[BTinSF]

Hunters Point plan given the go-ahead

The Board of Supervisors voted in favor of plans for a Hunters Point stadium.
Joshua Sabatini, The Examiner
2007-05-16 10:00:00.0

SAN FRANCISCO -
An ambitious plan to redevelop Candlestick Point, the former Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, and build a new San Francisco 49ers football stadium was embraced Tuesday by the Board of Supervisors.

In a 9-2 vote, the Board of Supervisors approved a resolution allowing The City to proceed with planning for the major project and authorizing an environmental study of it.

The project includes 6,500 units of housing at Candlestick Point, 2,000 units of housing at the Hunters Point Shipyard site, retail and office space, parks and a new stadium for the San Francisco 49ers at the Hunters Point Shipyard site.

Tuesday’s board vote shows that Mayor Gavin Newsom and the Board of Supervisors are “very much on the same page,” said Michael Cohen, of the Mayor’s Office of Economic and Workforce Development, which is overseeing the project.

Cohen said development would move forward even if the 49ers decide to move to Santa Clara, but that the plan “happens to be our best chance to keep the 49ers in San Francisco.”

The City and lead project developer Lennar BVHP are eyeing summer 2009 for final plans since the project includes a new stadium for the 49ers, who have said they want a new stadium by 2012.

The 49ers are in talks with Santa Clara about building a stadium there, but continue to negotiate with San Francisco officials. The City abandoned an initial proposal to build the stadium at Candlestick Point, after the 49ers criticized that plan because of concerns of stadium parking and traffic.

Supervisors Chris Daly and Ed Jew voted against the resolution.

“This is the most enormous redevelopment project ever undertaken by The City,” Jew said. “I am not convinced that diverting property tax from an area this large to the redevelopment agency makes sense.”

He also said The City should not “ignore” the 30,000 residents who signed a petition “to put this plan on the ballot.”

Daly said community involvement has been lacking, although he said it has improved lately.

Brian O’Flynn, who organized last year’s referendum campaign against the Bayview-Hunters Point Redevelopment plan, has argued that no project should proceed until voters weigh in on the overall redevelopment plan for that area.

The signed petition to put the redevelopment plan on the ballot was deemed invalid last year by the city attorney because the plan was not attached to the petition. Advocates of the referendum have filed a lawsuit against this decision.

http://www.examiner.com/images/newsroom/934D39FE-AB0D-CD30-C35B7E99BE57304B.jpg
Source: http://www.examiner.com/printa-730792~Hunters_Point_plan_given_the_go-ahead.html

[BTinSF]

Here's an earlier but more detailed Chronicle artyicle on the project:

City unveils new 49ers stadium proposal
Grand plans would aim to reinvigorate Hunters Point, Candlestick areas

Patrick Hoge, Chronicle Staff Writer
Monday, March 26, 2007

(03-26) 22:01 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- The neglected areas of San Francisco's southeast shore would be remade into a destination spot with a new football stadium, hundreds of acres of open space and thousands of new homes under an ambitious city proposal that rivals plans for Treasure Island and Mission Bay.

Mayor Gavin Newsom says his plan for the 790-acre site would not require public funding for a stadium at the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, a toxic site that the Navy is cleaning up. The plan also calls for a new look for Candlestick Point, where the 49ers' current stadium would be bulldozed to make way for high-rise homes, retail shops and parks.

The plan, unveiled Monday night, makes other far-reaching promises, such as plentiful parking for tailgate parties, no seizures of privately owned homes, possible rebuilding of a troubled housing project and, ultimately, the chance for city voters to bless the final vision.

"We have a plan that we can finance -- no surprises,'' Newsom said in an interview. "I want to put pressure on the 49ers. I want to make it very difficult for them to leave our city,'' Newsom said.

The team is working on a plan to build a stadium in Santa Clara and is trying to raise public support for partial public financing. A detailed financing plan for that project is expected next month.

But Newsom is betting that the 49ers will not get what they are seeking in the South Bay. He said he plans to ask the Board of Supervisors to endorse his plan in May, and environmental reviews could start in June. Construction could begin in June 2009, and the stadium could be ready by the 2012 season, he said.

City officials insist that the transformation of the troubled neighborhoods will happen regardless of whether the team builds its new home in San Francisco.

The city's plan embraces financing tactics that have worked in San Francisco before. Its partner is the Lennar Corp. of Miami, a Fortune 500 company that is leading redevelopment efforts at former military bases on Treasure Island and Mare Island in Vallejo.

As it did for the San Francisco Giants' waterfront ballpark, the city would contribute the land. Lennar says it would contribute $100 million in cash and help finance the stadium's infrastructure, including parking, roads, electrical lines, sewer pipes and water service.

The 49ers apparently don't have anything like that in Santa Clara, and the team says the city will have to make some sort of "up-front public investment,'' possibly in the form of land or access to the city's utility funds. One source involved with the deal said the team wants between $150 million and $200 million.

Team spokeswoman Lisa Lang said San Francisco's latest proposal represents progress but doesn't address all the team's concerns. That includes the cleanup of the Hunters Point Superfund site, designated as one of the country's most polluted areas.

"We are still in the midst of working through the issues associated with the cleanup time frame of the Superfund site, the public transportation plan, the infrastructure issues and the traffic plans, and these are not yet resolved,'' she said. "But we are making progress and working through these issues with the city and Lennar."

In November, 49ers owners John York and Denise DeBartolo York announced that Santa Clara had become their favored stadium site, abandoning a Candlestick proposal that city officials hoped could also support the 2016 Olympic Games. San Francisco's plan, the Yorks said, would feel cramped with the high-rise housing development, and a proposed multilevel parking garage would ruin the fans' tailgate traditions.

They also questioned whether Lennar Corp. would construct needed infrastructure improvements in a timely manner.

Newsom and Lennar's new plan provides open-air parking for 19,500 cars immediately around the stadium. The parking surface would be made of "dual use turf'' -- natural grass held together with a synthetic mesh in the root system, allowing the space to be used for recreation year-round.

The plan also includes at least 8,500 housing units, 2 million square feet of office space, an 8,000- to 12,000-seat arena and 700,000 square feet of retail and entertainment uses, including a large grocery store near Highway 101 at Candlestick and a smaller one at Hunters Point.

There would more than 350 acres of parks and open space, including the stadium parking and a waterfront trail.

Newsom said the plan would need the support of Bayview-Hunters Point residents, most of whom seemed pleased with the vision at a Monday evening meeting of citizens involved with the long-discussed redevelopment of both Hunters Point and Candlestick Point. To that end, Lennar's plans call for replacement housing for artists who have been living at the former shipyard.

There would also be an International African Marketplace, replacement housing for residents of the city's 45-year-old Alice Griffith Housing Development and even a cable-guided tram that would climb the steep hill that dominates Bayview Park, one of the city's least-used parks.

Lennar representatives said their project will be financed with private money, funds borrowed against future property taxes and assessments and fees typical of new development. They expect the project to be finished by 2021.

The 49ers are skeptical that the cleanup of the 500-acre former shipyard can be done expeditiously.

But Navy and Environmental Protection Agency officials say that much of the hardest work has already been done, and top Navy brass committed this month to trying to meet the city's schedule for a phased transfer of the shipyard, with the 27-acre parcel for the stadium conveyed first, by the summer of 2009, to allow for stadium construction.

The key issue is whether Congress will maintain the same level of annual funding for the cleanup of Hunters Point -- about $70 million. The answer to that question will not come until this fall, but the city has U.S. Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer as well as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on its side.

The 49ers also have questioned whether fans will get to and from a Hunters Point stadium quickly. Santa Clara boasts that it has four- to eight-lane roads serving the potential stadium site, between Great America amusement park and the city's convention center near the nexus of highways 101 and 237 and Interstate 880.

Lennar's traffic engineers believe the "dump time'' for getting cars out of a Hunters Point site would be less than what fans currently experience at Monster Park and would be comparable to what fans would experience in Santa Clara. They reason that traffic would travel on several routes. Northbound traffic, for example, would go through industrial neighborhoods. The company has not provided any traffic studies. The city's plan also calls for mass transit, including buses and possibly water taxis or ferries.

The 49ers have not made a formal proposal to Santa Clara yet. Last week, however, 49ers officials were openly coordinating with former Santa Clara city staff members and elected officials who publicly called on the city to study using some of city-owned Silicon Valley Power's money for a stadium project.

One advocate for studying that approach was former city manager and councilman Don Von Raesfeld, for whom the city recently named its new power plant. Team officials told him they need a public investment of somewhere between $150 million and $200 million, he said.

John Roukema, assistant director of Silicon Valley Power, said that drawing down the utility's reserve funds could lead to an increase in electricity rates, which are among the lowest in the state.

Roukema said that as of January, the utility's cash and investments totaled $387 million. And of that, nearly $169 million is committed to specific projects or needed to pay down bonds. The remaining $241 million, he said, is needed for capital improvements and insurance against electricity market volatility.

"The fact is that this money is still used to allow us to provide competitively priced electricity,'' Roukema said. "It's certainly not a windfall here.''

Von Raesfeld said he did not think a citywide vote would be required if the city chose to invest utility funds directly into the stadium.

Santa Clara's city attorney in 2001, however, opined that voters would have to change the city charter to tap utility funds to help fund a baseball stadium for the Oakland Athletics. That effort, led by local citizens including Von Raesfeld, withered away without a vote after years of work.

In 1990, the San Francisco Giants also went to voters in Santa Clara, San Jose, Sunnyvale and Milpitas seeking approval of a 1 percent electricity tax to pay for a stadium. The measure was soundly rejected.

E-mail Patrick Hoge at phoge@sfchronicle.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/03/26/BAG3UOS7BF11.DTL

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/03/27/mn_49stadium_04.jpg

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/03/27/mn_49stadium_02.jpghttp://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/03/27/mn_49stadium_03.jpghttp://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/03/27/mn_49stadium_01.jpg

[djvandrake]

This looks like an awesome plan. Why so much opposition to it? I hope this happens.

[BTinSF]

^^^Why the opposition? In San Francisco, that's often hard to say. One thing to keep in mind is that the Giants have already announced they want to move to Santa Clara so this is a little late. It could probably be redesigned without the stadium if the city gives up--they haven't given up yet because nobody's sure Santa Clara will be any more cooperative with the Giants than SF has been so far--but then gthere's the simple fact that in San Francisco every Supervisor and every resident has an idea what should be done and how it should be done and they try to insist on things being done "their way". Finally, there's politics and that's probably mpore complicated than you want to know. Suffice it to say that this is SF's last remaining large black majority neighborhood and African-Americans in SF don't have a reassuring history with "redevelopment".

I'm sure other San Franciscans will have ideas about it if they noticed this thread.

[rocketman_95046]

^^^Why the opposition? In San Francisco, that's often hard to say. One thing to keep in mind is that the Giants have already announced they want to move to Santa Clara so this is a little late. It could probably be redesigned without the stadium if the city gives up--they haven't given up yet because nobody's sure Santa Clara will be any more cooperative with the Giants than SF has been so far--but then gthere's the simple fact that in San Francisco every Supervisor and every resident has an idea what should be done and how it should be done and they try to insist on things being done "their way". Finally, there's politics and that's probably mpore complicated than you want to know. Suffice it to say that this is SF's last remaining large black majority neighborhood and African-Americans in SF don't have a reassuring history with "redevelopment".

I'm sure other San Franciscans will have ideas about it if they noticed this thread.

you mean 49ers right:cool: I'm sure the Giants are happy with AT&T Park:yes:

[BTinSF]

you mean 49ers right:cool: I'm sure the Giants are happy with AT&T Park:yes:

Yeah, sorry. I'm in a "New York state of mind" today. ;)

[roadwarrior]

Well, for this one, I actually can't blame the supervisors, although Chris Daly continues to be a lame duck supervisor that halts all improvements in the city. The scary thing is that I was viewing beyondchron the other day (yeah, I know its biased) and they're discussing him doing a grass-roots campaign to win against Newsom in the next election. If that happened, I'd move out of the city. But I digress.

On another note, is anyone else as upset with John York as I am? I'm a die-hard 49ers fan and loved the way the team was run when Eddie D. was the owner. He's really upsetting me that he's being a little whiny baby and thinks its ok to move the site to Santa Clara, rather than working with the city. Sure a lot of fans live down there, but it just doesn't have the same aura or feel to it being way down in Santa Clara (or Los Angeles north). Sure, it may make business sense, but he'll still make a large profit by having it in the city. I wish they would have an owner that actually cared about the team and the illustrious history of having them in the city, rather than simply looking for business profits. Also, his "ambassador" Lisa Lang is nothing more than a puppet and really needs to get a backbone, rather than giving the owner special favors to get to the top.

[BTinSF]

Noteware and Goldman add 2nd Bayview project
San Francisco Business Times - June 15, 2007
by J.K. Dineen and Ryan Tate

James Noteware and Goldman Sachs Urban Investment Group have wrapped up their purchase of 5800 Third St., a 338-unit condo project slated for the former Coca-Cola plant site in the Bayview/Hunters Point neighborhood. Citigroup is providing the construction financing for the project. The sellers were Lennar Corp. and Levin Menzies & Associates.

The $146 million development is the second collaboration between Noteware and UIG to build housing in the Bayview. Their first project is the 198-unit family housing development under construction on Jamestown Avenue near Monster Park. The first homes will be ready in January.

The new project will be across the street from the new Carroll Station on the Third Street T line. Noteware Development CEO James Noteware said the project would help "kickstart the revitalization of the Third Street corridor." Between the two projects, the partners are investing $250 million in the southeastern corner of the city.

Christiani Johnson is architect on the project. Chris Foley of Polaris Group brokered the deal for both sides with Skip Whitney and Clayton Jew of GVA Kidder Mathews also advising the seller.

Alicia Glen, managing director of Goldman Sachs' Urban Investment Group, said the project -- with units starting in the $500,000s -- would provide "moderately priced, quality housing that working families can afford and bring much-needed retail to diverse and vibrant neighborhoods like the Bayview."
Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2007/06/18/newscolumn1.html

[krudmonk]

but it just doesn't have the same aura or feel to it being way down in Santa Clara (or Los Angeles north).
They're in the worst neighborhood at the edge of the city as it is, snob.

[roadwarrior]

They're in the worst neighborhood at the edge of the city as it is, snob.

You don't need to resort to name calling. That is extremely immature of you.

To counter your point, have you seen the other postings about how much development is going or will be going into this part of the city? Its not going to be the worst neighborhood of the city for long. You must be from the South Bay.

[krudmonk]

You don't need to resort to name calling. That is extremely immature of you.
As immature as San Francisco's constant fixation on L.A.?
To counter your point, have you seen the other postings about how much development is going or will be going into this part of the city? Its not going to be the worst neighborhood of the city for long. You must be from the South Bay.
My point was not about what will be. It's about the situation now, which has persisted for well over ten years. The city sat on its ass with Candlestick repairs and now everyone jumps in the blame the Yorks for refusing to be dicked around anymore. They want to move to Santa Clara, which is currently nicer than their dump of a home on the Point.

I personally think they should stay in San Francisco. I wouldn't want the Sharks or [new] Earthquakes playing up there so I'm not going to pretend it doesn't work both ways. I can still root for the Niners no matter what. But the arrogance of you people is disgusting, nonetheless.

Also, I don't want gentrification masked over with some "African Market" pandering farce.

[roadwarrior]

As immature as San Francisco's constant fixation on L.A.?

Well, you have to admit that while Silicon Valley is nice, it is primarily suburban sprawl and looks very similar to the San Fernando Valley. The main differences are that there are more trees and less smog in the Silicon Valley.

My point was not about what will be. It's about the situation now, which has persisted for well over ten years. The city sat on its ass with Candlestick repairs and now everyone jumps in the blame the Yorks for refusing to be dicked around anymore. They want to move to Santa Clara, which is currently nicer than their dump of a home on the Point.

Yeah, and I'm sure that there are parts of Sacramento and Fresno that are nice as well, but it still isn't San Francisco. I'm not saying that the city is perfect (I'm no advocate for the current or former city council), but I do think that the Hunters Point area has GREAT potential. Look how much the area around AT&T Park has improved over the past several years. I'm not saying anything bad about Santa Clara as a place, but it shouldn't be the 49ers home and York and his crew shouldn't be so willing to give up when they hit adversity. They should apply the long-term strategy of building a great team on the field to placing a world-class stadium in the city.

I personally think they should stay in San Francisco. I wouldn't want the Sharks or [new] Earthquakes playing up there so I'm not going to pretend it doesn't work both ways. I can still root for the Niners no matter what. But the arrogance of you people is disgusting, nonetheless.

I'm a 49er fan either way as well. Its not that we're arrogant, its that we LOVE our city. Believe me, I used to live in the Silicon Valley and moved up here a while back. You honestly don't understand how great it is until you live here.

Also, I don't want gentrification masked over with some "African Market" pandering farce.

What's with trying to play the race card here? Most residents of the area actually support the redevelopment plan and understand that building a stadium will help attract other badly needed services and amenities to this long neglected part of the city.

[BTinSF]

As immature as San Francisco's constant fixation on L.A.?

My point was not about what will be. It's about the situation now, which has persisted for well over ten years. The city sat on its ass with Candlestick repairs and now everyone jumps in the blame the Yorks for refusing to be dicked around anymore. They want to move to Santa Clara, which is currently nicer than their dump of a home on the Point.

I personally think they should stay in San Francisco. I wouldn't want the Sharks or [new] Earthquakes playing up there so I'm not going to pretend it doesn't work both ways. I can still root for the Niners no matter what. But the arrogance of you people is disgusting, nonetheless.

Also, I don't want gentrification masked over with some "African Market" pandering farce.

A few minor corrections:

- The Yorks want to move to Santa Clara because they think they can suck more subsidy out of the taxpayers there than in San Francisco which has finally wised up to the stupidity of handing taxpayer money over to sports-oriented businesses.

- The city has refused to pour money into Candlestick because everybody has known for some time that no amount of renovation there would satisfy the Yorks who have made it clear as long as they've owned the team that they wanted a new stadium, preferably on somebody else's dime (these are business people, not playboys like Eddie DeBartolo).

- There is (or was) another thread about San Franciscan arrogance. We are arrogant about our arrogance so tread carefully.

[krudmonk]

What's with trying to play the race card here? Most residents of the area actually support the redevelopment plan and understand that building a stadium will help attract other badly needed services and amenities to this long neglected part of the city.
The stadium has been inadequate for years. The neighborhood has been in need of revitalization for even longer. The team finally decides that there are better options elsewhere and suddenly Newsom comes out and says that the 49ers are doing a great injustice to Bayview-Hunters point, because it's somehow their fault. Fans at Candlestick have little to no connection to the area as it is. A change is needed but the new planned development would only price out current residents by becoming Mission Bay Part II. The city wants to sugarcoat it with something generic and "African."

So no, I am not playing the race card. Newsome and Friends are.
A few minor corrections:

- The Yorks want to move to Santa Clara because they think they can suck more subsidy out of the taxpayers there than in San Francisco which has finally wised up to the stupidity of handing taxpayer money over to sports-oriented businesses.

- The city has refused to pour money into Candlestick because everybody has known for some time that no amount of renovation there would satisfy the Yorks who have made it clear as long as they've owned the team that they wanted a new stadium, preferably on somebody else's dime (these are business people, not playboys like Eddie DeBartolo).

- There is (or was) another thread about San Franciscan arrogance. We are arrogant about our arrogance so tread carefully.
-I know the Yorks are no Saints and I hope Santa Clarans (?) vote it down.

-I'm not talking mass renovations. That's a waste. I'm talking simple repairs, like the escalator that's been a stairway for decades.

-I'm arrogant in pointing out your arrogance, so please excuse me.

[viewguysf]

As immature as San Francisco's constant fixation on L.A.?


Most cities have a rivalry with another (NYC/Boston, Seattle/Tacoma, Dallas/Houston, etc., etc., etc.) just like universities, high schools and many other institutions do. It is immature, but we certainly don't have a lock on it. We are truly a "world class" city on our own without fixating on anyone else. Just admire us and help us fix what's wrong with the place. :grouphug: Personally, I don't give a damn if the Forty Niners stay or go. I suppose it would be nice if they stayed and this development could be pulled off, but as BT believes, don't ask for my tax money to subsidize any sports team. Cities that do that generally do not benefit from it other than to reap PR benefits, which we don't really need as much as others.

[fflint]

krudmonk, lose the gratuitous insults and personal attacks.

[krudmonk]

krudmonk, lose the gratuitous insults and personal attacks.
Other than "snob," what have I done wrong? Disagree with people?
Seattle/Tacoma
Really? I thought Portland was in that role.

[fflint]

Other than "snob,"
Don't do that.

[BTinSF]

Grandkids: Get ready for 49ers' stadium
Scott Ostler
Wednesday, June 20, 2007

It will be nothing more, really, than a bunch of plastic seats bolted to an oval hunk of concrete poured around a rectangle of grass. But by the time the 49ers' new stadium is built, the project will make the planning and building of the Golden Gate Bridge look like an Amish barn-raising.

The bridge took 16 years from proposal to opening. The stadium project is going on a decade and the 49ers are at Step 1: Gleam in eye.

The slow and painfully awkward dance continued this week when three NFL representatives came to the Bay Area to tour the two sites voted Most Likely to Land the 49ers.

On Monday, they visited Hunters Point in San Francisco and Tuesday, they toured the area next to the Great America theme park in Santa Clara. The NFL people seemed pleased with both visits, and why not? Who wouldn't be dazzled by a VIP tour of a toxic-waste dump and an empty parking lot?

The NFL drop-in inspection isn't likely to affect much. The league has site input only in terms of influence it could exert on the 49ers when they come asking for a stadium loan.

The ball remains in the 49ers' court and they haven't figured out yet whether it's a tennis ball or a golf ball, or what they should use to whack it.

Fans to 49ers: Shut up and build. Somewhere.

Fans merely want a place to sit. Once you're seated on Grand-Opening Sunday, whether it's in Santa Clara, San Francisco or Stinson Beach, you'll be in the cozy confines of Corporate Name Stadium sipping a $17 beer and cheering touchdown passes thrown by Steve Young's grandson.

The NFL inspection team didn't indicate which site it favors, and we might never know, because so much of this stadium business is conducted in secret, driven by unknown agenda $.

The NFL trio reportedly was impressed with the Hunters Point site, not only by the amount of work the city has done, on paper and on the land, but with the scenic views. The three were impressed with the Santa Clara site's access to public transportation.

For what it might be worth, John York and his son Jed of the team's ruling family helped conduct the tour in Santa Clara but didn't make the tour at Hunters Point.

Santa Clara is still the Yorks' No. 1 choice, though much has changed since November when the 49ers announced they were abandoning most hope of a San Francisco stadium and that Santa Clara was their future home.

Stuff keeps happening. The company that owns Great America, Cedar Fair, recently expressed its opposition to a stadium in its parking lot. The 49ers say they easily and gladly would deal with Cedar's concerns, but that Cedar hasn't replied to 49ers e-mails for three months.

You might think if a company was threatening to block your new stadium and wasn't returning your e-mails, you would try a more advanced form of communication, like, I don't know, the telephone.

Meanwhile, communications remain open between the 49ers and San Francisco.

The city has two master plans for the 775 acres at Hunters Point. Plan A includes a football stadium with extensive grassy parking areas, and about $100 million worth of cash and goodies to help the 49ers build their home. Plan B is sans football.

The 49ers are asking Santa Clara for about $160 million, in addition to the land for the stadium, and that's no sure thing, especially now that Cedar is putting up a roadblock.

San Francisco officials say the massive development project at Hunters Point isn't a hope or a dream, it's a solid plan that's already in motion, and the 49ers could start building there in 2009.

Or they could drag their feet and, a couple years from now, wave as that train leaves the station.

The stadium gets fuzzier and fuzzier, and officials in Santa Clara and San Francisco probably are starting to wonder if the 49ers ever had a clue or plan, other than to figure out where they could shake the most fruit from the tree.

The 49ers say their main concern is for the game-day experience for their fans. They bailed on a Candlestick Park site partly because of concern over tailgating ambience. Now San Francisco is promising vast grassy pastures for parking/tailgating, overlooking the bay, in contrast to Santa Clara's asphalt prairie in the shadows of roller coasters.

The slow, awkward dance continues.

Fortunately, it's only a football stadium. If the 49ers had been in charge of building the Golden Gate Bridge, they'd still be listening to overtures from Livermore.

E-mail Scott Ostler at sostler@sfchronicle.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/06/20/SPG3AQI9LO1.DTL

[San Frangelino]

I hope this is the correct way to post anothers picture.

From wade2tall at flickr.com

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1106594380&context=pool-51035615908@N01&size=l
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1205/1106594380_d03c87b26d_b.jpg

Just thought this picture gave a great overview of the development opportunity San Francisco has along its eastern shore. I am going to post some information I have on the large Brisbane brownfield later on in the Bay Area development thread.

[Chicago2020]

Now that is what I call prime real estate :tup: :tup: :tup:

[BTinSF]

^^^Not so prime. Since WW II it has been a Navy shipyard and is burdoned by all the toxics that suggests. Even demolishing the existing structures is nightmarish given the asbestos and so on that they contain but the soil is also heavily contaminated.

[tech12]

Even if redeveloped, there's still gonna be that giant mass of housing projects right in the middle of everything. Are there any plans for rebuilding them? Most are in horrrrrrrrrible condition. Something along the lines of Valencia Gardens, or Army and Harrison would be nice...

Although in the past it seems they've just torn them out, and left it at that. You can still see the outlines on the bare hillside on the south-easternmost side of the hill, where a bunch of them used to stand.


Also, I always wondered what the City's plan was, having a state-of-the-art stadium and new neighborhood, right next to the most concentrated pocket of poverty in SF...and the geography means that you would pretty much have to go right by the projects to get in or out. Can you imagine the potential robbery-fest this would present to certain unsavory individuals? You spend your life living in the most neglected and violent neighborhood in SF, and suddenly everyone is coming right to your doorstep. If you're one of those residents who makes a living off crime, you're going to have a good time. What was SF's plan, if an Olympic Village were to be built here? The world would get a glimpse at the ugly truth of SF's poor population......how was the city planning to hide all this?

Even with gentrification, the projects will still be there. It'll become more like the western addition I guess... Projects surrounded by relative wealth, instead of industrial wasteland...

And I can just see the tension rising. You live in HP, long neglected, and all of a sudden everyone wants to move into your backyard? All of a sudden, you're an outcast in your own neighborhood, even though 5 years before, no one would set foot within a mile of where you lived.

It always seemed a little wierd to me, unless there's something I'm missing...

[roadwarrior]

Even if redeveloped, there's still gonna be that giant mass of housing projects right in the middle of everything. Are there any plans for rebuilding them? Most are in horrrrrrrrrible condition. Something along the lines of Valencia Gardens, or Army and Harrison would be nice...

Although in the past it seems they've just torn them out, and left it at that. You can still see the outlines on the bare hillside on the south-easternmost side of the hill, where a bunch of them used to stand.


Also, I always wondered what the City's plan was, having a state-of-the-art stadium and new neighborhood, right next to the most concentrated pocket of poverty in SF...and the geography means that you would pretty much have to go right by the projects to get in or out. Can you imagine the potential robbery-fest this would present to certain unsavory individuals? You spend your life living in the most neglected and violent neighborhood in SF, and suddenly everyone is coming right to your doorstep. If you're one of those residents who makes a living off crime, you're going to have a good time. What was SF's plan, if an Olympic Village were to be built here? The world would get a glimpse at the ugly truth of SF's poor population......how was the city planning to hide all this?

Even with gentrification, the projects will still be there. It'll become more like the western addition I guess... Projects surrounded by relative wealth, instead of industrial wasteland...

And I can just see the tension rising. You live in HP, long neglected, and all of a sudden everyone wants to move into your backyard? All of a sudden, you're an outcast in your own neighborhood, even though 5 years before, no one would set foot within a mile of where you lived.

It always seemed a little wierd to me, unless there's something I'm missing...

I actually think that the developments will minimize the problems of this neighborhood, not amplify it. You can see it happening already with the construction of the 3rd Street Light Rail. People are slowly getting pushed out while this neighborhood begins to gentrify. Now, its not going to be perfect, and I'm not sure if I'd want to live there, but increased wealth will mean things such as new stores/restaurants overtaking abandoned lots, additional police in the area and more scrutiny in general.

[BTinSF]

Lennar gets to the Point
Bruised developer pushes ahead on shipyard housing
San Francisco Business Times - by J.K. Dineen

Lennar Corp. is poised to break ground next spring on the first wave of housing in the former Hunters Point Shipyard, despite being among the homebuilders slammed hardest by the national mortgage crisis.

The Florida-based home-builder will open a sales office and start construction in 2008 on the project's first 82 units, a tiny fraction of the 1,600 units planned for the first phase, according to Kofi Bonner, president of Lennar's urban land division.

While modest, the first vertical construction will be a "seminal moment" for a corner of the city that has seen little investment since the Navy shipyard was shut down in 1974, said Bonner.

"It's going to be a happy event to see those houses going up and the hill taking shape," said Bonner.

Happy events have been few and far between in recent months for Lennar. In 2007, Lennar has seen its stock price wither from highs of $56 on Feb. 2 to recent lows of $14. The company has laid off 25 percent to 35 percent of employees in most markets, including San Francisco, where about 10 project managers were let go in November. Companywide, Lennar's housing starts in 2007 are down 62 percent from last year, according to an SEC filing. The builder recently postponed construction on 1,500 units in Irvine.

Lennar declined to comment on the layoffs out of respect for its current and former employees, but said the company "remains committed to its San Francisco-area projects."

In a statement, the company said: "Lennar, like other developers, continually assesses its operations and makes adjustments to meet changing market dynamics."

Spreading risk

With some 20,000 housing units in the development pipeline at Hunters Point, Treasure Island and Candlestick Point, Lennar will arguably be San Francisco's biggest and most important housing builder over the next 10 years. The developer has taken gamble on some of the city's most challenging sites, agreeing to invest billions of dollars to create new neighborhoods in a sectors of the city plagued by crime and pollution.

In addition to 1,600 housing units at Hunters Point, the first phase includes 20 acres of new parkland, 20,000 square feet of retail. Some 30 percent of the housing will be for sale below typical market prices; even the market-rate units will be relatively affordable for San Francisco, averaging between $485,000 to $700,000. The first homeowner would move by the end of 2009.

Lennar is investing $90 million in infrastructure, environmental remediation and grading for the 63-acre phase one.

"That is $90 million before we get $1 million back," said Bonner.

Despite the layoffs and troubles with the subprime mortgage crisis in Florida and California's Central Valley, Lennar has shown a commitment to the San Francisco projects, according to Michael Cohen, head of real estate development and military base re-use for Mayor Gavin Newsom.

"The bottom line is you put your money where your mouth is, and Lennar is investing heavily every day in San Francisco," said Cohen.

And San Francisco is also hedging its bets, Cohen said. The city's exclusive negotiating agreement with Lennar requires the developer to take on development and equity partners for nearly every aspect of the project. Lennar has signed on Kimco Properties, one of the nation's largest retail developers. Engineering giant Mactec is also a partner on the project.

Bonner said Lennar is close to signing a deal with a housing developer for a chunk of phase one, but that the deal has not been consummated.

"It is our preferred business model to joint venture on everything we do," said Bonner.

Rentals rising

The weakening condo market has prompted Lennar to reconsider a type of housing it had initially rejected: rental apartments. Bonner said Lennar is talking to city officials about shifting some of the 10,000 housing planned units from condos to rentals. The move is likely to please some Bayview-Hunters Point residents, Bonner said.

"We were criticized two years ago when we felt the highest value would be obtained by building just condos," Bonner said. "It just so happens that the condo market is not strong, it's soft. And the apartment market is stronger. We would be silly not to take a look at that."

Lennar only builds for-sale housing, so rental housing specialists would be brought on to develop the apartments, Bonner said.

Cohen said the city has always pushed Lennar to build a diversity of housing types, with market-rate, affordable, rentals, condos, high-rise and townhouses. He said having both rentals and condos would create a livelier and more financially sound community.

"It tends to be the case that when one is ebbing the other is flowing," he said.

Bonner said once the first block of housing is started, the hope is to start another chunk of housing "every two or three months" depending on the market. Lennar hopes to complete about 300 condos a year and will proceed cautiously.

"You're better off not having homes out there sitting empty," said Bonner. "In a market like this, you have to be much smarter about how you build. You have to be very clear how you are putting your dollars out."

Voters weigh in

Meanwhile the city and Lennar are going to the voters in June with a ballot initiative that would gauge voters' support for phase two of the Hunters Point shipyard as well as Candlestick Point. The combined project would include 9,000 homes, a shoreline trail, 350 acres of parkland, 700,000 square feet of retail, a cleantech research and development campus and an artists' village to maintain and expand the artist community currently at Hunters Point.

It could also include a San Francisco 49ers stadium, a possibility very much up in the air as the football team is negotiating to build a stadium in Santa Clara.

The measure would replace and update a proposition city voters passed in 1997.

"The good news is we have an unbelievably compelling story to tell about open space and jobs and affordable housing," said Cohen.

John Stewart, chairman of the John Stewart Co., which is hoping to build 700 units of public housing and condos next to the Lennar project, said the builder would survive the downturn.

"Everybody is getting hammered on the subprime. Do I think Lennar will weather it? Sure," said Stewart.

He said the first housing to appear on the side of the hill would make it easier for both his company and Lennar to attract other investors.

"It shows people there is change," he said. "Bankers look at it and see old broken-down public housing or an old base that was a Super Fund site, but isn't any more. It's hard for people to envision change, particularly positive change. They can see things going bad but not well."

jkdineen@bizjournals.com / (415) 288-4971
Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2007/12/03/story2.html?t=printable

[San Frangelino]

From http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2008/05/16/curbedwire_late_edition_lennar_corp_agreement_allows_for_more_affordable_housing.php#more

CurbedWire Late Edition: Lennar Corp. Agreement Allows for More Affordable Housing
Friday, May 16, 2008, by Sarah Hromack

HUNTERS POINT—Paging Chris Daly: Developer Lennar Corp. is playing for keeps on the affordable housing front. From the press release issued by the SF Labor Council:

The San Francisco Labor Council, along with its community and interfaith partners, ACORN (Association for Community Organizations for Reform Now) and SFOP (San Francisco Organizing Project) have reached a groundbreaking agreement with Lennar Urban that provides the largest creation of affordable housing of any new development in the city’s history.

Under the agreement, a total of approximately 3,500 new homes that are affordable to very low-income and working families will be constructed in the Hunters Point Shipyard – Candlestick Point and throughout District 10. The vast majority will be constructed as part of the mixed-use development project; in addition, Lennar has committed $27.3 million to provide hundreds more affordable homes throughout District 10. Lennar has also agreed to provide $8.5 million for workforce training.

San Francisco Labor Council & Allies to Sign Historic Community Benefit Agreement with Lennar Corporation

Agreement will create 3,500 units of New Housing Affordable to very low-income and Working Families

What: The San Francisco Labor Council, along with its community and interfaith partners, ACORN (Association for Community Organizations for Reform Now) and SFOP (San Francisco Organizing Project) have reached a groundbreaking agreement with Lennar Urban that provides the largest creation of affordable housing of any new development in the city’s history.

Under the agreement, a total of approximately 3,500 new homes that are affordable to very low-income and working families will be constructed in the Hunters Point Shipyard – Candlestick Point and throughout District 10. The vast majority will be constructed as part of the mixed-use development project; in addition, Lennar has committed $27.3 million to provide hundreds more affordable homes throughout District 10. Lennar has also agreed to provide $8.5 million for workforce training. Labor, ACORN and SFOP have endorsed Proposition G on the June 3rd ballot and are recommending a no vote on a rival measure, Proposition F.

“We looked at Proposition G carefully and did our homework,” said Tim Paulson, Executive of the San Francisco Labor Council. “This is the best deal for working families, for the Bayview community and for the city of San Francisco. Proposition G offers real jobs, real hope and a true vision for Bayview-Hunters Point. At the end of the day, Proposition F represents a dead end that would subvert a decade of community planning. It is meant to repel progress, not encourage it, and would set a bad precedent for San Francisco.”

“We look forward to working with Lennar, the Citizens Advisory Committee, and the Project Area Committee in a progressive partnership to ensure that the needs of the Bayview community are addressed,” added Paulson.

Additional details regarding the historic agreement will be provided to the public and news media at this event.

When: Tuesday, May 20, at 1:30 pm, San Francisco Labor Council, 1188 Franklin Street, 2nd Floor

Who: Attendees will include Mayor Gavin Newsom, Tim Paulson, Executive Director of the San Francisco Labor Council and representatives from the Association for Community Reform Now (ACORN), the San Francisco Organizing Project (SFOP), tenant leaders from Alice Griffith public housing project, Carpenters Union Local 22, Plumbers Union Local 38, among others. Leaders from the Bayview-Hunters Point community are also scheduled to appear including representatives from the Citizens Advisory Committee and Project Area Committee.

[San Frangelino]

I got these shots from http://www.sfgov.org/site/sfra_page.asp?id=5588.

It would be worthwhile downloading and looking through the whole document.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2218/2500222783_96cc8b9dd2_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2296/2500225235_bff359edb3_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2133/2500225627_495b064160_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2338/2501055466_7ab1dbf52a_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3226/2500226085_2475611cdd_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3117/2500226339_22106bc048_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2117/2500226699_5f3794c8f4_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3034/2500227029_5b82585b84_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2229/2501056914_b83cb7e759_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2099/2501057290_73499140a7_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2119/2500228025_847be9998c_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2153/2501057974_d825480d67_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2028/2500228625_aa5bbf437a_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2389/2501058536_feb27f7051_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3261/2501058850_e6a9c2db1a_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3025/2500229593_73a1f93c7a_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3102/2501059306_09a41e696c_o.jpg

[POLA]

3500 affordable units seperated from the city. sounds like a great way to make a permanent slum.

[Reminiscence]

Sounds like a good idea in my opinion. However, the sheer size and magnitude of this proposal has me scared of the consequenses should it prove to be a failure.

[Gordo]

3500 affordable units seperated from the city. sounds like a great way to make a permanent slum.

I dunno, it's 3500 of a total of 9000 units, and "affordable" of today does not equal the "projects" of the past. I haven't seen mention of the exact breakdown of these affordable units, but I'm sure most are 80-120% of AMI, which is pretty damn middle class.

[northbay420]

3500 affordable units seperated from the city. sounds like a great way to make a permanent slum.

is it really that separated from the city? the new third street line is not that far is it? im sure a bus/shuttle combo could work to serve the area, or perhaps a streetcar loop could extend from one of the stations to serve the stadium as well

but im dreaming (transit aside, the plan doesnt look too bad, just maybe bland)

[POLA]

Sounds like a good idea in my opinion. However, the sheer size and magnitude of this proposal has me scared of the consequenses should it prove to be a failure.

That's what I'm scared of too. But I will hope for the best.

[BTinSF]

It's no more separated from the city than any suburb you care to name and it does have the T-Third not far so that almost makes is a "streetcar suburb" of the sort about which we like to think positive thoughts. I mean Redwood City is "separated from the city" too--by a lot more.

And I see nothing to be scared of. This land is now and has long been wasteland--really nasty brownfields. As long as it is developed in private hands and there's a substantial component of for-sale housing, I don't see how it could be a failure compared to what's there now. The worst I can think of is Park Merced II and even PM I now seems to have a future.

Finally, if there's anyplace in SF you can do "affordable" housing--meaning stuff our cops and nurses and even (gasp!) teachers can afford, this is the place to do it because the value of the land cost is relatively low.

[peanut gallery]

There was a big article on Hunter's Point (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/22/MN4E10P4TJ.DTL) in today's Chronicle. I won't post the whole thing because it's pretty long and there wasn't anything really new in it -- just a recap of the situation and the competing propositions related to it.

My only comment is that it's utterly preposterous that Chris Daley wants to scuttle a real proposal from a real developer who will include 32% affordable housing and rebuild a housing project, just so he can push for 50% affordable housing. 50%!!! That's so beyond unheard-of that you can't even see unheard-of from where Chris must be standing. Since there is no real proposal to redevelop this land under that requirement and never will be, we can be assured that Hunter's Point will remain as is forever if his proposition passes. What a great monument to Chris Daley that will be.

[BTinSF]

Lennar Plans Are Tough Sell in San Francisco
Builder Envisions New Homes, Shops, But Voters Have Say
By MICHAEL CORKERY
May 27, 2008; Page B1

Lennar Corp., one of the country's largest home builders, has been suffering for months from slow sales, plummeting prices and other pains from the worst housing crisis in decades. But none of this quite compares to the trials of San Francisco's land-use approval process.

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/MK-AP767_LENNAR_20080526185652.jpg
Lennar Corp.'s redevelopment plans for Hunters Point have drawn protests in San Francisco (below).

Miami-based Lennar, which for more than 50 years has built mostly in U.S. suburbs, jumped headfirst into these rocky and politically charged waters in 1999, when it began negotiations with the city to develop 770 acres, the largest undeveloped site San Francisco. One of its biggest tests will come next week when city voters decide whether to approve what Mayor Gavin Newsom called "one of the most significant development projects in our history."

Lennar's development plan for the southeastern San Francisco neighborhood includes homes, retail shops, parks, biotech offices, a theater, a football stadium and a possible ferry terminal.

The company has agreed to pay the city a nominal amount for the site that includes the former Hunters Point Navy shipyard and Candlestick Point. In exchange, the city requires that Lennar allocate 400 acres for park and open space, a site for the San Francisco 49ers' new football stadium, if the team stays in town, and thousands of homes for low- and moderate-income residents. Lennar estimates that such stipulations will cost about $1.2 billion over the 10-year project.

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/MK-AP768_LENNAR_20080526185704.jpg

But Lennar and its massive mixed-use plan for 10,000 homes has still become a magnet for criticism in a city infamous in real-estate circles for the power that activists have wielded against developers. The site abuts one of the city's historically African-American neighborhoods, where some residents -- who have seen many failed proposals since the shipyard closed in 1974 -- fear the project will force out low-income families. African Americans are a decreasing share of the city's population.

"When you develop in the suburbs you are developing in someone's backyard," says Emile Haddad, Lennar's chief investment officer. "When you develop in the urban core, you are developing in someone's living room. This is space that people feel like they own."

Lennar is looking to the project on San Francisco's Hunters Point Shipyard and other mothballed military properties in California as a way to expand its business beyond the suburban housing market. The builder is emerging as a player in the arena of megaprojects, where developers, such as Related Cos., are redeveloping land in Los Angeles and New York City into hotels, condos, shops and stadiums.

But Lennar's success at Hunters Point is far from certain, and may depend largely on its political acumen. In next week's vote, a deal-breaker could be the amount of housing that will be set aside for low- and moderate-income residents. Lennar has agreed that 32% of the rental and for-sale housing will be "affordable" and that it will donate $27.3 million for lower-income buyers to purchase homes. The affordable for-sale homes will be available for residents making between 80% and 160% of the area's median income, which is about $82,000 for a family of four in San Francisco, according to Lennar.

But a competing measure on the June 3 ballot demands that 50% of the units be designated affordable. Lennar calls that demand a "poison pill" and says it is prepared to walk from much of the proposed development if the measure is approved. The company has spent $3 million campaigning so far, including running local television and radio advertisements.

On May 20, the company announced it had cut a deal with many of the city's influential labor unions, which pledged to support the project after Lennar agreed to increase the affordable housing set-aside provision to 32% from 25% of the planned units and provide the additional $27.3 million.

The Hunters Point project could be a bright spot in Lennar's land portfolio. The San Francisco housing market remains one of the most robust in the country.

City Supervisor Sophie Maxwell, who represents the Bayview-Hunters Point neighborhood, says "the majority of people are for the project," which promises to improve shopping and transit to the area. "People feel this is our best chance for change."

But Lennar hit a rocky patch with some residents last summer after coming under fire from the Nation of Islam, which said that the dust kicked up from construction contained asbestos and was sickening children at its nearby school. One of Lennar's subcontractors had failed to properly monitor the air quality at the construction site for a time.

"Lennar nullified its trust with the community," says Christopher Muhammad, who heads the religious and community organization in San Francisco. "We are not against the development, we are against the rogue developer." Federal, city and state tests indicated that air quality wasn't dangerous.

"The very allegation that Lennar is a rogue developer is baseless," says Lennar spokesman Lance Ignon. "You have test results that utterly shut down his allegations.''

Even if the voters approve Lennar's measure, it could take another year before final approvals are completed. Lennar is lining up other equity investors and doesn't expect to start raising financing for the next phase until 2010. By then, Mr. Haddad says he expects credit markets may have improved.

Many city officials also have a lot riding on Lennar's plans, which they say will bring economic development to one of the city's poorest neighborhoods and help stem the exodus of working-class residents leaving because of high home prices. "It's everything that matters to me in what I want to achieve as mayor," Mr. Newsom says of the project.

Write to Michael Corkery at michael.corkery@wsj.com1
Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121184575914021309.html

[BTinSF]

Well, it appears Prop G won handily and Prop F, Sup. Daley's measure that would have stopped it, was defeated: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/03/BAR51107QK.DTL&tsp=1

Voters' approval of Proposition G, which promises the largest San Francisco redevelopment project since World War II, means work is likely to get under way on plans to remake the Bayview-Hunters Point neighborhoods. Here's what comes next:
-- The proposed development is undergoing an environmental review that will analyze its impact on the surrounding neighborhood. The results will help determine the necessary infrastructure, transportation and other improvements needed in the area.
-- Over the next 15 months the city will negotiate a legally binding development agreement with developer Lennar Corp.
-- The plan will be reviewed by the San Francisco Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors before any building can begin.

[San Frangelino]

Wow, I feel so suprised thatG won and F lost. So there is now a chance SF can become a "mega project city" in the next decade. Treasure Island, Transbay Terminal, Mission Bay/Seawall, Hunters Point/Candlestick, and lets not forget the Park Merced redevelopment plan. Maybe we'll "Dubia" the ring of the Bay (hmmm).

[krudmonk]

The city just handed most of the neighborhood to a single developer. Is that wise?

[brian_b]

Looks good for SF, but I'm really surprised that Lennar is part of it. I hope the binding negotiations listed above include a provision for someone else to take over when Lennar goes under.

[BTinSF]

Is it wise? It's not like there are builders clamoring to do lowrise developments like this in an inner city area and give the city what it's demanding in the way of affordable housing etc.

Lennar isn't going anywhere. As a matter of fact, the large national builders like Lennar may well emerge from this real estate "crisis" stronger than ever since many of the smaller independent builders they compete with will have gone under and they will have been able to acquire assets cheap. Lennar has $2.57 billion of debt and $1.09 billion of cash on their books. They also have $1.79 billion of operating cash flow which means their losses are write-downs of land and other assets, not cash losses. They are solvent and ready to take advantage of the situation, including the plum San Francisco is giving them.

June 4, 2008, 12:33 pm
Home Builder Lennar’s San Francisco Treat
Michael Corkery reports:

Home builders Hovnanian Enterprises and Toll Brothers Inc. have had a tough week, reporting quarterly losses amid the suburban housing slump. But home builder Lennar Corp. was granted a gift from San Francisco voters on Tuesday night.

City voters soundly supported a measure that will allow the Miami-based builder to develop a sprawling, 770-acre property into housing, retail shops, offices and possibly a new stadium for the San Francisco 49ers (rendering at left). About 61% of the voters approved the Lennar project, (See local coverage on SFGATE.com) which will give the builder a massive foothold in the still robust San Francisco housing market.

What’s sweet for Lennar is that the builder is getting the land, which includes the former Hunters Point Navy shipyard (pictured at right), from the city for a nominal fee. (See “Lennar Plans are a Tough Sell in San Francisco.”) That means the company can tie up the property at a relatively low cost until it’s ready to start building houses. In exchange, the builder has agreed to provide thousands of affordable rental and for-sale homes as well as develop parks on the property, infrastructure and a site for the football stadium. The builder estimates such requirements will cost it about $1.2 billion over the 10-year project.

Lennar took some lumps from opponents to the project and spent more than $3 million campaigning to win over San Francisco voters. Voters shot down a competing measure on the ballot which would have required that 50% of the housing would be affordable. Lennar called that measure a “poison pill,” but has agreed to set aside 32% of the units for low and moderate income residents.

But a more difficult task may lay ahead for Lennar, as it raises financing for a project, which is described as one of the largest ever proposed for San Francisco. A Lennar official says when the builder is ready to start financing a big phase of the project in 2010, the credit markets will likely have improved.

H.P. today
http://s.wsj.net/media/dev_lennar_art_200h_20080604120642.jpg


Source: http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2008/06/04/home-builder-lennars-san-francisco-treat/

[Gordo]

I don't particularly care if it's one builder, I just wish that Lennar would use multiple firms to design the buildings so that it isn't too "blah".

I'm interested to see what comes of the negotiations with the BOS and Mayor's office. I'm hoping for better transit connections, and to be honest, I would much prefer the 49ers not be a part of the plan. I'd much rather have space for a few thousand more jobs there, and take a trip south a few times a year for football. However, if that happens, I'd like the "Football stadium area" to be a bit more mixed use than they show it. It can be mostly "clean tech office", but the way it is kind of pressed against the water will make the area deader than dead on nights and weekends without something else to maintain activity.

[urbanlife]

I like the look of this project, it definitely would make it as an independent city/town which is nice. The large number of affordable housing and the desire to keep on par with density to the rest of San Francisco is a nice idea, I think there should be a slight increase in the density to make the area more affordable.

But overall, it will be fun to watch this project play out. We have a spot in Portland just outside of downtown that I would love to see this kind of development to happen in. These kinds of developments are a great way for moving a city forward.

[BTinSF]

I don't particularly care if it's one builder, I just wish that Lennar would use multiple firms to design the buildings so that it isn't too "blah".



My understanding is it's to be built over quite a few years so I'm guessing they will do that. I wouldn't even be surprised if they sell parts of the land to other developers much like what is being done at Mission Bay, which, if you recall, was a single developer (Catelllus) to begin with.

[urbanlife]

actually alot of times a developer likes to be the sole developer to have first dibs on anything within the project, then as time goes on, they sometimes sell off to other developers to make more money off the project. It is a typical practice for these big developments.

[Gordo]

My understanding is it's to be built over quite a few years so I'm guessing they will do that. I wouldn't even be surprised if they sell parts of the land to other developers much like what is being done at Mission Bay, which, if you recall, was a single developer (Catelllus) to begin with.

That certainly may end up being the case.

Of course, if I had my way the project would progress much faster ;)

[edsg25]

With the cost of gasoline not going down and continuing to go up, wouldn't a location smack in the center of the Bay Area (like, you know, San Francisco) be the only logical spot for a 49er stadium? And that SF has the transportation infrastructure that Santa Clara lacks also adds to the allure of the city.

If you concede East Bay to the Raiders and stick west of the bay in a Marin/SF/Peninsula/Silicon Valley axis, the city comes up smelling like roses for fans who don't want to make a long trek to South Bay by car.

Look, nobody is going to build this thing for quite a while, not with the current economy. No place in the US will be breaking ground for new stadiums for a long time after the Yankees, Mets, Twins, Giants/Jets, and Cowboys have finished up construction.

But my guess is when that time comes when such a project returns to any degree of feasability (and that feasability will from this point forward be dependent on the teams, not tax payers, doing most of the financing), SF will look a helluva lot more inviting than Santa Clara.

[krudmonk]

the center of the Bay Area (like, you know, San Francisco)
Are there as many people just north of SF as there are just south? NOPE
Are there as many people just west of SF as there are just east? NOPE

I'm not against a stadium there at all, but that's poor justification.

[Gordo]

:previous: Plus, the Santa Clara site is more transit-friendly than Hunters Point. Can that be changed? Perhaps. But as it is now, the SC site has a light rail line that connects to Caltrain right in front of it - Hunters Point, eh, not so much.

edsg25, the stadium could be built fairly soon - it isn't housing or offices. If Santa Clara decides to fork over a boat load of money to the 49ers (I don't really think they should, but it will be on the ballot) there will be no delay in construction.

[AndrewK]

Are there as many people just north of SF as there are just south? NOPE
Are there as many people just west of SF as there are just east? NOPE

I'm not against a stadium there at all, but that's poor justification.

if you went by that literal of a definition, they would have to build the stadium on top of the san mateo bridge.

[krudmonk]

if you went by that literal of a definition, they would have to build the stadium on top of the san mateo bridge.
So then why not somewhere near that, if centrality is truly a key issue?

[AndrewK]

available land would be my first assumption.

[BTinSF]

Lennar Megaproject Survives
By MICHAEL CORKERY
September 2, 2008; Page B11

Lennar Corp.'s multiyear, billion-dollar effort to develop decrepit former military properties on San Francisco's waterfront has tapped a new financing source, underscoring the home builder's success in doing deals to survive the wretched housing market.

Lennar says it has formed a new venture with Ross Perot Jr.'s Hillwood Development Co., and the investment firm Scala Real Estate Partners LP. The venture is taking equity stakes in massive projects at former military properties across San Francisco, including a project at Hunter's Point, which would bring development to one of the city's poorest neighborhoods.

The new venture replaces the 50% stake held by LNR Property Corp., a unit of Cerberus Capital Management, in the Hunter's Point project. It also is taking half of Lennar's 50% stake in another ambitious development project on Treasure Island, home to a former naval barracks and sweeping city views.

The venture is taking half of Lennar's 100% stake in Candlestick Point, the possible new home for the San Francisco 49ers, according to Lennar. The builder will continue to manage the projects. The developments are slated to create thousands of units of housing. The venture also took a stake in land on the New Jersey waterfront across from Manhattan.

As part of the deal, sealed during the weekend, the Lennar-Hillwood-Scala venture paid $145 million in cash to LNR, Lennar and the partner in the New Jersey project. Hillwood and Scala have committed to providing long-term financing to the projects, which could take 10 or more years to complete.

The capstone of Lennar's megaprojects in San Francisco are Hunter's Point and Candlestick Point, which were acquired from the city for a nominal fee. Lennar and its partners have agreed to spend more than $1 billion building thousands of affordable rental and for-sale housing, along with parks and a site for a new stadium for the National Football League's 49ers. The first large phase of the project is to begin in 2010.

"We now have strategic partners committed to 50% of the cost going forward," says Emile Haddad, Lennar's chief investment officer, who negotiated the deal for the builder. "They are committing hundreds of millions of dollars."

The San Francisco venture reflects the strength of the city's housing market, where values have held up amid the national downturn -- and Lennar's ability to close land deals in such an atmosphere.

In March 2007, the builder and LNR turned heads when they reduced their stakes in a venture called LandSource. An investment vehicle for the California Public Employees' Retirement System paid about $920 million for a 68% stake in LandSource, while Lennar and LNR each received $660 million in cash from the deal. LandSource filed for bankruptcy-court protection in June.

In December 2007, Lennar sold 11,000 house lots to a venture mostly owned by Morgan Stanley's real-estate arm for $525 million, which was about 60% less than what Lennar carried the land on its books. Since then, land values in some of the markets where the lots are located have continued to erode.

Hillwood has experience developing big projects such as the Fort Worth Alliance Airport and the American Airlines Center basketball arena in Dallas. Irvine Calif.-based Scala has been focusing on buying land during the real-estate downturn.

Write to Michael Corkery at michael.corkery@wsj.com1
Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122031504873289109.html

[peanut gallery]

There was an article in the Chronicle as well. So, does this mean Lennar is funded to begin construction specifically at Hunter's Point (pending approvals, of course)? Or does this just put Lennar in a stronger financial position overall, which gives it a better chance down the road?

[BTinSF]

These deals seem to pertain to specific projects. At Hunter's Point, I read this as saying they've replaced partner Cerberus Capital, which is having troubles of its own, with new partners Hillwood Development and Scala Real Estate Partners. These companies are also becoming partners in Candlestick Point and Treasure Island.

What it all means to me is that Lennar has the money to proceed with the projects. Like all the other national home builders, they've had to write down the value of lots they've been holding for future development but that in itself hasn't put them in financial jeopardy--it's paper loses mostly.

Aside from this article (and the one in the Chron), my own assessment has been that the largest public home builders like Lennar (and Toll, Pulte, Horton, KB Home and so on) will come out of this housing situation stronger than ever because they can raise new capital and take advantage of the losses (or bankruptcies) of smaller private builders.

[BTinSF]

THURSDAY, JANUARY 15, 2009

Not Enough Green in Hunters Point Plan, Report Says

http://sf.curbed.com/uploads/15Jan09_Lennar.jpg

A report by two enviro/planning outfits says megadeveloper Lennar's designs on Superfun Superfund site Hunters Point don't give enough priority to the area's natural wildlife and "ecological assets." For one thing, they'd like a bridge connecting two land parcels across Yosemite Slough to be reconsidered because of its potential impact on the environment. Plus, they say, there's not enough space in Lennar's plan for natural habitat, and if that 49ers stadium gets built, there'll be even less. In a perfect world, the two organizations say a rejiggering of the Hunters Point development to have denser housing would provide more open space. The city appears to be more or less meh on the issues raised in the report, though they will seek the authors' endorsements to get the monster project moving along. If all goes well, approval might happen as soon as fall of this year, with completion in 15 years.
Source: http://sf.curbed.com/

City's Candlestick plan under fire
Robert Selna, Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, January 15, 2009

A plan for turning San Francisco's Candlestick Point and the Hunters Point Shipyard into a neighborhood and business district twice the size of Treasure Island - one that could include a new 49ers stadium - fails to focus enough on the area's natural ecology, according to a report due today from environmental groups.

http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2009/01/14/ba-shipyard0115__SFCG1231985665.jpg

The 133-page report by ARC Ecology and Bionic, both environmental and planning organizations, suggests that the city and Lennar Corp. have tried to force their development ideas onto an area that includes important wildlife habitat instead of building a project that prioritizes and protects nature.

The result, according to the report, is less parkland, fragmented habitats and a bridge traversing a natural waterway - as well as a large stadium near parkland that will be used only eight to 10 times annually for football and infrequently the rest of the year.

"We are looking at the natural configuration of the land and its ecological assets, and we are interested in having a dialogue with the city about it," said Saul Bloom, executive director of ARC Ecology. "We are using the same ingredients as the city and have a lot of the same objectives, but we see a different way to do it."

The city's complete plan is scheduled to get a public airing before two public advisory groups tonight. The city will seek the groups' endorsement of the plan in the next couple of weeks, a significant step toward completing the massive development that 61 percent of city voters endorsed in June.

City officials say they believe their approach combines the best design with the most public benefits, while also being financially realistic for Lennar and its partners.

"We've done an immense study on all of the opportunities and constraints of this project," said Michael Cohen, director of the city's Office of Workforce and Economic Development. "We've looked at how much retail and housing there should be and how much research and development the market can absorb. The mix of the housing is based on a very sophisticated analysis of the market's ability to absorb the units."

A finance plan released in October showed that Lennar and its partners would invest $618 million in the project. In exchange, the city would provide the land. An additional $1.4 billion would be raised mainly through tax-exempt government bonds.

Approval possible by fall

Some of the plan's details may change before it is presented to the Board of Supervisors and other city commissions for approval, which could happen as soon as fall 2009. Construction could be completed in 15 years.

As it stands, three- and four-story townhomes, midrise buildings and towers would accommodate 10,000 residential units. The housing would be both connected and separate from 900,000 square feet of retail space, and buildings dedicated to research-and development-companies and other businesses would occupy an area equivalent in size to 44 football fields.

A 900-foot roadway

Sixty-two acres of sports fields would sit adjacent to parkland and, possibly, a new 69,000-seat football stadium. If the 49ers move to Santa Clara, additional research and development space would be built in the stadium's place.

The city's vision also calls for building a 900-foot roadway across Yosemite Slough to connect the two major land parcels.

Among other concerns, the ARC report argues that the city's approach takes away 23 percent of existing parkland. If the development were built more densely, not as much parkland would be lost, Bloom said.

And while city officials see a Yosemite Slough bridge as the best way to connect Candlestick and the shipyard, Bloom argues that it cuts people and wildlife off from the waterway. Traversing the slough with a man-made bridge detracts from the environmental experience and could subject wildlife to harmful pollutants, according to Bloom.

Cohen and development adviser Dean Macris acknowledged that the environmental impacts of the bridge needed more study. But they argued that it was the best way to connect the two sites and improve transportation.

Parks to be 'infinitely better'

City officials say their plan for 300 acres of parks and open space is based on the desires of existing neighborhood residents, citywide needs and the interests of the state parks department.

"I think we've made the overwhelming case that the parks will be infinitely better than they were before," Cohen said.

Macris said that if the stadium is built, it makes most sense to place it near the fields that will also serve as parking.

Team spokeswoman Lisa Lang said Wednesday that Santa Clara remains the team's first choice for a new home, even though a stadium deal there is not assured.

The ARC report suggested several alternatives for the stadium, including moving it to a site closer to the bay that is slated for housing.

"I strongly disagree with that," said Macris, the city's former planning chief. "You wouldn't be taking advantage of the bay views, and where would you put the parking?"

Get involved

The city's design plan for the development will be discussed in front of two advisory groups tonight, from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. at 1800 Oakdale Ave. For more information on the project, go to links.sfgate.com/ZFWG.

E-mail Robert Selna at rselna@sfchronicle.com.
Source: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/15/BA1U15ADDM.DTL

[peanut gallery]

I'm a fan of open space and natural landscape. But this is a superfund site that used to be military shipyards (and Candlestick is landfill, isn't it?). Any new parkland or greenspace is going to be a net gain. I'm not sure what natural state is supposed to be restored here.

[BTinSF]

What they want is more density in the development leaving more open space. Anybody here really opposed to that?

[peanut gallery]

Of course not. But I've read elsewhere that one of the concerns is that not enough has been done to return it to its natural state. If what they really mean is create more density, then fine.

[Gordo]

:previous: If the open space is configured to be used, then I'm fine with more open space in exchange for increased density on the remainder. I don't really think that open space that is not parkland of some type is appropriate for this area though.

[San Frangelino]

Hunters Point Redevelopment Architecture To Mimic Mission Bay
via: http://www.socketsite.com/

http://www.socketsite.com/Hunters%20Point%20Housing%20Design.jpg

The architectural stylings for the redevelopment of Hunters/Candlestick Point have been revealed. And based on the proposed designs for the "model" blocks, think Mission Bay:

One of the blocks, on the north side of Innes Avenue between Donahue and Friedell streets, will become the site of 63 square-edged, predominantly white-and-gray, for-sale condominiums in a glass-covered, four-story building with covered private parking, a central courtyard and rooftop gathering space, the plans show.
On the other side of Innes Avenue, 25 for-sale townhomes painted with earth-toned colors will line opposite sides of a new alley, which will provide access to nonstreet-fronting ground-floor garages with 36 parking spaces.
Construction on the 88-condos could begin by the end of the year with market-rate price points currenlty expected to range from $400,000 to $700,000.

[SLO]

^^thats too bad...such prime real estate in one of the worlds great cities

[BTinSF]

Lennar's Bayview Megaproject: Little Help Please?

http://sf.curbed.com/uploads/2009_04_lennarfund.jpg

A screwed real estate market and apparently rising construction costs (really?) are making it difficult for Lennar's Bayview-Hunters Point megaproject to get off the ground. Lucky for them, there's, incredibly, bailout money from the state floating around in a fund somewhere, just waiting to be snatched up by developers of infill housing projects. The fund was created by voters in 2006 for just that purpose, and should Lennar come in contact with it, the timing would be just swell. The San Francisco Redevelopment Agency today is voting on an authorization to ask the state for a $14.6 million injection to start building the 1,200 homes slated to be part of Phase I. C'monnnnnn free money!
Source: http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2009/04/22/lennars_bayview_megaproject_little_help_please.php#reader_comments

[San Frangelino]

If you haven't seen it yet, it's worth downloading the Hunters Point Shipyard-Candlestick Point Urban Design Plan here at http://oewd.org/Development_Projects-Candlestick_Park_-_Hunters_Point_Shipyard.aspx

Below are some of the images shown in the document.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3661/3655371682_127904b30d_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3393/3655374802_8fe738e40f_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2469/3655375046_89488e7c5e_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3415/3655376076_18f55e8e96_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3657/3655375530_dd0f717ac8_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3334/3655376648_c8c983d07e_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3603/3654576239_d19355772b_o.jpg

[WildCowboy]

The UN is setting up shop on Parcel C with a global warming/cleantech center. That's a nice pickup!

Link (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/30/MN7O1913JU.DTL)

S.F., U.N. partner on global warming center
Heather Knight, Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, July 30, 2009

San Francisco's Hunters Point Shipyard - so toxic it's listed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as a Superfund site - will be the future home of a U.N.-sponsored think tank to study solutions to global warming and other environmental crises plaguing the planet.

Due to open in 2012, the facility is envisioned by Mayor Gavin Newsom's administration as the centerpiece of a new green technology campus, akin to Mission Bay serving as a biotech hub.

The 80,000-square-foot United Nations Global Compact Center will include office space for academics and scientists, an incubator to foster green tech start-ups, and a conference center.

The center is expected to cost $20 million. Lennar Corp., the developer partnering with the city to rebuild large swaths of the shipyard and Candlestick Point, will donate the land and infrastructure. The city hopes the remainder of the funds will come from corporate sponsorship, state and federal grants and foundation money.

"Locating the U.N. Global Compact Center in San Francisco will reinforce our city's commitment to global justice and sustainability," Newsom said in a statement.

Michael Cohen, director of the Mayor's Office of Economic Development, said San Francisco is the perfect site for a green tech campus because the Bay Area is university-rich, heavily tech-driven and has a wealth of venture capitalists willing to invest in startups.

He said the one missing piece was a brand name anchor - like UC San Francisco at Mission Bay - and that the United Nations provides it in spades.

The announcement comes weeks after the Santa Clara City Council approved financing for a 49ers stadium - but Cohen said the U.N. center is not meant to be a big-name replacement if San Francisco dumps its plan to build a new stadium at the shipyard.

"The opportunity to establish the Hunters Point Shipyard as a major job generator and as a place where environmental problems can be addressed may be more important than a football stadium," Cohen said.

The partnership between San Francisco and the United Nations dates to June 26, 1945, when the U.N. Charter was signed at the city's War Memorial Veterans Building. Four years ago, mayors from around the world gathered at City Hall to sign the U.N. Global Compact, a set of 21 urban environmental accords. San Francisco and Milwaukee are the only two American cities that signed the compact.

ynergy needed

Gavin Power, deputy director of the U.N. Global Compact, said San Francisco's long track record of environmental awareness makes it the perfect spot for the United Nations' first center to study global warming.

"We hope it will be a vibrant laboratory bringing together leading academics, researchers, social entrepreneurs and others who will collaborate and work on solutions," Power said.

He said the United Nations is well positioned to take whatever technological innovations emerge from the center and spread them worldwide.

Dan Adler is the president of California Clean Energy Fund, a nonprofit venture capital fund that invests in early-stage clean energy technologies. He said the industry is so heavily regulated that innovation can sometimes be hampered, and having key players working in close proximity is critical.

"You have to have more players at the table to make the technology work - you have to have regulators, you have to have legislators, you have to have entrepreneurs, large-scale capital and the innovation community itself," Adler said.

ransforming bayview

The green tech campus will be built on Parcel C, which sits along the waterfront on the shipyard's eastern edge. The U.S. Navy is cleaning up the toxic shipyard and transferring the cleaned parcels to the city. The entire development project, including the U.N. center, must be approved by various city commissions and the Board of Supervisors.

Malik Looper, executive director of the Hunters Point nonprofit Literacy for Environmental Justice that works with neighborhood youth, said the U.N. center sounds like a fine idea, but he's more concerned that the land it's built on be thoroughly cleaned first. The Navy has said it will cap some parts of the land rather than fully excavate the toxics, which Looper said may be insufficient.

"The big issue in my mind is resolving the matter around what standards will be adhered to in terms of the cleanup, and until that matter is resolved, it's hard for me to be excited about a press release about a potential partnership," he said.

Cohen said the Navy will clean the land so it's safe to live and work there and city officials are satisfied with the process. The campus will help create jobs for Bayview-Hunters Point residents, he said, and local hiring requirements will be put in place.

However, Saul Bloom, executive director of Arc Ecology, an environmental nonprofit that helps communities close and clean up military bases, said the jobs can't go to neighborhood residents without the proper training.

"We can't lose sight of the fact we're trying to provide jobs for people who are in Bayview-Hunters Point, a substantial number of whom don't have that skill set and need to get there," he said.

http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2009/07/29/mn-newsom30_ph1__0500428036.jpg

http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2009/07/29/ba-newsom0730_gr_SFCG1248911923.jpg

[kenratboy]

They should build that UN thing 2" above the current high-tide level to really put the pressure on them ;)

[BTinSF]

I hope all that commie megablock-appearing architecture is just massing models and not anything like what it will really look like.

[sammyg]

I hope all that commie megablock-appearing architecture is just massing models and not anything like what it will really look like.

Though the irony of commie-megablock architecture on a Cold War military site would be pretty cool.

[BTinSF]

Hunters Point Report Drops, 49ers Stadium Still in the Works
Friday, November 13, 2009, by Andy J. Wang

http://cdn3.curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/2502/4100376850_820834c586_o.pnghttp://cdn3.curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/2580/4100376758_5667d2c3e4_o.pnghttp://cdn3.curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/2753/4099619883_fec83f35ea_o.pnghttp://cdn3.curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/2651/4100377346_e82e5a94e4_o.png
One giant leap forward for Lennar-kind: the Hunters Point/Candlestick redevelopment's draft environmental impact report for Phase II went online yesterday. The project, which encompasses a total of about 790 acres in the southeastern portion of the city, is so huge it's about twice the size of Treasure Island, which incidentally is also supposed to get redeveloped by Lennar. Phase II follows the comparative drop in the bucket of Phase I, in which the 247 condos as first described in April and in another render reveal just a couple weeks ago belong. The impetus behind the massive redevelopment: pumping life back into the southeastern portions of the city (cough: Bayview) via 10,500 homes and an infusion of 24,465 residents with which to jelly-fill those donuts. And still key to this very plan: a 49ers stadium, located in Hunters Point rather than its current Candlestick spot . . . .
Source (with more pics, esp. of the never-to-be-built stadium): http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2009/11/13/hunters_point_report_drops_49ers_stadium_still_in_the_works.php#reader_comments