In southeast San Francisco, a significant redevelopment initiative known as the SF Gateway is gaining traction after a decade of delays.
Unlike larger projects along the bay, such as those at Candlestick Point and the Hunters Point shipyard, SF Gateway focuses solely on job creation without adding new residential units.
This ambitious proposal involves the demolition of four aged warehouses near the elevated 280 freeway and the construction of two nearly 100-foot-tall buildings, spanning four long city blocks.
Prologis, a San Francisco-based developer specializing in warehouses and supply-chain real estate, spearheads this project.
They envision SF Gateway functioning as a hub for parcel delivery services, while also incorporating ground-floor retail spaces, artist studios, and light-industrial facilities throughout the development.
Although Prologis has yet to confirm specific tenants, speculation has risen regarding Amazon’s potential involvement due to the presence of two of its warehouses slated for demolition.
Amid the support, the project faces opposition rooted in various concerns, including labor politics, environmental implications, and the aesthetic impacts on local views.
The SF Gateway will be under scrutiny today as it heads to the city’s Planning Commission for a crucial vote.
Sup. Shamann Walton’s endorsement is a significant factor for the project, especially as he has historically voiced concerns raised by project opponents.
Initially proposed in 2015, Prologis claims the updated design will facilitate a diverse array of light industrial activities, known locally as production, distribution, and repair (PDR), that have dwindled in San Francisco.
As the pandemic fueled a surge in online shopping, the demand for distribution centers has intensified, making SF Gateway’s 1.6 million square feet of space particularly relevant.
The project promises to include artist spaces and at least 8,400 square feet of retail, along with 1,125 parking spaces and the largest solar power array in the city.
In the past, Amazon has sought to expand its operations in San Francisco, particularly regarding the old Recology site.
However, in 2022, the Board of Supervisors unanimously voted to require special permission for new delivery warehouse openings in the city, a move led by Walton.
Walton described this measure as a means to ensure that large businesses contribute positively to the neighborhoods they enter.
Union officials, particularly from the Teamsters Joint Council 7, have criticized SF Gateway, viewing it as an advantageous arrangement for Amazon.
The sentiment surrounding the project appears polarized.
Opponents have cited issues like obstructed views and the behemoth size of the development, which they argue will dwarf the surrounding neighborhood.
For instance, Sue Hestor, an advocate against overdevelopment, voices concerns about the increased delivery traffic associated with Amazon’s existing footprint in the area.
Additionally, environmental and health concerns have permeated the discussion.
Bayview-Hunters Point has often borne the brunt of the city’s dirtiest environmental sites, which have historically plagued the neighborhood and contributed to ongoing health disparities among residents.
Longtime resident Blair Sandler points to the burden of pollution and asserts that the influx of delivery vans will further exacerbate these challenges.
Public health studies have indicated that residents in Bayview experience higher rates of ailments such as asthma and certain cancers, raising questions about the potential effects of the SF Gateway.
The California Air Quality Resource Board, in a 2023 analysis, warned that the development could increase vehicle traffic significantly, adding 6,000 daily trips to local roads.
They suggested that the project should prioritize zero-emission technologies to mitigate air quality concerns.
In light of these warnings, Prologis has referenced an environmental impact report that states most effects will be insignificant.
However, critics remain unconvinced.
Rochelle Holmes, a representative from All Things Bayview, expressed distrust in the planning process and emphasized the disconnect between Prologis and local residents.
In contrast, Walton’s support for SF Gateway stems from his position as a community member willing to champion investment and job creation.
While ongoing negotiations involve the handling of the project, Amazon’s proposals in the area remain uncertain.
The company is still contemplating its plans regarding the old Recology site, and overall, the local community must grapple with the ramifications.
While Walton hailed the Gateway project as a milestone for District 10, many residents remain apprehensive about the potential environmental consequences and the larger implications for the neighborhood.
Further complicating matters, the political landscape is shifting due to last week’s recall of Sup. Joel Engardio, a project sponsor.
With Engardio’s future on the Board of Supervisors uncertain, the fate of the SF Gateway may hinge on the subsequent political dynamics.
As the Planning Commission considers the environmental report today, the project could advance toward a vote in City Hall.
How this unfolds remains to be seen, especially considering the potential involvement of new supervisory leadership and shifting labor desires.
Nonetheless, with six co-sponsors behind the legislation, including Engardio, discussions surrounding the project are expected to ignite ongoing debates about land use, jobs, and community representation moving forward.
image source from：thefrisc
