April 30, 2013
Making Money On The Buy (And Perhaps The Possession As Well)
The four-unit Alamo Square building at 1164 Fulton Street was purchased for $975,000 a year ago, "occupied by [an] un-cooperative family member who [would] not allow showings" and with possession of the property at the time of the trust sale "negotiable."
Deemed a Historic Resource for the Alamo Square Historic District, San Francisco’s Historic Preservation Commission will have to approve the proposed expansion of the building's garage opening and restoration of the building’s façade based upon historic photographs.
Also proposed, a new roof deck at the rear of the building and a Dwelling Unit Merger, the paperwork for which has yet to be filed as far as we know.
As they say, in real estate you make money on the buy, not the sale. Okay, and in San Francisco, sometimes on the possession as well.
Will Bikes Lanes Be A Casualty Of A Head-On Collision Over Polk?
Having run head-on into a wall of seemingly unexpected opposition, the SFMTA has been forced to revisit their options for San Francisco’s Polk Street Improvement Project.
Opposing the Agency’s plan to remove up to 170 street parking spaces along Polk Street to make way for dedicated bike lanes, the Save Polk Street Coalition is pushing for a plan which would create corner bulb-outs to shorten crossing times, slow traffic by changing signals, and add "sharrows" to the roadway but wouldn't result in any dedicated bikeway.
Roughly five percent of existing metered parking spaces would be removed in order to install red zones near intersections to improve driver visibility and pedestrian safety.
The second of two SFMTA sponsored "open houses" to discuss and debate the proposed plans for Polk Street will held this evening from 5pm to 8:30pm at 1300 Polk Street.
∙ Polk Street Improvement Project [sfmta.com]
∙ Polk Street Showdown: Bike Lanes Versus Parking & Local Opposition [SocketSite]
∙ Polk Street Showdown: Directing The SFMTA To Revisit Their Plans [SocketSite]
The House With A Conscience Returns
Fun to read all of your comments, I bought the house and am very happy.
For me it was the location (flat and close to 24th street, the gym/shopping) and the family friendly part that was the appeal. The Green part was nice but did not really register as all that significant.
I think the quality is beautiful and obviously love the lay out. Children can access the yard from the main floor of the house & that is very appealing. I have seen all of the houses mentioned on the blog but was really taken by this one.
The four-bedroom home has just returned to the market listed for $3,299,000.
We're still fans, especially of the indoor/outdoor living and deck action we noted before:
∙ Listing: 3961 25th Street (4/3.5) - $3,299,000 [3961-25thstreet.com]
∙ A Noe "House With A Conscience" (And Listing Lob): 3961 25th Street [SocketSite]
San Francisco Single-Family Home Prices Tick Up, Condo Values Jump
San Francisco home prices ticked up in February and condo values jumped according to the latest S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Index. According to the Index, single-family home prices in the San Francisco MSA rose 0.5% from January to February 2013. Up 18.9% year-over-year, the San Francisco Index remains 32.1% below a May 2006 peak.
For the broader 10-City composite (CSXR), home values gained 0.3% from January to February 2013, up 8.4% year-over-year, 29.9% below a June 2006 peak.
Phoenix, San Francisco, Las Vegas and Atlanta were the four cities with the highest year-over-year price increases. Atlanta recovered from a wave of foreclosures in 2012 while the other three were among the hardest hit in the housing collapse. At the other end of the rankings, three older cities - New York, Boston and Chicago - saw the smallest year-over-year price improvements.
Despite some recent mixed economic reports for March, housing continues to be one of the brighter spots in the economy. The 2013 first quarter GDP report shows that residential investment accelerated from the 2012 fourth quarter and made a positive contribution to growth. One open question is the mix of single family and apartments; housing starts data show a larger than usual share is apartments.
On a month-over-month basis, prices rose across all three San Francisco price tiers.
The bottom third (under $384,759 at the time of acquisition) gained 0.6% from January to February (up 21.6% YOY); the middle third gained 1.8% from January to February (up 18.8% YOY); and the top third (over $677,427 at the time of acquisition) gained 0.6% from January to February, up 12.9% year-over-year versus up 10.8% in January.
According to the Index, single-family home values for the bottom third of the market in the San Francisco MSA are back to February 2001 levels (52% below an August 2006 peak); the middle third is back to July 2003 levels (32% below a May 2006 peak); and the top third is back to May 2004 levels, 20% below an August 2007 peak.
Condo values in the San Francisco MSA jumped 2.3% from January to February 2013 and are up 28.1% year-over-year but remain 21.7% below a December 2005 peak.
Our standard SocketSite S&P/Case-Shiller footnote: The S&P/Case-Shiller home price indices include San Francisco, San Mateo, Marin, Contra Costa, and Alameda in the "San Francisco" index (i.e., greater MSA) and are imperfect in factoring out changes in property values due to improvements versus appreciation (although they try their best).
∙ S&P/Case-Shiller: Home Prices Rise in February 2013 [Standard & Poor's]
∙ Following A Strong 2012, SF Home Prices Moderate Entering 2013 [SocketSite]
∙ Single-Family Housing Starts Slip But Multi-Family Starts Surge [SocketSite]
April 29, 2013
Pier 30-32 Revitalization Act Aims To Clear The Way For The Warriors
Pier 30-32 was granted to the City and County of San Francisco by the state in trust "for purposes of commerce, navigation, and fisheries, and subject to specified terms and conditions relating to the operation of the Port of San Francisco."
While the use of Pier 30-32 for a cruise ship terminal was authorized and written into law, the terminal was built upon Pier 27 instead. And as it stands, an arena upon Pier 30-32 is not a legally authorized use.
Introduced by Assembly Member Phil Ting, Assembly Bill 1273 (a.k.a. the Pier 30-32 Revitalization Act) will be considered by the Assembly Local Government Committee in Sacramento on Wednesday.
As proposed, AB 1273 would revise the existing authorization to develop Pier 30-32 for use as a cruise ship terminal and authorize the Port Commission to approve the development of Pier 30-32 as a multipurpose venue (i.e., the proposed Warriors Arena) instead.
From the Assembly's early analysis of the bill:
The bill asserts that the [proposed Warriors Arena] is consistent with the common law public trust. The challenge with this assertion is that the common law Public Trust Doctrine, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, places limitations on the Legislature’s authority to use trust lands for non-trust purposes.
A basketball arena, which is a major feature of the project, is not a traditional public trust use—it does not involve water related commerce, navigation, or fishing. However, there are examples of non-trust uses on public trust lands that have been deemed legitimate by the courts because they are incidental to and accommodate other trust uses.
Additionally, the courts have recognized that the public trust doctrine is flexible to address changing public needs related to public trust lands.
Opponents fear the bill is simply a means by which to bypass the Bay Conservation and Development Commission. As always, we'll keep you posted (up) and plugged-in.
∙ The Pier 30-32 Revitalization Act: AB-1273 [ca.gov]
∙ The Design For The Warriors San Francisco Arena On Piers 30-32 [SocketSite]
∙ Pier 27 Terminal Rendered And Ready For Fiscal Feasibility Vote [SocketSite]
Closing In On Circa 2006 Prices At The Beacon
Having been purchased for $650,000 four years ago, the resale of 250 King Street #730 closed escrow on Friday with a reported contract price of $950,000 ($710 per square foot).
Call it 46 percent over the purchase price for the penthouse unit with two parking spaces at the Beacon back in 2009, but still a few percentage points under the unit’s sale for $979,200 in 2006. The two-bedroom condo first sold for $935,000 in 2005.
∙ Will The Rising Tide Lift The Beacon Back Above 2006 Prices? [SocketSite]
∙ Unable To Fund Loan(s) At The Beacon? Hmm... [SocketSite]
Dolores Park Plan Appeal: It's Going To The Dogs (And Commission)
Earlier this month, the proposed plan for renovating Mission Dolores Park was appealed, challenging the environmental impacts of the proposed project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The seven issues the appellant raises which all boil down to the dogs with a reference to the childhood obesity pandemic for good measure or scare:
1. The number of existing and proposed dog play areas at the Park
2. Loss of open space
5. Hydrology and Water Quality
6. Traffic and Noise
RESPONSE TO CONCERN 1 ("off-leash dog play areas were hotly debated during the community outreach meetings and are by no means acceptable to many families with school-aged children who are using this park"):
The appellant asserts that the existing Park only includes one off-leash dog play area and, therefore, the project description in the PMND is inaccurate. The appellant bases this assertion on a Recreation and Park website that was provided to the Planning Department in prior communications between the two parties. The appellant is incorrect.
Under the proposed project, the existing two off-leash dog play areas would be reduced in size by roughly 4,000 square feet to an estimated 96,250 square feet.
RESPONSE TO CONCERN 2 (an increase in off-leash dog play areas at the Park would result in a loss of open space desperately needed "for children to run and play in order to stem [our] childhood obesity pandemic"):
As described in detail in Response 1 above, the proposed project would not increase the number or size of off-leash dog play areas at the Park, but rather would slightly reduce the size of the existing off-leash dog play areas.
The 0.8 acre reduction of "open space" described and analyzed…is attributable to loss in pervious surfaces such as turf or grass due to the addition of pathways and the reconfiguration of the athletic courts, among other changes and not due to the proposed project’s modifications to the off-leash dog play areas.
Moreover, the proposed change of 0.8 acres from pervious to impervious surfaces in the 16.1 acre public park is not a reduction in public open space. The entire Park would still be considered public open space.
RESPONSE TO CONCERN 3 (the increase in off-leash dog play areas at the Park would result in a significant hazard to the public and environment):
The appellant asserts that increasing the number of off-leash dog play areas at the Park would result in significant safety and health risk hazards through an increase in the number of dogs at the Park. As discussed in Response 1 above, the proposed project would not increase the number or size of off-leash dog play areas at the Park.
RESPONSE TO CONCERN 4 (the increase in off-leash dog play areas at the Park, "with their modern trappings of plastic bag holders," would result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista through substantial physical deterioration of the park):
The appellant asserts that increasing the number of off-leash dog play areas at the Park and associated other items (e.g., trash receptacles, bag dispensers, and drinking fountains) would result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista through an increase in the number of dogs at the Park and associated other items. As discussed in Response 1 above, the proposed project would not increase the number or size of off-leash dog play areas at the Park.
The proposed project’s visible items associated with the off-leash dog play areas (e.g., trash receptacles, bag dispensers, and drinking fountains) would not be substantially tall or large enough to block views of prominent structures and features outside of the Park or noticeable enough to substantially change the foreground of the existing scenic vistas. Moreover, the appellant brings forth no substantial evidence that the proposed project would result in additional dogs at the Park, resulting in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
RESPONSE TO CONCERN 5 (the increase in off-leash dog play areas at the Park would violate water quality standards and pet waste discharge requirements):
The appellant asserts that increasing the number of off-leash dog play areas at the Park would result in a violation of water quality standards through an increase in the number of dogs at the Park. It is unclear what the appellant means by pet waste discharge requirements. As described in Response 1 above, the proposed project would not increase the number or size of off-leash dog play areas at the Park.
RESPONSE TO CONCERN 6 (The increase in off-leash dog play areas at the Park would create an increase in noise and traffic "as many more non-neighborhood professional dog walkers and dog owners are attracted as opposed to families within walking distance"):
The appellant asserts that increasing the number of off-leash dog play areas at the Park would result in an increase of noise and traffic through an increase in the number of non-neighborhood professional dog walkers and dog owners visiting the Park. As discussed in Response 1 above, the proposed project would not increase the number or size of off-leash dog play areas at the Park.
RESPONSE TO CONCERN 7 (the increase in off-leash dog play areas at the Park would result in inadequate parking capacity):
The appellant asserts that increasing the number of off-leash dog play areas at the Park would result in inadequate parking capacity through an increase in the number of professional dog walkers and dog owners that would make a vehicle trip to the Park. As discussed in Response 1 above, the proposed project would not increase the number or size of off-leash dog play areas at the Park.
On Thursday, San Francisco’s Planning Commission will hear the appeal and decided whether to allow the makeover of Mission Dolores Park to move forward as proposed or require additional environmental study.
∙ The Grand Dolores Park Makeover Plan, Timing, And "pPod" Pissoir [SocketSite]
∙ Supervisor Showdown: Wiener Versus Kim, CEQA, And Waste [SocketSite]
∙ Appeal of Mission Dolores Park Rehabilitation and Improvement Project [sfplanning.org]
From A Bag Of Gold In 1906 To 2,034 Troy Ounces Today
Built by Henry Geilfuss for Charles Dietle in 1885 and sold for a bag of gold salvaged from the buyer's destroyed business following the great quake in 1906, the Charles Dietle House at 294 Page Street was designated as San Francisco Landmark #48 in 1972.
Purchased for $2,362,500 in October 2006 having been listed for $2,995,000 that May and housing a law office at the time, the five-bedroom Victorian with a variance for commercial activity is back on the market with an interior that's since been restored.
Listed for $2,995,000 once again, as of this morning, that's roughly 2,034 ounces of gold versus the roughly 4,000 ounces paid in 2006. Is it time to salvage that bag of your own?
∙ Listing: 294 Page Street (5/3) - $2,995,000 [294page.com]
∙ San Francisco Landmark #48: Charles Dietle House (294 Page) [noehill.com]
April 26, 2013
Rebuilt Piece By Piece And Back On The Market For Ten Million More
The old Queen Anne at 2504 Jackson Street traded for $3,650,000 two years ago.
Having since been taken down to the studs and rebuilt "piece by piece, system by system, from the foundation to the roof," the now 7,260 square foot Pacific Heights home has just returned to the market listed for $13,750,000 with an elevator between its four floors.
And there's not only a requisite NanaWall, but two:
And there's a rather nice wine cellar aside the "party kitchen" as well.
Are The Big Plans For San Francisco's Central Corridor Big Enough?
With a pressing need to support the City's projected job growth and continued economic development, San Francisco's Planning Department has spent the past two years developing the growth plan and strategy for San Francisco's Central Corridor, "a high-demand area with excellent regional transit accessibility, adjacency to existing job centers, diverse urban amenities and connectivity to San Francisco’s well-educated workforce."
As it stands, the 260 South of Market (SoMa) acres bounded by Market, Sixth, Second, and Townsend Streets, and bisected by the Central Subway project, are already zoned to support the building of 8,225 new residential units and office space for 19,140 workers.
By removing land use restrictions to emphasize office uses in the central portion of the Plan Area, selectively increasing height limits on certain sites (primarily south of Harrison Street), and modifying the system of area streets and circulation to meet the needs of a dense transit-oriented district, the proposed Central Corridor plan will add the potential for another 3,490 housing units and office space for 27,820 jobs to be built within the area.
It’s a great start, but with San Francisco projected to add 190,000 new jobs by 2040, filled in part by a projected 150,000 new residents by 2035, and for which 92,000 housing units will need to be built, are the plans for San Francisco's Central Corridor with excellent regional transit accessibility adjacent to existing job centers and urban amenities big enough?
Aiming to maintain "the predominant character of SoMa as a mid-rise district," reducing the presence of high-rises by actively "limiting their distribution to transit stations," and limiting heights "in areas with a high concentration of historic buildings and unique character," the Draft Plan identifies two height options for the Plan Area:
In general, Option A would increase heights along Fourth, Harrison, and Bryant streets from 65 feet to 85 feet. Option A would also allow for towers between 130 and 320 feet on certain sites, mostly located south of Harrison Street, increasing height limits on those sites by 45 to 235 feet.
Option B would be similar to Option A, except that Option B would increase tower height limits for certain sites south of Harrison Street to between 115 and 400 feet, increasing height limits on those sites by about 60 to 315 feet.
The rendered view of downtown San Francisco from Dolores Park under existing conditions and as it would be under the Central Corridor plan as proposed, click to enlarge:
Conceding Planning’s principal that area heights "should be sculpted mindful of views through and across the Area from surrounding areas with views of the Bay, East Bay Hills, and other key features," might there be a bit more room to grow?
∙ Central Corridor Draft Plan [sf-planning.org]
∙ Planning For A Projected 190,000 New Jobs In San Francisco By 2040 [SocketSite]
∙ If San Francisco Grows By 150,000 People, Where Will Everyone Live? [SocketSite]
∙ The Big Plans For This East SoMa Block, Bigger Than Planned In Fact [SocketSite]
Peak To Trough And Back In The Heights
Near the end of 2007, the Lower Pacific Heights home at 1705 Broderick Street, two doors down from the Full House façade at 1709 Broderick, was purchased for $2,800,000. The 2,648 square foot Victorian returned to the market today listed for $2,895,000.
Over in Bernal, 442 Anderson Street was purchased for $1,230,000 in June of 2007. The Mid-Century boned home is back on the market today listed for $1,195,000.
By most accounts and measures, home values in Bernal and Pacific Heights peaked in early 2008 and bottomed at the end of 2011, falling 15 to 20 percent between.
∙ Listing: 1705 Broderick Street (3/3.5) 2,648 sqft - $2,895,000 [1705broderick.com]
∙ A Modern Worldly Renovation In Bernal Heights (442 Anderson) [SocketSite]
Alexandria Theater Redevelopment Approved As Proposed
The plans for the redevelopment of the Alexandria Theatre at 5400 Geary Boulevard and construction of a "Spanish/Mediterranean" styled mixed-use building with 37 condos upon the theater's adjacent parking on 18th Avenue have been approved as proposed.
∙ Dilapidated Alexandria Theater Redevelopment Take Two [SocketSite]
Posted by socketadmin at 8:00 AM
April 25, 2013
Presenting The Real Plan For Raging On Castro Street
While the Apple rumor was debunked, a plugged-in tipster passes along confirmation that the group doing business as RR-SF, Inc. (a.k.a. "Raging Rooster") will be presenting their plan for the old Bank of America building at 400 Castro Street (a.k.a. the former Diesel store) to the Merchants of Upper Market & Castro next week.
With the rumor mill grinding away, so to speak, it ought to be an interesting presentation.
∙ Apple Has Reportedly Set Their Sights On This Castro Street Site [SocketSite]
∙ Apple Rumor Busted But In Part Confirmed As Well [SocketSite]
The AIA's 2013 Marin Living: Home Tours Lineup And Preview
Speaking of modern Bay Area homes and tours, the AIA’s 2013 Marin Living: Home Tours will open the doors to five modern homes in Marin next month.
The homes to be featured, including the Multicellular House above and The Shack below:
∙ 2013 Marin Living: Home Tours [aiasf.org]
The Modern Home At 3577 Pacific Comes Bouncing Back
Today, the 4,264 square foot home returned to the market listed for $6,500,000 having been included on the AIA’s 2012 tour of modern San Francisco homes.
And yes, this is the one with the bathtub that's filled by way of a spigot on the ceiling:
∙ Listing: 3577 Pacific Avenue (5/4) 4,264 sqft - $6,500,000 [pacunion.com]
∙ 3577 Pacific: Inside Its Newly Contemporary Soul (And Market's Mind) [SocketSite]
∙ 3577 Pacific Recap: Withdrawn From MLS (But Sold Two Days Prior) [SocketSite]
Banding Together In An Attempt To Rebrand Broadway
Having failed to take hold in 2008, North Beach business owners and residents are once again banding together in an attempt to create a Community Benefit District (CBD) along Broadway between Columbus Avenue and Montgomery Street and south to Pacific Avenue.
Funds collected from property owners within the CBD could be used to increase safety and security while the organization itself could lobby for other changes to rebrand the area, such as encouraging the shift of liquor licenses from clubs and bars to local restaurants or trying to reduce the number of neighborhood liquor licenses overall.
∙ North Beach residents, businesses mobilize to change Broadway [sfexaminer.com]
What You Can Rent For $17,500 A Month In San Francisco
As plugged-in people know, the 4,162 square foot Lighthouse Lofts unit #308 was created by combing three adjacent units and 1097 Howard Street #308 is also known as #307.
And as a reader notes, the two-bedroom loft #307 is now being offered for rent fully furnished with "flexible 1-2 month lease terms," which are key, for $17,500 a month.
We'll let you run the numbers, but don't forget to include a vacancy factor if you do.
∙ Listing: 1097 Howard Street #307 (2/2.5) 4,200 sqft - $17,500/month [mcguire.com]
∙ 1097 Howard #308 Shines Some Apples To Apples Style Light [SocketSite]
∙ The SocketSite Scoop On 37 Raycliff Terrace (A.K.A. 2799 Broadway) [SocketSite]
∙ The Lighthouse Lofts Apple Of Our Eye Returns (1097 Howard #308) [SocketSite]
April 24, 2013
Forget The Flying Furniture, How About Pianos Hanging Overhead?
While Defenestration’s flying furniture days are numbered, a canopy of thirteen steel and glass piano sculptures has been commissioned to hang from the façade of 55 9th Street.
Designed by Brian Goggin with Dorka Keehn and entitled "Caruso's Dream," the permanent installation will extend up to nine feet over the sidewalk as proposed.
Per Section 136 of San Francisco's Planning Code, certain categories of building features are permitted to extend over the public right-of-way, but artworks are not. Today, San Francisco’s Planning Department will decide whether to approve the requested variances required for the canopy to be installed on the facade of the building that's on the way:
∙ Defenestration's Days Are Numbered [SocketSite]
∙ 17 Stories And 273 Rental Units Ready To Rise At 55 9th Street [SocketSite]
∙ Hugo Hotel's Flying Furniture Update, No Word On The Graffiti [SocketSite]
April 23, 2013
41 South Park: Swinging For $7.65 Million (And Inside As Well)
Hidden behind a traditional San Francisco façade, 41 South Park which is technically a two-unit building was rebuilt and remodeled in a rather non-traditional fashion last year.
An "ultra-gourmet" kitchen now overlooks the dining room with a double height ceiling from which the swings, not chairs, that surround the dining room table are hung:
A media room with wet bar (i.e., the kitchen for the "second unit") graces the ground floor.
Atop the building, a new rooftop terrace with spa discretely overlooks South Park.
And with five bedrooms, four and one-half baths, two parking spaces and a pre-renovated 3,600 square feet, 41 South Park has hit the market swinging for $7,650,000.
∙ Listing: 41 South Park (5/4.5) - $7,650,000 [41southpark.com]
Mission Rock: The Four Phases, Timing, And Sea Rise Clause
With a total projected construction budget of $1.5 billion, the Giants' massive Mission Rock development is proposed to be built in four phases. Construction on the first phase with buildings up to 320 feet in height is currently slated to commence in 2016:
Phase 1 of the Mission Rock development includes parcels A, B, and C along Third Street and a 2,297 space parking garage at the corner of Third and Mission Rock Streets (parcel D). Assuming a 2016 start, Phase 1 would be ready for occupancy in 2018.
Construction of Phase 2 which includes parcels G and K and the five-acre China Basin Park is currently slated to commence in 2017 and would be completed in 2019. Construction of Phase 3 which includes parcels E and F and Mission Rock Square would commence in 2018 and be completed in 2020.
The final phase of the Giants' Mission Rock development includes parcels H, I and J is slated to commence construction in 2019 with delivery by 2022. The redevelopment of Pier 48 upon which Anchor Brewing is planning to build another brewery is also currently scheduled for the final phase of the Mission Rock project but could be accelerated. Anchor has already announced their intentions to begin construction by the end of 2014.
Speaking of Pier 48, according to the term sheet for development: "In light of the current projections of sea level rise, the maximum initial term [for Pier 48's lease] would be 30 years." An option to extend to 66 years will be included but will only be able to be exercised after the City and the Port have established policies and procedures to address the sea level rise.
∙ Giants Moving Forward With Massive "Mission Rock" Development [SocketSite]
∙ The Proposed Park, Plaza, And Mission Rock Square [SocketSite]
∙ The Two Towers And Building Heights For Mission Rock As Proposed [SocketSite]
∙ San Francisco Giants Sign Anchor Brewing To Mission Rock Team [SocketSite]