Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Treasure Island Affordability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors ask TIDA to study how to raise Treasure Island affordability to up to 40%
Summary
The Land Use Committee heard a TIDA presentation laying out options — infrastructure financing districts (AB 2/EIFD/IRFD), bonding against future tax increment and possible general‑fund subsidies — and asked staff and the TIDA board to produce pro formas and recommendations on funding scenarios including 27%, 30% and 40% affordability.
Chair Supervisor Malia Cohen recalled a resolution from Supervisor Jane Kim urging the Treasure Island Development Authority (TIDA) to produce recommendations to raise the project—s affordable-housing share toward 40%. Bob Beck, TIDA director, told the committee the adopted 2011 housing plan envisioned 8,000 total units with 25% affordable after redevelopment dissolution reduced the financing available for housing.
Beck summarized financing pathways now on the table: AB 2 (infrastructure financing district under state law), the enhanced IFD (EIFD) and IRFD (infrastructure and revitalization financing district). He said none of the options restores the state—s redevelopment share; each requires local tax-increment pledges and an election, and only AB 2 carries an explicit 25% affordable requirement. Beck said reconstituting enough elements of redevelopment could trigger an automatic reversion to the originally planned 30% affordable; partial changes could yield roughly 27.2–27.5%.
Supervisor Scott Wiener pressed for clarity on where additional affordability money would come from. Beck replied that increasing the affordable share to 27% or 30% would require dedicating more local tax increment to the project; moving to 40% would likely demand additional public financing beyond tax increment and could exceed $100 million in subsidies. Wiener and Supervisor Aaron Peskin emphasized these would be trade-offs of public funds — not developer-only contributions — and would reduce future general-fund flexibility unless the city shifted other revenue sources.
Supervisor Kim, the author, framed the hearing as the start of a multi-agency conversation about options (bonds, the city—s affordable-housing trust, developer in-lieu fees and IFD structures) and requested TIDA prepare pro formas at 25%, 27.5% and 30%, and to analyze a 33% scenario as requested. Kim asked that TIDA and the TIDA Commission—s task force examine whether reconstituted redevelopment-like features could be achieved to restore a higher percentage of affordability.
During public comment TIDA commissioners and nonprofit housing providers (including HealthRight 360, TieDye/Treasure Island Homeless Development Initiative, Community Housing Partnership and Catholic Charities) urged maximization of affordable and supportive units, warned of a financing gap for parcels scheduled for 2018 delivery, and asked for seats on any task force. TIDA reported it has taken possession of major parcels from the Navy, expects geotechnical work and demolition to begin this year, and that remediation beyond one site is expected through 2021. Beck estimated early infrastructure costs in the $1 billion–$1.5 billion range and said the first subphases will deliver roughly 1,500 units (300 on Yerba Buena Island, about 1,200 initial units on Treasure Island).
The committee voted unanimously to continue the item to the call of the chair and asked TIDA to return with recommendations and pro formas analyzing the fiscal implications and funding options for raising affordability levels. The committee did not adopt any change in policy at the hearing; it requested further analysis and stakeholder input as the next step.
