DOCSLIB.ORG

Baseline Budget for Phase 1 of the Transbay Transit Center Program (Program) in the Amount of $1,189,000,000 in Year of Expenditure (YOE) Dollars

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Baseline Budget for Phase 1 of the Transbay Transit Center Program (Program) in the Amount of $1,189,000,000 in Year of Expenditure (YOE) Dollars THIS STAFF REPORT COVERS CALENDAR ITEM NO.: 7 FOR THE MEETING OF: November 16, 2007 TRANSBAY JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY BRIEF DESCRIPTION: Recommendation of a Baseline Budget for Phase 1 of the Transbay Transit Center Program (Program) in the amount of $1,189,000,000 in year of expenditure (YOE) dollars. SUMMARY: A preliminary Phase 1 cost estimate totaling $983 million was developed in January 2006 and presented to the Board in March 2006. This preliminary estimate was prepared using conceptual designs and FTA-mandated minimum levels of contingencies, as well as initial estimates of escalation and program-wide costs such as design and construction management. Since the Phase 1 preliminary cost estimate was presented to the Board in March 2006, considerable work has been completed to identify the most probable final cost of Phase 1 as the basis for the recommended Baseline Budget. The estimate was recalculated to account for the escalation that occurred during 2006, and an industry review was conducted to assess the most probable ongoing annual levels of escalation to the end of construction. In addition, adjustments were made to the Phase 1 preliminary cost estimate to account for further scope development, development of intended contracting strategies, and reallocation of some costs from Phase 2. Accordingly, this report provides an update to the components included in the prior estimate and recommends the adoption of a Baseline Budget for Phase 1 of $1,189,000,000 (YOE). Once adopted, this Baseline Budget will be the benchmark against which cost performance will be measured. Staff and consultants have developed a draft funding plan for the Baseline Budget. With updated real estate-based revenues, this funding plan indicates that Phase 1 is fully funded. REPORT: Recommended Budget The budget presented here is a Phase 1 budget only. Phase 1 comprises the following facilities forming part of the of the Transit Center Project (TCP) Refined Locally Preferred Alternative (RLPA): (a) acquisition of private parcels for TCP right-of-way and three for DTX; (b) construction of a temporary terminal on Main Street between Folsom and Howard streets; (c) demolition of the existing Transbay Terminal and bus ramps; (d) construction of the above-grade bus facilities portion of the new Transit Center with refinements from the LPA, including a reduction in height and size of the Transit Center, reduction in height of the bus ramps connecting with I-80, expansion of adjacent sidewalks and public access, greater penetration of sunlight into the Transit Center, and increase in customer service and waiting areas in the western end of the Center; (e) construction of bus ramps and bus storage; (f) construction of foundations and other improvements to prepare for future construction of the below-grade train station facilities portion of the Program; and (g) design and engineering of the above facilities including the full below-ground rail level component of the Transit Center building (h) preliminary engineering Part 1 and 2 of the DTX. Phase 2 comprises the following facilities forming part of the TCP and the Caltrain Downtown Extension (DTX) Project RLPA: (a) engineering and design of the DTX; (b) early acquisition of private parcels necessary to protect the right-of-way for the DTX and acquisition of below-grade easements and the remaining parcels for construction of the DTX; (c) construction of the DTX to extend the rail lines from the existing Fourth and King Street Station to the new Transit Center building; (d) construction of the below- grade train station portion of the new Transit Center and the below-grade train station at Fourth and Townsend streets; and (e) upgrade to the existing Fourth and King Street Station and provision of train storage at the existing Caltrain Yard. We are working to identify funding for the construction of the train box as part of Phase 1 of the Program. The design of the full below-ground rail level is already included in the budget for Phase 1. There are four main factors influencing the staff recommendation of a Baseline Budget that is higher than the $983 million (YOE) preliminary cost estimate prepared in January 2006. They are: 1. Most significantly, the occurrence of historically high rates of construction cost escalation in the San Francisco Bay Area and national markets ($102 million (YOE)). 2. Contingency in excess of that which was included in the January 2006 preliminary cost estimate ($25 million (YOE)). 3. Re-estimation of certain specific line items based on recently developed information ($41 million (YOE)). 4. Reallocation of certain costs between Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Program ($38 million (YOE)) for clarification purposes. Each of these cost items is discussed separately in the following sections. Construction Cost Escalation. The construction market in the San Francisco Bay Area has been very active over the last several years resulting in significant upward pressure on prices for construction material and labor. It has also had the overall effect of making bid prices less competitive. In addition to the Bay Area, national and international markets have experienced well-publicized high rates of escalation for certain commodities such as structural steel. To evaluate the magnitude of cost escalation impacts, the PMPC Consultant adjusted the direct construction cost estimates to reflect January 2007 prices. This resulted in an additional $48 million (YOE) in estimated construction cost. At the same time, real estate appraisals conducted as part of the ongoing right-of-way acquisition process indicate an escalation in property values. Additionally certain right-of-way costs have been reallocated from Phase 1 to Phase 2 to align the parcel costs with the appropriate phase of the Program. These reallocations include half of the cost of 80 Natoma, which is required for both the Transbay Transit Center and the DTX, and the cost of near-term acquisitions for DTX right-of-way preservation. These changes added a net cost of $6 million (YOE) to the estimate of acquiring properties for the Program. In addition to these direct escalation costs, we assessed the probability of future escalation at the 50% probability level. This resulted in the addition of $48 million (YOE) in escalation cost due to the possibility of schedule prolongation and bidding market pressures. The net result of these three components of additional escalation (actual construction cost escalation experienced in 2006, real estate escalation, and the possibility of future escalation) is the recommendation of an additional $102 million (YOE) to the January 2006 estimate. Additional Contingency. With any large capital design and construction program, it is prudent to conduct a detailed probability analysis to recommend the appropriate level of contingency funds to include in the Baseline Budget. Moreover, the FTA requires that such an analysis be conducted for all New Starts projects. A number of well-publicized large capital projects have experienced significant cost overruns from their original budgets at least in part because such an analysis was not conducted or because results of such analyses may not have been fully understood or accepted. PMPC subconsultant Golder Associates (Golder) conducted a formal analysis for the Program from March 2005 to September 2007. Golder is a nationally recognized expert in analyzing large design and construction programs and helping owners with setting appropriate levels of contingency to budget. Golder conducted several day-long workshops, with all key project participants as well as outside experts, to identify all possible issues with the potential to impact Phase 1 of the Program, assess their probability of occurrence, and evaluate their impact. Management strategies were also developed to determine which of the issues could be managed and which needed to be incorporated into the Program’s Baseline Budget. The result of this effort was an issue register, the content of which served as the input to a computer simulation. The computer simulation produced a curve that predicted the final Program Phase 1 cost at varying levels of probability of occurrence. The Program has chosen to use the 50% probability level for establishing a Baseline Budget. A 50% probability level means that the model predicts a 50% probability that costs will be less than the recommended budget. The use of a 50% probability level is coupled with the implementation of ongoing analyses and other cost control measures to be employed. Following the probability analysis, $25 million (YOE) was added as additional contingency, in excess of that which was mandated by the FTA, to the Baseline Budget to account for the identified issues at the 50% probability level. Scope Refinement. Three items in the previous estimate were refined due to recently developed information. The first of these is the estimated cost of relocating buried utilities to allow the construction of the new Transit Center. In conjunction with the bidding and negotiating process for the recently approved engineering consulting contract on utility relocations, a new estimate was prepared using recently compiled data showing the existing utilities to be relocated. The relocation of utilities is expensive work and complex to estimate precisely. Nevertheless, the study determined that $23 million (YOE) should be added to the January 2006 estimate for Phase 1 utility relocation. The second item is the cost of an insurance program for the Program. Based on the current cost of insurance as analyzed by the PMPC insurance consultant, the impact to the estimated cost included in the recommended Baseline Budget is $10 million (YOE). The third item is a recalculation of the estimated cost of a Construction Manager at-Risk contracting strategy, including funds for staffing a construction management function during the later stages of design and prior to the actual start of construction. Staffing this function early should minimize concerns in the construction phase.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Bay Area-Silicon Valley and Australia an Expanding Trans-Pacific Partnership
    The Bay Area-Silicon Valley and Australia An Expanding Trans-Pacific Partnership December 2020 Acknowledgments This report was developed in partnership with the Odette Hampton, Trade and Investment Commissioner American Chamber of Commerce in Australia, with and Deputy Consul General, Australian Trade and support from Cisco, Google, Lendlease, Salesforce, Investment Commission (Austrade) Telstra, University of Technology Sydney, and Wipro. Joe Hockey, Founding Partner and President, Bondi Development of the project was led by Sean Randolph, Partners, Australian Ambassador to the US, 2016–2020 Senior Director at the Bay Area Council Economic Institute. Neils Erich, a consultant to the Institute, Vikas Jain, Asia-Pacific Business Head for Engineering, was co-author. The Institute wishes to thank April Construction and Mining, Wipro Palmerlee, Chief Executive Officer of the American Claire Johnston, Managing Director, Google Chamber of Commerce in Australia, for her support Development Ventures, Lendlease throughout this effort and the following individuals for Joe Kaesshaefer, Trade and Investment Commissioner– their valuable input: USA, Department of Industry, New South Wales Jeff Bleich, Chief Legal Officer, Cruise, US Ambassador Michael Kapel, Trade and Investment Commissioner to to Australia 2009–2013 the Americas in San Francisco, Government of Victoria Michael Blumenstein, Associate Dean, Research Damian Kassabgi, Executive Vice President, Public Strategy and Management, Faculty of Engineering Policy and Communications, Afterpay and
    [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]
  • 400 Montgomery Street
    400 Montgomery Street For Lease | Retail Space | North Financial District - San Francisco, CA This exceptionally well-located Downtown retail availability sits at the base of the historic 400 Montgomery Street - a 75,000 SF office building at the cross streets of Montgomery and California. Don’t miss this rare opportunity to front one of the Financial District’s busiest streets. Premises 1,951 Rentable Square Feet 20,253 Cars Per Day on Montgomery Ideal for Fitness, Non-Cooking Food, Estimated 22 Million Pedestrians or Service Per Year Pass the Intersection of Montgomery and California 101 PEIR 39 1 AQUATIC PARK JEFFERSON ST TAYLOR ST POWELL ST JONES ST MARINA GREEN NORTH POINT ST M BEACH ST A MASON ST Y R CASA WAY A IN W A KEARNY ST O B R L I V MARINA BLVD RICO WAY T JEFFERSON ST D STOCKTON ST BRODERICK ST E R GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL WEBSTER ST FORT BAY ST RECREATION AREA MASON NORTH POINT ST BUCHANAN ST GRANT AVE C PRADO ST CERVANTES BLVD R JEFFERSON ST BEACH ST HYDE ST IS S Y BAKER ST FI POLK ST BAY ST FRANCISCO ST CHESTNUT ST ELD A BEACH ST V BEACH ST MONTGOMERY ST E AVILA ST NORTH POINT ST GOUGH ST LARKIN ST T DIVISADERO ST BAY ST CHESTNUT ST H 101 E SCOTT ST E FILLMORE ST LOMBARD ST M CAPRA WAY FRANKLIN ST BAY ST B NORTH POINT ST A T SANSOME ST T E R S M FRANCISCO ST L C E A A G A D R L LOMBARD ST R D V B L A O GREENWICH ST E L M A LEAVENWORTH ST P R R B BAY ST H COLUMBUS AVE H L C O A A OCTAVIA ST CHESTNUT ST H PIERCE ST AY L N W W IL D O L BLV LIN S O A D Y LOMBARD ST C H TAYLOR ST CO TOLE GREENWICH ST K N L E E I N FILBERT ST L
    [Show full text]
  • Tclf.Org What’S
    The Cultural Landscape Foundation connecting people to places™ tclf.org What’s Out There® San Francisco Bay Area Photo courtesy Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy The Cultural Landscape Foundation (TCLF) TCLF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit founded in 1998 to connect people to places. TCLF educates and engages the public to make our shared landscape heritage more visible, identify its value, and empower its stewards. Through its website, publishing, lectures and other events, TCLF broadens support and understanding for cultural landscapes. tclf.org 2 The Cultural Landscape Foundation San Francisco Bay Area Welcome to What’s Out There® San Francisco The guidebook is a complement to TCLF’s digital What’s Out Bay Area, organized by The Cultural Landscape There San Francisco Bay Area Guide (tclf.org/san-francisco), Foundation (TCLF) and a committee of local experts. an interactive online platform that includes the enclosed site profiles plus many others, as well as overarching narratives, This guidebook provides photographs and details of 35 maps, historic photographs, and designers’ biographical examples of the region’s rich cultural landscape legacy. Its profiles. The guide is the sixteenth such online compendium publication is timed to coincide with the launch of What’s of urban landscapes, dovetailing with TCLF’s web-based Out There Weekend San Francisco Bay Area, September What’s Out There, the nation’s most comprehensive searchable 14-15, 2019, a weekend of free, expert-led tours. database of historic designed landscapes. Profusely illustrated First settled by indigenous peoples and later by Spanish and carefully vetted, the searchable database currently features colonists, the Bay Area saw relatively modest growth until the more than 2,000 sites, 12,000 images, and 1,100 designer 1848 California Gold Rush and railroad connections irrevocably profiles.
    [Show full text]
  • 25 Years: Downtown Plan Monitoring Report, 1985-2009 03
    YEARS DOWNTOWN PLAN MONITORING REPORT 1 9 8 5 - 2 0 0 9 SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING DEPARTMENT JUNE 2011 © 2011 San Francisco Planning Department 1650 Mission Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94103-3114 www.sfplanning.org 25 YEARS: DOWNTOWN PLAN MONITORING REPORT 1985-2009 San Francisco Planning Department June 2011 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 01 25 Years: Downtown Plan 01 Economic Change and Unexpected Trends 02 Regional Context and What Lies Ahead 02 25 YEARS: DOWNTOWN PLAN MONITORING REPORT, 1985-2009 03 Report Organization 03 PART I: THE DOWNTOWN PLAN: GOALS ACHIEVED 05 Introduction 05 Space for Commerce 08 New Commercial Construction Downtown 08 Downtown Commercial Space Today 10 Space for Housing 12 New Housing Downtown 12 Jobs Housing Linkage Program (JHLP) 14 Protecting Existing Housing Downtown 16 Downtown Housing Today 17 Open Space 18 Downtown Open Space Today 20 Historic Preservation 21 Downtown Historic Preservation Today 21 Urban Form 23 Downtown Urban Form Today 24 Moving About – Transportation 25 Downtown Transportation Today 26 PART II: ECONOMIC CHANGE AND REGIONAL GROWTH SINCE 1985 27 San Francisco Employment Change – from Office to Other Activities 28 Sole Proprietors – Shift from Large to Smaller Employers 28 Downtown Area Employment – A Change in Location 33 Downtown C-3 Zone Employment Change 33 Downtown San Francisco in a Regional Context: What Lies Ahead? 34 San Francisco and the Region 34 The Downtown Plan Today and Tomorrow 35 APPENDICES Appendix A: Downtown Plan Objectives 37 Appendix B: Table 1: New Office
    [Show full text]
  • Seeing Green in San Francisco: City As Resource Frontier,” Antipode 48.3
    Knuth, Sarah (Forthcoming 2016) “Seeing Green in San Francisco: City as Resource Frontier,” Antipode 48.3. Expected Publication June 2016 Seeing Green in San Francisco: City as Resource Frontier Dr. Sarah E. Knuth, University of Michigan Abstract The early 21st century witnessed a boom in green building in San Francisco and similar cities. Major downtown property owners and investors retrofitted office towers, commissioned green certifications, and, critically, explored how greening might pay. Greening initiatives transcend corporate social responsibility: they represent a new attempt to enclose and speculate upon “green” value within the second nature of cities. However, this unconventional resource discovery requires a highly partial view of buildings’ socio-natural entanglements in and beyond the city. I illuminate these efforts and their obscurities by exploring the experience of an exemplary green building in San Francisco, an office tower that has successively served as a headquarters organizing a vast resource periphery in the American West, a symbol and driver in the transformation of the city’s own second nature, a financial “resource” in its own right, and, most recently, an asset in an emerging global market for green property. Keywords: green building, green value, urban political economy/ecology, resource geography, financialization, San Francisco Amid the economic turmoil of the late 2000s, the city of San Francisco saw a major building boom, of an unusual kind. Even as foreclosures continued across the metropolitan region and state and local agencies rolled out drastic austerity programs, a fresh flood of capital poured into downtown real estate. This inrush of investment did not only build new buildings; nor did it simply transfer office towers from one owner to another.
    [Show full text]
  • [A Model for Small Public Places]
    [a model for small public places] FOR THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO BY TAMARA MALMSTROM [a model for small public places] FOR THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO A SENIOR PROJECT PREPARED TO THE FACULTY OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE DEPARTMENT UNIVERISITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF BACHELORS OF SCIENCE OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ACCEPTED AND APPROVED BY: ___________________________________________________________________ FACULTY MEMBER - MARK FRANCIS, FASLA ___________________________________________________________________ FACULTY MEMBER - PATSY OWENS, ASLA ___________________________________________________________________ COMMITTEE MEMBER - MARY DE BEAUVIERES, PRINCIPAL PLANNER ___________________________________________________________________ COMMITTEE MEMBER - JEFF NITTKA, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT ___________________________________________________________________ COMMITTEE MEMBER - STEVEN GIGUIERE, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT ___________________________________________________________________ COMMITTEE MEMBER - GREG TAYLOR, SENIOR URBAN DESIGNER TAMARA MALMSTROM SPRING 2008 “The image of a great city stems largely from the quality of it’s public realm - its streets, boulevards, parks, squares, plazas, and waterfronts.” Cyril B. Paumier 19th & Q Site [abstract] [abstract] The City of Sacramento’s Department of Parks & Recreation is currently developing a vision, purpose, policies, and implementation strategies for the creation of small parks and urban plazas (Small Public Places) in higher density areas of the
    [Show full text]
  • The Mark Company Standard Monthly Reports San Francisco
    The Mark Company Standard Monthly Reports San Francisco May 2013 Contents Executive Summary Currently Selling Developments Resale Developments Pipeline Report TMC Disclaimer Notes 1) Currently Selling is defined as a new construction residential project selling for the first time or a project in which units have never been lived in as owner-occupied. 2) Resale is defined as a residential unit that has been sold at least once before and has previously been lived in. 3) This report covers Currently Selling residential developments with 20+ Market Rate units and Resale residential developments with 50+ Market Rate units located in Districts 7, 8 and 9. 4) Assume that projects located in the Currently Selling section are actively selling units unless noted otherwise. 5) Date On Market refers to the date the Sales Center opened. 6) Average Absorption is calculated from Date On Market through the first of the month prior to the date of the report. It accounts for units both in contract and closed. 7) Average Price/SF is calculated using only units where both square footage and price are known. Average Price/SF is defined as the average price divided by the average square footage. Averages are weighted averages. 8) Developments are considered Sold Out once the last Market Rate unit has closed OR there have been six months without a closing, all units are in contract and the Sales Center is closed (e.g. there is no active marketing). At that point, projects will be moved to the Resale section and tracked for resale closings. 9) Market Rate Units Available in the Pipeline Report refers to the estimated number of Market Rate units available for sale at the development (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Ephemera Collection SF SUB COLL
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt2p30342b No online items Finding Aid to the San Francisco Ephemera Collection SF SUB COLL Finding aid prepared by David Krah, Stephanie Walls, and California Ephemera Project staff; updated by San Francisco History Center staff. The California Ephemera Project was funded by a Cataloging Hidden Special Collections and Archives grant from the Council on Library and Information Resources in 2009-2010. San Francisco History Center, San Francisco Public Library 100 Larkin Street San Francisco, CA 94102 [email protected] URL: http://www.sfpl.org/sfhistory 2010, revised January 2020 Finding Aid to the San Francisco SF SUB COLL 1 Ephemera Collection SF SUB COLL Title: San Francisco ephemera collection Date (inclusive): 1850-present Identifier/Call Number: SF SUB COLL Physical Description: 265.0 Linear feet(in 153 file drawers) Contributing Institution: San Francisco History Center, San Francisco Public Library 100 Larkin Street San Francisco, CA 94102 415-557-4567 [email protected] URL: http://sfpl.org/sfhistory Abstract: Consists of ephemeral materials, city records and clippings relating to the city of San Francisco and its citizens. Materials date from the 1850s to the present, the bulk from the 20th century. Subjects cover a diverse array of San Francisco history and primarily pertain to: municipal government; city planning; urban policy; environmental engineering; transportation; social history; labor history; community relations; notable events; public events, fairs and celebrations; and various aspects of local popular culture. Subjects also relate to specific local entities, such as: businesses; schools, colleges and universities; political parties; and associations, groups and clubs.
    [Show full text]
  • G2. Affordable Housing (Inclusionary) Program
    FY 2009-10 Development Impact Fee Report ’s Office Controller January 24, 2011 City and County of San Francisco City and City and County of San Francisco FY 2009-10 Development Impact Fee Report January 24, 2011 Introduction San Francisco Planning Code Article 2, Section 409(b) requires the Controller to issue an Annual Citywide Development Fee and Development Impact Requirements Report including: All development fees collected during the prior fiscal year, organized by development fee account; All cumulative monies collected and expended over the life of each fee; The number of projects that elected to satisfy development impact requirements through in-kind improvements; Any annual construction cost inflation adjustments to fees (based on the Annual Infrastructure Construction Cost Inflation Estimate published by the Office of the City Administrator's Capital Planning Group); and Other information required pursuant to the California Mitigation Fee Act Government Code 66001, including: fee rate and description; the beginning and ending balance of the fee account; the amount of fees collected and interest earned; an identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the percentage of the cost of the improvement funded with fees; an approximate construction start date; and a description of any transfers or loans made from the account.1 Table 1 lists the City’s twenty-four development impact fees, the department or agency collecting and administering each one, and other fee details as of November 2, 2010. On December 6, 2010, several fee levels were adjusted for consistency to reflect gross square feet instead of net square feet.
    [Show full text]
  • Development Impact Fee Report FY 2010-11
    FY 2010-11 Development Impact Fee Report Controller’s Office December 1, 2011 City and County of San Francisco City and County of San Francisco FY 2010-11 Development Impact Fee Report December 1, 2011 Introduction San Francisco Planning Code Article 4, Section 409 requires the Controller to issue an Annual Citywide Development Fee and Development Impact Requirements Report including: All development fees collected during the prior fiscal year, organized by development fee account; All cumulative monies collected and expended over the life of each fee; The number of projects that elected to satisfy development impact requirements through in-kind improvements; Any annual construction cost inflation adjustments to fees, except for the Jobs-Housing Linkage Fee and the Inclusionary Affordable Housing Fee (based on the Annual Infrastructure Construction Cost Inflation Estimate published by the Office of the City Administrator's Capital Planning Group); and Other information required pursuant to the California Mitigation Fee Act Government Code 66001, including: fee rate and description; the beginning and ending balance of the fee account; the amount of fees collected and interest earned; an identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the percentage of the cost of the improvement funded with fees; an approximate construction start date; and a description of any transfers or loans made from the account.1 Table 2 lists the City’s twenty-four development impact fees, the department or agency administering each one, the current fee level and other fee details as of November 28, 2011. Table 3 displays cumulative revenues and expenditures and the FY 2010-11 year-end balance for each development fee account.
    [Show full text]
  • Forest City to Take Pier 70 Project Height Increase to Voters
    114th Year OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF SAN FRANCISCO Volume 114, No. 7 July 2014 www.SFBuildingTradesCouncil.org Forest City to Take Pier 70 Project Height Increase to Voters ♦ The $242 Million Development Would Create 10,000 Construction Jobs By Paul Burton San Francisco Centre and de- City Development Image Courtesy Forest Contributing Writer veloped the Presidio Landmark apartment complex. he impact of The developer’s new pro- Proposition B is posal, the “Union Iron Works starting to be felt. Historic District Housing, Prop B, which Waterfront Parks, Jobs and passed last month, Preservation Initiative,” will Trestricts development along ask voters to restore the height San Francisco’s waterfront limit at the property from 40 by mandating voter approval feet to 90 feet, which is the of every project that exceeds height of the tallest existing height limits. historic structure on the site In response, representatives now. Forest City executive Jack of Forest City Development Sylvan said the ballot measure presented Pier 70 plans to to allow the 90-foot heights delegates of the San Francisco would be submitted to the City Building and Construction in July in order for the measure Trades Council at the council’s to be on the ballot this Novem- recent meeting. Forest City ber. Sylvan said the developer plans to place an initiative on decided to move forward with Forest City plans to develop a 25-acre portion of the Pier 70 Master Plan area. The site includes 2.5 million November’s ballot asking for (continued on page 6) square feet of new buildings, a major park and about 250,000 square feet of existing buildings.
    [Show full text]