CFAH

When some surreptitiously installed scaffolding and shrink wrap was removed from over the third floor deck which faces the street at 60 Rico Way in the Marina, at least one neighbor noticed a difference in the building’s façade and profile.

When contacted by the City, which appears to have been caught unawares, the owner of 60 Rico Way started putting together documentation for the enclosure of the deck via a “sunroom kit,” an incomplete application for which was subsequently submitted to Planning and then cancelled.

And while the addition currently remains in place, unlike that “pop-up” jacuzzi atop 74 New Montgomery Street, a formal Notice of Violation has been issued.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by Michael

    For everyone who puts time and money and blood into doing the right thing, that violation should be prosecuted to the full extent. Like return the property to the pre-alteration state. If whoever did this went through the process, fine, it’s a bit cheap looking (aluminum windows?) but I’d be fine with it. But a thumb to everyone who does it right is very wrong.

    • Posted by sf

      How is this any different than the bait and switch that corporate developers pull on us every time the cheap clapboard and aluminum end result differs from the glamorous renderings?

    • Posted by Sally

      Like everyone who puts time, money and blood into establishing an actual residence, rather than pitching a tent on the sidewalk?

      • Posted by Fishchum

        Jesus Sally, did you just compare being homeless to owning a $2M+ Marina home? Wow.

  2. Posted by ben wa

    So do they just pay a fine and all is well?

    • Posted by sforthright

      If a permit isn’t approved for the work, it will have to be removed

      • Posted by PRESIDENT NIXON

        What is the punishment for not removing it?

  3. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    Sunroom kits like this are popular in the UK. But they usually installed on the ground floor and face the back yard garden.

  4. Posted by Notcom

    When trouble breaks out in Los Angeles Frisco, that’s when I go to work. I carry a badge

    Well in spirit, anyway.
    I’m going to start worrying about SS’ future if this is the best it can come up with…when’s the last time we had a real, honest-to-goodness groundbreaking to report on?

  5. Posted by unlivablecity

    That is hideous and should be removed and the owner and contractor fined.

  6. Posted by What a town

    This would never happen if it didn’t take 5 years to get a permit…. If ever.

    But yes of course fine them and remove it immediately because this obscenity offends my very being. Even from my soap box in Noe Valley I could smell the scent of illegitimate nails been driven into this rooftop. Rain down justice on these criminals.

    • Posted by Chris

      Save the drama for your momma, as they say. Just enforce the permitting rules—either the owner is able to get a permit retroactively approved after paying the appropriate fees and fines, or they have to remove the structure and pay a fine. That is it, no “justice raining” necessary. It is silly the owner did this since it is an obvious addition from that street and they should have known it would get reported, but oh well, it is their choice to be silly.

      • Posted by What a Town

        What about retroactive permitting as a policy. Build it and then permit it after, that way it can take 5 years and it’s no problem…… I guess for that to work you would need to have some sort of code that’s simply to understand and allows you build if followed. Perhaps this code could be simple enough for a home owner to understand and implement. Not sure what they could call it, maybe call it the The Planning code. And maybe this Planning code would have a set of objective limitations that if followed would give you the right to build. Silly idea really. It’s probably better to stick with years of process, DRs, commissions, appeals, 7 different department reviews one after the other …… all for a sun room. And we wonder why it costs a million dollars to build a toilet here.

        But drama yea

  7. Posted by citizenkarma

    We need to transfer these diligent bureaucrats who swiftly act on such violations to the department that goes after neighborhood drug dealers to show them a thing or two.

    • Posted by What a town

      The drug dealers are following the rules, it’s legal here but they should have to apply for a CU if in a nice neighborhood and the sidewalk is less that 7ft wide on the 2nd Tuesday of the month between 12 am and 6 am.

      That’s actually a good way to stop the drug dealing, make them get a permit.

      Drama yea

    • Posted by Neighborhood Activist

      We can only WISH we had a department that goes after neighborhood drug dealers. Instead we have departments and scores of nonprofits which enable and support them.

  8. Posted by LD

    The planning permit application shows as cancelled.

    • Posted by SocketSite

      As we outlined above, “an incomplete application for which was subsequently submitted to Planning and then cancelled.”

      • Posted by Mdsayh

        What does it mean when a permit is cancelled? Does it mean the city cancelled it? Was it withdrawn by the home owner? Why would a home owner start the process, then cancel the permit to just actually move forward with the project? And wouldn’t this have been an over the counter permit if it was permissible?

  9. Posted by Sunsetkid

    Illegal addition is still standing, without engineering, sprinklers, permit fees, etc. it’s a giant FU to the city, its laws, the neighbors and decency. Meanwhile everyone spending 2-4 years fighting the city for variances, 311’s, permits, DR’s was just told do whatever you want, the rules don’t apply. It’s easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.

    • Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

      “It’s easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.”

      That’s how it goes with getting permits in other jurisdictions. While lining up a contractor to build a road in a rural area, two prospective contractors were surprised that I had naively already filed permits to build the road. Both said that the way it goes around here is to build the road first, then file permits. Apparently the county never requires anyone to rip out an existing road. They just flag some relatively minor mitigations to be implemented.

  10. Posted by What a town

    Enforce prohibition and you’ll end up with bootleggers.

    • Posted by Brahma (incensed renter)

      I would expect such a comment from a glibertarian and perhaps that reflects your world view, but for everyone else…it’s important to realize that this kind of behavior (illegal additions, exceeding permitted work when it’s in the pecuniary interest of the owner, etc.) erodes the norms of social trust and solidarity that make societies work well.

      The reason the U.S. has so many people seeking to flee their home countries, where “prohibitions” are not enforced and thus many people just do whatever they think they can get away with and migrate here is precisely because routinely enforced “prohibitions” are what makes societies livable. I always find it curious that the people already here who decry prohibitions are never quite so motivated to move and live full time in a country where drug cartels, for example, operate freely in said country in the absence of prohibition enforcement.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles