SF: Treasure Island Redevelopement Plan Approved

[jamison]

Just posted...

Treasure Island makeover plan gets thumbs-up
Board of Supervisors is next hurdle for $1.2 billion proposal

Robert Selna, Chronicle Staff Writer
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

[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




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.

[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)

[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]

Originally Posted by craeg

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]

Originally Posted by slock

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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/uploaded...tH_Phasing.pdf