How Not To Add A Garage (Unless You Hate Your Neighbors)

oh, please MOD! you know damn well an architect was never part of this hideous little shack of a garage.
I do love the attempt at Greek style ornamentation with the planters. Good start. wrong solution.
But you cannot use the front yard as a parking pad, curb cut or not. Planning code does not allow parking in the front yard setback. That is absolutely a horrendous solution. Unfortunately you see it a lot. There are several in Noe V that are just pure trailer trash ways to park.
The house is certainly cheap but needs tons of major work.

I didn’t know that planning code would disallow parking on a pad in front of the house. I agree that it doesn’t look good though it would still be better than this funky little box. A basement garage would be best though I’m not sure whether that is feasible.
What sort of major work do you think needs to be done here? From the photos it seems fairly well cared for, just in need of refreshing.

I’d guess that a basement garage probably was technically feasible, but the owner didn’t have the better part of half a million to three quarters of a million dollars to add one. So she went with this half-baked approach. Usually when you see absurd “solutions” like this one it’s due to the owner being cheap or not having the funds available to do an adequate job.
For the same reason, I doubt seriously a licensed architect was involved with this project.

In reality, we all know that an architect was not involved in any of the additions of this little house.
Most likely the garage and rear additions were done in the 40’s or 50’s, long before there was any semblance of a planning code. Things just got built back then with little permit involvement or oversight. That’s just how it was.
Fast forward to today, and the planning and building codes are in place largely to “protect the health, safety and welfare” of the public. The planning code, although at times incoherent and bureaucratic, seeks to improve our neighborhoods and streetscape. Certainly this little rat shack of a garage would never happen today.
And yes, the planning code does strictly forbid parking in the front yard setback, and not allowing any type of concrete pad either. Today they require landscape and plant materials. Make good sense for our neighborhoods.

This block of Clay St always cracks me up with its parking:
http://www.mapjack.com/?fDBnW5QybFND

SF Planning Code: Section 132 (f):
No motor vehicle, trailer, boat or other vehicle shall be parked in the (defined) front yard setback, except as permitted by Section 136.
Section 136 defines various architectural obstructions, such as fences, bay windows, steps, fire escapes that are allowing with dimensional requirements within the front yard setbacks.
Vehicles are NOT.
Garages are allowed (new construction) with extensive height and width restrictions.
As for the notion of “fake curb cuts” by Alai..ah, let’s not go there. I do hope you were not serious.
All we need are more “fake” or shall we say “illegal” things constructed in our fair city.
Once, again anon: you have NO idea what you are talking about. Why give out false information? The SF planning code is online for free for all to read and download. Go to sfgov.org.

By “fake” I merely meant that it would be a red-marked zone which would be tow-away upon request of the owner, just as curb cuts are now, but with no physical changes at all (except paint).

I lived in that brown house next door for 6 years and the box of a “garage” just covers the same sloping driveway with a basement garage that every other house on the block has. If you’re buying this for 600k you’d bet a far better ROI by turning the huge basement into a second unit, as many otherwise identical houses on the block have done.
This house belonged to the painter Wayne Thiebaud, although he lived in Sac and so rarely stayed there. It was opened up to the narrow lot on the side, which has a small building in the back that was his studio. That doesn’t appear to be part of this sale, however.

“By “fake” I merely meant that it would be a red-marked zone which would be tow-away upon request of the owner, just as curb cuts are now, but with no physical changes at all (except paint).”
I believe DPT can technically ticket or tow even the owner of the house if there is red DPT paint. You are better off not having the red paint, although some enterprising homeowners have tried non-official red paint.

oh, so now you’re also know as “alai”? ok.
The idea has fake and cheating written all over it.
Just own up to it. The red painted curb must be put there by DPT for a legitimate reason.

Bonus points to Pedestrianist for coming up with the deets on this place. I wonder whether having been owned by a famous painter will trigger historical status.
I find it amusing that Pedestrianist had lived steps away from a pedestrian over-crossing.

Oh, I realize it’s a somewhat radical proposal. I just don’t think that it’s right, when street parking is in such high demand, that a property owner should automatically get a reserved curb cut just for installing a garage (which is just as likely to be used for storage as actual parking). It’s like the city is giving a bonus for doing something which is contrary to its stated principles (of transit first, and of historic preservation of buildings).
Instead, garage owners should be allowed to reserve the spot in front of the entrance if they desire, but only with payment of market rates for the street parking which they gain exclusive control over. And once you’ve done that, there’s no reason not to extend this ability to property owners without a garage, the aim being to prevent this sort of thing:
http://maps.google.com/maps?client=opera&q=2400+washington+st&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=2400+Washington+St,+San+Francisco,+California+94115&gl=us&ll=37.788878,-122.441468&spn=0.012684,0.018561&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=37.788868,-122.441612&panoid=zefuGqsGu8Z26Ny4UgLuUw&cbp=12,347.06,,0,1.98

“By “fake” I merely meant that it would be a red-marked zone which would be tow-away upon request of the owner, just as curb cuts are now, but with no physical changes at all (except paint).”
DOT will not tow a vehicle in homeowner’s curb cut unless the homeowner (or tenant) can show that the garage is a functional garage (aka, there’s room for a car in there). They will ticket though.

condoshopper, I believe that as long as you are not protruding into the sidewalk, you’re ok parking in your driveway.
I don’t know the code as well as Noearch does…perhaps it is technically illegal, but never prosecuted if it is.
But you can certainly be ticketed for blocking sidewalk access..even a little bit….that’s an ADA issue. A lot of people do it though, but parking enforcement will respond to complaints or even sometimes ticket on their own (they seem to periodically go on enforcement sweeps when the matter gets out of hand).

“Also to red curbs?”
You definitely pay a fee for red curbs. I think it’s Around $150 — some for the application and some for the paint. You have to pay to get it repainted too, if it fades.
“DOT will not tow a vehicle in homeowner’s curb cut unless the homeowner (or tenant) can show that the garage is a functional garage (aka, there’s room for a car in there).”
I think sometimes they’ll even check if it’s being used for a garage — e.g. if you have a two car garage that has a double-wide curb cut, they may even check if two cars regularly park there.

In that streetview of Clay Street, it looks like the bricked-over yard has red paint on the curb marking the “driveway”.

Your example, lol, is certainly real.
But it’s non-conforming and not to the current Planning Code.
Most likely that was installed years ago, and before the current code restrictions. I can see examples of similar parking all over Noe.
And yes, DPT will certainly ticket you even if you park in your own driveway AND your car is overhanging the sidewalk.
It’s both about the parking laws, and also about common courtesy to pedestrians. I have seen moms with strollers here in Noe have to walk out in the damn street to get around a car blocking the sidewalk. Not cool. Not legal.

Take lol’s example. Look at the neighbor to the left– he built a proper garage, which no doubt cost many tens of thousands. Now, which is the better result, and for whom?
The owner? The guy on the left gets a nice covered garage and some storage space, but has to pay tens of thousands more.
The city? Gets some construction permit fees and taxes on the labor. Ultimately benefits by a few thousand extra, I suppose, from the guy on the left.
The public? Either way they lose a street parking spot. IMO, the big garage addition, though about as nice as it could possibly be, is much uglier than the unchanged house on the right.
So let the thing on the right happen. Let the city charge a sizable fee for allowing the curb cut, and everyone ends up better off– it’s still cheaper for the owner, nicer, and better for the city.
In fact, take it one step further: the owner’s goal is to have a reserved spot, which is achieved by the red zone on the street alone, regardless of whether or not it leads to a garage or parking pad. So charge the owner a fraction of the cost of constructing a garage, paint the curb red, and everyone’s a winner, except the garage constructing companies, who can find something better to do.
Note that I’m not talking about $150 for the fee, which is a trivial sum for a reserved parking spot. I’m talking about a fee that’s more in line with what people would actually pay for a street parking spot– probably well over a thousand a year.
Also, I actually don’t drive, and I wouldn’t benefit from this proposal, personally. I’d like to see a less car-reliant city. I just see people buying up nice, old-school San Francisco houses and punching a big ugly hole in their sides, and it seems so pointless and so easily avoidable (since the owners would probably be satisfied with a red zone and no garage, even with a very high permit cost–but today the only way to get a red zone is to build that garage). These garages will likely stay there for the next century, and are a permanent subsidy to the automotive infrastructure, regardless of improvements to Muni or walkability or cycling. A red curb, however, can be revisited in ten years, and the entire cost can go toward, e.g., making Muni better– maybe the owner will no longer need the parking, or the price can be adjusted to reflect the changing situation.

Here’s a house right across the street. It’s not hard to imagine the owner–or especially a new buyer– mulling over a garage addition. He’d likely make like Cole St. with a big box and corresponding driveway and red zone, wiping out that garden– but wouldn’t it be better for all concerned if he could just have the red zone, keep the garden, and pay the city a nice premium?
Alternately (and maybe more workably), the city should just significantly reduce the number of residential parking permits by increasing their price (maybe a Dutch auction for a fixed number of permits for each neighborhood, so the number of permits doesn’t exceed the number of spaces). If a permit came with a reasonable assurance of available parking, it would justify its cost, and the need for a garage would be much less pressing. Plus, again, the proceeds could be used to fund alternatives for people who are priced out.
Anyway, that’s my hobby-horse and I’m riding it!

Well…….some good thoughts perhaps. However:
The house across the street with the red garage door has a nice front garden AND a garage. So, both are possible.
Also: One can build a garage at the front of a property (in most cases) and engineer it for a green,living roof. Again: garage and garden are possible.
What the photos show and I rail against all the time here in Noe is this: notice the large amount of concrete sidewalk and the absence of curbside planting. One of the worst aspects in SF overall for our pedestrians and street character. Also the number of houses without a street tree in front. Noe V is as guilty of that as in the Sunset or Richmond.
I love front gardens and curbside planting. My own house has 7 trees (corner property) with extensive curbside planting. Trying to get neighbors to do the same thing is almost impossible.
But we keep trying.

noearch,
Had you done your own research (about 2 minutes on sfgov), you’d have noticed that the curb cut and surface parking I mentioned was permitted in 2003.
Alai,
I don’t get the point. This person used to park in the street. Not he parks his car in his driveway. 0-sum game.
Also, that house across the street you mention has a steep incline. A lot of material to move. And this is bedrock. The family who lived there a few years ago used to have 3 cars, all parked around the neighborhood. Talk about a big switcheroo before each street cleaning day. Had they decided to build a garage (at great expense), they’d have removed one street parking space thanks to – gasp – a curb cut, as well as 3 cars. It would have been a big positive for the block.

I don’t get the point. This person used to park in the street. Not he parks his car in his driveway. 0-sum game.
Well, 0-sum except for the loss of a front garden. And he’s unusually lucky– others need to pour a huge amount of money into a garage. Overall, it’s a net loss.
Also, that house across the street you mention has a steep incline. A lot of material to move. And this is bedrock. The family who lived there a few years ago used to have 3 cars, all parked around the neighborhood. Talk about a big switcheroo before each street cleaning day. Had they decided to build a garage (at great expense), they’d have removed one street parking space thanks to – gasp – a curb cut, as well as 3 cars. It would have been a big positive for the block.
Ok, so this particular family could’ve freed up two spaces, and all it would cost is $100,000 and another one of these for everyone to look at. Will that make parking easier for everyone else? Maybe a little, but I suspect that we’ve reached the point where the main factor determining how many people own cars is “how easy will it be for me to park it”. In other words, if a bunch of people build garages and the parking situation goes from “really bad” to “pretty ok”, then a bunch of other people will get cars (remember, 30% of San Franciscans are in 0-car households) and the situation will go right back to “really bad”. And the family would still have been out $100,000.
Better to cap the number of parking permits. To distribute them, you can use a dutch auction, or even “cap-and-trade” where if someone new wants a permit they have to buy it from someone else. The proceeds can be put into improving the local Muni lines, or, if you prefer, simply replace other local taxes.
This would benefit everybody who searches for a parking spot– even the 3-car family (and they could make a rational decision about whether they really need 3 cars, or whether they would rather spend their money on something else).
Here’s a (long) paper about an attempt to do something like that in an (admittedly very car-dependent) SoCal university.

Alai, this is a fantastic idea. Would require legislative changes, but could save our streetscapes and the cost and hastle of garage constructionn. In our denser neighborhoods, it would be nice to eventually allow existing garages to be converted to living space. That’s not how the planning code works now, but in places where lots of people ride transit, bike, and walk, it’s a great possibility that could also allow property owners to increase their home values.