San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors votes today on a proposal to redevelop Treasure Island, a former naval base, into an environmentally friendly mini-city. The plan includes 8,000 new housing units, 200 acres of parks and open space including an organic farm and a wind farm. But critics say the plan doesn’t fully consider the potential for flooding and liquefaction on the island or the impact that 19,000 new residents will have on Bay Bridge traffic.

Aaron Peskin, chair of the San Francisco Democratic Party and former president of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors
Will Kane, reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle
Sherry Williams, executive director of the Treasure Island Homeless Development Initiative

  • weezy1

    I am horrified that there are ANY plans for development of Treasure Island.If I had my way,it’d be a National Park or no more developed than it is currently. Pollution,further loss of Bay views,crime, traffic, etc How many Police & Firemen will be required? etc If I were a gang member from S.F. Oakland or Richmond, Treasure Island  would be a great spot to commit a crime,and jump back  on the freeway and disappear.
    The City has numerous issues to address before creating island homes for Willie Brown’s friends, hotels and eateries.

  • Meg

    If you take a look around the areas of Treasure Island where they don’t typically host festivals or flea markets, the rest of the island is blighted and industrially frightening. Whatever happens, a serious cleanup is definitely in need.

  • Treasure Island is fake ground built in the middle of our most important regional resource: San Francisco Bay.  If anything, the entire island should be removed, and the bay reclaimed.  Putting tall buildings on the island will completely destroy the superlative views of The City from all of the prime real estate of the East Bay, wiping away one of the greatest resources of the region.  Who asked us if it would be OK for our priceless views to be wiped out?  We should all sue to stop this project as proposed.

    Like the rest of the bay fill around the bay, the fake earth of the island is a seismic catastrophe in the making, since bay fill shakes 30 times harder than the hardest earth and liquifies in addition.  No structure is safe which does not penetrate very deep through the fill into firm ground with a super-expensive foundation.  The 21st century will have far more seismic activity than the 20th did, as the USGS has shown, due to the end of the huge stress shadow cast by the unusually large 1906 quake.

    We are already within 35 years of reaching the level of greenhouse gasses which is sufficient to eventually melt all of the land ice on Earth (750 ppm CO2 equivalent).  The IPCC forecast for sea level rise for 2100 officially excluded the massive effects of melting land ice, and so is woefully incorrect.  Once we have melted it all, sea level will have risen approximately 270 feet!  Long before then, all fill lands, every river delta on Earth, every coastal plain, every port, much of the Bay Area, and eventually some ¾ of the major cities on Earth will be on the bottom of the ocean.  Now is not time to invest in sea level communities in San Francisco Bay, unless they are small, have a light footprint and are considered to be relatively temporary.

  • Paul

    Pro-growth/anti-growth – that’s a tired red herring. It’s not about growth it’s about sensibility. There are other areas in the Bay Area that could be developed much more easily- Hunter’s Point, etc.

    I live on Mare Island, a formal Naval shipyard, and the housing project out here stopped in it’s tracks, i.e., there’s no money or buyers. Would TI be different. 

    Ferry service? Vallejo’s is the most-used ferry service in the Bay Area. SF/Vallejo commuters love it, yet even with all that use, there are cutbacks to service which mean more cars on the road. Why would anyone think that folks who live on TI would be able to support a ferry if the most-used ferry in the bay area is struggling? TI folks will just hop in their cars and get on the bridge ’cause that’s what folks tend to do – they’ll talk about using public transportation, but they’ll get in their cars instead, especially since it’s so close to SF.

    I agree with the caller who reminded us to think about what it’s like to either a) try to enter 80 from the island or b) driving on 80 and have to get into the next lane to allow a car to enter from the island. Now, try to imagine 1800 homes times two drivers each (minimum) trying to enter the bridge traffic. Oh, yeah, that’s right… a special new on ramp. That doesn’t alter the fact that all those 1800*2 cars will still be entering and exiting the bridge. 

    It’s a mud pie in the bay! It’s going to take huge resources (not green) to make it habitable. Why not spend that energy elsewhere to create homes, shops, etc.,?

    Bad idea this TI build-up. 

  • Donaldbarnes

    A project that size will need a retail infranstructure including  medical and dental offices,fast food restaurants, grocery stores and lets not forget schools and where are you going to get teachers and where will they come from. More cars and trucks, Fire Departments and paramedics, and the list contunues.

  • Kirner53

    A wind farm or organic farm do not make up for highrises in the bay, extra traffic on the Bridge etc. Think bay fill & tsunami. Some palms were greased, that is for sure!

Sponsored by

Become a KQED sponsor