With CPMC’s California Hospital Campus at 3700 California slated to be shuttered in 2019, TMG Partners is pushing forward with plans to completely transform the nearly 5-acre site on the southern border of Presidio Heights.

And as designed by Robert A.M. Stern Architects, the proposed redevelopment will yield 240 units of high-end housing – including 12 new single-family homes, 14 new three-story townhomes and 214 multi-family units – spread across 37 new buildings rising up to seven stories in height along with the retention of the existing 9-unit apartment building 401 Cherry Street and the conversion of the Marshal Hale building at 3698 California to residential use.

The proposed project, with a density of 50 units per acre, includes 373 parking spaces, with two spaces per single-family home and townhome and an average of 1.5 spaces for each of the other 214 units. The project also includes 29,000 square feet of amenity space for residents, including a private gym.

While the majority of the campus is actually zoned for development up to 80 feet in height, with the exception of two lots covering less than 10 percent of the site on the southwest corner of Sacramento and Cherry, the proposed plans reflect “a vision that the neighbors and property owner have together created during more than 18 months of meetings,” along with input from local community leaders and a neighborhood survey to determine “the preferences of neighbors regarding for land uses and overall project composition.”

Speaking of which, the entire development will be 100 percent market rate.

86 thoughts on “The Detailed Plans for 240 New High-End Homes”
  1. Wonder the impact on “market rates” when 240 additional units are added to a highly supply-constrained neighborhood.

  2. would love to see laurel heights village levelled and turned into 2 stories of retail with 4 stories of housing on top. 1 level retail is not good enough

          1. Laurel Village has stores a neighborhood can use. Hayes is nice if you want hip garb or if Jr. can’t live without organic hemp booties, hand-knit on a commune in Oregon.

  3. How is it that residential development in Laurel Heights get all this onsite parking but when you look at dense housing developments in other parts of San Francisco very little parking is allowed to be built or often times, even no onsite parking is included at all?

    Also getting away with all market rate housing this is pretty impressive without any requirements to build affordable somewhere else.

    1. Laurel Heights used to be a cemetery. The houses were built in the 30s and 40s with fewer restrictions than exist today.

    2. Was wondering the same thing, since I thought the city urged developers to include less than a 1:1 parking ratio. However, I do know that parking spaces make units much more costly, so perhaps because there is zero affordable housing included, they found that the number worked to bump up the spots.

    3. Maybe because the “best” transit service here is the 1-California … this is far from BART and from Muni rail-based transit (and the 1-California is already SRO weekdays here). Also, many residents here may be commuting up to Marin, or down the Park Presidio / 19th Ave corridor to the Peninsula.

  4. Fantastic development. There is Laurel Village on one side and Clement St. shopping on the other end. Easy transport to either UCSF Mt. Zion or Kaiser Hospital on Geary Blvd. JCC is close by as well.

  5. Single family homes? Seriously? We should have a minimum density rule.
    When was the last time SF added 12 single family homes in one area?

    1. This is Summit 800. It’s modern homes in a new kind of San Francisco address. And it’s your sanctuary for Lake Merced living. With a tranquil lake, 614 acres of park and 4.5 miles of paved pathways in the city proper, Summit 800 offers the elusive balance of open space and cosmopolitan activity, of city lights and starlight. You’ll take in the lifestyle of the city but leave all the limitations of San Francisco behind. So, when your day is done, you’ll pull into the garage, hit the button and walk into a place that’s different from the start.”

      1. It does not support the transit to daly city, has 1-4 cars per unit and was totally regraded for months, with major water-use during the efforts and replanting.

        Ron Zeff was the property mogul who bought it, in exchange Parkmerced residents got the Cadillac of irrigation systems that had to be redone and never worked properly. Was passed through to tenants so land was sliced off by real estate and land-use firms able to squander off with more land to develop.

        Priced way above anyone’s means, it offers nothing but cramped vertical units, that will be isolated and require an agreement to connect through parkmerced’s project. So it may be more isolated and require driving consistently.

        Far from “green” or sustainable the carbon emissions in building this area and carbon monoxide from the ground during the civil work, will only be exceeded by parkmerced’s full site re-grading and water suck-up. The units blocked views of tenants at Parkmerced, who should all have a rent-reduction until the new units are built if they make it that long…

  6. Hard to tell exactly but it would appear, comparing the aerial to a 1950’s photo,
    that the original Children’s Hospital (pp 92-4) is still extant, albeit in very truncated form. Presumably those (very extensive) changes will head-off any objections to demolition on historical grounds.

    1. Probably because its 100% market-rate. when the neighbors don’t scream ‘gentrification!’, the focus is on quality of life for people living there versus handouts.

    2. because people who can afford to buy here will have one or more cars, and not providing offsite parking will increase congestion

      1. The existing parking structure holds at least 373 spaces. I predict this development will actually reduce the amount of vehicle traffic in the neighborhood, as compared to its predecessor.

  7. I think 35% affordable housing, a Navigation center, or maybe 2 Navigation centers and some other tent cities belong here……

    1. Maybe a Needle Exchange Center? And a recycling yard with uncovered bins of trash blowing in the wind!

  8. Doesn’t any SF development this size have to provide for BMR units – if not on-site then off-site?

    This appears to be more dense than the immediate surrounding neighborhood – which is dense to begin with.

    The design is not bad insofar as the various buildings are different from one another – a nice mix and especially that brick looking structure next to the Hale building.

    The green strips along the sidewalks are good – surprised there are no street trees in the rendering. Given this is an upscale development in an upscale neighborhood I suspect the developer won’t get away with VE. So hopefully the greenery will stay along with the planter boxes..

    The roofline treatments are mostly good but for the block on California between Cherry and Parker. Wish the roofs had been greened.

    SFHs – nice touch. To answer a question posted above – recently 30 or so SFHs were built along Brotherhood Way.

    1. You mean those townhomes boasting walking distance to the beach and bringing families back to SF (starting at the low 1,000,000s).

      1. low 1,000,000s is affordable to many bay area families. the lack of 3bdr + inventory currently makes family friendly places in city at least $1.5M+. I cant afford to buy the right size place for my family below $1.8M so appreaciate more of these coming online

    2. No, the developer can pay an in-lieu fee, which is what they will do. The in-lieu fee is set higher than the cost of actually building affordable housing onsite.

  9. Stop whining about the “excessive” parking. It’s Laurel Heights and we’re talking about multi-million dollar homes. You really think most of these folks are going to ride Muni downtown to their senior-level management jobs or, better yet, ride Muni to Caltrain and down the peninsula? Public transit is not even on their radar screens.

    1. They shouldn’t all be multi-million dollar homes. In any event, in real cities many senior-level managers do use public transit (or some of the other alternatives to driving solo that are proliferating these days).

    2. More nasty congestion in SF. Some people may not care, but it was the #2 mentioned problem in the Bay Area survey. It’s already out of control, and this sort of density that is nowhere near any decent transit will only make it a lot worse.

      1. ‘Nowhere near any decent transit’

        Is it not directly on the 1 California?

        This is adding density to a dense area.

        1. The 1 California is peanuts. I’m talking regional transit. And like Mark already said, people who can afford to buy here won’t be taking the bus for the most part, they’ll be creating more traffic. The infrastructure simply can’t handle this sort of thing, but nobody cares, because they’re seeing dollar signs.

          1. Too few care is probably more accurate, but the end result is the same. Gridlock spreads until one day …. we’ll see.

            The city PTB and the corporatists care to make the maximum profit and refuse to realistically address the transportation infrastructure. This project actually is nice compared to the full block behemoths going up SOMA with the unaddressed traffic situation being the one commonality.

            Until allowable development is keyed to actual, real transportation infrastructure improvement (not promises of something 10 or 20 years down the line) things will continue to get worse.

          2. Sabbie is correct, the transit requires bolder mass-transit solutions, if the F-Line was routed out westbound, or the Geary BART finalized would be some options, but currently that area is isolated and will lead to more cars. The question is if you want the central subway big-dig all the way around or not to the westside?

          3. Are you going to require all new homes be adjacent to Bart or Caltrain (regional transit)?

            That’s going to prevent lots and lots of housing from being built.

          4. I live nearby in a very expensive block. My working neighbors take muni if they work downtown.

          5. SFRealist, I would require that the bulk of new housing is built near BART or Caltrain yes. I would say housing further out should simply be lower density, not like this beast. Or require the developer to mitigate the impact (internalize the external costs) perhaps by placing a percentage of profits in an inftrastructure trust. Even if it does not affect you and I on a daily basis, we cannot continue to ignore our fellow citizens who are being driven (no pun intended) to leave the Bay Area due to the horrible congestion. I am not anti development but we need to address the infrastructure first, not later.

  10. Please don’t let Robert Stern and his firm anywhere near this project. He and his company is deeply stuck in faux-historical post modernism.

    His work is pure crap.

    1. I clicked on this story for this comment F-dog. I love you, man.

      Stern is awesome. We should be so lucky to have a large project like this from his firm.

        1. Indeed. Also has done notable classic buildings (15 CPW, 70 Vestry, under-construction 220 CPS). Worth looking at to see the quality that could come here (let’s hope he doesn’t succumb to our tendency of plywood & stucco exteriors, and plastic windows). Stern brings an old world, east coast touch to San Francisco which we welcome.

          1. Yes, I went to their website and they have done some fantastic work, especially in UK, Manhattan and China. Then again, they also did GAP Hq on the Embarcadero. Ugh!

      1. Look at van ness and see some of the horrible designs / u need to review the postmodern Era in architecture and maybe realize that it’s a nice block battery with cut outs for green space but the buildings don’t show the detail and craft or variety yet and it may be better with a few different architects designing individual buildings vs stern doing all of them….

      2. Yea right. Stop being so clever. Stern and his firm has always been stuck in faux classicism from day one. They think we still live in the 1920’s or 30’s or 40’s.

        Stern is not awesome. He’s a hack.

        1. So hundreds (thousands) of years of architectural history and basic design language must be, in very single case, refused because a few weirdoes like Le Corbussier (tear down Paris and build monolithic skyscapers and freeways), Mies (glass boxes. Nothing but glass boxes), Gropius (weathered concrete is the only way) or Wright (everyone has to live at a Portola Valley density and commute via hovercar) are the only people in history that got it right?

          Come on.

          And I like/prefer modernism.

          1. and…you want to talk “hacks”. 90% of the modern hackery in California can only aspire to reach the level of this “hack”.

          2. Basic architectural “design language” and values still apply to modernism. But what Stern does is start with a “modern” building, essentially a steel or concrete skeletal frame, and then simply adds “decoration” to it.

            But yes, the “decoration” generally appeals to the lower educated masses, or the masses not interested in honest architecture, or the masses who long for “the good ole days”.

            They don’t want anything that requires them to THINK when they look at it, or when they enter it, or live in it. They want it to be soothing, comforting, un-challenging, familiar and “look like what’s already around us”.

            Stern is brilliant at that. And nothing else.

        2. He’s still an architect, and has the right to design buildings, we can critique them, and refute his proposals, I never said he is ideal, but you see around the world that its not always the design unfortunately but the $$$ that makes the decisions and buildings. In some countries the architect decides and dictates the policy and procedures, in the USA its not always so…

    2. And you can be sure that faux-historical is exactly what the neighbors demanded in their 18 months of community meetings.

    1. Agreed! I’d like to see more fine-grained development like this rather than monolithic block-filling hulks.

  11. I’m confused. Is this in addition to the Laurel Heights campus of UCSF which I believe is also in line for redevelopment. No?

    [Editor’s Note: Yes.]

    1. Too bad CPMC doesn’t also repurpose its Pacific Heights campus beginning with the demolition of that awful hulking presence of the main patients’ building. Unfortunately, I understand they plan to maintain it largely in its current form.

    2. Interesting. I didn’t realize there were two major makeovers in the works in such a small area. Especially in such an established and upscale hood. Positively unprecedented for modern SF.

  12. I love the roof detail in one of the buildings, looks European. Should have more IMO and make it solar while you’re at it!

    1. That’s right. You nailed it.

      Let’s pretend it’s not really San Francisco, but Paris. Then we’ll all feel better, maybe even a little more sophisticated.

      1. Oh, and large portions of the SF we gratefully inherited didn’t ape (think Victorians and Edwardians) European examples?

        This wonderful development proposal is more like excavating a genuine vintage SF neighborhood which might have been lost to ’06 or the horribly misguided “urban renewal” (i.e., uncompromising urbanism) of the 60’s. What a veritable treasure to complement what else is being more appropriately done in other areas such as Mission Bay.

        1. Oh, so now new projects are supposed to “pretend” to excavate an old vintage neighborhood, long gone?

          When did architecture become a high school musical?

          And yes, to be sure, much of the junk and crappy cheap buildings that went up in the 70’s thru the 90’s, say in the Richmond and Sunset district when planning wanted architects to just “slap on some trim” were equally bad. We need to learn our lesson.

          Let Stern stay in NY and put up his dreck. I’d prefer he not do it here.

          1. I don’t give a sh*t about your animus toward Stern. But every time I visit a city such as Seattle, Portland or Denver, it pains me to realize what was lost in ’06 in way of late 19th Century architecture. So, yes, even a modern reading of what might still have been of a city so attractive where it did survive is a welcome change up from unremitting “modernism.” Not to say at all that we must slavishly remain wedded to a past ideal. But as previously noted by “Brian,” we need not turn our backs to treasures of the past in slavish devotion to what is “new” (different for difference sake ).

            Stern well manages that balanced approach.

          2. Of course you do, cause you’re responding.

            Your simplistic analysis is basically that “old architecture, or even faux old architecture” is what makes a city “attractive”, but modernism doesn’t.

            We have plenty of great, historic architecture in SF, and I certainly support careful, sensitive historic preservation.

            But building fake, old looking facades on modern steel frames is just plain cheesy.

  13. Looks promising but longs ways off with 2023 occupancy probably best case timeline? Given self-driving car sharing in our future they’re probably building too many parking spots. For a dinner out in the city who still drives their own car having to find parking and saying no to the 2nd of wine?

  14. Does this mean all the families in the Westside will have to drive downtown or to Mission Bay to get their kids’ labs drawn or to visit the ED? Sigh.

  15. Love this. Was just at the California St CPMC campus yesterday and it is an architectural atrocity. The 50s sure were full of this crap designs. Looking at aerials from the 1930s there were plenty of single family homes that got razed to make room for this hideous campus. Can’t wait to see it demolished and this project start to go up.

    1. Looking at historic photos of the campus right around the 50s, all those old buildings looked fantastic. There are mentions on the redevelopment’s page that some of the existing buildings date back to the 1930s. Is 3698 California the only remaining building from the original historic buildings?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *