[jamison]

Just posted...

Treasure Island makeover plan gets thumbs-up (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/10/31/TREASURE.TMP)
Board of Supervisors is next hurdle for $1.2 billion proposal

Robert Selna, Chronicle Staff Writer (rselna@sfchronicle.com)
Tuesday, October 31, 2006

The city commission overseeing the former Treasure Island Naval Station approved a plan Monday to spend more than $1.2 billion to transform the 403-acre island and its smaller neighbor, Yerba Buena Island, into a self-sufficient community with 6,000 homes, a new ferry terminal and 300 acres of open space.

The seven-member Treasure Island Development Authority, appointed by the mayor, gave its support for a building blueprint that has been three years in the making.

The plan calls for nearly $500 million in private investment and $700 million in borrowing by the city through the issuance of bonds backed by property taxes collected from the island after development is completed.

The lead developer, Kenwood Investments, which is controlled by Democratic lobbyist and fundraiser Darius Anderson, is working with Miami-based home builder Lennar Corp. and local firm Wilson Meany Sullivan, which led the Port of San Francisco's Ferry Building restoration.

The developers plan to replace the former military housing and other structures with homes and retail and commercial buildings using "green" construction methods.

The developers would pay an estimated $40 million to the Navy for the decommissioned base -- part of their $500 million investment -- and would anticipate collecting $370 million in profits by completion in 2022.

The plan is scheduled to be introduced to the Board of Supervisors today and will likely be voted on by the end of the year, according to Michael Cohen, head of military base reuse projects for Mayor Gavin Newsom.

"I'm optimistic about the reception the plan will get from the Board of Supervisors because I think the development plan makes an overwhelmingly compelling case," said Cohen. "We're using private investment to create a 300-acre park in the bay and 1,800 units of below-market-rate housing without a penny from the city's general fund."

Some of the below-market housing units would be created by private developers, and the rest by nonprofit builders with backing from the city and other sources. Private builders would be required to sell or rent approximately 740 units at prices within reach of households earning at or below the median income in San Francisco -- which for a three-person household is $82,000 a year.

Renderings of the proposed new island village show a ferry terminal connected to a retail center as part of an urban core with a 40-story tower and hotels. Several residential neighborhoods would radiate from the core area and feature townhouses, flats and a 14-story residential tower.

To discourage driving on and off the island, the plan calls for most housing to be clustered within a 10-minute walk to the ferry and for a free shuttle to serve the neighborhoods. A congestion pricing scheme would levy an estimated $5 fee on motorists driving on and off the island during commute times.

Completed in 1938, the manmade Treasure Island is composed mainly of bay fill and is susceptible to earthquakes and flooding. As a result, it will require significant seismic stabilization, including a 50-foot-wide reinforced zone around the entire perimeter of the island.

Environmental contamination from the former industrial uses needs to be cleaned up, and the future neighborhood situated in the middle of the bay will need an entirely new utility and wastewater collection and treatment system.

The project must undergo a review of its impact on the environment and on traffic patterns and commerce in the area.

Moreover, as changes are made, details of a final agreement between the developers and the city remain to be negotiated and approved by the Treasure Island Development Authority, the Board of Supervisors and the mayor.

"We continue to have tremendous constraints that we will have to overcome, but our work to date shows a path of success," said Jay Wallace of Kenwood Investments. "It's a complicated project, but we have a critical path we can proceed upon to make Treasure Island a great place for future generations."

Permalink (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/10/31/TREASURE.TMP)

[craeg]

One 40 story tower huh... Was the plan downsized, or is this inaccurate reporting?
Still, 6k housing units!!!

[J Church]

What was the previous number of units? They're talking 6,000 homes at this point. If it's the same amount of housing but with denser ground coverage, frankly that would be an improvement. Towers-in-a-park is certainly a concern with this plan (though the rationale for clustering development and leaving the rest of the space open is sound).

[San Frangelino]

I think someone has already brought this to attention, but they have updated all the links for the T.I. plan. It looks to be pretty much the same with a much more indepth descriptions.

http://www.sfgov.org/site/treasureis...=21914#revterm


http://static.flickr.com/107/284382286_1555606042_b.jpg

By this chart comparison, from the Sept 2006 documents seen in the link above, the Iconic Tower well exceeds 40 stories. Also the updated plans show more than just a single tower with 14 story mid-rises. According to the plan I count 4 extra high-rises surrounding the main tower. I hope this is still accurate.

http://static.flickr.com/120/284394587_3fd1b3bea2_b.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/112/284394588_59d18a2f8f_b.jpg

[AK47KC]

Didn't they say the Iconic Tower was 60 stories way back in December of 2005?

[craeg]

Um. BOFA 810' ?

[tech12]

While this is all amazing and everything, i dunno what it is, but the whole plan just doesn't seem "right" ...like it doesn't fit the area...or something.

Is anyone else getting this feeling?

Also, 400 acres of open space, green architecture, discouragement of driving? talk about trying to mold people's lifestyles (though I didn't see anything referring to the community gardens that were part of the plan before. Were those scrapped?).

(also, of course green architecture is good...just it combined with all these other factors makes me think...well, it makes me think of hippies, really:P)

[SD_Phil]

^I agree but maybe it's just because this doesn't look particularly interesting or particularly beautiful. I don't know what to make of it. Maybe when we get proper architectural plans I'll have more to say. Since the towers aren't the main focus of the plan it's really hard to judge how it will look from what I assume are simply massing models. Hopefully the architecture on the midrises is up to snuff and interesting. Nice dense street walls would help but I don't see any in the rendering. It looks more like free standing structures separated by little green spaces. Looks boring for now.

[SFBoy]

Um. BOFA 810' ?
On a hill

[J Church]

talk about trying to mold people's lifestyles

And people will be forced to move there. Oh, wait--no they won't.

[tech12]

Did I say they would?

[J Church]

The social engineering charge doesn't stick if living there is voluntary.

And heaven forbid they might discourage driving. That might encourage walking, cycling, and taking transit. It might create a place where you can do those things without having to fend off car after car. That would seem to increase the lifestyle options around here, not lessen choice.

[POLA]

Looks like garden city... Le Corbusier would be excited... But I don't know if I am... Is this just going to be SF's roosevelt island. I have my doubts.

[_J_]

Absolutely love the anti-car, transit-oriented nature of the development. As the best place to look at the SF skyline, I'd take a free shuttle there from the end of Market and spend my money on luch with a view anyday.

But as far as independent community goes: I've lived in a town of 8,000 before...pure hell. Granted the proximity of the city makes a world of livability difference in this case, but I'm still of the opinion that 6,000 homes is NOT enough a sustainable community to make. *cries about the downgrade*

[WesTheAngelino]

^ Any possibilities for future expansion?

[slock]

It was 5,500 units before, so they have added more units.

And the towers are where they are because of the EXTREME instability of the land and faster ferry access. Beneath the park section is fill with intense depths to bedrock. If they didn't build a park, they would probably have to return it to the Bay.

In the height chart, "Sun Tower" looks to be over 650'. You'll be able to look down on the tower of the new span.

[Reminiscence]

I believe this is a great step towards finally realizing this plan. As for the ~650' "Sun Tower", so far I like what I see. Another iconic skyscraper for SF that will surely be visible from many parts of the bay. Look for the developers to use insane technology to guard the tower from the wind on the island, something I cant wait to hear more about.

Now that I really think about it ... this whole Treasure Island plan really resembles the great ancient Aztec city of Tenochtitlan. Both civilizations built on islands, and curiously enough the "Sun Tower" really resembles the "Sun Pyramid". I wonder if they have room for a "Moon Tower"? In either way, it might sound crazy, but it strikes me to find how closely they resemble each other. Is it just me, or has anyone else had this come to mind?

[fflint]

And the towers are where they are because of the EXTREME instability of the land and faster ferry access. Beneath the park section is fill with intense depths to bedrock. If they didn't build a park, they would probably have to return it to the Bay.
All of Treasure Island is landfill, and the entire island will be better stabilized. The housing is situated to facilitate ferry transit.

[tech12]

The social engineering charge doesn't stick if living there is voluntary.

And heaven forbid they might discourage driving. That might encourage walking, cycling, and taking transit. It might create a place where you can do those things without having to fend off car after car. That would seem to increase the lifestyle options around here, not lessen choice.

Yes, you're right. I just don't like things that are built to influence what I do, whether it's walk and take the ferry everywhere, or drive my car everywhere. But I won't be living on TI, so who cares!!

It still gets to me though, that in SF, where housing is so scarce, this opportunity to create so much of it is being hampered by lots of the space being taken up by parkland (parkland is good, but there should be less), as well as a development that will obviouslly suit certain people's lifestyles much more than others...or maybe I'm jumping to conclusions. That's just how it seems to me. I'm sort of envisioning South Beach/Mission Bay #2, only bigger, and in the middle of the bay.

[SFView]

According to the models and renderings, I find what looks to be at least one tower that is at or around 40 stories tall. It is the second tallest tower next to the Sun Tower. I do not know if this is what the article is referring to.

Even though there are 5 highrises shown in the updated plan, the renderings and models have not yet been updated to include the 5th highrise tower.

The height chart indicates yet another way to measure the height of towers. Measurements from the ground floor elevation to the rooftop elevation or structural top are the most easily understood and accepted standards for most. There are at least two other ways to strike the height dimension of a tower, but apparently this can lead to confusion or misinterpretation here on the forums.

Whatever is done structurally must be accepted by DBI to issue permits. The plan already shows a very strong and efficient webbed tubular cage structure for the Sun Tower.

There is a nice overview of the entire project, and how it will be phased for construction from 2006 to 2018.

http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/site/uploadedfiles/treasureisland/Treasure_Island_Development_Plan/10-06ExhiibitH_Phasing.pdf

[San Frangelino]

Treasure Island vote in two committees on Wednesday

http://www.examiner.com/a-430279~City_Hall_News.html?cid=rss-San_Francisco

From today's Examiner,

Two Board of Supervisors committees will hold a joint meeting Wednesday to vote on the development plan for Treasure Island.

The $1.2 billion plan would transform the 403-acre island and the smaller nearby Yerba Buena Island into a community of 6,000 homes and 300 acres of open space.

The Board of Supervisors Land Use and Economic Development Committee and the Budget and Finance Committee will vote on the development plan Wednesday, at 4 p.m., at City Hall, Room 250.

[kenratboy]

I said it before, but for some reason, I just have a uneasy feeling about this project - something just isn't sitting right with me. It almost appears to be 'FAKE' - that it will not be a livable, nice place to live, dare I say like a prison :p

It is almost like it was designed as someones play thing, that there is no concern about using the space well or making it livable, it is just someones 'doll house'.

We will see.

I like 99% of projects I see, but this one seems really weak to me.

[BTinSF]

The social engineering charge doesn't stick if living there is voluntary.

And heaven forbid they might discourage driving. That might encourage walking, cycling, and taking transit. It might create a place where you can do those things without having to fend off car after car. That would seem to increase the lifestyle options around here, not lessen choice.

I'm on your side of this argument as long as the financial risk is to the private developer and not to the city. Because call me a skeptic. I've said before--for 4 years I worked out there every day and, frankly, I couldn't wait to get off that island and back to the actual city every afternoon. Yes, there will be another transportation option with this development--the ferry--that I didn't have, but for me, anyway, it would still feel isolated out there and I couldn't do what I can do now which is, at least as a last resort: walk home from almost anywhere in town.

Perhaps you have to spend lots of time there as I did to understand how cold and windswept the place actually is.

I predict it will be like the outer Richmond and Sunset: In expensive, crowded San Francisco, there will be a market for whatever they build out there, but when the novelty wears off people will not be willing to pay as much to live there as they do in the more desirable parts of town.

Meanwhile, you'll find me sitting at one of Peet's tables at the Ferry Building looking at the excellent skyline of the island, but having no reason to actually go there.

[kenratboy]

Only problem I have is this isn't just a city block or a strip of land next to the docks - this is a huge island and very unique.

I just want to see it used to benefit the Bay Area as a whole, not as someones private little project/toy.

[BTinSF]

It still gets to me though, that in SF, where housing is so scarce, this opportunity to create so much of it is being hampered by lots of the space being taken up by parkland (parkland is good, but there should be less),

I keep reading this here but I think what you and the others who bring it up are missing is that someone has determined that the part of the island to be open space is much less seismically stable--and so difficult and expensive to build on--than the parts planned for development. I don't think they are doing this because they want to create a big park. I think it is because the costs to build residences on the northeast part of the island don't pencil out.

[J Church]

I don't think the marketing materials are helping this project. The icy-white models, the sunkissed renderings, they make a proposal that's already perilously close to modernist look even more inorganic.

[BTinSF]

Only problem I have is this isn't just a city block or a strip of land next to the docks - this is a huge island and very unique.

I just want to see it used to benefit the Bay Area as a whole, not as someones private little project/toy.

It's a huge artificial island that was created by the City and County of San Francisco as a site, first for the World's Fair and then to be an airport--before WW II broke out and the Navy took it over. It was not designed or built as a residential neighborhood and retrofitting it as such requires some compromises. We've all seen what happens when houses are built on fill (need pictures of the Marina in 1989?)

It can be done, but it costs money. It changes the economics, the cost structure of any development. My understanding is that before anything is built, they are going to have to substantially strengthen the perimeter wall or breakwater (call it a pile of rocks) that keeps the mud from which the island was created from just turning soupy and dissolving into the Bay. Then for reasons I'm not completely clear on, the southern and western perimeters of the island are inherently more stable than the rest so, for that reason and because those are the areas that are best seen from the rest of the city, that's where development will occur.

Still, it will require either pilings to bedrock for larger buildings or "densification" for lower and midrise structures. In 1989, virtually all the utility lines--water, gas, sewer--running under the causeway from the Bay Bridge and Yerba Buena ruptured. So this infrastructure will have to be reinforced somehow. I watched them build the Navy medical clinic, one of the last structures the Navy built there--after the 1989 quake. They spent many months forcing gravel into the mud fill to "densify" it before any actual building took place. In the end, the structure was, in effect, built on a pile of gravel in the middle of the surrounding fill. New structures built now will have to do something similar or equivalent--which costs more than building on solid natural land.

I am willing to assume that the people designing this project are trying to create the most economic value for the buck, but, as I said, the situation does require some compromises of which we sidewalk superintendants may not be totally aware.

[BTinSF]

SAN FRANCISCO
Treasure Island's redevelopment plan faces 'biggest step'
- Robert Selna, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 6, 2006

A proposal to transform Treasure Island and its neighbor, Yerba Buena Island, into an environmentally friendly development with 13,500 new residents, will come under closer scrutiny Wednesday when it is presented to two Board of Supervisors committees.

The development plan calls for a $1.2 billion investment of private and public funds. The money would be spent to clean up pollution left behind on the former Navy base in the bay, make the 365-acre island seismically safe, and to build 6,000 "green" homes, a new ferry terminal and nearly 300 acres of parks and other open space.

"This hearing is the single biggest step in a detailed process that has been in the planning stages for more than four years," said Jack Sylvan, an aide to Mayor Gavin Newsom working on the redevelopment project. "We're very proud of a plan that we've thought long and hard about and we think achieves a balance taking into consideration a wide range of issues."

The private development team is a partnership of local developer Wilson Meany Sullivan, Miami-based homebuilder Lennar Corp., which is currently developing land to build 1,600 new homes at the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, and Kenwood Investments, a firm formed by California lobbyist and Democratic Party fundraiser Darius Anderson.

To pay for infrastructure and other development costs, the group will spend nearly $500 million and the city will borrow $700 million through the issuance of bonds backed by property taxes collected from the island after development is completed.

The developers already have spent approximately $11 million on planning, consultants and environmental studies, they say. They estimate collecting $370 million in profits by completion in 2022, according to Jay Wallace, of Kenwood investments.

The city can share in the profits after the developers have realized a 20 percent return on their investment.

Profits would come from the sale of townhouses, flats and apartments in mid- and high-rise buildings that would sell in the range of $650,000 to $2 million, according to Adam Alberti, spokesman for the development group.

The development plan requires that 30 percent of the housing (1,800 units) be within the reach of households earning at or below the median income for San Francisco -- which for a three-person household is $82,000 a year.

Before ground is broken and any money is made, however, the proposal must first obtain approval from the Board of Supervisors Land Use and Budget and Finance Committees -- and then be endorsed by the full Board of Supervisors.

If the project is approved by the board, developers and the city will negotiate a final agreement and conduct an environmental impact report, both of which would come back before the supervisors. If all goes smoothly, residents could start moving in by early 2013.

Sylvan said the development's use of private investment and future tax revenues provides significant benefits to San Francisco while not taking money from the city's general fund. He and other planners also acknowledge that several major hurdles must be overcome before the new community becomes a reality.

Most agree the biggest challenge facing the project is the land itself.

The city and the Navy have yet to agree on how much the developers will have to pay for the right to build on the manmade island.

The developers have proposed that in exchange for the land, they pay the approximately $40 million it will take to clean up the remaining petroleum, cleaning solvents, metals and other toxic substances. They also propose to take over the cleanup responsibility.

Navy base closure manager, Doug Gilkey, said that the Navy is in the process of appraising the fair market value of the island and should have an estimate of what it's worth in the next three months. He said the Navy already has spent $120 million thus far on the cleanup and estimates the remaining work will cost approximately $16 million.

Another challenge is to make Treasure Island safe in the event of an earthquake.

Completed in 1938, the man-made island is composed mainly of bay fill and is susceptible to liquefaction in earthquakes. As a result, it will require significant seismic stabilization, including 35-foot cement columns that will be driven into the soil around the entire perimeter of the island.

Transportation also presents unique challenges. The proposed development will add thousands of new passengers to a bridge that is already at capacity or to ferry routes that don't yet exist.

The proposed development would discourage driving by clustering most of the housing within a 10-minute walk to the ferry terminal.

As it now stands, homeowners would be required to buy a transit pass that will allow them to ride ferries and buses. A congestion-pricing scheme would levy an estimated $5 fee on motorists driving on and off the island during peak commute times. The money would go to support an evolving public transit system to move people around and on and off the islands.

Supervisor Chris Daly, whose District 6 includes Treasure Island, said he generally favors the development plan, although he said he would like to see more details about transportation options and the financing plan.

Daly also said he wants to make sure that the island's current 2,000 residents are not displaced.

Supervisor Jake McGoldrick, who sits on the board's land use committee, said he is concerned about transportation costs outpacing the fees intended to pay for them.

"The transit plan is still very soft and too dependent on revenue streams that are too iffy," McGoldrick said. "There has to be an understanding that we won't have to raise general fund money to pay for transportation over there."

Page C - 1
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/12/06/ISLANDS.TMP



So the city's share of the cost is to come from $700 million in revenue bonds. While this insulates the city from the economic success or failure of the project (these bonds will not be backed by the "full faith and credit" of the city so the city would not be on the hook for a default), it also means the city will not see any addtional tax revenue from it. The city MAY get some revenue from the profits made by the developers if/when they exceed a 20% return on their investment of $500 million (in other words, once they have made $100 million).

But without any revenue until that happens, the other aspects of the project such as new transportation infrastructure and/or operating costs need to pay for themselves. I don't know what the odds are that that would happen by forcing everyone who lives there to buy a Fast Pass every month (can they do that? will the city create a bureaucracy to make sure they do?) and/or pay $5 to drive onto the island at rush hour.

I also find the notion that anyone will want to pay a MINIMUM of $650K to live there or that someone will be willing to pay $2 million to live there (maybe those people will be able to use private yachts rather than a ferry to get home from work) interesting. I mean it's one thing to pop back to your pied-a-terre on Rincon Hill after a night at the opera or symphony, or after an evening business meeting in the city, but popping back to TI is another matter (especially if you aen't allowed to keep a car there).

[San Frangelino]

SAN FRANCISCO
Treasure Island project gets a go-ahead vote
Supervisors' actions allow city, partners to finalize contract
Charlie Goodyear, Chronicle Staff Writer

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/12/13/BAGQVMUHFC1.DTL&hw=treasure+island&sn=001&sc=1000

Wednesday, December 13, 2006


At their last meeting of 2006, San Francisco's Board of Supervisors gave preliminary approval Tuesday to one of the grandest development plans in city history, the remaking of the former naval base at Treasure and Yerba Buena islands into a brand new community.

The 10-1 vote allows the city and a development partnership to finalize a binding contract for the project -- pending now for more than a decade -- and should speed transfer of the land from the U.S. Navy.

Under the terms authorized by supervisors, 6,000 homes would be created through private and public financing. Development partners Wilson Meany Sullivan, Lennar Corp. and Kenwood Investments will stake $500 million with the city providing an additional $700 million in bond money financed by property taxes collected once the development is completed. The initial $1.2 billion will pay for the project's infrastructure and some of the proposed housing.

Michael Cohen, Mayor Gavin Newsom's chief aide in charge of redevelopment of military bases, said the development will include the creation of the largest city park since Golden Gate Park was built, a collection of hotels and shops clustered around a new ferry terminal and 1,800 affordable housing units.

The overall plan, Cohen asserted, will "make Treasure Island one of the great destination spots in the world."

But much of the project remains a hopeful experiment with questions about transportation to and from the island, the possible drain on city services by a new neighborhood in the bay and seismic safety still in doubt.

Amendments approved by supervisors on Tuesday mandate board approval of any expenditure of city money for the benefit of the new community.

"We're the ones with the fiduciary responsibility," said Supervisor Jake McGoldrick. "We're the ones with the budget oversight duty."

An amendment offered by Supervisor Chris Daly, whose district includes the project site, would provide rent control protections to the approximately 2,000 residents already living on the island.

The only "no" vote to the project on Tuesday came from the city's newest supervisor, Ed Jew, who voiced concern that the development does not guarantee enough jobs for city residents.

The terms of the project state that 50 percent of the construction and related jobs should be reserved for San Franciscans. Jew said he wanted that percentage to be raised to 75 percent but he did not offer an amendment to implement that change.

Overall completion of the development is scheduled for 2022, with new residents expected to begin moving in by 2013.

[Btown]

how tall is this "sun tower" supposed to be?

[BTinSF]

^^ According to the chart posted by San Frangelino on the first page of this thread, about 650'.

[regboi21]

when construction of this project begins what will happen to the job corp school site thats on the island will it be demolished or will they rebuild it along with the project cause my cousins go to job corp on terminal island currently.

[navyweaxguy]

This will be so cool when it is completed. The views from the island rock!!! I will have to visit when it's done. The last timeI was on the island I was stationed there in '94. Oh the memories from the little bar The Fog Watch... of course we had a name for it i wont repeat. :D