Inc., whose president is Joe Cassidy, Michael Cassidy's brother.

Pushing preservation
F. Joseph Butler, an architect and member of the Little House Committee, which seeks to preserve the city's small houses, discovered the owners were seeking an emergency permit to demolish the building.

Butler believes the building could have been stabilized and restored. He and his allies were especially concerned because the emergency order would exempt the owners from routine requirements, such as first getting approval for a new construction plan.

But a city engineer agreed that the building was in danger of imminent collapse and last week approved the demolition. On Monday, the demolition crew removed the building's facade for possible future use, and then used the backhoe's steel jaws to crush the cottage like balsa wood.

Several preservationists at the scene said demolition should have been delayed pending an investigation by the city attorney's office into whether the home had been purposefully neglected, an allegation the owners have denied. One protester, Megan Smith, said, "It will be a lot harder to find evidence once this is a vacant lot."

In another dramatic case, a Victorian house at 1160 Page St. had become so dilapidated a few years ago that the ground floor gave way, and the elderly owner relied on painter's scaffolding to get to his kitchen. One day he fell and fatally injured himself, an official said.

Building inspectors learned about the condition of the house only after his death.

The proposed legislation wouldn't necessarily alert officials to any interior problems.

But it would give them more power to intercede to protect occupied or vacant houses that have become eyesores or subjects of complaints, like the Russian Hill cottage.

[surfer-joe]

New civilizations are built on the ruins of those that came before. Can't preserve everything you know. Gotta remember too, that a lot of old buildings, especially in Frisco, are death traps by earthquake or fire. They were never built properly, and if they were as old as the one you mention, probably used gas at one time for lighting, then switched to electricity in the early days, which means the wiring is old and ratty, another hazard. It looks like the interior walls were lathe and plaster, a great fire hazard if there ever was one.

So, it looks like I'm on the side of tear them down. Maybe the workers will find a few bucks or some gold nuggets in the walls or crawl space.....

[Wolf]

By the way, Vince, who tore the house down, is just an awesome operator. He handled the situation with real grace, especially with the protestors screaming at him the whole time. He was a gentleman and very impressive under so much stress.

[Wolf]

By the way, Vince, who tore the house down, is just an awesome operator. He handled the situation with real grace, especially with the protestors screaming at him the whole time. He was a gentleman and very impressive under so much stress.


Anyone else ever encounter protestors like this on a jobsite.

What happened? How did you handle them?

:naughty


:guns

[John C.]

I'm with Joe on this one. When we can't make money with an old machine, what happens to it?

I also see an issue with the government agency with control over this project. Basically it looks to me like anything but preservation was never an option in years prior. The building passed out of economic feasibility so was left to rot. As I see it the leaf lickers caused the demise of this landmark.

It seems that just because something is old we need to keep it so our kids can see what we went through. I know my kids really could care less. Their world is different with other concerns to worry about. There are plenty of old houses in Frisco and everywhere else.

[ddigger]

Cant save em all, I personally have had a lot of situations just like that, and with removing trees as well. All you can do is act professional and not engage in any arguments. We had a situation like that with a tree removal at the Crocker Art Museum in Old Sacramento last spring with a ton of media coverage and police presence with boundry lines set up for the public and protesters, the news kept saying were going to show in force. And no one came. It was a riot watching the news crews just killing time trying not to look to stupid.

[Turbo21835]

What ever happened to the owners rights. Its my property, I should be able to do what I want with it. If my plan does not include an old building, i shouldnt have to keep it.

The people that complain about places being torn down are the same ones that complain about them being built. I have a friend that is currently waiting for a project to start. At first there were bonding issues with a sub contractor. Now its issues with people wanting to save the site for historical reasons. Its an old radar station, most of the site is concrete block buildings.

[JDOFMEMI]

While I like a properly preserved antique as much as anyone, I am absolutely against the "taking" of private property by the government either by forcefull means like eminent domain, or by legislative means, like regulating the use of the property, thereby making it worthless to the owner.
If I want a new house on my land, no one but my ability to afford it should be able to stand in the way.
If someone wants to "preserve" the past, then let them buy the property, and pay the upkeep on it. Otherwise, let me improve upon it as I see fit.

I have what I have because I worked hard for it, and to have it torn away by government out of control is akin to a socialist state.

As far as the protestors, let them be, as long as they are off of the property, and outside of the safe zone. If not, the authorities can be called in to remove them. I once had protestors chain themselves to trees to try to prevent the removal of a stand of Eucalyptus trees. I thought it was silly. When all the rest of the trees were gone except the ones they were tied to, and with urging of the local police, they went away peacefully, and we carried on.
They said the trees were there every since they moved in next door, and did not want to loose them so more houses could be built. I bet they did not stop to think there used to be trees where their house was???

I have no desire to reduce our standard of living that we have built over the years so we can go back to "The way it was".

[surfer-joe]

What, and everybody thought that fire hose was just for douching the dust from the house? Come on, what happens to demonstrators everywhere?

[mudmaker]

If the city wants to help save the old structures they could offer free building permits and engineering services as an incentive to restore them.

Sounds to me like SF wouldn't have an issue with decaying buildings if they would allow more demo permits. These owners are spending a lot of extra money sitting on vacant buildings waiting for enough decay to take place to so a demo permit can be issued. What is the big deal if someone whats to demo a building. I mean it is their building!

[CM1995]

Building inspectors would receive police training and have new powers to inspect properties and fine owners, said a Building Inspection Department official.

Why would the building inspector need police training?:eek: If the building inspector runs into a problem with someone during the normal course of business, then the real police are available. It is a scary thought thinking that some of the inspectors I have run across in the business would have that sort of training or worse that sort of power.

I agree with protecting our property rights and as Surferjoe said, civilizations are built on the ruins of the past, always have and always will. It seems the City has created itself a catch 22. Can't tear it down because it's historic regardless of it's condition, so the only option is to restore it. The problem is what if the restoration costs more than the property would be worth when it is completed? Faced with that scenario, the owner really has no choice but to let the property sit, since making the required repairs wouldn't make financial sense. Furthermore they should not be forced by the gov't to spend good many on a bad project.

Eroding of private property rights in our country is disturbing.:(

[Turbo21835]

Eroding of private property rights in our country is disturbing.:(

Come on CM, well all know, they are from the government, and they are here to help! :rolleyes:

[Wolf]

If the city wants to help save the old structures they could offer free building permits and engineering services as an incentive to restore them.

Sounds to me like SF wouldn't have an issue with decaying buildings if they would allow more demo permits. These owners are spending a lot of extra money sitting on vacant buildings waiting for enough decay to take place to so a demo permit can be issued. What is the big deal if someone whats to demo a building. I mean it is their building!

That's a good point. If the city would just issue the demo permits more easily, the owners wouldn't have to wait until the buildings were ready to fall down and then go in for emergency permits.

[bear]

Sounds like 1984 in a way, people can't do what they want and the protesters doing their "two minute hate" Honestly if this country keeps going the way it is I'm moving. I can understand wanting to preserve some older types of building IF they are historically signifigant or are in some other way unique (architecture or use. something like that). Why do they want to keep old unsafe fire hazards that cost too much to maintain ( which is why they are being torn down). If they want to keep the building and if the city is that bothered by it why don't the city pay for it? or the protesters? If they want to keep it let 'em pay. if they don't want to pay bring it down.

[TALLRICK]

What else do you expect from an overpriced dysfunctional city like San Francisco. The same thing has happened here since the 80's. Some formerly middle-class or poor area becomes valuable and some idiot buys it for development. One by one the old places are demolished and residents get fed up and enact all kinds of historical preservation rules. The problem is that properties are too expensive for people who would like to rehabilitate and use them. A better alternative is to allow a release of liability for property owners and let anyone who can do it take whatever the owner(s) do not want before demolition occurs. Generally an old. unsafe building contains lots of things the neighbors might want or preservationists can collect. Another incentive would be to cancel property taxes for owners who do restore. Since most new construction lacks the quality finish of older construction it is always worth recycling instead of trashing. Anyway if someone wants to demo a house it's easy to just start a fire and have demolition by combustion.

[Wolf]

Anyway if someone wants to demo a house it's easy to just start a fire and have demolition by combustion.

Demolition by combustion---that doesn't work too good in the city and with the DA prosecuting for arson, but it's a fun idea. That's one way to get rid of these crappy old buildings that shoudl be demo'ed.

[Steve Frazier]

In my area we occasionally have buildings donated to the fire dept. for training. We set several controlled fires in the buildings and do search and rescue, and extinguish them. After the last scenario, the building is left to burn to the ground. It's amazing how fast a building will burn if no effort to extinguish is made. I've seen a large colonial farmhouse go in less than hour to nothing but smoldering embers.

[Wolf]

In my area we occasionally have buildings donated to the fire dept. for training. We set several controlled fires in the buildings and do search and rescue, and extinguish them. After the last scenario, the building is left to burn to the ground. It's amazing how fast a building will burn if no effort to extinguish is made. I've seen a large colonial farmhouse go in less than hour to nothing but smoldering embers.

That's a really cool idea, and it puts the building to good use one final time in order for the firemen to practice. Sounds like fun.

[Lugghead]

Saw this one in a Osha Disaster Site Worker class.
Start watching this from 1:45........
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dSpoUUFBBM

[TALLRICK]

WOW that explosion was crazy! Why would a fire department need to use an accelerant to do a test burn? Most homes are made of wood, a dangerous flammable material equal to hundreds of gallons of gasoline. I did a shed demo with a friend way out in the boondocks using propane and that was an insane explosion! His mother wanted to burn it down, but the rats and bugs were so bad that nobody would go in there. Fortunately we used extension cords and a neon transformer to trigger it from 200 feet away. Then again, my own shed caught fire from a faulty lawnmower but being built by me, there was no serious damage. Concrete roof is the way to go!

In the 80's I saw several crack houses burn down. The rumor was that the neighbors did it, but since no fuel was used, no charges could ever be brought. Probably just those crack addicts setting trash on fire.

[Dualie]

I love these dumb AZZES that think just because something is old it should be preserved. If it was THE oldest or had ANY historical significance what so ever.


it was just an old un inhabitable POS building.

I hand it to the guys for out smarting the system in all the smartest ways. They bought a distressed property when times were booming. Couldn't get permits to repair and remodel it so they did what any crafty man does.

Make the system work for you. leave it open let it rot then the city has no choice but to level it.

Thinking around the law works sometimes

[stock]

I love these dumb AZZES that think just because something is old it should be preserved. If it was THE oldest or had ANY historical significance what so ever.


it was just an old un inhabitable POS building.

I hand it to the guys for out smarting the system in all the smartest ways. They bought a distressed property when times were booming. Couldn't get permits to repair and remodel it so they did what any crafty man does.

Make the system work for you. leave it open let it rot then the city has no choice but to level it.

Thinking around the law works sometimes

If this thinking was applied to most European cities they would look similar to some very modern new world cities with lots of steel and glass, being recycled just for the sake of it,the whole old world charm that so many new worlders speak of when visiting our shores would be non existent.Should this modernist view be applied to say the Pentagon ,the Senate building ,the White house or Leinster house or Aras an Uachtarain http://www.president.ie/index.php?section=39&lang=eng or All such iconic buildings,I dont think so every country has a history, as has every state ,city ,town and village some of which needs to be perserved ,dont for one minute think that I am a card carrying, tree hugging conservationist ,far from it ,I support change but not change for, or at any cost.
Our esteemed Government is forcing a motorway through exceptionally close to one of the most important and significant historical sites in Europe and paying no heed to anyone, this is the other end of the scale .
Not every structure is of historic significance or importance but those that are ,should be preserved with a consistent approach and fiscal support .

There have been some projects that I have visited where only the facade of the building was saved or only the front wall so as the apperance of the street remained unchanged but a brand new functional building replaced a delapated run down structure.
I refrained from posting sooner on this thread so as not to have a knee jerk reaction to this issue ,in this instance with so little of the original city left standing after the earth quake I would have thought that every effort should be made to safeguard such rare structures and the likes of this act of destruction would be frowned upon ie demolition by neglect,to the best of my knowledge the local authority here has the power to make a building safe or demolish it with the power of a court order and seek to reclaim the cost from the owner ,if this fails they have the power to garnish site and structure freehold.Only twice in the last twenty years have they invoked this order and on both occasions the roofs were falling on to the street, don't know how many times they warned of the implementation of it though . :IMO:my2c


Stock

[Wolf]

I love these dumb AZZES that think just because something is old it should be preserved. If it was THE oldest or had ANY historical significance what so ever.


it was just an old un inhabitable POS building.

I hand it to the guys for out smarting the system in all the smartest ways. They bought a distressed property when times were booming. Couldn't get permits to repair and remodel it so they did what any crafty man does.

Make the system work for you. leave it open let it rot then the city has no choice but to level it.

Thinking around the law works sometimes

Right on, Dualie! You got the idea. Thinking around the law works.

dude, you shoulda been there with your hoe making toothpicks out of the old dump. you know the site, it's on lombard, just above van ness.

was a crappy old building indeed. good to see it down. you should have been there for the wrecking party, man, it was crazy with the protestors and all showing up. you could have put them in their place, dualie, I know you would have done it right.

[Iron Horse]

Regardless of what i think about the building being demolished , the poll would not be correct . Being able to see the names of the voters and which way they voted would stop a lot of people voting against the majority for fear of ridicule etc . The poll should be anonymous .

[Wolf]

Regardless of what i think about the building being demolished , the poll would not be correct . Being able to see the names of the voters and which way they voted would stop a lot of people voting against the majority for fear of ridicule etc . The poll should be anonymous .

So you think many of them are closet greenies, tree huggers and leaf lickers who are in the closet who are afraid to give their real opinion?

What do you think the results would really be if the survey were anonymous?

[Wolf]

Regardless of what i think about the building being demolished , the poll would not be correct . Being able to see the names of the voters and which way they voted would stop a lot of people voting against the majority for fear of ridicule etc . The poll should be anonymous .

So you think many of them are closet greenies, tree huggers and leaf lickers who are in the closet who are afraid to give their real opinion?

What do you think the results would really be if the survey were anonymous?

Do you think any of them actually care about buildings like this Gold Rush era one that got smashed up recently? Please explain.


:beatsme

[Iron Horse]

All polls and ballots should be anonymous , regardless of what the topic is . That's why you stood in a cardboard cubicle not long ago when you voted for a new president . And from what you have just said , anyone who dares vote no is a leaf licker or closet greenie .

[Wolf]

All polls and ballots should be anonymous , regardless of what the topic is . That's why you stood in a cardboard cubicle not long ago when you voted for a new president .

What do you think the results would really be if the survey were anonymous?

[Wolf]

I hand it to the guys for out smarting the system in all the smartest ways. They bought a distressed property when times were booming. Couldn't get permits to repair and remodel it so they did what any crafty man does.

Make the system work for you. leave it open let it rot then the city has no choice but to level it.

Thinking around the law works sometimes

Cracks in bureaucracy doomed historic house


The historic Russian Hill house that was razed last month never received a mandatory review by preservation officials because San Francisco's Department of Building Inspection improperly issued a construction permit two years ago, a Chronicle investigation has found.

The proposed permit to work on the exterior of the Victorian residence at 1268 Lombard St. should have been sent to the Planning Department, where it would have been closely reviewed by a preservation expert and could have drawn additional official scrutiny to the deterioration of a historic house.

Instead, a building inspection official issued the permit without sending it to planning. That allowed workers to open up the outside of the building. Subsequently, the building's interior was left open to the elements, causing further decay. A city commissioner later said it looked like the building was left to rot on purpose so that it could be demolished.

The home, which withstood the 1906 earthquake and fire, was torn down March 16 because city officials agreed with the owners that the building was in imminent danger of collapse. Preservationists, however, argued that it could have been refurbished.

But officials and preservationists agree on one thing: This glitch and others in the recent history of the 148-year-old house illustrate larger problems in the city's building inspection process. "I am gravely concerned that permits to alter or demolish historic resources are slipping through the cracks," said Cynthia Servetnick, a member of the San Francisco Preservation Consortium, which advocates for preserving historic resources.

Built in 1861, the house was bought in 1945 by John B. Molinari, who became a state appeals court judge. He passed it to a family trust, and it was later officially listed as a historic resource. In 1999, their contractors discovered a crack in the retaining wall and dry rot and deemed the building structurally unsound, the family said in a letter to the city.

Son John L. Molinari, a former supervisor, sought a permit to demolish the home and replace it with a three-story building. But the Planning Department denied his application in 2002, saying the building was listed as a historic resource.

On Nov. 1, 2007, the Molinari family sold the small, vacant home for $1.3 million to James Nunemacher, a principal with Vanguard Properties, and Michael Cassidy, a developer.

Yet little more than a month after the sale, Molinari received a notice of violation from the Building Inspection Department ordering him to stop work at the house. The notice surprised him, he said, because he no longer owned it and had taken out no permit.

It turned out that three months earlier - while Molinari still owned the house - a company called West Coast Inc. had taken out the permit to open the building and repair the dry rot by opening up the facade. Permit records variously list the firm as a "lessee" and "agent," with a post office box for an address. However, postal authorities told The Chronicle that the box number does not exist.

Molinari said he was astonished that anyone could receive a permit to work on his home without him knowing of it. "That sure is lax," he said.

But not unheard of. Ed Sweeney, a deputy director of the Building Inspection Department, acknowledged that in recent years some applicants have obtained building permits without the owners' authorization.

William Strawn, a spokesman for the building department, confirmed the permit error. Lawrence Badiner, Planning Department zoning administrator, said, "If it wasn't routed to us, it was a glitch," he said.

Strawn said the inspector who issued the dry rot permit apparently believed the applicant had the owner's permission. He noted that state law was changed in January to require further proof that the building owner wants a construction permit.

But that wasn't the only way the system failed.

A building inspector was supposed to have checked a computer list of historic houses before granting the permit. Applications for permits to work on the facades of historic homes were supposed to be sent to planning before approval.

In such cases, planning officials are supposed to closely review construction plans to enforce preservation rules.

But building inspector Joseph Yu approved the permit without doing so, records show. Yu declined to comment.

In two interviews, Cassidy denied knowing about the dry rot permit or West Coast Inc. The Chronicle later obtained a receipt that showed Cassidy paid $234.15 in cash for the permit.

When told about the receipt, Cassidy said he didn't recall the matter, but might have taken out the permit and listed West Coast as a potential contractor for the work. He denied he had tried to hide his role in the permit.

There were more problems.

In March 2008, a neighbor complained that the building had been left open to the elements and intruders. An inspector ordered Cassidy to board up the building. He did several times, he said, but trespassers reopened it.

Earlier this month, Cassidy and Nunemacher sought an emergency demolition permit, saying the building was in imminent danger of collapse. A city engineer concurred.

Yet Debra Walker, a building inspection commissioner who toured the building, said it appeared to have been intentionally left open to the elements to hasten its demise in an effort to get the demolition permit. Cassidy and Nunemacher denied doing that.

An emergency permit allows owners to demolish a building without the rigorous Planning Department review that had blocked the Molinaris from demolishing it.

Supervisors President David Chiu is drafting a measure requiring owners of vacant properties to register them so city officials can better monitor them, prevent safety hazards and protect historic resources.

F. Joseph Butler, an architect who opposed demolishing the house and contended it could have been saved, hailed the proposed measure. But he said official lapses could undermine even the most rigorous rules. "It's absolutely about enforcement," he said.

[mudmaker]

I still say it should be up to the owners to decide whether or not the structure is worth saving or not. The long time owners wanted to tear it down due to the cost of repairs. The developer simply knew how to get it torn down If the city would not try to be so controlling the long time owners of the building could have done what they saw fit to do.

Put yourself in their shoes!! You have building which is going to require more repairs than it is worth. You will never see a return on the money you will be putting into it, but if you tear it down you can build a building that will add value to the property and be profitable.

The sad part of this story is the person making the money on the project is the one who knew how to grease the corrupt govt wheels. That is what big govt get us!!!!

If the city or any other bleeding heart wanted to save it why don't they buy it?? It is always easy to spend other peoples money telling them they have to save this building.