http://centralsoma.sfplanning.org
CENTRAL SOMA PLAN PUBLIC 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
http://centralsoma.sfplanning.org
CENTRAL SOMA REFRESHER
CENTRAL SOMA REFRESHER
GE
ST Y
PO
SH
ST ST
SU
ST
ER
E
TT
Montgomery BART/Muni Station
SA NS OM
ST
GR AN
EL W
Powell BART/Muni Station
ST
MARKET ST
SHIPLEY ST CLARA ST
RIZAL ST
MALDEN ALY
STILLMAN ST
BRYANT ST
DE BOOM ST
VARNEY PL
STANFORD ST
LUSK ST
CLARENCE PL
BLUXOME ST
Under Separate Study
CLYDE ST
LUCERNE ST
BRANNAN ST BUTTE PL
ECKER ST
FEDERAL ST SOUTH PARK
COLIN P KELLY JR ST
FREELON ST
RITCH ST
TABER PL WELSH ST
WELSH ST
ZOE ST
GILBERT ST
VASSAR PL
MERLIN ST
PERRY ST
BOARDMAN PL
MORRIS ST
AHERN WAY
OAK GROVE ST
HARRISON ST
GUY PL
LANSING ST
RINCON ST
TANDANG SORA
COLUMBIA SQUARE ST
SHERMAN ST
FOLSOM ST
TEHAMA ST
CLEMENTINA ST
ESSEX ST
Moscone Center
STERLING ST
TEHAMA ST
CLEMENTINA ST
NATOMA ST HUNT ST
KAPLAN LN
Under Separate Study
MINNA ST
HAWTHORNE ST
HARRIET ST
RUSS ST
MOSS ST
HOWARD ST
SFMOMA
MABINI ST
NATOMA ST
Yerba Buena Gardens
Moscone West
ELIM ALY
LAPU-LAPU ST
5M Project
GALLAGHER LN
MINNA ST
JESSIE ST
SHAW ALY
JESSIE ST
MISSION ST
TULIP ALY
2N D ST
STEVENSON ST
NEW MONTGOMERY ST
3R D ST
YERBA BUENA LN
JESSIE ST
4TH ST
5TH ST
MINT ST
6TH ST
7TH ST
JESSIE ST
STEVENSON ST
ANNIE ST
MARKET ST
STEVENSON ST
» Central SoMa has transportation and developable land
ST
ST
ST
BU
KE AR N
ST
MA SO N
TA YL O
N
LL
ST
ST R
ST NE S JO
RE
TA VE
LIS
NE
ST OC KT O
EL
ST
T
ST
PO
RK
DY
OF AR
LS
H
ED
TU
PI
Union Square
ST
ST
AR Y
AV EN W OR T
» Demand for new space for housing and jobs
– Geography LE
– Plan Impetus
TOWNSEND ST
Caltrain Station
4th and King Railyards
KING ST
BERRY ST
AT&T Park CHANNEL ST
Caltrain
BART
Muni
Central Subway Solid lines represent surface rail, dashed lines represent subway.
N
CENTRAL SOMA REFRESHER
2011
Plan Began
2012
2013
Draft Plan Released
2014
2015
2016
You are Here
EIR Began DEIR Releases (expected)
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)
http://centralsoma.sfplanning.org
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
GOAL
– Set requirements to maximize public benefits and enable development
PROJECT PROFITABILITY
Requirement too high = no development and no public benefits
Requirement just right = development and maximum community benefits
Requirement too low = development but reduced public benefits
COMMUNITY’S DESIRED PUBLIC BENEFITS
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
TRANSPORTATION
OPEN SPACE
COMPLETE STREETS
Maximize production and protection
Fund improvements to local and regional transit
Ensure access to high quality for all residents and workers
Make every street pleasant and safe for biking and walking
NON-PROFIT OFFICE
COMMUNITY FACILITIES
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Create protected space
Ensure provision of health clinics, service providers, and art spaces for a growing community
Fund rehabilitation of important neighborhood and citywide resources
CHILDCARE Ensure provision for growing community
PRODUCTION/ DISTRIBUTION/ REPAIR (PDR) Allow no net loss of PDR jobs
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY 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
Office
Residential (condo)
Residential (condo)
Residential (condo)
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’
Jobs-Housing Linkage Fee
On-site BMR
Affordable Housing Fee
Affordable Housing Fee
Development Type Lot Size
Affordable Housing
PUBLIC BENEFITS ANALYZED – OFFICE Current requirement (“Baseline”)
Initial Proposal Under Plan (“Full Community Benefits”)
Jobs-Housing Linkage Fee
Jobs-Housing Linkage Fee +$12/sf
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)
EN Impact Fee (Tier 3) + Childcare Fee
EN Impact Fee + Childcare Fee + Central SoMa Impact Fee ($10/gsf)
School Impact Fee
School Impact Fee
Water/Wastewater Impact Fee
Water/Wastewater Impact Fee
Public Art Requirement
Public Art Requirement
Affordable Housing Transportation
Child Care Schools Wastewater Public Art Historic Resources Community Facilities PDR Non-Profit Office Infrastructure Financing (including sustainability)
Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) (3 FAR @ $30/gsf) n/a (applies to residential) PDR space (0.5 FAR) Non-Profit space (1 Floor) Mello-Roos Tax ($4/sf)
PUBLIC BENEFITS ANALYZED – RESIDENTIAL Current requirement (“Baseline”)
Initial Proposal Under Plan (“Full Community Benefits”)
BMR Program (12% on-site; 20% fee)
BMR Program (20% on-site; 33% fee)
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)
EN Impact Fee (Tier 3) + Childcare Fee
EN Impact Fee + Childcare Fee + Central SoMa Impact Fee ($10/gsf
School Impact Fee
School Impact Fee
Water/Wastewater Impact Fee
Water/Wastewater Impact Fee
Affordable Housing Transportation
Child Care Schools Wastewater Public Art Historic Resources Community Facilities
n/a (applies to office) TDR (3 FAR @ $30/gsf) 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
85' Condo
Revenues
160' Condo
Revenues
$0
$20M
$40M
$60M
$80M
$100M
$120M
$140M
$160M
VALUE CAPTURE EXAMPLE: 85’ CONDO VS. 160’ CONDO
85' Condo
Revenues
Subtract: costs associated with developing the building (including target developer profit)
Costs
160' Condo
Revenues
Costs
$0
$20M
$40M
$60M
$80M
$100M
$120M
$140M
$160M
VALUE CAPTURE EXAMPLE: 85’ CONDO VS. 160’ CONDO
85' Condo
Revenues
Costs
The remainder is the Residual Land Value (RLV) – the potential amount a developer would be willing to pay for the land
RLV
160' Condo
Revenues
Costs
$0
$20M
RLV
$40M
$60M
$80M
$100M
$120M
$140M
$160M
VALUE CAPTURE EXAMPLE: 85’ CONDO VS. 160’ CONDO
85' Condo
Revenues
The value created by the plan (“value difference”) is the difference in Residual Land Value (RLV). Costs
RLV
In this example, up to $6.6M dollars could be captured for public benefits
160' Condo
Revenues
Costs
$0
$20M
RLV
$40M
$60M
$80M
$100M
$120M
$140M
$160M
VALUE CAPTURE EXAMPLE: 160’ CONDO
Impact on Residual Land Value
$25M
$20M
$15M
$10M Affordable Hsng fee/units EN Fee (Tier 3)
$5M
Water/Wastewater Fee School Impact Fee TSF (proposed)
$0 Baseline (current requirements)
VALUE CAPTURE EXAMPLE: 160’ CONDO
Impact on Residual Land Value
$25M
$20M
100% Value Capture $15M
Add: value difference Baseline Public Benefits
$10M Affordable Hsng fee/units EN Fee (Tier 3)
$5M
Water/Wastewater Fee School Impact Fee TSF (proposed)
$0 Baseline (current requirements)
VALUE CAPTURE EXAMPLE: 160’ CONDO
Impact on Residual Land Value
$25M
$20M
100% Value Capture TARGET: 66-75% Value Capture
$15M
Baseline Public Benefits $10M
Affordable Hsng fee/units EN Fee (Tier 3) Water/Wastewater Fee
$5M
School Impact Fee TSF (proposed)
$0 Baseline (current requirements)
VALUE CAPTURE EXAMPLE: 160’ CONDO
Impact on Residual Land Value
$25M
$20M
$15M
100% Value Capture
Mello-Roos
66-75% Value Capture
Community facilities fee TDR
Baseline $10M
Central SoMa Fee Affordable Hsng fee/units EN Fee (Tier 3) Water/Wastewater Fee
$5M School Impact Fee TSF (proposed)
$0 Baseline (current requirements)
Full community benefits (based on plan)
VALUE CAPTURE EXAMPLE: 160’ CONDO Proposal would capture 163% of value created
Impact on Residual Land Value
$25M
$20M
$15M
100% Value Capture
Mello-Roos
66-75% Value Capture
Community facilities fee TDR
Baseline $10M
Central SoMa Fee Affordable Hsng fee/units EN Fee (Tier 3) Water/Wastewater Fee
$5M School Impact Fee TSF (proposed)
$0 Baseline (current requirements)
Full community benefits (based on plan)
VALUE CAPTURE EXAMPLE: 160’ CONDO Slide 22 and 28
Impact on Residual Land Value
$25M
$20M 100% Value Capture
Mello-Roos
66-75% Value Capture
Community facilities fee
$15M TDR
Baseline
Central SoMa Fee
$10M
Affordable Hsng fee/units EN Fee (Tier 3) Water/Wastewater Fee
$5M School Impact Fee TSF (proposed)
$0 Baseline Full Alt 1: (current community Affordable requirements) benefits Housing (based on plan)
Alt 2: Jobs
Alt 3: Infrastructure
FINANCIALLY CONSTRAINED ALTERNATIVESÂ
Office
Alternative 1:
Alternative 2:
Alternative 3:
Affordable Housing & Amenities
Job Diversity
Infrastructure
$12 increase in JobsHousing Linkage Fee
0.5 FAR of PDR space
Mello-Roos
1 floor of non-profit space
Central SoMa Fee
Central SoMa Fee Mello-Roos (for open space & child care)
Residential
Increased BMR units (on-site or fee)
TDR
TDR $12 increase in Jobs-Housing Linkage Fee Community Facilities Fee TDR Increased BMR units
Mello-Roos Central SoMa Fee Increased BMR units
PROTOTYPE A (160’ OFFICE): Slide 24 EXISTING & PROPOSED PUBLIC BENEFITS
Impact on Residual Land Value
$50M $45M Nonprofit space
$40M 100% Value Capture
PDR space
$35M $30M
Mello-Roos
66-75% Value Capture
TDR Central SoMa Fee
$25M
Jobs-Housing Linkage Fee
$20M
EN Fee (Tier 3)
Baseline
Child Care Fee
$15M
Public Art Fee
$10M
Water/Wastewater Fee
$5M
School Impact Fee TSF (proposed)
$0 Baseline Full Alt 1: (current community Affordable requirements) benefits Housing (based on plan)
Alt 2: Jobs
Alt 3: Infrastructure
PROTOTYPE B (85’ CONDO): EXISTING & PROPOSED PUBLIC BENEFITS
Impact on Residual Land Value
$12M
$10M
100% Value Capture Mello-Roos
$8M
66-75% Value Capture Community facilities fee TDR
$6M
Central SoMa Fee
Baseline Affordable Hsng fee/units
$4M
EN Fee (Tier 3) Water/Wastewater Fee
$2M
School Impact Fee TSF (proposed)
$0 Baseline Full Alt 1: (current community Affordable requirements) benefits Housing (based on plan)
Alt 2: Jobs
Alt 3: Infrastructure
PROTOTYPE C-1 (160’ CONDO): Slide 22 and 28 EXISTING & PROPOSED PUBLIC BENEFITS
Impact on Residual Land Value
$25M
$20M 100% Value Capture
Mello-Roos
66-75% Value Capture
Community facilities fee
$15M TDR
Baseline
Central SoMa Fee
$10M
Affordable Hsng fee/units EN Fee (Tier 3) Water/Wastewater Fee
$5M School Impact Fee TSF (proposed)
$0 Baseline Full Alt 1: (current community Affordable requirements) benefits Housing (based on plan)
Alt 2: Jobs
Alt 3: Infrastructure
PROTOTYPE C-2 (400’ CONDO): EXISTING & PROPOSED PUBLIC BENEFITS
Impact on Residual Land Value
$45M $40M
100% Value Capture
$35M 66-75% Value Capture Mello-Roos
$30M
Community facilities fee
$25M $20M
TDR
Baseline
Central SoMa Fee Affordable Hsng fee/units
$15M EN Fee (Tier 3)
$10M
Water/Wastewater Fee School Impact Fee
$5M
TSF (proposed)
$0 Baseline Full Alt 1: (current community Affordable requirements) benefits Housing (based on plan)
Alt 2: Jobs
Alt 3: Infrastructure
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
http://centralsoma.sfplanning.org
PUBLIC BENEFITS ANALYSIS
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%
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
Jobs-Housing Linkage
–
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.
RESULTS
– Total Public Benefits
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
TRANSPORTATION
OPEN SPACE
COMPLETE STREETS
PRODUCTION/ DISTRIBUTION/ REPAIR (PDR)
NON-PROFIT OFFICE
COMMUNITY FACILITIES
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
CHILDCARE
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
TOTAL PUBLIC BENEFITS Feasible Alternative 1 “Affordable Housing and Amenities” Feasible Alternative 2 “Jobs Diversity” Feasible Alternative 3 “Infrastructure” $0
$500M
$1B
No Central SoMa Plan
TOTAL PUBLIC BENEFITS
$1.5B
$2B
$2.5B
TOTAL PUBLIC BENEFITS Feasible Alternative 1 “Affordable Housing and Amenities”
RESULTS
Feasible Alternative 2 “Jobs Diversity”
– TotalFeasible Public Benefits Alternative 3 “Infrastructure” $0
$500M
No Central SoMa Plan AFFORDABLE HOUSING
TRANSPORTATION
COMPLETE STREETS
OPEN SPACE
PRODUCTION/ DISTRIBUTION/ REPAIR (PDR)
$1B
NON-PROFIT OFFICE
$1.5B
COMMUNITY FACILITIES
$2B
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
CHILDCARE
$2.5B
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
TOTAL PUBLIC BENEFITS Feasible Alternative 1 “Affordable Housing and Amenities” Feasible Alternative 2 “Jobs Diversity” Feasible Alternative 3 “Infrastructure” $0
No Central SoMa Plan
$500M
$1B
$1.5B
With Central SoMa Plan: No Changes to Existing Requirements
$2B
$2.5B
RESULTS
– Total Public Benefits
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
TRANSPORTATION
COMPLETE STREETS
OPEN SPACE
PRODUCTION/ DISTRIBUTION/ REPAIR (PDR)
NON-PROFIT OFFICE
COMMUNITY FACILITIES
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
CHILDCARE
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
TOTAL PUBLIC BENEFITS Feasible Alternative 1 “Affordable Housing and Amenities” Feasible Alternative 2 “Jobs Diversity” Feasible Alternative 3 “Infrastructure” $0
No Central SoMa Plan
$500M
$1B
$1.5B
With Central SoMa Plan: No Changes to Existing Requirements
$2B
$2.5B
With Central SoMa Plan and New Requirements
RESULTS
– Affordable Housing
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
AFFORDABLE HOUSING Feasible Alternative 1 “Affordable Housing and Amenities” Feasible Alternative 2 “Jobs Diversity” Feasible Alternative 3 “Infrastructure” 0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
UNITS No Central SoMa Plan
With Central SoMa Plan: No Changes to Existing Requirements
With Central SoMa Plan and New Requirements
RESULTS
– Open Space
OPEN SPACE
OPEN SPACE Feasible Alternative 1 “Affordable Housing and Amenities” Feasible Alternative 2 “Jobs Diversity” Feasible Alternative 3 “Infrastructure” $0
$20M
No Central SoMa Plan
$40M
$60M
$80M
$100M
With Central SoMa Plan: No Changes to Existing Requirements
$120M
$140M
$160M
With Central SoMa Plan and New Requirements
RESULTS
– Childcare
CHILDCARE
CHILDCARE Feasible Alternative 1 “Affordable Housing and Amenities” Feasible Alternative 2 “Jobs Diversity” Feasible Alternative 3 “Infrastructure” $0
$10M
No Central SoMa Plan
$20M
$30M
$40M
$50M
$60M
With Central SoMa Plan: No Changes to Existing Requirements
$70M
$80M
$90M
With Central SoMa Plan and New Requirements
RESULTS
– Production/Distribution/Repair (PDR) Space
PRODUCTION/ DISTRIBUTION/ REPAIR (PDR)
PRODUCTION, DISTRIBUTION, AND REPAIR (PDR) SPACE Feasible Alternative 1 “Affordable Housing and Amenities” Feasible Alternative 2 “Jobs Diversity” Feasible Alternative 3 “Infrastructure” 0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
SQUARE FEET No Central SoMa Plan
With Central SoMa Plan: No Changes to Existing Requirements
With Central SoMa Plan and New Requirements
RESULTS
– Non-Profit Office
NON-PROFIT OFFICE
NON-PROFIT OFFICE Feasible Alternative 1 “Affordable Housing and Amenities” Feasible Alternative 2 “Jobs Diversity” Feasible Alternative 3 “Infrastructure” 0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
SQUARE FEET No Central SoMa Plan
With Central SoMa Plan: No Changes to Existing Requirements
With Central SoMa Plan and New Requirements
RESULTS
– Community Facilities
COMMUNITY FACILITIES
COMMUNITY FACILITIES Feasible Alternative 1 “Affordable Housing and Amenities” Feasible Alternative 2 “Jobs Diversity” Feasible Alternative 3 “Infrastructure” $0
No Central SoMa Plan
$2M
$4M
$6M
$8M
With Central SoMa Plan: No Changes to Existing Requirements
$10M
$12M
With Central SoMa Plan and New Requirements
RESULTS
– Historic Preservation
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
HISTORIC PRESERVATION Feasible Alternative 1 “Affordable Housing and Amenities” Feasible Alternative 2 “Jobs Diversity” Feasible Alternative 3 “Infrastructure” $0
$20M
No Central SoMa Plan
$40M
$60M
$80M
With Central SoMa Plan: No Changes to Existing Requirements
$100M
$120M
$140M
With Central SoMa Plan and New Requirements
RESULTS
– Transportation
TRANSPORTATION
TRANSPORTATION Feasible Alternative 1 “Affordable Housing and Amenities” Feasible Alternative 2 “Jobs Diversity” Feasible Alternative 3 “Infrastructure” $0
No Central SoMa Plan
$200M
$400M
$600M
With Central SoMa Plan: No Changes to Existing Requirements
$800M
With Central SoMa Plan and New Requirements
RESULTS
– Complete Streets
COMPLETE STREETS
COMPLETE STREETS Feasible Alternative 1 “Affordable Housing and Amenities” Feasible Alternative 2 “Jobs Diversity” Feasible Alternative 3 “Infrastructure” $0
$20M
No Central SoMa Plan
$40M
$60M
$80M
With Central SoMa Plan: No Changes to Existing Requirements
$100M
$120M
$140M
With Central SoMa Plan and New Requirements
RESULTS
– Environmental Sustainability
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY Feasible Alternative 1 “Affordable Housing and Amenities” Feasible Alternative 2 “Jobs Diversity” Feasible Alternative 3 “Infrastructure” $0
No Central SoMa Plan
$40M
$80M
$120M
With Central SoMa Plan: No Changes to Existing Requirements
$160M
$200M
With Central SoMa Plan and New Requirements
RESULTS
ER
ST
ST
E
SH
TT
SO M
ST
ST
BU
SU
ST
SA N
ST
ST
PL
Y
PO
LN
CK
LL
N
LI
DE
AR
RE
ST
AI
GE
AR
NEW MONTGOMERY ST
S
RN Y
ST LI
M
OF
W
EL
KE A
ST
EL L
ST AS ON
DY
PO
ST
ED
JO
NE S
RK
M
ST
TU
TA
YL OR
ST
– Affordable Housing
Eastern Neighborhoods ST
Downtown
STEVENSON ST
NATOMA ST
HAWTHORNE ST
CLEMENTINA ST
BONIFACIO ST RIZAL ST
VASSAR PL
3RD ST
CLARA ST
4TH ST
5TH ST
SHIPLEY ST
MERLIN ST
PERRY ST
STILLMAN ST
BRYANT ST TABER PL
FREELON ST
BRANNAN ST
BLUXOME ST
TOWNSEND ST
SOUTH PARK VARNEY PL
STANFORD ST
WELSH ST
RITCH ST
WELSH ST
ZOE ST
OAK GROVE ST
HARRISON ST
MORRIS ST
6TH ST
FOLSOM ST
TEHAMA ST
KING ST
BERRY ST
BERRY ST
RINCON ST
BOARDMAN PL
COLUMBIA SQUARE ST
RUSS ST
HARRIET ST
HOWARD ST TEHAMA ST
SHAW ALY
NATOMA ST
COLIN P KELLY JR ST
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
MINNA ST
ECKER ST
MINNA ST
TULIP ALY
GUY PL
MISSION ST
JESSIE ST
TRANSBAY LOOP
JESSIE ST
STERLING ST
MINT PLZ
MALDEN ALY
STEVENSON ST
STEVENSON ST
2ND ST
ANNIE ST
MARKET ST
RESULTS
ER
ST
ST
E
SH
TT
SO M
ST
ST
BU
SU
ST
SA N
ST
ST
PL
Y
PO
LN
CK
LL
N
LI
WITHOUT THE CENTRAL SOMA PLAN
DE
AR
RE
ST
AI
GE
AR
NEW MONTGOMERY ST
S
RN Y
ST LI
M
OF
W
EL
KE A
ST
EL L
ST AS ON
DY
PO
ST
ED
JO
NE S
RK
M
ST
TU
TA
YL OR
ST
– Affordable Housing
Eastern Neighborhoods ST
Downtown
STEVENSON ST
NATOMA ST
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
NATOMA ST
HAWTHORNE ST
CLEMENTINA ST
BONIFACIO ST RIZAL ST
VASSAR PL
3RD ST
CLARA ST
4TH ST
5TH ST
SHIPLEY ST
MERLIN ST
PERRY ST
STILLMAN ST
BRYANT ST TABER PL
FREELON ST
BRANNAN ST
BLUXOME ST
TOWNSEND ST
SOUTH PARK VARNEY PL
STANFORD ST
WELSH ST
RITCH ST
WELSH ST
ZOE ST
OAK GROVE ST
HARRISON ST
MORRIS ST
6TH ST
FOLSOM ST
TEHAMA ST
KING ST
BERRY ST
BERRY ST
RINCON ST
BOARDMAN PL
COLUMBIA SQUARE ST
RUSS ST
HARRIET ST
HOWARD ST TEHAMA ST
SHAW ALY
MINNA ST
ECKER ST
MINNA ST
TULIP ALY
GUY PL
MISSION ST
COLIN P KELLY JR ST
18%
JESSIE ST
TRANSBAY LOOP
JESSIE ST
STERLING ST
MINT PLZ
MALDEN ALY
STEVENSON ST
STEVENSON ST
2ND ST
ANNIE ST
MARKET ST
RESULTS
ST
ST E
ST
STEVENSON ST
RIZAL ST
MERLIN ST
PERRY ST
STILLMAN ST
BRYANT ST TABER PL
FREELON ST
BRANNAN ST
BLUXOME ST
TOWNSEND ST
SOUTH PARK VARNEY PL
STANFORD ST
WELSH ST
RITCH ST
WELSH ST
ZOE ST
OAK GROVE ST
MORRIS ST
HARRISON ST
KING ST
BERRY ST
BERRY ST
ECKER ST
HAWTHORNE ST
BONIFACIO ST
VASSAR PL
CLARA ST
3RD ST
SHIPLEY ST
4TH ST
5TH ST
FOLSOM ST
TEHAMA ST
RINCON ST
BOARDMAN PL
22%
CLEMENTINA ST
6TH ST
COLUMBIA SQUARE ST
RUSS ST
HARRIET ST
HOWARD ST TEHAMA ST
SHAW ALY
NATOMA ST
GUY PL
NATOMA ST
MINNA ST
TRANSBAY LOOP
MINNA ST
TULIP ALY
STERLING ST
MISSION ST
COLIN P KELLY JR ST
18%
JESSIE ST
MALDEN ALY
JESSIE ST
2ND ST
ANNIE ST
STEVENSON ST
MINT PLZ
WITH THE CENTRAL SOMA PLAN – NO CHANGE IN EXISTING REQUIREMENTS
ER
MARKET ST STEVENSON ST
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
SH
TT
SO M
ST
ST
BU
SU
SA N
ST
ST
PL
Y
PO
LN
CK
LL
N
LI
WITHOUT THE CENTRAL SOMA PLAN
DE
AR
RE
ST
AI
GE
AR
NEW MONTGOMERY ST
S
RN Y
ST LI
M
OF
W
EL
KE A
ST
EL L
ST AS ON
DY
PO
ST
ED
JO
NE S
RK
M
ST
TU
TA
YL OR
ST
– Affordable Housing
Eastern Neighborhoods ST
Downtown
RESULTS
ALT 3
BONIFACIO ST RIZAL ST
VASSAR PL
CLARA ST
3RD ST
SHIPLEY ST
4TH ST
5TH ST
FOLSOM ST
MERLIN ST
PERRY ST
STILLMAN ST
BRYANT ST TABER PL
BRANNAN ST
BLUXOME ST
TOWNSEND ST
SOUTH PARK VARNEY PL
COLIN P KELLY JR ST
FREELON ST
STANFORD ST
WELSH ST
RITCH ST
WELSH ST
ZOE ST
OAK GROVE ST
MORRIS ST
HARRISON ST
KING ST
BERRY ST
ST E
SHAW ALY
TEHAMA ST
BERRY ST
ECKER ST
HAWTHORNE ST
CLEMENTINA ST
6TH ST
RUSS ST COLUMBIA SQUARE ST BOARDMAN PL
TEHAMA ST
RINCON ST
ALT 2
HARRIET ST
HOWARD ST
22% 31% 23% 22%
NATOMA ST
GUY PL
NATOMA ST
MINNA ST
TRANSBAY LOOP
MINNA ST
JESSIE ST
STERLING ST
MISSION ST
TULIP ALY
ALT 1
ST
STEVENSON ST
MALDEN ALY
JESSIE ST
18%
WITH THE CENTRAL SOMA PLAN – NEW REQUIREMENTS
ST
2ND ST
ANNIE ST
STEVENSON ST
MINT PLZ
WITH THE CENTRAL SOMA PLAN – NO CHANGE IN EXISTING REQUIREMENTS
ER
MARKET ST STEVENSON ST
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
SH
TT
SO M
ST
ST
BU
SU
SA N
ST
ST
PL
Y
PO
LN
CK
LL
N
LI
WITHOUT THE CENTRAL SOMA PLAN
DE
AR
RE
ST
AI
GE
AR
NEW MONTGOMERY ST
S
RN Y
ST LI
M
OF
W
EL
KE A
ST
EL L
ST AS ON
DY
PO
ST
ED
JO
NE S
RK
M
ST
TU
TA
YL OR
ST
– Affordable Housing
Eastern Neighborhoods ST
Downtown
RESULTS
ALT 3
BONIFACIO ST RIZAL ST
VASSAR PL
CLARA ST
3RD ST
SHIPLEY ST
4TH ST
5TH ST
FOLSOM ST
MERLIN ST
PERRY ST
STILLMAN ST
BRYANT ST TABER PL
BRANNAN ST
BLUXOME ST
TOWNSEND ST
SOUTH PARK VARNEY PL
COLIN P KELLY JR ST
FREELON ST
STANFORD ST
WELSH ST
RITCH ST
WELSH ST
ZOE ST
OAK GROVE ST
MORRIS ST
HARRISON ST
KING ST
BERRY ST
ST E
SHAW ALY
TEHAMA ST
BERRY ST
ECKER ST
HAWTHORNE ST
CLEMENTINA ST
6TH ST
RUSS ST COLUMBIA SQUARE ST BOARDMAN PL
TEHAMA ST
RINCON ST
ALT 2
HARRIET ST
HOWARD ST
22% 35% 25% 23%
NATOMA ST
GUY PL
NATOMA ST
MINNA ST
TRANSBAY LOOP
MINNA ST
JESSIE ST
STERLING ST
MISSION ST
TULIP ALY
ALT 1
ST
STEVENSON ST
MALDEN ALY
JESSIE ST
17%
WITH THE CENTRAL SOMA PLAN – NEW REQUIREMENTS
ST
2ND ST
ANNIE ST
STEVENSON ST
MINT PLZ
WITH THE CENTRAL SOMA PLAN – NO CHANGE IN EXISTING REQUIREMENTS
ER
MARKET ST STEVENSON ST
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
SH
TT
SO M
ST
ST
BU
SU
SA N
ST
ST
PL
Y
PO
LN
CK
LL
N
LI
WITHOUT THE CENTRAL SOMA PLAN
DE
AR
RE
ST
AI
GE
AR
NEW MONTGOMERY ST
S
RN Y
ST LI
M
OF
W
EL
KE A
ST
EL L
ST AS ON
DY
PO
ST
ED
JO
NE S
RK
M
ST
TU
TA
YL OR
ST
– Affordable Housing
ST
Eastern Neighborhoods
RESULTS
Upzoned Parcels
ALT 3
BONIFACIO ST RIZAL ST
VASSAR PL
CLARA ST
3RD ST
SHIPLEY ST
4TH ST
5TH ST
FOLSOM ST
MERLIN ST
PERRY ST
STILLMAN ST
BRYANT ST TABER PL
BRANNAN ST
BLUXOME ST
TOWNSEND ST
SOUTH PARK VARNEY PL
COLIN P KELLY JR ST
FREELON ST
STANFORD ST
WELSH ST
RITCH ST
WELSH ST
ZOE ST
OAK GROVE ST
MORRIS ST
HARRISON ST
KING ST
BERRY ST
ST E
SHAW ALY
TEHAMA ST
BERRY ST
ECKER ST
HAWTHORNE ST
CLEMENTINA ST
6TH ST
RUSS ST COLUMBIA SQUARE ST BOARDMAN PL
TEHAMA ST
RINCON ST
ALT 2
HARRIET ST
HOWARD ST
24% 41% 28% 26%
NATOMA ST
GUY PL
NATOMA ST
MINNA ST
TRANSBAY LOOP
MINNA ST
JESSIE ST
STERLING ST
MISSION ST
TULIP ALY
ALT 1
ST
STEVENSON ST
MALDEN ALY
JESSIE ST
20%
WITH THE CENTRAL SOMA PLAN – NEW REQUIREMENTS
ST
2ND ST
ANNIE ST
STEVENSON ST
MINT PLZ
WITH THE CENTRAL SOMA PLAN – NO CHANGE IN EXISTING REQUIREMENTS
ER
MARKET ST STEVENSON ST
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
SH
TT
SO M
ST
ST
BU
SU
SA N
ST
ST
PL
Y
PO
LN
CK
LL
N
LI
WITHOUT THE CENTRAL SOMA PLAN
DE
AR
RE
ST
AI
GE
AR
NEW MONTGOMERY ST
S
RN Y
ST LI
M
OF
W
EL
KE A
ST
EL L
ST AS ON
DY
PO
ST
ED
JO
NE S
RK
M
ST
TU
TA
YL OR
ST
– Affordable Housing
Eastern Neighborhoods ST
Downtown
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
Environmental Sustainability
Alt 3
Alt 2
Alt 1 4%
PDR Non-Profit Office Community Facilities
Complete Streets Child Care Historic Preservation
Affordable Housing Transportation Open Space
1%
6%
10%
14% 29%
29%
26%
3% 7%
1%
1% 18%
3% 62%
15%
16% 5% 1% 1%
TOTAL REVENUE $1.18 BILLION Affordable Housing Transportation Open Space
Alt 1 4% 10%
6%
48%
TOTAL REVENUE $1.39 BILLION PDR Non-Profit Office Community Facilities
Complete Streets Child Care Historic Preservation
TOTAL REVENUE $1.37 BILLION Environmental Sustainability
Alt 3
Alt 2 1%
14% 29%
3%
26%
ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF PUBLIC BENEFITS
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Federal Tax Credits, Federal and State Funding, Local Programs (e.g., Infrastructure Finance Districts (IFDs), Housing Trust Fund, Rental Assistance Demonstration Program, Housing Bond)
PRODUCTION/ DISTRIBUTION/ REPAIR (PDR)
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Federal, State, and Regional Funding; Local Sales Tax; IFDs TRANSPORTATION
OPEN SPACE
Replacement requirements in re-zoned districts (SLI and SALI) Local designation as a historic resource; Federal and State tax breaks Citywide Childcare Fee
CHILDCARE
“POPOS” requirement; State Parks Grants; Local Parks Bonds; Developer In-Kind Agreements; IFDs
COMPLETE STREETS
Federal, State, and Regional Funding; Local Sales Tax; Better Streets Plan Requirements; IFDs
http://centralsoma.sfplanning.org
NEXT STEPS
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 STEVE.WERTHEIM@SFGOV.ORG