[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 224 (Monday, November 20, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69744-69752]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29650]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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