We’ll have to call it hearsay, and we can’t confirm, but a plugged-in reader offers one explanation for the seemingly semi-restored façade of 50 Carmelita:
Supposedly the plan was to remove the incredibly ugly retrofit garage (aka the giant box that ruins the facade) and restore the original front staircase leading up to the front door. But the planning department would not allow it, saying that the ugly box was historically protected, having been in place for more than 30 years or whatever.
Of course that’s only one side of the story and we’re willing to listen if you have the other (perhaps related to the economics of removing a two-car garage in San Francisco).
UPDATE: And here’s an other:
In order to change the outside “envelope” of the building by removing the garage the project would have to undergo a neighborhood review. By keeping the garage, the contractor was able to get away with pulling very limited permits.
Or simply in the words of a plugged-in Planning Department employee with respect to the original hearsay explanation, “this is not true.” Cheers.
∙ Carmelita’s Way: A Renovated 50 Carmelita Returns [SocketSite]
∙ Damn That Planning Department To Hell! Oh, Wait A Minute… [SocketSite]
I work for the Planning Department – this is not true.
In order to change the outside “envelope” of the building by removing the garage the project would have to undergo a neighborhood review. By keeping the garage, the contractor was able to get away with pulling very limited permits.
As a puller of many SF DBI permits, I find the prior post a little hard to believe. Reducing the building envelope, as would be the case here, is very different from enlarging it. While changing the envelope requires a waiting period for neighborhood notification and potential objections, nobody in that ‘hood is going to object to the removal of that garage and a reduction of the envelope, and any experienced contractor / architect / developer would take those very good odds.
And it’s not like there weren’t plenty of permits pulled on this job already (DBI shows 2 electric, 3 plumbing, and 5 building). What is one more for taking down the garage when you consider the total process? Doesn’t make sense.
(FYI, from the DBI complaints database, looks like they started demolition and foundation work without permits — oopsie!)
My theory, as others have stated in the earlier thread, is that it’s simply all about the parking. They wanted garaged parking for a better valuation, and they had three choices: stick with the existing garage, jack up the house and dig a new one, or eliminate parking. Guess which one penciled out best on the spreadsheet? Sometimes aesthetics loses out to cost, despite SS readers most ardent fantasies of infinite remodel budgets.
We need someone at DBI to comment. Not planning.
Kurt,
Sure people wouldn’t complain, but the 311 process is not exactly fast. From the time you submit until building gets the plans (without complaint) you are looking at 3 1/2 months.
I agree with you it doesn’t make sense to remove the garage, it would reduce the value of the house more than the cosmetics of the facade will. A change to the garage a smaller one car and better entry would just take too long to pencil out.
If you want covered parking, there really is no alternative at a reasonable cost.
The house next door even built a room on top of their garage.
They could still decorate the garage as a giant xmas present/box that had somehow fallen into their front yard. Or, more in the spirit of the location, a giant doghouse.
San Francisco homeowners on a dead-end street wouldn’t complain about someone removing their garage, effectively or even just possibly eliminating some of their own parking and increasing competition for on-street parking on a very short block?
Yeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaah. Right.
Carmeliter, Kurt, put your posts together and you got it.
Why pay for frugal when you can settle for cheap?
@sparky: Agree with the longer delay, but that’s why Gannt charts were created to work out complex schedules. A construction project is not a collection of serialized steps. Many things happen in parallel, including permit processes. For example, standard schedules could easily overlap an external envelope permit process with demolition, foundation, rough plumbing, electrical, and non-envelope rough carpentry and structural work. In this town, you never pull an “all in one” building permit – you pull one for several discrete steps, each of which can be placed appropriately in the schedule, and each having a backup plan in case they aren’t approved in the end.
The real issue is what is the critical path in the schedule. That path is not something that is easily assumed by us folks from the outside looking in — and I’m making no assumptions there either. In fact, you could have been right, in that the 311 process was on the critical path. But if I was financing the project, and the developer showed me any schedule with a permit process on the critical path, in San Francisco, I’d definitely ask for an alternate schedule that removes it from the critical path.
@jon: lolz 🙂
@FAA: I’ll rephrase: I think the probability of neighbors complaining about a reduced envelope versus is dramatically lower versus an increased envelope. Neither are non-zero, especially in this town. But if you’re playing the odds (like all developers do), then betting on approval for a reduced envelope job is, IMHO, a decent bet to place. You, of course, would likely place your bets differently.
@planner: I think you sound like you have inside info, so I’m going to defer to you, even tho I admit, I’m not quite sure how to put our posts together properly. I’m slow sometimes.
OK, I’m slow most of the time.
But I put together good San Francisco construction schedules, so say my subs.
* makes proud face *
“But if I was financing the project, and the developer showed me any schedule with a permit process on the critical path, in San Francisco, I’d definitely ask for an alternate schedule that removes it from the critical path.”
The fist question from the lender is do you have all your permits and can I have a copy. The second is have you started work, because if you have before I give you money (see above) then I don’t want any part of loaning you money because of the mechanics liens that have started.
“In this town, you never pull an “all in one” building permit – you pull one for several discrete steps, each of which can be placed appropriately in the schedule, and each having a backup plan in case they aren’t approved in the end.”
Not true. It works for a project like this, but not for vertical additions or horizontal additions or teardowns. You do not pour a foundation and then have to move it because the footprint was tweeked to appease the neighbor.
Is there any way to figure out who the developer is, and whether he/she has a good track record?
Looks like Golden Properties was the developer. Start with the listing agent and ask for a list of other projects they’ve done. If an agent won’t disclose the developer AND contractor it’s a red flag.
Developer is Golden Properties – anyone know anything about Golden?
@michael – good tip, thx.
The developer is Sergio Iantorno, who is a pretty big SF landlord and developer. See his other active FS building on Waller @ Webster.
He does decent work (nothing fancy, as you can see). Finishes/details are always quality but not top quality.
http://www.google.com/search?q=“Sergio+Iantorno”
Golden is Sergio Iantorni – a long time developer & landlord in SF. He does decent work, but a lot of it ends up in litigation:
http://webaccess.sftc.org/scripts/magic94/Mgrqispi94.dll?APPNAME=IJS&PRGNAME=CaseSearch22&ARGUMENTS=-A
because of the discretionary review process, this project could have been held up INDEFINATELY if the builder had tried to deal with the garage issue.realistically a couple of years…ask yourself ,what would i do if i were the builder.i am a builder and the process of neighborhood input brings about these results.
dont you think its time our city planning department made the call on planning approval,negating the influence of the neighbors and the builders?