1469 Pacific Avenue Site

The nearly five year fight over the proposed redevelopment of the two-story Nob Hill warehouse at 1469 Pacific Avenue will be continued for at least another couple of weeks.

But with the plans for a two-story addition and conversion of the building into nine condos, nine parking spaces (down from ten), and a restaurant space fronting Pacific having been newly redesigned by Cline Architects and ForumDesign, in response to a Discretionary Review requested by a couple of neighbors, San Francisco’s Planning Commission is poised to approve the project in two weeks time.

1469 Pacific Avenue Rendering

That being said, while the revised design has reduced the mass at the rear of the lot, stepped down the design of the building and created more open space, which the objectors concede has made for a “somewhat more attractive looking” building, “but only if looking from the aerial view,” the two-story addition at the front of the lot remains.

1469 Pacific Avenue Rendering

As such, the objectors remain opposed to the project which they contend will block the light and air of neighboring units and gardens, reducing their livability and quality of life. And of course the added height will also impede the objectors’ views of the Golden Gate Bridge, but views aren’t protected nor objectionable in San Francisco.

1469 Pacific Avenue Rendering

13 thoughts on “New Plans to End a Five-Year Battle over Building up in Nob Hill”
  1. Dear Neighborhood Objectors,

    I’m sorry if you feel a large building nearby will lower your quality of life, but YOU LIVE IN A CITY.

    Those of us that understand THE CITY IN WHICH YOU LIVE needs more housing

  2. Five years of discretionary review process. For nine units.

    Five years adds a lot of expense to rents.

  3. I think the solution’s actually pretty elegant. I hadn’t previously realized that this site was such a large lot, pushing back so deeply into the block. So I think it’s a great and appropriate compromise to have it step down, to preserve light for the rear of the mid-block buildings.

    1. I agree with you; but I think most of the posters on the site – at least the most vocal ones – are loathe to admit anything good can come from a compromise: com-ies, Chamberlain-type appeasement to all the NIMBY’s (aka: people who oppose turning 30,000 people/sq mi neighborhoods into 80,000 psm neighborhoods) and the inalienable right to do whatever they want with their property… ‘cuz it says so in the Constitution (the 10th Amendment’s implicit endorsement of states’ police powers to regulate growth notwithstanding).

      1. If they wanted to preserve their garden lighting and views they could buy the lot and let it sit empty. The sense of entitlement is crazy.

  4. We need to implement guidelines for when an architect designs within the planning code (not the arbitrary one that the commission likes to impose on every project but the actual code). Neighborhood “design reviews” should be withheld. If they decide to breakout of the stipulated code then I would say the neighbors can jump in. It’s my land I should be able to build anything I want obviously within the guidelines of the code. I don’t want to have to get consent from my neighbors.

    1. Keep in mind that the project as proposed and (re)designed requires the approval of a (rear yard) variance, which opens the door for the Planning Commission’s design review and input.

      1. I understand the planning commission should be able to give design feedback in accordance to the their own (written) codes for this particular project and the rear yard. However I was making a general point that, SF gives neighborhood associations way too much power.

        1. Neighborhood associations? These are just individual neighbors! What other large city allows single people to uphold entire developments ?

  5. Oh if San Francisco were able to do away with Discretionary Review and let Development As of Right prevail… we would no doubt see lower cost for rent and purchase because of the elimination of costly neighbor(hood) objectors.

Leave a Reply

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