DOCSLIB.ORG

350 Mission Street

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
350 Mission Street ~~ COUNl,~. W~ ~P ~~ O~.~ SAN FRANCISCO H ,t PLANNING ~ DEPARTMENT O'b~S 0~51 Letter of Determination 1650 Mission St. Suite 400 San Francisco, March 2, 2017 CA 94103-2479 Reception: Daniel Frattin 415.558.6378 Reuben, Junius &Rose, LLP Fes: One Bush Street, Suite 600 415.558.6409 San Francisco CA 94104 Planning Information: Site Address: 350 Mission Street 415.558.6377 Assessor's Block/Lot: 3710, Lot 017 Zoning District: C-3-O(SD); 700-S-2 Staff Contact: Tina Chang,(415) 575.9197 or tina.chang@sf gov.org Record No.: 2017-000620ZAD Dear Mr. Frattin, This letter is in response to your request for a Letter of Determination regarding the property at 350 Mission Street. This parcel is located in the C-3-O (SD)(Downtown —Office -Special Development) Zoning District and 700-S-2 Height and Bulk District. The request is to seek an exception to the timing requirement for Condition of Approval No. 12 of Planning Commission Motion No. 18957 (Case No. 2013.0276BX) to allow the project to obtain its Certificate of Final Completion &Occupancy (CFCO) prior to completion of improvements required under its streetscape plan, including widening of the Mission and Fremont Street frontages. Condition of Approval No. 12 (Streetscape Plan) requires that the Project Sponsor must complete construction of all required street improvements prior to issuance of the first Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO). The improvements include the widening of sidewalks along the project's Mission and Fremont Street frontages in accordance with the Transit Center District Plan. The process to develop and finalize the Transbay Plan Area streetscape design has been along-term planning effort involving collaboration between numerous City Agencies: Recognizing that the Project Sponsor would be unable to complete the widening pending completion of planning efforts, the Planning Department (Department) and Department of Public Works(DPW) agreed to allow issuance of a TCO for the Project with a proviso that the Final Certification of Completion and Occupancy ("CFCO") would not be issued until the required streetscape improvements were complete. On August 19, 2015, the Department of Building Inspection (DBI) issued the TCO for the project, which is now complete. Since issuance of the TCO, it has been renewed every 90 days as required by DBI. While the City has made progress on the Transbay Plan Area streetscape design, completion and processing has taken longer than initially contemplated. Your request notes "the Project Sponsor acknowledges that the requirement to expand the sidewalk remains an active condition of approval and will complete required work once the City finalizes the streetscape plans and issues the permit." You have requested permission to obtain the CFCO from DBI prior to completion of required street improvements because "ongoing delays to CFCO issuance would require the Sponsor to seek indefinite extensions of the TCO, and/or to further delay occupancy of the completed building:' www.sfplanning.org Daniel Frattin March 2, 2017 One Bush Street, Suite 600 Letter of Determination San Francisco CA 94104 350 Mission Street T'he Department notes that the Project Sponsor has been working in good faith with City Agencies to comply with the Streetscape Plan condition. To this end, the Department received a streetscape plan (Horizontal Control Plan, 11-13-2015 —attached) that has been verified by DPW to demonstrate that streetscape improvements for required street widening will include abulb-out at the corner of Fremont Street at Mission Street measuring approximately 29.5-feet wide for approximately 15.3-feet, neck down to a sidewalk width of approximately 20-feet along the majority of the project's Fremont Street frontage, until the sidewalk finally transitions to match the existing 15-foot sidewalk width along the rest of the block. Additionally, the Planning Department received evidence that the Project Sponsor has attained a $100,000 performance bond against related DPW Order /Permit No. 2011-OS-01-1461 that remains in full force and effect during the time of construction and for a period of three (3) years from the date of completion of the restoration of sidewalk and/or street improvements pursuant to Article 2.4 of the Public Works Code (attached). Based upon the information provided in your request, correspondence with DPW, and the performance bond that guarantees completion of the required sidewalk widening along Mission and Fremont Streets in compliance with the streetscape plan, I find that granting issuance of CFCO may be permitted without compromising Condition of Approval No. 12. It should be noted that details of the final streetscape improvements are subject to review and approval from the DPW and other affected City agencies, such as the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency. Failure to diligently pursue completion of this Condition of Approval, including approval and construction of the required sidewalk widening, may result in enforcement under Planning Code Section 176. Please note that a Letter of Determination is a determination regarding the classification of uses and interpretation and applicability of the provisions of the Planning Code. This Letter of Determination is not a permit to commence any work or change occupancy. Permits from appropriate Departments must be secured before work is started or occupancy is changed. APPEAL: If you believe this determination represents an error in interpretation of the Planning Code or abuse in discretion by the Zoning Administrator, an appeal may be filed with the Board of Appeals within 15 days of the date of this letter. For information regarding the appeals process, please contact the Board of Appeals located at 1650 Mission Street, Room 304, San Francisco, or call (415)575-6880. Sincerely, Scott F. Sanchez Zoning Administrator Attachments: 350 Mission Street —Horizontal Control Plan, 11-13-2015 Street Improvement Bond — 350 Mission Street cc: Tina Chang, Planner Property Owner Neighborhood Groups SAN FRANCISCO 2 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 350 MISSION 350 Mission SVee~ San Francisco. CA 9V105 SOM R~~«A, row-~~~r ~~BKF xo sraavnc Ira•Bu 3H ~ Trr NO P1WVY. ~~11L~Bu1 ~ ~~ 1 a ~i - m~ N ~~ a a '... i HORIZONTAL ',. CANTROL PLAN C6.~~ Street Improvement Bond Bond No.: 1000876686 Premium: $1,Sa0.0012~rs. KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That KR 350 Mission. LLC (Hereinafter called the "Principal"), as Principal, and American Contractors Indemnity Company,of the City of Los Angeles, a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of California,(hereinafter called the "Surety"), as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto the CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA (hereinafter called the "Obligee") in the sum of One hundred. thousand and OQ/104 Dollars ($1 Q0,000.00), for the payment of which sum well and truly to be made, said Prtncipal and said Surety, bind oursel~~es, our heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns,jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. Sealed with our seals and dated this 23rd day of October A.D. 20IS. WHEREAS, it is the intention. of the above-named Principal to construct improvements on (Assessor's Block and. Lot _~,fronting on 350 Mission St, in accordance with Building Permit Application No(s). 2011-08-01-1461. WHEREAS, upon. written application said Principal, by' the Department of Public Works Order/Permit No. 201.1-08-01-1461, was granted. permission. to excavate and. perform street andlor sidewalk work adjacent to the above mentioned property subject to the provisions in said Order/Permit No. 201 Y-08-Q1-1461. NOW,THEREFORE, the condition of the above obligation is such that if said Principal. complies with. the provisions of Department of Public Works Order/Permit No. 2011-0$- OI-14+G1, this obligation shall be null and void; however, it shall remain in full force and effect during the time of construction and for a period of three (3) years from the date of completion of the restoration of sidewalk and/or street improvements pursuant to Article 2.4 of the Public Works Code. KR 0 I'ss' '> C $Y ~ c ~ . ~-- ~' rincipal~ Amcric.~tn C~::fra~tors Indem~ity Comaanv cri L~a~~is; Ail'orney-in-tact (Revised 7/19100) Jl I'ERM[T APPL[CATIONSISt. Improvement Bund.doc CALtFORNlARLE.-PURPOSE ACKNpWLEDGMEN'~ A notary public or other officer complet'rr~g this certificate verifies anly the identity of the individual why signed the document to which this certi#irate is attached, and nvt the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. State of California County of Los Angeles On OCT 2 3 2015 before me, B. Wong. IVotary ~'ublic personally appeared, Kari Qa~is who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and ~cknowtedged to me that she execu#ed the same in her authorized capacity, and that by her signature on tt~e instrument the person, or the enkity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. N certify under PENP,L"f'Y OF PERJURY under the taws at the State of California that. the foregoing paragraph 1s tree and. correct. :' 6, tivCNG WITNESS my hand and official seal. ~ :~ ,. Com~+a€s►on +r 2485088 ~~~ - ~~;~+ Rotary Pirbllc - CaiHornia ~~ ~~ ~ ' ? `.,'~ ,,,q~, Lbs Anpeles County p t ~,~ E:~pues Oct 24, 2Q~is }. My Comm. SlS3NdTURE OF NOTARY NOt~t"jl Pl3bIIG Seal QFT~+~NAL Though the data below is npt required by law; it may prove valuable to per5ans relying on the dc~~umant and could prevent fraudulen# reattachment a# this Corm. C}~SCRIpT10EV OF ATTACHES [3UCt1MENT. "I`ITLE t~'R TYPE QF DCJGUMEht'C: t~iUMBER QF PAGES: QC?CL?MN7 a~►X~: c,~~~►c~rY~~es~ c~.aiM~a ~v s~~nt~~tsy Signerls Name.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • United States Bankruptcy Court District of Delaware
    Case 20-11779-LSS Doc 55 Filed 07/09/20 Page 1 of 19 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ------------------------------------------------------------ x In re : Chapter 11 : VIVUS, INC., et al., : Case No. 20–11779 (LSS) : : Debtors.1 : (Joint Administration Requested) ------------------------------------------------------------ x NOTICE OF FILING OF PROPOSED REDACTED VERSION OF THE CREDITOR MATRIX PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to Rule 9018-1(d)(ii) of the Local Rules of Bankruptcy Practice and Procedure of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, VIVUS, Inc. and its debtor affiliates, as debtors and debtors in possession in the above-captioned chapter 11 cases, hereby file the attached proposed redacted version of the Creditor Matrix2 with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, 824 North Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801. 1 The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases, along with the last four digits of each Debtor’s federal tax identification number, as applicable are: Vivus B.V. (1942); Vivus Digital Health Corporation (0625); VIVUS, Inc. (6179); and Vivus Pharmaceuticals Limited (9329). The Debtors’ corporate headquarters and service address is 900 E. Hamilton Avenue, Suite 550, Campbell, CA 95008. 2 Contemporaneously herewith, the Debtors have filed the Motion of Debtors for Entry of Order (I) Authorizing Debtors to Redact Certain Personal Identification Information in Creditor Matrix and Certain Other Documents and (II) Granting Related Relief. RLF1 23325296v.1 Case 20-11779-LSS Doc 55 Filed 07/09/20 Page 2 of 19 Dated: July 9, 2020 Wilmington, Delaware /s/ Sarah E. Silveira RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A. Mark D.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • Class Action Settlement Agreement
    CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This Class Action Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into as of March 9, 2020 (the “Execution Date”) by and among the Class Action Settling Parties as defined below. Capitalized terms used herein are defined in Section II of this Agreement or indicated in parentheses elsewhere in this Agreement. I. FACTUAL REPRESENTATIONS 1.1 On or about July 21, 2017, Maui Peaks Corporation filed the Class Action against Transbay Joint Powers Authority (“TJPA”), Mission Street Development LLC (“MSD”), and Mission Street Holding LLC (“MSH”) on behalf of themselves and other owners of residential units in the Millennium Tower alleging causes of action relating to Plaintiffs’ allegations concerning, inter alia, the movement and tilt of Millennium Tower; 1.2 On September 14, 2017 Maui Peaks Corporation and NGMII LLC filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint in the Class Action against MSD, MSH and TJPA; 1.3 On or about January 5, 2018, Maui Peaks Corporation and NGMII LLC filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint in the Class Action against MSD, MSH and TJPA; 1.4 On or about July 17, 2019, NGMII LLC and Ian Kao filed a Third Amended Class Action Complaint in the Class Action alleging causes of action for failure to disclose and for deceptive business practices against MSD and MSH, and causes of action for, inter alia, express indemnity, specific performance, and declaratory relief against TJPA, and Maui Peaks Corporation asserted those same causes of action against the same defendants on its own behalf;
    [Show full text]
  • Transbay Joint Powers Authority
    NEW ISSUE – Book-Entry Only RATINGS: See “RATINGS” In the opinion of Bond Counsel, under existing law and assuming compliance with the tax covenants described herein, and the accuracy of certain representations and certifications made by the Authority, interest on the 2020 Tax-Exempt Bonds is excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes under Section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”). Bond Counsel is also of the opinion that interest on the 2020 Tax-Exempt Bonds is not treated as a preference item in calculating the alternative minimum tax imposed under the Code. Interest on the Senior 2020A-T Bonds is not excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes. Bond Counsel is further of the opinion that interest on the 2020 Bonds is exempt from personal income taxes of the State of California (the “State”) under present State law. See “2020 TAX-EXEMPT BONDS TAX MATTERS” and “SENIOR 2020A-T BONDS TAX MATTERS” in this Official Statement regarding certain other tax considerations. TRANSBAY JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY $189,480,000 $28,355,000 Senior Tax Allocation Bonds Senior Tax Allocation Bonds Series 2020A (Tax-Exempt) (Green Bonds) Series 2020A-T (Federally Taxable) (Green Bonds) $53,370,000 Subordinate Tax Allocation Bonds Series 2020B (Tax-Exempt) (Green Bonds) Dated: Date of Delivery Due: October 1, as shown on inside cover Bonds. The Transbay Joint Powers Authority (the “Authority”) is issuing the above-captioned bonds (the “Senior 2020A Bonds,” the “Senior 2020A-T Bonds,” and the “Subordinate 2020B Bonds” and, collectively, the “2020 Bonds”).
    [Show full text]
  • Millennium Tower, San Francisco
    MILLENNIUM TOWER, SAN FRANCISCO Settlement, Tilting and Repair John A. Egan GE Ronald O. Hamburger, SE Senior Principal, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Nathaniel Wagner, PE Project Engineer, Slate Geotech 16 February 2021 • 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 Some Homeowners Joe Montana Hall of Fame Quarterback Hunter Pence San Francisco Giants Superstar 3 The Site 301 Mission 2005-2009 350 Mission Transbay terminal and track tube 2012 2009-2017 200 Beale 2017-18 Salesforce Tower 4 2014-16 History of the Problem • Groundbreaking – 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 5 Why did this happen? San Francisco Downtown Area of “infirm” soils based on SF General Plan 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 (bearing pressures up to 6 -8 ksf) 140’ (45m) – Old Bay Clay overconsolidated clays with layers
    [Show full text]
  • BART Market Street Canopies and Escalators Modernization Project
    Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration BART Market Street Canopies and Escalators Modernization Project San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District April 30, 2018 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration BART Market Street Canopies and Escalators Modernization Project Prepared for San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District 300 Lakeside Drive, 21st floor Oakland, CA 94612 Prepared by 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 400 Oakland, CA 94612 April 30, 2018 DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Date of Publication of Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration: April 30, 2018 Project Title: BART Market Street Canopies and Escalators Modernization Project Sponsor and Lead Agency: San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District Contact Person and Phone Number: Janie Layton, (510) 874-7423 Project Location: Downtown San Francisco BART Stations (Embarcadero, Montgomery Street, Powell Street, and Civic Center/UN Plaza). Project Description: The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART), in cooperation with the City and County of San Francisco, is working to improve escalator durability and security at station entrances/exits along Market Street leading to the underground Embarcadero, Montgomery Street, Powell Street, and Civic Center/UN Plaza station concourses. The existing entrances/exits consist of variations of side-by-side stairs and escalators leading down to the underground concourse level, and are currently uncovered and exposed to inclement weather and discarded trash leading to frequent breakdowns of the existing escalators. The proposed improvements would include the installation of canopy covers over the entrances/exits, as well as replacement and refurbishment of existing street-level escalators. Each protective canopy would also be equipped with a motorized security grille that would lock at the sidewalk level of the station entrance/exit when the stations are closed.
    [Show full text]
  • 360 Third Street San Francisco, CA 11 11 Total Building Transformation Digital, Media and Tech Powerhouse
    Where Innovation Works… NAREIT Presentation San Francisco, CA November 12, 2013 John Kilroy Chairman, President and CEO Welcome 1 Agenda 303 Second Street, San Francisco I. John Kilroy Chairman, President and CEO, Welcome KRC II. Edwin M. Lee “Everybody’s Mayor, San Francisco Favorite City” III. John Kilroy 201 Third Street, San Francisco Chairman, President and CEO, KRC Update KRC IV. Chris Roeder San Francisco Managing Director, Market Update Jones Lang LaSalle 100 First Street, San Francisco V. Q&A VI. Cocktails and Hors d’ouevres 2 San Francisco Mayor Edwin M. Lee “Everybody's Favorite City” 3 John Kilroy Chairman, President and CEO KRC Update 4 Investment Thesis LOCATION PHYSICALITY YIELD & TIMING Transbay Terminal Housing Options Retail Amenities Companies need high quality space in the best locations to attract and retain their workforces 5 Premier West Coast Franchise December 2009 Annualized Pro Forma 9/30/2013 13% GREATER SEATTLE GREATER Enterprise Value SEATTLE $6.5 Billion 35% 100% NORTHERN SOUTHERN Enterprise Value CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA $2.6 Billion SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA 52% LOS ANGELES 12/31/2009 SOUTHERN 9/30/2013 ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO LOS ANGELES ORANGE COUNTY SAN DIEGO KRC’s expanded and stronger platform generates significant value Note: Pro forma NOI reflects GAAP NOI for the 9 months ended 9/30/2013 annualized , including a full year’s contribution from acquisitions as well as near-term development projects (690 Middlefield, 331 Fairchild, 350 Mission Street, 555 N Mathilda Campus, 333 Brannan, Crossing 900, Columbia Square, The Heights) and 6 redevelopment projects currently in lease-up.
    [Show full text]
  • Company First Name Last Name #Smartcohort David Capelli #Smartcohort Carla Mays 10 Jennifer Walker 123 Contracting Michael Friedman 4083716800 Muhie Maaz A
    Company First Name Last Name #SmartCohort David Capelli #SmartCohort Carla Mays 10 Jennifer Walker 123 Contracting Michael Friedman 4083716800 Muhie Maaz A. Esteban & Company, Inc Alfonso C. Esteban A3GEO, Inc. Dona Mann Abtahi Engineering ManagementAfshin Consulting Abtahi Abundance Worldwide EnterprisesDollene Jones ACCIONA Fernando Vara ACCIONA Jesús García Acciona Luis Palazzi Acciona Jesus Garcia Acciona Fernando Vara ACCIONA Luis Palazzi ACCIONA CONSTRUCTION FERNANDO VARA ORTIZ DE LA TORRE Acciona Infrastructure North AmericaRafael Sanchez Achievement Engineering Corp. Arash Firouzjaei ActiveWayz Engineering Constance Farris ActiveWayz Engineering Admas Zewdie Acumen Building Enterprise Inc. Gian Fiero Acumen Building Enterprise Inc. Robert Pilgrim ADA Takuya Nagai Adelaide Strategies marvin williams ADKO Engineering, Inc. President Kanaan Advantage Supply David Ibanez Doria AECOM Mel Sears AECOM nasri munfah AECOM Paul Nicholas AECOM Paul Boddie AECOM Emile Jilwan AECOM Russel Rudden AECOM Jon Porterfield AerialZeus, LLC Luis Robles Aero-Environmental Consulting, JorgeINC. Vizcaino All Trade Coordinators, Inc. Thelma King Ally Rail Consutling Douglas Deming Alpine Rail Group Buzz Berger ALSTOM Transportation Inc. Muriel LUO Anrak Corporation Mark Hamilton ANTHONIO, INC. TONY OGBEIDE Apadana Engineering, Inc. sopida siadat Aptim Environmental & Infrastructure,Rob LLC Delnagro Arad Adam Rad Arcadis U.S., Inc. Girish Kripalani Arora Engineers, Inc. Adam Oliver Arup Orion Fulton Arup North America LTD Luis Piek ASC Rahul Vaishnav ASC Henry Adley ASC Lorda Rumbaua ASC Dots Oyenuga ASC Dots Oyenuga Assurant Innovations Takeo Kimura Atkins Sergio Callen ATKINSON CONSTRUCTION ROHIT SHETTY Auriga Corporation Thomas Gibson Auriga Corporation Parkash Daryani Azad Engineering PC Mahsa Azad A-Zone Environmental Services, LLCMike Bruzzesi AZTEC/TYPSA Karim Dada AZTEC/TYPSA Carlos Tarazaga BabEng LLC Rene Reichl Badger Dalighting Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • April 25, 2008 Comments on the ALJ Ruling on Cost
    BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Order Instituting Rulemaking Regarding Policies and Protocols for Demand Response, Load Impact Estimates, Cost-Effectiveness Rulemaking 07-01-041 Methodologies, Megawatt Goals and (January 25, 2007) Alignment with California Independent System Operator Market Design Protocols COMMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA INDEPENDENT SYSTEM OPERATOR ON THE ALJ RULING REGARDING THE COST EFFECTIVENESS FRAMEWORK The California Independent System Operator Corporation (“CAISO”) submits its comments regarding the ALJ’s Ruling re Comments on the Cost Effectiveness Framework, dated April 4, 2008, (“Ruling”) and Attachment A to the Ruling, “Draft Demand Response Cost Effectiveness Protocols” (“Staff Protocols”). Introduction As the Ruling states, the methodology set forth in the Staff Protocols is based largely upon the Cost Effectiveness Framework (aka Consensus Parties Framework) that the Joint Parties submitted in this proceeding in November 2007. (Ruling at pp. 1-2.) The Ruling further notes that party comments should address “the completeness, accuracy, and feasibility of the staff proposal.” (Ruling at p. 2.). The CAISO’s comments herein are intended either (1) to raise points for further refinement of the protocol’s interim methodologies or (2) to raise points that the CAISO believes should be included within the document, so that they are “teed up” for consideration when the - 1 - R.07-01-041 CAISO COMMENTS ON DRAFT DR CE PROTOCOLS protocols are revised with reformulated criteria intended to replace the interim methodologies1. Overall, the CAISO considers the Staff Protocols to be a sound basis for interim review of DR programs that will be presented to the Commission in 2009 for the procurement cycle period of 2009 to 2011.
    [Show full text]
  • Engineer's Report Prepared by a Registered Professional Engineer Certified by the State of California.3
    SECTION 10: ASSESSMENT ENGINEER’S REPORT Downtown Community Benefit District Including the Historic Financial District and Jackson Square of San Francisco and South Side of Market Street Formed under the California Streets and Highway Code Section 36600 et seq. Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994, Augmented by Article 15 of the San Francisco Business and Tax Regulations Code DISTRICT ASSESSMENT ENGINEER’S REPORT Prepared by Edward V. Henning California Registered Professional Engineer # 26549 Edward Henning & Associates April 15, 2019 V 3 1 DOWNTOWN COMMUNITY BENEFIT DISTRICT – ENGINEER’S REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS ENGINEER’S CERTIFICATION ...............................................................................................3 ENGINEER’S REPORT: SECTION A: Legislative and Judicial Review ............................................................4 SECTION B: Programs, Improvements and Activities ..............................................7 SECTION C: District Boundaries ................................................................................9 SECTION D: Proportional Benefits ...........................................................................13 SECTION E: Special and General Benefits ...............................................................13 SECTION F: Program, Improvement and Activity Costs .......................................19 SECTION G: Assessment Methodolgy .......................................................................22 SECTION H: Assessment Roll ....................................................................................25
    [Show full text]
  • Investment Sales Activity on the Rise
    Research & Forecast Report SAN FRANCISCO | OFFICE MARKET Q2 | 2018 Investment Sales Activity > VACANCY The overall vacancy rate shed 40 basis points to 6.1 percent and continues to reflect historic lows for San Francisco. In the City Class A assets continue to drive market absorption with over 2.8 million square feet year-to- on the Rise date. This has translated into the Class A vacancy rate dropping 40 basis points to 6.0 percent. Vacant sublease space remained flat during the past three months at 0.8 percent. The key driver for the vacancy shrinking during the first half of Cruise Automation snaps this year was the South Financial District which has posted 2.3 million square up the Dropbox sublease feet of net absorption which saw its vacancy rate drop 270 basis points since the Northwood Investors space at 333 & 345 beginning of the year to 4.6 percent. purchased 123 Mission Brannan Street as well as Street for $290 million 301 Brannan Street ($839 psf) > LEASING VOLUME San Francisco experienced a surge of leasing activity during the second quarter of the year which translated into nearly 2.8 million square feet of transactions closing. Technology companies continue to gobble up space in the City and their appetite for space doesn’t seem to be quenched. Four deals closed over 100,000 square feet this quarter and all these deals were companies securing expansion space. The market experienced the largest lease Facebook secures the largest lease in ever signed in San Francisco when Facebook leased all 773,000 square feet at the City’s history, 250 Howard Street (Park Tower).
    [Show full text]