Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transbay Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee forwards map correction tied to proposed 400‑foot Block 1 in Transbay area
Summary
Committee sent a general‑plan map amendment to the full Board as a procedural step required for a proposed Transbay redevelopment plan amendment to increase Block 1's height from 300 to 400 feet; staff said the change is a consistency correction and does not predetermine the substantive height decision, while community speakers raised concerns about EIR adequacy and neighborhood impacts.
Planning staff and the Transbay project manager explained that the general plan amendment before the committee corrects an oversight in downtown Plan Map 5 so the map references the Transbay redevelopment plan development controls instead of an outdated 200‑foot label for parcels that include Block 1 and part of Block 2.
Shane Hart of the Office of Community Investment and Infrastructure (OCII) described the Block 1 project as a mixed‑income homeownership development proposing 391 units with 40% of units offered at below‑market rates (about 156 units) dispersed through the first 26 floors; staff said the 400‑foot scenario would add 73 more units overall and 44 additional affordable units compared with a 300‑foot limit.
Neighbors and community groups spoke in opposition. Hallease Derosier, representing Rincon Hill residents and neighborhood organizations, argued a 400‑foot tower would break the Transit Center District Plan's stepped‑height approach toward the waterfront, could lead to similar upward requests on adjacent blocks, and contended the city should require an updated environmental impact report for a taller building.
Supervisors discussed outstanding questions, including the stance of the district supervisor and details of affordability commitments; staff and the committee noted that the full Board (sitting as a committee of the whole) would hear the project the following day and that further questions could be raised then.
Supervisor Peskin moved to forward the general‑plan amendment as a committee report to the full Board; the motion passed unanimously.
