Minnesota Street Building Blighted

A flurry of failed renovations at 945 Minnesota Street has left the property unprotected from the elements, prompting concerns by community members and municipal departments. 

“It’s a complete eyesore for the neighborhood,” said Dogpatch resident Janet Carpinelli. “The building is being neglected in the midst of construction and ruined. The building is open to the rain, mold, and intrusion by raccoons, birds, and rodents. People can easily get in through the windows left open and through the holes left without windows or any coverings at all. The situation is a fire and/or an encampment waiting to happen. The building is adjacent to a preschool and the State Landmark IM Scott School; a wood structure built in 1885, as well as by several other buildings contributory to the Dogpatch Historic District. It seems outrageous this situation has been going on and on, literally, for more than two years.” 

In 2019, a request was made to the San Francisco Planning Department to rebuild a dilapidated rear structure at 945 Minnesota Street. Doing so required a permit variance; reconstructing the stairs deviated from Planning Code requirements, a not uncommon circumstances amongst San Francisco’s elderly building stock, according to Dan Sider, the Planning Department’s chief of staff. 

A neighbor appealed the request, filing a discretionary review, which uncovered that the property owner had completed work that went well beyond municipally approved plans. The unpermitted work included removing and re-framing the rear portion of the first and second floors of the three-story building. The project exceeded demolition thresholds for historic buildings; 945 Minnesota was built circa 1901. 

The View wasn’t able to confirm who owned the property; assessor records suggest it was Michael Cox.  

“They clearly went beyond what they had proposed to do and what they were authorized to do,” Sider said. “That’s unambiguous and hugely problematic. It shapes our thinking on the project, but the building can’t stay like this forever. It has to move forward and that’s what we’re working on.”

In 2022, the property was purchased by Vajra LLC. The new owners went through a mea culpa process of re-permitting. They scaled the project back, eliminating the need for a variance. However, the new plans must pass muster with the Historic Preservation Commission. 

“We believe the project should be approved, but the Historic Preservation Commission has to weigh in on that,” Sider said.  

Commission approval has been stalled by the fact that Vajra LLC hasn’t paid outstanding fees to the Department of Building Inspection (DBI), which enforces building and housing codes. There are two active complaints against 945 Minnesota Street. The first relates to performing work without or beyond the scope of a permit, triggering penalties. The second is that the building has been identified as possibly vacant, a claim DBI is investigating. Vacant buildings must be registered, have secure openings and insurance, according to DBI Communications Director Patrick Hannan.  All fees must be paid before a Historic Preservation Commission hearing can be held. 

After the property owner failed to respond to a DBI-issued Notice of Enforcement, the department released a Notice of Violation (NOV). DBI has scheduled a director’s hearing on January 16 at which Vajra LLC can challenge the NOV, explain why issues haven’t been resolved, or why more time is needed, Hannan said. 

“At the conclusion of the director’s hearing, an Order of Abatement may be issued which results in a lien against the property,” he added. “In extreme cases where there are multiple serious violations, the case may be referred to the Building Inspection Commission Litigation Committee who will consider whether to refer it to the City Attorney’s office for legal action. There are also administrative fees associated with the director’s hearing.”

Fee amounts depend on the violation and when the property owner abates the NOV, Hannan said. Work without a permit is charged nine times the issuance fee; construction beyond a permit scope is twice the issuance fee. There’s also a charge for the staff time to address the NOV and a monthly monitoring payment that accumulates while the NOV is outstanding.

In the meantime, neighbors are unhappy. 

“From the community perspective, it’s a blight on the neighborhood,” Dogpatch Neighborhood Association board member Donovan Lacy said. “It’s open to the elements and potentially dangerous to the neighborhood. The windows are wide open, and the building is deteriorating as we speak. I would like [the owners] to go back and build to the letter of the Historic District. I don’t want it to seem like they’re being rewarded for going beyond their permit, but I would like to see the building completed and families moved into it. At the end of the day, we’re in a housing crisis and I would love to see new families or residents in the neighborhood instead of a vacant building.”