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
The City and County of San Francisco (CCSF)
Redevelopment Commission took action at its
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
“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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is
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.)
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.
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);
Recent statutory law has invigorated the utility of the California Environmental Quality Act 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).”
In conjunction with the regulatory provisions of the federal Clean Air Act and Division 26 of the Health and Safety Code, 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.
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. 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."
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.
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." 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" – 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
RAB will not sign-off on the transfer of the Hunters Point Shipyard to the City
Vote Ayes Nays Abstentions
____ ____ ____
 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.
 SB115, Solis; Stats. 99, ch. 690, Gov't. Code section 65040.12 and Public Resources Code sections 72000-01
 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
 See Public Resources Code (PRC) sections 21002.1, 21061, 21064, and 21080.1. See also, 14 Cal. Code Regs. §15002
 SB115, Solis; Stats. 99, ch. 690, Gov't. Code section 65040.12 and Public Resources Code sections 72000-01
 PRC §21001.1
 Health and Safety Code §39600; emphasis added
 Health and Safety Code §39601(c)