STOP BUILDING IN BACKYARDS! STOP THE CONSTRUCTION AT “1846 GROVE STREET”

STOP BUILDING IN BACKYARDS! STOP THE CONSTRUCTION AT “1846 GROVE STREET”

0 have signed. Let’s get to 500!
At 500 signatures, this petition is more likely to be featured in recommendations!
jeffrey masko started this petition to San Francisco Residents and

We the neighbors of the block bounded by the 600 block of Masonic, the 1800 block of Fulton, the second block of Ashbury and the 1800 block of Grove, and those of the surrounding NOPA neighborhood strenuously object to the proposed building construction of 5 units slated for “1846  Grove Street” with the actual entry on 1821 Fulton Street. This lot abuts the backyard of 36 buildings with numerous residents consisting of over a hundred renters and owners who will be directly affected by the construction and resulting “sardine housing” planned by owner and architect Troy Kashanipour.  The parcel is unfit for building living units and was never meant to be utilized as such as evidenced by the fact that this is the only one of its kind in San Francisco, and in every other block acts as an open space for yards in the city.[i] Attempts to create a permanent open space have been rebuffed by the developers. Furthermore, they have also revised their original plans for 2 units to now ask for building regulations to be waived to let them build 5 multiple dwelling units, even when evidence shows this density to be detrimental to those directly and indirectly affected.[ii]

There are also multiple safety concerns and complications related to  ultra-high-density housing that have been found to be unsafe for human health.[iii]  Building regulations that would be waived for several crucial areas include a fire entrance that would be the only exit of those living there while first responders, including firefighters arrive with heavy equipment. Furthermore, the 100-yard entrance of only 3-feet-wide was given a pass on ADA regulations. The effect on the general neighborhood would include more than a year and a half of constant construction, with no long-term parking solution, to nearly constant traffic made up of Uber and Lyft doubling congestion as the SF Examiner has noted. Dangerously, the project may lead and pave the way for more “unconventional” housing solutions that increase ultra-high density pockets of housing.[iv] In this case, the plans are only for market rate housing. It is apparent from the plans that putting housing in backyards is not a tenable solution to the housing problems of the bay area and that is not constructed for long term tenants, but renters associated with short term leases.

We are asking renters, home owners, and the businesses we use to join us  in our efforts to have our voices heard about development that directly affects our lives, the lives of those in the surrounding blocks, and the short, mid, and long term health of neighborhood at large. We believe in housing that considers the neighborhood, but also is in line with short, medium- and long-term plans both citywide and regional that work to implement housing solutions not predicated on profit alone. Contact us for more information or sign below to show that you support sane housing solutions, not real estate profiteers who are taking advantage and profit from our housing shortage under the guise of helping it.

Join us at the planning commission hearing on December 12th to have your voice heard!

[i] Howley, P., Scott, M., & Redmond, D. (2009). Sustainability versus liveability: An investigation of neighbourhood satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 52(6), 847, Turok, I. (2016). Housing and the urban premium. Habitat International, 54, 234-240. Ikeda, Sanford, How Land-Use Regulation Undermines Affordable Housing (11/04/2015).


[ii] Wood, L., Hooper, P., Foster, S., & Bull, F. (2017). Public green spaces and positive mental health–investigating the relationship between access, quantity and types of parks and mental wellbeing. Health & place, 48, 63-71, Hemphill, L., Berry, J., & McGreal, S. (2004). An indicator-based approach to measuring sustainable urban regeneration performance: part 1 And 2, conceptual foundations and methodological framework. Urban studies, 41(4), 725-755.

 
[iii] Davern, M., Gunn, L., Whitzman, C., Higgs, C., Giles-Corti, B., Simons, K., ... & Badland, H. (2017). Using spatial measures to test a conceptual model of social infrastructure that supports health and wellbeing. Cities & Health, 1(2), 194-209., Francis, J., Wood, L. J., Knuiman, M., & Giles-Corti, B. (2012). Quality or quantity? Exploring the relationship between Public Open Space attributes and mental health in Perth, Western Australia. Social science & medicine, 74(10), 1570-1577.

[iv] The last measured population density for Los Angeles, CA was 8,428 in 2017; the last measured population density for San Francisco, CA was 18,438 in 2017. https://www.opendatanetwork.com/entity/1600000US0667000/San_Francisco_CA/geographic.population.density?year=2017 “Uber and Lyft are causing even more traffic congestion in San Francisco than local experts once thought.” https://www.sfexaminer.com/the-city/uber-and-lyft-traffic-impacts-double-sfs-own-estimates/

 

 

 

0 have signed. Let’s get to 500!
At 500 signatures, this petition is more likely to be featured in recommendations!