tv [untitled] November 10, 2012 6:30pm-7:00pm PST
speaking about planning as well as you -- the easier it is for us to work with obligations which we don't have any problem with as long as they are clear from the get go. i would really -- aloe senly he kaz commenting, you were speaking to it. * essentially he was commenting for you to bring a program forward which includes the general public is more accepted. when you build here, that's part of the deal. >> thank you. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah, one final question from me. and although the preach has a lot of benefits, there are always those who say there is a certain cost that's inherent in it and it is inherent for you to answer a question about cost driven by the inclusionary. a lot depends on the percentage if the percentage is higher. the other thing that's a variable in my mind is if you have a subsidy that's less deep -- in other words, if you're
closer to the 100th percentile, then the subsidy is much less, therefore the cost per unit that has to be subsidized by the builder and passed on to those who are paying market rate is a lower one. so, i mean, those are things we have to keep in mind because although you're careful to be protective of those who take advantage of the program that they truly qualify, they are the beneficiaries. but to some degree, there is a factor that drives the market rate of the units up above what it might be above the sticks and bricks cost. and then, of course, we have a lot of other inherent costs that we have to. so, the one thing we have to look at is make sure our program is fairly comparable to what's done in other areas because there's up sides and downsides. people say, we should have 30% of inclusionary, that isn't realistic. you're just bumping up everybody else's market rate
units. even fewer people are able to buy in san francisco on the open market. that's just an interesting thing i think we have to look at constantly. >> thank you. >> commissioner borden. >> i was going to say one final thing. again, thank you for all the data. next time when we hear this, i'd love to know about the number of people that receive down payment assistance. you said it's a separate program from inclusionary, what those numbers are like. i think that we're always trying to capture people who are moving into market rate housing, but actually might be in a lower income level than what we consider market rate housing and it would be helpful to know from your information. >> both below market rate buyer and market brit buyer? >> right. who gets assistance. great. >> okay, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> the commission is going to take a very short break here and we'll pick up the last two items.
>> remind to turn off any mobile devices that may sound off during the proceedings. commissioners, we are under your regular calendar, number 12, visitacion valley schlage lock plan update, informational hearing. >> thank you, good afternoon, commissioners. claudia [speaker not understood], department staff. we are here to give an update and i am joined by office staff senior management on the project. if i could have the slides up, please. i'm going to go through a little bit of background, just for the benefit of new commissioners and the public, a little bit of history on the site. so, this used to be a factory in visitacion valley. for many years, in 1989, the company schlage lock decided to close it, proposed a home depot
store on the site. the community, residents and business owners were opposed to this. so, after that opposition, the planning department got involved in partner with the community and the nonprovist urban oncology to create a new vision for the site. this resulted in a concept plan in 2002 with the goals that are outlined right there on your -- on the slide, which you have a copy of. and, so, generally the concept plan called for redevelopment of the site and revitalization and providing community services and neighborhood serving retail, especially grocery store, providing housing of different affordable and market rate, providing open spaces as well as community spaces and helping revitalize land as well as site clean up. therefore, from 2009 when the concept plan was published to 2011, the redevelopment agency
got involved to establish the site as a redevelopment area. a advisory committee, cac was established and the universal parent corporation or upc became the primary development partner. so, throughout this period both the redevelopment agency as well as us, planning department, worked closely with the cac and the community to really refine the site's land use framework as well as come up with community benefits. so, out of this work with the community and the cac, we came up with the following goals and objectives which guided the development of the subsequent redevelopment plan. this included encouraging a miss of uses, environmental sustainability, very pedestrian-oriented neighborhood, which was connected with the greater visitacion valley neighborhood, including bayshore, looking at
alternative transportation and open space, new housing, a gay way community, encouraging again investment and revial alliesing leland avenue. these are the goals that are in the plan and they direct the revitalization of the site. they -- the provision of community benefits and guide the development of the site. so, this work -- these goals led to developing the master plan for the site and just -- they also included -- the program also included the project commitments to infrastructure and various other public benefits. the major components, just to highlight them briefly, are basically to have good circulation, street grid compatible with the rest of the already established visitacion valley neighborhood, providing new open space for the neighborhood, having retail and
continuing leland avenue up to the project site, having a full service grocery store, and having mixed uses, mixed income housing throughout the development. and sort of at the north end of the site, there is an old office building which is envisioned as a community space, having some form of community use. since adoption of the plan in 2009, the viz valley cac met to discuss the implementation. and provide comments to the upc, the developer, offer implement for the plans of the site. all of the master plan commitments were primarily memorialized in two documents. again, which were adopted in 2009. the redevelopment agency -- redevelopment plan and the planning department's design for development which is primarily the land use, you know, all the density, open space, development control.
all of these commitments have costs associated with them and revisions to all of the commitments that were part of the original plans could jump start more rapid development of the site. why do we need to revise these? as you might recall, we had lost the redevelopment agency and with this we lost the redevelopment funding that was expected to, to fulfill those commitments. so, we are looking primarily to tax increment financing. we are looking at, with the help of office economic and work force development, we are looking at alternative financials that will help makeup the gap and this will be the topic of future discussions here at the planning commission, but also we want to talk about this with the community. so, we're looking at i think for new market tax credits, bonds, state glands, rfds, rewd, just started to explore the different tools available. however, that still doesn't
close the gap fully. that tiff program was to recover. it requires a revirginiavtion indication of the master plan. just to give you a sense of the magnitude, at the time of the adoption of the 2009 plan, this is how much tax increment financing revenue we thought would be available at the time, approximately 70 million. about 32% of that or 34.8 million was for nonhousing projects. and, so, when we look at the loss of tax increment financing, we need to make very thoughtful adjustments to ensure that the whole project is viable, but also i will talk a little bit more about kind of a safe one to really jump start this, the redevelopment of the site. , and so, we have an opportunity to facilitate
near-term change on the site with a phase 1 and some revisions. this can help us move towards achieving the long-term goals of the plan. so, how do we hope to address this? the city -- as a city, we have outlined the following sort of scope for the 2012 revisit of the plan. planning department will be the lead in outreach engagement coordination for reviewing and revising the plan. obviously we'll be looking at land use circulation, open space and other public benefits. office of economic work force development will be the lead on transferring the sfra, 9 redevelopment agency requirements and jurisdiction over to kind of the appropriate places to make sure we can still -- we still have a commitment. they also are going to be looking at the financial commitments and what tools can be used to address the different commitment. and they'll be helping with
development disability. oewd has started to look at these things and begun their work. we the planning department also started to -- we kicked off our first community meeting in visitacion valley back in october. we also have to sort of help the city. we have a technical advisory body which we will be working with very closely. these are primarily prior citizen advisory committee members, but also other active community participants. we are calling on them because they work with the redevelopment agency very closely so we think that their familiarity and their expertise will help facilitate the transition to make sure we stay as close to the original plan as possible. so, that will be their role. just to summarize the community workshops, again, we still plan to meet with them, so, we will give you a more detailed
summary of what we heard, but so far of the priorities -- of all the commitments that we had come up with, the top five priorities that we heard were important for the community to retain. we're making sure there is a grocery store, open space and parks making sure we retain open space and parks. and ideally, the same amount of open space. so, even if [speaker not understood], we have the same total amount of open space. circulation improvements are important, especially dealing with traffic issues on bayshore, but making sure there's growth circulation within the site. having more retail, particularly along leland, and affordable housing that sort of fits priority. but we heard a lot of economic development programs and retaining the old office building as a community center was very important. and other key feedback was -- we heard kind of a strong call
for senior housing. they have kind of a large -- it's a particular portion of the population, senior housing. the community was generally okay with some higher heights. there were other benefits. there were appropriate setbacks, appropriate design, open space, building separation. we heard about public safety and the crime rate. it's a big concern, and that public transportation improvements are a priority. we have two more meetings with the community. so, over the next meetings we confirm with them these are the right priorities that we heard them right and that we didn't miss anything. so, we will provide you next time we come to you with a more detailed summary of what's emerging out of the community process. as i mentioned earlier, there is an opportunity to jump start development of the site through a phase 1 development. these are the developer goals for this phase. we know they are very committed to working with the community
and the city -- they're still here. they're here today and we are working with them in a more detailed phase 1 development that can meet these goals, but also the community's priorities and the city's goals. so, as far as timeline and next steps, so, as i mentioned, we already had our first workshop. and we will have two more workshops, one at the end of this month and late november. these are just a general outline of topics. we're still confirming what we'll be talking to them about. but the next one roughly will be about open space design and circulation and a more detailed phase 1 development. and the last workshop, we hope to have a final phase 1 development and we'll be talking to them more about the financial tools and the proposed plan changes. as i mentioned, the technical advisory body will have meetings throughout so, 4 to 6 public meetings over the next six months, open to the public.
so, the end result is 2012 revisit is we will be amending the redevelopment plan -- we'll be amending the design development based on revised community priorities and revised changes. and the [speaker not understood] redevelopment plan, that was our way because we don't have a redevelopment agency. so, we'll incorporate sort of the pieces that are relevant into different appropriate binding agreements and, you know, whatever they need to live. and this will be sometime in the spring of 2013. so, that's kind of the general updates. there were two -- so, the formal part of the presentation, we had scheduled something back in october and we weren't able to be here. there were a couple requests for information. there was a request from i believe commissioner sugaya on the [speaker not understood].
we are tracking that to look at -- kind of keeping track of it. we know the e-i-r will be released in the fall. we're looking out to see whether the city proposal seems fairly compatible with the schlage lock site. we're looking at a community less compatible, but we're still looking at the e-i-r. there was request for information on caltrain and high-speed rail i believe from commissioner moore. we still think that the schlage lock project is [speaker not understood] caltrain is trying to electrify, making it quieter, more friendly to transfer into development. with regards to high-speed rail, we're keeping track of that. we know it would use the tracks. it would go through there, but they're sort of -- the stations are further to the north and further to the south of the
site. so, that kind of -- we're keeping track of those things. that is the extent of the information that we have. so, i'll leave it up for questions and more details. >> thank you. we'll open it up for public comment. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, we'll go to commissioner comments. commissioner moore. >> thank you for the [speaker not understood] and good sense of humer. [laughter] >> i have a separate question. you addressed some more comprehensive issues sub fronding the project. that being leland. but i have a focused question and then the issue of bay lands and brisbane because that is a megaproject and i hope that we will be able to create a dialogue with the city about projects which are compatible with each other across jurisdictional boundary lines. the other issue is way back when at the north and to the
east there is a small community, almost like a pocket residential. i think it's called little hollywood, i remember that, it's stuck in the back of my mind. i can't remember the streets any more. one is called [speaker not understood] or something like that. is there still a discussion in some way or another to address improvements related to that particular [speaker not understood] of housing? even as an idea, it might not be phase 1, but to tie this community back to the larger emerging context of the larger community is i think we'll need something i would love to see continue. >> absolutely. [speaker not understood] sarah [speaker not understood] with the planning department. [speaker not understood] clarify the community commissioner moore is speaking of. if we can get the overhead for a moment. thank you. little hollywood is a
neighborhood to the northeast of the site. sort of the northern east, top right corner of this. obviously carries on, it is not intend today show little hollywood. that gives you an idea of where it is. just for reference. tying both sides of the community into the schlage lock site has been a key goal of this plan. we were pretty challenged in the schlage lock site because of the rail. that obviously is a barrier along the schlage lock division. the rail goes underground at the top of the schlage lock site which runs into blanken avenue. there are a number of things happening now which i think are parallel to this project which are going to increase that connectivity. the first i'm thinking about is where the rapid transit that is planned for the hunters point shipyard comes in and lands within the schlage lock site.
what we'd like to do is have it land as close as possible. there is an opportunity for it to come in and potentially connect at the northern tip of the schlage site which will not only connect it, but all the way across the freeway in terms of executive park and hunters point shipyard. so, that's one positive thing. the second project that's underway right now is a project called green connections, which i believe you may have had a briefing on. it is a project the planning department looks at the shape of the road, how do we better connect communities on foot and by transit to open spaces that already exist. we picked visitacion valley community as one of our pilot neighborhoods. right now we actually are planning a connection that would follow through little hollywood along blanken avenue, connect at the top of the schlage site and back through visitacion valley connecting with the greenway. so, i think that project development, when we did have our october workshops for the schlage site, we actually partnered with the green
connections team to look at how we make that connection better so we talked to the community at the same time and didn't make them come to two workshops. so, that connection is developing, but i think that's one more step towards what commissioner moore is talking about. and i look forward to my partners and the department coming back and talking about that project as well. >> it would be interesting when you talk about phasing if you're taking on a project to talk about the technical difficulties of the site. the people remember has an incredible grade and difference 40 feet from one side to the other, very difficult to develop, very difficult to plan. particularly like you have to basically almost build a high wise building to come level with 3rd avenue and the light rail extension in that area. that's planning issue as well as physical design issues, and particularly green connection issues. if you want to have green connections before the whole side is fully built out is a tough problem. a few weeks ago, it's probably
6 or 8 weeks ago, i came with a [speaker not understood] to the planning commission because i had read an article in the paper there was some specific developer who was expressing interest to start on this side. if that's the people with you today or is that somebody else? >> the only developer interest we're aware of is universal -- >> is that the same group? wonderful, it's good to hear. >> commissioner antonini. >> thank you. a few things. i know we mentioned infrastructure financing, which, of course, has a lot of promise, i think, and the ability to transfer a certain percentage of the tax increment dollars. i think it's maximum 65 cents depending on whether you have the assessment for schools in there or not. so, that seems like a promising possibility. and the other thing would be, and i guess a lot has to do with the plans universal
paradigm corporation. we have a number of things the community has wanted, about we have to find out what is going to appeal to the business community and allow development to move forward. and it may not always be an exact fit, but certainly, you know, if there's something that's out there that is more attractive and it's an area that has a lot of potential with its transit locations and its closeness to the freeway, closeness to caltrain, closeness to muni, it could be a very appealing site for a variety of things and i'm sure everybody is aware of that. it looks as though the plan from looking at this is that the light rail is going to swing south of the site and have the joint station between caltrain and muni metro just sort of just to the south of the schlage lock site. is that what i'm reading
correctly there? >> yeah that's correct bach still part of the current plan. >> good. the other part is geneva extension. and that would be able to bring both traffic and presumably future light rail, other kind of transit along geneva and run it right across the freeway. and will connect up with the joint station so that you have a connection with the t -line so that trains that come down there don't deadhead. they can go right back that way, and also it connects the western part of san francisco with the eastern part. and then that entire line continues on and services [speaker not understood], executive park, and maybe even loops around the 3rd street. that's what i've envisioned. i think that's probably a really good system if we can try to work with mta. i think there is a joint study
-- there has been a joint study between san mateo county and san francisco mta, and i think it's really important that that all fits together the right way so that we allow that to progress in the right way. and i'm sure you have to also talk to others who are located there and make sure there is enough right-of-way to get that thing through. and then the other thing i think that's really important is to work with brisbane with their development and also understand their development on the bay lands is largely commercial. but there also is residential development occurring by toll brother, among others, and some very nice single-family homes being built up in the hills of brisbane. so, you know, this may be an opportunity to see what we can do wherever it's possible to work together with the city of brisbane on this whole thing and make it fit together would
probably be good thing to do. and also dovetail at the executive park development. but i think, you know, i just think of the next thing i'd like to see is perhaps we could see some sort of a plan on what sort of development potential there is where -- what sort of interest, what do we think we can attract to that area. because the thing is going to work, you're going to have to have attracts either retail, housing, probably some kind of commercial. it's going to have to be incentive for a developer to come in and develop the area. and finally, from has been some discussion, and i know this is probably water under the bridge, but i know supervisor cohen had talked a little bit about the home depot. i know we went down that road a long time ago, but it certainly is worth just mentioning that, you know, they're happy with
their entitled site from what i understand, up further north. you know, i certainly thought i would mention it and just see if there is ever any interest on their part or any other retailer of that type to be able to come into the site and provide an anchor and jump start the development of the -- and they have all kinds of different sizes of types of facilities they have. so, those are my main thoughts on the thing. thank you. >> commissioner wu. >> thanks. thank you for the update. it's great to hear that the cac has evolved into the texas tech any cal advisory committee, whatever you're formally calling it. * technical advisory committee i did get an e-mail from marlene train for a translation of the powerpoint. and in my own experience, i think quality control in translation is really key. so, i'd be happy to work with you in any way. and then also if there is a
possibility for a chinese-speaking contact ferment i don't know if there are any staff members that are able to liaison with that community. >> commissioner hillis. >> question back on the financing. i have [speaker not understood] possibility here. i know this was a redevelopment agency -- was a redevelopment area before. the state says you can't do an ifd -- >> [inaudible]. >> you're absolutely right. under current state law this area is not accessible for an ifd. we fall into the exact sweet spot of being a redevelopment area, which makes us on that for a source. we are not looking at it as a
top candidate just because of that. * >> how do you bridge that gap? is there enough -- if there is a $70 million gap in the project beyond the public [speaker not understood], would the work actually get you there [speaker not understood]? >> it's a balancing act. 70 million was a number that was picked at quite a rosy time. projections went down from 70 million by the time -- by early last year, i think we were closer at 40 to 50. so, already we were trying to work with what has -- i think that really is why it is a balancing act what we can do to increasev development potential. whether it is increase types or units, but actually make it more profitable for the developer and allow them more access revenue to put towards the public benefit and reducing some of those public benefits. and that's really why we wanted to