SF Building Inspector said that this shack/building cannot be demolished until the owner submits building development plans and they are approved by the city.
If this lot is going to sit in limbo, the neighbors want the city to take action to have the owner clean up the debris in the lot, fix up the building or conceal it by installing a higher fence and replacing some of the trees that were illegally cut down.
If this lot is going to sit in limbo, the neighbors want the city to take action to have the owner clean up the debris in the lot, fix up the building or conceal it by installing a higher fence and replacing some of the trees that were illegally cut down.
5 comments:
This shack is such an eyesore and is clearly visible as each cable car comes up and down Mason St. It's quite a site for the tourists and very unpleasant for those of us living next door. I have seen a homeless man there last weekend urinating in the alleyway at the shack. Graffiti is now on the shack. It is falling down and is very dangerous. The city should not only allow the owner to tear it down - but forcer them to. It seems they cut down the tree to try to force the city's hand. The city should fine the owner significantly for taking down a tree without a permit and also require him/her to clean the lot BEFORE even allowing him/her to submit blueprints. Who can we contact?
It really is a shame that those trees were removed. Look at the size of the stump in this photo I took. This tree had to have been 50+ years old, and now the property looks like an absolute disaster!
http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=487784890&size=l
As far as I know all that is required is a demolition permit which can be taken out "over the counter", meaning the owner might be able to obtain a demolition permit quickly. pity we can't take it out for them, it takes 2 minutes to fill out the form. Who is the owner? If they need building permits, is it because this had some earthquake shack status? whoever the owner is they are clearly thumbing their nose at the city and its' residents. There is no reason to illegally cut down trees and leave this eyesore exposed. maybe the plan is to irritate residents, visitors and passerbys sufficiently to neutralize negative neigborhood review of the intended replacement structure?
Shame to lose those trees, shame to have our delightful neighborhood uglified.
1660 Mission is the Building and Planning Departments for info, lots of counter experts for info, complaints etc..
It is amazing how people would go totally ballistic when losing a few trees in an urbanized environment yet have little regard for entire ecologically sensitive sites in the rural area surrounding the bay area.
One of the best compromise is to concentrate high-density growth in urbanized centers thus reducing pollution, uncontrolled growth in undeveloped areas and protection of old growth forest from lumber compsnies.
It sounds more like a few dis-gruntled neighbors who are afraid of losing their precious view of the bay.
In response to what Anonymous said... The neighbors are not disgruntled about losing views of the bay. In fact, the trees had obstructed views for years. Neighbors are disgruntled because the trees are gone--illegally cut down. The trees made our neighborhood less urban and we want them replaced. We’re on the same side.
Post a Comment