The Craziest Frisco Infill Development Scheme Ever: Five Units with Just 3.5 Feet of Frontage – At 1846 Grove AND 1815 Fulton

Presenting 1815-1823 Fulton Street aka 1846 Grove Street – it’s that large parcel that prolly should be part of the backyards of people who live on the block bounded by Fulton, Masonic, Grove, and Ashbury in the 94117. But it’s not, so the plan now is to have this land used for five new units.

Access will be just to the right (east) of Bistro Gambrinus along a 100(!) foot path what’s just 3.5 feet wide.

Captureuhuhuh copy

This was the old plan, with just four units. The lot looks like Oklahoma with the panhandle part pointing upwards:

36d559246e69668bdc66bc8dc9a81534.jpg.max800 copy

So, how do you get your furniture in? Through the 3.5 foot wide access canyon on Fulton. I guess it’s wide enough, but how would get materials to the site? And forget about a garage, right?

Man, when the neighbors find out about this, well, some of them will not be pleased, I promise you.

Hey, if you want to yammer about this plan, come to the Page Branch of your San Francisco Public Library on September 6th, 2017 at 7:30 PM for the mandatory Pre-Application meeting. I’m sure they’ll have plans for the current proposal.

This is Masonic. The back fences of these places are the eastern edge of the access path:

7J7C8904 copy

Oh here it is – this is your view from the sidewalk of Fulton. This is all the frontage you get to share with four other units:

7J7C8908 copy

Existing gate:

7J7C8911 copy

Fulton again:

7J7C8913 copy

And a wide angle view:

7J7C8914 copy

Now let’s go around the block to what I’m guessing is 1846 Grove. I suppose this area wouldn’t change:

7J7C8920 copy

I don’t know what else could be done with this parcel. So I suppose this plan would be the highest and best use. But I’ve never seen anything like it.

Here’s something from 2006, when the plan was to use the Grove side for access:

Capturedfsddgdd

Dear Mr. Teeters: Planning Department staff has reviewed your letter of December 15, 2005, requesting a determination of the procedural requirements for development of an interior lot with a 3’-6” wide pedestrian access to Grove Street. Both proposed schemes involve the construction of two structures of two dwelling units each. Scheme A keeps the lot as it is, while Scheme B subdivides the lots. I have made the following determinations.

1. Scheme A requires the following applications: • A variance under Section 134 for construction in the required rear yard • A variance under Section 151 for the lack of parking • A conditional use application under Section 209.1(g) to develop more than two units on the lot. • Building Permit Application with Section 311 neighbor notification

2. Scheme B requires the following applications: • A variance under Section 134 for construction in the required rear yard • A variance under Section 151 for the lack of parking • A variance under Section 121 for the lack of street frontage • Building Permit Application with Section 311 neighbor notification • Application for subdivision through the Department of Public Works.

This application does not need to be initiated or complete prior to Planning Department approval, however approval will be conditional on subdivision approval.

UPDATE: Early indications are there will be some opposition, to say the least:

ALERTALERTALERT

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

7 Responses to “The Craziest Frisco Infill Development Scheme Ever: Five Units with Just 3.5 Feet of Frontage – At 1846 Grove AND 1815 Fulton”

  1. GCH says:

    This is not smart or good use of space, it looks unsafe. Not every piece of SF real estate can be converted to $$$. Looks like it will get knocked down again just like it did in 2006. Turn it into a garden and give some more back to the environment. See you at the meeting next week.

  2. Smarty Cowper Glantz says:

    Teeter–don’t totter. Stand up (without falling down) and oppose this mad dash to excessive in-fill fill-ins.

  3. sfcitizen says:

    IMO, this parcel is unique. And some of the neighbors are already pissed off…

  4. JKK says:

    I presume this will fail, if they don’t have better access for construction purposes. What are they going to do — airlift the equipment in?? Perhaps us neighbors should chip in together to buy the lot and keep it as is, or make it a community garden.

  5. sfcitizen says:

    I think the plan is One Big Crane. But they could make a deal with property owners on Grove – that’s how I’d do it.

    I don’t know the history here. Why does this block have this layout, while other blocks nearby don’t?

    I think 24th on Noe turned a parking lot into a town square type of deal, with SFGov buying a parcel. Maybe something like that could happen here for a garden. (It’d be a bear managing access though…)

  6. Bruce says:

    Think ADA, fire amd police requirements.

  7. sfcitizen says:

    Yep. You can get around these rules, sometimes, but man this is a tough row to hoe.

Leave a Reply