Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mission Bay Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Redevelopment agency updates Planning Commission on Mission Bay progress, affordability and infrastructure
Summary
Redevelopment Agency staff updated the commission on the Mission Bay plan: roughly 6,000 residential units planned with about 1,700 (28%) affordable, major UCSF campus parcels, 43 acres of parks, and infrastructure funded by tax increment/community facilities district; commissioners raised questions about police/fire resourcing and sustainability.
Redevelopment Agency staff briefed the Planning Commission on the Mission Bay planning and implementation program on May 31, describing the project’s scale, financing, affordable housing commitments and staging.
Amy Neches, senior project manager, summarized the 1998 Mission Bay Plan: approximately 303 acres of former railyard land set aside for a mixed‑use neighborhood with about 6,000 residential units (agency estimates show roughly 28 percent, or about 1,700 units, designated affordable), a UCSF campus in the southern parcels, and 43 acres of open space and parks. The plan anticipates significant public infrastructure—streets, utilities, transit links and park systems—funded with a mix of tax increment, community facilities district financing and developer contributions.
Neches said the owner participation agreements and interagency cooperation agreements created the framework for phased development and linked private development to public benefits. She described design controls (Design for Development), major phase planning, and project‑level review procedures. Neches also noted ongoing environmental remediation and a risk management agreement with the regional water quality control board.
Commissioners asked about park programming (including soccer fields and a little‑league field), police and fire facilities, and sustainability/LEED goals. Staff said a parcel was set aside for a combined police and fire station, funded in part by the master developer under the owner participation agreement; however, staff acknowledged there was no separate budget identified at that time for recurring police/fire operations. On sustainability, Neches said the 1998 entitlements predate current LEED expectations but that agency projects and many agency‑sponsored affordable developments are being advanced with sustainable design; several new agency projects are LEED‑or LEED‑certifiable.
Public comment raised concerns about ensuring police staffing and operational support as the neighborhood grows. Redevelopment staff said the financing program includes dedicated funding streams for infrastructure and park operations (a Mello‑Roos/community facilities district) and that tax increment funds support affordable housing and infrastructure costs.
The presentation was informational; no action items were on the agenda. Commissioners thanked agency staff and asked for further coordination on public safety, parks maintenance funding, sustainability standards and coordination with Port and Lot A planning.
