Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    July 16, 2012 1:30pm-2:00pm PDT

1:30 pm
supervisor mar: could you give us some sense of the heights? >> there is a peek at 100 feet and there is about 700 feet and about five other buildingso4e would peak. can you give a sense of thes2k2f america building? >> the transamerica pyramid is about 850 feet. the transit tower would be roughly 200 feet taller. the tallest buildings are right around where the transit tower are are about six under 50 feet. the millennium tower is about 640 feet. total d
1:31 pm
out for the plan area -- all built out, all sites are built out and there would be a little over 9 million square feet of additional development. two-thirds of which we anticipate would be office space. this represents a 50% increase in that development capacity in this part of downtown. a few words about housing -- i mentioned the new neighborhoods created by the development plan. it is important to that state law requires in the redevelopment area, 35% of all units have to be affordable. to accomplish that, the city is building as much affordable housing as possible balance with the desire to sell the sites and
1:32 pm
build a transit center. additionally, the redevelopment plan requires that for the privately built sites have to buildzç>' below market rate unn site and that is simply out of practicality because there are no sites to help meet that obligation. the other commercial sites we anticipate would raise about e2 the linkage fund to build affordable housing citywide. all told, 4500 units in the area, we anticipate over 1400 units would be affordable. supervisor kim: may i ask a question about the affordable
1:33 pm
housing mandate? the mandate to build one of the highest levels of affordable housing -- 35% is important given the trends that we are planning to include. i am a curious if you have an update at the state level in terms of what is going on? i know there have been some state bills that moved through the assembly regardingóó7! the oversight authority possibility to bond particular to this redevelopment plan today. >> there was a recent assembly bill that clarified many things as it relates to the solution every development.
1:34 pm
there are many changes and that legislation or beneficial to affordable housing act clarified the use of proceeds and clarify the bonded proceeds may be retained for its use and we have a lot of bond proceeds in san francisco dedicated to affordable housing. in terms of the existing funds that had been detained by the redevelopment agency did not put into contracts, we have greater assurance we can spend them for affordable housing in san francisco. what the legislation did not do was to verify the bonding ability for affordable housing. if clarified, the ability of this agency to bond the enforceable financing agreement with a master developer which we have for a portion of the trans
1:35 pm
bay center for hunters pay, there is no similar agreement for affordable housing. this is among the things we are to try to figure out what we can ability to bond in the future. maybe through subsequent legislation we go back to the state to seek authority for san francisco to bond in its approved redevelop project areas or it may be some other related legislation so we can take advantage of the ability to balance the anchorman we could receive for affordable housing, but at this time, it is not clear whether we will have that ability but we're working on it. link electronics, inc. model number: pdr-885
1:36 pm
software version: 2.0a have proposed. the state is requiring us to do this. are we hopeful we will have what is necessary to meet the mandate? %%5r>> i think the issue for the state and throughout this project is the dissolution of the project is to try to o'rs÷minimize the payments and t the solution in terms of our future ability to parliament this anchorman has to be structured in such a way that it does not have an impact on how the state interacts with other redevelopment agencies. xpú toward the ideal solution for san francisco to continue to bond. >> i hate to ask this final
1:37 pm
question -- if there is not a solution, what happens to the plan? i have only support this and wanted to move through, but what if the state doesn't allow us? what happens is affordable housing its to late. we will fund affordable housing on a pay go basis and there will be sites available for r;óññaffordable housing developt that are stand-alone developments for which we will can accumulate it, those projects will be delayed. it raises some questions about affordable housing better part of the mixed market+ag quickly those developments can
1:38 pm
proceed if we do not have the subsidy to pay for the affordable housing that is part of those components. the short answer is if we dos get the capacity in the future, affordable housing will be delayed and potentially some market rate housing might be delayed. clearly we will try tou1u toward a solution that will allow us to proceed in a timely manner. we know one of the goals of the plan is a complete neighborhood and we support the creation of affordable housing in this transit-rich environment. >> we are joined by supervisor christina olague. i have concerns we don't end up where
1:39 pm
we did with a treasure island. we lost several hundred units of affordable housing. the financing peace will be of for lack of a better word to use at this time. what is the breakdown in terms of family units? units for working adults who are single -- i just want to get a sense of that. >> i don't think we have:ác specific breakdowns. the first development we sponsored was a block 11 for the formerly chronically homeless and these are four individuals. the second was for blocks 6 and 7 that was intended to be family housing. we do not have specific allocations of special needs versus other populations, but we
1:40 pm
are striving for this location to be geared toward family rental housing. >> part of my attraction to the project in addition to the jobs and other things that will be 60o%created is definitely rootn the percentage of affordable housing which is pretty extraordinary compared to other developments we have seen in the city. i was going ask that at some point it would be good if we look at where are we providing houses for our workforce meeting people who work in the hospitality industry. we want to make sure we address the issue formerly homeless and families. we are way behind in terms of the production of housing for them. in terms of seniors and these other populations that need
1:41 pm
housing, if we can getíóe sense that is somewhere in the works i'm thinking more in terms of people with a lower ami. >> i think our goals are to look at some of the income ranges you have mentioned. we have a process, a consolidated plan process sort of prioritizes the city's housing goals in general and we will keep the board updated on those as we move forward. it will evolve and clearly this 8mxissue is not resolved to our satisfaction and we will
1:42 pm
continue to work toward the ideal solutionasñ;ç and as we do that, we will keep the board informed about our progress and clearly that is a necessary steps before we talk about our future projects. we will clearly keep borden formed. >> are we going to be discussing -- supervisor olague: are we going to be discussing issues involving the workforce? supervisor mar: i do not think we are today. that will come sometime. i think roughly from 2013 until now, i feel great it is creating housing and at least 35% is below market rate or affordable. it sounds like it is about 1435 new units and i see from the
1:43 pm
linkage fees its even more that would go to more housing in the general vicinity, so it's not just creating a new downtown and a new skyline for the city, it is major infrastructure and improvement. i see that it's about 117 million in open space and other places along that area and street improvements but thank you for putting such great work into this, especially with residents and other stakeholders. please continue. >> thank you. jumping into the public realm, this is part of the downtown and it is already very busy and a congested area with rider ship and other modes increasing as well.
1:44 pm
there are sidewalks and they are relatively meager and the amenities are few and far between. there are amenities to have the world-class downtown we would expect. this is an ambitious program to remake the public realm by substantially widening the sidewalks to accommodate the expected growth of people walking on the streets and to improve the functioning of muni in that area. augmenting the bicycle networks and making other modifications to the street networks. here is an artist's rendering of what it might look like in the future. dedicated transit lanes so that buses don't get stopped. mid block crosswalks and other things necessary to make a world-class downtown walking environment. a couple of other notes and
1:45 pm
related transportation policies -- the plan proposes to reduce the amount of commercial parking in the area. it's one of the most effective ways to keep congestion down in the future. the plan does call for taking on a parking study to really assess how much parking can be accommodated based on our capacity. you heard about the 5.5 acre park on the roof of the transit center -- it will be one of the largest public open spaces and it's an area currently has zero public open space. there are some privately owned small plazas but this plan identifies the opportunity for a new public plaza on property that will serve as a southern
1:46 pm
and southwestern gateway to the transit center. the plan has the responsibility of trying to encourage and facilitate in adjacent buildings and they are in the planning code amendments. also recommendations to cut through the south of market box. to the open space --a very extensive analysis of potential shadows that might be cast from these new tall buildings. it is important to note there are no publicly open spaces and the -- in this plan area. the nearest parks are about half a mile away in union square and chinatown. as a result of the geographic facts, the shadows would only reach these in a very limited time of year, generally early in
1:47 pm
the morning and in certain months of the year when the sun and wind that is right. as a result, there are likely to be potential shadows that last 60 minutes and more commonly less than half an hour and down just a few minutes. because the buildings are so far away, the shadows are fleeting and because the buildings are far away, our empirical evidence is the shadows -- is not as if these are the media adjacent to the open spaces. the analysis in sudbury -- the analysis in the eir was very conservative and analyze relatively crude building forms and not specific designs which will come forward in the future. qw potential
1:48 pm
open spaces in the downtown area. and they might have in the shadows from these buildings and if you look at the numbers, they are very low. bñumost of them are on the ordef 0.1% and some are much less than that. we believe that despite the findings in the eir, none of these shadows will affect usage of the parks and we will work as required with the wreck park commission and planning commission starting this fall -- rec and park commission and planning commission starting this fall to move through the process as necessary.  over 11 acres of open space in an area that has no public open space right now and will provide over $12 million for open space improvements outside the plant area, which is very important as there will be ripple effects from the new density in this area as parks seek greater
1:49 pm
usage. supervisor kim: i have a question. we did not get to have a more robust discussion given the withdrawal of the appeal last tuesday which was great news. by that doesn't mean there doesn't continue to be outstanding concerns about the shadow budget and in chinatown, there are concerns the transit tower would have impacts has in the morning time. we know that the seniors are frequently use the parks in the morning to do exercise. shadows for 30 minutes or an hour can actually have an impact on that type of activity and we know how cold san francisco can be in the shade verses the sun in the same area. i'm curious if you could talk a little bit more about the changes that have been adopted to address these concerns and
1:50 pm
any additional suggestions around these concerns? >> hist the plan set aside over $12 million for improvements of said the plan area. the implementation which i will talk about it met has a proposed allocation of that $12.5 million of which 9 million would go to open space improvement in chinatown. in conversations with the chinatown community, it seems like there is a desire to use the money to do a master plan in the square and a redesigned to improve the overall usage and there are parts of the park that could benefit from an overall. some of the funds could be used for an open space opportunity that has been identified on the new central subway station site where we create a new set the
1:51 pm
open space in the heart of chinatown. >> i do appreciate the work that has gone on to address these concerns representing a district that has some of the least public open space in the city. i know there is some relief in the open space and i appreciate the work to increase the open space in that neighborhood. >> in the plant area, have a historic district called the second street new montgomery conservation district. through the historic resources analysis done as part of the program, the plan resulted in a plan to expandgd the conservatin district along mission street to take in more historic buildings and the original historic district undertook. the plan includes every carries
1:52 pm
-- new categorization of at least a couple of]iiñkjujáp&e%i buildings the area in regards of their status. i mentioned the transferable program earlier -- ía< would modify the program to the extent it would reduce the amount of tdr required for the buildings to keep in line with the actual supply is out there from historic buildings. all of these public improvements which talked about streets and the open space as well as trans improvements, they are all catalogued in the plan and they have been priced out. the street and pedestrian circulation has a price tag of $200 million. there is a downtown rail extension, over $2 million which is meeting funding as of the open space improvements including the rooftop park which is not a core component of the
1:53 pm
original transit center project. this plan identifies and proposes a couple of new mechanisms to pay for these improvements. one is a set of new impact fees that we anticipate would bring in about $175 million over 20 years. that a potentially larger source of funding, a special tax district or community facility district which new development in the area would be required to participate in with a potential to raise upward of $400 million over the life span of the bill out of the plant area. about $600 million of net new area. one quick note on the fees -- the proposed fee schedule is tiered(b developments would pay a larger per square foot fee because they are more valuable buildings as a
1:54 pm
result of the increase tights. supervisor mar mentioned the fees that will take place in the area. there's thed and existing transit development fees that continue to be assessed as well as existing open space fees as well. the plan hasn't implementation progrgme; document which lays t of the hemp -- all the proposed improvements and projected funding that will come from these new sources. it proposes an allocation of how to pay for all of these. all the improvements are fully funded through these new sources and other dedicated sources which we have identified with the special note that the downtown extension is a much larger project and this plan would allocate over $400 million.
1:55 pm
a super majority of the funds would be available through this plan. if you have not kept up with the latest of the regional level, there's a plan adopted by the n tc. in may, they adopted a new regional transportation plan. that plan elevated it to a regional priority which is really landmark. hon the agreement requires the city of san francisco to put up $450 million to match these other sources. it is important to note that this plan would provide the lion's share of the city's obligations to leverage those other regional and federal funds. this is an important part of making it happen. a couple of months on the implementation program. there is a document that inventories the program, the
1:56 pm
improvements, and the funding program. in terms of allocating revenues, it would be the board of supervisors with the ultimate authority to allocate new revenues from the impact fees. the interagency plan implementation committee said up to administer and make recommendations to the board regarding adopted area plants will also take on transit center district plans so that body will make recommendations to you. the planning commission will have the role of them -- of approving in kind agreements. part of the package will help incorporate the transit center district into the plan mechanisms. that concludes my presentation on the plan before you today. four separate items -- the general plan amendments which includes a transit center
1:57 pm
subdistrict plan and the downtown plan, the comprehensive planning code ordinance, the zoning map amendment ordinance as well as amendments to the administrative code which i just described. with that, we're happy to take any questions. supervisor olague: my question has to do with jurisdictional issues. if i received an -- i received an e-mail this morning with could searched regarding the consistency of this -- with concerns regarding the consistency of this plan. if there were amendments we wanted to achieve with this plan, who would have the authority to make those changes? >> the amendments you are referring to be related to his own one controls in the redevelopment area which are contained in the redevelopment plan which is the oversight board has the jurisdiction to
1:58 pm
make those changes and maybe i could differ to the successor agency. >> i am from the successor agency for redevelopment. josh is partly correct. those controls for in a separate document called the "trans bay development guidelines." those were adopted by3ppcñ the former development agency commission and pursuant to the resolution the board adopted in january, as controls rest with the oversight board. that's the current situation. to amend those, the oversight board would have to change them. i want to note that in the trans bay redevelopment area, we are pursuing that policies that will strictly limit the amount of parking. one of which is under construction and the other will start construction soon. the first one has no parking for 120 units. the next one is a market rate project with 70 affordable
1:59 pm
units, 479 units total with about 40% parking. we have policies in the trance state guidelines that strictly limit parking. there is, as of right now, regulation because of the board of a separate development agencies. technically, there is an allowance to give up to 121 parking but we're not expecting any projects to that and we certainly would not allow them to do that. wrqus>> we had to rely on this oversight body to not allow them to do that? >> there is actual language in of the development control of says project sponsors must make every effort to strictly reduce the amount of parking available. there are requirements for bike parking and car sharing -- supervisor olague: