DOCSLIB.ORG

SF FINAL 2016.Indd

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

THE POLARIS PACIFIC REPORT San Francisco Condominium Market SEPTEMBER 2016 MLS DISTRICT 1-10 SAN FRANCISCO / LOS ANGELES / SAN DIEGO / OAKLAND-EMERYVILLE / SILICON VALLEY / SEATTLE / PHOENIX MARKET SNAPSHOT SAN FRANCISCO | SEPTEMBER 2016 LOW-RISE BUILDING MID-RISE BUILDING HIGH-RISE BUILDING 4 STORIES OR LESS 5-12 STORIES 13 STORIES OR MORE PRICE PER SQ. FT. PRICE PER SQ. FT. PRICE PER SQ. FT. $1,198 $1,303 $1,522 ANNUAL CHANGE ANNUAL CHANGE ANNUAL CHANGE +0.9% -0.4% +5.7% MACRO TRENDS CONDO INVENTORY CONDO SALES & MEDIAN PRICE MULTI-FAMILY COMPLETIONS BY TYPE BY TYPE BY BUILDING TYPE 915 202 971 NEW NEW NEW CONDOS 3.1 CONDOS $1,095K CONDOS 2,611 MONTHS OF MEDIAN 2015 RESALE RESALE MULTI-FAMILY INVENTORY PRICE 751 DELIVERIES 1,640 771 RESALES NEW RESALES APTS ABOUT POLARIS PACIFIC Polaris Pacifi c is a new-condominium brokerage and advisory fi rm renowned for its grasp and insight into market trends and buyer sentiment in the major urban markets of the West Coast, and its ability to capitalize upon this information to generate sales performance. We produce monthly reports on six major urban markets on the West Coast—San Francisco, Los Angeles, Silicon Valley, Oakland-Emeryville, San Diego, Seattle and Phoenix —that provide timely insight into the performance of new and existing condominiums in these regions. We also generate comprehensive custom reports for specifi c multi-family development sites, including pricing and rental models, fl oorplan critique services, demographic analysis, and future supply projections by submarket at the request of developers and fi nancial institutions. If you’re interested in further market intelligence, please contact Miles Garber at (415) 361-4805 or mgarber@polarispacifi c.com. Source: SFARMLS, Polaris Pacifi c. Data from sources may be subject to errors, omissions and revisions. PSF Figures are for buildings built after 2004, infl ated to account for new construction premium. The fi gures cover the six-month periods ending 8/31/2015 and 8/31/2016. MARKET SNAPSHOT SAN FRANCISCO, JULY 2014 MARKET OVERVIEW CURRENTLY SELLING SOLD OUT ABOUT POLARIS PACIFIC PAGE 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 MARKET OVERVIEW MARKET INSIGHTS DEMAND CONDITIONS SUPPLY CONDITIONS DISTRICTS 8 CURRENTLY SELLING 25 SOLD OUT 2016 RESALE DEVELOPMENTS PAST RESALE DEVELOPMENTS 86 ABOUT POLARIS PACIFIC SAN FRANCISCO MARKET REPORT, SEPTEMBER 2016 MARKET OVERVIEW CURRENTLY SELLING SOLD OUT ABOUT POLARIS PACIFIC PAGE 1 Annual Price and Sales Changes by District The maps below (Figures 1 & 2) show annual percentage changes in median price per square foot and total sales by district. While most districts in San Francisco experienced positive median price growth over the past year, the most notable year-over-year price increases occurred in District 10 (+8.4%). FIG 1. ANNUAL PRICE PSF CHANGE MAP FIG 2. ANNUAL SALES CHANGE MAP 7 8 7 8 +1.1% +0.4% -3.1% -34.7% 1 6 1 6 +7.7% -0.6% +2.8% +18.9% 9 9 5 -3.9% 5 -14.8% 2 +0.4% 2 -5.3% +6.9% -37.5% 4 4 +2.7% -54.5% 3 10 3 10 +4.3% +5.6% -27.3% -12.5% Annual Price PSF Change Map Annual Sales Change Map Year-over-year change in median PSF in each district Year-over-year change in total resales in each district of the city, for Jun 2016 - Aug 2016: of the city, for Jun 2016 - Aug 2016: (Source: Realquest) (Source: Realquest) -30% -15% No Change +15% +30% -30% -15% No Change +15% +30% Current Prices and Sales by District Figure 3 shows a box-and-whisker plot of sales prices by district during the three-month period ending August 31, 2016, with wider boxes indicating more sales. As shown below, District 7 had the highest median price ($1,325,000), while District 10 had the lowest ($610,000). District 9 experienced the most sales during this period (207 sales). FIG 3. SALES BY DISTRICT $2,800k $2,600k $2,400k $2,200k $2,000k $1,800k $1,600k $1,400k $1,200k Sale Price $1,000k $800k $600k $400k $200k 1 − 45678910 Source: Realquest District SAN FRANCISCO MARKET REPORT, SEPTEMBER 2016 MARKET OVERVIEW CURRENTLY SELLING SOLD OUT ABOUT POLARIS PACIFIC PAGE 2 Historical Prices and Sales During the three-month period ending August 31, the median price increased 4.3 percent from the prior year to $1,095,000. At the same time, there were 751 total resales, a 2.5 percent decrease from the prior year. Since March 2015, the median price has surpassed the $1,000,000 mark. FIG 4. MEDIAN PRICE AND RESALES $1200k 400 Resales Median Price $1100k $1000k 300 $900k $800k $700k 200 $600k $500k $400k 100 $300k $200k $100k 0 $0k 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Source: SFARMLS Year Cash and Investor Buyers Figure 5 provides an historical trend of all-cash and investor buyers in San Francisco since 2000. For the three months ending August 31, all-cash transactions represented 26.1 percent of sales, a decrease from 29.5 percent the same time last year; investor buyers represented 22.5 percent of buyers, a decrease from 25.6 percent the same time last year. FIG 5. PERCENT OF CASH AND INVESTOR BUYERS 50% Investor Buyer Cash Buyer 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Source: Realquest Year SAN FRANCISCO MARKET REPORT, SEPTEMBER 2016 MARKET OVERVIEW CURRENTLY SELLING SOLD OUT ABOUT POLARIS PACIFIC PAGE 3 Historical Average Market Time (Monthly Trend) The average days on market (DOM) figure is calculated as the amount of time between the date a home is listed for sale and the date it goes into escrow. The 60-day benchmark signifies a balanced market (the dotted line in Figure 6). As shown in Figure 6, the average DOM figure was 40 days in the three-month period ending August 31. FIG 6. AVERAGE SOLD MARKET TIME (MONTHLY) 100 80 60 40 Number of Days 20 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Source: SFARMLS Year Historical Average Market Time (Annual Trend) Figure 7 shows the average DOM figure at the end of each year going back to 2000 (the 2016 figure is year-to-date). Since 2012, the average DOM figure has been below 60 days. FIG 7. AVERAGE SOLD MARKET TIME (ANNUAL) 80 60 40 Number of Days 20 0 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Source: SFARMLS Year SAN FRANCISCO MARKET REPORT, SEPTEMBER 2016 MARKET OVERVIEW CURRENTLY SELLING SOLD OUT ABOUT POLARIS PACIFIC PAGE 4 Months of Remaining Inventory (Monthly Trend) The months of remaining inventory figure, or MRI figure, indicates how many months it would take to absorb current supply. Six months is considered a balanced market, while nine months or more is considered an oversupplied market. Figure 8 shows a three-month moving average of the figure going back to 2008. As shown, the MRI figure has remained below the six-month benchmark since 2012. The most recent figure was 3.1 months. FIG 8. MONTHS OF REMAINING INVENTORY 14 12 10 8 6 4 Number of Months 2 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Source: SFARMLS Ye a r Months of Remaining Inventory (Annual Trend) Figure 9 shows the MRI figure at the end of each year (the 2015 figure is year-to-date). As shown, the MRI figure decreased each year from 2010 through 2015 and has been indicative of a seller’s market since 2011. FIG 9. AVERAGE MONTHS OF REMAINING INVENTORY 7 6 5 4 3 2 Number of Months 1 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Source: SFARMLS Year SAN FRANCISCO MARKET REPORT, SEPTEMBER 2016 MARKET OVERVIEW CURRENTLY SELLING SOLD OUT ABOUT POLARIS PACIFIC PAGE 5 Active Condominium Inventory Figure 10 shows the inventory of unsold new condominiums (red) and active resale listings (dark gray) in San Francisco for the month of September for each year since 2011. Currently, there are 915 unsold new condominiums on the market. FIG 10. CONDOMINIUM INVENTORY COMPOSITION Number of Units Available 1,500 New Construction Resales 1,000 Total Units Total 500 0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Ye a r Source: SFARMLS, Polaris Pacific Annual Multi-Family Completions Figure 11 shows total annual multi-family completions of both apartments and condominiums in San Francisco. The peak year for condominium completions was 2008, when 2,069 new units were delivered to the market. In 2015, there were 1,640 apartments units completed and 971 condominium units completed. FIG 11. TOTAL ANNUAL MULTI-FAMILY COMPLETIONS 2,000 Apartments Condos 1,500 1,000 Units 500 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Source: Polaris Pacific Year SAN FRANCISCO MARKET REPORT, SEPTEMBER 2016 MARKET OVERVIEW CURRENTLY SELLING SOLD OUT ABOUT POLARIS PACIFIC PAGE 6 Future Condominium Supply by District Figures 12 and 13 show the number of new condominiums currently under construction and entitled by district. There are 2,261 new condominiums currently under construction in San Francisco. 350 units are Mission Bay Block One, which began construction in 2015. In addition, a sizeable number of condominium projects were entitled and could begin construction in the near future (see Districts 9 and 10 in Figure 13). FIG 12. CONDOMINIUMS UNDER CONSTRUCTION FIG 13. CONDOMINIUMS APPROVED 7 8 7 8 104 588 27 360 1 6 1 6 0 354 39 161 9 9 5 1,131 5 1,582 2 0 2 73 56 0 4 4 0 29 3 10 3 10 28 0 0 3,732 Map of Market Map of Market Number of Units: 2,261 Number of Units: 6,003 (Source: Polaris Pacific) (Source: Polaris Pacific) 0 300 1,000 0 300 1,000 Future Apartment Supply by District Figures 14 and 15 show future supply of apartments by district.
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.
  • The Bay Area-Silicon Valley and Australia an Expanding Trans-Pacific Partnership

    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
  • 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..
  • Issues Are Being Reported Throughout All of San Francisco and     What the City Is Doing to Resolve Them

    Issues Are Being Reported Throughout All of San Francisco and     What the City Is Doing to Resolve Them

    NO. 160 PUBLISHED BY THE CENTRAL CITY A telling tale SAN FRANCISCO STUDY CENTER October of challenges 2 015 for housing 4,400 in The City UNITS IN 1400 Mission began as 25 YEARS low-income, but city made san francisco it plum for a smart builder Affordable housing built UNK S ENDERLOIN OOTS BY M ARJORIE BEGGS P ‘ T R since 1989 T WAS A SWEET BIT of chronologi- cal serendipity: In August, the city an- PAGE 3 I nounced the moderate-income lottery winners who were eligible to buy 167 condos at the new, glass-clad 1400 Mission complex at the corner of 10th Street. Two miles east, at Folsom and Main streets, the first owners began moving into Lumina, 656 super-luxe condos. The connection between the two is direct, the timing’s not coincidental, the backstory convoluted — and telling. Tishman Speyer built 1400 Mission for $65 million and Lumina for $620 million. One is inclusionary affordable housing, the other, by dint of price, exclusionary. With the exception of 23 rental apartments at 1400 Mission, all 823 condos are for sale. How much Tishman will profit from Lumina will probably be known only to Tishman Speyer. At 1400 Mission, the city 2 WHO has posted estimated sales totals for the WERE The city credited Tishman 167 condos at just nearly $50 million for under $50 million. So MOURNED meeting its inclusionary it may be fair to ask if Deosia Henderson, requirement. the big developer has used an affordable Stevie L. Newsom housing project to en- able its lucrative investment in the Lumina.
  • 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
  • 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

    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.
  • City and County of San Francisco

    City and County of San Francisco

    PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT DATED JANUARY 30, 2019 NEW ISSUE - BOOK-ENTRY ONLY RATING: Fitch: “AA+” See “RATING” herein. In the opinion of Jones Hall, A Professional Law Corporation, San Francisco, California, Bond Counsel, subject, however to certain qualifications described in this Official Statement, under existing law, the interest on the Bonds is exempt from California personal income taxes. Interest on the Bonds is not intended to be exempt from federal income taxation. Bond Counsel expresses no opinion regarding other federal or State tax consequences relating to the ownership or disposition of, or the accrual or receipt of interest on, the Bonds. See “TAX MATTERS” herein. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2014-1 (TRANSBAY TRANSIT CENTER) $31,940,000* $152,205,000* Special Tax Bonds, Series 2019A Special Tax Bonds, Series 2019B (Federally Taxable) (Federally Taxable – Green Bonds) Dated: Date of Delivery Due: September 1, as shown on inside cover This cover page contains certain information for general reference only. It is not intended to be a summary of the security or terms of this issue. Investors must read the entire Official Statement to obtain information essential to making an informed investment decision. The City and County of San Francisco, California (the “City”) on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco Community Facilities District No. 2014-1 (Transbay Transit Center) (the “District”) will be issuing Special Tax Bonds, Series 2019A (Federally Taxable) (the “2019A Bonds”) and Special Tax Bonds, Series 2019B (Federally Taxable – Green Bonds) (the “2019B Bonds” and, together with the 2019A Bonds, the “2019 Bonds”).
  • Tehama San Francisco | California

    Tehama San Francisco | California

    36 Tehama san francisco | California TRANSBAY MICRO-UNIT DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1288HOWARD 36Tehama Executive Summary Colliers International is pleased to present the opportunity to acquire 36 Tehama, (the “Property” or “Project”), an incredible Transbay development opportunity located in the San Francisco’s downtown core. The Project features an irreplaceable location surrounded by San Francisco’s most notable office occupiers including Salesforce and Facebook who occupy nearly 3.5M square feet of space steps from the Project’s front door. 2 Residential Micro-unit Project 45 8 419 Total Units Levels Avg. unit size NORTHPOINT ST. NORTHPOINT ST. COLUMBUS ST. BAY ST. BAY ST. VANDEWATER ST. 18,855 ST. MIDWAY Type III BRET HARTE WORDEN ST. FRANCISCO ST. FRANCISCO ST. THE EMBARCADERO Total SaleableWATER ST. Sq. Ft. Construction HOUSTON ST. PFEIFFER ST. BELL AIR ST. BELL CHESTNUT ST. CHESTNUT ST. VENARD FIELDING ST. WHITING ST. CULEBRA WINTHROP ST. WINTHROP JULIUS NEWELL ST. NEWELL LOMBARD ST. LOMBARD ST. EDGARDO PL. BLACKSTONE TUSCANY CHILD ST. EDITH JANSEN ST. TELEGRAPH GREENWICH ST. GREENWICH ST. 0 500 BRANT T PARDEE E L KRAMER GERKE E ROACH ST. G VALPARAISO ST. VALPARAISO ST. R HARRIS PL. A Scale in Feet P H VIA BUFANO VIA High-rise Alternative Hotel B L V D DARELL NAPIER SCOTLAND ST. ATTRIDGE FILBERT ST. FILBERT ST. HARWOOD HAVENS ST. ALTA ST. ALTA ST. REDFIELD ALLADIN TER. SCHOOL NOBLE'S PL. GENOA ALLEN ST. HASTINGS KENT ST. CADELL MOORE MARION PL. BLACK PL. UNION ST. UNION ST. WARNER SHARP WEBB PL. WINTER ROCKLAND PRICE RUSSELL ST. MACONDRAY LN. MONTAGUE COMMERCE ST.
  • San Francisco Ethics Commission Disclosure Report for Permit

    San Francisco Ethics Commission Disclosure Report for Permit

    DocuSign Envelope ID: E93BA072-AAE3-4AE2-B931-BCA55432FAA2 San Francisco Ethics Commission 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 220, San Francisco, CA 94102 Received on: Phone: 415.252.3100 . Fax: 415.252.3112 07-14-2020\DateSigned | 08:21:52\ PDT [email protected] . www.sfethics.org \DateSigned\ Disclosure Report for Permit Consultants SFEC Form 3410B (S.F. Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code § 3.400A et seq.) A Public Document 1. FILING INFORMATION TYPE OF FILING DATE OF ORIGINAL FILING (for amendment only) \OriginalFilingType\ \OriginalFilingDate\ PERIOD COVERED \PeriodMonths\ \PeriodYear\ April 1 to June 30 2020 2. PERMIT CONSULTANT AND EMPLOYER INFORMATION NAME OF PERMIT CONSULTANT NAME OF EMPLOYER John Fogarty \PermitConsultantName\ A.R.\PermitConsultantEmployer Sanchez-Corea & \Associates, Inc. BUSINESS ADDRESS 301 Junipero Serra Blvd, Suite 270, San Francisco, CA 94127 \PermitConsultantAddress\ BUSINESS TELEPHONE BUSINESS EMAIL ADDRESS 415-333-8080 [email protected] \PermitConsultantTelephone\ \PermitConsultantEmail\ 3. CLIENT INFORMATION Enter the name, business address, contact person (if applicable), e-mail address, and business telephone number of each client for whom you performed permit consulting services during the reporting period. Also enter the amount of compensation you or your employer received or expected to receive from each client for permit consulting services during the reporting period. # CLIENT INFORMATION NAME OF CLIENT One De Haro, LLC c/o SKS Investments \ClientName1\ BUSINESS ADDRESS OF CLIENT 601 California