While building permits for the approved redevelopment of CPMC’s nearly 5-acre California Hospital Campus at 3700 California Street were in the works, and TMG Partners had been positioning to break ground and complete the 264-unit, high-end project around 2024, as “dictated by market conditions,” the ground has yet to be broken and the site was put up for sale earlier this year.

And with the entitlement for the redevelopment of the campus site slated to expire if a permit for the project isn’t issued by February 27, 2023, which is a standard condition of a project’s approval, a formal application to extend the entitlement for the project by three years, to February 27, 2026, has been requested by the Prado Group which is now in contract to purchase the campus from CPMC Sutter.

15 thoughts on “Delay for Campus Redevelopment, as Dictated, Formally Sought”
    1. That’s correct. From the aforementioned request for a formal extension of the entitlement, the granting of which is a post-closing condition of Prado’s contract to acquire, versus option, the site from CPMC Sutter:

      “Although the world did not stop during the COVID pandemic, Prado will be stepping into the Project as if the last three years did not happen. Prado did not get the benefit of the original 3-year performance condition, and it is not possible for Prado to review and finalize the plans, secure [financing], pull building permits for 31 different buildings, and start construction on the Project before the February 27, 2023 date when the performance condition for the Entitlements expires.

      Prado anticipates that some minor changes to the Project may be necessary, but those have not yet been thoroughly reviewed and/or determined with respect to whether any revisions to the Project are necessary. Prado will be undertaking that work in the near term and will work with Planning staff on any potential revisions, to the extent applicable.”

      We’ll keep you posted and plugged-in.

  1. If Prado does go through with the purchase, when does this look to break ground?
    And thx for keeping the neighbors updated!

    1. Probably not any time soon.
      High interest rates, soft condo/TIC market.
      Downtown is in an urban doom loop!
      Prices will crash moar!

      (the Party line here at SuperSport)

      1. That’s gold, Jerry, gold!

        Speaking of comedy cold, today’s SF Gate article, “Why no one is buying downtown San Francisco’s luxury condos” has some classic and a few soon-to-be classic gags. I don’t know about the writer’s journalistic merits, but he is a fine comedy writer. Just a few choice riffs:

        “These days, a luxury high-rise in downtown San Francisco with units that appear to be mostly empty isn’t an uncommon sight.”
        ““High-tech workers were the ones who were most likely to say, ‘Well, I can work from any place. I’ll move someplace where housing costs 90% less.’””
        “The report also states that condo inventory in this area is more than twice as high as the rest of the city — which explains the seemingly empty high-rises looming everywhere downtown.”
        “one 45-story luxury high-rise made news after it was revealed that only 13 of its 146 units had been purchased in the two years they’d been up for sale.”

        And the piece de resistance, this penetrating and illuminating insight:
        ““Housing markets and financial markets do move in cycles, as they have for hundreds of years, so my guess is that the cycle will turn again,” Carlisle said. “But I don’t exactly know what that will look like, and I don’t know when it will happen.””

        Thank you, good night, I’ll be here all week (in a 90% empty downtown skycoffin), try the impossible veal, tip your realter®

      2. It’s a little early to say that downtown is in an urban doom loop. It could happen, but so far it looks like we are in for a short, shallow downturn.

        Even if downtown was in an urban doom loop, which I interpret to mean a meaningful decline in the prices of homes actually trading hands and setting new, lower comps…would substantially (say, 30%) less expensive housing be so bad? I think it would improve things. The local housing market has been out of what for years.

        Lower priced homes across the board at the mid and lower tiers of the market would allow people who are here and have family in S.F. to stay here instead of being priced out by globally mobile tech workers who are paid more than the prevailing wage levels for almost everyone else.

        1. Yes, this. Wasn’t a part of the reason to build a bunch to bring prices down. And now we are finally seeing it happen, hurrah.

          1. That might have been the reason that folks here wanting to realize their dreams of avarice put forward in order to rhetorically parry community concerns about runaway gentrification. But no on actually believed that, and that isn’t what is going on now.

            What is going on now is straightforward destruction of demand, courtesy of The Fed’s actions to raise interest rates and working people fleeing high housing prices in S.F. for outlying areas where prices are lower.

          2. That first paragraph sounds like you think people on this site are large scale developers, I don’t think that is the case.
            I do think plenty of people believed that. From state officials to local to YIMBY to average joe looking for a place.
            Oh and I don’t think the FED was trying to destroy demand in high price locals with any of their moves.
            At least we agree less expensive houses will be an improvement.

  2. Prado does have a history of actually building the projects they get involved with. I would expect them to be working hard to make it pencil out.

    That may mean some serious “value engineering” along the way.

  3. You laugh but this corner formerly enjoyed excellent peak hour service via express bus, that was cancelled in 2020.

  4. On February 1st, 2023 — once SF fails to produce an approved Housing Element, the new owners should propose a Builder’s Remedy project (with SB-330 protections) of approximately twice the size.

    That’ll most definitely pencil out.

  5. If it’s truly 5 acres, seems like 264 units is not dense enough. 500 or 600 units seems more in line with what is there.

Leave a Reply

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