DOCSLIB.ORG

G2. Affordable Housing (Inclusionary) Program

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. These cases are noted in the table, and the new fee level is provided within the fee descriptions in the body of the report. Table 2 displays cumulative revenues and expenditures and the FY 2009-10 year-end balance for each development fee account. Sections A through G provide a qualitative description of each fee, including the fee amount and purpose, designated use of funds, cumulative fees collected, and cumulative fees expended. The sections are organized by City Area (e.g. Rincon Hill, etc.). Appendix A-1 provides detailed 1 In addition, every fifth fiscal year following the first deposit into the account, and every five years thereafter, the local agency shall make the following findings with respect to unexpended funds: identify the purpose to which the fee is to be put; demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged; identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of incomplete improvements; and designate approximate deposit dates of anticipated funding. Controller’s Office 1 financial information collected from Departments, and Appendix A-2 includes Local and State Code reporting requirements. The San Francisco Unified District independently reports on the School Impact Fee. The FY 2009-10 report may be found at the link below. For prior year reports, please contact the School District. http://portal.sfusd.edu/data/facilities/SFUSDAnnualFiveYearReport_FY0910_FN.pdf. Controller’s Office 2 Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 Table 1. Development Impact Fee Register ............................................................................ 5 Table 2. Cumulative Fee Revenues & Expenditures through FY 2009-10 .............................. 9 A. Rincon Hill ............................................................................................................................10 A1. Rincon Hill Community Infrastructure Impact Fee ............................................................10 A2. South of Market Area (SOMA) Community Stabilization Fee ...........................................12 A3. Alternative Means of Satisfying the Open Space Requirement in SOMA Mixed Use Districts .................................................................................................................................14 B. Visitacion Valley ...................................................................................................................15 B1. Visitacion Valley Community Facilities & Infrastructure Impact Fee .................................15 C. Market and Octavia ..............................................................................................................16 C1. Market and Octavia Affordable Housing Fee ...................................................................16 C2. Market and Octavia Community Infrastructure Impact Fee ..............................................17 C3. Van Ness and Market Downtown Residential Special Use District Floor Area Ratio Bonus ..............................................................................................................................................18 C4. Van Ness and Market Neighborhood Infrastructure Program ..........................................19 D. Eastern Neighborhoods ........................................................................................................20 D1. Eastern Neighborhoods Area Plan Alternative Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee ..............20 D2. Affordable Housing Requirements for Urban Mixed Use District in Eastern Neighborhoods ..............................................................................................................................................21 D3. Eastern Neighborhoods Infrastructure Impact Fee ..........................................................22 D4. Usable Open Space In-Lieu Fee for Eastern Neighborhood Mixed Use Districts .............24 D5. Payment in Case of Variance or Exception .....................................................................25 E. City Area: Balboa Park .........................................................................................................26 E1. Balboa Park Community Infrastructure Impact Fee .........................................................26 F. C-3 Districts (Downtown) ......................................................................................................27 F1. Downtown Park Fee ........................................................................................................27 F2. Downtown C-3 Artwork ....................................................................................................29 G. Citywide ...............................................................................................................................30 G1. Affordable Housing – Job Housing Linkage Fee .............................................................30 G2. Affordable Housing (Inclusionary) Program .....................................................................31 G3. Child Care Fee................................................................................................................32 G4. Street Trees, In-Lieu Fee ................................................................................................34 G5. Transit Impact Development Fee ....................................................................................35 Controller’s Office 3 G6. Water Capacity Charge ...................................................................................................37 G7. Wastewater Capacity Charge .........................................................................................38 Appendix A1. Development Impact Fee Revenue & Expenditure Detail ....................................39 A1-1. Rincon Hill Community Infrastructure Impact Fee ........................................................40 A1-2. South of Market Area Community Stabilization Fee .....................................................42 A1-3. Visitacion Valley Community Facilities and ..................................................................43 Infrastructure Fee ..................................................................................................................43 A1-4. Market & Octavia Community Infrastructure Impact Fee ..............................................45 A1-5. Eastern Neighborhoods Infrastructure Impact Fee .......................................................46 A1-6. Balboa Park Community Infrastructure Impact Fee ......................................................47 A1-7. Downtown Park Fee .....................................................................................................48 A1-8. Downtown C-3 Artwork ................................................................................................50 A1-9. Job Housing Linkage Fee & Affordable Housing (Inclusionary) Program ......................51 A1-10. Child Care Fee ...........................................................................................................56 A1-11. Transit Impact Development Fee ...............................................................................58 A1-12. Water & Wastewater Capacity Charges .....................................................................61 Appendix A2. Local and State Reporting Requirements ............................................................63 San Francisco Planning Code, Article 2, Section 409 ............................................................64 California Government Code 66001 et seq. ...........................................................................65 Controller’s Office 4 Table 1. Development Impact Fee Register City Area Administering
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]
  • I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
    1 RON BENDER (SBN 143364) J.P. FRITZ (SBN 245240) 2 LEVENE, NEALE, BENDER, YOO & BRILL L.L.P. 10250 Constellation Boulevard, Suite 1700 3 Los Angeles, California 90067 4 Telephone: (310) 229-1234; Facsimile: (310) 229-1244 Email: [email protected]; [email protected] 5 Attorneys for Chapter 11 Debtor and Debtor in Possession 6 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 SAN JOSE DIVISION 9 In re: ) Case No. 15−53931 MEH 11 ) 10 HOMEJOY (Assignment for the Benefit of ) Chapter 11 Case Creditors), LLC, a California limited liability ) 11 company, ) NOTICE OF HEARING ON ADEQUACY ) OF DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 12 ) DESCRIBING DEBTOR’S PLAN OF Debtor and Debtor in Possession. ) REORGANIZATION (DATED 13 ) SEPTEMBER 15, 2016) ) 14 ) Disclosure Statement Hearing: ) Date: October 20, 2016 15 ) Time: 10:30 a.m. 16 ) Place: U.S. Bankruptcy Court ) Courtroom 3020 17 ) 280 South First Street ) San Jose, CA 95113-3099 18 ) Judge: The Hon. M. Elaine Hammond. ) 19 ) Plan Confirmation Hearing: ) Date: [To Be Scheduled] 20 ) Time: [To Be Scheduled] ) Place: [Same As Above] 21 ) ) 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 i Case: 15-53931 Doc# 119 Filed: 09/15/16 Entered: 09/15/16 10:04:50 Page 1 of 19 1 TO THE HONORABLE M. ELAINE HAMMOND, UNITED STATES 2 BANKRUPTCY JUDGE AND ALL PARTIES: 3 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that a hearing will be held on October 20, 2016, at 10:30 4 a.m., before the Honorable M. Elaine Hammond, United States Bankruptcy Judge (the “Court”) 5 in Courtroom 3020 of the United States Bankruptcy Courthouse located at 280 South First 6 Street, San Jose, California, for the Court to consider approval of the adequacy of the Disclosure 7 Statement Describing Debtor’s Plan of Reorganization, Dated September 15, 2016 (the 8 “Disclosure Statement”) filed by Homejoy (Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors) LLC, a 9 California limited liability company, chapter 11 debtor and debtor in possession in the above- 10 captioned, chapter 11 bankruptcy case (the “Debtor”).
    [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]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 15-53931 Doc# 80 Filed: 03/16/16 Entered: 03/16/16 08:18:50 Page 5 of 21 EXHIBIT A
    1 John D. Fiero (CA Bar No . 136557) Teddy M. Kapur (CA Bar No. 242486) 2 PACHULSKI STANG ZIEHL & JONES LLP 150 California Street, 15th Floor 3 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 263-7000 4 Facsimile: (415) 263-7010 E-mail: [email protected] 5 [email protected] 6 Proposed Counsel for the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors 7 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 SAN JOSE DIVISION 10 In re: Case No. 15 -53931 MEH 11 HOMEJOY (Assignment for the Benefit of Chapter 11 LLP Creditors), LLC, 12 APPLICATION OF THE OFFICIAL ONES COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED J Debtor. & AW 13 CREDITORS FOR ORDER APPROVING L T ALIFORNIA A EMPLOYMENT OF PACHULSKI STANG C IEHL , Z 14 ZIEHL & JONES LLP AS COUNSEL TO NGELES THE OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF TANG TTORNEYS A A S O S 15 UNSECURED CREDITORS L 16 [No Hearing Required] ACHULSKI P 17 18 The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the “Committee”) of HOMEJOY 19 (Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors), LLC (the “Debtor”) hereby submits this application (the 20 “Application”) to employ Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP (“PSZ&J” or the “Firm”) as its 21 counsel, effective as of February 22, 2016, which is the date on which the Firm commenced 22 providing services for the Committee. 23 I. 24 JURISDICTION & VENUE 25 This Court has jurisdiction over this Application pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334. 26 Venue of these cases is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409. The statutory predicate for 27 the relief sought herein is section 1103 of Title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy 28 Code”).
    [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]
  • 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]
  • Retail Space for Lease
    243 BRANNAN STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA RETAIL SPACE FOR LEASE HIGHLIGHTS SIZE Approx. 2,227 Sq. Ft. • Centrally located in San Francisco’s vibrant TERM 5-10 Years South Beach neighborhood. • Neighboring tenants include AT&T Ballpark, Tres POSSESSION Immediate Agaves, Koh Samui, Borders and many more. FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: 415.438.2144 LOUIS CORNEJO EZRA BARTH-ROGERS The information has been secured by Starboard TCN from sources believed to be reliable. [email protected] [email protected] It is not guaranteed, however, and should be verified prior to consummating any transaction. 33 NEW MONTGOMERY STREET | SUITE 1230 | SAN FRANCISCO | CA 94105 | 415.765.6900 | FAX 415.956.2003 | www.starboardnet.com 243 BRANNAN STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA FLOOR PLAN FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: 415.438.2144 LOUIS CORNEJO EZRA BARTH-ROGERS The information has been secured by Starboard TCN from sources believed to be reliable. [email protected] [email protected] It is not guaranteed, however, and should be verified prior to consummating any transaction. 33 NEW MONTGOMERY STREET | SUITE 1230 | SAN FRANCISCO | CA 94105 | 415.765.6900 | FAX 415.956.2003 | www.starboardnet.com 243 BRANNAN STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA THE SOUTH BEACH NEIGHBORHOOD The amount of growth within the Eastern South of Market (SoMa) area of San Francisco is simply overwhelming, especially in areas along the waterfront such as Rincon Hill, South Beach, Transbay, and Mission Bay. Not includ- ing those developments already completed, in San Francisco there are 30,000 new housing units and 6 Million sq. ft. of commercial space planned for construction, most of which is located in the South of Market Area.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 QUARTER 1 MARKET REPORT SAN FRANCISCO LUXURY HIGHRISE RESIDENCES South Beach | Rincon Hill | Yerba Buena | Soma | Mission Bay
    2019 QUARTER 1 MARKET REPORT SAN FRANCISCO LUXURY HIGHRISE RESIDENCES South Beach | Rincon Hill | Yerba Buena | SoMa | Mission Bay ROBYN KAUFMAN SFHIGHRISES.COM South Beach Top Producer | Top 1% SF Condo Sales 415.497.1798 | [email protected] YOUR 2019 QUARTER 1 REPORT ROBYN’S RECENT SALES ACTIVITY Spring is typically the season when median prices increase most. However, median house sales prices SOLD $2,720,000 SOLD $2,250,000 SOLD $1,925,000 dropped dramatically from last March with a switch from high year-over-year quarterly appreciation rates to zero appreciation in the last 2 quarters. MLS also reported less real estate sales and new listings in Q1 2019. In our neighborhood, sales in every building have been pretty skinny, with the average sales price remaining unchanged since last quarter. New listings almost always climb from January through March, but not this year. The reason behind this can be that sellers are waiting waiting for IPO buyers, which many manifest later in the year. Q2 will provide much more data regarding the media-frenzy “IPO” effect. 401 HARRISON STREET #38D 355 1ST STREET #2801 338 MAIN STREET #10A THE HARRISON THE METROPOLITAN LUMINA The good news is that open house activity has been steady citywide with many buyers just beginning their search. Interest rates have dropped: 30 year fixed rates are around 4% and 15 year fixed rates are around NEW CONDO SALE HIGHEST PRICE SOLD AT THE MET CASH DEAL. SOLD IN 15 DAYS 3.625%. So, buyers are wanting to purchase now rather than wait.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
    Case: 14-16314, 07/27/2016, ID: 10064764, DktEntry: 58, Page 1 of 25 FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT IN THE MATTER OF HELLER No. 14-16314 EHRMAN LLP, Debtor, D.C. No. 3:14-cv-01236-CRB HELLER EHRMAN LLP, Liquidating Debtor, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP, Defendant-Appellee. Case: 14-16314, 07/27/2016, ID: 10064764, DktEntry: 58, Page 2 of 25 2 IN THE MATTER OF HELLER EHRMAN LLP IN THE MATTER OF HELLER No. 14-16315 EHRMAN LLP, Debtor, D.C. No. 3:14-cv-01237-CRB HELLER EHRMAN LLP, Liquidating Debtor, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JONES DAY, Defendant-Appellee. IN THE MATTER OF HELLER No. 14-16317 EHRMAN LLP, Debtor, D.C. No. 3:14-cv-01238-CRB HELLER EHRMAN LLP, Liquidating Debtor, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FOLEY & LARDNER LLP, Defendant-Appellee. Case: 14-16314, 07/27/2016, ID: 10064764, DktEntry: 58, Page 3 of 25 IN THE MATTER OF HELLER EHRMAN LLP 3 IN THE MATTER OF HELLER No. 14-16318 EHRMAN LLP, Debtor, D.C. No. 3:14-cv-01239-CRB HELLER EHRMAN LLP, Liquidating Debtor, ORDER CERTIFYING Plaintiff-Appellant, QUESTION TO THE CALIFORNIA v. SUPREME COURT ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Charles R. Breyer, Senior District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted June 13, 2016 San Francisco, California Filed July 27, 2016 Before: Richard R. Clifton, and Sandra S. Ikuta, Circuit Judges, and Royce C. Lamberth,* District Judge. Order * The Honorable Royce C.
    [Show full text]