226 Cabrillo Neighbors
With today’s Planning Commission meeting just about to get started, the adjacent neighbor to the east of 226 Cabrillo writes:

We’re direct neighbors to the proposed structure, and it’s funny how mention of the neighborhood commission and “neighbor” opposing the construction makes it sound like we’re the ones opposing it. Couldn’t be further from the truth.

We’ve been waiting with baited breath for someone, ANYONE, to demolish that unsightly shack and put up something new. From Day One, I’ve been in communication with the architect about their plans, and have written supportive letters and emails to and for them. They were kind enough to show us the building plans early on, and we’re excited to see it go up.

I’ll be attending the hearing today at City Hall, so there’s no doubt “the adjacent neighbors” are on their side.

Cheers. And so which “adjacent neighbor” is objecting to the project as proposed? That would be one with an address on 4th Avenue to the west (across the gap to the left above).
UPDATE: A plugged-in reader reports, “The Planning commission with clarity and swiftness voted 5-1 in favor of demolishing the existing cottage and approving the new building.” Double cheers.
Words Of Planning Wisdom With Respect To 226 Cabrillo As Proposed [SocketSite]
San Francisco Planning Commission Calendar: September 30, 2010 []

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by noearch

    This is refreshing, for a change. The Planning commission with clarity and swiftness voted 5-1 in favor of demolishing the existing cottage and approving the new building.
    Nice work.
    They even commended the new design being “forward thinking” and “of its’ time”..New designs do NOT have to look like the surrounding existing properties.
    I applaud their decision. Best of luck to the owner in getting this nice residence built.

  2. Posted by sfrenegade

    Good work, Planning department! I applaud their approval and I applaud their incredibly reasonable words from the prior post.
    I’m also delighted that an earthquake shack got torn down. It’s a good start.

  3. Posted by DamnNeighbors

    There’s always got to be at least one green-eyed jackass in every ‘hood.

  4. Posted by noearch

    Yea, seems like the Planning Commission is changing and evolving to become more efficient and allow for responsible growth.

  5. Posted by g

    I want to know who voted no.

  6. Posted by Scooter

    I believe that non-supporting neighbor is on 4th Avenue, not Street.
    Good job by the Planning Commission.
    [Editor’s Note:. Good catch and since changed in the copy.]

  7. Posted by noearch

    I believe Antonini was the single no vote to the project.

  8. Posted by Troy

    Supporting neighbor doesn’t share anything with the new construction but a lot line.
    Objecting neighbor is now probably going to have a bunch of windows peering into his back yard.
    That’s life in the big city.

  9. Posted by Billy

    So nice of you to point out who the objector is. Next time you do something that is in within your rights, I’m going to point it out for all to see, despite the scrutiny you might receive.

  10. Posted by sfrenegade

    “So nice of you to point out who the objector is.”
    Public record!

  11. Posted by Simca

    Good for the Planning Commission. I live in an Edwardian in the ‘hood and would love to see a ‘forward-looking’ building ‘of its time’ replace that clapped-out piece of rubbish. Maybe I’ll bake the builders some cookies to welcome them.

  12. Posted by Tom

    Billy, grow up and shut up — as Troy said, that’s life in the big city, and as the other comment pointed out, it’s public record!
    About time the planning commission moved with clarity and swiftness, and one can only hope this is a trend.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles