9

Residents fight to block unsuitable development

On a quiet block in the outer Richmond, a group of neighbors are facing off with a homeowner and the city planning commission over a proposed demolition and reconstruction project.

Currently, 673-675 44th Avenue is home to a 1924, two-story craftsman with a side driveway and open yard in the rear. Owned by the same family for eighty years, the property was sold twice and finally, in 2007, ended up in the hands of a local contractor with designs on developing the property.

A year later, the new owner filed his application for demolition and new construction. When notice was distributed to nearby neighbors, the reaction was fierce.

Rather than submitting plans to restore the 1924 house or even to rebuild something similar, the owner’s plans called for two, four-story houses to be built on the lot. Each house would contain two units, for a total of four units on the existing property.

A group of neighbors leapt into action, determined to voice their opposition before the 30 day review deadline set by the city. They gathered 160 signatures on a neighborhood petition that states “The proposed demolition and development is excessive in scope and scale and out of character with the surrounding houses and the history/charm of our neighborhood.”

One residents says “It was no-brainer for people to sign it” because the houses are just too large. Many of the petitioners are longtime residents, having lived twenty plus years in their nearby, single-family homes.

In the petition, they ask the planning department to “protect the public interest from the significant negative impacts on the neighborhood from this proposed development and deny these permit applications”.

This Thursday, petitioners will have their final chance to voice their opposition to the development at the city’s Planning Commission hearing.

Stroll up that block of 44th Avenue and you can immediately understand why the neighbors feel the new construction wouldn’t fit in. Most houses on the block are just two or three stories, including the adjacent properties.

In addition to their objections to the physicality of the new development, petitioners believe the development will chip away at the history of their neighborhood.

The block bounded by 44th, Anza, 45th and Balboa contains some of the oldest buildings in the neighborhood, pre-dating the building boom in the Outer Richmond that started in the late 1920s. While some homes on the block have been remodeled or restored, they still maintain their original Richmond District character. The petitioners even submitted a map showing the ages of the homes in the neighborhood; the majority were built between 1920 and 1929.

In another document submitted during the initial discretionary review of the project, the petitioners outlined the neighborhood’s history and the specific reasons why the development would break from the area’s character. They cite that the block is primarily made up of single-family dwellings and the document takes issue with some of the Planning Commission’s characterizations of the 600 block of 44th Avenue.

Despite their arguments for preserving neighborhood history and character, the Planning Commission doesn’t sympathize. They claim the immediate and adjoining blocks are “varied” in their construction and that the new four-story units would fit in. And while there is one towering, old building on the block, one petitioner feels that the city is using this single building to make their argument for varied status.

“[The Planning Commission] is sick of this whole project” says one resident and though planning department officials have met with the petitioners, they do not expect the commission to do much to halt the construction.

Tensions between the owner and the neighbors continue to build as the hearing date draws near. Neighbors feel the owner has refused to listen to petitioners’ objections and is only interested in expediting his approvals with the city and starting construction.

Since taking possession of the property in 2007, the owner has only had one of the two units consistently occupied. He has also not kept up the property, letting the front walkway fill up with litter and old newspapers. Most of the house’s landscaping has died out.

After the original petition was filed, one resident claims the owner began calling petitioners and speaking forcefully with them about their decision to sign. She worries that some original petitioners may have been intimidated into changing their positions, which the owner may use to his advantage at Thursday’s hearing.

The overriding sentiment from the residents is frustration with the process and with what many feel is the city’s double standard when it comes to developments in our older neighborhoods.

“It’s frustrating because it seems like [the Richmond District] is just written off wholesale as insignificant, even though there is quite a bit of unique history and character to it,” one petitioner says. One wonders if the same type of character-breaking development would be so welcome in neighborhoods like Pacific Heights or Nob Hill.

The public Planning Commission hearing about this case will be held Thursday, September 10 at City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlet Place, 4th Floor, Room 400, at 1:30pm. Planning meetings usually cover several cases so for a more specific time when this case will be discussed, call 558-6362 beginning Tuesday.

If you are unable to attend but would like to submit written comments, send them to: Aaron Starr, Planning Department, 1650 Mission Street, 4th Floor, San Francisco, 94103. Comments received by 12noon on Thursday will be made part of the official record and brought to the attention of the Planning Commission.

Sarah B.



673-675 44th Avenue


673-675 44th Avenue will be replaced by two, 4-story units in the same lot.
Residents fear it will far outsize the adjoining properties.


Two other similar homes on the block that were restored in keeping with the neighborhood character

9 Comments

  1. Sadly this is one of many such projects now ripping holes in the fabric of the Richmond. Cheers to this group of residents, good luck taking on the planning department! Much already written about the corruption and favor shown developers. What really is spooky is looking at all the demolition and construction in the Richmond with no permits or even licensed contractors performing the work. If you see it report it- and the key seems to be neighbor to neighbor action. I will pass this on to others, perhaps some torches and pickforks on Thursday will help. Off to Ace Hardware for the necessities!

  2. Ripping holes in the Richmond District? This wouldn’t happen in other neighborhoods? I don’t necessarily care for this development, but seriously people, it’s harder to build something new in the Richmond than just about anywhere. It’s taken almost a decade to change BUS SERVICE because people freak out about any change to the status quo.

    This quote in particular made me laugh:

    “The overriding sentiment from the residents is frustration with the process and with what many feel is the city’s double standard when it comes to developments in our older neighborhoods.”

    How in the world is the Outer Richmond construed as one of the city’s “older neighborhoods?”

  3. Good points Chris. I do think this is happening all over town. As you indicated the process takes forever seems an an indicator the system is broken no? As for the bus service MUNI refuses to re draw or change routes. This has been a problem since the 70’s. I would think everyone would LOVE to have some new lines and get downtown faster etc without a 5 year $200 million dollar project. I think new housing is important, what I can’t stand is jamming a new building in with 2 or 3 times the capacity where a single family home stands just for money. I hear “market rate” housing this means $70 k median salary units starting at $300k. Build some senior affordable housing that when they pass on reverts to the community for families/partners trying to buy. and I’ll be down there testifying for that project. Just my 2c on Tuesday morning.

  4. The subject lot is 50′ x 120′, double the standard lot (25′ x100′) so 2 structures seems right. If the developer built 2 SFD each with an in-law apartment, sharing a common driveway for their respective garages, he might get more agreement from the nabes.

  5. If you think that any agency in SF favors developers, then pass some of that special kool aid you are drinking.
    SF, is probably one of the most difficult “big cities” to develop property in. Virtually ALL of new development in SF happens DT, and away from the “older neighborhoods”
    The lot has a height limit and other restrictions. If this project falls in line with those restrictions, than I strongly believe it should be allowed.
    Greedy developers built every single house on that block – and none of you would be living there now if people like yourselves had protested to make sure your housing didnt block their view.
    This “ive got mine and im going to make sure you dont get yours” attitude so pervasive among the “natives” is really disheartening. It’s also pretty amusing that the neighbors think they can decide the best use of someone’s property (just renovate whats there!)
    If the character of the neighborhood is going to be ruined by one extra story ( I see plenty of three story buildings on the block) and three additional families – then I really have to question how much character exists now.
    I hope that each of you protesting this reasonable development (6 stories on this plot would be unreasonable)
    someday find yourself in the same position as the developer of this parcel.

  6. The neighbors’ protesting and frustration have nothing to do with the current structure and landscape, which hasn’t been cared for in years (even before the current owner purchased it). Nor, does it have to do with the new proposed construction plans, which will in fact raise neighboring property values. The points are that (1) – Joe’s last comment about the neighbors’ attitude, and (2) people are terrified of change. The sad story about the “charm” of this neighborhood is that in my twenty years of living here, the Richmond is only now starting to lose it’s appeal due to groups of people like these, at least from my perspective.

  7. Some of the above are ridiculous developers talking. Just take a look at what most real Richmond District residents know — the ones who really live here — starting with the Richmond Specials — the Richmond District has been ignored for too many years. Stop the destruction Projects such as the proposed project is this centuries’ version of the 70’s Richmond specials — only super-sized for greedy, greedy people. These neighbors should be commended for protecting the character of their neighborhood. It’s not easy and it takes time and money. You go neighbors!

  8. To Skippy:
    Greedy people need a place to live too. 🙂 And whose time and money do you think is wasted more often, the “ridiculous developers'” or the neighbors’? The character of this neighborhood has been sent so far into space due to the “epic struggle” of these neighbors that it would be more pleasant to build a home and live on Mars than be surrounded by the “charm” of these Richmond District folks.

Comments are closed.