September 27, 2011

A Year Later, 350 Eureka Returns With Plans For Much More

350 Eureka

We typically won’t feature a property as an "apple" once it’s in contract or has already closed escrow as it promotes a selection bias, but we do like year-over-year data. And two weeks ago a tipster did suggest we keep an eye on this one.

Purchased for $1,403,500 in August 2010, a permit to convert the attic at 350 Eureka into a master suite, renovate the kitchen, add a new garage out front and expand out back has since been filed and plans have been drawn up, but the property returned to the market two weeks ago prior to any of the proposed work.

Listed for $1,495,000 on September 8, the Eureka Valley home went into contract on September 23 but contingencies have yet to be waived. We'll keep you plugged in.

UPDATE (9/28): A plugged-in tipster reports: "This property is now out of contract. Apparently, the potential buyers could not afford the renovations and secure financing."

∙ Listing: 350 Eureka (4/2) 1,720 - $1,495,000 [MLS]

First Published: September 27, 2011 12:00 PM

Comments from "Plugged In" Readers

Adding a new garage? How difficult would it be to get approval? It seems hard enough to simply add a garage under an existing old home.

Posted by: Anna at September 28, 2011 9:51 AM

I looked at this property and the plans. Approval is for the attic expansion and the build out in the rear. The garage change would be over the counter at DBI. It's a fairly nice project, just doesn't pencil for enough profit as a spec house.

Posted by: ryan at September 28, 2011 10:30 AM

How is adding a deck and garage in the front over the counter?

Posted by: mikey woodz at September 28, 2011 12:26 PM

UPDATE: A plugged-in tipster reports: "This property is now out of contract...the potential buyers could not afford the renovations and secure financing."

Posted by: SocketSite at September 28, 2011 12:49 PM

Adding a rear deck and expanding the garage forward (if that's what that means in this property), would require Planning Dept. approvals and 311 neighborhood notifications.

The garage expansion toward the front property line would also involve the Historic Preservation Commission, and would be a difficult challenge.

This would not be handled "over the counter".

Posted by: Modernqueen at September 28, 2011 1:43 PM

The house to the right has expanded the garage forward, with a deck on top, so it might not be contentious to try to do the same thing.

Posted by: steve at September 28, 2011 1:51 PM

Not so much a question of "contentious", but still working through the permit process. Forward garage expansions are allowed that conform to the Residential Design Guidelines.

Posted by: Modernqueen at September 28, 2011 1:58 PM

Contention: The place is just up the street from pushy/wacko architect/homeowner Hauser, who might insist on designing the job.

[Editor's Note: An Architect’s Nightmare And Discretionary Review Irony.]

Posted by: steve at September 28, 2011 2:14 PM

Hmmmm. How does an architect ever "insist" on doing a job?

Don't they have to be hired by a client? What am I missing?

Posted by: Modernqueen at September 28, 2011 2:35 PM

^
Check the link above.

Posted by: steve at September 28, 2011 2:45 PM

I did. old news. and he did not design the neighbors project. he merely suggested designs. big diff.

Posted by: Modernqueen at September 28, 2011 3:16 PM

The seller has a fully approved permit to expand the attic with dormers to make a master bedroom, and to expand the first and second floors into the back yard with decks overlooking the yard on the second floor and the off the master bedroom. The plans are on display in the house. There is no permit to build a garage in front, though the neighbor has done so, so there is precedent and it might get approved separately.

I toured the place and it’s a nice house, in an amazing location between Castro and Noe Valley with view. The sellers have some family issues and have to move. Of note, the house across the street was remodeled with much smaller dormers in the attic and sold for over 2.1M in less than 2 weeks on the market. As always in SF, it’s all about location, location, location. I would be very surprised if this place lasts long.

http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/373-Eureka-St-94114/home/1334349

Posted by: cillia at September 29, 2011 12:14 PM

Having fallen out of contract, the list price for 350 Eureka has just been reduced to $1,450,000. Once again, purchased for $1,403,500 in August 2010 but since permitted for an attic conversion and expansion out back.

Posted by: SocketSite at October 7, 2011 12:00 PM

Two other homes on Eureka now that look nicer (from the photos) and are a little bigger, but are listed for less.

Posted by: A.T. at October 7, 2011 12:24 PM

The location is key. This house is at the crest of the hill and has brilliant views from both all floors. It even has a partial city view from the back of the yard. The other houses on Eureka are over the hill, so to speak, and don't have any views.

Posted by: cillia at October 7, 2011 2:40 PM

The list price for 350 Eureka has just been reduced to $1,395,000. Once again, purchased for $1,403,500 in August 2010 but since permitted for an attic conversion and expansion out back.

Posted by: SocketSite at October 26, 2011 4:09 PM

This is beginning to make more sense to me. I looked at this when it was last on the market, and I was shocked that anyone paid $1.4 for a completely unrenovated home that needed new kitchen, baths, and a lot else. It has a decent view, and potential, but it's also on a very steep hill. At the time (2010) I didn't think it was worth more than about 1.2 (but I'm cheap). A little bit of schadenfreude perhaps, but I'm glad the owner isn't getting bailed out for overpaying in 2010 simply by getting permits.

Posted by: curmudgeon at October 26, 2011 4:24 PM

@ crumudgeon- This house is a great deal, in a great location, particularly for a young family. There were multiple offers around 1.4M when it was purchased in 2010- so the price makes sense. The current sellers aren't flipping it but they do have to move because of issues relating to the family of one partner who wasn't involved in purchase last year. I'm a neighbor and friend and I know they are sad to leave, especially after landscaping the garden, but they have no choice.

Posted by: cillia at October 27, 2011 12:17 PM

Sold for $1,350,000, down $53,500 since August 2010 (4%). About in line with Case Schiller top tier.

[Editor's Note: Plans For More Return Less On Eureka Year-Over-Year.]

Posted by: A.T. at December 6, 2011 4:33 PM

Post a comment


(required - will be published)


(required - will not be published, sold, or shared)


(optional - your "Posted by" name will link to this URL)

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)


Continue Perusing SocketSite:

« S&P/Case-Shiller San Francisco: SFH’s Moderate, Condos Fall In July | HOME | New Designs For Dwellings And Retail At Market And Sanchez »