2785V Diamond Street

Billed as a “vacant lot zoned (for a two unit building) in the Glen Park Area” with views for only $199,900, the listing for “2785 Diamond Street” also casually mentions that the buyer is “advised to investigate [the] potential use of this property,” a piece of property which is actually a stub 914-square-foot parcel adjacent to the two-unit building which was constructed at 2785-2787 Diamond.

If you happen to have some ideas or draft plans for the site, feel free to send them our way (tips at socketsite.com). And no, we’re not expecting a bidding war.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by Karl

    I’d buy it if I was one of the neighbors.

    • Posted by confused renter

      What’s the point?

      The size severely limits what can be developed. Save the the $200k and enjoy the free yard.

  2. Posted by Dave

    Would a building be allowed here? The front footage looks like under 20 feet across.Unless this is a photo of the back of the lot.

    But plea, this is ridiculous – pave every square foot of SF over. Like who needs any open space at all.

    On a related note, I have a long backyard – 120 feet. It abuts two other backyards and there is a private road coming up to the rear. Someone wanted to buy 40 feet of my lot and 30 feet of the other lots and build a home. Yeah right.

    So this is not unheard of I guess.

    • Posted by BobN

      That’s exactly how we got all the “plant name” streets in Hayes Valley, no?

  3. Posted by c_q

    assessed value is only $4063, so $199k seems a bit of a premium.

    maybe you can pitch a tent on it if that’s not illegal in SF (considering homeless camp on public land and that’s OK, you should be able to camp on your own land)

    • Posted by Ivoryhouse

      ROTFL! So true.

    • Posted by RobBob

      If you can park for free on some city streets then surely you could buy this to park your RV or camper permanent residence.

  4. Posted by EBGuy

    Last time I went by this lot in Berkeley someone was using it for a car park.

  5. Posted by Futurist

    Not buildable by planning code standards.

    • Posted by bananas

      Could you reference which section of the code makes it not buildable?

      • Posted by Futurist

        No. But essentially it would involve front and side set backs, rear yard open space; Possible height limits as well.

        If somebody really thinks they are going to park an RV or trailer on this tiny lot, good luck with that fantasy: and dealing with electrical feed, water supply and sewage.

        • Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

          Those are just words on paper written by humans. Dontcha think those same humans might allow an exception for this unique case? Especially if it is zoned R1.

          • Posted by Futurist

            Yea…. words on paper…meaningless I guess, huh?

            There are always exceptions and interpretations. That’s also part of the code. Being zoned R-1 doesn’t mean the owner gets a free ride. But the issues of electrical, water and sewage are put in place for the “health, safety and welfare” of the public. As it should be.

            And front setbacks relate to adjacent properties; perfectly logical.

            I know all you code haters would like us to just be a free society where people can do anything to their property.

            And I assume you’re ok living next to that approach?

          • Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

            Did I say “meaningless”? Or did I say that exceptions can be made for unusual cases?

        • Posted by BobN

          A front set back when no one else on the block has one… ah, “planning”.

          • Posted by bananas

            There isn’t a fixed front setback – it’s an average of the neighbors – makes sense.

        • Posted by JR "Bob" Dobbs

          I think you could fit a Tardis on it, with all the setbacks, and be to code. Would provide plenty of room inside too.

      • Posted by Code Nerd

        Planning Code Section 121 requires a 25′ minimum lot width, 2,500 minimum lot size, and at least a 16′ street frontage. This lot seems to have hit the trifecta.

        • Posted by Chris M

          Those requirements are for a “new” lot that is being created. This lot looks perfectly buildable. There are tons of lots that are substandard that are built upon quite regularly.

          • Posted by Futurist

            No. Not true at all. The code applies to ALL lots, existing or newly created within a planned unit development. This lot is not buildable.

          • Posted by anon

            no Futurist. many lots are not 100 feet in length, and are buildable

          • Posted by Futurist

            No fluj. This lot is not buildable

          • Posted by anon

            this one, no, i doubt. 25 x 100, as a real stringent rule? also doubted

          • Posted by bananas

            I believe it does apply to new lots – not to existing legally recorded lots.

            I think it is technically build-able. That is not to say it will be built on or it won’t be tied up in neighbor appeals or that there is something I don’t see about it. But I don’t think its the setbacks or the sec 121.

  6. Posted by lolam

    Buy it and rent it out for RV’s or mobile home for $1800 per month. Not bad of a return. Better yet, tent rental like Palo Alto for $500 per mth. It should fit about 3 tents.

  7. Posted by Some Guy

    There probably WILL be a bidding war.. Will it go for 250?

  8. Posted by SFrentier

    Prefab tiny house

  9. Posted by Notcom

    “Community Features: Sidewalks”

    Precious.

  10. Posted by Code Nerd

    Planning Code Section 121 requires a 25′ minimum lot width, with a 16′ minimum street frontage and 2,500 SF minimum lot area. The lot area can be 1,750 SF if the lot is entirely within 125′ of an intersection.

Add a Comment

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

Recent Articles