Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transbay Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee continues Transbay general-plan amendment (160 Folsom) for one week after procedural dispute
Summary
Supervisors continued a general-plan amendment affecting Transbay redevelopment blocks, including a proposed height increase, to April 11 after Supervisor Peskin objected to Planning Department timing on a separate density-bonus item; the continuance passed 2-1 (Peskin and Chair Cohen aye; Wiener no).
Item 5, a general-plan amendment affecting the Transbay redevelopment plan (blocks 1 and 2, including a proposed height increase for 160 Folsom), generated substantial public comment and a procedural dispute over Planning Department transmittal practices.
Supervisor Peskin said he would not vote on the item until the Planning Department forwards a separate general-plan amendment on the affordable-housing density-bonus program that, he said, had been held by staff since the planning commission hearing on February 25. Peskin framed the concern as a larger policy problem: he argued department staff should not pick and choose which planning commission actions to transmit to the Board and said the committee should send a message that transmittals should occur on a reasonable timeline.
Deputy City Attorney John Givner advised the committee that continuing the item to the call of the chair would require re-noticing, while continuing to a date certain would not. Planning staff said they would take Peskin's concerns to senior management. Several public speakers urged the committee not to delay the Transbay change, describing the project as yielding additional units (about 73 more units in the developer's presentation) and a large share of permanently affordable units (speakers described 40% affordability) and stressing union jobs and other community benefits.
Opponents raised concerns about the project's design, the age of the environmental impact report (EIR), and the valuation and financing used to calculate the developer's affordable-housing contribution. After discussion, the committee agreed to continue the item one week to April 11. The roll-call on the continuance returned two ayes (Supervisor Peskin and Chair Cohen) and one no (Supervisor Wiener).
What's next: The item was continued to the committee meeting on April 11. The Planning Department and district supervisor input were expected to be available at the continued hearing.
