San Francisco Overlook Site

On the boards since 2004, the plans to build 34 dwelling units on the northwest slope of Mount Sutro have been dusted off and are making their way through Planning.

San Francisco Overlook Site

Twenty-four of the 34 units would be constructed as duplexes (with a two-story upper unit above a two-story lower unit) in 12 structures. A single building with ten townhomes would be constructed on the western portion of the site.

San Francisco Overlook Site Rendered.jpg

The proposed buildings would range between approximately 16 to 40 feet in height above the new street grade. The buildings would be four stories, with one to four stories above street level, and at the rear, down-sloping portion of the project site, at most two stories below street level.

The duplex buildings would have a total of 32 parking spaces, of which 26 would be in the form of two-car stackers, and six would be independently accessible, and the parking garages would contain room for bicycle parking. The townhome building would have 36 spaces in an enclosed parking garage, consisting of three nine-car rotating stackers and nine independently accessible spaces, and a minimum of six bicycle parking spaces.

San Francisco Overlook Rendering

If approved, construction of the “San Francisco Overlook” project will take an estimated two years to complete. A public hearing on the project is currently scheduled for June 7.

16 thoughts on “Dusting Off Plans For New Dwellings On The NW Slope Of Mount Sutro”
  1. Sorry to be dense, but not quite sure where these will go. Access from Crestmont or from 5th Ave? I think the picture is showing a cart path behind one of the UCSF facility buildings (maybe the power plant?) but I can’t quite tell.
    [Editor’s Note: As proposed and rendered above, access would be by way of Crestmont Drive. “The site contains a dirt dead-end road that follows the contour of the hill going west from near the north end area of Crestmont Drive. The dirt road is [currently] blocked from vehicular access by a chain at the east end of the project site at Crestmont Drive.”]

  2. are these apartments or condos? market rate or BMR or some component of both? Any talk of size or starting price?

  3. Too car-centric, especially given its proximity to UCSF Parnassus and the Inner Sunset. Rights of way permitting, a staircase down to the nearest street ought to be part of the project. It’s closest to 5th street in the Kirkham Heights housing area, but there’s definitely a right-of-way down to Warren Dr., parallel to Oakhurst Ln.
    And like the houses at the end of Crestmont, they stick out from below like a sore thumb. Are trees below the site, or along the blank wall at the end, too much to ask for?

  4. I ride my bike across the Clarendon-Crestmont-Warren line often, and if I’m connecting issues properly the neighborhood has had signs up against this development for years. I’m surprised it made it through.

  5. It’s true that the neighborhood – Forest Knolls, is trying to fight the project. The hillside has been unstable in the past (there have been mudslides), plus all auto traffic will have to enter from Crestmont, a rather long and winding dead end, which would get longer, windier, and busier.

  6. All those tech workers filling up the office space downtown need to live somewhere. Either we start building up the hillside or we start added density to the rest of the city.

  7. Or the bubble bursts and they go scurrying back to whence they came. Deja vu all over again? Surprising the number of fools who forget so quickly.

  8. This may be a tough battle, but I think they may have a chance of getting this built. Anyway, they have a right, as long as they do it safely and to the codes.
    What’s the problem?

  9. Oh my goodness! Someone from out of town wants to come here and invest millions of their dollars in our city! It must be stopped! Go see Detroit – they perfected it.

  10. “Or the bubble bursts and they go scurrying back to whence they came. Deja vu all over again? Surprising the number of fools who forget so quickly.”
    Yeh that did great things for the supply and demand equation last time. They were practically giving property away after the bust

  11. Didn’t a SFR residence spectacularly collapse about here some years ago because of the unstable hillside?

  12. It’s true that the neighborhood – Forest Knolls, is trying to fight the project. The hillside has been unstable in the past (there have been mudslides)…

    And the developer understands this and is taking the appropriate action while designing the project. Do the people in Forest Knolls who are opposing the project really think that this project is going to be built with parking garage(s) but without proper measures taken to stabilize the hillside? Seriously? Or are they just NIMBYs?
    Protecting townhomes from mudslides isn’t rocket science in 2012. I don’t think it is unreasonable to assume that the developer either has or is going to hire a competent civil engineering firm.

  13. Looks like the chief opponents are The Crestmont–Mt.Sutro–Forest Knolls Neighborhood Preservation Coalition, which has been opposed since the project’s inception. You can see a summary of their objections here, but other than the one “sflee” mentions above, they mostly boil down to incumbent homeowners not wanting more traffic or competition for street parking by new residents. What else is new.

  14. Solution-All the homeowners on Crestmont tear their houses down and create more park! This issues is really I have my poorly planned development so don’t build anything near me. I have always wondered who would want to live on that street.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *