SF Board Says 'Yes' to Lennar
After 10-hour hearing, environmental and health concerns don't carry the vote
Lennar's massive waterfront project rolled decisively forward early Wednesday morning.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved the environmental impact report on the big plans for the old Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, eight to three, after a 10-hour long hearing.
"As I said before, we are at a crossroads today,” said David Chiu, board president, as he cast his vote at around 1:30 a.m.
Coming into the contentious hearing, Chiu was thought to be the swing vote, but there was no need in the end. Supervisors Chris Daly, Eric Mar and John Avalos were the only ones to vote against certifying the report. Daly tried to continue the item, saying, “This is a massive project with massive impacts with a massive EIR that none of us have read cover to cover,” but his motion didn't carry.
Lennar plans to build 10,000 homes on the 700-acre site that includes Candlestick Park should the 49ers stay in San Francisco. It would transform the southeast side of San Francisco. The shipyard is a contaminated superfund site that the federal government has spent more than $700 million on cleaning up.
Environmental and community groups asked the board to reject the report because of two main concerns: a rush to develop the land before properly cleaning it up, and a bridge that would disturb the delicate tidal ecology in the area.
Before the meeting, Chiu had tried to alleviate those concerns by adding amendments that would give the city more control over the cleanup process and the design of the bridge. He also proposed expanding a health clinic in that part of the city. It appeared that Chiu's amendments helped him win over some progressive supervisors.
At the hearing, hundreds lined up outside the board's chambers to speak. Environmentalists and community activists spoke out against the project. Carpenters, pile-drivers and scores of other union members looking for work came to offer their support. The project has split the blue-collar Bayview district, where unemployment is high in a jobs-versus-environment debate.
“I know that young folks want jobs – but I tell you today, not at the risk of their lives,” said Marie Harrison, a longtime Bayview activist with environmental justice group Greenaction.
Wilma Subra, an environmental scientist who long has long opposed the project, warned the board that the report didn't take into account the “cumulative impact” of an insufficiently cleaned up superfund site.
“Because the community is overburdened and very vulnerable and the large number of chemicals on site, these people will be heavily impacted,” said Subra.
She and others also raised concerns about the Navy's proposal to pave over one of the most contaminated portions with a cap rather than cleaning it up. Chiu's amendment would call for a hearing this fall at which those different options would be discussed.
Both the city and the federal Environmental Protection Agency swore up and down that the land wouldn't be transferred from the Navy to the city for development before it was cleaned up.
“We're not going to allow any transfer until we know that it's safe to happen,” said Mark Ripperda, the EPA official in charge of the site.
The other big point of contention has been the bridge planned to be built over Yosemite Slough. The Sierra Club and other groups claim it will disturb the wildlife and wetlands. Meanwhile, planners and business owners said that the bridge would connect the relatively isolated area to the rest of the city. The status of the bridge was unclear by the end of the meeting with some supervisors indicating that there was still room for discussion.
Supervisor Sophie Maxwell, whose district includes the shipyard and has been the leading proponent for the project, read prepared remarks sometime after 1 a.m.
"I believe we have both jobs and safety covered,” she said.
Of the supervisors, Daly spoke most vociferously against the project. He criticized the report for not taking into account the impacts on gentrification and displacement in the Bayview and Hunters Point community, which has a large African-American population.
“The ultimate result will be widespread gentrification,” said Daly.
The board is set for a final vote on the project at the beginning of August.
mattymatt
That bridge is awfully controversial. I still haven't heard sufficient justification for it, considering the damage that it could do to the wetlands there.
It would be right next to the 3rd Street light rail, so the argument that it's needed to connect the community to the rest of the city sounds a little suspicious to me.
It's interesting to hear that the city wants more control over its design. Would they share that control with Lennar? I'm curious about what the city would want to alter about the bridge design as currently proposed.
Concerned Voter
I'm still hopeful that the 49ers will come to their senses and realize once-and-for-all that the Hunters Point site is SOOOO far superior to the shoebox they say they want in Santa Clara. HP has HUNDREDS of acres and DEDICATED parking and public safety that knows what they are doing and has experience. Versus a 17-acre site for a 14-acre stadium JAMMED WITHOUT dedicated parking and AWFUL access and a bunch of idiots who can't even handle 4th of July traffic!
49er fans --- put the pressure on the Yorks - shake them out of their Santa Clara coma and make them realize that SF is where they belong and where they NEED to stay. And, get their head out of their checkbook and CARE about the fan experience. The Santa Clara site SUCKS!!
49ers are the SAN FRANCISCO 49ers and that's where they belong!