DOCSLIB.ORG

Responses to Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report Case No

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Responses to Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report Case No 7 HISTORIC AND EXISTING IMAGES DATE: March 7, 2013 TO: Members of the Planning Commission and Interested Parties FROM: Sarah Jones, Acting Environmental Review Officer Re: Attached Responses to Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report Case No. 2008.1084E, 706 Mission Street – The Mexican Museum and Residential Tower Project Attached for your review please find a copy of the Responses to Comments document for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the above-referenced project. This document is also available from the Planning Department website, at http://tinyurl.com/sfceqadocs. This document, along with the Draft EIR, will be before the Planning Commission for Final EIR certification on March 21, 2013. Please note that the public review period ended on August 13, 2012. The Planning Commission does not conduct a hearing to receive comments on the Responses to Comments document, and no such hearing is required by the California Environmental Quality Act. Interested parties, however, may always write to Commission members or to the President of the Commission at 1650 Mission Street and express an opinion on the Responses to Comments document, or the Commission’s decision to certify the completion of the Final EIR for this project. Please note that if you receive the Responses to Comments document in addition to the Draft EIR, you technically have the Final EIR. If you have any questions concerning the Responses to Comments document or the environmental review process, please contact the EIR Coordinator, Debra Dwyer at 415-575-9031. Thank you for your interest in this project and your consideration of this matter. Memo Revised 10/5/12 706 MISSION STREET − THE MEXICAN MUSEUM AND RESIDENTIAL TOWER PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT RESPONSES TO COMMENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... I.1 A. Purpose of this Responses to Comments Document ........................................... I.1 B. Environmental Review Process ........................................................................... I.1 C. Document Organization ...................................................................................... I.2 II. LIST OF PERSONS COMMENTING ........................................................................ II.1 III. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ............................................................................ III.A.1 A. Land Use and Land Use Planning ................................................................. III.A.1 B. Aesthetics ...................................................................................................... III.B.1 Cumulative Aesthetic Impacts ................................................................ III.B.1 Downtown Skyline ................................................................................. III.B.3 Sunlight/Reflection ................................................................................. III.B.6 Tower Design .......................................................................................... III.B.6 C. Population ...................................................................................................... III.C.1 D. Historic Architectural Resources ................................................................... III.D.1 Historic Preservation Commission ......................................................... III.D.1 Retention of the Aronson Building ......................................................... III.D.1 Aronson Building Construction Activities.............................................. III.D.2 E. Transportation ............................................................................................... III.E.1 AM Analysis ........................................................................................... III.E.1 Critical Movements............................................................................... III.E.12 Trip Assignment/Distribution and Suggested Corrections ................... III.E.17 Traffic Congestion in Project Vicinity .................................................. III.E.25 Consideration of Pedestrian and Parking Supply in Traffic Analysis... III.E.41 Cumulative Transportation Analysis .................................................... III.E.49 Transit Impacts ..................................................................................... III.E.56 Pedestrian Analysis ............................................................................... III.E.57 Cumulative Pedestrian Analysis ........................................................... III.E.62 Construction-Related Transportation Impacts ...................................... III.E.70 Emergency Vehicle Access and Life Safety ......................................... III.E.76 Proposed Mitigation and Improvement Measures ................................ III.E.80 Existing Parking .................................................................................... III.E.88 Loss of Parking in Jessie Square Garage .............................................. III.E.89 Passenger Loading/Unloading .............................................................. III.E.93 F. Wind and Shadow ......................................................................................... III.F.1 Wind ....................................................................................................... III.F.1 Shadow ................................................................................................... III.F.3 General Shadow Analysis of Nearby Open Spaces .......................... III.F.3 March 7, 2013 706 Mission Street Project Case No. 2008.1084E i Responses to Comments Table of Contents Union Square Shadow Analysis and Project Compliance with Planning Code Section 295 .............................................................. III.F.7 Jessie Square Shadow Analysis ...................................................... III.F.20 Cumulative Shadow Analysis ........................................................ III.F.24 Mitigation of Shadow Impacts ....................................................... III.F.29 G. Public Services .............................................................................................. III.G.1 H. Geology and Seismic Hazards ....................................................................... III.H.1 I. Alternatives .................................................................................................... III.I.1 Adequacy of EIR Alternatives / Comments Suggesting that the EIR Analyze Additional Alternatives.............................................................. III.I.1 Suggested Elliptical Tower Plan Alternative ......................................... III.I.11 Suggested Alternatives to Reduce Shadow Impacts on Jessie Square ... III.I.15 Environmentally Superior Alternative ................................................... III.I.25 J. Adequacy of the EIR ...................................................................................... III.J.1 General Comments on the EIR ................................................................ III.J.1 Public Notice ........................................................................................... III.J.3 K. Project Feasibility and Aspects of the Proposed Project ............................... III.K.1 L. Comments on the Merits of the Proposed Project ......................................... III.L.1 Comments Expressing Support or Opposition to the Proposed Project .. III.L.1 Location of The Mexican Museum ......................................................... III.L.7 M. EIR Process .................................................................................................. III.M.1 EIR Cover Image ................................................................................... III.M.1 Forum for Discussion of Topics ............................................................ III.M.2 Forum for Discussion Regarding Project Shadow ................................. III.M.2 N. Requests for Project Clarifications ................................................................ III.N.1 IV. DRAFT EIR REVISIONS .......................................................................................... IV.1 IV.A Changes in Response to Comments ................................................................. IV.1 IV.B Staff-Initiated Changes ................................................................................... IV.11 LIST OF FIGURES Figure RTC.1: View to Project Site from Yerba Buena Gardens Pedestrian Bridge over Howard Street, Looking Northeast ................................................... III.B.2 Figure RTC.2: Shadow Envelope Analysis for Jessie Square ................................. III.I.20 Figure RTC.3: Shadow Envelope Analysis for Jessie Square with the Proposed Project .............................................................................. III.I.21 LIST OF TABLES Table RTC.1: Proposed Project Daily, AM and PM Peak Hour Person-Trip Generation, Residential Flex and Office Flex Options .................... III.E.6 Table RTC.2: Intersection Level of Service, Existing Conditions – Weekday AM Peak Hour ................................................................................. III.E.8 Table RTC.3: Intersection Level of Service, Existing plus Project and Existing plus Variant Conditions – Weekday AM Peak Hour ....... III.E.11 APPENDICES Appendix A:
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 2020-008009Oth
    MEMO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING DATE: October 1, 2020 September 24, 2020 Record No.: 2020-008009OTH Subject: Planning Commission Policy: Implementing Proposition E Staff Contact: Corey Teague, Zoning Administrator – (628) 652-7328 [email protected] Recommendation: Adopt the Proposed Resolution Office Development Annual Limit Program San Francisco’s Office Development Annual Limit Program (“Program”) was initially created in 1985 as part of the Downtown Plan. It limited the amount of large office development (projects containing at least 50,000 square feet of office space) that could be permitted each year in the City (the “Large Cap”). The passage of Proposition M the following year amended the Program in various ways, including the addition of a new and separate annual limit for smaller office development (projects containing between 25,000 square feet to 49,999 square feet), which is commonly known as the “Small Cap.” Each October 17th the Program receives an allotment of 875,000 square feet for the Large Cap, and allotment of 75,000 square feet for the Small Cap. Under the original Program, the Planning Commission could not allocate office space to any development in excess of what was available in the relevant cap at that time. Additionally, unallocated office space in one year rolls over to the next year, and unused office space may be revoked and returned to the relevant cap. A net total of more than 12 Million square feet of office was allocated from the Large Cap in the last 10 years, with the most recent allocations for projects within Central SoMa.
    [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]
  • The Route for the San Francisco Popos Hike (Privately Owned Public Open Spaces) February15, 2018 Dave Weinstein Copyright 2018 El Cerrito Trail Trekkers
    The Route for the San Francisco Popos hike (Privately Owned Public Open Spaces) February15, 2018 Dave Weinstein Copyright 2018 El Cerrito Trail Trekkers. No reproduction without express permission Intro: Mandated by 1985 the city’s downtown plan for new office developments in downtown, these are private spaces are required to be open to the public. Many are open only during business hours but others are public plazas open all the time. Some were created earlier, by developers seeking density bonuses in exchange, or the like. Problem is, people don’t know about many of these open spaces. (Sort of like the trails in El Cerrito.) In 2013 Chronicle urban writer John King wrote a series critiquing the way come owners made their spaces known, and how poorly the city enforced the rules. Since then thanks to John and increased public interest, things have improved. This tour is an update of a tour Trekkers gave in 2013. We will tour not just POPOS spaces but some other plazas and lobbies that are also open to the public, but without the POPOS mandate. We will note how many of these spaces contain excellent art, making downtown very much an open air and lobby museum that itself is too little known. Note: As performed on February 15, we did not get to all of these sites due to time constraints. We got to most, though! Crown Zellerbach 1 One. Meet at 1 Bush Street, Crown-Zellerbach Building. 1959, Hertzka and Knowles, SOM. (Hertzka, Wayne, Knowles, William Howard. 16 and 24th street BART stations, 100 Pine St., at least portions of Lawrence Berkeley Lab) First glass walled tower in city.
    [Show full text]
  • $42,435,000 City and County of San Francisco Finance Corporation Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2007 (Open Space Fund - Various Park Projects)
    NEW ISSUE-BOOK-ENTRY ONLY Ratings: Moody’s S&P Fitch MBIA Insured Ratings: Aaa AAA AAA Underlying Ratings: A1 AA- AA- (See “Ratings” herein) In the opinion of Hawkins Delafietd & Wood LLP, San Francisco, California, and Lofton & Jennings, San Francisco, California, Co-Bond Counsel to the City, under existing statutes and court decisions and assuming continuing compliance with certain tax covenants described herein, <i) interest on the Series 2007 Bonds is excluded from gross income for Federal income tax purposes pursuant to Section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), and (ii) interest on the Series 2007 Bonds is not treated as a preference item in calculating the alternative minimum tax imposed on individuals and corporations under the Code; such interest, however, is included in the adjusted current earnings of certain corporations for purposes of calculating the alternative minimum tax imposed on such corporations. In addition, in the opinion of Co-Bond Counsel to the City, under existing statutes, interest on the Series 2007 Bonds is exempt from personal income taxes imposed by the State of California. See “Tax Matters." $42,435,000 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO FINANCE CORPORATION LEASE REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2007 (OPEN SPACE FUND - VARIOUS PARK PROJECTS) Dated: Date of Delivery Due: July 1, as shown on inside cover The City and County of San Francisco Finance Corporation Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2007 (Open Space Fund - Various Park Projects) (the “Series 2007 Bonds”), are issued pursuant to a Master Trust Agreement, dated as of October 1, 2006 (the “Master Trust Agreement”), as amended by the First Supplemental Trust Agreement, dated as of October 1, 2007 (the “Supplemental Trust Agreement” and together with the Master Trust Agreement, the “Trust Agreement”), each by and between the City and County of San Francisco Finance Corporation (the “Corporation”) and U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Transit Center District Plan and Transit Tower
    COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON DRAFT EIR Transit Center District Plan and Transit Tower PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE NO. 2007.0558E and 2008.0789E STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2008072073 Draft EIR Publication Date: SEPTEMBER 28, 2011 Draft EIR Public Hearing Date: NOVEMBER 3, 2011 Draft EIR Public Comment Period: SEPTEMBER 28 THROUGH NOVEMBER 28, 2011 Final EIR Certication Date: MAY 24, 2012 May 10, 2012 To: Members of the Planning Commission and Interested Parties From: Bill Wycko, Environmental Review Officer Re: Attached Comments and Responses on Draft Environmental Impact Report Case No. 2007.0558E: Transit Center District Plan and Case No. 2008.0789 Transit Tower Attached for your review please find a copy of the Comments and Responses document for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the above‐referenced project. This document, along with the Draft EIR, will be before the Planning Commission for Final EIR certification on May 24, 2012. Please note that the public review period ended on November 28, 2011. The Planning Commission does not conduct a hearing to receive comments on the Comments and Responses document, and no such hearing is required by the California Environmental Quality Act. Interested parties, however, may always write to Commission members or to the President of the Commission at 1650 Mission Street and express an opinion on the Comments and Responses document, or the Commission’s decision to certify the completion of the Final EIR for this project. Please note that if you receive the Comments and Responses document in addition to the Draft EIR, you technically have the Final EIR. If you have any questions concerning the Comments and Responses document or the environmental review process, please contact Sarah B.
    [Show full text]
  • Board of Appeals, City & County of San Francisco
    BOARD OF APPEALS, CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Appeal No. 1S..187 Appellant(s) vs. Respondent NOTICE OF APPEAL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT on November 19, 2015, the above named appellant(s) filed an appeal with the Board of Appeals of the City and County of San Francisco from the decision or order of the above named department(s), commission, or officer. The substance or effect of the decision or order appealed from is the ISSUANCE on November 10, 2015 to GSW Arena, LLC , of a Place of Entertainment Permit (for a mixed use event center open seven days a week from 7:00 AM to 2:00 AM, with proposed entertainment to include family shows, professional basketball games, collegiate athletic events, and concerts, and with food and beverages served on-site, including alcoholic beverages) at Mission Bay South Blocks 29 & 31. PERMIT NO. EC-1352 FOR HEARING ON December 09, 2015 Address of Appellant(s): Address of Other Parties: Mission Bay Alliance , Appellant GSW Arena, LLC, Permit Holder c/o Thomas Lippe, Attorney for Appellant c/o Mary Murphy, Attorney for Permit Holder Law Offices of Thomas Lippe Gibson Dunn 201 Mission Street, 12th Floor 555 Mission Street, Suite 3000 San Francisco, CA 94105 San Francisco, CA 94105 BOARD ()F A.PPEALS Date Filed: OV 1 9 'ut:J CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO APPEAL# / ~~t n BOARD OF APPEALS PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF APPEAL I I We, Mission Bay Alliance, hereby appeal the following departmental action: CONDITIONAL GRANT of a Place of Entertainment Permit by the Entertainment Commission which was issued or became effective on : November 10, 2015, to: GSW Arena, LLC , for the property located at: Mission Bay South Blocks 29 & 31.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • Office Highlights Northern California
    Office Highlights Northern California . Q3 2013 NorCal claims three of the top Tour activity five rent growth markets in Q3 Leasing volume High-technology and health care are driving demand in Northern Rents California, helping to generate more than 4.0 million square feet of net absorption year-to-date and a decline in total vacancy of 80 basis Concessions points to 14.9 percent. Despite making up just 6.9 percent of U.S. inventory, Northern California accounted for 15.1 percent of total U.S. Sales volume net absorption in the first three quarters of 2013. Strong employment fundamentals in Northern California markets—which includes San Construction Francisco, the San Francisco Peninsula, Silicon Valley, the East Bay deliveries and Sacramento—will drive continued tenant expansions. Large Construction blocks are diminishing throughout the region, resulting in higher starts premiums for such space, but commodity space remains plentiful. Arrows represent change from prior quarter Landlords in San Francisco, the San Francisco Peninsula and Silicon Top tenants in the market Valley continue to push rents, placing all three of those markets in the • UCSF is in the San Francisco market for 100,000 to 300,000 top five rent growth markets in the nation for the third quarter. square feet. Sacramento and the East Bay are beginning to see more rapid rent • Law Firm Fenwick & West is rumored to be in the market for increases as well, in line with vacancy declines and strong gains in net 160,000 square feet in Palo Alto and Menlo Park. absorption since the beginning of this year.
    [Show full text]
  • 302061723.Pdf
    HinkinsREA analyzes market data obtained from third party sources and the accuracy thereof has not been independently verified. References and quotes are taken from online sources, San Francisco Business Times, CoStar, LoopNet, Company websites & Press Releases, and other third party sources. Reproduction of this report prohibited. Copyright HinkinsREA. September 2013. 2012, A year which exceeded expectations. Leasing Market Recap 50% of the 61 largest blocks of space where Historic Sales Volume absorbed towards the end of 2012 including 2007 - $8.5 billion traded hands making it the 305,000 square foot at 500 Terry Street Francois highest sales volume year in the history of San Blvd where Maraki leased 110,000 SF; 264,000 SF Francisco. at 360 Third Street where Square Trade took 55,000 SF and two other tenants took 125,000 2012 – Sale Volume & Investor Demand SF; 1155 Market Street where the City of San Building sales blasted towards $6.1 billion due to Francisco took 110,000 SF; 760 Market Street foreign investors and pension funds activity where Obvious took 75,000 SF and 101 Spear marking the second time in history that the sales Street where Salesforce took 100,000 SF. volume topped $6.0 billion. The opportunistic The year-end decision by Salesforce to prelease buyers of 2010 and 2011 were replaced by the entire 444,000 square foot tower planned for institutional investors looking for stable, income 350 Mission Street (developer, Kilroy Realty Corp) producing properties, seeking well-leased core spurred the stage for fast-growing tenants to assets. The real estate cycle moved from buying begin grabbing space early in other large leased buildings to rehabs to ground up downtown buildings coming out of the ground in development.
    [Show full text]
  • First Quarter 2012 • San Francisco • Office Report
    First Quarter 2012 • San Francisco • Office Report SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE Lic #00832933 One Bush Street, Suite 400 • San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: 415.445.8888 • Fax: 415.445.8886 www.ccareynkf.com SAN FRANCISCO • OFFICE • FIRST QUARTER TABLE OF CONTENTS Coverage Map 1 Office Update and Q1 2012 in Review 2 Office Market Highlights – Leasing 3 Office Market Highlights – Sales & Development 5 North Financial District Market Summary 6 South Financial District Market Summary 7 North Waterfront / Jackson Square Market Summary 8 Van Ness / Civic Center Market Summary 9 Union Square Market Summary 10 SOMA Market Summary 11 Definitions 13 Agent Roster 14 SAN FRANCISCO • OFFICE • FIRST QUARTER COVERAGE MAP 1 SAN FRANCISCO • OFFICE • FIRST QUARTER OFFICE UPDATE AND Q1 2012 IN REVIEW San Francisco’s overall economy occurred in the South Financial included One Beach Street, which showed a slight decline in the first District, including Salesforce.com’s sold for $37 million, or $376/rsf, to quarter due to the continued volatility 407,186-square-foot, 18-year, new American Assets Trust, and 715-717 of the national and global markets. lease at 50 Fremont Street, growing Market Street, which sold for $32 The local unemployment rate their San Francisco office SANfootprint FRANCISCO to million, OFICEor $393/rsf, •FIRST to Digital QUARTER Garage, increased from 7.3% in December to 1.1 million square feet. Following Inc. for their corporate headquarters. 7.6% in February 2012, while the Salesforce’s new lease, the company Several large office sales are California unemployment rate also announced their withdrawal from pending, including 225 Bush Street, increased from 10.9% to 11.4% over their highly-anticipated, two million- 650 Townsend Street, Foundry the same period.
    [Show full text]