New building permits have been filed for a three-story apartment complex at 598 Dellbrook Avenue in Twin Peaks, San Francisco. The permit would bring nine units near the foot of Sutro Tower. Midtown Lands LLC is listed as the property owner.
Approved plans call for a 40-foot-tall structure containing 21,300 square feet, with 17,725 square feet of housing and 3,575 square feet for a basement garage. There will be nine three-bedroom apartments, with an average floor size of 1,400 square feet. Parking will be included for nine cars and nine bicycles.
598 Dellbrook Avenue site context, rendering by RG Architecture
598 Dellbrook Avenue site map, illustration by RG Architecture
RG Architecture is the project sponsor and architect. The building will be wrapped with a mix of wood shingles, panels, fiber cement, and steel siding.
The planning application was approved by the city last August. The filing utilizes Senate Bill 423 and the State Density Bonus law to streamline the approval process with increased residential capacity.
The quarter-acre property is located at the corner of Dellbrook Avenue and La Avanzeada Street. The latter street is the small road that leads up from Clarendon Avenue to the base of Sutro Tower. The iconic 1973-built radio mast is just five minutes away on foot, and the Twin Peaks Panoramic Views parking lot is just 15 minutes away on foot.
598 Dellbrook Avenue, image via Google Street View
The estimated cost and timeline for construction have yet to be shared.
Subscribe to YIMBY’s daily e-mail
Follow YIMBYgram for real-time photo updates
Like YIMBY on Facebook
Follow YIMBY’s Twitter for the latest in YIMBYnews
I don’t think this project should be allowed. The entirety of the Twin Peaks and Mount Sutro area should never have been developed. Imagine if this entire area had been one huge, state park with legit trails…a wild compliment to the more refined Golden Gate Park. It would have been awesome. Instead we have low density track housing known as the neighborhoods of “Forest Knolls” and “Midtown Terrace.”
We have 60+ acres in the Mount Sutro Open Space Reserve and just a bit more on the other side of the tower in Twin Peaks open space—not to mention Mount Davidson open space AND Glen Park Canyon. I’m all for open space, but we need to be more realistic.
*Nearly 250 acres of open space directly around the tower that doesn’t include all of the open space lots, pocket parks and semi-hidden/hilltop green spaces (Laguna Honda, Golden Gate Heights, Grandview, Edgehill, Douglas, Billy Goat, Walter Haas, Kite Hill, Tank Hill, etc all just surrounding Twin Peaks).
And? How many citizens live in these neighborhoods? It’s just a missed opportunity, that’s all. Twin Peaks State Park could have been an incredible destination for tourists and locals…a true nature preserve in the middle of the city, with views on all sides. We still got something, yes, but it could have been much more spectacular. The other 99% of the city could have been slightly denser and we would have had something much more magical.
When you place the 4th-tallest structure (possibly the tallest when accounting for terrain height) in the middle of a nature preserve, it kinda ruins the sense of a naturalistic space.
Acres-wise, there was never the potential to have the grand feel of Griffith Park. SF is not short of park space. If needing an escape, there are many more accessible alternatives, and if wanting a bit of height, just go to San Breuno. I don’t believe SF needs more wooded space for people to cruise in.
please be realistic. we just spent YEARS negotiating a very small upzone to the rest of the city, and the backlash is insane from the nimby groups. your comment makes it seem like we can just wave a magic wand and become denser. we need this housing, and i love to see the family sized units here.
What’s done is done. No sense blocking a development over what happened around it decades ago, especially when the impact will be minimal.
Agreed. We should be focusing our density in more transit and amenity rich areas and not sprawling into existing open green public spaces. SF already does a decent job at this, so I’m surprised a project like this is even being considered. There’s plenty of derelict low density and underutilized parcels within the existing urban core on which to build housing.
No, sorry, this narrative is so tired and so damaging. SF needs to densify EVERYWHERE. Plus, as I mentioned in another comment, it’s actually walkable to a fair number of urban hubs like the UCSF campus, Clarendon Elementary, the Midtown Terrace rec center, a church, and a couple of preschools. The area would be even more walkable if SFMTA would fix the dangerous intersection at Delbrook/Clarendon and add a sidewalk/separated cycle path to Clarendon (and take away that dumb median that encourages speeding). The proposed development is 1/4 mile from a 36 stop (5 minutes from there to Forest Hill) and 1/2 mi from a 37 stop (5 minutes to the Haight, 8 minutes to Church/Market/14th). Speaking of which, the only way SFMTA can be convinced to add more frequency to the 36 and 37 is to add more population to those lines’ ‘walkshed’ (that is, increase potential ridership within a 1/4- to 1/2-mile walking distance.) And before you say ‘you can’t expect people to have time to walk places,’ well, which do we want—healthier communities where people can walk/bus/bike to places in our ideal weather or a continual slide into car-infested dystopia? Sorry but Texas and Florida are already ahead of CA on that latter front and are taking our priced-out residents too, so maybe we should try the former, doubling down on a better way of life.
To be fair, Twin Peaks is very transit inaccessible by nature of its geography and road layout, there’s little that can meaningfully fix that when the bones are so bad.
As it now stands, Muni’s route 37 serves Twin Peaks very well, stopping maybe 200 yards from the top. It’s regularly used by tourists and locals to reach the summit with its awesome views and trails.
Very much agree with your comment, Glen. In addition, with a bit of imagination, and increased demand, transit service/bus lines can be rerouted to one day better serve this location.
I always thought that area was protected open space. I guess it’s a full press from the YIMBY astroturf lobby to pave over every little scrap of open space remaining in San Francisco.
The rare moment we agree! So many other places to put housing.
Can’t you read a map? It’s the last parcel on the block up against open space, but it’s next door to a whole street’s worth of development. The lot itself is not very usable ‘open space’ and it’s actually walkable to a fair number of urban hubs like the UCSF campus, Clarendon Elementary, the Midtown Terrace rec center, a church, and a couple of preschools. It’s also 1/4 mile from a 36 stop (5 minutes from there to Forest Hill) and 1/2 mi from a 37 stop (5 minutes to the Haight, 8 minutes to Church/Market/14th.
If this city cared so dearly about its natural spaces, it wouldn’t let invasive eucalyptus take over every inch.
They’re finally making moves in Presideo and around Lake Merced, but most wooded areas are littered with massive trees that topple in winter storms. There are 7? golf courses in the chunks of park areas that are a ton more accessible than a hilltop.
This is clearly not a serious issue.
You’re saying that golf courses substitute for unprogrammed open space? Clearly you’ve never visited either. You can’t walk on a golf course without being reprimanded and thrown out. On the other hand, you can walk throughout the eucalyptus groves of Mt. Davidson, Mt. Sutro, Clarendon Heights, the Presidio, etc. at will. By the way, those eucs you hate were deliberately planted by Adolph Sutro in the 1880s and 1890s. They didn’t just happen on their own. Not from California, are you?
Agreed that eucs need to be reigned it, and Parks and Rec is actively doing that in many locations, including Edgehill, McLaren Park, etc., where they have cut down eucs and replaced them with native coast live oaks, which I applaud. In recent years forestry efforts have completely overhauled the scraggly, sick, and dying eucalyptus forest on Mt. Sutro…cuting down the sick and unhealthy trees while keeping the healthy ones. It’s magical.
The eucalyptus originally started in Montana de Oro outside Los Osos, CA, and has gradually spread along the coast. Been in CA since 2017, as yes, not a native. And due to CA’s persistent stubbornness and NIMBYism, human rights are being stripped away by the means of TX and FL psyopaths. Have you seen the shift in census data? The numbers are stark.
So what’s your point on the first chunk? Disrupting nature to cause environmental collapse and then keeping most outdoor space fortified for a luxury sport, as we decry a piece of land that will probably impact less than 1% of most SF residents/visitors? How about we take the golf out of Presedio and GGP?
I have a hard time hating on eucalyptus. The smell takes me back to visiting my grandparents in Oakland. We lived on the peninsula, in the redwoods.
I understand they’re not native, of course. There’s something about the smell for me personally that is nostalgic.
I agree. I think that aroma is nostalgic for many Californians.
La Avanzeada Street really needs to be opened – the claridon heights residents have it closed to protect their exclusive neighborhood and with this new housing project this street must to be opened so residents can access twin peaks
La Avanzada Street is open. It connects to Palo Alto Avenue and elsewhere. I’ve walked it numerous times for years and never seen it closed.
Actually think it should be at least 4 stories for more housing
What a great project in a stunning setting!
Eucalyptus spread across San Francisco because planting it reduced property tax liabilities on otherwise vacant land.
Just build it ruined more neighborhoods.
Just build it ruined more neighborhoods.
We used to walk from Clarendon up to the old Sutro Castle before Sutro Tower was built. The eucalyptus plantation gave us a feeling of being in a jungle where we might see raccoons, skunks or even owls. Humans must consume everything. That’s the nature of the beast.