Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds Planning Commission’s denial of demolition and new-construction permits for 673–675 40 Fourth Ave.
Summary
After extensive testimony from Planning staff, neighbors, and the project sponsor, the Board of Appeals voted 3–2 to uphold the Planning Commission’s denial of demolition and related permits for the 1924 building at 673–675 40 Fourth Ave, citing rent‑control preservation, neighborhood character and concerns about the timing and adequacy of the appellant’s soundness report.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Jan. 13 upheld the Planning Commission’s denial of demolition and two related permits for the lot at 673–675 40 Fourth Avenue, voting 3–2 to sustain the three denials.
Planning Department staff told the board the project sponsor’s soundness report contained flaws and that staff’s site visit found the existing building to be sound. Planning recommended discretionary review and modifications rather than demolition, noting the property is subject to rent control and that demolition would remove existing rent‑controlled housing.
Appellant representative Gus Fowler (project sponsor’s agent) asserted that a March 2007 Sanders soundness report had been submitted earlier and argued demolition and two new two‑unit buildings would add housing on a large lot. Neighbors and Section 14 parties, represented by architect Tom Davik and others, testified the building is occupied, historically intact and suitable for repair; they also raised concerns about neighborhood scale and the loss of affordable units.
Commissioners debated whether the Planning Commission’s decision was reached appropriately, weighed competing policy goals (infill housing versus preservation of rent‑controlled stock), and questioned the adequacy and timing of the soundness report. Commissioner Kendall Goh moved to uphold the Planning Commission’s denial of demolition and the board voted 3–2 to uphold all three denials.
Why it matters: The decision preserves existing rent‑controlled housing and sets a precedent that late or incomplete soundness analyses and neighborhood character concerns can weigh heavily in appeals of demolition approvals.
What happens next: The appellants may seek alternative design solutions or further discretionary review; the Planning Commission’s recommendations and the record will guide any revisions.
