Bay Area Proposals/Approvals/Construction Tidbits II

[dimondpark]

OAKLAND
Wayans brothers get panel's OK for film studio, theme park
City Council still must approve plan for old Army base
Jim Herron Zamora, Chronicle Staff Writer

Wednesday, June 15, 2005

An Oakland City Council committee unanimously approved Tuesday a preliminary plan by Hollywood's Wayans brothers to move their production facilities to the old Oakland Army Base and build an adjacent theme park.

The council's Economic Development Committee approved a plan to enter negotiations with the hit filmmakers' development firm after about 50 people addressed the committee to support the plan. The proposal is expected to go to the City Council on Tuesday of next week .

One person after another said the theme park would bring tourism to Oakland, while the production company would give the city's image a much- needed boost.

"I'd rather have a film production studio here than a casino anytime,'' said Jeny Rodriguez, referring to an unpopular 1990s plan for an Indian casino at the site.

The proposal by a family-run company entails developing 70 vacant acres near Maritime Street and Grand Avenue, transforming it into a 30-acre theme park with a hotel and retail stores, a 30-acre film production studio with offices and a 10-acre back lot for production.

The theme park would follow the lines of Universal Studios in Los Angeles but with a hip, urban atmosphere reflected in the Wayans brothers' comedies.

The brothers -- Keenan Ivory, Damon, Shawn and Marlon Wayans -- have produced and/or starred in "White Chicks" and "Scary Movie," as well as the early 1990s hit TV show "In Living Color." Each sits on the board of directors of their development company, the Fulton development group.

Fulton Vice President Clinton Bolden, who gave a presentation that included a high-rise "Keenan Ivory" luxury hotel, said the brothers had chosen Oakland over other cities that courted them more aggressively.

"This family is not really begging for this opportunity,'' Bolden said. "This family is presenting an opportunity that will benefit the whole community. ... This family has a vision."

If their plan is approved by the City Council, the Wayanses will receive a one-year exclusive negotiating agreement. Many details of the project remain unclear and would be negotiated before it returned to the City Council for final approval. If constructed, the project, it is believed, would be the nation's largest African American-owned theme park.

"It's probably one of the most exciting projects I've ever seen,'' said Councilwoman Jane Brunner, who heads the committee. "We really don't have many details. At this point it's really an idea from some people who clearly have the money. If it goes through as planned, it will be an amazing project."

Councilwoman Nancy Nadel, who represents West Oakland, has been trying to get more movies filmed in the city for years and has spent nearly a decade trying to find new development for the old Army base.

"I want to express my support for the concept," said Nadel, adding that the project would "match really well with the talents in our community."

But Nadel noted that in recent decades, Oakland had seen lots of developers and groups propose great ideas that had never gotten off ground.

"The devil's in the details," she said, "but at this point we're very excited about the project.''

E-mail Jim Zamora at jzamora@sfchronicle.com.

[BTinSF]

^^^Well I hope it's successful for Oakland's sake but having lived in Orlando I'm kind of sceptical about the whole theme park thing. There are quite a few marginal theme parks around America and only the largest, best known (and best financed) like Disney really seem to do well. To me, a theme park seems an underuse of that spot at the heart of Bay Area transportation (it's near the Bay Bridge, West Oakland BART and the Bay).

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

^^^Well I hope it's successful for Oakland's sake but having lived in Orlando I'm kind of sceptical about the whole theme park thing. There are quite a few marginal theme parks around America and only the largest, best known (and best financed) like Disney really seem to do well. To me, a theme park seems an underuse of that spot at the heart of Bay Area transportation (it's near the Bay Bridge, West Oakland BART and the Bay).

Im extremely skeptical of the theme park. That area is perfect for film and tv production-those jobs also are extremely high paying and not a lot of change would be needed aesthetically and logistically. Pixar has been churning out hit after hit quietly in Emeryville for years-its been a real boon for them and I would like to see the Wayans approach this project in the same vein. The theme park on the other hand opens a whole new range of issues first of which is transportation and traffic congestion-we're talking in the shadows of the Macarthur Maze. Not to mention the fact that the majority of jobs associated with theme parks are lower paying and then you have the abandoned train tracks, industrial facilities, potential industrial clean ups and what not.

Ive heard whispers that other movie studios from Southern California are waiting to see how the Wayans project pans out to see if possibly expanding into West Oakland might be viable alternative to Vancouver..that could bring a totally new economic element to not only Oakland but also The Bay Area and most of these hollywood types will be spending any off time in SF anyway so I see a lot of potential for the whole region-all we can do is wait and see if Oakland is able to get it right.



but I digress.

[BTinSF]

Compromise sought for CCSF Chinatown campus
Bonnie Eslinger, The Examiner
2007-05-22 10:00:00.0
Current rank: # 38 of 11,665

SAN FRANCISCO -
While City College of San Francisco is still hoping to get community approval for a new 17-story Chinatown campus that critics say is too big for the neighborhood, Chancellor Phillip Day said the college is open to constructing two smaller buildings.

Opponents of the proposed $122 million glass building — planned for the corner of Washington and Kearny streets — say it will cast shadows over nearby Portsmouth Square, conflict with the character of Chinatown, and increase traffic and parking impacts.

City College officials and supporters of creating a permanent Chinatown campus say the current situation — which spreads upward of 6,500 students over eight leased sites throughout Chinatown, North Beach and the Marina — is untenable for educational purposes.

The plan, however, has been protested by a wide variety of interests, including the owners of the neighboring 310-foot-tall Hilton Hotel, which does not want to have its views of the Bay blocked by the 228-foot CCSF building, to Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin.

According to a new draft environmental impact review for the project, the 17-story building would contrast with the predominately two- to four-story structures in nearby North Beach, Chinatown and Jackson Square, and would negatively alter some views. The project would not result in a substantial increase in demand on parking or vehicle traffic, however, since most students, faculty and employees walk to campus or use public transportation.

Several project alternatives were also noted in the review, including building a slightly smaller 201-foot-tall building on the proposed site, with a second building up to 78 feet tall on an adjacent empty lot. To split the project into two buildings would add between $25 million and $30 million to the cost, Day said.

Frances Hsieh, who is part of a coalition of residents, community leaders and business owners protesting the 17-story building plan, said City College’s alternatives don’t go far enough to mitigate local concerns.

The group paid San Francisco-based Heller Manus Architects to draft an alternative design for the project with two buildings: one 10-stories-tall, the other eight.

City College doesn’t require city approval for the project if it receives a two-thirds majority of approval from its board of trustees.

City College is holding a public meeting on the Chinatown Campus and the Draft Environmental Impact Report today at Gordon Lau Elementary School, 950 Clay St., starting at 6 p.m.

beslinger@examiner.com

Source: http://ewww.sfexaminer.com/printa-74...wn_campus.html

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by coyotetrickster

Getting back to the Cathedral Hill Tower. Anyone notice the far horizon view (i.e. what you see in the skyline between St. Mary's and the Sasquatch, err, I meant, Sequoia.), it's mostly the ugly concrete wall of the St. Francis Tower. So, anything that would occlude the Statlinesque-era architecture of the SFT is a good thing. Also, do any of the long, long-time SF Forumers have any idea if there was a second St. Francis Tower planned, or a similar long-abandoned expansion, 'cause that is one ugly block o concrete from the Wester exposure!

I was in the St. Francis tower when it opened in 1972 and worked at the hotel from 1977 until 1983. I've never heard of any plans for an addition. The tower is narrower on the south side than the north side because of the property that could be purchased at the time. Corridors are behind the blank wall and then single stacks of guest rooms that face east into Union Square. On the north side, the building is wide enough to have stacks of rooms both on the east and the west with the corridors in the middle.

Part of the original hotel was demolished to make way for the tower on the south side, including the famous Mural Room which used to feature big band entertainment. On the north side, Western Hotels (the forerunner of Western International Hotels and then Westin Hotels and Resorts) of Seattle demolished the old Women's City Club building which was quite handsome. The club then moved into the 12th floor of the Post Street side of the main building where it remained for many years until its lease expired and they were given the boot.

[craeg]

Why is city college even bothering with this bullsh*t. Just build it how you want it, nattering nimbys be damned.

[mahanakorn]

Quote from article re: Chinatown CCSF building: The plan, however, has been protested by a wide variety of interests, including the owners of the neighboring 310-foot-tall Hilton Hotel, which does not want to have its views of the Bay blocked by the 228-foot CCSF building, to Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin.

If Hilton wanted to make nice instead of play hardball, they could donate air rights over and around their motor lobby entrance to CCSF. The benefits: 1) The 17 story tower proposed by CCSF across Washington Street could be reduced in height to preserve views from the Hilton and overcome the objections of the neighbors. 2) The ugly and unused bridge to nowhere over Kearney could be demolished (or given a destination other than a pair of locked doors). 3) The college could build a glassy mid-rise classroom structure on Kearney between Washington and Mercantile that presents a more attractive face to Portsmouth Square. The Hilton's visibility and signage on the new building could be stipulated as part of the donation agreement. 4) The owners of the Hilton site would likely be rewarded with a significant tax benefit for their philanthropic gesture.

Portsmouth Square is an unattractive but active and interesting space. This is an opportunity to improve its environs.

[coyotetrickster]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

I was in the St. Francis tower when it opened in 1972 and worked at the hotel from 1977 until 1983. I've never heard of any plans for an addition. The tower is narrower on the south side than the north side because of the property that could be purchased at the time. Corridors are behind the blank wall and then single stacks of guest rooms that face east into Union Square. On the north side, the building is wide enough to have stacks of rooms both on the east and the west with the corridors in the middle.

Part of the original hotel was demolished to make way for the tower on the south side, including the famous Mural Room which used to feature big band entertainment. On the north side, Western Hotels (the forerunner of Western International Hotels and then Westin Hotels and Resorts) of Seattle demolished the old Women's City Club building which was quite handsome. The club then moved into the 12th floor of the Post Street side of the main building where it remained for many years until its lease expired and they were given the boot.

Thanks for the info View. It's still fugly, the western exposure.

[The_Analyst]

Quote from article re: Chinatown CCSF building: The plan, however, has been protested by a wide variety of interests, including the owners of the neighboring 310-foot-tall Hilton Hotel, which does not want to have its views of the Bay blocked by the 228-foot CCSF building, to Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin.

Kind of hilarious...yes, let's build a wide squat oversized mid-rise on the site instead of a taller slender tower. I envision sort of a Wal-Mart style with a few extra windows. That will fit right in with the neighborhood and preserve the Hilton as the area's most delightful and beautiful tower.

[BTinSF]

^^^No surprise who'll be designing it, either (Heller-Manus).

I read this right after analyst's post on the port land issue and the pattern is pretty clear (as if it wasn't before): same supervisor, same issue, same SF political b*llsh*t.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by coyotetrickster

Thanks for the info View. It's still fugly, the western exposure.

Yes, I agree. In hindsight, the City would have been better off if the very historic St. Francis had been left in tact and the tower never built. The old hotels are dramatically affected by towers; The Fairmont is another case in point.

[coyotetrickster]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

Yes, I agree. In hindsight, the City would have been better off if the very historic St. Francis had been left in tact and the tower never built. The old hotels are dramatically affected by towers; The Fairmont is another case in point.

Well, given where the Fairmont is, there was no way in hell that tower wouldn't screw it up.

[BTinSF]

BizTimes:

It's a lot with a "fully entitled office tower": a 19-story/350,000 sq ft tower at 350 Bush and a 5-story/50,000 sq ft structure with a roof garden connected to St. Mary's Park at 500 Pine. It's for sale for an expected $60-70M. There already exists a Heller-Manus design for the structures ( ) and Jeffrey heller says whoever buys the site "could start driving piles right away".

The design incorporates "the historic terra cotta facade, pediment and columns of the Mining Exchange Building and includes outdoor balconies and 120-car parking garage".

I'll post the article when it's available.

[condodweller]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

BizTimes:

There already exists a Heller-Manus design for the structures ( )

I really hope they don't use the H-M design -- it looks extremely dull:

http://www.350bushstreet.com/property_desc.shtml

I will not go on again with my feelings about facadism...

Edit: Actually, it looks like they'll incorporate the Mining Exchange, so I do have to give them credit for not doing the facade thing...

[BTinSF]

Last financial district dirt could fetch $70M
San Francisco Business Times - May 25, 2007
by J.K. Dineen

For years the fenced-in parcel at 350 Bush St. has been one of the city's most-talked about pieces of dirt, a fully entitled office tower site in the heart of the financial district.

Now it is for sale, and could attract a record-setting price of $150 to $175 per buildable square foot, between $60 million and $70 million, according to brokers.

Owners Shorenstein Properties and the Swig Co. have retained Eastdil Secured to market the property, which is entitled for a 19-story, 350,000-square-foot tower. The deal also includes 500 Pine St., which is permitted as a five-story, 50,000-square-foot structure with a rooftop garden connected to St. Mary's Park. Under the city approvals, the two buildings must be developed simultaneously.

The two parcels near European-flavored Belden Place and the Bank of America building are considered the only remaining office development sites in the north financial district. While Shorenstein has been actively leasing the building, company officials have been reluctant to begin construction without an anchor tenant in hand. But with vacancy rates at 9.8 percent in the central business district, and average rents approaching $50 a square foot, some brokers have suggested that tenant demand would warrant new speculative construction. Just one spec office highrise is now under construction, Tishman Speyer's 555 Mission St.

Architect Jeffrey Heller, whose firm HellerManus designed 350 Bush St. and 500 Pine St., said whatever firm snaps up the sites should start driving piles right away.

"Now is the perfect time to build those buildings -- the market timing couldn't be better and the buildings are ready to go," said Heller.

The design incorporates the historic terra cotta façade, pediment and columns of the Mining Exchange building and includes outdoor balconies, and a 120-car parking garage.

Both Shorenstein and Swig declined to comment. In June 2006, Shorenstein Vice President Tom Hart told the Business Times that his company had considered selling the site to a residential developer in 2005, but decided to stick with office.

"It's office where office should go," said Hart at the time.

Consultant Lynn Sedway of the Sedway Group, a subsidiary of CB Richard Ellis, said whoever buys the parcels could go spec.

"We've been saying for years we're going to have an office space shortage," said Sedway, who sits on the board of the Swig Co.

While the California Street canyon still represents the spine of San Francisco's business community, the south financial district has been gaining ground in recent years. The two most well-regarded office towers constructed in the past decade -- 560 Mission St. and 101 Second St. -- are both along South of Market's dynamic and rapidly developing Mission Street, where Millennium Partners is building a new condo tower and Daniel Libeskind's Jewish Contemporary Museum, with a blue metal cube popping out of an old brick power station.

Sedway said the new energy along Mission Street has "leveled the playing field" between the two sides of Market Street. The Bush Street building lacks coveted bay views, but has "wonderful views toward Union Square and Nob Hill" and those views will remain, Heller said.

"I do not contemplate any tall buildings in that area -- ever," said Heller.

jkdineen@bizjournals.com / (415) 288-4971

Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranci...ml?t=printable

[BTinSF]

Peebles unloads SoMa space for $31M
San Francisco Business Times - May 25, 2007
by J.K. Dineen
Najib Joe Hakim

Miami developer Don Peebles has sold 250 Brannan St. for $31.2 million to Denver real estate and railroad tycoon Pat Broe, marking the latest in a series of condo conversion projects to be abandoned as the office market takes off.

Peebles bought the 104,000 square foot brick-and-timber space in March, 2006, for $19.8 million and planned to convert it to 54 deluxe loft condominiums. But in the year he spent getting the building approved for condos, the city's real estate landscape shifted significantly, according to Peebles Senior Vice President Daniel Grimm. Suddenly SoMa vacancy rates had dipped into the single digits and tech firms were clamoring for the kind of wide-open creative space 250 Brannan St. offers.

Grimm said Peebles Corp. spent less than $2 million on the property in entitlement and carrying costs. While the deal represents a quick $11.4 million pay day for Peebles Corp., Grimm said it was "a tough decision."

"We like San Francisco and continue to believe in it as a residential and commercial market. But we are businessmen and had to take a look at potential risk and return," he said.

The Broe Group, which owns $1 billion in railroads and real estate across the country, is the third investor in recent months to buy a fully-entitled office-to-residential project with the intention of reverting to the former commercial office use. Grubb & Ellis Managing Director Daniel Cressman is now marketing 153 Kearny St., which had won approvals for 45 condos, and Ellis Partners paid $18 million for 717-721 Market St., which Portland Pacific had entitled for 50 lofts. Both buildings are expected to return to office use. Just two major conversion projects are under construction: 74 New Montgomery St. and 733 Front St.

The building at 250 Brannan St. has come full circle since it was leased by DoubleClick at the top of the dot-com bubble. While DoubleClick leased the entire structure, it never occupied more than 30,000 square feet and had vacated entirely by 2004. The building had been vacant for two years when Peebles bought it.

While making a handsome profit on 250 Brannan, Peebles -- a flamboyant entrepreneur sometimes called the Prince of South Beach -- has struggled to gain a toehold in the Bay Area. In November, Peebles narrowly lost a ballot measure that would have allowed him to build an mixed-use "downtown" on 87 acres in Pacifica. And early this year, Peebles dropped a plan to construct a 380-unit tower at 340-350 Fremont St. after he was unable to come to terms with seller Archstone Smith and joint venture partner Jackson-Pacific. His firm also was a close third in bidding for 140 New Montgomery St., which Wilson Meany Sullivan is in contract to buy.

Grimm said the firm is working closely with the California Coastal Commission to find a new use for the Pacifica land. He said after going though the ballot initiative last fall, Peebles Corp. has a better understanding of what Pacifica residents might support.

"We're still working to increase our investment in Northern California," he said.

Colliers broker Tony Crossley, who represented Peebles, said the city's slow entitlement process gave Peebles a chance to do "reality checks along the way."

"If you can book a lot of profit without going through the development process, why wouldn't you do it?" said Crossley.

Crossley doesn't expect to see any more office to residential conversions in this cycle.

"I believe residential conversion is over -- we're done," said Crossley.

jkdineen@bizjournals.com / (415) 288-4971

Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranci...ml?t=printable

[BTinSF]

Tishman, Lehman near deal for Archstone-Smith: WSJ
Mon May 28, 7:45 PM ET
Tishman Speyer Properties and Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (NYSE:LEH - news) are close to a deal to acquire real estate investment trust Archstone-Smith Trust (NYSE:ASN - news), according to the online edition of The Wall Street Journal.

The total value of the deal could top $20 billion, including debt, the report said.

Shares of Archstone rose about 8 percent on Friday after reports that Tishman and Archstone were in discussions about a transaction, the report said. The U.S. financial markets were closed on Monday for the Memorial Day holiday.

Lehman, Tishman and Archstone-Smith could not be immediately reached for comment.

This could have interesting implications in SF. Tishman Speyer is an important developer in SF. They are doing 555 Mission for example. Archstone, on the other hand, owns some "fixer-upper" properties like Fox Plaza. Could this deal result not only in a good renovation of Fox Plaza but possibly also the construction of a second tower on that block (which the BizTimes said would be permitted under present planning codes when Archstone bought it)?

[coyotetrickster]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

This could have interesting implications in SF. Tishman Speyer is an important developer in SF. They are doing 555 Mission for example. Archstone, on the other hand, owns some "fixer-upper" properties like Fox Plaza. Could this deal result not only in a good renovation of Fox Plaza but possibly also the construction of a second tower on that block (which the BizTimes said would be permitted under present planning codes when Archstone bought it)?

Wasn't there something about a second tower preliminary plan going forward already? With the Argento and the new tower proposed at 10th & Market, that whole intersection is poised for some big, big changes.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by coyotetrickster

Wasn't there something about a second tower preliminary plan going forward already? With the Argento and the new tower proposed at 10th & Market, that whole intersection is poised for some big, big changes.

I don't think so. As far as I know, it was as I said above--BizTimes mentioned that the planning code would permit a well-capitalized buyer to build a second tower at the time Archstone bought the property, which wasn't very long ago.

By the way, the deal is done (unless, as suggested, another bidder jumps in--that got mentioned because the share price went higher on the markets than the offer meaning Wall Street traders think somebody else could make a higher offer):

1 hour, 24 minutes ago
Real estate investment trust Archstone-Smith (NYSE:ASN - news) will be acquired by real estate company Tishman Speyer and investment bank Lehman Brothers Holdings (NYSE:LEH - news) for $22.2 billion, including debt, the companies said on Tuesday.

Archstone is one of the biggest U.S. apartment REITS, with a portfolio concentrated in Washington, New York, Boston, Southern California, Seattle and the San Francisco Bay area.

Archstone shareholders will receive $60.75 per share, a 22.7 percent premium over the share price on May 24, before reports about a possible deal were first published.

The shares rose as high as $61.35 on Tuesday morning, above the deal's price, indicating there might be interest in the REIT from other bidders.

Archstone's board of trustees unanimously approved the deal. Completion of the transaction, expected in the third quarter, is contingent on the approval of Archstone shareholders.

Morgan Stanley is the financial adviser to Archstone. Lehman Brothers Inc. and Bank of America are financial advisers to the buyers.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070529/...NHB4iWfiSb.HQA

[BTinSF]

San Francisco Sizzle
May 30, 2007; Page B6

With technology making a comeback, both San Francisco and the Silicon Valley office markets are finally in recovery, with rising rents and decreasing space. For example, Silicon Valley's vacancy rate is 12.4%, down from a high of 27.2% at the end of 2002 when the tech bust hit the market the hardest.

And as industry experts have seen in other cities including Boston and New York, tenants in San Francisco are willing to pay top dollar for fabulous views. Asking rental rates for a "full view," defined as panoramic views of the Bay and Golden Gate bridges, is averaging close to $80 per square foot in the best-quality office buildings -- a rate not seen since the height of the tech boom, says Maria Sicola, executive managing director of research for Cushman & Wakefield.

One trend affecting those markets: Some traditional Silicon Valley employers have been looking for space in San Francisco because they have found their younger work force prefers an urban environment to the sprawling tech campuses. Google Inc., based in Mountain View, Calif., already subleased space at San Francisco's Hills Plaza from Gap Inc.

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article_print/...870618102.html