Record of Decision for the Disposal and Reuse of the
To unsubscribe please go to:
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/subscribe.htm
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/
======================================================
[Federal Register: November 20, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 224)]
[Notices]
[Page 69744-69752]
>From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20no00-45]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy
Record of Decision for the Disposal and Reuse of the Hunters
Point Annex To Naval Station Treasure Island, Formerly Hunters Point
Naval Shipyard, San Francisco, California
SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy (Navy), pursuant to Section
102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42
U.S.C. 4332(2)(C) (1994), and the regulations of the Council on
Environmental Quality that implement NEPA procedures, 40 CFR parts
1500-1508, hereby announces its decision to dispose of the Hunters
Point Annex to Naval Station Treasure Island, formerly Hunters Point
Naval Shipyard
[[Page 69745]]
(Hunters Point), which is located in San Francisco, California.
Navy analyzed the impacts of the disposal and reuse of Hunters
Point in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), as required by NEPA.
The EIS analyzed two reuse alternatives and identified the Land Use
Alternatives and Proposed Draft Plan, Hunters Point Shipyard, dated
March 1995, as modified by the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency on
January 6, 1997, (Reuse Plan) and described in the EIS as the Proposed
Reuse Plan Alternative, as the Preferred Alternative. The Preferred
Alternative proposed to use the Hunters Point property for industrial,
commercial, residential, and educational activities and to develop
parks and recreational areas.
Navy plans to dispose of Hunters Point in a manner that is
consistent with the Reuse Plan and under the authority of Section
2824(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991,
Public Law 101-510, as amended by Section 2834 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994, Public Law 103-160. Section
2834 of Public Law 103-160 authorizes the Secretary of the Navy to
convey the Hunters Point property to the City of San Francisco or a
local reuse organization approved by the City.
This Record Of Decision does not mandate a specific mix of land
uses. Rather, it leaves selection of the particular means to achieve
the proposed redevelopment to the acquiring entity and the local zoning
authority.
Background: Hunters Point Naval Shipyard ceased operating as a ship
construction, overhaul, and repair facility in 1974. Thereafter, Navy
leased the property to various private entities and, between 1986 and
1990, Navy used the facility to repair several Naval vessels.
Under the authority of the Defense Authorization Amendments and
Base Closure and Realignment Act, Public Law 100-526, 10 U.S.C. 2687
note (1994), the 1988 Defense Secretary's Commission on Base
Realignment and Closure recommended that Navy exclude Hunters Point
from its Strategic Homeport Program. This recommendation was approved
by the Secretary of Defense, Frank Carlucci, and accepted by the One
Hundred First Congress in 1989.
In 1990, Navy designated the property as the Hunters Point Annex to
Naval Station Treasure Island, which is also located in San Francisco.
Section 2824(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1991, Public Law 101-510, directed Navy to lease not less than 260
acres at Hunters Point to the City of San Francisco at fair market
value for a period of at least 30 years.
Under the authority of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act
of 1990 (DBCRA), Public Law 101-510, 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2687 note (1994),
the 1991 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission recommended
closing the Hunters Point Annex to Naval Station Treasure Island. The
Commission also recommended that Navy lease the entire property and
permit continuing occupancy by certain Navy components. These
recommendations were approved by president Bush and accepted by the One
Hundred Second Congress in 1991.
The 1993 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission modified
the 1991 Commission's recommendation by directing Navy to dispose of
the Hunters Point Annex in any lawful manner, including by leasing the
property. The 1993 Commission's recommendation was approved by
President Clinton and accepted by the One Hundred Third Congress in
September 1993.
Later in 1993, Section 2834 of Public Law 103-160 amended Section
2824(a) of Public Law 101-510 and gave the Secretary of the Navy
authority to convey Hunters Point Naval Shipyard to the City of San
Francisco or a local reuse organization approved by the City instead of
leasing the property. This authority is independent of the Defense Base
Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, as well as the Federal Property
and Administrative Services Act of 1949, 40 U.S.C. 484 (1994), and its
implementing regulations, the Federal Property Management Regulations,
41 CFR part 101-47.
Hunters Point Naval Shipyard is located in the City of San
Francisco and covers 936 acres, of which 443 acres are submerged. The
property is bounded on the north by India Basin; on the east and south
by San Francisco Bay; on the southwest by South Basin; and on the
northwest by the Bayview-Hunters Point area of San Francisco. This part
of the City contains light and heavy industrial activities, commercial
activities, residential areas, and parks and recreational areas.
The North Gate at the intersection of Innes Avenue and Donahue
Street provides the primary access to Hunters Point. The South Gate,
located on Crisp Avenue and currently closed except for emergencies,
provided secondary access to Hunters Point. The Shipyard property is
relatively flat except for a residential area located on the crest of a
ridge known as Hunters Point Hill.
Hunters Point Naval Shipyard was engaged in the construction,
conversion, overhaul, repair, alteration, drydocking, and outfitting of
Naval vessels and service craft. The primary berthing areas for vessels
are located in the eastern part of the Shipyard and consist of the quay
wall, the North Pier, the South Pier, and the Regunning Pier. Two small
piers, Piers B and C, are located in the northeastern part of the base,
and three larger piers, Piers 1, 2 and 3, are located in the
southeastern part of the base. There is a 450-ton bridge crane situated
on the Regunning Pier; it is considered an identifying characteristic
of Hunters Point Naval Shipyard that reflects its historic industrial
use.
Two large drydocks, Drydock 2 and Drydock 3 (which replaced Drydock
1), are located in the eastern part of the base and, together with four
adjacent buildings (Buildings 140, 204, 205, and 207), comprise the
Hunters Point Commercial Drydock Historic District. Drydock 4, the
second largest drydock on the Pacific Coast, is located in the eastern
part of the base between North Pier and South Pier. Three smaller
drydocks, Drydocks 5, 6, and 7, are located in the northeastern part of
the base.
This Record of Decision addresses the disposal and reuse of the
entire Hunters Point Naval Shipyard property. About 40 percent of the
property is currently being leased. On the leased property, 58
buildings are being used for industrial activities; 12 buildings are
being used for light industrial and arts and cultural activities; three
buildings are being used for commercial activities; one building is
being used for recreational activities; and about 60 acres in the
northern part of the property are being used for law enforcement
training activities.
Navy published a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register on June
28, 1995, announcing that Navy and the City of San Francisco would
jointly prepare an Environmental Impact Statement/Environment Impact
Report (EIS/EIR) under NEPA and the California Environmental Quality
Act, Cal. Pub. Res. Code, Secs. 21000-21177 (CEQA), that analyzed the
impacts of the disposal and reuse of Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. On
July 12, 1995, Navy and the City held a public scoping meeting at the
Southeast Community Facility located in the Bayview-Hunters Point area
of San Francisco, and the scoping period concluded on July 30, 1995.
Navy and the City distributed a Draft EIS/EIR (DEIS/DEIR) to
Federal, State, and local agencies, elected officials, interested
parties, and the general public on November 21, 1997, and commenced a
60-day public review and comment period. During this period, Federal,
State, and local agencies,
[[Page 69746]]
community groups and associations, and interested persons submitted
oral and written comments concerning the DEIS/DEIR. On December 10,
1997, Navy and the City held a public hearing in Building 101 at the
Shipyard. On December 11, 1997, Navy and the city held another public
hearing in a joint session with the San Francisco Planning Commission
and the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Commission at the War
Memorial Veterans Building in San Francisco. The City also held two
additional public hearings on January 13, 1998 and January 15, 1998.
After the public comment period for the DEIS/DEIR concluded, Navy
and the City modified the analysis for the disposal and reuse of the
Shipyard and prepared a Revised DEIS/DEIR. On November 6, 1998, Navy
and the City distributed the Revised DEIS/DEIR to Federal, State, and
local agencies, elected officials, interested parties, and the general
public and commenced a 60-day public review and comment period, which
was extended for 14 days. During this period, Federal, State, and local
agencies, public interest groups, and one individual submitted written
comments concerning the Revised DEIS/DEIR. On December 9, 1998, Navy
and the City held a public hearing on the Revised DEIS/DEIR in Building
101 at the Shipyard. On December 17, 1998, Navy and the City held a
second public hearing in a joint session with the San Francisco
Planning Commission and the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency
Commission at the War Memorial Veterans Building in San Francisco.
After the public comment period concluded, Navy and the City decided to
prepare separate final NEPA and CEQA documents.
Navy's responses to the public comments on the Revised DEIS/DEIR
were incorporated in Navy's Final EIS (FEIS), which was distributed to
the public on March 3, 2000, for a review period that concluded on
April 4, 2000. Navy received five comments on the FEIS.
The City's responses to the public comments on the Revised DEIS/
DEIR were incorporated in the City's document entitled Hunters Point
Shipyard Reuse, Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report, Comments and
Responses, dated January 2000, which was distributed to the public on
January 24, 2000, for a review period that concluded on February 8,
2000. The San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and the San Francisco
Planning Commission certified the EIR on February 8, 2000.
Redevelopment Agency Resolution No. 12-2000; Planning Commission
Resolution No. 11-2000.
Alternatives: NEPA requires Navy to evaluate a reasonable range of
alternatives for the disposal and reuse of this Federal property. In
the FEIS, Navy analyzed the environmental impacts of two reuse
alternatives. Navy also evaluated a ``No Action'' alternative that
would leave the property in caretaker status with Navy maintaining the
physical condition of the property, providing a security force, and
making repairs essential to safety.
In 1991, the Mayor of San Francisco, Art Agnos, created the Mayor's
Hunters Point Shipyard Citizens Advisory Committee, composed of local
government agencies and residents of the City. The Advisory Committee
solicited the views of residents of the Bayview-Hunters Point community
and others in the City concerning the redevelopment of Hunters Point
Naval Shipyard. In February 1993, the Advisory Committee set goals and
proposed various uses for the Shipyard. In February 1994, after public
participation, the Advisory Committee established seven guidelines to
apply to the preparation of a reuse plan for the Shipyard property:
Create jobs for economic vitality; support existing businesses and
artists; create an appropriate mix of new businesses; balance
redevelopment and environmental conservation; make the Shipyard
available for transitional uses; integrate new uses of the Shipyard
property into current plans for the Bayview area; and acknowledge the
social and cultural history of the Hunters Point area.
Applying these guidelines, the Advisory Committee developed four
preliminary reuse alternatives: Education and Arts, Industrial,
Maritime, and Residential. Each alternative, except the Residential
alternative, proposed a substantial amount of industrial and maritime
activities. At a public workshop on June 2, 1994, the Advisory
Committee selected the Education and Arts alternative as most
consistent with the guidelines for redevelopment of the Shipyard. This
alternative proposed a more diverse mix of land uses and businesses and
had the potential to create more jobs for residents of the Bayview-
Hunters Point area. The Advisory Committee developed three preliminary
plans that could implement the Education and Arts alternative. These
plans were evaluated through extensive public participation.
On February 14, 1995, the Advisory Committee adopted the Land Use
Alternatives and Proposed Draft Plan, Hunters Point Shipyard. On March
6, 1995, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors endorsed this plan as
the preferred alternative for use in the environmental analysis. Board
of Supervisors Resolution No. 175-95, dated March 17, 1995.
In a letter to Navy dated January 6, 1997, the San Francisco
Redevelopment Agency modified the 1995 reuse plan to take account of
the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission's
management program for San Francisco Bay. Property in the southeastern
part of the Shipyard that had previously been designated for future
redevelopment and open space was dedicated to maritime industrial use.
The proposed street pattern in the southern part of the base was
reconfigured to align with the boundary of the maritime industrial
area. The Redevelopment Agency also changed the use of five acres of
open space at the western end of Spear Avenue from passive recreational
use to active recreational use.
The Reuse Plan, identified in the FEIS as the Preferred
Alternative, proposed a mix of land uses. This Alternative would use 96
acres for industrial activities; 85 acres for maritime industrial
activities; 70 acres for research and development; 55 acres for
commercial activities, including a hotel and conference center, office
space, entertainment, and artists' studios; 25 acres for educational
and cultural activities; 38 acres for residential development; and 124
acres for open space and recreational activities. The Preferred
Alternative would use some of the existing facilities and build new
facilities. It will be necessary to upgrade existing utility and
infrastructure systems and improve the Shipyard's streets and public
transportation network in order to support the proposed redevelopment
of the property.
The Preferred Alternative would extend Spear Avenue, a northeast-
southwest road on the base, to provide access to the development in the
southern part of the base and to connect the eastern and western parts
of the property. Innes Avenue and Crisp Avenue would provide access to
the Hunters Point property. By the full build-out year of 2025, the
Reuse Plan would create about 6,400 new jobs. It would build 500 live/
work units and 1,300 residences composed of apartments, single-family
houses, and duplexes.
The Preferred Alternative would develop about 775,000 square feet
of space on 96 acres in the center of the southern part of the base for
industrial
[[Page 69747]]
activities. These activities could include manufacturing, sales, and
distribution businesses concerned with perishable products, chemical
and allied products, primary and fabricated metals, and electrical and
electronic equipment and parts. Wholesale services, automobile and
trucking services, courier services, equipment leasing, printing and
publishing activities, warehouses and distribution facilities, airport-
related ground transportation services, artists' studios, and motion
picture product companies could also occupy property in this part of
the Shipyard.
On 85 acres along the waterfront in the southeastern part of the
base, the preferred Alternative would develop about 360,000 square feet
of space for maritime industrial activities. This Alternative could use
the wharves and Drydock 4 in this area for maintenance and repair of
vessels and could also provide rail and truck facilities, container
freight stations, intermodal container transfer facilities, offices,
and storage areas. The Preferred Alternative could also develop areas
here for maintaining containers and container-handling equipment and
for other port activities. The maritime activities would complement the
industrial activities on the adjacent 96 acres.
Along Spear Avenue and in the northern part of the Shipyard, the
Preferred Alternative would develop about 312,000 square feet of space
on 70 acres for research and development activities. These activities
could include manufacturing, sales, and distribution businesses that
would serve the medical profession. Other activities could include data
processing, telecommunications, artists' studios, and live/work units.
The Preferred Alternative would develop about 1,150,000 square feet
of space in four areas for various purposes such as artists' studios,
live/work units, recording studios, hotel and conference facilities,
retail stores, are galleries, engineering research and development
facilities, educational and health services, warehouses and
distribution facilities, business services, real estate and insurance
services, and restaurants. This development would cover about 55 acres
at the Shipyard: along Spear Avenue north of the industrial activities;
northeast of Drydock 4 between the maritime industrial and research and
development activities; along the waterfront at the northeast end of
the property; and along Innes Avenue at the north entrance to the base.
The Preferred Alternative would also build about 500 apartments above
commercial facilities.
In two areas covering 25 acres at the eastern end of the shipyard
and in a small area along Spear Avenue north of the industrial
activities, the Preferred Alternative would develop about 555,600
square feet of space for educational and training facilities, museums,
theaters, galleries, specialty retail shops, restaurants, artists'
studios, and conference facilities. Part of this development at the
eastern end of the shipyard is located in the Hunters Point Commercial
Drydock Historic District.
The Preferred Alternative would develop about 1,300 residences
composed of apartments, single-family houses, and duplexes on 38 acres
in the existing residential area on Hunters Point Hill and along Crisp
Avenue in the northwestern part of the Shipyard. This Alternative could
also develop gardens in an open space and passive recreational area
adjacent to the residential area along Crisp Avenue.
The Preferred Alternative would develop open space and recreational
areas along the waterfront from the western end of the base to the
southern tip of the base. Most of the property in this area would be
used for passive recreation and to restore wetlands. In the center of
the base, this Alternative would develop open space with both active
and passive recreational areas. In the eastern part of the base along
the waterfront, it would develop plazas and promenades. At the northern
tip of the base, the Preferred Alternative would develop open space
containing hard surfaces and passive recreational areas and would
restore wetlands there. Public access trails would be located along
waterfront areas and provide a link to the regional Bay Trail.
Navy analyzed a second ``action'' alternative, described in the
FEIS as the Reduced Development Alternative. This Alternative proposed
the same land uses in the same places as those set forth in the
Preferred Alternative. In the Reduced Development Alternative, however,
there would be less intense development characterized by fewer and
smaller buildings than proposed under the Preferred Alternative.
The Reduced Development Alternative would extend Spear Avenue to
provide access to the development in the southern part of the base and
to connect the eastern and western parts of the property. Innes Avenue
and Crisp Avenue would provide access to the Hunters Point property. By
the full build-out year of 2025, the Reduced Development Alternative
would create about 2,700 new jobs. It would build 100 live/work units
and 300 residences composed of apartments, single-family houses, and
duplexes.
The Reduced Development Alternative would develop about 377,000
square feet of space on 96 acres in the center of the southern part of
the base for industrial activities. These activities could include
manufacturing, sales, and distribution businesses concerned with
perishable products, chemical and allied products, primary and
fabricated metals, and electrical and electronic equipment and parts.
Wholesale services, automobile and trucking services, courier services,
equipment leasing, printing and publishing activities, warehouses and
distribution facilities, airport-related ground transportation
services, artists' studios, and motion picture production companies
could also occupy property in this part of the Shipyard.
On 85 acres along the waterfront in the southeastern part of the
base, the Reduced Development Alternative would develop about 173,000
square feet of space for maritime industrial activities. This
Alternative could use the wharves and Drydock 4 in this area for
maintenance and repair of vessels and could also provide rail and truck
facilities, container freight stations, intermodal container transfer
facilities, offices, and storage areas. The Reduced Development
Alternative could also develop areas here for maintaining containers
and container-handling equipment and for other port activities. The
maritime activities would complement the industrial activities on the
adjacent 96 acres.
Along Spear Avenue and in the northern part of the Shipyard, the
Reduced Development Alternative would develop about 100,000 square feet
of space on 70 acres for research and development activities. These
activities could include manufacturing, sales, and distribution
businesses that would serve the medical profession. Other activities
could include data processing, telecommunications, artists' studios,
and live/work units.
The Reduced Development Alternative would develop about 300,000
square feet of space in four areas for various purposes such as
artists' studios, live/work units, recording studios, hotel and
conference facilities, retail stores, art galleries, engineering
research and development facilities, educational and health services,
warehouses and distribution facilities, business services, real estate
and insurance services, and restaurants. This development would cover
about 55 acres at the Shipyard: along Spear Avenue north of the
industrial activities; northeast of Drydock 4 between the maritime
industrial and research and development activities;
[[Page 69748]]
along the waterfront at the northeast end of the property; and along
Innes Avenue at the north entrance to the base. The Reduced Development
Alternative would also build about 100 apartments above commercial
facilities.
In two areas covering 25 acres at the eastern end of the Shipyard
and in a small area along Spear Avenue north of the industrial
activities, the Reduced Development Alternative would develop about
345,000 square feet of space for educational and training facilities,
museums, theaters, galleries, specialty retail shops, restaurants,
artists' studios, and conference facilities. Part of this development
at the eastern end of the Shipyard is located in the Hunters Point
Commercial Drydock Historic District.
The Reduced Development Alternative would develop about 300
residences composed of apartments, single-family houses, and duplexes
on 38 acres in the existing residential area on Hunters Point Hill and
along Crisp Avenue in the northwestern part of the Shipyard. This
Alternative could also develop gardens in an open space and passive
recreational area adjacent to the residential area along Crisp Avenue.
The Reduced Development Alternative would develop open space and
recreational areas along the waterfront from the western end of the
base to the southern tip of the base. Most of the property in this area
would be used for passive recreation and to restore wetlands. In the
center of the base, this Alternative would develop open space with both
active and passive recreational areas. In the eastern part of the base
along the waterfront, it would develop plazas and promenades. At the
northern tip of the base, the Reduced Development Alternative would
develop open space containing hard surfaces and passive recreational
areas and would restore wetlands there. Public access trails would be
located along waterfront areas and provide a link to the regional Bay
Trail.
Environmental Impacts: Navy analyzed the direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts of the disposal and reuse of this Federal property.
The EIS addressed impacts of the Preferred Alternative, the Reduced
Development Alternative, and the ``No Action'' Alternative for each
alternative's effects on transportation, traffic and circulation, air
quality, noise, land use, visual resources and aesthetics,
socioeconomics, hazardous materials and waste, geology and soils, water
resources, utilities, public services, cultural resources, and
biological resources. This Record Of Decision focuses on the impacts
that would likely result from implementation of the Reuse Plan,
identified in the Final EIS as the Preferred Alternative.
The Preferred Alternative would have significant impacts on
transportation, traffic and circulation. The Preferred Alternative
would implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program that
would include substantial ridesharing, use of public transportation,
and nonvehicular travel modes. By the full build-out year of 2025, this
Alternative would generate 21,832 average daily trips. The traffic
generated by the Reuse Plan would cause substantial delays during peak
commuting hours at three intersections near Hunters Point Naval
Shipyard. Delays arising out of traffic congestion would also increase
at two other intersections, along three freeway segments, and on 11
freeway ramps, but these delays would not be significant. Additionally,
the demand for public transportation, pedestrian sidewalks, and bike
paths and related accommodations would exceed the projected capacity,
causing a significant impact on these services and resources.
Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would also increase the
number of trucks entering and leaving the Hunters Point property.
The Preferred Alternative would not have a significant impact on
air quality. The traffic generated by this Alternative would increase
ozone precursor emissions and PM10 emissions, but the
increase would not result in additional violations of Federal or State
ambient air quality standards. Carbon monoxide emissions would also
increase at congested intersections, but the increase would not result
in violations of Federal or State standards for ambient air quality.
The vehicle emission analysis assumed that a TDM program would be
implemented. The impact on air quality resulting from demolition,
construction, and renovation activities over the 25-year build-out
period would not be significant. The acquiring entity would be
responsible for complying with Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) guidelines for controlling airborne dust during development.
The Preferred Alternative would be consistent with many of the land
use and transportation objectives and policies contained in the
regional air quality plan developed by BAAQMD and the Association of
Bay Area Governments as well as the Air Quality Element of the City of
San Francisco's Master Plan. The particular land use pattern set forth
in the Reuse Plan has not yet been incorporated in the regional air
quality plan, but Federal and State laws require periodic updating of
this plan to reflect changing land use and transportation plans.
Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7506 (1994),
requires Federal agencies to review their proposed activities to ensure
that these activities do not hamper local efforts to control air
pollution. Section 176(c) prohibits Federal agencies from conducting
activities in air quality areas such as the San Francisco Bay Area that
do not meet one or more of the national standards for ambient air
quality, unless the proposed activities conform to an approved
implementation plan. The United States Environmental Protection Agency
regulations implementing Section 176(c) recognize certain categorically
exempt activities. Conveyance of title to real property and certain
leases are categorically exempt activities. 40 CFR 93.153(c)(2)(xiv)
and (xix). Therefore, the disposal of Hunters Point Naval Shipyard will
not require Navy to conduct a conformity determination.
Navy has not operated any stationary emission sources at Hunters
Point since 1974. The Reuse Plan does not provide sufficient
information concerning future projects to permit evaluation of the
impacts that could be associated with related stationary emission
sources. Proponents of such projects must submit air permit
applications to BAAQMD, and it will determine whether specific
mitigation measures must be imposed as a condition of granting new
permits. To reduce toxic air contaminant emissions from stationary
sources, the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency has committed to
requiring all potential stationary sources of toxic contaminants
allowed at Hunters Point to be evaluated and permitted as one facility.
New potential stationary sources would only be allowed if the estimated
incremental toxic air contaminant health risk from all stationary
sources at Hunters Point were consistent with BAAQMD significance
criteria for an individual facility. This approach is more stringent
than current BAAQMD permitting requirements.
The Preferred Alternative would have a significant noise impact on
certain residences to be built on the Hunters Point property. The noise
generated by the increase in traffic would exceed State and local
standards for residential exposure to noise for those residences
located within 100 feet of the center of Donahue Street. Although less
than significant, there could also be noise impacts on the proposed
live/work units located in the northeastern part of the base resulting
from the proposed maritime industrial activities at Drydock
[[Page 69749]]
4. Noise arising out of demolition and construction activities would be
governed by the City's noise ordinance.
The Preferred Alternative would not have a significant impact on
land use. It would convert this industrial property into a mix of land
uses that would provide additional businesses, residential areas, and
open space in the Bayview-Hunters Point area. Although the intensity of
the development proposed by this Alternative would be evident to local
residents and businesses, the proposed land uses along the northwest
boundary of the base are similar to the existing land uses on adjacent
property and the proposed open space would provide a buffer. During the
25-year build-out period, new educational and cultural activities could
be temporarily incompatible with industrial activities being conducted
under leases in the vicinity of North Pier and Drydock 4.
Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would require the City
to amend the San Francisco Master Plan by adopting this Alternative as
a new Area Plan of the Master Plan or by amending some or all of the
Master Plan's nine elements. While disposal of the Hunters Point
property will not have an effect on California coastal resources, it
will be necessary for the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency to obtain
coastal development permits from the Bay Conservation and Development
Commission.
About 198 acres of dry land on the base are subject to a public
trust established by California law for land that was formerly
tidelands or under navigable waters when California became a state. The
Tidelands Trust mandates that public tidelands and submerged lands must
be used for the benefit of the people of California for maritime
commerce, navigation, fisheries, and recreation. The proposed
industrial, research and development, educational and cultural, and
residential development of property in this area may not be consistent
with the Trust's restrictions. The City of San Francisco, however,
could avoid this impact by defining the non-trust uses as interim uses
or by entering into an agreement with the California State Lands
Commission to impose public trust restrictions on non-trust lands in
exchange for the removal of Tidelands Trust restrictions on Trust
property.
The Preferred Alternative would not have an adverse impact on
visual resources. Although the intensity of development would increase,
the new facilities would be limited in height and size to be consistent
with existing structures at Hunters Point. This restriction, contained
in the City's document entitled Design for Development, Hunters Point
Shipyard, Redevelopment Project, dated August 1997, will preserve the
views of San Francisco Bay from the hilltop residential area.
The Preferred Alternative would not have an adverse impact on
socioeconomics. By the year 2025, this Alternative would create about
6,400 new jobs, which would constitute about 15 percent of the jobs
projected to be available in the South Bayshore area by the year 2020.
These new jobs would stimulate economic growth in the community. The
Preferred Alternative would increase the number of residents in the
South Bayshore area by 3,900 people, which is within the population
growth projected by the Association of Bay Area Governments. By the
year 2025, there would be 1,800 residential units on the Hunters Point
property. This would constitute about 14 percent of the projected
increase in housing in the South Bayshore area by the year 2020. This
Alternative would make at least 15 percent of the new residences
affordable for low and moderate income households.
The Preferred Alternative would not have a significant impact on
schools. By the year 2025, the Preferred Alternative would generate an
increase of 714 school age children living in the South Bayshore area.
This constitutes a one percent increase in the projected number of
students in the San Francisco Unified School District in the year 2020.
The Preferred Alternative would not have a significant impact on
the environment arising out of the use or generation of hazardous
substances by the acquiring entity. Hazardous materials used and
hazardous wastes generated by the Reuse Plan will be managed in
accordance with Federal, State, and local laws and regulations.
Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would not have an
impact on public health and safety. Navy will inform future property
owners about the environmental condition of the property and may, when
appropriate, include restrictions, notifications, or covenants in deeds
to ensure the protection of human health and the environment in light
of the intended use of the property.
The Preferred Alternative could have significant impacts on geology
and soils. The Hunters Point property is located in a highly active
seismic region and, except for the residential area on the hilltop, is
built on artificial fill that has a high potential for liquefaction,
densification, and differential settlement. New construction activities
will be required to meet current building codes governing seismic
safety. The impacts from hazards arising out of ground movement can be
reduced to an insignificant level by upgrading the existing buildings
to comply with current seismic safety standards. Additionally,
serpentinite, a rock that underlies major parts of the hillsides and
slopes at Hunters Point, contains naturally occurring chrysotile
asbestos, which could become a health hazard if released and inhaled
during construction-related excavation activities. The acquiring entity
must comply with Federal, State and local laws and regulations
governing impacts from demolition and construction activities and the
transportation and disposal of materials containing asbestos.
The Preferred Alternative would not have a significant impact on
water resources. Wastewater from Hunters Point is currently discharged
to the City's Southeast Water Pollution Control Plant. Stormwater from
Hunters Point is discharged directly into San Francisco Bay. The Plant
treats discharge from the City's combined system and handles both
wastewater and stormwater from the eastern part of San Francisco.
During heavy rainstorms, the capacity of the combined system can be
exceeded. As a result, excess flows consisting of about six percent
wastewater and 94 percent stormwater are discharged into the Bay
without full treatment. Although an accepted and permitted feature of
the City's combined system, these excess flows can have adverse impacts
on the Bay and on recreational activities at nearby Candlestick Point
State Recreation Area.
The FEIS evaluated three options for the treatment of wastewater
and stormwater. Under Option 1, the City would upgrade and maintain the
existing Navy systems that carry wastewater and stormwater separately.
Under Option 2, the City would replace the existing Navy systems with
new separate wastewater and stormwater systems. Under Option 3, the
City would replace the existing Navy systems with a combined system
that would handle both wastewater and stormwater.
In its document entitled Hunters Point Shipyard Reuse, Revised
Draft Environmental Impact Report, Comments and Responses, dated
January 2000, the City certified that it would implement Option1 or
Option 2 for managing wastewater and stormwater on the Hunters Point
Property and eliminated Option 3. Under Option 1 and Option 2,
wastewater generated by implementation of the Reuse Plan
[[Page 69750]]
would contribute only about one half of one percent of the total
wastewater discharged to the Southeast Water Pollution Control Plant.
Stormwater would not be discharged into the combined system but would
continue to be discharged to the Bay. Because the discharge from
Hunters Point to the Plant would be relatively small, there would not
be an adverse impact on the volume and frequency of the excess flows
from the City's combined system.
Stormwater must be managed in accordance with Federal, State, and
local laws and regulations, and the acquiring entity will be
responsible for building adequate drainage facilities. The City will
build stormwater retention and treatment areas on the Hunters Point
property that will improve the quality of discharges to San Francisco
Bay. The required Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan will designate
the locations of these retention and treatment areas and will identify
drainage patterns designed to direct flow toward these areas.
The Preferred Alternative would not have a significant impact on
utilities. The projected demands for potable water and wastewater
treatment would constitute a small part of the City's overall demand
and would not significantly affect the capacity of the City's systems.
Although the Preferred Alternative proposed to upgrade utility systems,
it would not be necessary to build major new utility infrastructure to
comply with current regulations and the projected demand for utilities.
The amount of solid waste generated by the Preferred Alternative
would increase due to demolition, construction, and redevelopment
activities but would decrease over time as the demolition and
construction activities were completed. By the year 2025, this increase
would constitute only about one percent of the total solid waste
generated in the City.
The Preferred Alternative would not have a significant impact on
public services. The proposed redevelopment of the Shipyard would
increase the demand for police, fire, and emergency medical services.
The distance between the Hunters Point property and local City fire
stations may require the City to use the fire station at the Shipyard.
Although the existing water system at the Shipyard has inadequate water
pressure to meet fire fighting requirements, the Preferred Alternative
proposed to upgrade the water system to satisfy these requirements.
The Preferred Alternative would not have a significant impact on
cultural resources. In the course of leasing Shipyard property in 1993,
Navy performed a cultural resources survey of Hunters Point Naval
Shipyard pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966, 16 U.S.C. 470f (1994), and its implementing regulations,
Protection of Historic Properties, 36 CFR part 800. In a letter dated
April 23, 1993, Navy determined that nine structures (Drydocks 2, 3,
and 4; Buildings 140, 204, 205, and 207; the seawall and wharves; and
the site of the western tip of Drydock 1) qualified for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places as contributors to the Hunters
Point Commercial Drydock Historic District. Navy also determined that
the leasing of certain property located west of this District would
have no effect on the Shipyard's historic resources. In a letter dated
June 16, 1993, the California State Historic Preservation Officer
(SHPO) concurred with Navy's determinations.
In 1998, Navy undertook another review of the historic resources at
Hunters Point in connection with the Section 106 process that
accompanied consideration of disposal of the Shipyard. In a letter
dated April 9, 1998, Navy determined that Drydock 4 was individually
eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and
that only six structures (Drydock 2, Drydock 3, and Buildings 140, 204,
205, and 207) qualified for listing as contributors to the Hunters
Point Commercial Drydock Historic District. In this letter, Navy set
forth its new determination that the seawall and wharves and the
remnants of Drydock 1 had lost their physical integrity and no longer
contributed to the Historic District. In a letter dated May 29, 1998,
the SHPO concurred with Navy's determinations.
Navy has completed consultation pursuant to Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act and its implementing regulations, 36
CFR part 800, with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and
the SHPO. These consultations identified actions that Navy must take
before it conveys Hunters Point Naval Shipyard to the City and actions
that the City or an acquiring entity must take to avoid or mitigate
adverse impacts on the structures that are eligible for listing on the
National Register. These obligations were set forth in a Memorandum Of
Agreement, dated January 11, 2000, among Navy, the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation, and the California State Historic Preservation
Officer.
Navy will nominate Drydock 4 and the Hunters Point Commercial
Drydock Historic District for listing on the National Register of
Historic Places in accordance with 36 CFR 60.9. Navy completed an
Historic American Engineering Record for Drydock 4, and the Department
of the Interior's National Park Service accepted this documentation on
November 18, 1996. Navy will also submit an Historic American
Engineering Record for the Commercial Drydock Historic District to the
National Park Service.
The Memorandum Of Agreement requires the San Francisco
Redevelopment Agency to consult with the San Francisco Landmarks
Preservation Advisory Board and the City's Planning Department, acting
as the Certified Local Government, to ensure that the adaptive reuse of
historic properties and adjacent new development conform to the
provisions of the Hunters Point Shipyard Redevelopment Plan, dated July
1997; the City's document entitled Design for Development, Hunters
Point Shipyard, Redevelopment Project, dated August 1997; and the
California Historic Building Code, California Building Standards Code,
Title 24, Part 8. These City documents and State laws contain
requirements and procedures that encourage the preservation of historic
resources by, for example, prohibiting demolition and requiring that
alterations must conform with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards
for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic
Buildings.
The Preferred Alternative would have significant impacts on
biological resources. Implementation of this Alternative could reduce
the habitat value of the Shipyard's wetlands that provide some of the
best habitat for waterfowl and shorebirds along the western shore of
the central part of San Francisco Bay. The increase in activities on
this property could also result in an inadvertent take of migratory
birds, nests, and eggs. Implementation of the preferred Alternative
could also have a beneficial impact, because it would create four
wetland areas along the Bay. These wetlands could provide additional
habitat for waterfowl, shorebirds, and aquatic wildlife. In a letter
dated January 22, 1998, the United States Fish And Wildlife Service
concurred with Navy's determination that the disposal and reuse of
Hunters Point Naval Shipyard would not adversely affect any Federally-
listed or proposed threatened and endangered species.
Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 3 CFR 859
(1995), requires that Navy determine whether any low income and
minority populations will experience
[[Page 69751]]
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects from the proposed action. Navy analyzed the impacts on low
income and minority populations pursuant to Executive Order 12898. The
FEIS addressed the potential environmental, social, and economic
impacts associated with the disposal of Hunters Point Naval Shipyard
and subsequent reuse of the property under the two proposed
alternatives. All but one of the impacts identified are mitigable, and
most have an effect only on the Shipyard property itself. The one
significant adverse unmitigable impact is a traffic delay on a local
intersection (Third Street and Cesar Chavez Street) that is not located
on the Shipyard. Low income and minority populations residing within
the region would not be disproportionately affected by this localized
adverse impact. Indeed, the increased employment opportunities,
housing, and recreational resources generated by the Preferred
Alternative would have beneficial effects.
Navy also analyzed the impacts on children pursuant to Executive
Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks, 3 CFR 198 (1998). Under the Preferred Alternative, the
largest concentration of children would be present in the residential,
educational, and recreational areas. The Preferred Alternative would
not pose any disproportionate environmental health or safety risks to
children.
Mitigation: Implementation of Navy's decision to dispose of Hunters
Point Naval Shipyard does not require Navy to implement any mitigation
measures. Navy will take certain actions to implement existing
agreements and to comply with regulations. These actions were treated
in the Final EIS as agreements or regulatory requirements rather than
as mitigation. Before conveying any property at Hunters Point Naval
Shipyard, Navy will nominate Drydock 4 and the Hunters Point Commercial
Drydock Historic District for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places. Navy completed an Historic American Engineering Record
for Drydock 4, which the National Park Service accepted on November 18,
1996. Navy will also submit an Historic American Engineering Record for
the Commercial Drydock Historic District to the National Park Service.
The FEIS identified and discussed those actions that will be
necessary to mitigate the impacts associated with the reuse and
redevelopment of Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. The acquiring entity,
under the direction of Federal, State, and local agencies with
regulatory authority over protected resources, will be responsible for
implementing necessary mitigation measures.
Comments Received on the FEIS: Navy received comments on the FEIS
from one Federal agency, three private organizations, and one person.
The Federal agency was the United States Environmental Protection
Agency. The private organizations were Golden Gate University's
Environmental Law and Justice Clinic on behalf of the Southeast
Alliance for Environmental Justice; Arc Ecology on behalf of the
Alliance for a Clean Waterfront; and the Bayview Hunters Point
Community Advocates. All of the substantive comments received concerned
issues already discussed in the Final EIS. Those comments that require
clarification are addressed below.
The Environmental Protection Agency commented that Navy did not
adopt in the FEIS an Environmental Management System as a mitigation
measure that could reduce the local community's future risk of exposure
to toxins. Navy identified mitigation measures in the FEIS that would
reduce all significant impacts to a less than significant level, except
for the traffic delay at one intersection. Existing Federal, State, and
local air, water, and solid and hazardous waste laws and regulations
control the discharge and release of pollutants through permitting,
reporting and monitoring requirements. These statutory and regulatory
authorities adequately protect human health and the environment. The
enforcement of applicable environmental laws and regulations will
ensure compliance and minimize disproportionate impacts.
Navy received several comments concerning the adequacy of the
discussion of Navy's Installation Restoration Program in the FEIS and
its relationship to the City's proposed reuse of the Shipyard property.
Navy evaluated the impacts of the proposed reuse under the assumption
that Navy will meet its statutory obligations under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675q (1994), which requires protection of
human health and the environment. Section 4.7.1 of the FEIS discusses
Navy's obligations to protect human health and the environment and to
provide information about the environmental condition of the property
at conveyance. Information concerning Navy's cleanup program at Hunters
Point Naval Shipyard is available at the San Francisco Main Library's
Science, Technical and Government Documents Room, 100 Larkin Street,
San Francisco, and at the Anna E. Waden Branch Library, 5075 Third
Street, in the Bayview area of San Francisco.
Regulations Governing the Disposal Decision: Navy's decision to
dispose of Hunters Point Naval Shipyard was based upon the
environmental analysis in the FEIS and Section 2824(a) of Public Law
101-510, as amended by Section 2834 of Public Law 103-160. Section 2834
of Public Law 103-160 authorizes Navy to convey the Hunters Point
property to the City of San Francisco or a local reuse organization
approved by the City. This authority is independent of the Defense Base
Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, 10 U.S.C. 2687 note (1994), as
well as the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949,
40 U.S.C. 484 (1994), and its implementing regulations, the Federal
Property Management Regulations, 41 CFR part 101-47.
After Federal property has been conveyed to non-Federal entities,
the property is subject to local land use regulations, including zoning
and subdivision regulations, and building codes. Unless expressly
authorized by statute, the disposing Federal agency cannot restrict the
future use of surplus Government property. As a result, the local
community exercises substantial control over future use of the
property.
Conclusion: The City has determined in its Reuse Plan that the
property should be used for various purposes including industrial,
commercial, residential, and educational activities and to develop
parks and recreational areas. The property's location, physical
characteristics, and existing infrastructure as well as the current
uses of adjacent property make it appropriate for the proposed uses.
Although the ``No Action'' Alternative has less potential for
causing adverse environmental impacts, this Alternative would not take
advantage of the location, physical characteristics, and infrastructure
of Hunters Point Naval Shipyard or the current uses of adjacent
property. Additionally, it would not foster local economic
redevelopment of the base.
The acquiring entity, under the direction of Federal, State, and
local agencies with regulatory authority over protected resources, will
be responsible for adopting practicable means to avoid or minimize
environmental harm that may result from implementing the Reuse Plan.
Accordingly, Navy plans to dispose of Hunters Point Naval Shipyard
in a manner that is consistent with the City of San Francisco's Reuse
Plan for the property.
[[Page 69752]]
Dated: October 16, 2000.
Robert B. Pirie, Jr.
Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations And Environment).
Dated: November 14, 2000.
J.L. Roth,
LCDR, JAGC, USN, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-29650 Filed 11-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-M
Partial thread listing: