101-0022016-002 January 14, 2016
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Community Investment and Infrastructure Commissioners
FROM: Claudia Guerra, Commission Secretary
SUBJECT: Letter / Emails from the Public regarding Transbay Block 1
Attached please find letter/emails provided by the public in response to 160 Folsom Street - Transbay Block 1. Agenda Items 5(b) and 5(c).
They include the following:
1. Letter from Moscone Emblidge & Otis to Mara Rosales, Chair, dated , January 12, 2016
2. Email from Ms. Barbara Inaba to Chairperson Mara Rosales and Commissioners, dated January 13, 2016
3. Email from Mr. Paul McCormick to Chairperson Mara Rosales and Commissioners, dated January 14, 2016
4. Email from Ms. Judith Robinson to Mara Rosales, Chair, dated January 14, 2016 Edwin M. Lee MAYOR
Tiffany Bohee EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Mara Rosales CHAIR
Miguel Bustos Marily Mondejar Leah Pimentel Darshan Singh COMMISSIONERS
One S. Van Ness Ave. 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94103
415 749 2400 www.sfocii.org
LETTER 1 Moscone RECEIVED Emblidge JAN 1 % 2016 & OtiS LLP
220 Montgomery St Office of Community Investment & Infrastructure SCOn EMBLIDGE January 12, 2016 1 Suite 2100 One S. Van Ness Avenue, S* Floor San Francisco, CA 94103 Partner San Francisco [email protected] California 94104 Via Hand Delivery
Ph: (415) 362-3599 Fax: (415) 362-2006 Ms. Mara Rosales, Chair Commission on Community Investment and Infrastructure www.mosconelaw.com Office of Community Investment and Infrastructure 1 South Van Ness Avenue, 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94103
Re: 160 Folsom Street; Block 1
Dear Commissioner Rosales,
I am writing on behalf of Save Rincon Park regarding the proposed Transbay Redevelopment Plan Amendment. The OCII Commission will be considering whether to amend the Plan to raise the height limit from 300 to 400 feet on Block 1 within the Transbay Redevelopment Plan area at the January 19,2016 hearing. My understanding of the background regarding the Plan and proposed Amendment are as follows:
The Transbay Redevelopment Plan was adopted in 2005. The Plan was adopted in order to redevelop ten acres of land owned by the State of California to:
• Generate funding for the Transbay Joint Powers Authority to construct the new Transbay Transit Center, and • Meet state-mandated affordable housing requirements requiring that 35 percent of the new housing units built in the redevelopment area are affordable to, and occupied by, low and moderate-income households. As part of the Plan adopted in 2005, the maximum height limit for Block 1 in the Plan area was raised from 200 to 300 feet in order to accommodate a greater level of development to more easily achieve these two primary plan goals.
In 2014, OCII entered into an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) with a developer (Tishman Speyer) regarding Assessor's Block 3740 in Block 1 of the Plan area, located on Folsom Street between Main and Spear Streets. The developer has proposed two project alternatives:
• Alternative 1 which complies with the existing 300-foot height and contains 318 units (124 affordable) and Chair Mara Rosales January 12, 2016 Page 3
The Infinity project south of the site at 318 Spear departs from the 200-foot range measuring approximately 350 feet in height.
The Transbay Redevelopment Plan's limits should remain unchanged. The decision to limit heights to 300 feet onsite was not arbitrary. As stated in the Development Controls and Design Guidelines for The Transbay Redevelopment Project, 2005, "Tower parcels [this includes Block 1] have been assigned very specific height ranges on the height map. The Design for Development determined appropriate placements and heights for each residential tower according to a set of criteria that included sunlight access for public space, preservation of views through the Project Area, contributions to cityscape, and skyline transitions between downtown, Rincon Hill, the South of Market district and the Embarcadero." (Page 18)
An increase in the height limit would erode the urban form and would set a precedent for allowing projects that are inconsistent with the established development pattern. It would also erode the great work of the former Redevelopment Agency that was carried out under the Rincon Point - South Beach Redevelopment Plan resulting in grand buildings stepping back from the waterfront such as Bayside Plaza, Rincon Center, and the Gap building. The urban form that took shape due to sensitive planning carried out by the Redevelopment Agency in the past should be respected. For that reason alone, the developer-proposed plan amendment should not be adopted.
2. The proposed amendment is inconsistent with numerous key City plans and policies Dozens of City plans and policies in the San Francisco General Plan's Urban Design Element and Downtown Area Plan and the Transit Center District Plan call for maintaining the established development pattern characterized by buildings that step down in height to the waterfront.
For example,
• Policy 3.5 of the Urban Design Element of the General Plan calls for relating the height of buildings to important attributes of the city pattern and to the height and character of existing development. • The Urban Design Element also states that "The heights of buildings should taper down to the shoreline of the Bay and Ocean, following the characteristic pattern and preserving the topography and views." Chair Mara Rosales January 12, 2016 Page 5
5. There may be additional environmental impacts that have not been revealed that could result from the Plan Amendment. The 2005 Transbay Redevelopment Plan EIR/EIS documents the impacts of "Reduced Scope" and "Full Build" scenarios for Block 1 (parcel 3740) which included maintaining the height limit at 200 feet under the Reduced Scope and 250 feet under the Full Build scenario. The 300-foot building height for the site that was ultimately adopted was higher than either of the scenarios studied in the 2005 EIS/EIR.
There are a number of environmental impacts that were not considered in the 2005 EIS/EIR that should be explored in a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR. For example:
a. Transportation Impacts Under Updated Cumulative Conditions. We certainly understand that some of the findings of the 2005 EIS/EIR remain valid since the proposed level of development at this specific site is less intensive than that assumed in the original plan (391 residential units and 8,773 square feet of retail space in the new plan compared to a maximum of 531 residential units and 30,780 square feet of retail space). However, the memo prepared by transportation consultants for the City contends that "A change in the cumulative context since the adoption of the Transbay EIS/EIR would not substantially affect the conclusions of the assessment for the Block 1 project." This is difficult to believe as the cumulative analysis in the 2004 study is based cumulative data from 2001 and there has been tremendous growth in the ensuing 14years and significantly more than was planned in 2001. The impacts of the Plan Amendment need to be analyzed using updated data to consider the vastly different existing and cumulative conditions. b. Updated Hydrological Impacts. New information has become available regarding sea level rise inundation and the associated flooding risks since the 2005 document was published. Impacts due to exposure to flooding needs to be assessed. As stated above, the Addendum has not yet been available for review and we reserve the right to comment further regarding the appropriateness of the Addendum to adequately meet CEQA requirements after it has been made available for public review.
Given that CEQA mandates that an Addendum be prepared only if minor technical changes or additions are necessary and only when none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines calling for a Subsequent EIR have occurred, it is difficult to understand how it would be appropriate to issue an Addendum for this project. The original EIR/EIS is over ten years old and based on data that is even older. Conditions have changed substantially since its publication. LETTER 2 Guerra, Claudia (CII)
From: Barbara Inaba
January 13, 2016
Chairperson Mara Rosales and Commissioners
Commission on Community Investment and Infrastructure Attn: Claudia Guerra, Commission Secretary 1 South Van Ness Avenue, 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94103
Email: [email protected]
Re: Proposed 100 Foot Height Limit Increase for 160 Folsom - OPPOSE
Dear Commissioners:
I write to urge you not to give in to lobbying by a New York real estate developer who is demanding that you put the developer's profit interests before the public good by rewriting the law to raise the existing height limits on this site near the waterfront by another 100 feet up to 400 feet so they can put more luxury penthouse condos on top of the 160 Folsom Project.
Please consider the following before you make your decision:
• * Spot zoning is bad planning. Even though the 160 Folsom site was already upzoned after a seven year public process for a building up to 300 feet high, the developer has now gotten greedy and is demanding another 100 foot height limit increase. A 400 foot high condo building in this location does not step down to the waterfront as required by city plans. This would violate the land use planning process and encourage future developers proposing projects to hire powerful lobbyists to help them get the same special spot-zoning exemptions from the law.
• * Studies show that, at 400 feet high, 160 Folsom would cast substantial new shadows on Rincon Park along the waterfront, harming users of this important public park.
• * The developer has refused to do a full and current environmental impact report analysis of the significant environmental and traffic impacts on the waterfront and surrounding area created by a 100 foot height increase to the 160 Folsom project. That needs to be done so impacts from the project can be fairly and fully evaluated. 1 Please vote NO on the developer's request to raise the already increased height limits by another 100 feet for the 160 Folsom luxury condo project.
Sincerely,
Barbara Inaba Portside I (resident since 1994) 38 Bryant St. San Francisco, CA 94105
2 LETTER 3 Guerra, Claudia (CII)
From: Paul McCormick
January 2016
Chairperson Mara Rosales and Commissioners
Commission on Community Investment and Infrastructure
Attn: Claudia Guerra, Commission Secretary
Dear Commissioners:
I write to urge you not to give in to lobbying by a New York real estate developer who is demanding that you put the developer's profit interests before the public good by rewriting the law to raise the existing height limits on this site near the waterfront by another 100 feet up to 400 feet so they can put more luxury penthouse condos on top of the 160 Folsom Project.
Please consider the following before you make your decision:
• * Spot zoning is bad planning. Even though the 160 Folsom site was already upzoned after a seven year public process for a building up to 300 feet high, the developer has now gotten greedy and is demanding another 100 foot height limit increase. A 400 foot high condo building in this location does not step down to the waterfront as required by city plans. This would violate the land use planning process and encourage future developers proposing projects to hire powerful lobbyists to help them get the same special spot-zoning exemptions from the law.
• * Studies show that, at 400 feet high, 160 Folsom would cast substantial new shadows on Rincon Park along the waterfront, harming users of this important public park.
• * The developer has refused to do a full and current environmental impact report analysis of the significant environmental and traffic impacts on the waterfront and surrounding area created by a 100 foot height increase to the 160 Folsom project. That needs to be done so impacts from the project can be fairly and fully evaluated.
Please vote NO on the developer's request to raise the already increased height limits by another 100 feet for the 160 Folsom luxury condo project.
Sincerely,
Paul McCormick
338 Spear Street 19F
l LETTER 4 Guerra, Claudia (CII)
From: Judith Robinson
Judith Robinson
562 B Lombard Street
San Francisco, California 94133-7057
415 788 9112
14 January, 2015
Mara Rosales, Chair RE: Oppose changing height-limit law -
Commissioners hearing, Jan. 19, 2016 re: 106 Folsom project
S. F. Commission on Community Investment and Infrastructure
1 South Van Ness Ave. 5 th floor
San Francisco, CA. 94103
Attn.: Claudia Guerra, Secretary via e-mail: [email protected]
To the Commission:
I wish to be recorded as strongly opposing a change in the city's height-limit law to accommodate additional height for 106 Folsom building.
Such spot-zoning makes a TRAVESTY OF CITY PLANNING, as does the ghastly height of the proposed . l structure (even without additional height).
The proposed additional height of 106 Folsom to more than 400 feet is a violation of waterfront plans, casts shadows, creates another dreadful eyesore and unwanted congestion.
The building scale is inhuman in size, insensitive in design and impact.
San Francisco already is over-built, over-congested, plagued by ugly high-rises that are not what people want in the small-scale city.
Stop Manhattanization of San Francisco!
Thank you for considering my views. I am a property owner and resident of San Francisco.
Judith Robinson
cc: The Honorable Ed Lee, Mayor of San Francisco
The Honorable Aaron Peskin, Supervisor
Save Rincon Park
2