San Francisco Tall Buildings Study

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

San Francisco Tall Buildings Study SAN FRANCISCO TALL BUILDINGS STUDY Disclaimer: While the information presented in this report is believed to be correct, the Applied Technology Council assumes no responsibility for its accuracy or for the opinions expressed herein. The material presented in this publication should not be used or relied upon for any specific application without competent examination and verification of its accuracy, suitability, and applicability by qualified professionals. Users of information from this publication assume all liability arising from such use. San Francisco Tall Buildings Study Prepared by APPLIED TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL 201 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 240 Redwood City, California 94065 www.ATCouncil.org Prepared for City and County of San Francisco Office of Resilience and Capital Planning Brian Strong, Chief Resilience Officer and Director Danielle Mieler, Principal Resilience Analyst San Francisco, California ATC MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT PROJECT TECHNICAL COMMITTEE Ayse Hortacsu John D. Hooper (Task Leader) Justin Moresco David Bonowitz Gregory Deierlein PROJECT WORKING GROUPS Shahriar Vahdani Carlos Molina Hutt Preetish Kakoty CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Anne McLeod Hulsey TALL BUILDINGS EXECUTIVE PANEL Alireza Eksir Monfared Naomi Kelly (Chair) Max Rattie Mary Ellen Carroll Wen-Yi Yen Kathryn How Tom Hui TASK REVIEW PANEL Brian Strong Mark X. Haley William Walton December 2018 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO TALL BUILDINGS STAKEHOLDERS Board of Supervisors Business District 3 San Francisco Chamber of Commerce District 6 Real Estate Private Engineers and Architects Real Estate Advisory Services DBI Code Advisory Committee Heller Manus Architects Community and Non-profit Organizations Building Inspection Commission SPUR HOK BOMA Maffei Structural Engineering The East Cut Community Benefit District BXP SEAONC AB 82/83 Code Advisory City and County of San Francisco Staff Committee Department of Building Inspection Fennie+Mehl Architects Real Estate Division Department of Emergency Management Developers Planning Department San Francisco Apartment Owners Fire Department Association SFPUC Tishman Speyer Public Works Boston Properties Office of Resilience and Capital Planning Preface In 2010, the Applied Technology Council (ATC) concluded the Community Action Plan for Seismic Safety (CAPSS) for the City and County of San Francisco, identifying risks from future earthquakes and developing recommendations to reduce the most significant earthquake impacts. As a result, in 2011, the City published the CAPSS Earthquake Safety Implementation Program Workplan 2012-2042 that anticipates actions for broad groups of new and existing buildings throughout the city. In considering this broad workplan, it became clear that special consideration would be needed to address the unique characteristics of San Francisco’s tall buildings. In 2017, ATC was awarded a contract to develop an inventory of tall buildings in San Francisco and to review the impact of earthquakes on such buildings. ATC is indebted to the members of the Project Technical Committee who served as the principal authors of this report, including David Bonowitz, Greg Deierlein, John Hooper (chair), and Shariar Vahdani, and the members of the Working Groups consisting of Carlos Molina Hutt, Anne McLeod Hulsey, and Wen-Yi Yen. Preetish Kakoty, Alireza Eksir Monfared, and Max Rattie also contributed to the Working Groups. ATC gratefully acknowledges Mark Haley and Bill Walton for their review of Part 6 of this report. The names and affiliations of those who contributed to this report are provided in the list of Project Participants at the end of this report. ATC also gratefully acknowledges guidance and support provided by Brian Strong and Danielle Mieler of the City’s Office of Resilience and Capital Planning. The Tall Buildings Executive Panel, consisting of Mary Ellen Carroll, Kathryn How, Tom Hui, Brian Strong, and Naomi Kelly (chair) provided advice at key stages of the work. ATC staff members Justin Moresco and Carrie Perna provided project management support and report production services, respectively. Ayse Hortacsu Jon Heintz ATC Director of Projects ATC Executive Director ATC-119-1 Preface iii Summary Recommendations In 2011, the City and County of San Francisco published the CAPSS Earthquake Safety Implementation Program Workplan 2012-2042 as a result of the Community Action Plan for Seismic Safety (CAPSS) in response to Mayor Newsom’s Executive Directive 10-022. Workplan 2012-2042 anticipates programs for broad groups of new and existing buildings throughout the City. Looking ahead, the City recognized that within each broad group, some buildings would need special attention through exemptions, programmatic solutions, or specific technical criteria, to make the work feasible. One such subgroup comprises the City’s “tall buildings.” In tall buildings, difficult exterior access, multiple tenants and uses within a building, and their sheer size complicate evaluation and retrofit. Their structural systems preclude generic performance assumptions and prescriptive engineering solutions. Damage to a tall building can pose risks well beyond its own footprint. Their high concentration downtown poses an aggregate risk to neighborhood and citywide recovery not presented by other building groups. Perhaps most important, San Francisco’s new and existing tall buildings represent a dominant portion of the City’s business sector, and increasingly house residents as well. For these reasons, the City initiated the first project in the nation to consider the impact of earthquakes on tall buildings. The project conducted investigations in seven focus areas under separate tasks. This report documents the complete findings and recommendations of each task, and the recommendations are summarized below. An inventory developed for the project identified 156 buildings that are 240 feet or taller, either constructed or permitted for construction, primarily located in San Francisco’s northeast neighborhoods (Supervisorial Districts 3 and 6). Approximately 60% of these buildings contain primarily business uses, while the others are predominantly residential. The recommendations presented here flow from a study of these tall buildings, but most are also applicable to a wider set of buildings supporting similar functions or posing similar risks. Tall buildings, even in downtown San ATC-119-1 Summary Recommendations v Francisco, are only part of a neighborhood’s building stock, and from a public policy perspective, their earthquake performance is bound up with that of the shorter buildings around them. Each recommended action identifies one or more City departments to lead its implementation. However, implementation of any new policy is assumed to involve appropriate coordination with other City departments, outside experts (as needed), and other stakeholders. Some recommended actions require enactment of legislation by the Mayor and Board of Supervisors or action by the Building Inspection Commission and can only commence after these approvals. Sections 1 through 4 below summarize the findings from the study in issue statements and describe the associated recommendations to address the issue. Section 5 presents the recommendations in a table format showing different aspects of each recommendation, including potential implementation timeframe, relationship to Workplan 2012-2042, City department responsible for implementation, and the relationship of recommendations to Parts of the project report for reference. The Summary Recommendations were originally published by the City as part of the Tall Buildings Safety Strategy on October 4, 2018. They have been updated in response to feedback from the structural engineering community. The specific changes are as follows: Recommendation 2A was modified to include a clarification that the repair provisions of the San Francisco Existing Building Code should be applied in accordance with a future Administrative Bulletin that defines appropriate triggers and other indicators of potential damage. Recommendation 2B was expanded to include the addition of triggers that apply when buildings are purchased or leases are renewed. In addition, the issue statement was expanded to include change of occupancy triggers. 1. Actions for Reducing Seismic Risk Prior to Earthquakes – New Buildings 1A. Develop Regulations to Address Foundation and Geotechnical Issues Issue: The San Francisco Building Code sets minimum requirements for geotechnical site investigations and foundation design. Because they are minimum requirements, they do not fully address all of the geotechnical conditions found in San Francisco. Over the past several decades, the San Francisco geotechnical community has developed best practices for vi Summary Recommendations ATC-119-1 geotechnical evaluation and foundation design, but these are not yet codified. Many of the new tall building developments are challenging even these best practices due to unique soil conditions, the size and weight of the new buildings, and the sophisticated site investigation and the analysis approaches being used to assess overall building behavior, including building response to extreme earthquake ground motions. Recommendation: To help reduce the risk associated with these geotechnical challenges, the Department of Building Inspection (DBI) should develop an Administrative Bulletin or Information Sheet (with building code amendments as needed) with acceptable practices on topics including the following: Settlement design
Recommended publications
  • THE GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE: a LEGAL HISTORY by John S
    THE GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE: A LEGAL HISTORY By John S. Caragozian San Francisco teems with icons: Alcatraz, cable cars, the Transamerica Pyramid. The greatest is the Golden Gate Bridge, an engineering and aesthetic marvel. A railroad bridge across the Golden Gate was first suggested in 1872 by Charles Crocker, one of the “Big Four” founders of the company that had built the western portion of the transcontinental railroad. The railroad ended up with a different route to San Francisco, and the bridge idea faded. Over 40 years later, a University of California engineering graduate-turned-journalist proposed a bridge in several San Francisco Bulletin editorials, but World War I diverted public interest. The editorials, though, caught the attention of San Francisco City Engineer Michael O’Shaughnessy. In 1917, he asked a bridge engineer visiting from Chicago, Joseph Strauss, to evaluate the Golden Gate proposal. See generally, Stephen Cassady, Spanning the Gate (1986), at 13-16. Strauss understood that a bridge posed a political challenge as well as an engineering one. Was a bridge needed? On the one hand, few people lived north of the Golden Gate; for example, Marin County had barely 27,000 people per the 1920 census. On the other hand, growing automobile traffic was straining the ferries that were the only link across the Golden Gate. Moreover, a bridge would enhance San Francisco’s commercial prominence with a direct link north. In 1920, Strauss completed a Golden Gate Bridge proposal, including a design, budget, and revenue projections. With then-current technology, no suspension bridge could span the entire Golden Gate.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Armchair Travel Destination - United States of America San Francisco Conservatory of Flowers
    Armchair Travel _ Destination - United States of America _ San Francisco Conservatory of Flowers The Conservatory of Flowers at Golden Gate Park opened in Golden Gate Park in 1879. A powerful storm destroyed the glass and wood greenhouse in 1998, causing the conservatory to temporarily close. In 2003, the conservatory reopened after extensive reconstruction. The Conservatory features more than 1,700 varieties of tropical plants, from palms to cycads to cacao. In its five galleries, this modern horticultural museum displays many endangered species from over 50 countries and focuses on conservation education. © Copyright [email protected] 2017. All Rights Reserved 1 Armchair Travel _ Destination - United States of America _ San Francisco City Hall Designed by Arthur Brown Jr. as a civic center, the San Francisco City Hall was part of the American Renaissance movement—a period when the United States experienced a rebirth in literature, art, architecture, and music. It was built to replace the previous city hall, which was destroyed in an earthquake in 1906. The current city hall, which occupies two city blocks, opened its doors in 1915. © Copyright [email protected] 2017. All Rights Reserved 2 Armchair Travel _ Destination - United States of America _ San Francisco Alcatraz The U.S. government built a lighthouse on Alcatraz Island in 1854. Beginning in 1859, Alcatraz, otherwise known as the Rock, served as a fortress and military prison to defend San Francisco Bay. Due to high operating costs, the government turned Alcatraz over to the Federal Bureau of Prisons in 1934. The Rock was a federal penitentiary until 1963.
    [Show full text]
  • 181 Fremont Street
    SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING DEPARTMENT Certificate of Determination 1650 Mission St. Suite 400 EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW San Francisco, CA 94103-2479 Case No.: 2007.0456E Reception: Project Title: 181 Fremont Street 415.558.6378 Zoning/Plan Area: C-3-0 (SD) Downtown Office Special Development District; Transit Center Commercial Special Use District; 415.558.6409 700-S Height and Bulk District; Transit Center District Plan Block/Lot: Planning 3719/10 & 11 Information: Lot Size: 15,312.5 square feet 415.558.6377 Project Sponsor: Daniel R. Kingsley, SKS Fremont, LLC, (415) 421-8200 Staff Contact: Michael Jacinto (415) 575-9033 [email protected] PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project sponsor, SKS Fremont, LLC, proposes to demolish two existing structures and develop one 700-foot-tall tower (745 feet to the top of the parapet/mechanical screen) on two lots located at the east side of Fremont Street immediately south of the new Transhay Transit Center that is currently under construction. The project site, as shown in Figure 1, comprises two parcels, is approximately 15,310 square feet in size, and is located within the approved Transit Center District Plan (TCDP or Plan) area. The proposed tower would include a mix of office, residential, and retail, along with five levels of below grade parking, off-street loading spaces, residential and office lobbies and amenities for the project residents (continued on next page). EXEMPT STATUS: Exempt per Section 15183 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines California. REMARKS: (see page 18, below) DETERMINATION: I do hereby certify that the above determination has been made pursuant to State and Local requirements.
    [Show full text]
  • June 2016 San Francisco Residential Development
    SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT JUNE 2016 NAVIGATION Click page numbers to be taken directly to page NEWS & MARKET CURRENTLY HIGHLIGHTS PERFORMANCE SELLING NEWS AND HIGHLIGHTS MARKET PERFORMANCE CURRENTLY SELLING Median $/SqFt Currently Year-Over-Year Month-Over-Month CURRENTLY SELLING... Luxe New Condominiump. $1,218/SqFt + 15% p. + 2% p. Nearly half of second phase is under contract. Price per square foot3 is 4 1650 Broadway at Van5 Ness | Pacific Heights Shipyard’s Resale Condominium $1,042/SqFt + 11% + 2% averaging approximately $760. The first phase averaged approximately $660 per Status: 34 units available/0 in-contract/0 closed square foot. New Apartment $5.10/SqFt + 7% N/A Pre-sale: August 2015 Closings anticipated: Q1 2016 Less than 100 units remain available at The Rockwell. Current absorption surpasses Project info: 34 units, 7-stories, 34 parking spaces 30 units a month. NEW CONDOMINIUM PRICING & VOLUME Developer: Belrich Partners Sales are expected to commence this month at the second phase of Onyx , consisting Architect: Forum Design of 21 condominiums. Median Price & Closing Volume Interior Design: Edmonds + Lee Features & Finishes: Marble tile and zinc facade, Floor- Closings have commenced at Lumina’s Plaza A. Price per square$1,200,000 foot is averaging 180 approximately $1,500. to-ceiling windows, Bay and Golden Gate views, Studio 160 Click development to be taken directly to page $1,000,000 Becker Cabinetry, Mobile kitchen islands, Caesarstone 140 Most Recent Quarter countertops, Subzero refrigerators, Thermador ap- $800,000ONE FRANKLIN 181 FREMONT ONE120 MISSION BAY THE HARRISONpliances, Uline THE wine coolers, PACIFIC Duravit and Hansgrohe 100 Median: $1,000,000 PROPOSED..
    [Show full text]
  • Attractions with the Symbol Require Reservations
    Thank you for choosing San Francisco Explorer Pass 4-Choice! There are few places in the world that combine a dense, bustling metropolis with awe-inspiring natural beauty, but the San Francisco Bay Area does just that. Set sail under the Golden Gate bridge, escape from Alcatraz, peruse the de Young Museum: in this guide, you’ll discover all there is to see and do in the City by the Bay. So fuel up with a dim sum lunch or satisfy your sweet tooth with a Ghirardelli chocolate, and enjoy San Francisco! This packet contains your admission pass(es) Your pass is required for admission at each attraction. Please print it out, carry it with you and retain it after each visit. How to use your admission pass Every pass has a unique code. A representative at the attraction will scan the code on each traveler’s pass, granting you admission. For special offers at shops and restaurants, show your pass to your server or cashier. Be aware of admission policies Please read attraction information for hours, closings, and special admis- sion instructions. Attractions with the symbol require reservations. Pass expiration Visiting your first attraction activates your pass. Then, you have 30 calen- dar days to use your pass. You may only visit each attraction once. You have one year from the purchase date to begin using your pass. Need help? If you need assistance with your pass please call us at 866-628-9028. If you lose your pass, reprint it at any time from your order confirmation email, or by using Order Lookup at smartdestinations.com.
    [Show full text]
  • ATC 52-1 Potential Earthquake Impacts
    ATC 52-1 Here Today—Here Tomorrow: The Road to Earthquake Resilience in San Francisco Potential Earthquake Impacts Applied Technology Council Prepared for San Francisco Department of Building Inspection under the Community Action Plan for Seismic Safety (CAPSS) Project Community Action Plan for Seismic Safety (CAPSS) Project The Community Action Plan for Seismic Safety (CAPSS) project of the San Francisco Department of Building Inspection (DBI) was created to provide DBI and other City agencies and policymakers with a plan of action or policy road map to reduce earthquake risks in existing, privately-owned buildings that are regulated by the Department, and also to develop repair and rebuilding guidelines that will expedite recovery after an earthquake. Risk reduction activities will only be implemented and will only succeed if they make sense financially, culturally and politically, and are based on technically sound information. CAPSS engaged community leaders, earth scientists, social scientists, economists, tenants, building owners, and engineers to find out which mitigation approaches make sense in all of these ways and could, therefore, be good public policy. The CAPSS project was carried out by the Applied Technology Council (ATC), a nonprofit organization founded to develop and promote state-of-the-art, user-friendly engineering resources and applications to mitigate the effects of natural and other hazards on the built environment. Early phases of the CAPSS project, which commenced in 2000, involved planning and conducting an initial earthquake impacts study. The final phase of work, which is described and documented in the report series, Here Today—Here Tomorrow: The Road to Earthquake Resilience in San Francisco, began in April of 2008 and was completed at the end of 2010.
    [Show full text]
  • Film Locations in San Francisco
    Film Locations in San Francisco Title Release Year Locations A Jitney Elopement 1915 20th and Folsom Streets A Jitney Elopement 1915 Golden Gate Park Greed 1924 Cliff House (1090 Point Lobos Avenue) Greed 1924 Bush and Sutter Streets Greed 1924 Hayes Street at Laguna The Jazz Singer 1927 Coffee Dan's (O'Farrell Street at Powell) Barbary Coast 1935 After the Thin Man 1936 Coit Tower San Francisco 1936 The Barbary Coast San Francisco 1936 City Hall Page 1 of 588 10/02/2021 Film Locations in San Francisco Fun Facts Production Company The Essanay Film Manufacturing Company During San Francisco's Gold Rush era, the The Essanay Film Manufacturing Company Park was part of an area designated as the "Great Sand Waste". In 1887, the Cliff House was severely Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) damaged when the schooner Parallel, abandoned and loaded with dynamite, ran aground on the rocks below. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) Warner Bros. Pictures The Samuel Goldwyn Company The Tower was funded by a gift bequeathed Metro-Goldwyn Mayer by Lillie Hitchcock Coit, a socialite who reportedly liked to chase fires. Though the tower resembles a firehose nozzle, it was not designed this way. The Barbary Coast was a red-light district Metro-Goldwyn Mayer that was largely destroyed in the 1906 earthquake. Though some of the establishments were rebuilt after the earthquake, an anti-vice campaign put the establishments out of business. The dome of SF's City Hall is almost a foot Metro-Goldwyn Mayer Page 2 of 588 10/02/2021 Film Locations in San Francisco Distributor Director Writer General Film Company Charles Chaplin Charles Chaplin General Film Company Charles Chaplin Charles Chaplin Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) Eric von Stroheim Eric von Stroheim Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) Eric von Stroheim Eric von Stroheim Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) Eric von Stroheim Eric von Stroheim Warner Bros.
    [Show full text]
  • City and County of San Francisco
    PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT DATED JANUARY 30, 2019 NEW ISSUE - BOOK-ENTRY ONLY RATING: Fitch: “AA+” See “RATING” herein. In the opinion of Jones Hall, A Professional Law Corporation, San Francisco, California, Bond Counsel, subject, however to certain qualifications described in this Official Statement, under existing law, the interest on the Bonds is exempt from California personal income taxes. Interest on the Bonds is not intended to be exempt from federal income taxation. Bond Counsel expresses no opinion regarding other federal or State tax consequences relating to the ownership or disposition of, or the accrual or receipt of interest on, the Bonds. See “TAX MATTERS” herein. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2014-1 (TRANSBAY TRANSIT CENTER) $31,940,000* $152,205,000* Special Tax Bonds, Series 2019A Special Tax Bonds, Series 2019B (Federally Taxable) (Federally Taxable – Green Bonds) Dated: Date of Delivery Due: September 1, as shown on inside cover This cover page contains certain information for general reference only. It is not intended to be a summary of the security or terms of this issue. Investors must read the entire Official Statement to obtain information essential to making an informed investment decision. The City and County of San Francisco, California (the “City”) on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco Community Facilities District No. 2014-1 (Transbay Transit Center) (the “District”) will be issuing Special Tax Bonds, Series 2019A (Federally Taxable) (the “2019A Bonds”) and Special Tax Bonds, Series 2019B (Federally Taxable – Green Bonds) (the “2019B Bonds” and, together with the 2019A Bonds, the “2019 Bonds”).
    [Show full text]
  • 168 7D Experience 67 49 Mile Scenic Drive 33 555 California Street
    168 index 7D Experience 67 Cat Club 116 49 Mile Scenic Drive 33 Clock Bar 38 555 California Street Building 43 Comstock Saloon 64 DNA Lounge 116 A Elixir 126 ENO Wine Bar 38 Accès 136 Ferry Plaza Wine Merchant & Wine Bar 52 Accessoires 40, 66, 81, 87, 97, 98, 126, Greens Sports Bar 81 127 Hard Water 52 Aéroport Harlot San Francisco 116 San Francisco International Airport 136 Harvey’s 125 Alamo Square 93 Hi-Tops 125 Hog & Rocks 126 Alcatraz 72 Hôtel Biron 95 Alimentation 41, 53, 65, 127 Kozy Kar 64 Alta Plaza Park 82 Li Po Cocktail Lounge 39 Appareils électroniques 39 Matrix Fillmore 81 Aquarium of the Bay 67 Moby Dick 126 Arboretum 102 Nectar Wine Lounge 81 Argent 150 Nihon Whisky Lounge 126 Noc Noc 95 Articles de cuisine 40, 53, 66 Pandora Karaoke & Bar 39 ArtSpan 165 Press Club 39 Asian Art Museum 88 Redwood Room 39 AT&T Park 110 Slim’s 116 Auberges de jeunesse 139 The Buena Vista Cafe 74 The Cinch Saloon 64 B The Interval at Long Now 81 The Plough and the Stars 107 Bank of California Building 47 Tonga Room 64 Banques 151 Top of the Mark 64 Bars et boîtes de nuit 151 Toronado 96 Barbarossa Lounge 64 Tosca Cafe 64 Benjamin Cooper 38 Twin Peaks Tavern 126 Bix 52 Uva Enoteca 96 Bourbon and Branch 95 Vesuvio Cafe 64 B Restaurant & Bar 116 Wattle Creek Winery 74 Café du Nord 126 BART 147 http://www.guidesulysse.com/catalogue/FicheProduit.aspx?isbn=9782894647356 169 Baseball 158 Cliff House 107 Basketball 159 Climat 152 Bay Area Bike Share 150 Cobb’s Comedy Club 65 Bay Bridge 49 Coit Tower 60 Bay to Breakers 164 Columbus Tower 55 Beach Blanket
    [Show full text]
  • Tehama San Francisco | California
    36 Tehama san francisco | California TRANSBAY MICRO-UNIT DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1288HOWARD 36Tehama Executive Summary Colliers International is pleased to present the opportunity to acquire 36 Tehama, (the “Property” or “Project”), an incredible Transbay development opportunity located in the San Francisco’s downtown core. The Project features an irreplaceable location surrounded by San Francisco’s most notable office occupiers including Salesforce and Facebook who occupy nearly 3.5M square feet of space steps from the Project’s front door. 2 Residential Micro-unit Project 45 8 419 Total Units Levels Avg. unit size NORTHPOINT ST. NORTHPOINT ST. COLUMBUS ST. BAY ST. BAY ST. VANDEWATER ST. 18,855 ST. MIDWAY Type III BRET HARTE WORDEN ST. FRANCISCO ST. FRANCISCO ST. THE EMBARCADERO Total SaleableWATER ST. Sq. Ft. Construction HOUSTON ST. PFEIFFER ST. BELL AIR ST. BELL CHESTNUT ST. CHESTNUT ST. VENARD FIELDING ST. WHITING ST. CULEBRA WINTHROP ST. WINTHROP JULIUS NEWELL ST. NEWELL LOMBARD ST. LOMBARD ST. EDGARDO PL. BLACKSTONE TUSCANY CHILD ST. EDITH JANSEN ST. TELEGRAPH GREENWICH ST. GREENWICH ST. 0 500 BRANT T PARDEE E L KRAMER GERKE E ROACH ST. G VALPARAISO ST. VALPARAISO ST. R HARRIS PL. A Scale in Feet P H VIA BUFANO VIA High-rise Alternative Hotel B L V D DARELL NAPIER SCOTLAND ST. ATTRIDGE FILBERT ST. FILBERT ST. HARWOOD HAVENS ST. ALTA ST. ALTA ST. REDFIELD ALLADIN TER. SCHOOL NOBLE'S PL. GENOA ALLEN ST. HASTINGS KENT ST. CADELL MOORE MARION PL. BLACK PL. UNION ST. UNION ST. WARNER SHARP WEBB PL. WINTER ROCKLAND PRICE RUSSELL ST. MACONDRAY LN. MONTAGUE COMMERCE ST.
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Ethics Commission Disclosure Report for Permit
    DocuSign Envelope ID: E93BA072-AAE3-4AE2-B931-BCA55432FAA2 San Francisco Ethics Commission 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 220, San Francisco, CA 94102 Received on: Phone: 415.252.3100 . Fax: 415.252.3112 07-14-2020\DateSigned | 08:21:52\ 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\ April 1 to June 30 2020 2. PERMIT CONSULTANT AND EMPLOYER INFORMATION NAME OF PERMIT CONSULTANT NAME OF EMPLOYER John Fogarty \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 California
    [Show full text]