DOCSLIB.ORG

Transit Center District Survey San Francisco, California Final

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

TRANSIT CENTER DISTRICT SURVEY SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA FINAL PREPARED BY KELLEY & VERPLANCK FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING DEPARTMENT July 22, 2008 KELLEY & VERPLANCK HISTORICAL RESOURCES CONSULTING 2912 DIAMOND STREET #330, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94131 415.337.5824 // WWW.KVPCONSULTING.COM Historic Context Statement Transit Center District Survey San Francisco, California TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 2 A. PURPOSE .................................................................................................................................. 2 B. DEFINITION OF GEOGRAPHICAL AREA ......................................................................................... 2 C. IDENTIFICATION OF HISTORIC CONTEXTS AND PERIODS OF SIGNIFICANCE .................................... 3 II. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................ 4 III. IDENTIFICATION OF EXISTING SURVEYS, STUDIES AND REPORTS................................ 5 A. HERE TODAY (JUNIOR LEAGUE OF SAN FRANCISCO) ................................................................... 5 B. 1976 CITYWIDE ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY .................................................................................. 5 C. SAN FRANCISCO ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE .............................................................................. 5 D. ARTICLE 10 OF THE SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING CODE ................................................................ 6 E. ARTICLE 11 OF THE SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING CODE/DOWNTOWN AREA PLAN........................... 7 F. UNREINFORCED MASONRY BUILDING (UMB) SURVEY................................................................ 10 G. NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES .............................................................................. 10 H. SECTION 106 AND OTHER TECHNICAL REPORTS....................................................................... 12 IV. HISTORIC CONTEXT.............................................................................................................. 13 A. PREHISTORIC AND EARLY CONTACT ERA: PRE-1776................................................................. 13 B. EUROPEAN SETTLEMENT – SPANISH AND MEXICAN PERIODS: 1776-1846.................................. 14 C. EARLY AMERICAN SETTLEMENT: LAND SUBDIVISION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT: 1847-1865 ..... 15 D. INDUSTRIAL AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT: 1866-1906 ....................................................... 24 E. RECONSTRUCTION: 1907-1929................................................................................................ 31 F. DEPRESSION AND WORLD WAR II: 1930-1945.......................................................................... 36 G. POST-WAR REDEVELOPMENT: 1946-1984................................................................................ 40 F. PRESERVATION AND POSTMODERNISM: 1985-2000 .................................................................. 48 V. DEFINITION OF PROPERTY TYPES ...................................................................................... 52 A. RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS .......................................................................................................... 52 B. COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS.......................................................................................................... 54 C. INSTITUTIONAL......................................................................................................................... 61 VI. RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................ 62 A. SIGNIFICANCE AND REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS ................................................................... 62 B. POTENTIAL HISTORIC DISTRICTS .............................................................................................. 63 C. AREAS REQUIRING FUTURE WORK ........................................................................................... 65 VII. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................ 71 VIII. BIBLIOGRAPHY.................................................................................................................... 72 APPENDIX ........................................................................................................................................ A. TABLES ....................................................................................................................................... B. DISTRICT FORM ........................................................................................................................... C. DPR 523 A AND B FORMS ........................................................................................................... July 22, 2008 Kelley & VerPlanck Historic Context Statement Transit Center District Survey San Francisco, California I. INTRODUCTION A. PURPOSE As part of ongoing long-range planning efforts in the area, the City and County of San Francisco has contracted with Kelley & VerPlanck Historical Resources Consulting (KVP) to survey the Transit Center District Area and prepare a Historic Context Statement that summarizes historical patterns of development, describes existing historic resources, and examines the cumulative impact of several major new projects in the Plan Area. The Transit Center District Plan, currently being implemented by the San Francisco Planning Department, is an outgrowth of the 1985 Downtown Plan, in particular the latter document’s policy of extending the city’s urban core south of Market Street. The plan will result in new planning policies and controls for land use, urban form, building design, and improvements to private and publicly owned properties to enhance the public realm. The Transit Center District Plan covers a section of the eastern South of Market Area (SOMA) bounded by Market, Main, Tehama, and New Montgomery streets. At its center is the 1939 Transbay Terminal, a commuter bus station slated to be demolished and replaced with a new office tower and multi-modal transit center. In addition to the proposed 850’ to 1,200 Transit Tower, there are at least seven other privately owned development projects anticipated for the near future in the surrounding area, including an 850’ tower at 350 Mission Street, a 1,200’ tower at 50 1st Street, the 675’ Palace Hotel addition at 2 New Montgomery Street, a 600’-800’ tower at 177-187 Fremont Street, a 500’ tower at 509 Howard Street, a 435’ tower at 222 2nd Street, and an 800’ tower on the north side of Howard Street between 1st and 2nd streets.1 This Historic Context Statement is organized into eight sections, beginning with Section I, Introduction. Section II, Methodology, describes how the survey and Historic Context Statement were researched and prepared. Section III, Identification of Existing Surveys, Studies and Reports, discusses in depth prior survey work in the area and all previously identified historic resources. Section IV, Historic Context, describes important historic events and patterns of events that have contributed to the evolution of the survey area. Section V, Definition of Property Types, defines common property types found in the survey area. Section VI, Recommendations, analyzes the impact of proposed projects in the survey area and proposes an expanded Second and New Montgomery Historic District. The report concludes with Section VII, Conclusion, and Section VIII, Bibliography. B. DEFINITION OF GEOGRAPHICAL AREA The geographical area under study encompasses the entire Transit Center District Plan Area and several surrounding blocks where new construction is anticipated. At the heart of the survey area is the Transbay Terminal Transit Center, the centerpiece of the Transbay Redevelopment Area. The Transbay Redevelopment Area is bounded roughly by Mission, Main, Folsom, and 2nd streets. The survey area itself is somewhat larger, extending east from 3rd Street (including the first parcel on the west side of 3rd Street) to Main Street on the east (including the first parcel on the east side of Main), and from the south side of Market Street on the north to the north side of Folsom Street on the south. The southern boundary is irregularly configured to exclude the Redevelopment Agency’s Zone One-Transbay Downtown Residential area (Figure 1). The survey area is generally flat, although the grade rises steadily uphill toward the south where it meets Rincon Hill. Prior to the Gold Rush of 1848-49, much of the survey area was submerged, including nearly everything east of 1st Street. West of 1st Street, most of the survey area was occupied by sand dunes interspersed with narrow wooded valleys. Grading and filling operations gradually erased these natural features in preparation for development. Presently, the entire 1 San Francisco Planning Department, “Downtown Proposed or Potential Projects Exceeding Current Height Limit” (San Francisco: unpublished map, 2007). -2- July 22, 2008 Kelley & VerPlanck. Historic Context Statement Transit Center District Survey San Francisco, California survey area is thoroughly urbanized. Much of the eastern portion of the survey area has been gradually redeveloped by private capital to the extent that very few pre-1960 resources remain east of 1st Street. Concentrations of historic post-1906 Earthquake masonry and wood-frame
Recommended publications
  • Bangor, Maine, 1880-1920 Sara K

    Bangor, Maine, 1880-1920 Sara K

    The University of Maine DigitalCommons@UMaine Electronic Theses and Dissertations Fogler Library 2001 "The Littleit C y in Itself ": Middle-Class Aspirations in Bangor, Maine, 1880-1920 Sara K. Martin Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/etd Part of the Human Geography Commons, Social History Commons, and the Urban, Community and Regional Planning Commons Recommended Citation Martin, Sara K., ""The Little itC y in Itself": Middle-Class Aspirations in Bangor, Maine, 1880-1920" (2001). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 197. http://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/etd/197 This Open-Access Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UMaine. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UMaine. "THE LITTLE CITY IN ITSELF": MIDDLE-CLASS ASPIRATIONS IN BANGOR, MAINE, 1880-1920 By Sara K. Martin Thesis Advisor: Dr. Martha McNamara An Abstract of the Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts (in History) December, 2001 This thesis examines the inception and growth of "the Little City in Itself," a residential neighborhood in Bangor, Maine, as a case study of middle-class suburbanization and domestic life in small cities around the turn of the twentieth century. The development of Little City is the story of builders' and residents' efforts to shape a middle-class neighborhood in a small American city, a place distinct from the crowded downtown neighborhoods of immigrants and the elegant mansions of the wealthy. The purpose of this study is to explore builders' response to the aspirations of the neighborhood's residents for home and neighborhood from 1880 to 1920, and thus to provide insight into urban growth and ideals of family life in small American cities.
  • Dear Sharon Gin, Refer to File 12-0303, We Are Pleased to Present

    Dear Sharon Gin, Refer to File 12-0303, We Are Pleased to Present

    Dear Sharon Gin, Refer to File 12-0303, We are pleased to present you with this petition affirming one simple statement: "Stop the Hollywood Community Plan in its current form. Help us maintain our community, and improve infrastructure and services rather than increasing density, traffic, noise and congestion." Attached is a list of individuals who have added their names to this petition, as well as additional comments written by the petition signers themselves. Sincerely, Schelley Kiah 1 Saving historic structures in Hollywood only makes sense. Tourists come from all over the world to see the original Hollywood. Peggy Webber Mc Clory Hollywood, CA Apr 17, 2012 lindarochelle LA, CA Apr 17, 2012 Martha Widmann Three Rivers, CA Apr 17, 2012 Here's signature 763. Why won't those bastards at city hall allow us just SOME quality of life? I'm almost 70 and beginning to use the word "HATE" with respect to just about every politician in or out of office, especially the Left. Royan Herman LA, CA Apr 17, 2012 Nancy Girten Los Angeles, CA Apr 17, 2012 rebecca simmons los angeles, CA Apr 17, 2012 albert simmons los angeles, CA Apr 17, 2012 Infrastructure must be repaired and updated BEFORE any further density is allowed. Dana K. Los Angeles, CA Apr 17, 2012 nathalie sejean los angeles, CA Apr 17, 2012 Veronica Wallace sunland, CA Apr 17, 2012 2 Frank Freiling los angeles, CA Apr 17, 2012 Hollywood has its own charm. Trying to Manhattanize it would wreck the neighbourhood! Bruce Toronto, Canada Apr 17, 2012 Joanne los angeles, CA Apr 17, 2012 Lisa Meadows los angeles, CA Apr 17, 2012 Ron Meadows los angeles, CA Apr 17, 2012 Arsen laramians Tujunga, CA Apr 17, 2012 Scott Milan los angeles, CA Apr 17, 2012 Scott Milan los angeles, CA Apr 17, 2012 Janey chadwick los angeles, CA Apr 17, 2012 Madonna stillman los angeles, CA Apr 17, 2012 Jim smith los angeles, CA Apr 17, 2012 Kipling Lee Obenauf los angeles, CA 3 Apr 17, 2012 Kipling Lee Obenauf los angeles, CA Apr 17, 2012 i agree, the Hollywood Community Plan in its present form should be stopped.
  • 744 Montgomery Street SAN FRANCISCO | CALIFORNIA

    744 Montgomery Street SAN FRANCISCO | CALIFORNIA

    FOR LEASE | OFFICE SPACE 744 Montgomery Street SAN FRANCISCO | CALIFORNIA 3,500 SF MARKET READY FULL FLOOR IN JACKSON SQUARE 499 Jackson - 744 Montgomery is a building with boutique full floor opportunities, and an exclusive roof deck in a prime Jackson Square location. Rebuilt in 1965, and recently renovated, the buiding has a mix of modern infractructure and historic charm. With abundant dining and entertainment nearby and close proximity to the Financial District’s transportation options, 744 Montgomery is a unique office opportunity for discerning companies. FOR LEASE | OFFICE SPACE 744 Montgomery PRIME JACKSON SQUARE OPPORTUNITY 1ST FLOOR | SUITE 120 > 1,457 RSF > Private Entrance from Lobby > Engineered Wood Flooring Throughout > 3 Offices > 1 Conference Room > Open Space for 6-10 Workstations > Available January 1, 2017 JACKSON STREET JACKSON STREET VESTIBULE 1 ELEV DN DN LOBBY DISPLAY UP AREA EET R ST Y R E M Office GO T N OPEN TO 120 O BELOW M Office MONTGOMERY STREET MONTGOMERY P U U U P P Office VESTIBULE 3 Contact Us JIM SOBEL BRENDON KANE 415 288 7804 415 288 7868 COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL 101 Second Street , Floor 11 LIC. 00965752 LIC. 01884552 San Francisco, CA 94105 [email protected] [email protected] www.colliers.com FOR LEASE | OFFICE SPACE 744JEFFERSON ST. Montgomery PRIMEBEACH ST. JACKSON SQUARE OPPORTUNITY NORTHPOINT ST. COLUMBUS ST. Neighborhood Restaurants BAY ST. BAY ST. VANDEWATER ST. MIDWAY ST. MIDWAY BRET HARTE WORDEN ST. FRANCISCO ST. FRANCISCO ST. THE EMBARCADERO WATER ST. HOUSTON ST. PFEIFFER ST. BELL AIR ST. BELL CHESTNUT ST. CHESTNUT ST. VENARD FIELDING ST.
  • SAN FRANCISCO 2Nd Quarter 2014 Office Market Report

    SAN FRANCISCO 2Nd Quarter 2014 Office Market Report

    SAN FRANCISCO 2nd Quarter 2014 Office Market Report Historical Asking Rental Rates (Direct, FSG) SF MARKET OVERVIEW $60.00 $57.00 $55.00 $53.50 $52.50 $53.00 $52.00 $50.50 $52.00 Prepared by Kathryn Driver, Market Researcher $49.00 $49.00 $50.00 $50.00 $47.50 $48.50 $48.50 $47.00 $46.00 $44.50 $43.00 Approaching the second half of 2014, the job market in San Francisco is $40.00 continuing to grow. With over 465,000 city residents employed, the San $30.00 Francisco unemployment rate dropped to 4.4%, the lowest the county has witnessed since 2008 and the third-lowest in California. The two counties with $20.00 lower unemployment rates are neighboring San Mateo and Marin counties, $10.00 a mark of the success of the region. The technology sector has been and continues to be a large contributor to this success, accounting for 30% of job $0.00 growth since 2010 and accounting for over 1.5 million sf of leased office space Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 2012 2012 2012 2013 2013 2013 2013 2014 2014 this quarter. Class A Class B Pre-leasing large blocks of space remains a prime option for large tech Historical Vacancy Rates companies looking to grow within the city. Three of the top 5 deals involved 16.0% pre-leasing, including Salesforce who took over half of the Transbay Tower 14.0% (delivering Q1 2017) with a 713,727 sf lease. Other pre-leases included two 12.0% full buildings: LinkedIn signed a deal for all 450,000 sf at 222 2nd Street as well 10.0% as Splunk, who grabbed all 182,000 sf at 270 Brannan Street.
  • San Francisco Ethics Commission Disclosure Report for Permit

    San Francisco Ethics Commission Disclosure Report for Permit

    DocuSign Envelope ID: 22F915A2-4A57-4DCD-ABD1-3562213B15D9 San Francisco Ethics Commission 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 220, San Francisco, CA 94102 Received on: Phone: 415.252.3100 . Fax: 415.252.3112 04-14-2020\DateSigned | 16:28:46\ PDT [email protected] . www.sfethics.org \DateSigned\ Disclosure Report for Permit Consultants SFEC Form 3410B (S.F. Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code § 3.400A et seq.) A Public Document 1. FILING INFORMATION TYPE OF FILING DATE OF ORIGINAL FILING (for amendment only) \OriginalFilingType\ \OriginalFilingDate\ PERIOD COVERED \PeriodMonths\ \PeriodYear\ January 1 to March 31 2020 2. PERMIT CONSULTANT AND EMPLOYER INFORMATION NAME OF PERMIT CONSULTANT NAME OF EMPLOYER Kyle Thompson \PermitConsultantName\ A.R.\PermitConsultantEmployer Sanchez-Corea & \Associates, Inc. BUSINESS ADDRESS 301 Junipero Serra Blvd., Suite 270, San Francisco, CA 94127 \PermitConsultantAddress\ BUSINESS TELEPHONE BUSINESS EMAIL ADDRESS 415-333-8080 [email protected] \PermitConsultantTelephone\ \PermitConsultantEmail\ 3. CLIENT INFORMATION Enter the name, business address, contact person (if applicable), e-mail address, and business telephone number of each client for whom you performed permit consulting services during the reporting period. Also enter the amount of compensation you or your employer received or expected to receive from each client for permit consulting services during the reporting period. # CLIENT INFORMATION NAME OF CLIENT One De Haro, LLC c/o SKS Investments \ClientName1\ BUSINESS ADDRESS OF CLIENT 601
  • F I L E D State of California 02-14-11 04:59 Pm

    F I L E D State of California 02-14-11 04:59 Pm

    BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE F I L E D STATE OF CALIFORNIA 02-14-11 04:59 PM Order Instituting Rulemaking to Develop ) Additional Methods to Implement the California ) Rulemaking 06-02-012 Renewables Portfolio Standard Program. ) (Filed February 16, 2006) ) APPLICATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (U 338-E) FOR REHEARING OF DECISION 11-01-025 MICHAEL D. MONTOYA CATHY A. KARLSTAD Attorneys for SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770 Telephone: (626) 302-1096 Facsimile: (626) 302-1935 E-mail: [email protected] Dated: February 14, 2011 APPLICATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (U 338-E) FOR REHEARING OF DECISION 11-01-025 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page I. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY..............................................................................................2 II. THE DECISION EXCEEDS THE SCOPE OF THE COMMISSION’S JURISDISCTION ............................................................................................................................6 III. THE COMMISSION’S RECLASSIFICATION OF OUT-OF-STATE BUNDLED TRANSACTIONS AS REC-ONLY, MARRIED WITH A 25% LIMITATION AND PRICE CAP, VIOLATES THE COMMERCE CLAUSE ............................8 IV. THE COMMISSION’S ADOPTION OF DIFFERENT RPS RULES FOR DIFFERENT LSES VIOLATES CALIFORNIA STATUTES.....................................................12 V. CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................14
  • Y\5$ in History

    Y\5$ in History

    THE GARGOYLES OF SAN FRANCISCO: MEDIEVALIST ARCHITECTURE IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA 1900-1940 A thesis submitted to the faculty of San Francisco State University A5 In partial fulfillment of The Requirements for The Degree Mi ST Master of Arts . Y\5$ In History by James Harvey Mitchell, Jr. San Francisco, California May, 2016 Copyright by James Harvey Mitchell, Jr. 2016 CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL I certify that I have read The Gargoyles of San Francisco: Medievalist Architecture in Northern California 1900-1940 by James Harvey Mitchell, Jr., and that in my opinion this work meets the criteria for approving a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts in History at San Francisco State University. <2 . d. rbel Rodriguez, lessor of History Philip Dreyfus Professor of History THE GARGOYLES OF SAN FRANCISCO: MEDIEVALIST ARCHITECTURE IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA 1900-1940 James Harvey Mitchell, Jr. San Francisco, California 2016 After the fire and earthquake of 1906, the reconstruction of San Francisco initiated a profusion of neo-Gothic churches, public buildings and residential architecture. This thesis examines the development from the novel perspective of medievalism—the study of the Middle Ages as an imaginative construct in western society after their actual demise. It offers a selection of the best known neo-Gothic artifacts in the city, describes the technological innovations which distinguish them from the medievalist architecture of the nineteenth century, and shows the motivation for their creation. The significance of the California Arts and Crafts movement is explained, and profiles are offered of the two leading medievalist architects of the period, Bernard Maybeck and Julia Morgan.
  • F I L E D 07-18-12 04:59 Pm

    F I L E D 07-18-12 04:59 Pm

    BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA F I L E D 07-18-12 04:59 PM Order Instituting Rulemaking to Continue R. 11-05-005 Implementation and Administration of California (Filed May 5, 2011) Renewables Portfolio Standard Program CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Annie Pham, certify that I have on this 18th day of July 2012 caused a copy of the foregoing SIERRA CLUB CALIFORNIA REPLY COMMENTS ON THE ASSIGNED COMMISSIONER’S RULING IDENTIFYING ISSUES AND SCHEDULE OF REVIEW FOR 2012 RENEWABLES PORTFOLIO STANDARD PROCUREMENT PLANS PURSUANT TO PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE SECTIONS 399.11 ET SEQ. AND REQUESTING COMMENTS ON NEW PROPOSALS to be served on all known parties to R.11-05-005 listed on the most recently updated service list available on the California Public Utilities Commission website, via email to those listed with email and via U.S. mail to those without email service, and to the Administrative Law Judge. ALJ Regina DeAngelis California Public Utilities Commission Division of Administrative Law Judges 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, California 94102 Michael Meacham City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Morgan Hansen Morgan Stanley-Commodities 2000 Westchester Ave 1st Floor, Purchase, NY, 10577 Samara Rassi Fellon-Mccord & Associates 10200 Forest Green Blvd., Ste. 501 Louisville, KY, 40223-5183 Commerce Energy, Inc. 5251 Westheimer Rd. Ste. 1000 Houston, TX, 77056-5414 Harvey Eder Public Solar Power Coalition 1218 12th Street, No. 25 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Kellie M. Hanigan Enco Utility Services 8141 E. KAISER BLVD., STE. 212 Anaheim, CA 92808 Rafi Hassan Susquehanna Financial Group, LLP 101 California St., Ste 3250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Tony Chen Cool Earth Solar 4659 Las Positas Rd., 94551 Livermore, CA 94551 Mountain Utilities PO Box 1 Kirkwood, CA 95646 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
  • Before the Public Utilities Commission of The

    Before the Public Utilities Commission of The

    BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FILED 01/25/21 Order Instituting Rulemaking to Create a 04:59 PM Consistent Regulatory Framework for the Rulemaking 14-10-003 Guidance, Planning and Evaluation of Integrated (Filed October 2, 2014) Distributed Energy Resources. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of OPENING COMMENTS OF SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY (U 902-E) ON THE PROPOSED DECISION ADOPTING TWO TARIFF PILOTS FOR PROCURING DISTRIBUTED ENERGY RESOURCES THAT AVOID OR DEFER UTILITY CAPITAL INVESTMENTS has been electronically mailed to each party of record of the service list in R.14-10-003. Due to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) health crisis, our legal staff is working from home. Accordingly, the normal mailing of hard copies is not possible and hard copies will not be mailed to the Administrative Law Judge or to parties who are on the service list and have not provided an electronic mail address. Executed January 25, 2021 at San Diego, California. /s/ Tamara Grabowski Tamara Grabowski 1 / 15 CPUC - Service Lists - R1410003 CPUC Home CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Service Lists PROCEEDING: R1410003 - CPUC - OIR TO CREATE FILER: CPUC LIST NAME: LIST LAST CHANGED: JANUARY 5, 2021 Download the Comma-delimited File About Comma-delimited Files Back to Service Lists Index Parties CARMELITA L. MILLER DAMON FRANZ LEGAL COUNSEL DIR - POLICY & ELECTRICITY MARKETS THE GREENLINING INSTITUTE TESLA, INC. EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 FOR: THE GREENLINING INSTITUTE FOR: TESLA, INC. (FORMERLY SOLARCITY CORPORATION) EVELYN KAHL MARC D JOSEPH GENERAL COUNSEL, CALCCA ATTORNEY CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY CHOICE ASSOCIATION ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO, PC EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 FOR: ENERGY PRODUCERS AND USERS FOR: COALITION OF CALIFORNIA UTILITY COALITION EMPLOYEES MERRIAN BORGESON DENISE GRAB SR.
  • Ronald Hamburger

    Ronald Hamburger

    The Millennium Tower Settlement, Tilting and Upgrade University of Kansas Ronald O. Hamburger, S.E., SECB March 5, 2020 • Constructed 2005-2009 • 58 stories, 645 ft (197m) tall • Tallest & most expensive residential tower in San Francisco • Views from the Sierra to the Cascades to the Farallon Islands • Most expensive unit sold in 2013 for $13.5 million • Construction Cost - $600 Million Sales Cost - $750 Million 2 301 Mission The Site 350 Mission Transbay terminal and track tube 2012 2009 200 Beale 2017 Salesforce Tower 3 2014 History of the Problem • Ground breaking – 2005 – Settlement predicted 4”-6” • Construction completed 2009 – Settlement reached 10” – Transbay Terminal excavation starts • Last unit sold in 2013 – Settlement 13” • SGH retained in 2014 – Settlement 15” • Litigation initiated in 2016 – Settlement 17” • Adjacent construction complete 2017 – Settlement 18”, Tilt 17” to northwest 4 Some Homeowners Joe Montana Hall of Fame Quarterback Hunter Pence San Francisco Giants Superstar Steph Curry Golden State Warriors Icon 5 Some Homeowners Laurence Kornfield Retired Chief Deputy Building Inspector, City of SF Jerry Dodson Personal Injury Attorney 6 Why did this happen? San Francisco Downtown Area of “infirm” soils based on SF General Plan Subsurface profile (from Treadwell & Rollo) 8 10’ thick mat Subsurface conditions 75’ piles deep into Colma Sand 20’ (6m) – fill & rubble loose sand, brick, concrete, gravel 30’ (10m) – Young Bay Clay marine deposits – last 12,000 years 35’ (12m) – Colma Sand cemented sands with clay binder
  • DATE: July 11, 2013 TO: Historic Preservation Commissioners FROM: Daniel A

    DATE: July 11, 2013 TO: Historic Preservation Commissioners FROM: Daniel A

    DATE: July 11, 2013 TO: Historic Preservation Commissioners FROM: Daniel A. Sider, Planning Department Staff RE: Market Analysis of the Sale of Publicly Owned TDR In May 2012, Planning Department (“Department”) Staff provided the Historic Preservation Commission (“HPC”) an informational presentation on the City’s Transferable Development Rights (“TDR”) program. In February 2013, the Department retained Seifel Consulting, Inc. and C.H. Elliott & Associates (jointly, “Consultants”) to perform a market analysis informing a possible sale of TDR from City-owned properties. The resulting work product (“Report”) was delivered to the Department in late June. This memo and the attached Report are intended to provide the HPC with relevant follow-up information from the May 2012 hearing. The City’s TDR Program Since the mid-1980’s, the Planning Department has administered a TDR program (“Program”) through which certain historic properties can sell their unused development rights to certain non- historic properties. The program emerged from the 1985 Downtown Plan in response to unprecedented office growth, housing impacts, transportation impacts and the loss of historic buildings. The key goal of the Program is to maintain Downtown’s development potential while protecting historic resources. The metric that underpins the Program is Floor Area Ratio ("FAR"), which is the ratio of a building’s gross square footage to that of the parcel on which it sits. Under the Program, a Landmark, Significant, or Contributory building can sell un-built FAR capacity to a non-historic property which can then use it to supplement its base FAR allowance. TDRs can only be used to increase FAR within applicable height and bulk controls.
  • San Francisco Streets Photography Collection

    San Francisco Streets Photography Collection

    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt0779p7pv No online items Guide to the San Francisco Streets Photography Collection Processed by Trina Lopez, Wendy Welker, Brenda Baldwin, and Mary Morganti. California Historical Society North Baker Research Library 678 Mission Street San Francisco, California 94105-4014 Phone: (415) 357-1848, ext. 20 Fax: (415) 357-1850 Email: [email protected] URL: http://www.californiahistoricalsociety.org/ © 2003 California Historical Society. All rights reserved. Note History--California History--Bay Area History Guide to the San Francisco PC-SF-Streets: Box [number] 1 Streets Photography Collection Guide to the San Francisco Streets Photography Collection Accession number: PC-SF-Streets: Box [number] California Historical Society North Baker Research Library San Francisco, California Contact Information: California Historical Society North Baker Research Library 678 Mission Street San Francisco, California 94105-4014 Phone: (415) 357-1848, ext. 20 Fax: (415) 357-1850 Email: [email protected] URL: http://www.californiahistoricalsociety.org/ Processed by: Trina Lopez, Wendy Welker, Brenda Baldwin, and Mary Morganti Date Completed: August 2003 Encoded by: UCSC OAC Unit © 2003 California Historical Society. All rights reserved. Descriptive Summary Title: San Francisco Streets Photography Collection, Date (inclusive): 1830s-1980s Date (bulk): (bulk 1870s-1970s) Collection number: PC-SF-Streets: Box [number] Creator: Photographers, various Extent: 39 boxes, 24 oversize boxes(ca. 10,500 items) Repository: California Historical Society, North Baker Library San Francisco, California 94105-4014 Abstract: Contains photographs and picture postcards with images of San Francisco street scenes depicting buildings, people, and events, as well as views of entire blocks and intersections that are identified, and general views of the city from the 1830s to the 1980s.