30 Van Ness Avenue

Rejected by San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors at the end of 2015, when the proposed purchase price was $80 million, the term sheet for the sale of the City’s five-story building at 30 Van Ness Avenue, a building which sits upon a prominent parcel which is currently zoned for development up to 400 feet in height, has been tentatively approved by the Board’s Budget and Finance Committee with a contract price of $70 million.

While $10 million less than previously proposed by Related California, Lendlease Development has agreed to offer 25 percent of the future 30 Van Ness units at below market rates versus 15 percent under the terms of the 2015-era deal, but with higher income limits for the additional 10 percent.

And if a height increase is approved for the 30 Van Ness site at the center of San Francisco’s burgeoning Hub District, an additional affordable housing fee will be required to be paid.

San Francisco’s current Board of Supervisors are slated to vote on the sale next week. The previous Board had been shooting for a sale price of “no less than $87 million” back in 2015.

If the sale of 30 Van Ness is approved and ratified, the City will continue to occupy the building until the 1500 Mission Street development is finished, which is currently slated to occur around 2020, and the net proceeds from the sale will help fund the new development.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by Sutro_Tower

    Thank you Aaron Peskin for sparing our city’s coffers from bearing the weight of an additional $10 million. You really wanted to make your presence felt when you rejoined the board and you did not fail to deliver! Nicely done!

  2. Posted by Amewsed

    I still have a couple of buildings I could unload to the City for $5M a piece — no need to review comps. All cash, waiver of all contingencies, and close escrow in two weeks. Existing rent controlled tenants will be thrown in for free.

    As for Peskin and his groupies, they plan on slapping a millionaire’s SF only local income tax to “bridge the income gap” between the rich and poor.

    • Posted by Dave

      Had not heard about Peskin’s plan. If true it will impact many, many SF residents. The median home here is around a million dollars. if it excludes the personal residence it will still impact many – the number of small-time landlords in SF is large and just one property likely puts them over a million net worth. Not counting 401 Ks and all.

      Many of these impacted people can easily move across the county line to avoid the tax – it would be just another factor causing people to leave SF.

      Bad idea – hope its not true.

      • Posted by Jake

        Income tax, not property tax. Improbable, but proposed: A 0.5 percent tax rate on incomes exceeding $1 million would raise almost $62 million, the San Francisco Controller’s office estimates. “I wanted to introduce this so we could have a menu of options to discuss as we move forward,” Supervisor Aaron Peskin said. Any vote is “a long way in the future, but I thought it was a conversation worth having” in light of expected federal tax reductions.”

        • Posted by Notcom

          And prohibited by law, aren’t they? Are Bragdad-by-the-Bay’s Sacto minion’s planning an exemption?

        • Posted by Amewsed

          Unless it is determined by a salary of $1M, other compensation structures can be changed to not cross the threshold. The bigger concern is those w/ $1M income will likely find ways around this hypothetical law and the City (once again) fails to raise the requisite funds. What next? Slippery slope downwards to $500K, $250K. $100K, until the “budget” can be reconciled.

          Again if something like this is ultimately prohibited by law, why even discuss it in the first place and make it a news story? Political talking points create unrealistic expectations which, in turn, have real consequences.

          This article was in the Examiner online.

        • Posted by Jake

          Anything prohibited by law can become unprohibited by law. Improbable, but proposed.

        • Posted by Orland

          No problem with a City income tax at a much lower level than 1 Mill. Commonplace throughout and makes much more sense than the antiquated property tax.

  3. Posted by sassySFboy

    Aaaahh, $50M with 30% sounds soooooooooo much better. I like many prefer throwing my worked hard for it money out the window to any1 who didn’t earn it the same hard way!

  4. Posted by R

    State law prohibits local income taxes I believe:

    section 17041.5: “Notwithstanding any statute, ordinance, regulation, rule or decision to the contrary, no city, county, city and county, governmental subdivision, district, public and quasi-public corporation, municipal corporation, whether incorporated or not or whether chartered or not, shall levy or collect or cause to be levied or collected any tax upon the income, or any part thereof, of any person, resident or nonresident.”

    • Posted by Jake

      which is why they are proposing changing the state law. Passage improbable, but proposed.

    • Posted by Notcom

      Yes, this was pointed out (above). The proposal includes legislation in Sacramento to exempt SF.

      • Posted by Dr. House

        Good to know, hope people get out and vote against it. We have learned from experience that between stupidity and corruption, our city government’s eternal hunger for money can easily outpace any supply of funds imaginable. Give them the ability to levy an income tax, and it’ll be at 30-40% in a decade.

        The SF budget has nearly doubled in the past 15 years! 5.2 Billion in 2001-2002, and 8.99 billion in 2016-2017. (Source in name link.) This is all with nearly flat (3.6%) population growth (28,000 people). The SF government is the most incompetent government institution outside of the Trump Administration, and I’m only granting them that because at least SF means well.

        • Posted by spencer

          what have we gotten for that additional money? no improvement in homeless situation. much worse infrastructure. roads are crumbling around us. No improvement in public transport. is all of this increase just bloated pensions?

        • Posted by Jake

          yes, shockingly, costs of many things in SF have increased more in the past 15 years than the growth rate of the resident population. Fortunately, complaints are still worth what they cost.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Articles