1469 Pacific Avenue Site

As views aren’t protected in San Francisco, the official opposition to adding two floors atop the two-story Nob Hill warehouse building at 1469 Pacific Avenue and converting the building into nine condos, with ten parking spaces and a commercial unit below, focuses on the potential loss of “all access to natural sunlight” to adjacent units and the potential “financial hardship for the increased energy bills for light and heat” once said sunlight is lost.

1469 Pacific Rendering

Or in the words of the Pacific Avenue Neighborhood Association, which has been fighting the development for over four years, the proposed project as designed by Cline Architects, which includes a new interior court, is a “massive concrete, rectangular building devoid of any character” which could “negatively impact or create such significant shadows as to destroy existing backyard gardens and to darken McCormick Alley and Pacific Avenue.”

The primary two objectors to the development would like the proposed fourth floor of the project to be eliminated from the plans, which would result in the loss of at least three units but maintain the light, air and objectors’ views downhill towards the Golden Gate Bridge.

But if San Francisco’s Planning Commission heeds the recommendation of the City’s Planning Department this week, the requested Discretionary Review for the 1469 Pacific project will be rejected and the two-story addition be allowed to proceed as proposed.

1469 Pacific Avenue Rendering

69 thoughts on “Battle over Building up in Nob Hill”
  1. This should be the poster child for legislation to rein in NIMBY opposition and appeals. This building is virtually the same mass as older existing buildings on the same block (and even if it were the first of this scale, no 4-story building should face any opposition in S.F., certainly not in this central, heavily urbanized neighborhood) – and it changes a warehouse use to residential, which will improve the neighborhood’s retail appeal and hence walkability.

    1. I can’t believe this has been fought for FOUR YEARS. In most cities buildings go from concept to completion in 4 years.

      1. I know it’s fun to knock on “NIMBYs” and all but if your light was about to get blocked out, you’d be upset too. Why would they not fight it? To avoid pissing off message board complainers? I just don’t see the angle.

          1. ^ this. Sure no one wants their window blocked, but it’s not first-come, forever-served. If you want to prevent your neighbor from building *to the same height as you*, then lobby the city to seize your neighbor’s development rights (in exchange for market-rate compensation).

        1. And I think the idea of light “getting blocked out” is all emotion and no fact. That description brings about imagery of bricks being piled in windows.

          Light and air are everywhere. This neighborhood is full of 4-5 story buildings and is among the most densely built out hoods in the entire city. You dont get to live there and complain about a 4 story building.

          This appeal is all about emotion and the perceived sense of control of the four neighbors which make up PANA. I object to our government being set up in such a way that we cater to the emotional appeals of 4 individuals over housing for 22.

          1. I feel the same way about people who move to Minna Street and then complain about finding sh*t on their doorstep. At the same time, people ‘get’ to complain about whatever they want to complain about. I don’t see how it burdens anyone except the developers for them to try to make some inroads. Though I do agree it is likely futile.

        2. Of course, anyone can fight anything, but it doesn’t mean they will prevail nor does it mean there is any legal merit to their appeal.

          Anybody proposing a development in SF knows they will have a fight on their hands, so they simply factor in the cost of delays and appeals into the overall budget for their project, and then they pass the extra costs on to the buyers/renters once their project is ultimately approved.

          This is one reason why the cost of living is so expensive in SF.

  2. I live right around the corner. I had no idea this was being fought! Unbelievable!
    Are we now allowing people’s personal beliefs to shape our urban fabric – no pretense?

      1. personal views are expressly not protected by our planning code. Light quality is subjective. It is highly unlikely that these people would lose all of their light

        1. I just think you’re being purposefully dense. Nobody wants to be blocked in, no matter what is eventually going to happen. So they obviously think there is a way around it.

          1. No, I’m reflecting what the rules are. The planning code does not protect personal views.

          2. You don’t seem to understand that sometimes things happen that you may feel are wrong, but the legal system (here our zoning structure) shouldn’t give you a recourse. If I told you that your sweater was ugly, that may hurt your feelings, but that doesn’t mean that you can sue me.

  3. I’m shaking my head and laughing at the same time. And we wonder why nothing ever gets done in this city. Crap like this. Just build it and call it a day already.

  4. Are the complainers all Bernie Sanders’ supporters? I can’t help but think every time “progressive values” are mentioned in the national debate, it means SF screwed up values for the whole country.

    1. WT* does this have to do with Bernie Sanders? As it happens, I’d like to see this built in a heartbeat, and I feel the Bern. Mind blown? How about you treat people as individuals instead of trying to fit everything into knee-jerk predetermined labels.

  5. No, only in SF does “progressive values” sometimes mean “preserve SF in amber.” I’m a Bernie Sanders supporter for increased urban density.

      1. I don’t know about that. UCSF is a big donor to the Bernie Sanders. Probably for his universal health care coverage position.

      2. No. Voting for a War Sow like Hillary Clinton (h/t Black Sabbath) who has never met a war she was not an enthusiastic supporter of is outrageous. And, of course, the passengers in the GOP Clown car are all worse.

        1. Now I know what Bill was talking about.

          And, more than anybody, you can blame the Iraq War on the American people.

    1. The same group has been fighting another development on the 1300 block for almost 3 years! There is nothing wrong with a four story building.

  6. I oppose this because I don’t want my views blocked. But I can’t afford to buy the building and keep it as it is so I am lobbying the city to block it and pass on the costs to all San Franciscans in the form of higher housing costs, few supply of housing stock, and gentrification. Because when I say how important sunlight and neighborhood character is, what I really mean is I only care about protecting my view and increasing the value of my home.

    1. Why would someone not care about protecting their view or increasing the value of their home? What are people on this forum smoking?

      1. They are smoking “rational public policy”. Is your point that the ONLY consideration in any public decisions should be enhancing property rights for a small coterie of incumbent wealthy home owners (and tenants)? And that said tiny elite trumps property rights, economic growth, and the need for change in healthy cities?

        OK, then. May I suggest Blackhawk?

        1. You don’t get to suggest Blackhawk to a lifelong San Franciscan, no. Might I suggest Beijing? I don’t understand the apparent personal hate towards people for attempting to defend the desirable qualities of their homestead. I am not on board with the whole growth movement, though, so we are not going to find common ground. But at the same time you won’t be able to call me a “NIMBY” because I am not a hypocrite.

          My point is not about policy at all. It is about toning it down a little, folks, because these people are not trying to change policy (unless you consider setting new precedent policy).

          1. You are not on board with the growth movement, but you are not a NIMBY. right. And in your head being a NIMBY is about being a hypocrite? Look in the mirror. You are a NIMBY regardless of whether or not you are a hypocrite.

          2. I’m not a NIMBY because I’m not for building in the first place. A person who cares about what goes on in their backyard in absence of convictions that are the opposite is just a concerned homeowner, which includes essentially every person in America. NIMBY only applies if you, for example, want homeless shelters built but not near you.

  7. Does the Pacific Avenue Neighborhood Association even exist? I googled the name and I can’t find them. Maybe it’s just a bunch of NIMBYs disguised as a neighborhood group. What have they ever done for the neighborhood, and I don’t mean blocking buildings, I mean getting more police patrols, crosswalks, better lighting, etc.

    1. I live in the neighborhood and they only surface to protest new developments. When the neighborhood needed better safety measures or benefits for struggling small businesses, they are no where to be found.

  8. In answer to my own question, I found a listing on a City Hall directory of neighborhood associations. They don’t seem to have a web page of their own. They are:

    Robyn Tucker
    PANA(Pacific Avenue Neighborhood Assoc.
    7 McCormick
    San Francisco, CA 94109

    So no wonder PANA is opposed. The president lives around the corner from the proposed development!

  9. The only things they have helped the neighborhood is to benefit themselves on McCormack Alley. When they got help rezoning the block with Peskin’s help, I know I and other owners were never notified of the pending changes

    1. Again, why are people supposed to not want to benefit themselves? So they can benefit a Chinese developer? I mean what is the angle, folks?

  10. Family recently received a packet from Pacific Avenue Neighborhood Association asking surrounding neighbors of the development to circulate an enclosed petition opposing the project and to attend the Planning Commission meeting on February 11th. The letter starts out saying “Massive Project at 1469 Pacific will impact light, air, and privacy of more than 100 neighbors”. This letter was also translated in Chinese for the non-English speaking residents. The PANA members are Michelle Murray, Andrew Madden, and Robyn Tucker of McCormack Alley

        1. You’re right.

          There are nutjobs everywhere. Most places they’re ignored. For some reason, here we give them great power

      1. It’s not like their names are top secret information. You become involved in a public debate, you should be “named” and if your position in silly, well then the “shame” is self-inflicted.

        1. I think that’s a really lame position, “Brian M” – woe for the selfish “NIMBYs” who didn’t want their views blocked and stopped all progress. What WOULD be the reason to name them, again? So people can ignore them at parties? Protest outside their house? What a stupid thing to say.

  11. I think you guys have it all wrong here, seriously. Ever heard of “hate the game, not the players”? I do not despise the PANA folks here. In fact, if I were Mr Tucker I would behave exactly the same. The problem is the current permitting landscape that allows a frivolous DR to block/delay a project for so long.

    1. Thanks – a dose of sanity. We really should not be naming individuals, no matter if their names are public record. It is irresponsible and sends the wrong signal.

      1. yes, people should only be anti housing activists under the cover of anonymity. It’s very important that we protect these anti housing people from public scrutiny.

          1. What is the intent of hiding their names? If they have nothing to hide, and did nothing wrong, why does it matter?

  12. Take at least a floor off this plan. The rich developer is gonna make a huge bundle of cash – whether it’s 2, 3 or 4 floors. 9 more luxury condos that 90% of SF can’t buy doesn’t help the City a bit. And if it truly takes away all natural light from neighbors, then of course it should be nixed.

    1. So we should arbitrarily lop off a floor of this building despite it falling entirely within code because ..why exactly? Because you personally feel so?

Leave a Reply

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