SAN FRANCISCO | Projects: Under Construction, Approved, and Proposed - Page 449

pseudolus · #**8961** Posted **Feb 2, 2018, 5:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by timbad

all I know is there was no activity on those sites when I walked by there, I think last week. I have no insight beyond that.

http://propertymap.sfplanning.org/

All are still at the planning department. 655 has filed for a building permit, but site review is on hold, waiting for the planning department. No building permits filed yet for the other two.

Remember that, after planning department approval, building department approval is a two-step process: first the site review, then the dreaded "addenda".

These are years from construction, I'm guessing, though demolition and excavation could happen sooner.

JWS · #**8962** Posted **Feb 2, 2018, 9:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pseudolus

http://propertymap.sfplanning.org/

All are still at the planning department. 655 has filed for a building permit, but site review is on hold, waiting for the planning department. No building permits filed yet for the other two.

Remember that, after planning department approval, building department approval is a two-step process: first the site review, then the dreaded "addenda".

These are years from construction, I'm guessing, though demolition and excavation could happen sooner.

Thanks! It's so insane how long it takes anything to get done around here.

fogcitybrit · #**8963** Posted **Feb 2, 2018, 10:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndrewK

1066 Market St has now been leveled to make way for this project. As a memory refresher, here’s what the jones/golden gate side will look like (the bulk of the building):

maybe. . . . . maybe not

Pedestrian · #**8964** Posted **Feb 3, 2018, 2:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JWS

Thanks! It's so insane how long it takes anything to get done around here.

Maybe not quite as long soon:

Quote:

Law will force 97.6 percent of California cities to build more
By Adam Brinklow Feb 2, 2018, 11:12am PST

In 2017, Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 35, a new law that demands California cities build more housing or risk temporarily losing control of some of their permitting and entitlements processes.

Few metros meet the state’s regular Regional Housing Needs Assessments—hence the need for a law to motivate more building—but it wasn’t until Friday, when the California Department of Housing and Community Development released the first assessment of cities that would be subject to the state’s new “streamlining process,” that the full extent of the law’s scope became clear.

It’s almost a clean sweep across the board: 97.6 percent of California cities and counties fall under some provision of SB 35 or another.

Only 13 places have satisfied housing expectations to a legally sufficient degree, among them Hillsborough, Napa County, and Sonoma County. (Note that this refers to the counties at large. Individual cities, including Sonoma and Napa themselves, failed to make the list) . . . .

A second, smaller list of 148 cities lays out those cities subject to the slightly less strenuous standard that fast tracks buildings with at least 50 percent affordable housing, including Alameda, Albany, Atherton, Brisbane, Daly City, El Cerrito, Fremont, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Marin County at large, Milpitas, Napa, Oakland, Orinda, Palo Alto, Pittsburg, Pleasantville, San Jose, San Rafael, Walnut Creek, and—yes—San Francisco.

Not every proposed project will be able to take advantage of SB 35’s fast track to passage in the affected areas, but those that meet the legal requirements will enjoy “by-right approval,” . . . .

https://sf.curbed.com/2018/2/2/16965222/california-sb35-housing-bill-list-wiener

dboakland · #**8965** Posted **Feb 4, 2018, 1:08 AM**

Interestingly, it looks like the majority of jurisdictions on the 10% or greater list are not the worst NIMBY offenders. My bet is that you won't see many projects come in under this Statute. It will come down to whether the developer thinks the CEQA exemptions is worth subsidizing 10% BRM units. Maybe in jurisdictions with high affordable housing linkage requirements and in conjunction with the Density Bonus program, but I can't see much use for SB 35 in communities like Fresno, Adelante or Compton.

Pedestrian · #**8966** Posted **Feb 4, 2018, 3:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dboakland

Interestingly, it looks like the majority of jurisdictions on the 10% or greater list are not the worst NIMBY offenders. My bet is that you won't see many projects come in under this Statute. It will come down to whether the developer thinks the CEQA exemptions is worth subsidizing 10% BRM units. Maybe in jurisdictions with high affordable housing linkage requirements and in conjunction with the Density Bonus program, but I can't see much use for SB 35 in communities like Fresno, Adelante or Compton.

I believe San Francisco's own BMR requirement exceeds 10% so all new projects in the city should fall under this unless there's something I'm missing--the program can be rather complicated with the alternatives to pay a fee or build off-site and differing requirements for rental vs owner-occupied housing and if somebody wants to clarify that would be great.

The concern in this thread, of course, is primarily with the effect of the ordinance in simplifying and speeding up approval of San Francisco projects and minimizing the ability of NIMBYs to block them.

JWS · #**8967** Posted **Feb 4, 2018, 5:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

I believe San Francisco's own BMR requirement exceeds 10% so all new projects in the city should fall under this unless there's something I'm missing--the program can be rather complicated with the alternatives to pay a fee or build off-site and differing requirements for rental vs owner-occupied housing and if somebody wants to clarify that would be great.

The concern in this thread, of course, is primarily with the effect of the ordinance in simplifying and speeding up approval of San Francisco projects and minimizing the ability of NIMBYs to block them.

It's confusing because there are two different tiers here. There are the cities that the state will have force streamlining for any projects that contains 10% or more affordable housing. While this is the majority of CA jurisdictions, it's not the one SF is in.

SF is in the smaller, but still sizable, second cluster. This cluster contains forced streamlining for projects with 50% or more affordable housing.

In a bizarre way, I'm curious to see is if developers would now be incentivized to include more affordable housing, in order to take advantage of this law and/or state density bonuses. The first 35% of affordable housing gets you a huge density bonus (the Nordstrom parking lot tower being proposed is one example of how aggressive this may get in the future), the remaining 15% gets you streamlined and moving quickly and dodging being tied up in neighbor complaints etc.

In a weird way, we may get more affordable housing out of this. I think we'll all be watching the Nordstrom parking lot proposal closely for the density bonus.

dboakland · #**8968** Posted **Feb 4, 2018, 7:42 PM**

Unfortunately, SB 35 will do nothing for San Francisco unless the proposed project is at least 50% BMR, which effectively means only projects proposed by non-profit developers with big public subsidies. That appears to be the situation for most of the cities in the Bay Area, so in terms of speeding development its mostly going to be a major fizzle.

Pedestrian · #**8969** Posted **Feb 4, 2018, 9:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dboakland

Unfortunately, SB 35 will do nothing for San Francisco unless the proposed project is at least 50% BMR, which effectively means only projects proposed by non-profit developers with big public subsidies. That appears to be the situation for most of the cities in the Bay Area, so in terms of speeding development its mostly going to be a major fizzle.

Even that will be helpful. There is now at least one, and I think several, 100% BMR projects in the Mission being opposed by activists.

timbad · #**8970** Posted **Feb 4, 2018, 10:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fimiak

Personally I think the Warriors arena / Uber buildings construction site area is the most interesting in the city right now, and we don't have too many street level views of it yet. ...

street-level views have been added in the Chase Center thread

botoxic · #**8971** Posted **Feb 5, 2018, 5:32 AM**

Blood Moon Twlight by Matt Walker, on Flickr

2018: San Francisco -- Salesforce Tower by shutter [o] bug, on Flickr

minesweeper · #**8972** Posted **Feb 5, 2018, 6:26 AM**

Here's the skyline this afternoon from the Sixth Street offramp. The Park Tower and 400 Folsom cores are quite prominent now:

AndrewK · #**8973** Posted **Feb 5, 2018, 6:55 AM**

1172-78 Folsom have just been demo’d to make way for this project (next door to the soon-to-be former City Beer spot):
https://www.dbarchitect.com/project_detail/172/1178%20Folsom%20Street.html

timbad · #**8974** Posted **Feb 5, 2018, 8:46 AM**

a more detailed look at the progress on the east slope of Potrero Hill

and at two of the Tennessee St developments in Dogpatch, 815 and 777

JWS · #**8975** Posted **Feb 5, 2018, 5:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dboakland

Unfortunately, SB 35 will do nothing for San Francisco unless the proposed project is at least 50% BMR, which effectively means only projects proposed by non-profit developers with big public subsidies. That appears to be the situation for most of the cities in the Bay Area, so in terms of speeding development its mostly going to be a major fizzle.

This will still help. As others have noted, there are 100% affordable projects being targeted in the Mission, and the potential 7 story/300 unit old McDonald's project in the Haight that is ALREADY being targeted by neighbors is going to be 100% affordable.

But additionally, think of Central SOMA where Jane Kim is pushing for 33% affordable units on new development. There is a real possibility that developers will decide that jumping up to 50% affordable from 33% might be worth it financially if you can avoid years of costly delays waiting for extensive EIRs, holding costs, and litigation fees. When coupling that with state density bonuses for affordable housing anyway, the math may work out to build more units, denser projects, taller projects, and faster projects by bumping up affordable units. As many have noted, the reason why affordable units are such a non-starter in this town is due primarily to land costs and extensive planning reviews/neighbor challenges. This may actually make projects with extensive BMRs more financial feasible than traditional 100% market rate projects.

ConstructDTLA · #**8976** Posted **Feb 6, 2018, 6:51 AM**

Many more to come tomorrow.

Salesforce Transit Center by Hunter, on Flickr

mt_climber13 · #**8977** Posted **Feb 6, 2018, 7:13 AM**

Dude from LA takes the best pics of SF, bravo!

1977 · #**8978** Posted **Feb 6, 2018, 7:15 AM**

Damn good start, ConstructDTLA! Looking forward to the rest.

ConstructDTLA · #**8979** Posted **Feb 7, 2018, 5:51 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mt_climber13

Dude from LA takes the best pics of SF, bravo!

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1977

Damn good start, ConstructDTLA! Looking forward to the rest.

Thank you guys

I wrote up a blog post on my site of all the major projects with brief snippets of information:
http://hunterkerhart.com/san-francisco-development-2018/

Quote:

The latest update on San Francisco Development & Construction
Last week, I was in San Francisco shooting a project for one of my favorite clients. I decided to stay through the weekend and do an update on some of the biggest projects happening in the city. Below are a few of the highlights, but I encourage you to click through to my Flickr page where I have uploaded over 100 various shots from San Francisco and Oakland.

Here are a handful of selects (in no particular order) - feel free to post any of the other images if you feel they are relevant:

San Francisco Skyline by Hunter, on Flickr

San Francisco Skyline with City Hall by Hunter, on Flickr

181 Fremont, Park Tower & Folsom Bay Tower by Hunter, on Flickr

Salesforce Transit Center by Hunter, on Flickr

Salesforce Tower by Hunter, on Flickr

Salesforce Park / Salesforce Transit Center by Hunter, on Flickr

Salesforce Park by Hunter, on Flickr