Board holds hearing on Transbay Block 1 height increase; continues decision to April 19

The Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on a proposed amendment to the Transbay Redevelopment Plan that would raise the maximum height on Block 1 (160 Folsom) from 300 feet to 400 feet. The hearing included a detailed presentation by the Office of Community Investment and Infrastructure (OCII), questioning by supervisors, and extensive public comment both supporting and opposing the amendment. The board continued the item for a final decision to the April 19, 2016 meeting.

Supervisor Jane Kim, who led the presentation to the board, described negotiated changes between OCII and developer Tishman Speyer that increased the project from an initial 318 units to 391 units and, after negotiation, produced a commitment to 40 percent of the total units as below-market-rate (BMR) units for middle-income households. "The project grew to 391 units and we were able to negotiate 40% of the total project units to be affordable," Kim said during her remarks.

OCII project manager Shane Hart and OCII director Tiffany Bohee presented project details: the development would total 391 units; 156 units (roughly 40 percent) would be targeted to households earning 80–120 percent of area median income (AMI); affordable units would be dispersed through the first 26 floors; and the developer had committed approximately $120 million in contributions to the affordability package. OCII said it would contribute roughly $19.18 million in redevelopment subsidy to fund 76 affordable units in the podium; OCII staff also described a draft fair-reuse report that estimates total consideration associated with the transaction at about $50.2 million when the developer subsidies and value allocations are included. OCII said the parcel it controls is roughly 34,000 square feet and that the appraised value underlying earlier negotiations was dated July 2014.

OCII and planning staff also described the environmental review work: because the originally approved EIR studied a larger project footprint, OCII and the planning department prepared an addendum limited to the specific height increase and analyzed shadow and wind effects. The planning department’s shadow analysis applied a “theoretically available annual sunlight” test for nearby parks and public open spaces and found incremental shading of less than 0.5 percent of the theoretically available annual sunlight for each park in the shadow fan — a figure OCII and planning said they considered not significant.

Supervisors and members of the public raised three central lines of questioning. First, several supervisors and residents asked about land valuation and the fairness of the OCII portion of the transaction: OCII’s share was cited as $19.2 million (appraisal dated July 2014), while some members of the public and board members compared that value to recent sales in the area and asked whether the city was receiving fair market value for a waterfront-adjacent parcel. OCII responded that differences in unit counts and affordability requirements across blocks complicate direct comparisons and said the appraisal and ENA process reflected the city’s normal negotiation practice.

Second, supervisors asked why the proposal sought a full 100-foot increase (from 300 to 400 feet) rather than a smaller increment, and whether OCII had performed a sensitivity analysis on how many additional affordable units would be lost or gained for smaller height changes. OCII staff said they prioritized maximizing the number of middle-income BMR units while balancing urban-design and shadow impacts and that a full analysis of incremental steps would require more detailed floor‑plan and design work.

Third, opponents — including several neighborhood residents and some members of the Transbay community — argued that the change would set a precedent, harm skyline tapering and neighborhood urban form, increase shadows, and represented a substantial public subsidy (land and dollars) to produce what critics described as “market-facing” middle-income units. Supporters — including union representatives, affordable‑housing advocates, the Transbay Citizens’ Advisory Committee, and some neighborhood organizations — said the amendment creates 73 additional homes, 44 of which will be permanently affordable, strengthens transit-oriented development near the transit center and produces construction and union jobs.

Public testimony included both organized and individual commenters: labor unions, neighborhood groups, the Transbay Citizens Advisory Committee (which had voted to support the amendment in January), the developer’s affordable-housing supporters, and residents opposed to the added height. Speakers for the project emphasized the 40 percent affordability commitment and job creation; opponents emphasized precedent, shadow and view impacts, and concerns about appraisal and the amount of public subsidy embedded in the deal.

Following question-and-answer and public comment, the board voted to continue the item for final action and to allow written objections and the draft 33433 (fair reuse) report to be incorporated into the record. The board set the continued hearing and final vote for April 19, 2016.

No final land transfer or disposition vote was taken at the April 12 hearing; the continuation means supervisors will receive any updated appraisals, the draft fair-reuse report and additional analysis before casting a final vote.