May 22, 2014And:
456 27TH STREET – on the north side of 27th Street between Noe and Sanchez streets; Lot 018 in Assessor’s Block 6580 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, pursuant to Planning Code Section 317(d), of Demolition Permit Application No. 2013.03.11.1908, proposing to demolish a one-story, single-family dwelling in a RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District. This action constitutes the Approval Action for the project for the purposes of CEQA, pursuant to Section 31.04(h) of the San Francisco Administrative Code.
...to construct a three-story, two-family dwelling in a RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.Purchased in 2012 and occupied by the Project Sponsor since, 456 27th St is a 958sf one bedroom single family home without parking. Appraised at $1.31M in February, the building qualifies for demolition in part because it is not considered affordable housing. The proposed project will include two units - a ground floor 923sf 2BD/1BA and two-car tandem garage, and a 2623sf 3BD/2.5BA unit above.
Staff Analysis: Full Discretionary Review
Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve
The Project Sponsor met many times with neighbors and made changes to gain their support.
Primary opposition to the project is from Lorna Murdock, who also represents fellow tenants and owner of the 6 unit apartment building next door. She writes:
I live in 462 27th Street, Apartment 6, San Francisco, 94131. The new building as currently drawn would obstruct my only source of natural light in my living room, which is the southeastern exposure I get from sunrise to sunset through the window off of my building’s courtyard/garage. All other units in 462 27" Street would suffer similarly from the lack of natural light.Planning Staff have concluded that the existing units will still receive sufficient light. They will lose their views, however.
Update (5/27): The project was approved 6-0 by the Planning Commission as "sensible and sensitive" infill and "well within the Residential Design Guidlines. Video of the hearing here.
[SF Planning: 456 27th St (PDF)]
[Photo: SF Planning]
I feel like this project screams speculative development. It undermines the site to maximize square footage and views, minimizing aesthetics and the vernacular of the neighborhood.
ReplyDeleteAgree with Anonymous; similar in this respect to all kinds of other horrible development in Noe Valley.
ReplyDeleteI read the entire package - did you? The "developer" is the family that already lives there, and by all appearances the remodel is intended for them to be able to live there at least until their kids are grown up (and for their elderly parents to live there as well.)
ReplyDeleteSo when you claim "screams speculative development", just be honest and say that you are calling the owners liars.
By the way, I don't know this family and I don't have a dog in this particular fight, but I live one block away and the exact same thing happened next door to us. A moldy, unlivable dump was refashioned - by the owning family - into a place where their kids can grow up. It's been a benefit to our block, both in property values and in community.
I'm the second Anonymous; that is the opposite of what has happened on my block. Two houses have been purchased, demolished, and rebuilt into out-sized, view-blocking, inappropriately scaled monstrosities, then put on the market and sold to people with no families and too much money. I've been in both; neither are designed for families - they are more like bad bachelor pads!
ReplyDeleteSoon a third one will bite the dust; but that one is a dump and needs to be redone. However I'm concerned that it will be built into another hideous, 4000 sq. ft. monster that simply Does Not Belong.
To anon:
ReplyDeleteViews are not protected. It's a free market to develop what one wishes within the regulations of the planning and building codes.
If you don't like these projects, then perhaps buy up the properties and keep them as the dumps they (currently) are.
And do what YOU want with them.
While this is a large house, it doesn't appear to be that much larger than the building next door. And a large two unit building seems to be a much better use of space than a small SFR.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that the real objection here is to the loss of views. But view can't be protected or nothing would ever get built.