The assembled site and plans for a proposed 10-unit development to rise on the northwest corner of 17th and Roosevelt, below the summit of San Francisco’s Mount Olympus on the southern border of Ashbury Heights, are now on the market with a $7.495 million price tag.
In the works since 2014, when Dawson & Clinton acquired the existing single-family home at 271 Upper Terrace, which sits atop the site, along with the undeveloped lot at 4500 17th Street and the existing duplex at 301-303 Upper Terrace for a little over $4 million combined, the development as proposed, which was dubbed the Mount Olympus project, would yield five modern duplexes, with the individual units ranging in size from 1,555 to 4,043 square feet and averaging 2,897 square feet apiece.
As we reported back at the end of 2018, a Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration for the development, which obviates the need for a detailed environmental impact report, has been signed and issued for the project which is now “in the final stages of approval” and being positioned as “ready for a savvy developer…who is ready to make this landmark opportunity a reality.”
If the plans for the proposed Mount Olympus development are approved and the ground is broken, the project team had been estimating that it would take around 37 months to complete, including the required excavation of the existing hillside and removal of about 13,640 cubic yards of soil, as we outlined a few years ago.
With “a savvy developer” having yet to emerge and the project still “in the final stages of approval,” the “offering price” for the site has just been dropped to $2.595 million and offers slated to be reviewed next week. We’ll keep you posted and plugged-in.
This is an oasis of green and should be preserved as such. As the price is lowered it would be nice to see deep pocketed SF resident(s) purchase the site and keep it as permanent open space. With land valuations sharply declining across SF there is a golden opportunity to have the City work with well-off civic minded residents (like Benioff) to purchase/preserve these few remaining pockets of undeveloped open space.
Also it should have free pony rides for kids and free sno cones.
Or maybe it should be housing for people who need places to live.
Green spaces are necessary amenities for all… the few units proposed here will not materially improve SF’s housing stock situation, while destroying one of the last remnants of undeveloped land in the area.
Any new green spaces will be rapidly converted into de facto dog parks.
This “green space” looks like an unusable overgrown rat’s nest to me.
I can’t tell if you are calling this an oasis sarcastically or not
It’s what passes for one in SF so a bit of sarcasm yes, but pockets of green like this are a welcome respite from the wall-to-wall development that overs much of SF.
Planting a huge number of sidewalk trees and investing in sidewalk gardens would go a long way, as well. An organization like Friends of the Urban Forest really should be an official city org.
scrubby sidewalk trees hardly compare to a hillside covered in vegetation (however steep and small the hillside in question) – aesthetically or ecologically.
I never get how people decide that rich people should buy open space and keep it undeveloped so that people who didn’t spend a dime on it can enjoy it. If green space is so important to you, you buy it and do what you want with it.
Have no way of knowing for sure, but I suspect that unlike you, Marc Benioff doesn’t have a framed photo of Ayn Rand mounted on his bedroom wall above his headboard.
phi·lan·thro·py
noun
the desire to promote the welfare of others, expressed especially by the generous donation of money to good causes.
Guess that topic is only covered in grad-level courses nowadays ??
Sounds like you should support upzoning our residential neighborhoods in order to prevent growth from consuming greenspace then, right?
This comment would have been appropriate in The Before Times.
But now, in 2023, we’ve already had some clobbering of local zoning controls from The State. The Board of Supervisors enacted the so-called fourplex bill allowing four units on residential lots citywide. And due to highly-compensated workers fleeing The City in droves to “work from anywhere” there is now no need for any significant up-zoning in RH-1 neighborhoods to accommodate any reasonable expectation of projected population growth, so greenspace isn’t threatened.
You hear that everyone? We don’t need new housing anymore. Pack it up, SF is for suburbanites now!
Like many in the YIMBY camp, you’re conflating new housing with upzoning. They are not the same things. There’s plenty of room for new housing with the zoning rules and regulations that are currently in place; like I said there’s been plenty of upzoning recently.
And just because a residential neighborhood is upzoned doesn’t mean any new housing will actually get built. The opposite is true as well, you can have all kinds of new housing without upzoning.
At one time SF’s population was projected to grow to 950K plus. Instead, it has dropped to 807K from 870K or so. With the loss of jobs and the probability they will not be replaced anytime soon if ever the housing needs do need to be reevaluated. As it is thousands of units are/were planned for HP, India Basin, Stonestown and more. The existing housing pipeline likely is enough (really more than enough) to satisfy housing needs for several decades to come. I agree there is no need at this time for up-zoning RH1 neighborhoods. The fourplex bill is a done deal but, given current housing/condo prices and construction costs, it’s likely there will be few takers.
The 4-plex [legislation], like all the others, is written to minimize its effectiveness. You have to be the owner who has lived there for over a year. Then you will need a year or 2 to permit the thing, then you can’t live through that work so you have to move out and get another place until the work is done. How many people are gonna sign up for that? Also I think you have to add a 3 bedroom, and no small units, but you don’t get any additional density bonus, max height 35′; so I don’t see getting 4 units on many standard lots anyway.
Exactly zero part of Brahma’s response said that no further housing was needed. It’d be great if people here could engage in actual discussions instead of setting up and then flourishingly destroying their own strawmen…
Having driven by it for decades its just another scrawny hillside. Of no merit. Too small and too steep to do anything with. Building more condos is a good use of that land.
Within a few min walks are some actual parks / green spaces that are really nice. Corona Heights, Tank Hill, Buena Vista Park and down the hill at Stanyan, the Mt Sutro trailheads. And still plenty of trees on the streets of Ashbury Heights and Cole Valley.
By the way does anyone know the current status of the street trees? Who is responsible for them?
Until the early 1990’s the City maintained them. And places in SF like the Sunset had quite a few street trees. Then during its perennial once a decade financial crisis the City decided to save a little money by making the homeowners responsible for the trees in front of their property. So as a result a property owner with any sense cut-down any tree on the street that started looking unhealthy. There was a marked decrease in street trees in the decade after. Which is why I laughed when some group about 15 years ago were doing the rounds trying to persuade homeowners to plant trees on the street in front of the property. If only they knew..
Between Mt Olympus, Kite Hill, Corona Heights Park, Mt Sutro, Golden Gate Park, Buena Vista Park, and the myriad of little gardens and staircases in Corona Heights, this area has enough access to green space. This is much better used as housing.
They are also selling off the Upper Terrace houses separately for $1.2m and $1.4. Not sure how that would work if someone bought just one of the UT houses. But basically they are giving the 17th and Roosevelt lot away.
I was under the impression that Dawson & Clinton were the best example of a “savvy developer” that could actually pull a project like this, since they could presumably handle the GC responsibilities ‘in house’.