Treasury Island Development Aerial SOM Rendering (Image Source: SOM)

By a vote of 4-3 with commissioners Moore, Olague and Sugaya voting against, the proposed redevelopment plan for Treasure Island was approved by San Francisco’s Planning Commission last night. Next stop, San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors and a more than likely appeal of the project’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

The Draft Plan For 550 Acres In The Middle Of San Francisco’s Bay [SocketSite]
The (SOM) Master Plan For San Francisco’s Treasure Island [SocketSite]

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by Fishchum

    How can this possibly go forward with the toxicity and generally unstable ground that’s out there?
    Turn the whole thing into a giant park with athletic fields.

  2. Posted by eastbaymike

    Fishchum, you fear the island is too toxic for development yet you think it’s appropriate as a park and playing fields? Toxic waste remediation requirements vary according to future use of contaminated property. Remediation standards for single-family homes and open spaces are considered unrestricted use standards. Substantially lesser exposure potential exists in commercial or industrial land uses, where property occupants or users have little to no contact with soil because the areas would be covered with impervious surfaces. Following your logic, the best use of the island is to pave over every inch of the site and don’t let anyone get near open dirt.

  3. Posted by Fishchum

    I haven’t a clue about the level of toxics out there, I’m just going off what I’ve read.
    I’ve been playing rugby out there for years and haven’t heard of anyone getting sick, so who knows.
    Like I said, I’m surprised it’s been approved, but I really doubt any of this ever gets built.

  4. Posted by re guru

    Question for SS readers: How far above sea level is treasure island?
    Just two thoughts for you:
    1. Tsunami
    2. Global warming and sea level rise.
    And, access. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the only access via the Bay Bridge?
    As a long-time bay area resident I avoid bridges during rush hour whenever possible – so this means about 6:30am to about 9:30 am, and about 3:30 pm to about 7pm. While the Bay Bridge isn’t guaranteed to be slow during these times, it is very likely.
    Athletic fields, parks, etc — a much better use of the “land”.

  5. Posted by sfrenegade

    Speaking of which, why don’t Treasure Island residents have to pay a toll to drive from TI to SF proper? I thought there was a proposal to do exactly this, but the Governator vetoed it. If there is massive development on Treasure Island, the people living there will get a free ride to the city, and the toll authority won’t be able to recover for the wear and tear to the bridge caused by TI residents.

  6. Posted by re guru checker

    @re guru – there will be every 15 minute ferry service started as part of the plan, along with increased Muni service over the bridge.
    My worry is that 8,000 units is not enough to support the ferry service. I’d much rather see a plan for 30-40,000 units.

  7. Posted by jason

    A buddy of mine used to live there. He had to sign a waiver when he leased his apartment saying he was aware it could sink in to the bay at any moment…

  8. Posted by tth22

    @sfrenegade – The project includes an approved congestion charge (which has been christened by the State) applicable to all TI residents to get onto and off of the island. I think that the transportation study assumes that the charge is actually higher than the current bridge toll.

  9. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    Tsunami is a threat as the innudation map shows but I wouldn’t be too concerned about sea level rise WRT TI. Be concerned about sea level rise in general. If sea levels rose enough to cause a problem on TI then we will be in a World of Hurt (literally) and little TI will be the least of our problems. Besides other low lying areas of the bay area will be equally threatened. My prediction is that the Golden Gate is dammed and the bay turned into a freshwater lake. Which would take care of the tsunami issue too despite the ecological disaster it causes. A dam like that would be a massive project but the value of the real estate protected is also massive.
    And I don’t understand Fishchum’s proposal to use the entire island for athletic fields. take a look at the illustration : over half of the island is open space. That’s a room for plenty of rugby pitches.

  10. Posted by sfrenegade

    Milkshake — that dammed idea has been rejected before. The proposed dam was for the southern part of the Bay. Do you really think the NIMBYs these would allow it?

  11. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    I really hope that the day never comes that we need to reconsider that damn dam idea. But if push comes to shove and trillions of dollars or real estate are placed at risk people’s opinions may change. I’d vote “no” on the damn dam mainly to put pressure to pursue solutions that reverse a sea level rise trend which is a big win all around. Like I mentioned before if sea levels rise the loss in the Bay Area is nothing compared to the loss in the rest of the country and world.

  12. Posted by Morgan

    I still think this is one of the most unimaginative urban planning schemes for one of the most unique urban locations on the planet. Throwing some towers on a stupid grid that takes no account of the views, and worst of all, THE WIND, may be a victory for the “build anything” crowd, but a real loss for anyone who dares to expect a bit more from our “world class city”.
    I predict that 40 years after this is built, it will deteriorate into low income housing. I would rather take a ferry to Tiburon and sit outside with a glass of wine on one of the restaurant terraces there, than a ferry to PARK MERCED TREASURE ISLAND which is exactly what this will be.

  13. Posted by noearch

    I personally do not support this project at all. We have more than enough land and neighborhoods in Mission Bay and points south to add the equivalent housing.
    Putting housing on this isolated low lying island is insane. What a waste of money.

  14. Posted by NoeNeighbor

    I am surprised at how auto-oriented this is. TI was proposed to be some sort of new eco-oriented community. Yet there is 1 to 1 parking and the toll to get on the bridge is only $5 — that is hardly going to discourage anyone. According to projections 50% of the residents will use a car to get to work (which is approximately the same for the rest of the city.
    I generally dislike the Planning Department’s antipathy towards cars because it just makes things difficult for people who live in the neighborhoods. But, if we are going to create a new neighborhood, then why not really apply all those new urbanism ideas and make private autos a truly secondary or tertiary form of transportation. Those who really want that type of neighborhood/lifestyle can have it. And everyone can see what they like or don’t like about it.
    Instead, we are just creating a fairly typical suburban neighborhood that will increase congestion on the Bay Bridge.

  15. Posted by Missiondweller

    “solutions that reverse a sea level rise”
    Funniest thing I’ve read in a while. The sea has been rising for over 50k years. I don’t think its reversing any time soon. The Bay as we know it is “new” in geological time. The shoreline back then was about ten miles west. There’s a nice plaque on Angel Island describing this if you ever go out there.

  16. Posted by Jimmy (No Longer Bitter)

    Marijuana farming collective. That’s got my vote. SF doesn’t need any more ghettos.

  17. Posted by sfrenegade

    Apparently the city is projecting an $80M benefit over 20 years from developing TI:
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/cityinsider/detail?entry_id=88652&tsp=1
    Considering the city recently sliced $130M off the budget for the project, that doesn’t seem particularly impressive. The project is $1.5B, so the return is just over 5% over 20 years, which is a crappy annual rate.

  18. Posted by Bill

    Is any consideration being given to the risks of building the tall buildings on an island in an area prone to earthquakes? Unbelievable.

  19. Posted by anon

    @Bill – of course they are following all modern earthquake codes, why would you think that they are exempt on an island? The danger here is no more than other infill areas like the Financial District, Mission Bay, or much of Hunters Point.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Articles