Blight Watch: What's Up With 1220 Church St?

A letter to the Editor in the April 2013 Noe Valley Voice asked about the vacant 2-unit Edwardian at 1220-1222 Church St. We were able to report that the City considers it abandoned and an investigation is ongoing. Today we noticed scaffolding on the facade and demolition crews on site and dug a little deeper.

According to records on the Department of Building Inspection's website, an October 2005 complaint was filed by a tenant stated there was no heat and that water leaks were throughout apartment, and it snowballed from there. A Notice of Violation as issued for various issues with the code, but most significantly for an illegal unit in the garage.

Some of the minor violations were corrected and heat was provided by Feb 2006; the heat stopped working a month later. No permits were pulled to remove the illegal unit in the garage until Nov 2007. It appears the unit was removed, but the permit was never finalized and other structural problems remained.

A new complaint filed by the tenant in October 2008 stated the landlord had turned off the water. More inspections confirmed there was no water, and that other violations were still outstanding. There's no indication that the water was ever turned on, and there's no further communication from the tenant.

The latest complaint was filed in June 2012: "This building is vacant, Broken glass on the front area - Peeling paint, 2nd floor ceiling about to cave in; there is a lot of debris in the front area of the property behind their gate. Dry rot in the structure. Overgrown yard ... lots of weeds." Attempts to reach the owner have failed, and no one representing the property showed up to a hearing on April 2, 2013. It appears that the City may be trying to take control of the property and likely put it up for auction, but we can't confirm.

At this point, what we know for sure is that the building is owned by The Perez Family Trust and that they filed two Ellis Act Petitions in 2006 (PDF). We know that the complaints are outstanding, and we know there are no new construction or demolition permits. It would be interesting to know the history of how the family has fared and if this is a byproduct of a long foreclosure process.

At any rate, the scaffold hints at fresh paint and the noise from inside suggests this building could be inhabited sometime in the near future. Maybe - they better figure out the permit problems and make nice with the DBI.

[Photo: Google Street View]

This Week In Noe Valley: Patxi's Pizza Settles, Radio Shack Open, And Word Week Wants Writers

News from, about and for Noe Valley from around the interwebs:

• Patxi's Pizza to spend $320,000 in agreement with SF over misused surcharge [SFGate]
• Patxi's official response [Patxi's Pizza]
• Planning gone awry [SF History Association]
• Is your building maybe possibly doomed to collapse in an earthquake? [SF Public Press]
• Scott Wiener's latest newsletter [Scott Wiener]
• Radio Shack reopens after fire; closed since Sep 2011 [@shaketini; also: fire]
• Yelp to deliver more than reviews - now with health inspection data [SF Business Times]
• Authors wanted [FONV; also: Word Week]
• Warm weather returns [@KarlTheFog]

[Photo: Tree Climber Photobomb, firewheel]

This Week At The Planning Commission

A look at Noe Valley projects in front of the Planning Commission this week. Information is provided by the Planning Commission, and taken from its published agenda. All hearings are on Thursday at 1:30pm, Room 400 in City Hall.

August 2

4365 26TH STREET - south side between Douglass and Diamond Streets; Lot 024 in Assessor’s Block 6561 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application 2011.10.18.7006, proposing to construct a rear addition at the first floor, a new second floor, and front and rear decks to the existing single family dwelling structure within the RH-1 (Residential, House – One-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Staff Analysis: Abbreviated Discretionary Review
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve

The complete document with request for Discretionary Review, response, drawings, letters of support and complete staff analysis is here (large PDF). In a nutshell:

• DR Requestor: "We have no objection with the development of the property. We just want it to be in continuity with the neighboring houses and not at the expense of the neighboring homes."
• Applicant: "This same neighbor requesting the DR has also just completed a renovation of his property ~3 years ago, adding a 2nd floor and expanding to the rear." [Ed.--seriously great smackdown of the requestor's objections in applicant's response.]
• Summary of Planning Staff Analysis: The project meets Residential Design Guidelines. Approve it. Also: "Under the Commission’s pending DR Reform Legislation, this project would not be referred to the Commission as this project does not contain or create any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances."

[SF Planning: 4365 26th St]
[Photo: SF Planning]

This Week At The Planning Commission

A look at Noe Valley projects in front of the Planning Commission this week. Information is provided by the Planning Commission, and taken from its published agenda. All hearings are on Thursday at 1:30pm, Room 400 in City Hall.

March 15

550 JERSEY STREET - north side between Diamond and Douglass Streets; Lot 017 in Assessor's Block 6505 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2011.09.02.3798. The project is a revision to previously approved Building Permit Application No. 2011.02.25.0973 to cut down the ridge of a gable roof by approximately 6.5” so that it would not be visible from behind the existing front parapet and revise the interior roof framing of an existing two-story, single-family building within an RH-2 (Residential, Two-Family) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Staff Analysis: Abbreviated Discretionary Review
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve

There's a convoluted back story. Apparently the former owners went through the 311 Notification process when they applied for the original permit in 2000. It was approved, but work was never started and the permit expired. The 2010 buyers bought a property with plans for expansion and started work. Since the permit was expired, DBI made the owners take out a new permit. But DBI allowed a renewal since at the time DBI believed work was already underway.

Enter the Discretionary Review Requestor: one F. Joseph Butler, an architect, who believes the Planning Commission and the Department of Building Inspection are enforcing rules arbitrarily and losing out on as much as $22k in fees on this project alone. Mr Butler elected to file for the DR (at a cost of at least $510 paid to Planning) to protect the integrity of the Planning Department and assure restoration of historical elements of the property. Or something like that.

Here's the kicker:

DR REQUESTOR: F. Joseph Butler, who lives at 3** Chestnut Street, which is located approximately 4.6 miles to the northeast of this project.

The full story with application and staff analysis is here (PDF).

[SF Planning: 550 Jersey]
[Photo: SF Planning]

Notice Of Violation: 947 Church St

You know how your life is inconvenienced when someone crashes into your car in the middle of the night and you have to fight the insurance companies for 3 weeks and have no way to get to work? Consider what happened to the folks living just outside our coverage area at 947 Church St after a moving truck crashed through their garage on Thursday.

Violation Description: An automotive vehicle crashed into building, entering through garage opening at front of building and into rear wall of garage before coming to a stop. Impact has caused significant damage to front facade of building and compromising the structural integrity of building. Damage to utilities. Turn off and cap all utilities.

Corrective Action: ...permit application within 30 days with plans...permit within 60 days...complete within 90 days...Failure to comply will cause abatement hearings to begin... Consult with structural engineer to assess damages, provide shoring plan and implement plan within 24 hours. Also secure building and repair/board all windows. Obtain a building permit to repair damage.

Not enough of a headache? The building is now under "Restricted Use," which is to say "Do Not Enter" without consulting the Department of Building Inspection. Not even to get your toothbrush.

Violation? Who exactly is being violated here?

[CalBeat: PHOTOS: Moving truck crumpled after it slams into a San Francisco home]
[NVSF: Fun With Maps: Where is Noe Valley?]