Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission hears safety concerns as DBI deems 1860 Lombard cottage an imminent hazard
Summary
Planning department staff and public commenters described structural failure at a 19th‑century Lombard Street cottage; DBI and structural engineers assessed collapse risk and indicated demolition may be necessary to protect public safety.
The San Francisco Planning Commission on Thursday heard a report that a historic cottage on Lombard Street, built about 1860, was declared an imminent safety hazard following inspections by the Department of Building Inspections (DBI) and structural engineers.
Planning staff and the zoning administrator told the commission that on recent site visits the building’s rear floors had already collapsed below adjacent levels and that DBI concluded the structure could collapse into the street or damage neighboring buildings. The zoning administrator said his role was consultative and that DBI — as the technical authority — determined demolition may be the only reliable way to assure public safety.
At the public comment period, architect Joe Butler, who inspected the property and said he had been under the building, told commissioners he found evidence of long‑term neglect, missing inspections on an open permit and holes in the roof. Butler said the owners had previously sought a demolition permit and claimed neighbors observed pumping and water intrusion during the rainy season. “There is no reason that an abandoned building needs a bath, especially not in the rainy season and especially not when you’ve been leaving it open for 15 months,” Butler said.
Butler urged DBI and Cal/OSHA to investigate whether any malicious activity or willful neglect occurred and asked the city to require the owners to explain why a longstanding permit received so little oversight. Planning staff noted they lacked the authority to block a safety‑based demolition permit issued by DBI and that the zoning administrator had signed the permit package in a consultative role.
Commissioners and staff emphasized public‑safety priorities and said any longer‑term questions about neglect, preservation and policy could be taken up separately. Commissioner comments included suggestions for a future discussion of “intentional neglect” policies to provide clearer standards for when prolonged deterioration could trigger enforcement or different remedies.
The commission did not take formal action on the building itself; staff said DBI has been handling the safety permitting and that demolition could happen quickly when safety criteria are met.
