San Francisco real estate tips, trends and the local scoop: “Plug In” to SocketSite™
February 4, 2008
The SocketSite Scoop: Francisco Street Reservoir On The Market
We’re still trying to nail down details (tipsters?), but the word on the street is that the City of San Francisco has decided to put the Francisco Street Reservoir up for sale and development. The completely unconfirmed price tag: up to $70 $50 million.
A number of Russian Hill neighbors are obviously concerned with this turn of events and have organized a neighborhood meeting to be held this evening (2/4 at 6:30pm) at the Norwegian Seamen’s Church (corner of Hyde and Francisco).
UPDATE (2/5): From a plugged-in reader’s comment below: “I attended the meeting. The property nearest Chestnut Street is privately owned. The proposed building(s) would cover the resevoir and potentially the park along Bay Street. I don’t think a figure of $70 million was mentioned - the highest price was $50 million. Much depends upon whether someone is willing to buy the property without any existing ability to build anything - a huge risk.”
First Published: February 4, 2008 5:12 PM
Hallelujah !! I have been waiting for this complete eyesore to be bough sold and developed forever. I don’t even care if the neighborhood association with too much time on their hands forces a 1 story height limit, anything is better than the swamp land that is there now.
Posted by: baywind at February 4, 2008 5:44 PM
AWESOME!
Can’t wait to see what gets built there.
All those old time SFcans who wants to impede progress… PLEASE MOVE TO ANTIOCH. That is where you belong. In the BURB, because you don’t embrace density that is KEY to elevating the city’s population and making the city a real rival to NYC.
Posted by: dotcomer at February 4, 2008 6:25 PM
Does anyone know if the land below the reservoir - the park that
runs along Bay Street - is part of the land to be developed? Or is it a separate park? If so, it would be a shame to lose a green space.
Posted by: jlasf at February 4, 2008 7:34 PM
Those properties on Chestnut are going to take a serious hit in value. They have amazing views and you can bet they will fight this any way they can, and I would imagine many of them are very well connected to City Hall.
Still, it would be very nice to see this eyesore finally gone and I hope somebody builds something nice and tall. Why not for one time a true luxury building, instead of all of the pretend luxury buildings going up everywhere? This neighborhood deserves a luxury tower with all the perks including a fancy lobby, deeded parking and even a clothes dryer that vents to the outside. (imagine!)
Posted by: anonandon at February 4, 2008 7:53 PM
This is too central not to put in a very high-density project. I would love to see some slender and tall towers here, with a low-rise bases, of course, and some open space for a tree or two.
Posted by: Timosha at February 4, 2008 8:21 PM
Didn’t Steve McQueen drive down this in “Bullitt”?
Posted by: kennythegardener at February 4, 2008 9:06 PM
No way anything tall gets built here. Lot’s of powerful people in the immediate radius.
I think they learned their lesson:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF8&q=1+van+ness+st,&near=San+Francisco,+CA&fb=1&view=map&cd=1&ll=37.812768,-122.423272&spn=0.013494,0.053473&z=15&om=0&layer=c&cbll=37.804304,-122.425188&cbp=2,373.26909858869243,,1,-6.0637545855032
Posted by: eddy at February 4, 2008 9:25 PM
@eddy,
LOL, I love your comment, so true. Thos towers are so hideous.
@jlasf
You are completely right–there will be no high towers built there. Too much money in russian hill, and, not just money, very Old money, which buys you power in City Hall. The park is separate, and will not be built upon.
@anonandon
The city wants density, but this is a neighborhood, and is not SOMA/south beach or financial district. I would not expect anything more than 6 stories.
Posted by: buyerturnedrenter at February 4, 2008 9:45 PM
@buy..
How can you say no more than 6 stories with a straight face? In that pic, I see FOUR towers within a ONE block radius. You are crazy !!!
Posted by: baywind at February 4, 2008 10:26 PM
The lot is also toward the bottom going downhill on a very steep slope, so there very well could be a tower here. A developer will probably only be able to afford to build a tower after he gets done with all the neighborhood bla bla bla lawsuits. Kind of a funny irony, I guess.
Posted by: baywind at February 4, 2008 10:28 PM
OK - for all of you who want a highrise anywhere there is a vacant plot in the city, there’s something called zoning. Really, would you want 4 walls of skyscraper buildings surrounding where you live? I doubt it. Anyway, the vast majority of the city’s residential neighborhoods have low development densities of one unit per 800 square feet of lot area (or less) and a 40 foot height limit. This is ridiculously more dense than the single family plots of Antioch by the way, but nowhere near as dense as the SOMA highrises. Generally when a public space is moved into the private development realm, the parcel inherits a mix of the surrounding adjacent zoning (unless it’s a redevelopment area - which this isn’t). So let’s look at the zoning and height limits around the property. While there’s often a lot more going on in the zoning, these maps are a good starting point:
Zoning
http://library1.municode.com/4201/DocView/14145/dat/Map_No_ZN02.pdf
Height (click on zoning maps/height and bulk district/Map HT02):
http://www.municode.com/Resources/gateway.asp?pid=14145&sid=5
So, anyway, this parcel is mostly surrounded by RH1, RH2, and RH3 zonings which are typically low density house/duplex/triplex type zonings and then there’s a bit of RM4 which is a higher density apartment zoning. The height limit in the majority of the surrounding area is 40-feet (with a couple of patches of 65-feet). Translation: this is going to be a low density 4-story development with large units unless the property gets significantly upzoned compared to the surrounding properties (which is unlikely given neighborhood activism).
Posted by: Miles at February 4, 2008 10:41 PM
Oh, won’t THIS be fun to watch over the next ten years. At $70M for the land alone, could be tough to develop this in the zoned density and still make a profit, and no one will develop it without a profit incentive. There will be compromises somewhere.
Posted by: BernalDweller at February 4, 2008 11:12 PM
As stated in many previous posts, the cost of the land and the immediate zoning in the area (as well as the height and density requirements) will make it a very difficult sell.
Just looked up the tax record for the lot. APN 0047-001, 121,375 sf (2.78 acres). $25M/acre it seems.
Wonder if the park (0046-001) will be included in the sale as well?
Posted by: Serge at February 4, 2008 11:45 PM
@Miles:
I don’t mean to be obnoxious, but for all of us who want a highrise anywhere there is a vacant plot in the city, there’s something called re-zoning and this is a high-priced central location that calls for exactly that. There is a strong case for the notion that the free market should dictate density and development, but I can respect that, as you say not everybody wants 4 walls of skyscraper buildings surrounding where they live. On the other hand, that is a little too simplistic and sensational (4 walls!!!) here. What about one or two sleek high-rises? (After all, this neighborhood already has a few.) There are plenty of lovely low-to-mid-rise neighborhoods around the world dotted with high-rises. SF could very well stand to grow up!
Posted by: Timosha at February 5, 2008 12:27 AM
the nightmare that is Development will make this a protracted battle with some mediocre thing plopped down there 10 years from now.
that said, I do see like three 20 story towers right there! so I’m not sure more couldn’t be put there.
Posted by: ex SF-er at February 5, 2008 4:54 AM
What are the chances that some of the units on Chestnut have view easements? That would certainly affect the height of any development.
Posted by: Drew at February 5, 2008 7:10 AM
bring on the highrise
Posted by: spencer at February 5, 2008 8:13 AM
Someone who is a real lawyer correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t think there is such a thing as a “view easement”, at least not in the classic sense that there is a filed property interest that is legally recognized.
Does California law recognize “view easements” as something that attaches to the property that would benefit from it were it available? Or, does California law recognize a real covenant regarding views that would run with the land (here, the resevoir land) and which would benefit the Chestnut Street properties?
Posted by: Satchel at February 5, 2008 8:24 AM
People need to keep in mind that the reason SF has restrictions on height is a result of the types of towers that were built above this plot in the 50’s and 60’s. I doubt if a highrise will ever be built on this site - and not because the dwellers of Russian Hill have so much political clout. I attended the meeting. The property nearest Chestnut Street is privately owned. The proposed building(s) would cover the resevoir and potentially the park along Bay Street. I don’t think a figure of $70 million was mentioned - the highest price was $50 million. Much depends upon whether someone is willing to buy the property without any existing ability to build anything - a huge risk.
Posted by: Glenn Risso at February 5, 2008 8:29 AM
The only time there would be a “view easement” would be if such an agreement were entered into by private parties (I’ve seen it, usually as a quid pro quo agreement - but it’s rare). However, that’s what zoning is for - people in a 40-foot high zoning area are guaranteed that no other building will be built higher than 40-feet without a variance. A variance requires a significant public review process and is usually pretty difficult to achieve - especially in a residential neighborhood with active neighborhood associations. The neighboring mid rise properties above the reservoir were built prior to the current zoning code revisions and are non-conforming uses as they are significantly higher than their 40-foot height limits. As the reservoir property does not have a zoning or height designation, it’s going to be ironed out in a public process that is likely going to take years. I don’t have a crystal ball, but a small portion of the site may get a 65-foot high height limit based on the higher density of the neighboring mid rises but I’d bet most of it is going to get a 40-foot height limit based on the predominant zoning in the surrounding low density residential neighborhood. Remember, the whole Van Ness corridor, the area at Van Ness/Market, and the South Financial/Rincon Hill area were all recently dramatically upzoned - these are mostly commercial areas - this property is not as central to public transportation and is surrounded by established and very pricing housing so it’s a pretty different scenario.
Posted by: Miles at February 5, 2008 9:05 AM
How about the city tossing in the park too, but requiring that it be put on the roof of the new structure? That way the builder can go straight out level from the Chestnut side, block no views, add greenery to existing views, keep the open space (open space with a view, now), and still build up to 18 or 20 stories from Bay, all with plenty of parking underneath?
Posted by: James at February 5, 2008 11:45 AM
How about the city tossing in the park too, but requiring that it be put on the roof of the new structure? That way the builder can go straight out level from the Chestnut side, block no views, add greenery to existing views, keep the open space (open space with a view, now), and still build up to 18 or 20 stories from Bay, all with plenty of parking underneath?
Posted by: James at February 5, 2008 11:46 AM
Rumor has it a 224,000SF Super Wal-Mart is is advanced negotiations to land lease the site.