Residents Evicted from Warehouse at 992 Peralta

992 Peralta in June 2016, via Google Street View

After months of legal wrangling, sheriff’s deputies were on hand yesterday to evict six residents of an unpermitted warehouse at 992 Peralta, near the Alemany Farmer’s Market.

The San Francisco Examiner writes:

A San Francisco judge issued the eviction order earlier this month after a jury ruled in favor of the landlord in an unlawful detainer case last month in San Francisco Superior Court.

The six artists had until Wednesday morning to leave their home at 968 Peralta Ave. in Bernal Heights, according to a notice to vacate from the Sheriff’s Department. A group of deputies locked the artists out of the warehouse before noon Wednesday.

The artists lost in court after trying to make their space legal in the eyes of city officials, who flagged their home as a potential safety hazard since it is considered a commercial space.

The Fire Department issued a notice of violation Dec. 21 for the residential use of a commercial space and city planners issued a notice of enforcement a week later.

The Department of Building Inspection also issued three notices of violation for the building in late December for problems including unpermitted construction, non-compliant electrical wiring and improper plumbing.

While safety concerns in the wake of the deadly 2016 Oakland Ghost Ship fire were a significant  factor leading to the legal order to vacate the Peralta warehouse, SocketSite notes that complaints about residential use of the warehouse date back to 2003. SocketSite also adds that paperwork to build a five-story, 49-unit residential building on the site was filed in July, 2016.

14 thoughts on “Residents Evicted from Warehouse at 992 Peralta

    • Building a 5 story building in a warehouse district next to a parking lot and next to a highway should not, on general principle, elicit a profane response. Where would you suggest we build 50 units if not here?

    • Haha….seriously? You do realize where this warehouse is, right? It is literally under the freeway and across the street from the recycle yard and Lowes. Are you worried about the ambiance impact for those going to the hardware store or the eye-sore it would cause for the people driving on 101? If five stories was good ANYWHERE in the City, this is the spot. More housing!

      • To keep things accurate, this warehouse is adjacent to the Farmers Market, and next to mixed income housing as well as single family residences.

  1. It’s a 4 story, 47 unit building and was approved following a lengthy neighborhood/planning dept. review in 2000. This has been a long time coming. The neighborhood has needed a stable presence in that corner of the hill for the past 15 years.

  2. Just what we need in the neighborhood, 49 more unaffordable units with another 40 to 50 cars.

  3. oops…with 47 parking spaces and required affordable units

    you’d rather have RV encampments, a junkyard, graffiti covered buildings…no thanks

  4. I actually live right behind this development. Most of us seem to support the development but naturally we have concerns over access since there is only one way in/out of here on weekends with the markets with one lane. It’s hard enough to get around with all the traffic from the markets and no space for people to pull over to let one another pass. Having concerns doesn’t make us NIMBY and I really resent when people present such black and white arguments. I believe if we can actually listen to each other’s concerns that we can work together to both create housing and also minimize the negative consequences.

    I also want to add that when this project was originally proposed it was 4 stories, not 5. We should be able to hold politicians and developers accountable to what they have promised. Without neighborhood input they will simply work to advance either their political goals or the revenues they make from the development. They naturally do not have a vested interest in this neighborhood because they do not live here.

    Yes we need housing, yes this is a good spot for dense housing, but as people invested in this community we are not just going to let just anything happen since we are the ones who will be living with the effects day in and day out. We should be able to work together to create a mutually beneficial situation.

  5. To S. I meant no harm but wanted to communicate my general agreement to the project. I actually have been called NYMBY which is just fine with me if it means that I am trying to protect my neighborhood. I support your concerns about the project and the need to monitor the owner and the City during the construction process. We had the same concerns in 2000 about the traffic issues. It is a 4 story building, not 5. I live around the corner but am hoping that if we get a stable presence in that section of the hill that it will counter any potential problems. After problems on Putnam, I requested they put in the yellow line and that helped somewhat. Hopefully, there will be traffic calming measures that will help here as well. I also have concerns around the asbestos removal they have to do during the process. I think we should come together as a localized neighborhood group to discuss and plan strategy. I would be happy to be part of such an ad hoc group.

  6. What is amazing that this project had been approved in 2000! If there was not so many NIMBYs, these condos would have been built ages ago, improving this otherwise blighted area of Bernal Heights. It is a junkyard and the people that lived in this warehouse did nothing to make it a safe place. Build the condos already!

  7. As someone who has lived here since 1992 and one of the NYMBYs, I like to keep the facts straight. This project was approved in 2000 with the NIMBY’s stamp of approval. This landlord chose to lease his building. It had nothing to do with the neighbors.

Comments are closed.