SAN FRANCISCO | 550 Howard Street (Transbay Parcel F) | 806 FT | 61 FLOORS

[chris08876]

The Development Opportunity

Diagram of Location: http://transbaycenter.org/uploads/20...ev_6-25-15.pdf

Parcel F is located within Zone 2 of the Transbay Redevelopment Plan (adopted in 2005). The land uses in this zone are governed by the City and County of San Francisco General Plan, Planning Code, and any other applicable ordinances (rather than governed by the Successor Agency to the former San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (OCII) under Section 3.1 of the
Redevelopment Plan).

Parcel F is also located within the Transit Center District Plan area (adopted in 2012), part of the San Francisco General Plan. Under that plan, Parcel F, 75 Natoma, and 564 Howard are generally zoned for a 750-foot building height, while 546 Howard is zoned for 450 feet.

An increase in the height limit of 546 Howard to match the remainder of Parcel F, however, is believed by the TJPA to be achievable.
Parcel F is currently zoned C-3-O(SD), which generally allows for a wide range of uses, including office, residential, and hotel uses, although the site is also within the Transit Center Commercial Special Use District which requires that developments on large sites (greater than
15,000 square feet) shall be at least two-thirds commercial.

Except as summarized below and as will be specified in the bid documents made available to bidders in advance of the auction, the TJPA will not prescribe the uses or development of the site. Bidders are encouraged to assess the range of potential current and future opportunities for development of Parcel F.

The Transit Center District Plan anticipates that the building on Parcel F will connect to the rooftop park of the Transit Center by a pedestrian bridge similar to the pedestrian bridges planned to connect the Salesforce Tower and the 181 Fremont Tower to the park. The Buyer shall pay all costs for construction of the bridge and the TJPA’s costs for any redesign and reconstruction of the Transit Center necessary to connect the pedestrian bridge to the rooftop park.

OCII currently has an option to acquire Parcel F for the purpose of preparing the Parcel F for sale and development, and with the obligation to deliver the purchase price to the TJPA. OCII staff supports the TJPA’s plan to convey Parcel F directly from the TJPA to the highest bidder as a result of live public auction as summarized here. Prior to closing, OCII will release its option to acquire Parcel F, which release may be subject to OCII Commission, Oversight Board, and State Department of Finance approval.

==================================
http://transbaycenter.org/uploads/20...2_Parcel-F.pdf

[peanut gallery]

Maybe a little early for a thread on this one, but why not? We've had some discussion on it in the SF Rundown thread, but I'll add a couple of tidbits again here.

They're going to auction this parcel (in September) rather than the typical RFP process. There will be sealed bids, then an option for the participants to raise their bids verbally in person. The winner will be approved the following week and their payment will be due by the end of the year. So no renegotiating after being selected like Hines did on the Salesforce Tower site.

It is zoned for 750' to the roof, which in SF means with mechanical screens/parapets/crown/etc it can reach up to 825' (assuming 10% is allowed, though if I'm reading this correctly, it is only 7.5% for buildings over 550').

Finally, at least 2/3 of it must be commercial, so there's the potential for mixed use here.

[boyinthecity]

SF kills live auction for $200M Transbay highrise site, but here's who is ...

any news on parcel F?

[SFView]

^^^Here's something...

The scheduled auction for Transbay Parcel F was abruptly cancelled and the Transbay Joint Powers Authority will now attempt to negotiate directly with the intended bidders to secure the “best price and most complementary land use” for the site.

More on this quote from this source:
http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...cancelled.html

[peanut gallery]

Here is some additional detail on the cancelled auction and who is involved. From the SF Business Times:

The Transbay Joint Powers Authority, which planned to hold the live auction Wednesday morning in City Hall, called off the event late Tuesday because developers “expressed concern over entitlement risk,” said Adam Alberti, a Transbay spokesman, referring to the city's office cap and what that would mean for this site, which does not have approvals yet. The auction also required a major nonrefundable up-front payment, which could now be pared back in the new process. The recent stock market volatility may have played a role in pushing developers, some of whom were Chinese, to demand more certainty.

To summarize, developers were worried about all the up-front cash they would have to pay before the site was even entitled. Since Prop M limits the amount of space that can be approved, that's a sizable risk. Additionally, two of the developers are Chinese companies and may have been spooked by the recent volatility in their stock market.

Other developers who are in the mix include: Crescent Heights, Urban Pacific Investors and Lincoln Property Co.

[peanut gallery]

A small update from the SF Business Times:

1. Apartment builder Crescent Heights, the developer of apartment towers Nema, Jasper and the Honda site development in Mid-Market.
2. Mostly office builder Lincoln Property Co. (350 Bush, 500 Pine), possibly with publicly traded Chinese developer Gemdale Corp. as a capital partner.
3. Michael Kriozere’s Urban Pacific Investors and partner Falcon Pacific LLC. Kriozere was behind One Rincon towers.
4. Beijing-based Dalian Wanda Group, China’s third-largest real estate developer and controlled by Asia’s richest man, Wang Jianlin. The group was exploring a joint venture to develop the site.
5. Hong Kong-based developer Nan Fung Group, whose CEO is the former China chairman for Blackstone Group LP (NYSE: BX).

Urban Pacific Investors, Crescent Heights and Lincoln Property Co. are still all in, submitting proposals for the tower and pitching bids that ranged from $165 million to $175 million. The minimum bid set initially was $160 million.

The Wanda Group, which specializes in luxury hotels, couldn't be reached for comment. Sources said they didn't end up submitting a bid, though could still pursue a joint venture. Nan Fung also couldn’t be reached for comment, and it isn't clear if they are still in the running.

They also mention that recommendations could go to the board as early as next week, so we may hear substantive news soon.

[mt_climber13]

I feel like the thread title should be changed. This could be well over 800'. 750' is just to the roof. Hell, stick a 400' pole on top and call it the tallest building in the west.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by peanut gallery

A small update....Apartment builder Crescent Heights, the developer of apartment towers Nema, Jasper and the Honda site development in Mid-Market.

The people behind the ugliest towers of the new crop, Jasper and Nema, are building an 800 footer? Fear for the skyline. Maybe they can name it 'The Cletus' or perhaps 'The Cooter."

[a very long weekend]

yeah, i really hope that wanda gets it and does something like they did in chicago with the studio gang tower.

[peanut gallery]

^That would be awesome.

lol, fflint. Double-wides in the sky. Given that 2/3 is supposed to be commercial, perhaps Lincoln has an edge here? Hopefully we find out -- and see some initial plans -- next week.

[pizzaguy]

Originally Posted by a very long weekend

yeah, i really hope that wanda gets it and does something like they did in chicago with the studio gang tower.

I never liked that one. It looks like it's growing mold.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by fflint

The people behind the ugliest towers of the new crop, Jasper and Nema, are building an 800 footer? Fear for the skyline. Maybe they can name it 'The Cletus' or perhaps 'The Cooter."

I totally agree and shudder to think what they are going to throw up on the South Van Ness Honda site.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

I totally agree and shudder to think what they are going to throw up on the South Van Ness Honda site.

'Throw up' may be the operative term. Such unimaginative designs with such obvious flaws.

[peanut gallery]

Well, you guys aren't going to like the latest scuttlebutt on this. The SF Business Times' Cory Weinberg, who seems to be pretty well connected, has some dirt:

Sources say the strongest bid will likely come from Crescent Heights, which has built projects like Twitter-adjacent apartments Nema and Rincon Hill’s newest apartment tower Jasper. Developers like Lincoln Property Co., Urban Pacific Investors, Falcon Pacific Investors, Nan Fung Group and Dalian Wange Groups either put in bids or are exploring joint ventures.

-----------

The TJPA board meets next Thursday in closed session, after which a chosen developer could come to light. (The board could also take another meeting to decide.)

-----------

But this is what makes Crescent Heights the likely front runner: The developer already controls the land at 524 Howard, on the same block as Parcel F. It bought 524 Howard out of foreclosure in 2011 and proposed a 44-story skinny residential highrise in 2013. Plans are still undergoing environmental review.

Crescent Heights may be able to cobble together the parcels in between 524 Howard and Parcel F to create a much larger site – and get a financial partner like Dalian Wanda Group to help.

I don't like anything I'm reading here (except the Wanda part). I'd prefer to keep the more granular set of buildings that exist with two separate buildings filling in the gaps. And regardless of that, I am very afraid of what Crescent Heights might do for an encore after Jasper.

[a very long weekend]

damn. so another architectonica building, potentially ranging the length of the block from foundry

[simms3_redux]

Someone in the brokerage community in San Francisco, or someone with TJPA or City has a big big mouth. Wow.

Cory's piece is a huge rumor mill of basically information that should be kept under wrap. But since I'm just a spectator, I'll appreciate it for what it is. But damn, that's the most confidential gossip we've heard in a while and it was actually a little tough to read knowing that this information made the Business Journal and likely made a lot of people squeamish.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by a very long weekend

damn. so another architectonica building, potentially ranging the length of the block from foundry

Not at all--we could only wish for that! These are the people who brought us Jasper and NEMA.

[SFView]

I don't see any mention of potential architects yet. Judging from the site constraints, whatever the design may be, it is going to be a rather tall (800'+) and slender tower. It may also be angled on the west side in plan if floor plates are maximized.

[peanut gallery]

Mr Weinberg was right and now brings us the confirmation:

Luxury apartment builder Crescent Heights, which constructed the glassy residential highrises next to the Twitter headquarters, just bought the rights to develop San Francisco's latest downtown tower.

The Miami-based developer beat out three other development teams and agreed to pay at least $165 million for the site known as Parcel F at 546 Howard St., next to the future Transbay Transit Center, the Transbay Joint Powers Authority said Thursday. The site, which will need to go through a lengthy entitlement process before getting built out, is zoned for a 750-foot-tall highrise that would span at least 750,000 square feet.

---------------

What was key to the deal? Crescent Heights agreed to price 35 percent of the future apartments on the site as below-market-rate. Most of those units will be reserved for households making half the city's median income, which would be a family of four earning about $51,000 a year annually. About 10 percent of those affordable units will be priced for people making exactly the city's median income.

The developer also agreed to pay for the land in full before entitlements, a relatively rare move. The TJPA called the site "one of the final gems in the Transbay neighborhood" in a statement read at City Hall Thursday.

---------------

The Parcel F site, mid-block between First, Second, Howard and Natoma streets, is zoned for two-thirds commercial uses, which includes a possible hotel. Crescent Heights has only built residential projects in San Francisco, including highrises like Nema, Jasper, and planned 10 South Van Ness, so it will likely ask for a Planning Code amendment to build all apartments.

Another twist? The price for the land will increase to $185 million if Crescent Heights can also close its potential purchase at the next-door property, 540 Howard, which would increase the developable land area by about a third. That land is zoned for a 450-foot-tall commercial building, according to property records.

---------------

If Crescent Heights builds apartments on Parcel F, expect some of the ritiziest market-rate apartments at the site. The developer typically works with luxury designer Handel Architects on San Francisco projects. Its Rincon Hill tower, which recently started leasing, will have concierges and a staff of 35 to go along with “its intelligent mobile technology that preemptively alerts concierges upon entry and exit,” according to the building’s brochure.

More at the link. I suggest giving it a read.

[SFView]

No Crescent Heights for Parcel F?

Source: http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...ict-tower.html

Developer Ditches Plans for 750-Foot Transbay District Tower

The debacle surrounding the City’s sale of Transbay Parcel F continues to grow as Crescent Heights, which had committed to paying $165 million for the parcel which is zoned for development up to 750-feet in height, failed to make a required $10 million deposit and has now backed out of the deal.

While the purchase agreement for the parcel had committed Crescent Heights to offering 35 percent of any residential units built on the site at below market rates, over the past two weeks Crescent had begun to inquire as to the feasibility of building the required affordable units off-site, according to the Chronicle. And when the City confirmed that the affordable units could be built off-site, but would still need to be built within the Transbay District, “Crescent Heights indicated they were unable to meet that requirement” and walked away.