It also comes with a deal involving some of The City’s most valuable public real estate, and the pact with race officials needs significant changes if San Francisco’s financial ship is going to stay on course, a budget analyst’s report released Thursday says.

The business arm of the race, the America’s Cup Event Authority, plans to finance waterfront pier improvements that the Port of San Francisco cannot afford. In return, race officials would receive ownership and long-term rent-free leases after the 2013 event for some of The City’s most desirable Bay-front property to build luxury condominiums, retail outlets and other developments yet to be determined.

Although the Port normally requires such deals to include a portion of future lease revenue to be funneled back into public coffers, that’s not currently part of the America’s Cup agreement. But the report conducted by budget and legislative analyst Harvey Rose recommends a 1 percent equivalent of all condominium sales be retained by the Port and that it also should receive a cut of real estate transfer fees.

Under the terms of the current deal, the authority would initially invest $55 million in pier improvements in exchange for a 66-year lease at Piers 30-32 and ownership of Seawall Lot 330, a property already approved for condos.

The authority could then opt to do additional pier work and get 66-year leases on piers 26, 28 and 29, which would trigger repayment from The City with an 11 percent interest rate. The report recommends that a cap be placed on the amount race officials can spend on improvements, or else The City could end up being roped into repayment for up to 91 years after the event.

The report suggests The City should nix Pier 29, at the foot of Telegraph Hill, from being transferred to race officials after the event. Board of Supervisors President David Chiu has been pointing to the lucrative property as a problem spot in the deal.

“Pier 29 needs to come off the table,” Chiu said in a statement Thursday. “I’ll push to have it removed in the weeks ahead.”

Stephen Barclay, a board member of the authority and the group’s primary negotiator, has been talking tough in recent weeks, saying concessions have already been made to mitigate the financial stress on the Port. Barclay said on Tuesday he will “draw the line” with Pier 29, because it is essential to the authority seeing a return on the total $111 million it plans to spend.

“We face an urgent deadline to get construction under way, so any additional changes would detrimentally affect the balance of the bargain,” Barclay said recently in a statement.

The report also levies concern about potentially lax fundraising by the America’s Cup Organizing Committee, the nonprofit in charge of covering The City’s $52 million cost of putting on the race in September 2013.

If the committee raises its goal of $32 million by 2013 and The City can generate $22 million in hotel and sales taxes during the event, San Francisco will come out more than $2 million ahead, the report says. But if fundraising stagnates at its current $8 million level, The City’s taxpayers could be in the hole for nearly $22 million.

Local Democratic Party Chairman Aaron Peskin said the long-term fiscal impact of the race shouldn’t be taken lightly, and upcoming Board of Supervisors hearings on the matter should include discussions about how to expose The City to less risk.

“As currently structured, this transaction is still taking San Francisco and its taxpayers to the poor house, and many of us are hopeful the Board of Supervisors will insist on some rational changes,” Peskin said.

dschreiber@sfexaminer.com

America’s Cup price tag

$300M Total cost for competition

$52M Cost to The City

$32M City costs to be offset by fundraising

$22M City costs to be offset by hotel and sales taxes

$1.4B Economic benefits for Bay Area, as estimated by race officials

Sources: America’s Cup Event Authority, San Francisco budget and legislative analyst report

Article source: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2012/02/regatta-deal-might-sink-san-franciscos-coffers

It also comes with a deal involving some of The City’s most valuable public real estate, and the pact with race officials needs significant changes if San Francisco’s financial ship is going to stay on course, a budget analyst’s report released Thursday says.

The business arm of the race, the America’s Cup Event Authority, plans to finance waterfront pier improvements that the Port of San Francisco cannot afford. In return, race officials would receive ownership and long-term rent-free leases after the 2013 event for some of The City’s most desirable Bay-front property to build luxury condominiums, retail outlets and other developments yet to be determined.

Although the Port normally requires such deals to include a portion of future lease revenue to be funneled back into public coffers, that’s not currently part of the America’s Cup agreement. But the report conducted by budget and legislative analyst Harvey Rose recommends a 1 percent equivalent of all condominium sales be retained by the Port and that it also should receive a cut of real estate transfer fees.

Under the terms of the current deal, the authority would initially invest $55 million in pier improvements in exchange for a 66-year lease at Piers 30-32 and ownership of Seawall Lot 330, a property already approved for condos.

The authority could then opt to do additional pier work and get 66-year leases on piers 26, 28 and 29, which would trigger repayment from The City with an 11 percent interest rate. The report recommends that a cap be placed on the amount race officials can spend on improvements, or else The City could end up being roped into repayment for up to 91 years after the event.

The report suggests The City should nix Pier 29, at the foot of Telegraph Hill, from being transferred to race officials after the event. Board of Supervisors President David Chiu has been pointing to the lucrative property as a problem spot in the deal.

“Pier 29 needs to come off the table,” Chiu said in a statement Thursday. “I’ll push to have it removed in the weeks ahead.”

Stephen Barclay, a board member of the authority and the group’s primary negotiator, has been talking tough in recent weeks, saying concessions have already been made to mitigate the financial stress on the Port. Barclay said on Tuesday he will “draw the line” with Pier 29, because it is essential to the authority seeing a return on the total $111 million it plans to spend.

“We face an urgent deadline to get construction under way, so any additional changes would detrimentally affect the balance of the bargain,” Barclay said recently in a statement.

The report also levies concern about potentially lax fundraising by the America’s Cup Organizing Committee, the nonprofit in charge of covering The City’s $52 million cost of putting on the race in September 2013.

If the committee raises its goal of $32 million by 2013 and The City can generate $22 million in hotel and sales taxes during the event, San Francisco will come out more than $2 million ahead, the report says. But if fundraising stagnates at its current $8 million level, The City’s taxpayers could be in the hole for nearly $22 million.

Local Democratic Party Chairman Aaron Peskin said the long-term fiscal impact of the race shouldn’t be taken lightly, and upcoming Board of Supervisors hearings on the matter should include discussions about how to expose The City to less risk.

“As currently structured, this transaction is still taking San Francisco and its taxpayers to the poor house, and many of us are hopeful the Board of Supervisors will insist on some rational changes,” Peskin said.

dschreiber@sfexaminer.com

America’s Cup price tag

$300M Total cost for competition

$52M Cost to The City

$32M City costs to be offset by fundraising

$22M City costs to be offset by hotel and sales taxes

$1.4B Economic benefits for Bay Area, as estimated by race officials

Sources: America’s Cup Event Authority, San Francisco budget and legislative analyst report

Article source: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2012/02/regatta-deal-might-sink-san-franciscos-coffers

Looking toward downtown, Ms. Carpinelli has witnessed the advance of the shiny, boxlike structures of the Mission Bay biotechnology hub on her neighborhood.

Now the Port of San Francisco is embarking on an ambitious development plan for the massive Pier 70 that involves restoring the old shipyard buildings and constructing 2.5 million square feet of new office space.

But as San Francisco officials court tech companies for what they call the “innovation corridor,” extending from Mission Bay to Pier 70 and beyond, neighbors and urban planners are asking how the architectural sensibilities — or lack thereof — of Silicon Valley will weave themselves into the urban fabric.

“The suburban tech campuses, they seem to be designed by engineers and not architects,” said Ms. Carpinelli, a graphic designer who heads up the Dogpatch neighborhood association. “I think the pressure is on to come up with something interesting for Pier 70.”

The city has thrown in with Forest City Development California, the firm behind the Westfield Center mall and the continuing transformation of the San Francisco Chronicle building, to meet that challenge. Forest City was recently chosen to plan and develop a 25-acre chunk of the 65-acre Pier 70, and envisions “a new model of innovation campus” alongside the restored historic buildings and a waterfront park.

With construction starting in 2015 at the earliest, the plans are short on detail. But the concept is a place featuring a mix of tech companies and arts organizations, public places that encourage the intermingling of people and ideas, and building designs that draw on the industrial history of the neighborhood.

Alexa Arena, a local Forest City executive, said the key was to think “beyond the physical buildings” to the tenants who could bring the space to life. That includes allowing development on the site to occur more organically and less through heavy-handed, top-down planning. It also means designing buildings that interact with their surroundings. “It’s a development that’s contextual,” Ms. Arena said.

Although vague, the ideas appear to be aimed at avoiding what everyone, from city officials to neighbors, does not want: a repeat of Mission Bay. That 303-acre development, anchored by the new hospital and research complex of the University of California, San Francisco, stretches from ATT Park to the edge of Pier 70. Formerly an industrial railyard, Mission Bay grew up quickly over the last decade, with offices for biotech companies, parking structures and condos in the sanitized, suburban look and feel that dominates Silicon Valley.

While Mission Bay has been a success from a real estate and economic standpoint, its architectural style strikes many as out of place.

“It’s a great economic base and it’s great for San Francisco, but it doesn’t look like San Francisco,” said Lou Vasquez, a longtime San Francisco developer. “If the Bay Bridge wasn’t there, I’d completely lose my bearings.”

Indeed, tech-company architecture developed explicitly as a counterpoint to the urban-industrial fabric that San Francisco wants to preserve, said Alan Hess, a prominent California architecture critic.

“There are many good reasons why Hewlett Packard settled in suburbia,” said Mr. Hess, a California architecture critic. “It was a new concept of the factory with lawns and recreation areas, which was the exact opposite of the dirty, smelly factories with their belching smokestacks from the industrial era.”

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/14/us/14bcpier.html

Looking toward downtown, Ms. Carpinelli has witnessed the advance of the shiny, boxlike structures of the Mission Bay biotechnology hub on her neighborhood.

Now the Port of San Francisco is embarking on an ambitious development plan for the massive Pier 70 that involves restoring the old shipyard buildings and constructing 2.5 million square feet of new office space.

But as San Francisco officials court tech companies for what they call the “innovation corridor,” extending from Mission Bay to Pier 70 and beyond, neighbors and urban planners are asking how the architectural sensibilities — or lack thereof — of Silicon Valley will weave themselves into the urban fabric.

“The suburban tech campuses, they seem to be designed by engineers and not architects,” said Ms. Carpinelli, a graphic designer who heads up the Dogpatch neighborhood association. “I think the pressure is on to come up with something interesting for Pier 70.”

The city has thrown in with Forest City Development California, the firm behind the Westfield Center mall and the continuing transformation of the San Francisco Chronicle building, to meet that challenge. Forest City was recently chosen to plan and develop a 25-acre chunk of the 65-acre Pier 70, and envisions “a new model of innovation campus” alongside the restored historic buildings and a waterfront park.

With construction starting in 2015 at the earliest, the plans are short on detail. But the concept is a place featuring a mix of tech companies and arts organizations, public places that encourage the intermingling of people and ideas, and building designs that draw on the industrial history of the neighborhood.

Alexa Arena, a local Forest City executive, said the key was to think “beyond the physical buildings” to the tenants who could bring the space to life. That includes allowing development on the site to occur more organically and less through heavy-handed, top-down planning. It also means designing buildings that interact with their surroundings. “It’s a development that’s contextual,” Ms. Arena said.

Although vague, the ideas appear to be aimed at avoiding what everyone, from city officials to neighbors, does not want: a repeat of Mission Bay. That 303-acre development, anchored by the new hospital and research complex of the University of California, San Francisco, stretches from ATT Park to the edge of Pier 70. Formerly an industrial railyard, Mission Bay grew up quickly over the last decade, with offices for biotech companies, parking structures and condos in the sanitized, suburban look and feel that dominates Silicon Valley.

While Mission Bay has been a success from a real estate and economic standpoint, its architectural style strikes many as out of place.

“It’s a great economic base and it’s great for San Francisco, but it doesn’t look like San Francisco,” said Lou Vasquez, a longtime San Francisco developer. “If the Bay Bridge wasn’t there, I’d completely lose my bearings.”

Indeed, tech-company architecture developed explicitly as a counterpoint to the urban-industrial fabric that San Francisco wants to preserve, said Alan Hess, a prominent California architecture critic.

“There are many good reasons why Hewlett Packard settled in suburbia,” said Mr. Hess, a California architecture critic. “It was a new concept of the factory with lawns and recreation areas, which was the exact opposite of the dirty, smelly factories with their belching smokestacks from the industrial era.”

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/14/us/14bcpier.html

Hide

Download image

CLEVELAND, April 19, 2011 /PRNewswire/ — Forest City Enterprises, Inc. (NYSE: FCEA and FCEB) today announced that its subsidiary, Forest City California Development, Inc., has been selected as developer by the Port of San Francisco for Pier 70′s 25-acre Waterfront Site. Pier 70 is a 69-acre historic marine industrial area on San Francisco‘s Central Waterfront, located immediately south of Mission Bay. Plans call for the site to be redeveloped over a multiyear period to meet the Port’s Master Plan goals for new development, historic preservation, and the creation of waterfront open space.

(Logo:  http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20080515/FRSTCTYLOGO )

“We’re honored to be selected by the staff and Port Commission for this extraordinary project,” said Kevin Ratner, President of Forest City Development California. “Transformative urban place-making through public/private partnerships is our passion as a company. We believe this project will bring together the past, present and future to create an economic driver for the city and the Bay Area. The site is compelling because of its pioneering maritime history, waterfront location, the public benefits it is expected to generate, and the opportunity to advance the region’s growth economy in a unique way.”

“The Port congratulates Forest City on winning the competition to develop the Pier 70 Waterfront Site,” said Kimberly Brandon, president of the San Francisco Port Commission. “This milestone represents a tremendous step forward for the Port by moving us closer to transforming the Pier 70 area into new public uses while preserving its rich maritime history.”

In spring 2010, the Port published its Preferred Master Plan for Pier 70 after extensive study and community planning. Forest City will work with the Port to accomplish the goals for the site, which include a total new development capacity of 2.5 million square feet with more than 250,000 square feet in additional rehabilitation of historic structures. Forest City’s plan will focus on incorporating uses that advance the Bay Area’s creative economy together with a mix of high-quality office facilities, open space, and inspiring public amenities and activities.

Ratner added: “We believe that Pier 70 can become a new model of how public/private partnership can bring industrial waterfronts back as leading economic growth and innovation drivers. New construction will compliment the historic resources of the site, and new uses, tenants and programs will co-exist symbiotically with existing maritime functions and infrastructure. All of this activity is expected to increase the Port’s tax base, spur job creation and deliver significant community benefit.”

Forest City’s consultants for the project include AECOM, Architectural Resources Group, Sheppard Mullin and Holland Knight, among others. The development of Pier 70 will be structured under a master development agreement and long-term lease.

About Forest City

Forest City Enterprises, Inc. is an NYSE-listed national real estate company with $11.8 billion in total assets. The Company is principally engaged in the ownership, development, management and acquisition of commercial and residential real estate and land throughout the United States. For more information, visit www.forestcity.net.

Safe Harbor Language

Statements made in this news release that state the Company’s or management’s intentions, hopes, beliefs, expectations or predictions of the future are forward-looking statements. The Company’s actual results could differ materially from those expressed or implied in such forward-looking statements due to various risks, uncertainties and other factors. Risks and factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, the impact of current lending and capital market conditions on our liquidity, ability to finance or refinance projects and repay our debt, the impact of the current economic environment on our ownership, development and management of our real estate portfolio, general real estate investment and development risks, vacancies in our properties, further downturns in the housing market, competition, illiquidity of real estate investments, bankruptcy or defaults of tenants, anchor store consolidations or closings, international activities, the impact of terrorist acts, risks associated with an investment in a professional sports team, our substantial debt leverage and the ability to obtain and service debt, the impact of restrictions imposed by our credit facility and senior debt, exposure to hedging agreements, the level and volatility of interest rates, the continued availability of tax-exempt government financing, the impact of credit rating downgrades, effects of uninsured or underinsured losses, effects of a downgrade or failure of our insurance carriers, environmental liabilities, conflicts of interest, risks associated with the sale of tax credits, risks associated with developing and managing properties in partnership with others, the ability to maintain effective internal controls, compliance with governmental regulations, increased legislative and regulatory scrutiny of the financial services industry, volatility in the market price of our publicly traded securities, inflation risks,  litigation risks, as well as other risks listed from time to time in the Company’s SEC filings, including but not limited to, the Company’s annual and quarterly reports.

SOURCE Forest City Enterprises, Inc.

Back to top

RELATED LINKS
http://www.forestcity.net

Article source: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/forest-city-named-developer-for-pier-70-in-san-francisco-120228324.html