Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Muni, CCSF Conduit Fiasco Taxpayer and Ratepayer get ready to Pay
It is well-known that Muni’s Third Street Rail project has had a devastating impact on communities in southeast San Francisco. But it now involves up all as ratepayers and taxpayers.
Muni, CCSF Conduit Fiasco
It is well-known that Muni’s Third Street Rail project has had a devastating impact on communities in southeast San Francisco. All up and down Third Street black businesses have closed because of the endless construction mess — three years and counting — that blocks sidewalks and leaves no room for parking. Muni has not met its minority and women (MBE and WBE) hiring and contracting goals. The only blacks working on the project are flaggers and street sweepers— hardly a career path.
Less well-known is the environmental and financial disaster related to the City’s incompetent construction of the electrical conduit for the rail line across Islais Creek. On Thanksgiving, 2001, local artists were enjoying their hard-won little Muwkema Ohlone Park next to the Illinois Street Bridge across Islais Creek when they noticed sinkholes and sand sprouts appearing all over the park. David Erickson grabbed his camera and photographed the sinkholes gradually getting bigger. Then the asphalt of a parking lot next door started to crack and a bulldozer sitting in it sank through.
What had happened is the crew building muni’s electrical conduit had tunneled under the huge 10 ft. force main carrying 80 million gallons/day of secondary sewage effluent from the Southeast sewage treatment plant. The force main runs along the North bank of Islais Creek and empties into the Bay some distance offshore.
Faulty construction of the electrical conduit line had undermined and cracked the sewage pipe, pouring sewage into the creek and damaging the park.
Why is this still an issue, three years later? It turns out the repairs (which further demolished the park) were as shoddy as the original construction, and the sewer pipe is leaking again. Now it is even more serious, as Muni’s and CCSF electrical wires have been loaded into the conduit, which has been compressed to an egg-shape and flooded.
Meanwhile, the City is desperately trying to get PG&E to share the cost of rebuilding the conduit once again. PG&E and the City had been discussing a joint project whereby PG&E would run a new “AP-1” transmission line between its Potrero and Hunters Point substations in tandem with Muni’s electrical lines.
PG&E’s May 24, 2004 filing at the California Public Utilities Commission describes why PG&E is refusing to have anything to do with the City’s project. It plans to route its line around the West end of the creek instead because its engineering analysis shows multiple reasons why the Illinois Street route should never have been attempted at all. It shows that the soils in the area are unstable and subject to “liquefaction” in an earthquake:
“Now, with its reckless demand for time-consuming reconsideration of a routing alternative that months of expert engineering investigation has already shown to be infeasible, albeit financially advantageous for the city, CCSF places both of these important goals at risk…
“Further, the underwater conduit is currently flooded that was constructed by CCSF without following basic engineering practices such as backfilling the casing with grout to prevent intrusion of water and was installed atop soils subject to liquefaction and other seismic problems.”
Local residents and the Community First Coalition of Bayview Hunters Point are also asking why the City ever allowed this project to go forward. They have a number of questions for the City:
• A Nov. 17, 2000 US Geological Survey map shows liquefaction zones in San Francisco, including in this area. Why wasn’t this taken into consideration?
• Whose decision was it to build the conduit in this area? Was it Muni? Was it SFPUC?
What other City agencies are involved?
• Where does the SF Dept. of Environment stand on protecting the environment? We’ve had millions and millions of gallons of secondary effluent going into Islais creek while the main sewage outflow was being repaired. This violates State and Federal laws.
• With force main flowing secondary effluent into the west end of Islais Creek, what is it doing to plant and fish life, the natural species of the creek?
• Did the EIR take these impacts into consideration or were they omitted?
• Where is the State’s Dept. of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) and the federal EPA? Have they been notified of these violations?
• How is this disaster impacting San Francisco’s budget deficit?
• This multimillion dollar job is trash. How much is it costing the City? What is the cost of the project to date? From the faulty engineering design, to digging the trench, to placing the conduits in, to repairing the main outfall line, the backfilling of the parking lot and the areas that were damaged, including the park. What is the total accumulated cost? What is the estimated cost of repairing this line again? What is the estimated cost of using PG&E’s alternate line?
• If the force main has to be repaired how long is it going to take? How many gallons more effluent will be put in Islais Creek and what will be the environmental effect on the community?
• Whose budget is this coming out of? Muni’s tubes for the light rail are funded by the County Transportation Authority (CTA), which has federal transportation money. Muni is taking money out of the operations budget and putting it into construction, making the unions unhappy. Does that have something to do with finding money for this project?
• Will CCSF taxpayers have to pick up the cost of Muni’s fiasco?
• If PG&E puts in this alternate line which they and their experts say is necessary – it means that the ratepayer will end up paying for that separately. Since Black & Veatch has done an independent study for PG&E what is the cost of that? The people of SF being double-billed. Will CCSF’s Muni conduit be abandoned?
• Was PG&E involved in the city’s project in any way? The City and PG&E have held many meetings to plan this joint project? When did those meetings begin and what was discussed?
• Was there insurance or bond money on this project to protect the taxpayer? Will they relieve the taxpayers burden and go after the contractors and all the people at fault?
• As taxpayers and ratepayers and as members of the impacted community, what recourse or mitigation is there for the community?
• This is a power project, which would involve the SF PUC. PG&E’s document mentions that the City planned to use the conduit for other projects but is now abandoning those plans. What are those projects? Were the City’s proposed peakers going to use these lines? (The peakers are the power plants the City wants to site at Potrero, which is very near this area.)
• SFPUC happens to have a large amount of bond money (for rebuilding Hetch Hetchy). Is Muni attempting to raid these funds? Why is Susan Leal being moved to SFPUC? Would she try to cover this up?
• Could this have been prevented if Muni had hired local people who would have been proud of those jobs, and might have been more careful? Instead you have people who get their paycheck and leave town, who don’t care.
• Are the buildings in that area in danger of collapse?
• The community meeting to discuss PG&E’s project is being held the same night as the monthly meeting of the “Restoration Advisory Board” for the Shipyard (RAB). Many environmental activists in Bayview Hunters Point are tied up at those meetings. Why does the City schedule so many environmental meetings in this community on the same night as the RAB?
Barbara George
David Erickson
Maurice Campbell
It is well-known that Muni’s Third Street Rail project has had a devastating impact on communities in southeast San Francisco. All up and down Third Street black businesses have closed because of the endless construction mess — three years and counting — that blocks sidewalks and leaves no room for parking. Muni has not met its minority and women (MBE and WBE) hiring and contracting goals. The only blacks working on the project are flaggers and street sweepers— hardly a career path.
Less well-known is the environmental and financial disaster related to the City’s incompetent construction of the electrical conduit for the rail line across Islais Creek. On Thanksgiving, 2001, local artists were enjoying their hard-won little Muwkema Ohlone Park next to the Illinois Street Bridge across Islais Creek when they noticed sinkholes and sand sprouts appearing all over the park. David Erickson grabbed his camera and photographed the sinkholes gradually getting bigger. Then the asphalt of a parking lot next door started to crack and a bulldozer sitting in it sank through.
What had happened is the crew building muni’s electrical conduit had tunneled under the huge 10 ft. force main carrying 80 million gallons/day of secondary sewage effluent from the Southeast sewage treatment plant. The force main runs along the North bank of Islais Creek and empties into the Bay some distance offshore.
Faulty construction of the electrical conduit line had undermined and cracked the sewage pipe, pouring sewage into the creek and damaging the park.
Why is this still an issue, three years later? It turns out the repairs (which further demolished the park) were as shoddy as the original construction, and the sewer pipe is leaking again. Now it is even more serious, as Muni’s and CCSF electrical wires have been loaded into the conduit, which has been compressed to an egg-shape and flooded.
Meanwhile, the City is desperately trying to get PG&E to share the cost of rebuilding the conduit once again. PG&E and the City had been discussing a joint project whereby PG&E would run a new “AP-1” transmission line between its Potrero and Hunters Point substations in tandem with Muni’s electrical lines.
PG&E’s May 24, 2004 filing at the California Public Utilities Commission describes why PG&E is refusing to have anything to do with the City’s project. It plans to route its line around the West end of the creek instead because its engineering analysis shows multiple reasons why the Illinois Street route should never have been attempted at all. It shows that the soils in the area are unstable and subject to “liquefaction” in an earthquake:
“Now, with its reckless demand for time-consuming reconsideration of a routing alternative that months of expert engineering investigation has already shown to be infeasible, albeit financially advantageous for the city, CCSF places both of these important goals at risk…
“Further, the underwater conduit is currently flooded that was constructed by CCSF without following basic engineering practices such as backfilling the casing with grout to prevent intrusion of water and was installed atop soils subject to liquefaction and other seismic problems.”
Local residents and the Community First Coalition of Bayview Hunters Point are also asking why the City ever allowed this project to go forward. They have a number of questions for the City:
• A Nov. 17, 2000 US Geological Survey map shows liquefaction zones in San Francisco, including in this area. Why wasn’t this taken into consideration?
• Whose decision was it to build the conduit in this area? Was it Muni? Was it SFPUC?
What other City agencies are involved?
• Where does the SF Dept. of Environment stand on protecting the environment? We’ve had millions and millions of gallons of secondary effluent going into Islais creek while the main sewage outflow was being repaired. This violates State and Federal laws.
• With force main flowing secondary effluent into the west end of Islais Creek, what is it doing to plant and fish life, the natural species of the creek?
• Did the EIR take these impacts into consideration or were they omitted?
• Where is the State’s Dept. of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) and the federal EPA? Have they been notified of these violations?
• How is this disaster impacting San Francisco’s budget deficit?
• This multimillion dollar job is trash. How much is it costing the City? What is the cost of the project to date? From the faulty engineering design, to digging the trench, to placing the conduits in, to repairing the main outfall line, the backfilling of the parking lot and the areas that were damaged, including the park. What is the total accumulated cost? What is the estimated cost of repairing this line again? What is the estimated cost of using PG&E’s alternate line?
• If the force main has to be repaired how long is it going to take? How many gallons more effluent will be put in Islais Creek and what will be the environmental effect on the community?
• Whose budget is this coming out of? Muni’s tubes for the light rail are funded by the County Transportation Authority (CTA), which has federal transportation money. Muni is taking money out of the operations budget and putting it into construction, making the unions unhappy. Does that have something to do with finding money for this project?
• Will CCSF taxpayers have to pick up the cost of Muni’s fiasco?
• If PG&E puts in this alternate line which they and their experts say is necessary – it means that the ratepayer will end up paying for that separately. Since Black & Veatch has done an independent study for PG&E what is the cost of that? The people of SF being double-billed. Will CCSF’s Muni conduit be abandoned?
• Was PG&E involved in the city’s project in any way? The City and PG&E have held many meetings to plan this joint project? When did those meetings begin and what was discussed?
• Was there insurance or bond money on this project to protect the taxpayer? Will they relieve the taxpayers burden and go after the contractors and all the people at fault?
• As taxpayers and ratepayers and as members of the impacted community, what recourse or mitigation is there for the community?
• This is a power project, which would involve the SF PUC. PG&E’s document mentions that the City planned to use the conduit for other projects but is now abandoning those plans. What are those projects? Were the City’s proposed peakers going to use these lines? (The peakers are the power plants the City wants to site at Potrero, which is very near this area.)
• SFPUC happens to have a large amount of bond money (for rebuilding Hetch Hetchy). Is Muni attempting to raid these funds? Why is Susan Leal being moved to SFPUC? Would she try to cover this up?
• Could this have been prevented if Muni had hired local people who would have been proud of those jobs, and might have been more careful? Instead you have people who get their paycheck and leave town, who don’t care.
• Are the buildings in that area in danger of collapse?
• The community meeting to discuss PG&E’s project is being held the same night as the monthly meeting of the “Restoration Advisory Board” for the Shipyard (RAB). Many environmental activists in Bayview Hunters Point are tied up at those meetings. Why does the City schedule so many environmental meetings in this community on the same night as the RAB?
Barbara George
David Erickson
Maurice Campbell
For more information:
http://islaiscreek.org/sewerpipecollapseat...
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Sorry, but "minority" and women "hiring goals" are illegal. Please ask Judge Warren of SF Superior Court to explain it to you if you don't understand.
Sorry to dissapoint you but check into Federal Transportation money and the target goals that they require as far as hiring and contracting. Not SF un enforcable goals that were not enforced anyway. may you sleep better tonight thinking about supporting environmental racism.
Resolution #_______
Protest and Objection of the Hunters Point Shipyard Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) to the Redevelopment Commission’s Actions taken
At its December 2, 2003 Meeting
Whereas;
The City and County of San Francisco (CCSF) Redevelopment Commission took action at its December 2, 2003 meeting approving the Disposition Development Agreement (DDA) between the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (SFRA) and Lennar-BVHP for the Redevelopment of the Shipyard on a vote 5-0-0, despite objections from the affected community and members of the RAB. Also on a vote 5-0-0, on December 2, 2003 the SFRA also adopted an amendment to a separate redevelopment proposal that mandated the forced dislocation of the low-income communities of color (predominantly African American) of Hunters Point (see figure 1), and
Whereas;
Prior to the SFRA vote RAB Co-chair; Lynne Brown’s filed an objection and protest, along with other RAB members to the SFRA Commissioners and SFRA executive director Marshal Rosen on December 2, 2003 as follows;
“I am a resident of Bay View Hunters Point and Co-Chair of the Restoration Advisory Board. I object to the piecemealing the Redevelopment Agency is doing to the Bay View Hunters Point Community. The redevelopment of the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard and the Hunters Point Community is not separate projects because Hunters Point is the affected Community. The current processes as proposed disenfranchises the affected community. This is in violation of Title VI, The Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Restoration Advisory Board is entrusted to protect the Civil Rights of the affected community of Bay View Hunters Point. This means the affect community may file complaints with the Federal Government under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As representatives of the affected community the Restoration Advisory Board will not sign-off on the transfer of the Hunters Point Shipyard to the City and County of San Francisco until it can Certify compliance with the Civil Rights Act and the Base Closure Act. The Redevelopment Agency and its Commissioners should read the Base Closure Act, CERCLA, NEPA and prepare an EIR on their project.
Whereas;
It has become clear that the City and the SFRA has failed to fulfill its fiduciary duties, in behalf of designated beneficiaries, to abide by federal, state, and local laws in all its process and plans regarding the transfer of the Shipyard. This is because laws and policies require that the Shipyard be developed in the “best interests” of, and to “maximize the economic benefits” to: the community affected by the Shipyard’s closure, which the SFRA has determined is Bay View Hunters Point (which community is comprised, by general consensus, to be the approximately 37,000 residents and small business owners of the area encompassed by the Postal Zip Code 94124), but the SFRA did not do so, and
Whereas;
In fact, the SFRA acted “against” these beneficiaries ”best interests” and “minimized” the beneficiaries’ economic benefits, by forcing through a plan which provides the beneficiaries no ownership, nor control of, and no direct share of the profits from: the Shipyard development, and
Whereas;
In addition, plans to redevelop the affected community of 94124 have taken place without public participation of this low and very low-income community of color. This redevelopment project will induce gentrification; displacement of the residents and the neighborhood businesses and services destroys not only the equilibrium of those who are moving, also the residents left behind. As long term residents leave, the schools, churches, and social networks that make-up the social fabric of the community is compromised, and
Whereas;
The only feasible way is for the City and County of San Francisco and its Redevelopment Agency to establish compliance is for it to rescind its December 2, 2003 actions and in the future for it to act in the “best interests” of, and to “maximize the economic benefits” to the described beneficiaries, the BVHP low and very low-income community of color, and thereby meet the letter and intend of these laws and policies. That is the one and only way that these required law’s and policies’ goals to meet required laws and policy goals is for the BVHP residents to be guaranteed 100% ownership and control of the Shipyard and to receive all of the profits derived from its development.
Whereas;
In order for the transfer of the shipyard to the SFRA to take place, the Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) must in behalf of the affected Hunters Point community insure compliance with all federal environmental, restoration, civil rights and base reuse laws (i.e., Laws Ordinance Regulations and Standards) including, but not limited to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq.; 40 CFR Parts 300–311, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq.; 40 CFR Parts 240–281, the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251–1387; 33 CFR Parts 320–330, 335–338; 40 CFR Parts 104–140, 230–233, 401–471; Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands), the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.; 40 CFR Parts 50, 60, 61, and 80, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 300f–300j- 26; 40 CFR Parts 141–149, the Base Closure Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994 (Redevelopment Act), Pub. L. 103-421; 32 CFR Part 176, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.; and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 28 U.S.C. § 1447, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1971, 1975a–1975d, 2000a– 2000h-6, and
Whereas;
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires CCSF, and the SFRA, in coordination with the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA), Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to identify and address any disproportionately high and/or adverse human health, socioeconomic, or environmental impacts of their programs, policies, and actions on minority and/or low-income populations, and
Whereas;
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is the California law that allows the affected community to be informed and members of the public to voice their opinion about projects that may affect their environment. CEQA requires a review of the environmental impacts of projects. CEQA has a broad, strong right of public participation, which has a political component and the violation or deprivation of which has constitutional consequences to the affected community, and
Whereas;
In mandating separate project areas for the shipyard and the Hunters Point Community the SFRA as the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is being allowed to piecemeal the process which is analogous to the strongly forbidden “chopping up [of] a proposed project into bite-size pieces which, individually considered, might be found to have no significance on the environment.” (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 716, citing Orinda Assn. v. Board of Supervisors (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 1145, 1171, 1172; see also Bozung v. LAFCO (1975) 13 Cal.3d at 283-284; Sundstrom, 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 309.)
Whereas;
In the present case what we have is a chopping up of the CEQA duty to provide information that trivialize the nature and extent of the two project’s impacts. In addition, the piecemealing requires that the affected community and the RAB to respond, and allows the developer Lennar-BVHP to then reply, without any opportunity for reply by the affected community and the RAB, without requiring a comprehensive analysis, and without providing structure or finality to the process. And when the process gets near the end, strict time lines are imposed which create additional burdens on the RAB and other members of the public, further hindering if not completely preventing their full and meaningful participation in a process heavily weighed in favor of Lennar-BVHP with virtually unlimited resources whose only excuse for piecemealing the required information is to use it as a tactic to avoid or minimize opposition.
Whereas;
CEQA provides that a proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment when the possible effects on the environment are individually limited but “cumulatively considerable.” (Pub. Resources Code, §21083(b); Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, §15065.) “’Cumulatively considerable’ means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, §15065.) In addition to analyzing the direct impacts of a project, the CEQA Lead Agency must determine whether or not a project will result in a significant cumulative impact.
Whereas;
Recent statutory law has invigorated the utility of the California Environmental Quality Act[1] as the procedural means for the CCSF SFRA to ensure
"the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies" (i.e., environmental justice).”[2]
In conjunction with the regulatory provisions of the federal Clean Air Act and Division 26 of the Health and Safety Code,[3] CEQA provides an ideal mechanism for ensuring that environmental justice will be addressed in all activities and projects that may have a significant effect on the environment.
Whereas;
The California Environmental Quality Act requires that environmental documents (i.e., an environmental impact report [EIR] or a negative declaration or equivalent document) be prepared whenever a public agency proposes to undertake a discretionary activity that may have a significant effect on the environment.[4] The Legislature has declared that all agencies that
"regulate activities of private individuals, corporations, and public agencies which are found to affect the quality of the environment, shall regulate such activities so that major consideration is given to preventing environmental damage, while providing a decent home and satisfying living environment for every Californian."[5]
Projects that are directly undertaken by public agencies are subject to the same level of accountability as private projects that require a permit or other governmental approval to proceed.[6]
Whereas;
The recent enactment of Public Resources Code sections 71110 through 71115 and Government Code section 65040.12, in conjunction with the requirements of federal law, the US EPA’s Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) State Implementation Plan (SIP), and EPA regulations, require the SFRA to infuse EJ into every aspect of decisionmaking. This panoply of statutory authority animates the general authority of the SFRA to "do such acts as may be necessary for the proper execution of the powers and duties granted to, and imposed upon, the state board by this division [26 of the Health and Safety Code] and by any other provision of law."[7] Further, the rules, regulations, and standards that the SFRA adopts must be "consistent with the state goal of providing a decent home and suitable living environment for every Californian"[8] – and so, full circle back to CEQA.
Therefore Be It Resolved,
1. The Bayview Hunters Point Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) hereby Adopts and Incorporates this day the above cited Protests and Objections of Lynne Brown and any other RAB member present at the December 2, 2003 SFRA meeting, and
2. The RAB hereby authorizes this issuance to the US Navy, DoD, US and California EPA, and California Department of Toxic Substance Control, Notice that the RAB has determined the CCSF SFRA to be in Noncompliance with the aforementioned statutes specifically with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 28 U.S.C. § 1447, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1971, 1975a–1975d, 2000a– 2000h-6, and the California Environmental Quality Act, with Notice in the Federal Register if available, and
3. The RAB will not sign-off on the transfer of the Hunters Point Shipyard to the City and County of San Francisco until it can Certify compliance with the Civil Rights Act, the Base Closure Acts including but not limited to the aforementioned statutes.
Vote Ayes Nays Abstentions
____ ____ ____
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] CEQA; Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq. See also, CEQA Guidelines developed by the Office of Planning and Research for adoption by the Secretary for Resources, 14 Cal. Code Regs. Sections 15000 et seq.
[2] SB115, Solis; Stats. 99, ch. 690, Gov't. Code section 65040.12 and Public Resources Code sections 72000-01
[3] 42 U.S.C. sections 7401 et seq. (Public Law 88-206, 77 Stat. 392, December 17, 1963, as last amended by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, P. L. 101-549, November 15, 1990); and Health and Safety Code sections 39000 et seq., respectively
[4] See Public Resources Code (PRC) sections 21002.1, 21061, 21064, and 21080.1. See also, 14 Cal. Code Regs. §15002
[5] SB115, Solis; Stats. 99, ch. 690, Gov't. Code section 65040.12 and Public Resources Code sections 72000-01
[6] PRC §21001.1
[7] Health and Safety Code §39600; emphasis added
[8] Health and Safety Code §39601(c)
Protest and Objection of the Hunters Point Shipyard Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) to the Redevelopment Commission’s Actions taken
At its December 2, 2003 Meeting
Whereas;
The City and County of San Francisco (CCSF) Redevelopment Commission took action at its December 2, 2003 meeting approving the Disposition Development Agreement (DDA) between the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (SFRA) and Lennar-BVHP for the Redevelopment of the Shipyard on a vote 5-0-0, despite objections from the affected community and members of the RAB. Also on a vote 5-0-0, on December 2, 2003 the SFRA also adopted an amendment to a separate redevelopment proposal that mandated the forced dislocation of the low-income communities of color (predominantly African American) of Hunters Point (see figure 1), and
Whereas;
Prior to the SFRA vote RAB Co-chair; Lynne Brown’s filed an objection and protest, along with other RAB members to the SFRA Commissioners and SFRA executive director Marshal Rosen on December 2, 2003 as follows;
“I am a resident of Bay View Hunters Point and Co-Chair of the Restoration Advisory Board. I object to the piecemealing the Redevelopment Agency is doing to the Bay View Hunters Point Community. The redevelopment of the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard and the Hunters Point Community is not separate projects because Hunters Point is the affected Community. The current processes as proposed disenfranchises the affected community. This is in violation of Title VI, The Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Restoration Advisory Board is entrusted to protect the Civil Rights of the affected community of Bay View Hunters Point. This means the affect community may file complaints with the Federal Government under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As representatives of the affected community the Restoration Advisory Board will not sign-off on the transfer of the Hunters Point Shipyard to the City and County of San Francisco until it can Certify compliance with the Civil Rights Act and the Base Closure Act. The Redevelopment Agency and its Commissioners should read the Base Closure Act, CERCLA, NEPA and prepare an EIR on their project.
Whereas;
It has become clear that the City and the SFRA has failed to fulfill its fiduciary duties, in behalf of designated beneficiaries, to abide by federal, state, and local laws in all its process and plans regarding the transfer of the Shipyard. This is because laws and policies require that the Shipyard be developed in the “best interests” of, and to “maximize the economic benefits” to: the community affected by the Shipyard’s closure, which the SFRA has determined is Bay View Hunters Point (which community is comprised, by general consensus, to be the approximately 37,000 residents and small business owners of the area encompassed by the Postal Zip Code 94124), but the SFRA did not do so, and
Whereas;
In fact, the SFRA acted “against” these beneficiaries ”best interests” and “minimized” the beneficiaries’ economic benefits, by forcing through a plan which provides the beneficiaries no ownership, nor control of, and no direct share of the profits from: the Shipyard development, and
Whereas;
In addition, plans to redevelop the affected community of 94124 have taken place without public participation of this low and very low-income community of color. This redevelopment project will induce gentrification; displacement of the residents and the neighborhood businesses and services destroys not only the equilibrium of those who are moving, also the residents left behind. As long term residents leave, the schools, churches, and social networks that make-up the social fabric of the community is compromised, and
Whereas;
The only feasible way is for the City and County of San Francisco and its Redevelopment Agency to establish compliance is for it to rescind its December 2, 2003 actions and in the future for it to act in the “best interests” of, and to “maximize the economic benefits” to the described beneficiaries, the BVHP low and very low-income community of color, and thereby meet the letter and intend of these laws and policies. That is the one and only way that these required law’s and policies’ goals to meet required laws and policy goals is for the BVHP residents to be guaranteed 100% ownership and control of the Shipyard and to receive all of the profits derived from its development.
Whereas;
In order for the transfer of the shipyard to the SFRA to take place, the Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) must in behalf of the affected Hunters Point community insure compliance with all federal environmental, restoration, civil rights and base reuse laws (i.e., Laws Ordinance Regulations and Standards) including, but not limited to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq.; 40 CFR Parts 300–311, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq.; 40 CFR Parts 240–281, the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251–1387; 33 CFR Parts 320–330, 335–338; 40 CFR Parts 104–140, 230–233, 401–471; Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands), the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.; 40 CFR Parts 50, 60, 61, and 80, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 300f–300j- 26; 40 CFR Parts 141–149, the Base Closure Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994 (Redevelopment Act), Pub. L. 103-421; 32 CFR Part 176, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.; and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 28 U.S.C. § 1447, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1971, 1975a–1975d, 2000a– 2000h-6, and
Whereas;
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires CCSF, and the SFRA, in coordination with the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA), Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to identify and address any disproportionately high and/or adverse human health, socioeconomic, or environmental impacts of their programs, policies, and actions on minority and/or low-income populations, and
Whereas;
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is the California law that allows the affected community to be informed and members of the public to voice their opinion about projects that may affect their environment. CEQA requires a review of the environmental impacts of projects. CEQA has a broad, strong right of public participation, which has a political component and the violation or deprivation of which has constitutional consequences to the affected community, and
Whereas;
In mandating separate project areas for the shipyard and the Hunters Point Community the SFRA as the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is being allowed to piecemeal the process which is analogous to the strongly forbidden “chopping up [of] a proposed project into bite-size pieces which, individually considered, might be found to have no significance on the environment.” (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 716, citing Orinda Assn. v. Board of Supervisors (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 1145, 1171, 1172; see also Bozung v. LAFCO (1975) 13 Cal.3d at 283-284; Sundstrom, 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 309.)
Whereas;
In the present case what we have is a chopping up of the CEQA duty to provide information that trivialize the nature and extent of the two project’s impacts. In addition, the piecemealing requires that the affected community and the RAB to respond, and allows the developer Lennar-BVHP to then reply, without any opportunity for reply by the affected community and the RAB, without requiring a comprehensive analysis, and without providing structure or finality to the process. And when the process gets near the end, strict time lines are imposed which create additional burdens on the RAB and other members of the public, further hindering if not completely preventing their full and meaningful participation in a process heavily weighed in favor of Lennar-BVHP with virtually unlimited resources whose only excuse for piecemealing the required information is to use it as a tactic to avoid or minimize opposition.
Whereas;
CEQA provides that a proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment when the possible effects on the environment are individually limited but “cumulatively considerable.” (Pub. Resources Code, §21083(b); Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, §15065.) “’Cumulatively considerable’ means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, §15065.) In addition to analyzing the direct impacts of a project, the CEQA Lead Agency must determine whether or not a project will result in a significant cumulative impact.
Whereas;
Recent statutory law has invigorated the utility of the California Environmental Quality Act[1] as the procedural means for the CCSF SFRA to ensure
"the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies" (i.e., environmental justice).”[2]
In conjunction with the regulatory provisions of the federal Clean Air Act and Division 26 of the Health and Safety Code,[3] CEQA provides an ideal mechanism for ensuring that environmental justice will be addressed in all activities and projects that may have a significant effect on the environment.
Whereas;
The California Environmental Quality Act requires that environmental documents (i.e., an environmental impact report [EIR] or a negative declaration or equivalent document) be prepared whenever a public agency proposes to undertake a discretionary activity that may have a significant effect on the environment.[4] The Legislature has declared that all agencies that
"regulate activities of private individuals, corporations, and public agencies which are found to affect the quality of the environment, shall regulate such activities so that major consideration is given to preventing environmental damage, while providing a decent home and satisfying living environment for every Californian."[5]
Projects that are directly undertaken by public agencies are subject to the same level of accountability as private projects that require a permit or other governmental approval to proceed.[6]
Whereas;
The recent enactment of Public Resources Code sections 71110 through 71115 and Government Code section 65040.12, in conjunction with the requirements of federal law, the US EPA’s Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) State Implementation Plan (SIP), and EPA regulations, require the SFRA to infuse EJ into every aspect of decisionmaking. This panoply of statutory authority animates the general authority of the SFRA to "do such acts as may be necessary for the proper execution of the powers and duties granted to, and imposed upon, the state board by this division [26 of the Health and Safety Code] and by any other provision of law."[7] Further, the rules, regulations, and standards that the SFRA adopts must be "consistent with the state goal of providing a decent home and suitable living environment for every Californian"[8] – and so, full circle back to CEQA.
Therefore Be It Resolved,
1. The Bayview Hunters Point Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) hereby Adopts and Incorporates this day the above cited Protests and Objections of Lynne Brown and any other RAB member present at the December 2, 2003 SFRA meeting, and
2. The RAB hereby authorizes this issuance to the US Navy, DoD, US and California EPA, and California Department of Toxic Substance Control, Notice that the RAB has determined the CCSF SFRA to be in Noncompliance with the aforementioned statutes specifically with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 28 U.S.C. § 1447, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1971, 1975a–1975d, 2000a– 2000h-6, and the California Environmental Quality Act, with Notice in the Federal Register if available, and
3. The RAB will not sign-off on the transfer of the Hunters Point Shipyard to the City and County of San Francisco until it can Certify compliance with the Civil Rights Act, the Base Closure Acts including but not limited to the aforementioned statutes.
Vote Ayes Nays Abstentions
____ ____ ____
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] CEQA; Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq. See also, CEQA Guidelines developed by the Office of Planning and Research for adoption by the Secretary for Resources, 14 Cal. Code Regs. Sections 15000 et seq.
[2] SB115, Solis; Stats. 99, ch. 690, Gov't. Code section 65040.12 and Public Resources Code sections 72000-01
[3] 42 U.S.C. sections 7401 et seq. (Public Law 88-206, 77 Stat. 392, December 17, 1963, as last amended by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, P. L. 101-549, November 15, 1990); and Health and Safety Code sections 39000 et seq., respectively
[4] See Public Resources Code (PRC) sections 21002.1, 21061, 21064, and 21080.1. See also, 14 Cal. Code Regs. §15002
[5] SB115, Solis; Stats. 99, ch. 690, Gov't. Code section 65040.12 and Public Resources Code sections 72000-01
[6] PRC §21001.1
[7] Health and Safety Code §39600; emphasis added
[8] Health and Safety Code §39601(c)
For more information:
http://mecresources.com/RABonViolations1.htm
"Muni has not met its minority and women (MBE and WBE) hiring and contracting goals."
Maybe if they didn't have these hiring quotas, and could hire based upon.. gee, I dont know.. SKILLS?.. the quality of the workmanship wouldn't be so bad.
Maybe if they didn't have these hiring quotas, and could hire based upon.. gee, I dont know.. SKILLS?.. the quality of the workmanship wouldn't be so bad.
Your inept argument sounds like you work for MUNI, and are truly skilled since no local people were involved at any level of working on the current fiasco.
Hope you are satisisfied MORON be happy you will have to pay taxes and higher rates for this then you can whistle dixie for doing your part.
Hope you are satisisfied MORON be happy you will have to pay taxes and higher rates for this then you can whistle dixie for doing your part.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$190.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network