CFAH

136 Ord in 2008
As a plugged-in reader noted, the Board of Supervisors’ vote on the HIV related condo map appeal for 74-76 Castro was continued to their January 25 meeting.
In terms of other Planning related appeals, however, tomorrow’s Board meeting includes scheduled hearings for appeals of the Planning Department’s granted exemptions from environmental review for the renovation of 10 Lundys Lane and the proposed construction of a new single-family home on the front half of the lot at 136 Ord.
The “charming single-family home…on a large and sunny lot behind a white picket fence” at 136 Ord was purchased for $950,000 in 2008.
San Francisco Board of Supervisors Agenda: January 11, 2011 [sfbos.org]
Does Having HIV Make One Disabled? [SocketSite]
Appeal of Exemption from Environmental Review: 10 Lundys Lane [sfbos.org]
Appeal of Exemption from Environmental Review: 134-136 Ord [sfbos.org]

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    That lot split on Ord is one way to increase the value and get the head back above the water. What would that bare buildable dirt be worth ? $400K at least I’d expect. I don’t know whether such a change would fit into the neighborhood though.

  2. Posted by EBGuy

    MoD, Nobody is ‘splitting a lot’. Over here (on this side of the bay) you need at least 10,000 sq.ft. to do something like that, and the Ord lot is only 3800 sq.ft. This will either be a rental, TIC, or condo if they file a map & other requisite documents. I do get your point about recouping losses, though; necessity is the mother of invention. There goes the neighborhood. Hopefully they keep the white picket fence.

  3. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    Sheesh ! 10000 sq.ft. is a large lot requirement for the split.
    So if this would simply be a second unit on the same APN then they cannot monetize quickly unless they go the TIC route. I don’t even know if that is possible.
    [I appreciate the design of that white picket fence : nice solution for an incline that needs a gate !]

  4. Posted by noearch

    Seriously, you guys like the white picket fence?
    This isn’t Leave it to Beaver, ya know.

  5. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    I should have been more specific. What I liked was the design solution to a picket fence on an incline with a gate.
    Not that there’s anything wrong with picket fences in the city. They fit fine in some neighborhoods. Elsie and Winfield on the west slope of Bernal Hill for example.

  6. Posted by rubber_chicken

    To correct EBGuy:
    Lots can be split if the resultant parcels still meet minimum lot-area requirements per section 121. In this district, min. lot area is 2,500 sq.ft. or 1,750 if within 125′ of an intersection.
    In this case a 3,500 sq.ft. lot will do therefore.

  7. Posted by EBGuy

    r_c, Thanks for the correction. You City people are much less provincial than us folk in the suburbs. Section 121 for those who are interested.
    noearch, “This project will disrupt the historic and visual harmony which now exists on the block.” Show some respect to the picket fence!

  8. Posted by SocketSite

    While the exemption for the renovation of 10 Lundys Lane survived its appeal, the hearing for the proposed development at 136 Ord Street was continued to March 1.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles