The refined plans for two distinct buildings to rise up to 64 feet in height on the parking lot parcel at 425 Broadway, which wraps around the three-story Crowbar building on the corner of Broadway and Montgomery, were approved, as slated, and an exemption from having to complete an exhaustive environmental review has been filed with the County Clerk.
The approved plans will yield a total of 41 condos (a mix of 15 one-bedrooms, 21 twos and 5 threes), with 4,940 square feet of ground floor retail space, 18,735 square feet of office space (for “design professionals”), a landscaped “Verdi Alley” between the two buildings, and a residential garage for 17 cars. And as designed, only three (3) of the 41 units would need to be sold at below market rates (BMR), with a State Density Bonus allowing for the height, density, bulk and affordability of the project as proposed, as we outlined last year.
All that being said, building permits for the project have yet to be requested, much less approved. And yes, it’s a trend.
So, this is looking like a banked entitlement or an entitlement flip? Part of the trend. A trend, BTW, that predates the pandemic and which is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.
Investors/developers look to maximize profit with the least risk possible. In the Bay Area that means areas like the Peninsula and Oakland the East Bay. There are acres of parking lots and one/ two-story commercial buildings on El Camino between SSF and San Bruno. Ripe for housing development to support the 10’s of thousands of new jobs being created in the North Peninsula. Almost 15 million feet of biotech and office space has been approved or proposed in Brisbane/SSF and San Bruno alone. The area is more pro-development than SF meaning faster times/less cost to actual construction/build-out.
Likewise, Oakland has seen new office projects announced during Covid. Most recently a 500K tower by the Ellis Group (IIRC) that they hope to fast track approval for and start construction in early 2023. The developer seeing Oakland as posed for major office growth due its being the city most accessible to the largest number of BA workers.
Bottom line, job and population growth will be more robust on the Peninsula and in Oakland this decade. Demand for housing will be greater and will continue to increase. The more viable places for new housing development are on the Peninsula and in Oakland/the East Bay. Hence there won’t be the entitlement banking/flips that there will be in SF. Good luck to those trying to sell housing entitlements in SF – IMO prices will need to be cut to do so and because of that many entitlements, perhaps this one, will languish for years.
If you thought SF anti-housing NIMBYS were bad, wait until you hear about the peninsula
yeah, I really wouldn’t describe the north peninsula as “pro-development.” Brisbane and San Bruno are some of the most NIMBY areas in the entire country. The rest of the Peninsula maybe slightly better than SF itself, but even that is arguable. There are certainly viable options for both housing and biotech/office space between SSF and Burlingame, and lots of proposals, but the overall character of the area has changed little over the past 5 years.
SSF is doing pretty well with development. Planning commissioners are pro-development. There are a bunch of mid-rise and high-rise buildings popping up next to 101. The other cities barely change at all.
Actually, SSF and San Bruno (and Burlingame sort of) are encouraging development. The massive office complex planned for Tanforan (2 million feet plus) will include significant new housing. There is a push to eliminate SF zoning in SSF. The old low rise one- and two-story homes near Grand Ave may be replaced by mid-rise housing.
Brisbane is the least development friendly of the nearby cities and yet it has approved almost 9 million feet of new office and biotech space though, sadly, not enough new commensurate housing.