November 28, 2011
Opposed To The Proposed Expansion Below Over In Noe Valley
A rendering of how the rear of 4366 26th Street over in Noe Valley currently appears above, and as it would look following a proposed expansion below.
The proposed addition would add roughly 650 square feet to the existing 1,650 three-bedroom home, which was purchased for $1,342,000 last November (and referenced by a reader earlier this year), without raising its height or increasing its official bedroom count.
Opposed by the neighbor partially rendered above based on a perceived "invasion of privacy," this week San Francisco’s Planning Commission will weigh-in on the plans for 4366 26th Street. The Planning Department recommends the addition be approved as proposed.
∙ 4366 26th Street Discretionary Review Analysis [sfplanning.org]
∙ No 2006 Repeat For 4381 26th Street In 2010 And Now Back In 2011 [SocketSite]
First Published: November 28, 2011 8:00 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
It seems as if the "invasion of privacy" issue is mutual. Is there a reason that the neighbor who expanded back and downhill first should get priority?
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at November 28, 2011 9:11 AM
Good fences make good neighbors.
Posted by: James at November 28, 2011 9:38 AM
Why on earth does the fence go from 5 feet tall to 12 feet tall for about 4 feet. Does that somehow enhance the privacy from the neighbor's landing?
And while we're on the subject, why no handrails on that stairway. Seems like an awfully long drop.
Posted by: tipster at November 28, 2011 9:53 AM
It is simply an ugly design.
Posted by: Marten at November 28, 2011 10:19 AM
"And while we're on the subject, why no handrails on that stairway. Seems like an awfully long drop."
Because it's rendering of the neighbors house, not anything that is getting built.
Posted by: sparky-b at November 28, 2011 10:25 AM
I personally love the modern design and the open sensation it would generate. I don't see how any of the windows would impede the neighbor's privacy. Is the neighbor planning on sunbathing nude on her steep outdoor steps?
Posted by: TC at November 28, 2011 12:13 PM
If I were the applicant I'd agree to make the fence 12' tall so I wouldn't have to look at the neighbor's ramshackle back deck. And why should someone who has an EXTERIOR staircase to a likely-illegal "bonus room" be entitled to privacy? Do they expect to be able to walk down there naked?
Posted by: katdip at November 28, 2011 12:19 PM
Impede their privacy ... what a freaking joke.
There is already a deck on the back on the building off the top floor that gives unlimited views of whatever the neighbor is doing. The expansion in no way compromises the neighbors privacy any more than it already is.
If you want "privacy" don't live in a dense urban setting.
Posted by: badlydrawnbear at November 28, 2011 1:25 PM
You live in an urban environment; density, and a reduction of privacy is the tradeoff. If you want open space and neighbors who can't peak into your residence, then you should move somewhere rural or suburban. San Francisco is not Walnut Creek, or Western Sonoma County. And that is not a slam, it's just is what it is.
Posted by: marko1332 at November 28, 2011 3:37 PM
so this neighbor would technically be a NITBY... "not in their backyard"
Posted by: James at November 28, 2011 4:53 PM
Wow! is that ugly.
Is SF supposed to be a green city? What's with all the variances that get rid of genuine greenery?
This is going to be a huge, hideous house. Density isn't about taking up every inch of open space, it's about using space wisely. This is neither attractive nor efficient. It's really just wasteful and a way to give the bird (I got my money, so f off!) to everyone else.
Posted by: MCM at November 28, 2011 8:24 PM
The problem is not with the design, it's with SF which is, quite frankly, not open to current architecture design and wastes time and money (not to mention talent) by creating unnecessary red tape and bureaucratic organizations to supposedly "preserve" (aka dictate) neighborhood appearances....yes, it sounds a lot like how Walnut Creek was developed.
Posted by: outwiththeold at November 28, 2011 9:38 PM
Looks like design by compromise: seems like they have tried hard to bring a solution that would not affect the views of both direct neighbors.
If the neighbors oppose this, I would saw the hell with them and design the extension as I really want it.
Posted by: Zefabes at November 29, 2011 7:53 AM
Do you really think this little (350ft or so) addition will make this house huge and hideous? Did you see what it looks like now? It doesn't need a variance, it still won't even take up 1/2 the lot, there is still plenty of hilly green space that won't be very usable.
A big f you, hardly. It's not even a front vertical addition which a bunch of places on the block have.
You sound like someone who really did lose their downpayment money on Linked-in.
Posted by: sparky-b at November 29, 2011 8:23 AM
There is no additional loss of privacy compared to what was there before. Hope this whiny neighbor loses the challenge with great haste.
"Why on earth does the fence go from 5 feet tall to 12 feet tall for about 4 feet"
I was curious about that too. Anyone have an explanation? What would that really block? The only thing I can think of is something very random, such as the sun shining off a shiny object into the house.
Posted by: sfrenegade at November 29, 2011 10:51 AM
Maybe it was 2 options of fence heights for the nieghbor to choose what they liked better.
Posted by: sparky-b at November 29, 2011 10:57 AM
It's really just wasteful and a way to give the bird (I got my money, so f off!) to everyone else.
Personally, when people feel the urge to give me the bird, I appreciate it if they do it in their backyards where I can't see them doing it.
Posted by: BobN at November 30, 2011 11:14 AM
Is the neighbor planning on sunbathing nude on her steep outdoor steps?
I sure hope not. she's been living there for 50 years...
Posted by: fancy rental at December 1, 2011 2:39 AM