The roof at 87 Dolores went up in flames on April 15, 2014. Residents are only this week moving back in.

From Roger Kallerud’s fourth-story window at 87 Dolores Street, he had a glorious view of the rest of the Mission — rain, shine or ablaze. “You could see the fires throughout the Mission all the time,” he recalls.

At around 4:30 p.m. on April 15, 2014, Kallerud noticed thick, black smoke outside his window. Except, disturbingly, it was actually billowing downward. He put on his shoes, grabbed his phone, and walked up the stairs to the roof of his six-story apartment building. Which was on fire.

He pulled the alarm and ran like hell.

Not long thereafter, Bharathwajan Iyengar received a text message at work from his wife: Their apartment building was on fire. “I took this to be a joke,” he says. But it wasn’t, and she wanted him to get there, ASAP.

He needn’t have bothered. Iyengar is a trained structural engineer, and one look at a Twitter live-feed from a helicopter hovering over the blaze told him all he needed to know: this was serious, and his presence on-scene could accomplish nothing.

But Iyengar is a smart man; he did what his wife told him to do.

Kallerud, Iyengar and dozens of others huddled outside the building. Day turned to night as firefighters drenched the roof; the water cascaded throughout the architecturally significant 1928-era building, and the soot and filth wafted into residents’ open windows.

That was four years, eight months, and nine days ago. And, only this week will the displaced residents begin moving back in. Perhaps half of the building’s original residents couldn’t stick it out in this city’s brutal rental market and won’t be returning. At least one has died.

And yet, when it comes to fires in the Mission, the tenants at 87 Dolores can consider themselves lucky. Four years, eight months, and nine days is a long time to wait to go home.

But it’s less time than forever.  

An errantly discarded cigarette may be to blame for the fire that displaced 50-odd residents at 87 Dolores. Photo courtesy of Displaced 87 Dolores Facebook page.

The first thing to happen after the fire was nothing. And nothing happened for a long time. For more than a year, the gorgeous, ivory-colored six-story building was boarded up, thanks to a holdup in payment from the building owner’s insurance company. Permits couldn’t even be obtained. Let alone actual work being done.  

San Francisco is a place that purports to venerate mom-n-pop entities — stores, businesses, landlords. But in this case, the tenants of 87 Dolores were actually harmed by the fact that their landlord, Ray Guaraglia, is a small-time independent.

“He’s a working-class man. A sheet-rocker his entire life,” says Janan New, the executive director of the San Francisco Apartment Association. “This building is his only asset.”

Your humble narrator’s calls to Guaraglia’s lawyers have not been returned. New served as his intermediary, even in his interactions with the city.  

For all the negatives of living in a building owned by a massive corporation, massive corporations tend to have cash on hand. Unless done so intentionally in hopes of shedding rent-controlled tenants, it wouldn’t have taken a massive corporate landlord more than a year to even begin scoping out work on this building. But that’s what happened here. And, in that time, the situation festered. Rather literally.

“What wasn’t lost on me, since the waterproofing on the roof is made of asphalt, that leaves a lot of smoke and soot and there was a lot of smoke damage,” said Iyengar, the structural engineer and displaced tenant. “And water damage is what far exceeds fire damage in any partial fire.”

For more than a year, this toxic mixture sat and fermented within the aging building. Iyengar hired professionals to do what, in the business, is known as a “dirty pack-out.” When he next visited his home, he did so in a hazmat suit.

Almost exactly two years to the day after the fire, nine frustrated tenants sued Guaraglia, claiming, among other charges, that he failed to install and maintain fire suppression and prevention systems in the building and failed to enforce the ban on smoking on the building’s roof (a smoldering cigarette is believed to be the cause of the fire). That case settled last year and the tenants are forbidden to discuss the terms.

But wait, there’s more. A lack of coordination with PG&E, the building owner, and the contractors “stretched things out another year,” says the Apartment Association’s New.

It wasn’t until November of this year that letters with move-in dates and acceptance deadlines arrived. Of the 50-odd residents in the 30-unit, rent-controlled building, only around 12 people have been showing up to meetings organized by Supervisor Rafael Mandelman. There are, currently, Craigslist ads for at least three apartments in the building.

If half of the old tenants move back in, it would come as a surprise to everyone involved. And, sadly, when it comes to fires in the Mission, 50 percent is actually not a bad return rate at all.   

Multiple units in 87 Dolores are being flogged on Craigslist, at rates far exceeding what prior, burned-out tenants once paid.

Four years, eight months, and nine days is a long time. A long time to fix this level of structural damage. A long time for renters to fend for themselves. When asked how to prevent the next burned-out tenants from waiting so long, nobody in the city had a comprehensive answer.

Tenants like Kallerud and Iyengar vouched for obtaining rental insurance — which paid for their temporary lodgings, paid the difference between their previous rent and the rent at long-term apartments, and also assumed moving costs, which could have run into the thousands. They also benefited from heavy city involvement, especially from the offices of Supervisors Scott Wiener and Rafael Mandelman.  

Beyond that, however, the best thing to do is proactively keep fires from happening. Mandelman gave a shout-out to legislation from former Supervisor David Campos that requires greater scrutiny over safety conditions and mandates landlords to present displaced tenants with a timeline for repairs. The Castro supe also pointed to an ordinance from Supervisor Hillary Ronen, which allows fire inspectors to demand landlords install or improve sprinklers or fire safety systems.

In the four years, eight months, and nine days since 87 Dolores burned, many more structures in the Mission have also gone up in flames. That’s why we have that legislation from Campos and Ronen. What a view Kallerud would’ve had from his window.

And now he’ll have it again, along with his rent-controlled monthly payments at 2004 rates. “I am fortunate,” he says.

Damn right. San Francisco is a city that has, on several occasions, risen up from its own ashes. Individual tenants, however, rarely do. 

Follow Us

Joe is a columnist and the managing editor of Mission Local. He was born in San Francisco, raised in the Bay Area, and attended U.C. Berkeley. He never left.

“Your humble narrator” was a writer and columnist for SF Weekly from 2007 to 2015, and a senior editor at San Francisco Magazine from 2015 to 2017. You may also have read his work in the Guardian (U.S. and U.K.); San Francisco Public Press; San Francisco Chronicle; San Francisco Examiner; Dallas Morning News; and elsewhere.

He resides in the Excelsior with his wife and three (!) kids, 4.3 miles from his birthplace and 5,474 from hers.

The Northern California branch of the Society of Professional Journalists named Eskenazi the 2019 Journalist of the Year.

Join the Conversation

14 Comments

  1. Joe,

    This old firefighter guesses most likely ‘eviction by arson’.

    That’s the old fashioned way.

    Now, they do ‘Renoviction’.

    Examiner did great story on it couple years back.

    I live down the street from the building and pass it daily on
    my walk to top of hill to get newspapers.

    Watched entire process after fire.

    Talked to owner with his sometimes construction crews over
    the years and (he shares my birthday but is couple years younger)

    Kept asking him how he could afford to keep building vacant so long.

    He always answered by complaining how little tenants were paying
    and how one drove a really expensive car.

    Just a guess but guessing he’s gonna double or triple his income.

    Hey, I’m nothing if not a cynic.

    Happy holidays.

    Go Giants!

    h.

    0
    0
    votes. Sign in to vote
    1. I am almost 5 years sick of hearing this go-to conspiracy theory. It is 100% not the case, or I would be a damn fool. Sincerely, a tenant.

      0
      0
      votes. Sign in to vote
      1. Returning tenant?

        Well, you’re probably right.

        I’ve been wrong more than I’ve been right for 74 years.

        Can 6 beautiful ex-wives have all been wrong?

        Go Giants!

        h.

        0
        0
        votes. Sign in to vote
      1. Joe,

        I was programmed to think like this a bit over 40 years ago back in St. Louis country.

        About 90% of the serious fires we fought were arsons involving collusion between owners and insurance agents looking to get their value out of buildings that were losing value because of the changing demographics of neighborhoods.

        This would be the opposite were it true.

        Because we worked only 10 days a month (about like now, I’d guess) …

        Most people had businesses while they were off those 20 days.

        Predictably, many revolved around building reconstructions.

        Lot of guys carried business cards to hand to the owners of the buildings.

        You’ll have to buy the book for the rest.

        Go the extra yard and go talk to this owner?

        Go Giant!

        h.

        0
        0
        votes. Sign in to vote
        1. H. —

          Considering it took 13 months or so for the insurance to even begin paying off and that was only after Scott Wiener referred the matter to the state insurance commissioner, I don’t think this was a get-rich-quick scheme.

          The city was rather hands-on here, especially Wiener and Rafael Mandelman’s offices. To the best of my knowledge, neither of them ever actually spoke with the owner. So I don’t foresee him returning those calls or saying all that much.

          Best,

          JE

          0
          0
          votes. Sign in to vote
  2. It’s so nice you can count on the power of government to secure exclusive discounted rents, when you did nothing to earn it, except you got there first. Too bad about the other unhoused people, looking to rent who absolutely will pay much more due to the artificially reduced supply resulting from your “special old timer” status. But hey…YOU got there first !

    0
    0
    votes. Sign in to vote
    1. You’re damn right about that. Why any private individual should have to subsidize another private individuals rent other than as punishment for a criminal action is beyond me. It’s truly not constitutional to take someone’s property and require that they house someone else under market rate. If housing must be subsidized then the burden should be on the local governments to do it. The pain should be distributed equally amongst all citizens including renters. If that was the case and the city had a 30 percent sales tax so that it could either pay the difference to landlords where tenants are below market and they are imposing controls, or build public housing (that works out great considering you can’t grt a permit for a new building for 2 years let alone build a giant public housing complex. Let’s face it; there is no right to be able to live wherever you want to. If that was the case the whole world would come to the nicest places and they would no longer be nice (kinda like the city is becoming to those of us who grew up here and saw it with a much higher quality of life). People generally move to areas they can afford and you have a choice; do that or work harder with longer hours and multiple jobs like many of us do and pay for what you are getting. Legally though, eventually rent control we be shot down in a Supreme Court decision.; it’s just failed to get there thus far since the issue is very localized to SF, Oakland Santa Monica somewhat New York and a few other cities. If there was an attempt to make it nation wide it would not pass.

      “Takings Clause” of the Fifth Amendment, which states, “[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

      0
      0
      votes. Sign in to vote
    2. It’s interesting you put the blame on tenants for high rents rather than the real estate industry (and capitalism!) itself. We all deserve housing that is cheap/within our means.

      0
      0
      votes. Sign in to vote
  3. I’d love to see a history of those big white art deco apartment buildings. Were they built by the same developer? There’s one by my office (on Irving), There’s also one in the lower haight, another on California Street, a few in the TL too.

    0
    0
    votes. Sign in to vote
Leave a comment
Please keep your comments short and civil. Do not leave multiple comments under multiple names on one article. We will zap comments that fail to adhere to these short and easy-to-follow rules.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *