DOCSLIB.ORG

San Francisco - CA

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Office Market Report San Francisco - CA PREPARED BY Cameron Love Senior Vice President San Francisco Office OFFICE MARKET REPORT Market Key Statistics 2 Leasing 3 Rent 8 Construction 11 Under Construction Properties 13 Sales 15 Sales Past 12 Months 17 Economy 19 Market Submarkets 22 Supply & Demand Trends 29 Rent & Vacancy 31 Sale Trends 33 2/3/2020 Copyrighted report licensed to Hughes Marino - 572437. Overview San Francisco Office 12 Mo Deliveries in SF 12 Mo Net Absorption in SF Vacancy Rate 12 Mo Rent Growth 2.7 M 2.5 M 6.1% 3.5% The tech sector has driven San Francisco’s office market market will deliver fully preleased to large tech tenants, to new heights. Leasing activity remains strong as setting the stage for another year of robust net mature tech giants with strong balance sheets and well- absorption in 2020. capitalized start-ups alike compete for the city’s premier office buildings. Large-sized blocks of space have Demand is holding up, and landlords are pushing rents become increasingly rare, and development opportunities higher in response. However, the pace of rent growth are limited. slowed dramatically in 2019 and is now subdued compared to the double-digit annual gains achieved Net absorption soared to a record high in 2018 and earlier in the economic expansion. That said, rent growth remained elevated in 2019, boosted by tenants taking in San Francisco over the past year still outpaces the occupancy in new skyscrapers surrounding the Transbay national average. transit center. Despite multiple building completions over the past several years, demand has outweighed supply Despite slowing rent growth, San Francisco clearly growth, sending vacancy in the metro to expansion era remains a premier market for office investment. Sales lows at the close of 2019. Supply growth in 2020 will be volume picked up in 2019, as the market continued to headlined by the Mission Bay headquarters of Uber, and attract institutional investment, and several large owner- Facebook's newest outposts at Burlingame Point, and users were active. Asset pricing continues to rise in Menlo Gateway II. The majority of new inventory in the conjunction with rent potential. KEY INDICATORS Net Absorption Under Current Quarter RBA Vacancy Rate Market Rent Availability Rate Deliveries SF SF Construction 4 & 5 Star 91,724,431 5.9% $77.40 10.2% (202,648) 0 6,182,165 3 Star 52,674,138 6.0% $65.30 9.8% (284,840) 0 924,232 1 & 2 Star 32,737,399 6.6% $55.41 8.6% (24,241) 0 9,500 Market 177,135,968 6.1% $69.96 9.8% (511,729) 0 7,115,897 Historical Forecast Annual Trends 12 Month Peak When Trough When Average Average Vacancy Change (YOY) 0% 9.2% 7.5% 16.2% 2003 Q2 1.3% 2000 Q2 Net Absorption SF 2.5 M 1,298,377 923,069 7,134,980 2000 Q1 (9,611,416) 2001 Q3 Deliveries SF 2.7 M 1,846,894 2,201,489 6,020,069 2001 Q4 55,198 2006 Q2 Rent Growth 3.5% 4.7% 0.4% 30.6% 2000 Q3 -33.0% 2001 Q4 Sales Volume $8.2 B $3.4B N/A $9.2B 2007 Q3 $295.6M 2002 Q2 2/3/2020 Copyrighted report licensed to Hughes Marino - 572437. Page 2 Leasing San Francisco Office San Francisco's office market is thriving in the mature system, and BART do not extend South to these stages of a tech-led economic expansion. Absorption submarkets. However, demand is rising specifically near soared to record levels in 2018, and remained strong in CalTrain stations in the Peninsula, which provide service 2019, totaling 3 million SF. Building developments are to the South of Market area of San Francisco. Despite reaching completion, fully preleased. Despite an their higher than average vacancy rates, rent growth in abundance of new inventory, tenant demand continues to these submarkets remains strong, as demand for place downward pressure on vacancy, which has fallen affordable and transit-friendly real estate located to an expansion-era low of just 6.1%. between San Francisco and San Jose is rising. Absent substantial supply growth earlier in the expansion The tightest submarkets in San Francisco, SoMa, period, vacancy declined rapidly, from a recession-era Mission Bay and MidMarket are extremely popular with peak of 13% in 2010, to 6% by mid-2015. However, as tech tenants. new development helped satisfy demand, and rising rental costs prompted some tenant out-flow, market Elevated levels of available sublease space suggest that fundamentals have remained fairly stable since 2015. underlying demand may be slightly weaker than the Vacancy hovered between 6% and 7% for five years, market's headline vacancy rates suggests. More than 5 finally dipping below 6% at 2019's year-end. million SF of sublease space is currently listed as available, which equates to nearly 3% of market In comparison, vacancy at the peak of the dot com inventory. expansion period in 2000 fell below 2%. The duration of the current expansion period has provided more time for Several tenants, including Delta Dental, Blue Shield, developers to respond to tenant demand. This time Aecom, and most recently, Square and Credit Karma around, a larger share of companies leasing space have have moved to Oakland in search of more affordable established profitable business operations. However, office space in the Bay Area. Furthermore, several some tenant risk remains in the market. Several Fortune 500 firms with longstanding roots in San technology firms boasting quickly rising revenue streams Francisco are also moving out of town, to parts of the that have expanded aggressively in San Francisco, country where the cost of doing business is much lower. remain unprofitable as of yet. Engineering and construction firm Bechtel Group is moving to Virginia, while McKesson and Core-Mark are Due to the market's strong demand, availability is scarce relocating to Texas. Yet, fundamentals in San Francisco for large blocks of space, and for creative office spaces remain extremely strong. Tech companies and co- in particular. Tech companies are competing for the working providers are expanding into the buildings market’s best located and outfitted buildings in order to vacated by these more traditional, cost-sensitive attract employees, but many second generation space tenants. options in less prestigious buildings remain available for mid-sized and smaller tenants. However, San Francisco has become the most expensive market in the country for office space, and Only a few submarkets in the entire metro, primarily average rents in the East Bay are roughly 40% below located outside of the city, maintain a vacancy rate those in San Francisco—a difference that widened in the above 10%. These mid-peninsula suburban submarkets economic expansion cycle. As San Francisco tenants including San Mateo and Burlingame, lack the population face steep rent hikes upon lease expirations, relocations density, amenities, and extensive food and entertainment to the East Bay and out of California could dampen options found in the city of San Francisco. Transportation demand. can also be a challenge, as San Francisco's MUNI bus 2/3/2020 Copyrighted report licensed to Hughes Marino - 572437. Page 3 Leasing San Francisco Office NET ABSORPTION, NET DELIVERIES & VACANCY VACANCY RATE 2/3/2020 Copyrighted report licensed to Hughes Marino - 572437. Page 4 Leasing San Francisco Office AVAILABILITY RATE 2/3/2020 Copyrighted report licensed to Hughes Marino - 572437. Page 5 Leasing San Francisco Office 12 MONTH NET ABSORPTION SF IN SELECTED BUILDINGS Net Absorption SF Building Name/Address Submarket Bldg SF Vacant SF 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr 12 Month The Exchange on Sixteenth Mission Bay/China B… 750,370 12,289 0 0 0 0 738,081 Park Tower At Transbay South Financial District 764,700 7,341 0 0 0 0 474,914 One Market Plaza South Financial District 419,371 7,667 0 0 0 0 301,790 Merck Campus South San Francisco 300,930 0 0 0 0 0 300,930 Alexandria Technology Campus South San Francisco 211,405 0 0 0 0 0 211,405 Van Ness & Geary Medical Offic… Van Ness/Chinatown 234,000 38,066 0 0 0 0 195,934 Bay Meadows San Mateo 189,000 0 0 0 0 0 189,000 Rincon Center South Financial District 279,354 85,514 0 0 0 0 169,335 Genentech South Campus South San Francisco 160,000 0 0 0 0 0 160,000 Charles Schwab Bldg South Financial District 373,500 0 0 0 0 0 140,079 333 Bush St Financial District 542,878 52,049 0 0 0 0 125,001 970 San Mateo 120,968 0 0 0 0 0 120,968 930 San Mateo 120,968 0 0 0 0 0 120,968 303 2nd St Rincon/South Beach 740,047 8,619 61,179 0 0 0 112,219 One Tehama South Financial District 98,566 0 0 0 0 0 98,566 657 Mission St South Financial District 105,389 0 98,553 0 0 0 98,553 1455 Market MidMarket 1,034,977 52,449 29,186 0 0 0 95,242 Subtotal Primary Competitors 6,446,423 263,994 188,918 0 0 0 3,652,985 Remaining San Francisco Market 170,689,545 10,493,552 (700,647) 0 0 0 (1,140,923) Total San Francisco Market 177,135,968 10,757,546 (511,729) 0 0 0 2,512,062 2/3/2020 Copyrighted report licensed to Hughes Marino - 572437. Page 6 Leasing San Francisco Office TOP OFFICE LEASES PAST 12 MONTHS Building Name/Address Submarket Leased SF Qtr Tenant Name Tenant Rep Company Leasing Rep Company Facebook @ Menlo Park Menlo Park 449,450 Q4 19 Facebook - Facebook, Inc.
Recommended publications
  • SAN FRANCISCO 2Nd Quarter 2014 Office Market Report

    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.
  • Before the Public Utilities Commission of The

    Before the Public Utilities Commission of The

    BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FILED 01/25/21 Order Instituting Rulemaking to Create a 04:59 PM Consistent Regulatory Framework for the Rulemaking 14-10-003 Guidance, Planning and Evaluation of Integrated (Filed October 2, 2014) Distributed Energy Resources. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of OPENING COMMENTS OF SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY (U 902-E) ON THE PROPOSED DECISION ADOPTING TWO TARIFF PILOTS FOR PROCURING DISTRIBUTED ENERGY RESOURCES THAT AVOID OR DEFER UTILITY CAPITAL INVESTMENTS has been electronically mailed to each party of record of the service list in R.14-10-003. Due to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) health crisis, our legal staff is working from home. Accordingly, the normal mailing of hard copies is not possible and hard copies will not be mailed to the Administrative Law Judge or to parties who are on the service list and have not provided an electronic mail address. Executed January 25, 2021 at San Diego, California. /s/ Tamara Grabowski Tamara Grabowski 1 / 15 CPUC - Service Lists - R1410003 CPUC Home CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Service Lists PROCEEDING: R1410003 - CPUC - OIR TO CREATE FILER: CPUC LIST NAME: LIST LAST CHANGED: JANUARY 5, 2021 Download the Comma-delimited File About Comma-delimited Files Back to Service Lists Index Parties CARMELITA L. MILLER DAMON FRANZ LEGAL COUNSEL DIR - POLICY & ELECTRICITY MARKETS THE GREENLINING INSTITUTE TESLA, INC. EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 FOR: THE GREENLINING INSTITUTE FOR: TESLA, INC. (FORMERLY SOLARCITY CORPORATION) EVELYN KAHL MARC D JOSEPH GENERAL COUNSEL, CALCCA ATTORNEY CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY CHOICE ASSOCIATION ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO, PC EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 FOR: ENERGY PRODUCERS AND USERS FOR: COALITION OF CALIFORNIA UTILITY COALITION EMPLOYEES MERRIAN BORGESON DENISE GRAB SR.
  • Broke but Not Bored in SF

    Broke but Not Bored in SF

    Resources Broke but Not Bored in SF Free fun stuff to do and useful places to go June 21 – June 28 Broke but not Bored in SF is a collage of free activities and events including concerts, films, street festivals, cul- tural events, lectures, workshops, harm reduction groups, community activism opportunities, mindfulness, wellness and fitness resources, and opportunities to see and do art. The San Francisco AIDS Foundation com- piles this calendar. Please send suggestions, additions and/or corrections to [email protected] You can also get added to our distribution list by emailing me. Broke but Not Bored in SF is online (and searchable): https://www.facebook.com/brokebutnotbored/ http://www.stonewallsf.org/ Heads Up – The Pride Parade is June 30, a week from Sunday. If you want to march with one of the organized groups like Openhouse, Lyric, the SF LGBT Center, etc., sign up ASAP via their website. Even if you don’t march, come out to cheer us on. Resources San Francisco Needle Exchange/Syringe Access Schedule (last updated December 6, 2018) Mon 9am-7pm SFAF SAS 117 6th street @ Mission/ 6th Street Harm Reduction Center SOMA/6th Mon Noon-5pm, 7-9pm Glide 330 Ellis btw Jones and Taylor TL Mon Noon -7:30pm SFDUU 149 Turk St. (@Taylor) TL Mon 4-6pm SFAF SAS 3rd Street and Innes Ave. look for white van Bayview Mon 5:30-7:30pm SFNE 558 Clayton St. in the Free Clinic, upstairs Haight Tues 9am-1pm, 4 -7pm SFAF SAS 117 6th street @ Mission/ 6th Street Harm Reduction Center SOMA/6th Tues Noon -7:30pm SFDUU 149 Turk St.
  • DATE: July 11, 2013 TO: Historic Preservation Commissioners FROM: Daniel A

    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.
  • 181 Fremont Street

    181 Fremont Street

    SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING DEPARTMENT Certificate of Determination 1650 Mission St. Suite 400 EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW San Francisco, CA 94103-2479 Case No.: 2007.0456E Reception: Project Title: 181 Fremont Street 415.558.6378 Zoning/Plan Area: C-3-0 (SD) Downtown Office Special Development District; Transit Center Commercial Special Use District; 415.558.6409 700-S Height and Bulk District; Transit Center District Plan Block/Lot: Planning 3719/10 & 11 Information: Lot Size: 15,312.5 square feet 415.558.6377 Project Sponsor: Daniel R. Kingsley, SKS Fremont, LLC, (415) 421-8200 Staff Contact: Michael Jacinto (415) 575-9033 [email protected] PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project sponsor, SKS Fremont, LLC, proposes to demolish two existing structures and develop one 700-foot-tall tower (745 feet to the top of the parapet/mechanical screen) on two lots located at the east side of Fremont Street immediately south of the new Transhay Transit Center that is currently under construction. The project site, as shown in Figure 1, comprises two parcels, is approximately 15,310 square feet in size, and is located within the approved Transit Center District Plan (TCDP or Plan) area. The proposed tower would include a mix of office, residential, and retail, along with five levels of below grade parking, off-street loading spaces, residential and office lobbies and amenities for the project residents (continued on next page). EXEMPT STATUS: Exempt per Section 15183 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines California. REMARKS: (see page 18, below) DETERMINATION: I do hereby certify that the above determination has been made pursuant to State and Local requirements.
  • June 2016 San Francisco Residential Development

    June 2016 San Francisco Residential Development

    SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT JUNE 2016 NAVIGATION Click page numbers to be taken directly to page NEWS & MARKET CURRENTLY HIGHLIGHTS PERFORMANCE SELLING NEWS AND HIGHLIGHTS MARKET PERFORMANCE CURRENTLY SELLING Median $/SqFt Currently Year-Over-Year Month-Over-Month CURRENTLY SELLING... Luxe New Condominiump. $1,218/SqFt + 15% p. + 2% p. Nearly half of second phase is under contract. Price per square foot3 is 4 1650 Broadway at Van5 Ness | Pacific Heights Shipyard’s Resale Condominium $1,042/SqFt + 11% + 2% averaging approximately $760. The first phase averaged approximately $660 per Status: 34 units available/0 in-contract/0 closed square foot. New Apartment $5.10/SqFt + 7% N/A Pre-sale: August 2015 Closings anticipated: Q1 2016 Less than 100 units remain available at The Rockwell. Current absorption surpasses Project info: 34 units, 7-stories, 34 parking spaces 30 units a month. NEW CONDOMINIUM PRICING & VOLUME Developer: Belrich Partners Sales are expected to commence this month at the second phase of Onyx , consisting Architect: Forum Design of 21 condominiums. Median Price & Closing Volume Interior Design: Edmonds + Lee Features & Finishes: Marble tile and zinc facade, Floor- Closings have commenced at Lumina’s Plaza A. Price per square$1,200,000 foot is averaging 180 approximately $1,500. to-ceiling windows, Bay and Golden Gate views, Studio 160 Click development to be taken directly to page $1,000,000 Becker Cabinetry, Mobile kitchen islands, Caesarstone 140 Most Recent Quarter countertops, Subzero refrigerators, Thermador ap- $800,000ONE FRANKLIN 181 FREMONT ONE120 MISSION BAY THE HARRISONpliances, Uline THE wine coolers, PACIFIC Duravit and Hansgrohe 100 Median: $1,000,000 PROPOSED..
  • Essex Property Trust, Inc. Essex Portfolio, L.P

    Essex Property Trust, Inc. Essex Portfolio, L.P

    Section 1: 10-K (10-K) UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM 10-K (MARK ONE) ☒ ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019 OR ☐ TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the transition period from ___________ to _____________ Commission file number: 001-13106 (Essex Property Trust, Inc.) Commission file number: 333-44467-01 (Essex Portfolio, L.P.) ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST, INC. ESSEX PORTFOLIO, L.P. (Exact name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter) Maryland 77-0369576 (Essex Property Trust, Inc.) (Essex Property Trust, Inc.) California 77-0369575 (Essex Portfolio, L.P.) (Essex Portfolio, L.P.) (State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Organization) (I.R.S. Employer Identification Number) 1100 Park Place, Suite 200 San Mateo, California 94403 (Address of Principal Executive Offices including Zip Code) (650) 655-7800 (Registrant's Telephone Number, Including Area Code) Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: Trading Title of each class Symbol(s) Name of each exchange on which registered Common Stock, $.0001 par value (Essex Property Trust, Inc.) ESS New York Stock Exchange Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Essex Property Trust, Inc. Yes ☒ No ☐ Essex Portfolio, L.P. Yes ☐ No ☒ Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.
  • 1100 Park Place Suite 200 San Mateo California 94403 Telephone 650 655 7800

    1100 Park Place Suite 200 San Mateo California 94403 Telephone 650 655 7800

    APARTMENT COMMUNITIES Real Estate Information as of April 27, 2021 Year Year Property Age of Property Name Address City/State Units Acquired Built Ownership Property NORTHERN CALIFORNIA Santa Clara County The Commons 275 Union Avenue Campbell, CA 264 2010 1973 EPLP 48 Pointe at Cupertino 19920 Olivewood Street Cupertino, CA 116 1998 1963 EPLP 58 Apex 1102 South Abel Street Milpitas, CA 367 2014 2014 EPLP 7 Regency at Mountain View 333 Escuela Avenue Mountain View, CA 142 2013 1970 Wesco III 51 101 San Fernando 99 South Fourth Street San Jose, CA 323 2010 2001 EPLP 20 360 Residences 360 South Market Street San Jose, CA 213 2017 2010 Wesco V11 Bella Villagio 383 Vista Roma Way San Jose, CA 231 2010 2004 EPLP 17 The Carlyle 2909 Nieman Boulevard San Jose, CA 132 2000 2000 BEX II 21 Century Towers 1731 & 1733 North First Street San Jose, CA 376 2017 2017 JV ‐ 50% 4 Enso 175 Baypointe Parkway San Jose, CA 183 2015 2014 EPLP 7 Epic 545 River Oaks Parkway San Jose, CA 769 2013 2013 EPLP 8 Esplanade 350 East Taylor Street San Jose, CA 278 2004 2002 EPLP 19 Fountains at River Oaks 373 River Oaks Circle San Jose, CA 226 2014 1990 EPLP 31 Marquis 817 North 10th Street San Jose, CA 166 2016 2015 EPLP 6 Meridian at Midtown 1432 West San Carlos Street San Jose, CA 218 2018 2015 Wesco V6 Mio 688 North 7th Street San Jose, CA 103 2016 2015 EPLP 6 Patina at Midtown 355 Sunol Street San Jose, CA 269 JV ‐ 50% Palm Valley 150 Palm Valley Road San Jose, CA 1,100 2014 2008 EPLP 13 Sage at Cupertino 175 Calvert Drive San Jose, CA 230 2017 1971 DownREIT 50 The
  • San Francisco Tall Buildings Study

    San Francisco Tall Buildings Study

    SAN FRANCISCO TALL BUILDINGS STUDY Disclaimer: While the information presented in this report is believed to be correct, the Applied Technology Council assumes no responsibility for its accuracy or for the opinions expressed herein. The material presented in this publication should not be used or relied upon for any specific application without competent examination and verification of its accuracy, suitability, and applicability by qualified professionals. Users of information from this publication assume all liability arising from such use. San Francisco Tall Buildings Study Prepared by APPLIED TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL 201 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 240 Redwood City, California 94065 www.ATCouncil.org Prepared for City and County of San Francisco Office of Resilience and Capital Planning Brian Strong, Chief Resilience Officer and Director Danielle Mieler, Principal Resilience Analyst San Francisco, California ATC MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT PROJECT TECHNICAL COMMITTEE Ayse Hortacsu John D. Hooper (Task Leader) Justin Moresco David Bonowitz Gregory Deierlein PROJECT WORKING GROUPS Shahriar Vahdani Carlos Molina Hutt Preetish Kakoty CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Anne McLeod Hulsey TALL BUILDINGS EXECUTIVE PANEL Alireza Eksir Monfared Naomi Kelly (Chair) Max Rattie Mary Ellen Carroll Wen-Yi Yen Kathryn How Tom Hui TASK REVIEW PANEL Brian Strong Mark X. Haley William Walton December 2018 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO TALL BUILDINGS STAKEHOLDERS Board of Supervisors Business District 3 San Francisco Chamber of Commerce District 6 Real Estate
  • 25 Years: Downtown Plan Monitoring Report, 1985-2009 03

    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
  • Engineer's Report Prepared by a Registered Professional Engineer Certified by the State of California.3

    Engineer's Report Prepared by a Registered Professional Engineer Certified by the State of California.3

    SECTION 10: ASSESSMENT ENGINEER’S REPORT Downtown Community Benefit District Including the Historic Financial District and Jackson Square of San Francisco and South Side of Market Street Formed under the California Streets and Highway Code Section 36600 et seq. Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994, Augmented by Article 15 of the San Francisco Business and Tax Regulations Code DISTRICT ASSESSMENT ENGINEER’S REPORT Prepared by Edward V. Henning California Registered Professional Engineer # 26549 Edward Henning & Associates April 15, 2019 V 3 1 DOWNTOWN COMMUNITY BENEFIT DISTRICT – ENGINEER’S REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS ENGINEER’S CERTIFICATION ...............................................................................................3 ENGINEER’S REPORT: SECTION A: Legislative and Judicial Review ............................................................4 SECTION B: Programs, Improvements and Activities ..............................................7 SECTION C: District Boundaries ................................................................................9 SECTION D: Proportional Benefits ...........................................................................13 SECTION E: Special and General Benefits ...............................................................13 SECTION F: Program, Improvement and Activity Costs .......................................19 SECTION G: Assessment Methodolgy .......................................................................22 SECTION H: Assessment Roll ....................................................................................25
  • 2014-01129C3602.Pdf

    2014-01129C3602.Pdf

    SERVICE LIST JCCP 4765 ADDRESS PARTY Robert A. Randick Barbera Studio, Inc. Randick O’Dea & Tooliatos, LLP 5000 Hopyard Road, Suite 225 Pleasanton, CA 94588 [email protected] Carol Brophy Big Lots, Inc.; Big Lots Stores, Inc. Jonathan Lee Sedgwick LLP 333 Bush Street, 30th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 [email protected] Jeffrey Margulies Bloomingdale’s, Inc.; Burlington Coat Factory William L. Troutman Warehouse Corporation; Dermstore LLC; Julie Glazer Marshalls of MA, Inc.; Marshalls of CA, LLC; Fulbright & Jaworksi LLP Nordstrom, Inc.; Ross Stores, Inc.; Target 555 South Flower Street, 41st Floor Corporation; The TJX Companies, Inc. Los Angeles, CA 90071 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Mark N. Todzo Center for Environmental Health Howard Hirsch Lexington Law Group 503 Divisadero Street San Francisco, CA 94117 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Michael R. O’Neil Crown Laboratories, Inc. Peter A. Austin Murphy Austin Adams Schoenfeld LLP 304 “S” Street Post Office Box 1319 Sacramento, CA 95812 [email protected] [email protected] John E. Dittoe CVS Pharmacy, Inc. Reed Smith LLP 101 Second Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94105 [email protected] Thomas H. Clarke, Jr. Davion, Inc. Ropers, Majeski, Kohn & Bentley 75 Broadway, Suite 202 San Francisco, CA 94111 [email protected] [email protected] Andrew Oelz FragranceNet.com, Inc. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 [email protected] Julie A. Herzog J Beverly Hills, Inc.