Here's How they Made the System Work for them---Cracks in bureaucracy doomed historic
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.