As proposed, the 2,026 square foot two-bedroom home at 1710 Diamond would be razed, the 121 by 71 foot lot would be subdivided into four, and four three-story single-family homes over two-car garages would rise across the site.
As proposed, 1710 Diamond Street, which would be the northernmost of the four new dwellings, would measure approximately 3,709 square feet, and would include a garage at grade level, a great room at the first floor that accommodates kitchen, dining, family, and living rooms, with a small powder room and a deck facing Diamond Street. Two bedrooms, two full baths, and a sitting room would be provided on the second floor, and a master bedroom with a study, master bath, and front deck on the third story.
The proposed new dwelling at 1718 Diamond Street would also measure three stories above the garage at street level, and would provide approximately 3,773 square feet of living space with a similar configuration and distribution of bedrooms and living rooms as that proposed at 1710 Diamond Street, including a main living floor above the garage level, two bedrooms on the second floor, and a master suite on the third floor.
The new dwelling unit at 1728 Diamond Street would be three stories above grade with approximately 3,771 square feet of space including the garage. Like the other dwellings, it, too, would have a two?car garage at grade level, with a first floor with an open plan that accommodates a kitchen, dining room, living room, and family room, as well as a powder room and a front deck. The second floor includes two bedrooms, a sitting room, and two full bathrooms, while the third floor includes a master suite with a study and a front deck. It is suggested that the secure garages will not only stop parked cars from blocking the street but also help get the residents the cheapest car insurance possible as their cars would be protected.
As proposed, 1738 Diamond Street would similarly be three stories over a garage, with approximately 4,093 square feet of living space, including a two?car garage. On the first level above the garage are the kitchen, family room, dining room, and living room, as well as a powder room. The second story provides two bedrooms, two bathrooms, and a sitting room, and the third floor includes the master bedroom with a master bath and a front deck.
Although no neighbors oppose the project, and the Planning Department doesn’t oppose the demolition of the current structure, the Department does recommend a few modifications to what’s proposed, including the addition of a “one-foot recess for the narrower vertical element on the façade in order to gain greater articulation on the façade,” simplifying the materials at and around the garage level, and increasing the proposed unit count to six dwellings (which the project sponsors oppose).
? The 1710 -1738 Diamond project as proposed [sfplanning.org]
Can anyone comment on what “simplifying the materials” means, or what Planning goal it forwards? I would think that increasing visual interest at the street level would generally be a good thing.
Yeah I was also baffled about that “simplifying materials” recommendation.
Interesting that the developers oppose the 6 unit recommendation. I guess that’s an indication that the developers believe that they can profit more from 4x 3000 sq.ft. units than from 6x 2000 sq.ft. homes. Either that or they’re concerned that the neighbors will oppose the 6x plan and would prefer to avoid that headache.
No, it’s to be expected that they would oppose six versus four: http://sf-moh.org/index.aspx?page=308
Wow. The socketsite editor didn’t even highlight the areas in the discretionary review analysis that would have prodded the libertarian commenters on this site to come out and start howling about overreach by planning and the social engineering policies of The City. Here, let me help out on that front.
When I read the final sentence of the above post, “…increasing the proposed unit count to six dwellings (which the project sponsors oppose)”, my first through was that a four unit project would be preferable if the owner’s going to live in one unit and rent out the others, because that’s the number-of-units threshold over which all kinds of laws kick in which increase hassles for the landlord. There’s also the financing angle to consider.
But then I read this, from pg 06 of the above-linked .pdf file:
And it gets better still, “free market” fundamentalists! The proposed project, it seems, features too much parking for the socialists who wrote current city planning policies:
Later on in the document, it becomes clear that the project sponsor does plan on living in one of the units, but doesn’t plan on renting the others; instead, they are supposed to be sold individually; I suppose as condos.
Cue the commenters howling about the injustice being done to Mr. Quan, the project sponsor, by the heavy hand of local government in 4, 3, 2, 1…
The Milkshake of Despair wrote:
In addition to what I posted above, yes, Mr. Quan was trying to placate the NIMBY neighbors. From pg. 02 of his response letter (pg. 22 of the acrobat file):
In addition to all of the above, he also doesn’t want to build more units because doing so would require a redesign he says that he can’t afford in general, and perhaps require the installation and maintenance of an elevator, which he doesn’t want to include.
… 0
2 cars per unit. Where does he think this is? America?
“As proposed, the project provides an excessive amount of (non‐tandem) off‐street parking.”
I find it hard to believe that anyone can call two spaces “excessive”. We are not in any hurry to move, but we have started looking for a place on the Peninsula and we would like to find a home with four (non-tandem) garage spaces for my car, my wife’s car, our SUV and a garage for toys and bikes (I have three bikes, my wife has three bikes and the baby has two different trikes, and I’m sure with more kids we will have more bikes and trikes). We keep the boat in a garage up at Tahoe and the race car lives in its enclosed trailer parked behind a friend’s business in Marin)…
The back yards of all these units back up to public housing.
Thanks anon.ed and Brahma for pointing out the five unit threshold that triggers the BMR requirement. That certainly explains the developer’s motivation to build just four. The two car parking attribute doesn’t seem excessive though limiting to one per unit would not affect the success of this project.
“However, by increasing the unit count to six from four, a BMR unit will also be required”
Sneaky socialists! People purchasing a 3,700+SF single-family home need subsidizing from City taxpayers?! Don’t they know that by allowing the owner to sell the units at market rate, they buyers will be better able to help support the City’s $110M habit for social services to house, feed, and clothe the poor, homeless, and disabled — for which we still have people on the street in return.
Brahma wrote:
“my first through was that a four unit project would be preferable if the owner’s going to live in one unit and rent out the others, because that’s the number-of-units threshold over which all kinds of laws kick in which increase hassles for the landlord.”
Please explain. My understanding is that Proposition I eliminated the “4 units or less, one of which is landlord occupied” exemption from rent control back in the 90’s. Not to mention, this is new construction – local rent increase and eviction controls don’t apply regardless of the number of units.
And why are you referring to the units as “condos”? The development clearly proposes the construction of 4 “single-family homes”.
Joe, I wasn’t thinking of rent control at all, just a lot of other rules and regulations that apply statewide. And I did know that new construction wouldn’t be subject to rent control.
“condos” was a little bit of attempted aesthetic commentary on the design; the above rendering makes the project look like any other modernist condo project that was built in the last six years. You’re correct that the project sponsor refers to them as “single-family homes”, but when I think if SFHs, I don’t think of units like those shown in the above rendering that share walls, perhaps “townhomes” would have been more accurate.
Brahma, I’m still curious….what state laws are you referring to?
I just threw up all over my zoning review.
Interesting that the photo doesn’t show the site well. It’s more of a grove of trees than it is just an ugly little house with a big front yard. Until the public housing was built in the 1970s, this hillside was part of a large grove of redwood trees and conifers, like those few that remain, running from the quarry that’s now Christopher Park to Castro street.
So much for the city fostering a green environment.
Who is Mr. Chan, the “project sponsor?” Anyone who believes Mr. Quan intends to live in one of the homes is falling for an old play. That said, why insist on six when four is already a lot? Why insist that a developer take on more debt? That doesn’t make sense at all.
As they say location, location, location. From Section 121 of the planning code:
In all other zoning use districts: 2,500 square feet; except that the minimum lot area for any lot having its street frontage entirely within 125 feet of the intersection of two streets that intersect at an angle of not more than 135 degrees shall be 1,750 square feet.
Note that three of the subdivided lots are within 125 feet of the intersection so they only need to be 1,750 square feet. The last lot is much larger as it has to be 2500 sq.ft. The developer just squeaked by with ~700 sq.ft. to spare — impressive! BTW, bought for $2.2 million in 2006.
Christopher Park? I thought that was called Billy Goat Hill Park.
I live near by and we always call it that.