central soma plan - sfplanning st oardman pl ve st arney pl rincon st usk st lansing st yerba buena...
TRANSCRIPT
http://centralsoma.sfplanning.org
CENTRAL SOMA PLANPUBLIC BENEFITS AND ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY
JUNE 25, 2015
http://centralsoma.sfplanning.org
OVERVIEW OF TODAY’S PRESENTATION
– Central SoMa Refresher
– Financial Feasibility Analysis
– Public Benefits Analysis
CENTRAL SOMA REFRESHER
– Plan Impetus
» Demand for new space for housing and jobs
» Central SoMa has transportation and developable land
– Geography
4th and KingRailyards
5MProject
UnderSeparateStudy
UnderSeparateStudy
BERRY ST
MINNA ST
PERRY ST
HA
RR
IET
ST
CLARA ST
MARKET ST
SHIPLEY ST
BLUXOME ST
STILLMAN ST
RIT
CH
ST
TEHAMA ST
STEVENSON ST
NATOMA ST
RU
SS
ST
CLEMENTINA ST
JESSIE ST
TABER PLMO
RR
IS S
T
FREELON ST
ZOE
ST
GIL
BE
RT
ST
WELSH ST
HA
WTH
OR
NE
STM
OS
S S
T
AN
NIE
ST
ES
SE
X S
T
GUY PL
NE
W M
ON
TGO
ME
RY
ST
SH
ER
MA
N S
T
ME
RLI
N S
T
CHANNEL ST
STA
NFO
RD
ST
SOUTH PARK
RIZAL ST
BO
AR
DM
AN
PL
OA
K G
RO
VE
ST
VARNEY PL
RIN
CO
N S
T
LUS
K S
T
LANSING ST
YE
RB
A
BU
EN
A L
N
ELIM ALY
CLY
DE
ST
EC
KE
RS
T
CO
LIN
P K
ELL
Y J
R S
T
LAP
U-L
AP
U S
T
CO
LUM
BIA
SQ
UA
RE
ST
MIN
T S
T
LUC
ER
NE
ST
BU
TTE
PL
CLA
RE
NC
E P
L
DE BOOM ST
MA
BIN
I ST
SH
AW
ALY
STE
RLI
NG
ST
VAS
SA
RP
L
AHERN WAY
KA
PLA
N L
N MA
LDE
NA
LY
TULIP ALY
GA
LLA
GH
ER
LN
HUNT ST
TAN
DA
NG
SO
RA
WELSH ST
STEVENSON ST
FEDERAL ST
JESSIE STJESSIEST
JESSIE ST
NATOMA ST
STEVENSON ST
MINNA ST
CLEMENTINA ST
TEHAMA ST
TS
HT
4
TS
HT
7
TS
DR
3
TS
DN
2
TS
HT
5
TS
HT
6
BRYANT ST
FOLSOM ST
HOWARD ST
BRANNAN ST
HARRISON ST
TOWNSEND ST
MISSION ST
ELLIS ST
TURK ST
EDDY ST POST ST
GEARY ST
BUSH ST
SUTTER ST
MARKET ST
JONES
ST
OFARRELL ST
MAS
ON ST
TAYL
OR ST
KEAR
NY ST
PINE ST
GRANT A
VE
POW
ELL S
T
STOCKT
ON ST
KING ST
SANSO
ME
ST
LEAV
ENW
ORTH S
T
MosconeWest
MosconeCenter
YerbaBuenaGardens
AT&TPark
MontgomeryBART/MuniStation
PowellBART/MuniStation
Caltrain Station
SFMOMA
UnionSquare
1,000 Feet
Central CorridorSAN FRANCISCO
N
Solid lines represent surfacerail, dashed lines representsubway.
Caltrain BART Muni Central Subway
4th and KingRailyards
5MProject
UnderSeparateStudy
UnderSeparateStudy
BERRY ST
MINNA ST
PERRY ST
HA
RR
IET
ST
CLARA ST
MARKET ST
SHIPLEY ST
BLUXOME ST
STILLMAN ST
RIT
CH
ST
TEHAMA ST
STEVENSON ST
NATOMA ST
RU
SS
ST
CLEMENTINA ST
JESSIE ST
TABER PLMO
RR
IS S
T
FREELON ST
ZOE
ST
GIL
BE
RT
ST
WELSH ST
HA
WTH
OR
NE
STM
OS
S S
T
AN
NIE
ST
ES
SE
X S
T
GUY PL
NE
W M
ON
TGO
ME
RY
ST
SH
ER
MA
N S
T
ME
RLI
N S
T
CHANNEL ST
STA
NFO
RD
ST
SOUTH PARK
RIZAL ST
BO
AR
DM
AN
PL
OA
K G
RO
VE
ST
VARNEY PL
RIN
CO
N S
T
LUS
K S
T
LANSING ST
YE
RB
A
BU
EN
A L
N
ELIM ALY
CLY
DE
ST
EC
KE
RS
T
CO
LIN
P K
ELL
Y J
R S
T
LAP
U-L
AP
U S
T
CO
LUM
BIA
SQ
UA
RE
ST
MIN
T S
T
LUC
ER
NE
ST
BU
TTE
PL
CLA
RE
NC
E P
L
DE BOOM ST
MA
BIN
I ST
SH
AW
ALY
STE
RLI
NG
ST
VAS
SA
RP
L
AHERN WAY
KA
PLA
N L
N MA
LDE
NA
LY
TULIP ALY
GA
LLA
GH
ER
LN
HUNT ST
TAN
DA
NG
SO
RA
WELSH ST
STEVENSON ST
FEDERAL ST
JESSIE STJESSIEST
JESSIE ST
NATOMA ST
STEVENSON ST
MINNA ST
CLEMENTINA ST
TEHAMA ST
TS
HT
4
TS
HT
7
TS
DR
3
TS
DN
2
TS
HT
5
TS
HT
6
BRYANT ST
FOLSOM ST
HOWARD ST
BRANNAN ST
HARRISON ST
TOWNSEND ST
MISSION ST
ELLIS ST
TURK ST
EDDY ST POST ST
GEARY ST
BUSH ST
SUTTER ST
MARKET ST
JONES
ST
OFARRELL ST
MAS
ON ST
TAYL
OR ST
KEAR
NY ST
PINE ST
GRANT A
VE
POW
ELL S
T
STOCKT
ON ST
KING ST
SANSO
ME
ST
LEAV
ENW
ORTH S
T
MosconeWest
MosconeCenter
YerbaBuenaGardens
AT&TPark
MontgomeryBART/MuniStation
PowellBART/MuniStation
Caltrain Station
SFMOMA
UnionSquare
1,000 Feet
Central CorridorSAN FRANCISCO
N
Solid lines represent surfacerail, dashed lines representsubway.
Caltrain BART Muni Central Subway
CENTRAL SOMA PLAN
QUESTIONS?Here's a good place to ask questions on topics you do not see covered elsewhere at this open house.
CENTRAL SOMA REFRESHER
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Plan Began Draft Plan Released
EIR Began
DEIR Releases (expected)
You are Here
Initiation (expected)
Plan Adoption (expected)
PLAN REFRESHER
– Plan Objectives
» Ensure that Central SoMa is a great neighborhood
» Accommodate demand for new development (particularly for employment)
GOAL
– Set requirements to maximize public benefits and enable development
PROJECT PROFITABILITY
Requirement too high = no development and no public benefits
Requirement too low = development but reduced public benefits
Requirement just right = development and maximum community benefits
COMMUNITY’S DESIRED PUBLIC BENEFITS
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
NON-PROFIT OFFICE
TRANSPORTATION
COMMUNITY FACILITIES
OPEN SPACE
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
COMPLETE STREETS
CHILDCARE
PRODUCTION/DISTRIBUTION/REPAIR (PDR)
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
Maximize production and protection
Create protected space
Fund improvements to local and regional transit
Ensure provision of health clinics, service
providers, and art spaces for a growing community
Ensure access to high quality for all
residents and workers
Fund rehabilitation of important neighborhood and citywide resources
Make every street pleasant and safe for biking and walking
Ensure provision for growing community
Allow no net loss of PDR jobs
Be an international
model
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS: METHODOLOGY
– Model prototypical development in Central SoMa, including
» Residential and office uses
» For land receiving a range of additional development capacity, such as new zoning and additional height
– Determine the economic feasibility of proposed community benefits to these projects
PROTOTYPES ANALYZED
A B C-1 C-2
Development Type Office Residential (condo)
Residential (condo)
Residential (condo)
Lot Size 35,000 sf 10,000 sf 15,000 sf 15,000 sf
Development Size 270,000 gsf 60 units 128 units 217 units
Zoning change? Yes - SLI to MUO
Yes – SALI to MUO
No – stays MUO
No – stays MUO
Height change? Yes - 85’ to 160’
No – stays 85’
Yes – 85’ to 160’
Yes – 85’ to 400’
Affordable Housing Jobs-Housing Linkage Fee
On-site BMR Affordable Housing Fee
Affordable Housing Fee
PUBLIC BENEFITS ANALYZED – OFFICE
Current requirement (“Baseline”)
Initial Proposal Under Plan (“Full Community Benefits”)
Affordable Housing Jobs-Housing Linkage Fee Jobs-Housing Linkage Fee +$12/sf
Transportation Transportation Sustainability Fee (proposed)
Transportation Sustainability Fee (proposed)
Open Space EN Impact Fee (Tier 3) EN Impact Fee + Central SoMa Impact Fee ($10/gsf)
Complete Streets EN Impact Fee (Tier 3) EN Impact Fee + Central SoMa Impact Fee ($10/gsf)
Child Care EN Impact Fee (Tier 3) + Childcare Fee
EN Impact Fee + Childcare Fee + Central SoMa Impact Fee ($10/gsf)
Schools School Impact Fee School Impact Fee
Wastewater Water/Wastewater Impact Fee Water/Wastewater Impact Fee
Public Art Public Art Requirement Public Art Requirement
Historic Resources Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) (3 FAR @ $30/gsf)
Community Facilities n/a (applies to residential)
PDR PDR space (0.5 FAR)
Non-Profit Office Non-Profit space (1 Floor)
Infrastructure Financing (including sustainability)
Mello-Roos Tax ($4/sf)
PUBLIC BENEFITS ANALYZED – RESIDENTIAL
Current requirement (“Baseline”)
Initial Proposal Under Plan (“Full Community Benefits”)
Affordable Housing BMR Program (12% on-site; 20% fee)
BMR Program (20% on-site; 33% fee)
Transportation Transportation Sustainability Fee (proposed)
Transportation Sustainability Fee (proposed)
Open Space EN Impact Fee (Tier 3) EN Impact Fee + Central SoMa Impact Fee ($10/gsf)
Complete Streets EN Impact Fee (Tier 3) EN Impact Fee + Central SoMa Impact Fee ($10/gsf)
Child Care EN Impact Fee (Tier 3) + Childcare Fee
EN Impact Fee + Childcare Fee + Central SoMa Impact Fee ($10/gsf
Schools School Impact Fee School Impact Fee
Wastewater Water/Wastewater Impact Fee Water/Wastewater Impact Fee
Public Art n/a (applies to office)
Historic Resources TDR (3 FAR @ $30/gsf)
Community Facilities Community Facilities Fee ($2/gsf)
PDR n/a (applies to office)
Non-Profit Office n/a (applies to office)
Infrastructure Financing (including sustainability)
Mello-Roos Tax ($5/sf condo; $4.50/sf rental)
VALUE CAPTURE EXAMPLE: 85’ CONDO VS. 160’ CONDO
$0 $20M $40M $60M $80M $100M $120M $140M $160M
Revenues
Revenues
160
' C
on
do
85
' C
on
do
VALUE CAPTURE EXAMPLE: 85’ CONDO VS. 160’ CONDO
$0 $20M $40M $60M $80M $100M $120M $140M $160M
Costs
Revenues
Costs
Revenues
160
' C
on
do
85
' C
on
do
Subtract: costs associated with developing the building (including target developer profit)
VALUE CAPTURE EXAMPLE: 85’ CONDO VS. 160’ CONDO
$0 $20M $40M $60M $80M $100M $120M $140M $160M
Costs
Revenues
Costs RLV
RLV
Revenues
160
' C
on
do
85
' C
on
do
The remainder is the Residual Land Value (RLV) – the potential amount a developer would be willing to pay for the land
VALUE CAPTURE EXAMPLE: 85’ CONDO VS. 160’ CONDO
$0 $20M $40M $60M $80M $100M $120M $140M $160M
Costs
Revenues
Costs RLV
RLV
Revenues
160
' C
on
do
85
' C
on
do
The value created by the plan (“value difference”) is the difference in Residual Land Value (RLV).
In this example, up to $6.6M dollars could be captured for public benefits
VALUE CAPTURE EXAMPLE: 160’ CONDO
$0
$5M
$10M
$15M
$20M
$25M
Imp
act
on
Re
sid
ual L
an
d V
alu
e
Affordable Hsng fee/units
EN Fee (Tier 3)
Water/Wastewater Fee
School Impact Fee
TSF (proposed)
Baseline (current requirements)
VALUE CAPTURE EXAMPLE: 160’ CONDO
Affordable Hsng fee/units
EN Fee (Tier 3)
Water/Wastewater Fee
School Impact Fee
TSF (proposed)$0
$5M
$10M
$15M
$20M
$25M
Imp
act
on
Re
sid
ual L
an
d V
alu
e
Baseline (current requirements)
100% Value Capture
Baseline Public Benefits
Add: value difference
VALUE CAPTURE EXAMPLE: 160’ CONDO
Affordable Hsng fee/units
EN Fee (Tier 3)
Water/Wastewater Fee
School Impact Fee
TSF (proposed)
$0
$5M
$10M
$15M
$20M
$25M
Baseline (current requirements)
Imp
act
on
Re
sid
ual L
an
d V
alu
e
100% Value Capture
Baseline Public Benefits
TARGET: 66-75% Value Capture
VALUE CAPTURE EXAMPLE: 160’ CONDO
$0
$5M
$10M
$15M
$20M
$25M
Imp
act
on
Re
sid
ual L
an
d V
alu
e
Mello-Roos
Community facilities fee
TDR
Central SoMa Fee
Affordable Hsng fee/units
EN Fee (Tier 3)
Water/Wastewater Fee
School Impact Fee
TSF (proposed)
Baseline (current
requirements)
Full community
benefits (based
on plan)
100% Value Capture
Baseline
66-75% Value Capture
VALUE CAPTURE EXAMPLE: 160’ CONDO
$0
$5M
$10M
$15M
$20M
$25M
Imp
act
on
Re
sid
ual L
an
d V
alu
e
Mello-Roos
Community facilities fee
TDR
Central SoMa Fee
Affordable Hsng fee/units
EN Fee (Tier 3)
Water/Wastewater Fee
School Impact Fee
TSF (proposed)
Baseline (current
requirements)
Full community
benefits (based
on plan)
Proposal would capture 163% of value created
100% Value Capture
Baseline
66-75% Value Capture
VALUE CAPTURE EXAMPLE: 160’ CONDO
$0
$5M
$10M
$15M
$20M
$25M
Imp
act
on
Re
sid
ual L
an
d V
alu
e
Mello-Roos
Community facilities fee
TDR
Central SoMa Fee
Affordable Hsng fee/units
EN Fee (Tier 3)
Water/Wastewater Fee
School Impact Fee
TSF (proposed)
Slide 22 and 28
Baseline (current
requirements)
Full community
benefits (based
on plan)
Alt 1: Affordable
Housing
Alt 2:Jobs
Alt 3:Infrastructure
100% Value Capture
Baseline
66-75% Value Capture
FINANCIALLY CONSTRAINED ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1:
Affordable Housing & Amenities
Alternative 2:
Job Diversity
Alternative 3:
Infrastructure
Office $12 increase in Jobs-Housing Linkage Fee
Central SoMa Fee
Mello-Roos (for open space & child care)
0.5 FAR of PDR space
1 floor of non-profit space
TDR
$12 increase in Jobs-Housing Linkage Fee
Mello-Roos
Central SoMa Fee
TDR
Residential Increased BMR units (on-site or fee)
Community Facilities Fee
TDR
Increased BMR units
Mello-Roos
Central SoMa Fee
Increased BMR units
PROTOTYPE A (160’ OFFICE): EXISTING & PROPOSED PUBLIC BENEFITS
$0
$5M
$10M
$15M
$20M
$25M
$30M
$35M
$40M
$45M
$50M
Imp
act
on
Re
sid
ual L
an
d V
alu
e
Nonprofit space
PDR space
Mello-Roos
TDR
Central SoMa Fee
Jobs-Housing Linkage Fee
EN Fee (Tier 3)
Child Care Fee
Public Art Fee
Water/Wastewater Fee
School Impact Fee
TSF (proposed)
Slide 24
Baseline (current
requirements)
Full community
benefits (based
on plan)
Alt 1: Affordable
Housing
Alt 2:Jobs
Alt 3:Infrastructure
100% Value Capture
Baseline
66-75% Value Capture
PROTOTYPE B (85’ CONDO): EXISTING & PROPOSED PUBLIC BENEFITS
Mello-Roos
Community facilities fee
TDR
Central SoMa Fee
Affordable Hsng fee/units
EN Fee (Tier 3)
Water/Wastewater Fee
School Impact Fee
TSF (proposed)Imp
act
on
Re
sid
ual L
an
d V
alu
e
$0
$2M
$4M
$6M
$8M
$10M
$12M
Baseline (current
requirements)
Full community
benefits (based
on plan)
Alt 1: Affordable
Housing
Alt 2:Jobs
Alt 3:Infrastructure
100% Value Capture
Baseline
66-75% Value Capture
PROTOTYPE C-1 (160’ CONDO): EXISTING & PROPOSED PUBLIC BENEFITS
$0
$5M
$10M
$15M
$20M
$25M
Imp
act
on
Re
sid
ual L
an
d V
alu
e
Mello-Roos
Community facilities fee
TDR
Central SoMa Fee
Affordable Hsng fee/units
EN Fee (Tier 3)
Water/Wastewater Fee
School Impact Fee
TSF (proposed)
Slide 22 and 28
Baseline (current
requirements)
Full community
benefits (based
on plan)
Alt 1: Affordable
Housing
Alt 2:Jobs
Alt 3:Infrastructure
100% Value Capture
Baseline
66-75% Value Capture
PROTOTYPE C-2 (400’ CONDO): EXISTING & PROPOSED PUBLIC BENEFITS
Mello-Roos
Community facilities fee
TDR
Central SoMa Fee
Affordable Hsng fee/units
EN Fee (Tier 3)
Water/Wastewater Fee
School Impact Fee
TSF (proposed)
Baseline (current
requirements)
Full community
benefits (based
on plan)
Alt 1: Affordable
Housing
Alt 2:Jobs
Alt 3:Infrastructure
Imp
act
on
Re
sid
ual L
an
d V
alu
e
$0
$5M
$10M
$15M
$20M
$25M
$30M
$35M
$40M
$45M
100% Value Capture
Baseline
66-75% Value Capture
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS: SUMMARY
– “Full community benefits” package would capture 86% to 163% of value created by the plan
» Trade-offs are necessary in order to maintain development feasibility
PUBLIC BENEFITS METHODOLOGY
– Identify potential development sites
– Determine existing and new development potential
– Apply and calculate existing public benefits requirements
– Determine new central soma “public benefits tiers”
– Apply and calculate potential public benefits requirements (based on “feasible alternatives”)
– Caveat: These alternatives are not actually being proposed by the Planning Department. They are meant as extreme examples of potential trade-offs.
– Caveat: Potential new requirements still need to be vetted with the City Attorney’s office.
PUBLIC BENEFITS METHODOLOGY
– Tiers based on increase in development potential (height and/or zoning change).
» Tier 1: 15-45 feet
» Tier 2: 50-95 feet
» Tier 3: 100-165 feet
» Tier 4: Over 170 feet
PUBLIC BENEFITS METHODOLOGY
– Summary of Public Benefits Alternatives
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Below Market Rate On-Site 15-19% 12-18.5% 12-15.5%
Below Market Rate In-Lieu/Off-Site
30-38% 24-37% 20-31%
Jobs-Housing Linkage Up to $36/gsf No change No change
Central SoMa Fee Up to $20/gsf for non-residential
None Up to $25/gsf for non-residential and $10/gsf residential
Mello-Roos Community Facilities District
Up to $4/gsf for non-residential
None Up to $4.91/gsf for non-residential and $6.20/gsf for
residential
Required PDR, Non-Profit Office, and Community Facilities
No Yes No
TDR Requirement No Up to 3.0 FAR Up to 3.0 FAR
– Caveat: These alternatives are not actually being proposed by the Planning Department. They are meant as extreme examples of potential trade-offs.
– Caveat: Potential new requirements still need to be vetted with the City Attorney’s office.
– Total Public Benefits
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
NON-PROFIT OFFICETRANSPORTATION
COMMUNITY FACILITIESOPEN SPACE
COMPLETE STREETS CHILDCARE
PRODUCTION/DISTRIBUTION/REPAIR (PDR)
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
$0 $500M $1B $1.5B $2B $2.5B
TOTAL PUBLIC BENEFITS
Feasible Alternative 3 “Infrastructure”
Feasible Alternative 2 “Jobs Diversity”
Feasible Alternative 1 “Affordable Housing and Amenities”
No Central SoMa PlanWith Central SoMa Plan:No Changes to Existing Requirements
$0 $500M $1B $1.5B $2B $2.5B
TOTAL PUBLIC BENEFITS
Feasible Alternative 3 “Infrastructure”
Feasible Alternative 2 “Jobs Diversity”
Feasible Alternative 1 “Affordable Housing and Amenities”
No Central SoMa Plan
RESULTS
– Total Public Benefits
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
NON-PROFIT OFFICETRANSPORTATION
COMMUNITY FACILITIESOPEN SPACE
COMPLETE STREETS CHILDCARE
PRODUCTION/DISTRIBUTION/REPAIR (PDR)
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
$0 $500M $1B $1.5B $2B $2.5B
TOTAL PUBLIC BENEFITS
Feasible Alternative 3 “Infrastructure”
Feasible Alternative 2 “Jobs Diversity”
Feasible Alternative 1 “Affordable Housing and Amenities”
No Central SoMa PlanWith Central SoMa Plan:No Changes to Existing Requirements
$0 $500M $1B $1.5B $2B $2.5B
TOTAL PUBLIC BENEFITS
Feasible Alternative 3 “Infrastructure”
Feasible Alternative 2 “Jobs Diversity”
Feasible Alternative 1 “Affordable Housing and Amenities”
No Central SoMa Plan
RESULTS
– Total Public Benefits
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
NON-PROFIT OFFICETRANSPORTATION
COMMUNITY FACILITIESOPEN SPACE
COMPLETE STREETS CHILDCARE
PRODUCTION/DISTRIBUTION/REPAIR (PDR)
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
$0 $500M $1B $1.5B $2B $2.5B
TOTAL PUBLIC BENEFITS
Feasible Alternative 3 “Infrastructure”
Feasible Alternative 2 “Jobs Diversity”
Feasible Alternative 1 “Affordable Housing and Amenities”
No Central SoMa PlanWith Central SoMa Plan:No Changes to Existing Requirements
With Central SoMa Plan and New Requirements
RESULTS
– Affordable Housing
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Feasible Alternative 3 “Infrastructure”
Feasible Alternative 2 “Jobs Diversity”
Feasible Alternative 1 “Affordable Housing and Amenities”
No Central SoMa PlanWith Central SoMa Plan:No Changes to Existing Requirements
With Central SoMa Plan and New Requirements
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
UNITS
2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
RESULTS
– Open Space
Feasible Alternative 3 “Infrastructure”
Feasible Alternative 2 “Jobs Diversity”
Feasible Alternative 1 “Affordable Housing and Amenities”
No Central SoMa PlanWith Central SoMa Plan:No Changes to Existing Requirements
With Central SoMa Plan and New Requirements
$0 $20M $40M $60M $80M $100M $120M $140M $160M
OPEN SPACE
OPEN SPACE
RESULTS
– Childcare
Feasible Alternative 3 “Infrastructure”
Feasible Alternative 2 “Jobs Diversity”
Feasible Alternative 1 “Affordable Housing and Amenities”
No Central SoMa PlanWith Central SoMa Plan:No Changes to Existing Requirements
With Central SoMa Plan and New Requirements
$0 $10M $20M $30M $40M $50M $60M $70M $80M $90M
CHILDCARE
CHILDCARE
RESULTS
– Production/Distribution/Repair (PDR) Space
Feasible Alternative 3 “Infrastructure”
Feasible Alternative 2 “Jobs Diversity”
Feasible Alternative 1 “Affordable Housing and Amenities”
No Central SoMa PlanWith Central SoMa Plan:No Changes to Existing Requirements
With Central SoMa Plan and New Requirements
SQUARE FEET
0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000
PRODUCTION, DISTRIBUTION, AND REPAIR (PDR) SPACE
PRODUCTION/DISTRIBUTION/REPAIR (PDR)
RESULTS
– Non-Profit Office
Feasible Alternative 3 “Infrastructure”
Feasible Alternative 2 “Jobs Diversity”
Feasible Alternative 1 “Affordable Housing and Amenities”
No Central SoMa PlanWith Central SoMa Plan:No Changes to Existing Requirements
With Central SoMa Plan and New Requirements
SQUARE FEET
0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000
NON-PROFIT OFFICE
NON-PROFIT OFFICE
RESULTS
– Community Facilities
Feasible Alternative 3 “Infrastructure”
Feasible Alternative 2 “Jobs Diversity”
Feasible Alternative 1 “Affordable Housing and Amenities”
No Central SoMa PlanWith Central SoMa Plan:No Changes to Existing Requirements
With Central SoMa Plan and New Requirements
$0 $2M $4M $6M $8M $10M $12M
COMMUNITY FACILITIES
COMMUNITY FACILITIES
RESULTS
– Historic Preservation
Feasible Alternative 3 “Infrastructure”
Feasible Alternative 2 “Jobs Diversity”
Feasible Alternative 1 “Affordable Housing and Amenities”
No Central SoMa PlanWith Central SoMa Plan:No Changes to Existing Requirements
With Central SoMa Plan and New Requirements
$0 $20M $40M $60M $80M $100M $120M $140M
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
RESULTS
RESULTS
– Transportation
Feasible Alternative 3 “Infrastructure”
Feasible Alternative 2 “Jobs Diversity”
Feasible Alternative 1 “Affordable Housing and Amenities”
No Central SoMa PlanWith Central SoMa Plan:No Changes to Existing Requirements
With Central SoMa Plan and New Requirements
$0 $200M $400M $600M $800M
TRANSPORTATION
TRANSPORTATION
– Complete Streets
Feasible Alternative 3 “Infrastructure”
Feasible Alternative 2 “Jobs Diversity”
Feasible Alternative 1 “Affordable Housing and Amenities”
No Central SoMa PlanWith Central SoMa Plan:No Changes to Existing Requirements
With Central SoMa Plan and New Requirements
$0 $20M $40M $60M $80M $100M $120M $140M
COMPLETE STREETS
COMPLETE STREETS
RESULTS
– Environmental Sustainability
Feasible Alternative 3 “Infrastructure”
Feasible Alternative 2 “Jobs Diversity”
Feasible Alternative 1 “Affordable Housing and Amenities”
No Central SoMa PlanWith Central SoMa Plan:No Changes to Existing Requirements
With Central SoMa Plan and New Requirements
$0 $40M $80M $120M $160M $200M
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
RESULTS
– Affordable Housing
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
4T
H S
T
3R
D S
T
2N
D S
T
5T
H S
T
6T
H S
T
BRYANT ST
FOLSOM ST
HOWARD ST
KING ST
BRANNAN ST
MARKET ST
HARRISON ST
BERRY ST
TOWNSEND ST
MINNA ST
PERRY ST
HA
RR
IET
ST
CLARA ST
ELLIS ST
SHIPLEY ST
TURK ST
MISSION ST
EDDY ST
POST ST
STILLMAN ST
BLUXOME ST
GEARY ST
RIT
CH
ST
TEHAMA ST
NATOMA ST
RU
SS
ST
SUTTER ST
TR
AN
SB
AY
LO
OP
STEVENSON ST
BUSH ST
CLEMENTINA ST
JESSIE ST
JON
ES S
T
OFARRELL ST
TABER PL
MA
SON
ST
MO
RR
IS S
TTA
YLO
R S
T
ZO
E S
T
KEA
RN
Y S
T
FREELON ST
MAIDEN LNPOW
ELL
ST
GIL
BE
RT
ST
WELSH ST
HA
WT
HO
RN
E S
T
MO
SS
ST
AN
NIE
ST
NE
W M
ON
TG
OM
ER
Y S
T
SAN
SOM
E ST
SH
ER
MA
N S
T
GU
Y P
L
ME
RL
IN S
T
LIC
K P
LS
TA
NF
OR
D S
T
SOUTH PARK
BO
AR
DM
AN
PL
RIZAL ST
OA
K G
RO
VE
ST
RIN
CO
N S
T
VARNEY PL
MINT PLZ
EC
KE
R S
T
CO
LIN
P K
EL
LY
JR
ST
CO
LU
MB
IA S
QU
AR
E S
T
BONIFACIO ST
SH
AW
AL
Y
ST
ER
LIN
G S
TVA
SS
AR
PL
MA
LD
EN
AL
Y
TULIP ALY
STEVENSON ST
NATOMA ST
JESSIE ST
STEVENSON ST
BERRY ST
WELSH ST
TEHAMA ST
MINNA ST
Downtown Eastern Neighborhoods
RESULTS
– Affordable Housing
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
4T
H S
T
3R
D S
T
2N
D S
T
5T
H S
T
6T
H S
T
BRYANT ST
FOLSOM ST
HOWARD ST
KING ST
BRANNAN ST
MARKET ST
HARRISON ST
BERRY ST
TOWNSEND ST
MINNA ST
PERRY ST
HA
RR
IET
ST
CLARA ST
ELLIS ST
SHIPLEY ST
TURK ST
MISSION ST
EDDY ST
POST ST
STILLMAN ST
BLUXOME ST
GEARY ST
RIT
CH
ST
TEHAMA ST
NATOMA ST
RU
SS
ST
SUTTER ST
TR
AN
SB
AY
LO
OP
STEVENSON ST
BUSH ST
CLEMENTINA ST
JESSIE ST
JON
ES S
T
OFARRELL ST
TABER PL
MA
SON
ST
MO
RR
IS S
TTA
YLO
R S
T
ZO
E S
T
KEA
RN
Y S
T
FREELON ST
MAIDEN LNPOW
ELL
ST
GIL
BE
RT
ST
WELSH ST
HA
WT
HO
RN
E S
T
MO
SS
ST
AN
NIE
ST
NE
W M
ON
TG
OM
ER
Y S
T
SAN
SOM
E ST
SH
ER
MA
N S
T
GU
Y P
L
ME
RL
IN S
T
LIC
K P
LS
TA
NF
OR
D S
T
SOUTH PARK
BO
AR
DM
AN
PL
RIZAL ST
OA
K G
RO
VE
ST
RIN
CO
N S
T
VARNEY PL
MINT PLZ
EC
KE
R S
T
CO
LIN
P K
EL
LY
JR
ST
CO
LU
MB
IA S
QU
AR
E S
T
BONIFACIO ST
SH
AW
AL
Y
ST
ER
LIN
G S
TVA
SS
AR
PL
MA
LD
EN
AL
Y
TULIP ALY
STEVENSON ST
NATOMA ST
JESSIE ST
STEVENSON ST
BERRY ST
WELSH ST
TEHAMA ST
MINNA ST
Downtown Eastern Neighborhoods
WITHOUT THE CENTRAL SOMA PLAN
18%
RESULTS
– Affordable Housing
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
4T
H S
T
3R
D S
T
2N
D S
T
5T
H S
T
6T
H S
T
BRYANT ST
FOLSOM ST
HOWARD ST
KING ST
BRANNAN ST
MARKET ST
HARRISON ST
BERRY ST
TOWNSEND ST
MINNA ST
PERRY ST
HA
RR
IET
ST
CLARA ST
ELLIS ST
SHIPLEY ST
TURK ST
MISSION ST
EDDY ST
POST ST
STILLMAN ST
BLUXOME ST
GEARY ST
RIT
CH
ST
TEHAMA ST
NATOMA ST
RU
SS
ST
SUTTER ST
TR
AN
SB
AY
LO
OP
STEVENSON ST
BUSH ST
CLEMENTINA ST
JESSIE ST
JON
ES S
T
OFARRELL ST
TABER PL
MA
SON
ST
MO
RR
IS S
TTA
YLO
R S
T
ZO
E S
T
KEA
RN
Y S
T
FREELON ST
MAIDEN LNPOW
ELL
ST
GIL
BE
RT
ST
WELSH ST
HA
WT
HO
RN
E S
T
MO
SS
ST
AN
NIE
ST
NE
W M
ON
TG
OM
ER
Y S
T
SAN
SOM
E ST
SH
ER
MA
N S
T
GU
Y P
L
ME
RL
IN S
T
LIC
K P
LS
TA
NF
OR
D S
T
SOUTH PARK
BO
AR
DM
AN
PL
RIZAL ST
OA
K G
RO
VE
ST
RIN
CO
N S
T
VARNEY PL
MINT PLZ
EC
KE
R S
T
CO
LIN
P K
EL
LY
JR
ST
CO
LU
MB
IA S
QU
AR
E S
T
BONIFACIO ST
SH
AW
AL
Y
ST
ER
LIN
G S
TVA
SS
AR
PL
MA
LD
EN
AL
Y
TULIP ALY
STEVENSON ST
NATOMA ST
JESSIE ST
STEVENSON ST
BERRY ST
WELSH ST
TEHAMA ST
MINNA ST
Downtown Eastern Neighborhoods
WITHOUT THE CENTRAL SOMA PLAN
18%WITH THE CENTRAL SOMA
PLAN – NO CHANGE IN EXISTING REQUIREMENTS
22%
RESULTS
– Affordable Housing
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
4T
H S
T
3R
D S
T
2N
D S
T
5T
H S
T
6T
H S
T
BRYANT ST
FOLSOM ST
HOWARD ST
KING ST
BRANNAN ST
MARKET ST
HARRISON ST
BERRY ST
TOWNSEND ST
MINNA ST
PERRY ST
HA
RR
IET
ST
CLARA ST
ELLIS ST
SHIPLEY ST
TURK ST
MISSION ST
EDDY ST
POST ST
STILLMAN ST
BLUXOME ST
GEARY ST
RIT
CH
ST
TEHAMA ST
NATOMA ST
RU
SS
ST
SUTTER ST
TR
AN
SB
AY
LO
OP
STEVENSON ST
BUSH ST
CLEMENTINA ST
JESSIE ST
JON
ES S
T
OFARRELL ST
TABER PL
MA
SON
ST
MO
RR
IS S
TTA
YLO
R S
T
ZO
E S
T
KEA
RN
Y S
T
FREELON ST
MAIDEN LNPOW
ELL
ST
GIL
BE
RT
ST
WELSH ST
HA
WT
HO
RN
E S
T
MO
SS
ST
AN
NIE
ST
NE
W M
ON
TG
OM
ER
Y S
T
SAN
SOM
E ST
SH
ER
MA
N S
T
GU
Y P
L
ME
RL
IN S
T
LIC
K P
LS
TA
NF
OR
D S
T
SOUTH PARK
BO
AR
DM
AN
PL
RIZAL ST
OA
K G
RO
VE
ST
RIN
CO
N S
T
VARNEY PL
MINT PLZ
EC
KE
R S
T
CO
LIN
P K
EL
LY
JR
ST
CO
LU
MB
IA S
QU
AR
E S
T
BONIFACIO ST
SH
AW
AL
Y
ST
ER
LIN
G S
TVA
SS
AR
PL
MA
LD
EN
AL
Y
TULIP ALY
STEVENSON ST
NATOMA ST
JESSIE ST
STEVENSON ST
BERRY ST
WELSH ST
TEHAMA ST
MINNA ST
Downtown Eastern Neighborhoods
WITHOUT THE CENTRAL SOMA PLAN
18%WITH THE CENTRAL SOMA
PLAN – NO CHANGE IN EXISTING REQUIREMENTS
22%WITH THE CENTRAL SOMA PLAN – NEW
REQUIREMENTS
ALT 1 31%ALT 2 23%ALT 3 22%
RESULTS
– Affordable Housing
4T
H S
T
3R
D S
T
2N
D S
T
5T
H S
T
6T
H S
T
BRYANT ST
FOLSOM ST
HOWARD ST
KING ST
BRANNAN ST
MARKET ST
HARRISON ST
BERRY ST
TOWNSEND ST
MINNA ST
PERRY ST
HA
RR
IET
ST
CLARA ST
ELLIS ST
SHIPLEY ST
TURK ST
MISSION ST
EDDY ST
POST ST
STILLMAN ST
BLUXOME ST
GEARY ST
RIT
CH
ST
TEHAMA ST
NATOMA ST
RU
SS
ST
SUTTER ST
TR
AN
SB
AY
LO
OP
STEVENSON ST
BUSH ST
CLEMENTINA ST
JESSIE ST
JON
ES S
T
OFARRELL ST
TABER PL
MA
SON
ST
MO
RR
IS S
TTA
YLO
R S
T
ZO
E S
T
KEA
RN
Y S
T
FREELON ST
MAIDEN LNPOW
ELL
ST
GIL
BE
RT
ST
WELSH ST
HA
WT
HO
RN
E S
T
MO
SS
ST
AN
NIE
ST
NE
W M
ON
TG
OM
ER
Y S
T
SAN
SOM
E ST
SH
ER
MA
N S
T
GU
Y P
L
ME
RL
IN S
T
LIC
K P
LS
TA
NF
OR
D S
T
SOUTH PARK
BO
AR
DM
AN
PL
RIZAL ST
OA
K G
RO
VE
ST
RIN
CO
N S
T
VARNEY PL
MINT PLZ
EC
KE
R S
T
CO
LIN
P K
EL
LY
JR
ST
CO
LU
MB
IA S
QU
AR
E S
T
BONIFACIO ST
SH
AW
AL
Y
ST
ER
LIN
G S
TVA
SS
AR
PL
MA
LD
EN
AL
Y
TULIP ALY
STEVENSON ST
NATOMA ST
JESSIE ST
STEVENSON ST
BERRY ST
WELSH ST
TEHAMA ST
MINNA ST
Eastern Neighborhoods
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
WITHOUT THE CENTRAL SOMA PLAN
17%WITH THE CENTRAL SOMA
PLAN – NO CHANGE IN EXISTING REQUIREMENTS
22%WITH THE CENTRAL SOMA PLAN – NEW
REQUIREMENTS
ALT 1 35%ALT 2 25%ALT 3 23%
RESULTS
– Affordable Housing
4T
H S
T
3R
D S
T
2N
D S
T
5T
H S
T
6T
H S
T
BRYANT ST
FOLSOM ST
HOWARD ST
KING ST
BRANNAN ST
MARKET ST
HARRISON ST
BERRY ST
TOWNSEND ST
MINNA ST
PERRY ST
HA
RR
IET
ST
CLARA ST
ELLIS ST
SHIPLEY ST
TURK ST
MISSION ST
EDDY ST
POST ST
STILLMAN ST
BLUXOME ST
GEARY ST
RIT
CH
ST
TEHAMA ST
NATOMA ST
RU
SS
ST
SUTTER ST
TR
AN
SB
AY
LO
OP
STEVENSON ST
BUSH ST
CLEMENTINA ST
JESSIE ST
JON
ES S
T
OFARRELL ST
TABER PL
MA
SON
ST
MO
RR
IS S
TTA
YLO
R S
T
ZO
E S
T
KEA
RN
Y S
T
FREELON ST
MAIDEN LNPOW
ELL
ST
GIL
BE
RT
ST
WELSH ST
HA
WT
HO
RN
E S
T
MO
SS
ST
AN
NIE
ST
NE
W M
ON
TG
OM
ER
Y S
T
SAN
SOM
E ST
SH
ER
MA
N S
T
GU
Y P
L
ME
RL
IN S
T
LIC
K P
LS
TA
NF
OR
D S
T
SOUTH PARK
BO
AR
DM
AN
PL
RIZAL ST
OA
K G
RO
VE
ST
RIN
CO
N S
T
VARNEY PL
MINT PLZ
EC
KE
R S
T
CO
LIN
P K
EL
LY
JR
ST
CO
LU
MB
IA S
QU
AR
E S
T
BONIFACIO ST
SH
AW
AL
Y
ST
ER
LIN
G S
TVA
SS
AR
PL
MA
LD
EN
AL
Y
TULIP ALY
STEVENSON ST
NATOMA ST
JESSIE ST
STEVENSON ST
BERRY ST
WELSH ST
TEHAMA ST
MINNA ST
Upzoned Parcels
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
WITHOUT THE CENTRAL SOMA PLAN
20%WITH THE CENTRAL SOMA
PLAN – NO CHANGE IN EXISTING REQUIREMENTS
24%WITH THE CENTRAL SOMA PLAN – NEW
REQUIREMENTS
ALT 1 41%ALT 2 28%ALT 3 26%
Downtown Eastern Neighborhoods
RESULTS
62%
18%
10%
4%6%
Alt 1
TOTAL REVENUE$1.18 BILLION
TOTAL REVENUE$1.39 BILLION
TOTAL REVENUE$1.37 BILLION
Affordable HousingTransportationOpen Space
Complete StreetsChild CareHistoric Preservation
PDRNon-Profit OfficeCommunity Facilities
Environmental Sustainability
29%
15%
1%
3%
1%5%
16%
29%
1%
Alt 2
26%
48%
1%
7%1%
3%
14%
Alt 3
62%
18%
10%
4%6%
Alt 1
TOTAL REVENUE$1.18 BILLION
TOTAL REVENUE$1.39 BILLION
TOTAL REVENUE$1.37 BILLION
Affordable HousingTransportationOpen Space
Complete StreetsChild CareHistoric Preservation
PDRNon-Profit OfficeCommunity Facilities
Environmental Sustainability
29%
15%
1%
3%
1%5%
16%
29%
1%
Alt 2
26%
48%
1%
7%1%
3%
14%
Alt 3
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF PUBLIC BENEFITS
CHILDCARE
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
TRANSPORTATION
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
OPEN SPACE
PRODUCTION/DISTRIBUTION/REPAIR (PDR)
COMPLETE STREETS
Federal Tax Credits, Federal and State Funding, Local Programs (e.g., Infrastructure Finance Districts (IFDs), Housing Trust Fund, Rental Assistance Demonstration Program, Housing Bond)
Replacement requirements in re-zoned districts (SLI and SALI)
Federal, State, and Regional Funding; Local Sales Tax; IFDs
Local designation as a historic resource; Federal and State tax breaks
“POPOS” requirement; State Parks Grants; Local Parks Bonds; Developer In-Kind Agreements; IFDs
Citywide Childcare Fee
Federal, State, and Regional Funding; Local Sales Tax; Better Streets Plan Requirements; IFDs
NEXT STEPS
– Quantify demand for each of the public benefits
– Identify other sources of funding
– Facilitate community conversation around trade-offs and priorities
http://centralsoma.sfplanning.org
THANK YOU!QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS?
STEVE WERTHEIM
415.558.6612 [email protected]