While San Francisco’s Planning Department has approved plans for a staggered three-story over basement and garage home to be built at 645 Duncan Street, a group of Noe Valley neighbors have requested a Discretionary Review to appeal the project’s approval.


Characterizing the project as “a precedent setting five story single family home in Noe Valley, potentially altering the character and charm of this neighborhood forever,” the Noe Valley Neighbors have gathered 297 online signatures in support of their appeal.

Keep in mind that the proposed “precedent setting” home would rise adjacent to 625 Duncan Street, the modern 6,000 square foot home which was built in 2008 and is currently the second most expensive home in the neighborhood, down the street from the most expensive home at 526 Duncan.

26 thoughts on “A Threat To “The Character And Charm” Of Noe Valley?”
  1. I completely support this project. So called Noe Valley charm is comprised of all kinds of properties, houses, little streets, stairs, views and endless strollers.
    The neighborhood will survive.

  2. You can bet the homeowners of 625 Duncan Street are one of the primary sponsors of the Discretionary Review due to the new home blocking their views to the west.
    If they wanted unobstructed views, they should have purchased the adjacent lot.
    Building their home and then attempting to block anyone else from doing the same is wrong.
    I hope Planning Department dismisses the request for Discretionary Review and issues a strong rebuke of the neighbors.

  3. The neighbor at 625 Duncan is probably regretting buying a house with a window angled toward what will become a view of a blank wall.

  4. right…but does anyone actually know if the 625 owners are sponsoring or even on the petition? Perhaps that’s jumping to conclusions?

  5. First, the uproar from the residents of the Four Seasons about the prorposed Mission St. tower. Then the 8 Washington project causes controversy. Now this. I love all this strife among SF’s 1 percenters.

  6. That block has had at least 3 DRs in the past year. It’s not the rich people, it’s the folks who’ve lived there a long time who want to preserve their quaint ideals.

  7. The ultimate joke will be on the neighbors of the little shacks around there – if this is built their property values will see a big increase.

  8. ^that has already happened due to the T-house and the adjacent 625 Duncan house both trading for big bucks twice, even in down markets. All the shacks around there are worth well over 1m nowadays. The 649 lot buy for 600k was a good one even tho it was in 2010 and developers weren’t close to as bold as they are now!

  9. “altering the character and charm of this neighborhood forever” That horse left the barn ten years ago.
    “Noe Valley Neighbors” doesn’t seem to have any web presence– can anyone provide a link? And does Planning even accept online petitions?

  10. San Francisco Planning process is so dysfunctional. San Francisco Planning dept is so corrupted. It’ll take at least 18 months and a few hundred thousands dollars to get the plans approved at 645 Duncan. Ever wonder why new homes are so expensive in San Francisco? Ever wonder why there are so many millionaire permit expeditors in San Francisco?

  11. SF Permit Expeditor,
    Almost makes you think it would be more honest and fair if the city just straight up sold variances, and review approvals/denials? Would cut the shysters out and give the city a source of income to fund general public improvements, amiright?

  12. And the SF Permit Expediter is deeply entrenched into the corruption of the SF Planning Dept also.
    Expeditors are nothing but paid insiders.

  13. Well, since I live a few houses away from this home. I can say….YES 625 Duncan is responsible for the DR. Funny though..now Sup Scott Weiner is involved. Makes me wonder if a contribution has been made? More to come soon I guess?

  14. R, you clearly don’t understand the value of mediation.
    Even if we accept, just for the sake of argument, that this is a discretionary review request that will ultimately be denied, and that any individual Supervisor could be dealing with “more important” issues, the fact remains that if Supervisor Weiner is able to bring the parties to some agreement that shortens the life of the dispute, everyone will be better off, including the other members of the Board of Supervisors and their constituents who won’t have to deal with this issue after it (conceivably) gets appealed to the full board. Not to mention saving all the parties all the money that will get spent on lawyers, etc. if it goes on for too much longer.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *