[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 226 (Friday, November 25, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71100-71105]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-6507]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy
Record of Decision for the Disposal and Re-use of Naval Station
Treasure Island, CA
AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD.
ACTION: Notice of Record of Decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy (DON) pursuant to section 102(2)(c)
of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 42 United
States Code (U.S.C.) 4332(2)(c), and the Council on Environmental
Quality regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), announces its decision to
dispose of Naval Station Treasure Island (NSTI), which includes both
Treasure Island and Yerba Buena Island. NSTI is located midway between
the shores of the cities of San Francisco and Oakland. The disposal of
NSTI will be accomplished in a manner that will allow the Treasure
Island Development Authority (TIDA), the redevelopment authority
established by the State of California and recognized by DoD, to reuse
the property as set out in Alternative 1, described in the Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) as the preferred alternative. The
decision by DON to dispose of the property in a manner that allows TIDA
to reuse the property as described in the preferred alternative does
not make the DON responsible for any obligation or commitment, fiscal
or other, made by TIDA to the State of California or to third parties.
Obligations or commitments made by TIDA in the course of developing its
redevelopment plan, or in obtaining approval of the redevelopment plan
from the United States Department of Housing and
[[Page 71101]]
Urban Development (HUD), remain the responsibility of TIDA.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Patrick McCay, telephone 619-532-
0906; E-Mail: [email protected] or write to: Director, BRAC PMO
West, ATTN: Mr. Patrick McCay, 1455 Frazee Road, Suite 900, San Diego,
CA 92108.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 1993 Defense Base Realignment and
Closure Commission (BRAC 93 Commission) recommended the closure of
NSTI. President Clinton approved this recommendation and the 103rd
Congress accepted it on September 27, 1993. NSTI closed on September
30, 1997, and DON is in the process of disposing of the property to
meet the requirements of the Defense Base Closure Realignment Act
(DBCRA) of 1990 to reduce and realign United States military operations
and enable productive reuse of this surplus Federal property.
On July 11, 1994, the majority of land and facilities at this
installation were declared surplus to the needs of the Federal
Government. State and local governments, representatives of the
homeless, and other interested parties located in the communities in
the vicinity of the installation were eligible for use of the property.
The Base Closure Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance
(BCCRAHA) Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-421) amends DBCRA of 1990, exempting
base closure property from the McKinney Act and establishing a process
that requires a balancing of homeless assistance needs with the need of
the communities in the vicinity of the installation for economic
redevelopment and other development.
Representatives of the homeless submit notices of interest for the
installations to the redevelopment authority. The definition of
redevelopment authority (generally referred to as a local redevelopment
authority or LRA) is found in section 2910 of the amended DBCRA of 1990
(Pub. L. 101-510).
In 1997, California State Legislation created a special LRA for
NSTI, transferring the LRA status from San Francisco, to TIDA. In March
of 1998, DOD's Office of Economic Adjustment recognized TIDA as the
implementing LRA for NSTI. For the purposes of this Record of Decision,
DON will refer to TIDA as the LRA for NSTI.
Notices submitted to the LRA contain detailed information regarding
the assistance program that the representative of the homeless proposes
to carry out at the installation. The LRA, not the Federal Government,
may address those notices of interest regarding needs either on or off
base, and is responsible for screening to meet the needs of the
homeless. Additionally, the BCCRAHA Act of 1994 requires that an LRA
prepare a redevelopment plan for a closing installation that considers
the expressed needs of the homeless, and that this plan be approved by
HUD. Obligations or commitments made by TIDA in the course of
developing its redevelopment plan, or in obtaining approval of the
redevelopment plan from HUD, remain the responsibility of TIDA.
Before disposal of any real property, DON must analyze the
environmental effects of the disposal action. As required by DBCRA, DON
has treated the 1996 Draft Reuse Plan as part of the proposed Federal
action for the installation.
The city and county of San Francisco prepared an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) for the transfer and reuse of NSTI. The proposed
action and alternatives were essentially identical to that of DON's
EIS. The EIR was recently certified in May 2005.
Master development plans for TIDA have continued to evolve since
July 2002, as reflected in the preparation of initial studies, master
development submittals and public workshops. The development plans do
not show substantial changes to the overall proposed land use
assumptions. The city and county of San Francisco will prepare a second
EIR; specific to the proposed development, once the development plans
have become sufficiently detailed.
Alternatives Considered: A screening process, based upon criteria
set out in the Draft EIS, was conducted to identify a reasonable range
of alternatives that would satisfy DON's purpose and need regarding
property disposal.
Alternative 1, the Preferred Alternative, reflects disposal of the
property in the context of the redevelopment scenario described in the
1996 Draft Reuse Plan developed by the LRA. Alternative 1 features a
post-disposal reuse of publicly oriented development (155 acres), open
space and recreation (118 acres), institutional and community uses (40
acres), and residential development (137 acres) at full build out. This
scenario represents the most intensive redevelopment scenario proposed
in the FEIS. Actual redevelopment by an entity would likely reflect
this intensity, but may not reflect the specific conceptual
construction types provided in the 1996 Draft Reuse Plan.
Alternative 2 presents less intensive post-disposal reuse than
Alternative 1, but has similar land uses and development concepts.
Alternative 2 was developed during the scoping process, including the
recommendations of an advisory panel convened by the Urban Land
Institute. Under this scenario, no new housing would be built at NSTI,
and the existing housing would be reused initially (21 acres).
Alternative 3 represents a scenario where little new post-disposal
development would occur and existing facilities would be used. No new
housing units would be constructed.
The No Action alternative represents a scenario that maintains the
status quo with DON retaining ownership of NSTI. Those structures
subject to an existing lease would continue to be leased until such
lease expires or is terminated. Those structures not subject to an
existing lease would be maintained in a caretaker status. No demolition
or construction would occur, except as allowed by existing lease
authorization. Approximately 50 persons would be assigned to perform
caretaker activities. The No Action Alternative would have no
significant impacts; therefore, it is the environmentally preferred
alternative.
Environmental Impacts: DON analyzed the direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts of the disposal action on the environment.
Potentially significant impacts associated with Alternative 1, the
alternative selected in this Record of Decision, are summarized below.
Land Use/Zoning: The anticipated land use zone classifications
required for redevelopment as illustrated in Alternative 1 (i.e.,
public, residential, mixed use) would be inconsistent with the existing
city and county of San Francisco General Plan designation and zoning
classification. The General Plan land use designation for NSTI is
military. Amendments to the General Plan, using the public process
established by the State of California for such amendments, would be
required before redevelopment could occur.
Subsequent to the Naval Appropriations Act of 1942 (Pub. L. 441) in
which Congress appropriated funds for the acquisition of Treasure
Island, the Government pursued the condemnation process for the
property now known as NSTI in the United States District Court of San
Francisco. The declaration of taking was filed on April 17, 1942. The
parties reached a joint settlement of the condemnation case on April 3,
1944. As compensation for the taking, the Government completed
construction of 10 million dollars of permanent improvements at San
Francisco Airport. Chapter 3 of the California Statutes of 1942
authorized
[[Page 71102]]
the transfer of Treasure Island to the government including all tide
and submerged lands and further stated that the transfer: Shall be free
and clear of all conditions and reservations respecting the title to or
use of said lands.
The State made no provisions for the reservation of a tideland
trust or public trust easement over tidelands or submerged land nor was
there any reversion rights contained in the statute. Therefore, the
DON's position is that the United States acquired full fee simple
absolute title to all the property, including the tidelands and
submerged lands, and that the property would not be subject to the
public trust upon disposal by DON. The State of California, however,
considers all former and existing tide and submerged lands on Treasure
Island to be subject to the public trust in the event of a transfer of
the property from DON.
The Treasure Island Conversion Act of 1997 (1997 Cal. Stat. 898, AB
699), granted TIDA the power to administer and control property at
NSTI, identified by the State of California as land that will be
subject to the public trust upon its release from Federal ownership.
Under the 1997 Act, existing buildings and structures located on public
trust lands which are incapable of being devoted to trust purposes may
be used for other purposes, consistent with the reuse plan, for their
remaining useful life. If the trust were deemed to apply, this would
not be expected to have a substantial effect on future land use
patterns on NSTI.
Similarly, the Treasure Island Public Trust Exchange Act (2004 Cal.
Stat. 543, SB 1873), authorized an exchange of public trust lands
whereby certain trust lands on NSTI would be freed from the public
trust in exchange for encumbering other lands on Yerba Buena Island
that are not now public trust lands. The Act specifically approved an
exchange resulting in the configuration of trust lands substantially
similar to that depicted on the diagram in section 12 of the Act. If
the trust were deemed to apply, such an exchange would not be expected
to have a substantial effect on future NSTI land use patterns.
Traffic: The proposed action would result in peak hour traffic
volumes on the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge (SFOBB)/Interstate-80
Yerba Buena Island westbound on-ramp, on the west side of Yerba Buena
Island, that would exceed the current ramp capacity of 330 vehicles per
hour (vph). The projected demand would result in a queue ranging from 7
vehicles (during the AM peak hour) to 239 vehicles (during the weekend
midday peak hour). This queue would constrain vehicular circulation on
the island.
Alternative 1 would result in a substantial increase in traffic
volumes on the eastbound off-ramp on the west side of Yerba Buena
Island that would exceed the practical capacity of the off-ramp (500
vph), resulting in a maximum queue of 36 vehicles, or about 700 feet
(219 meters) of the SFOBB.
Alternative 1 would result in substantial increases in traffic
volumes during the weekend, midday, peak hour on the eastbound on-ramp
on the east side of Yerba Buena Island. While the increased volumes
would be accommodated by the upgrade of this ramp as part of the
California Department of Transportation's (Caltrans) SFOBB East Span
project, it may create a secondary impact of potential traffic delays
on the SFOBB.
Under Alternative 1, increased traffic on and off the SFOBB during
the A.M. peak period (6:30 to 9:30) and P.M. peak period (3:30 to 6:30)
would cause westbound traffic on segments of the SFOBB to deteriorate
from Level of Service (LOS) D to LOS F during the last hour of the A.M.
peak period (8:30 to 9:30) and to deteriorate from LOS B to LOS E or
LOS F during the first hour of the P.M. peak period (3:30 to 4:30). LOS
designations are a qualitative description of a facility's performance,
based on travel speeds, delays, and density (number of cars per unit of
lane). The designation for a facility ranges from LOS A, representing
free-flow conditions, to LOS F, representing severe traffic congestion.
Due to a lack of direct bus service between NSTI and the East Bay,
bus patrons would have to travel to San Francisco using existing
routes, transferring at the Transbay Terminal to another transit
service to the East Bay, or to drive, which would add to the vehicular
demand and congestion at the Yerba Buena Island ramps. Approximately
4,290 weekday daily and 4,000 weekend daily bus transit patrons are
estimated between NSTI and the East Bay.
Natural Resources: Significant impacts to mudflat habitat,
including eelgrass beds, may occur as a result of increased pedestrian
and boating activity around Clipper Cove. The enlarged marina would add
approximately 200 new boat slips and 100 new tie-up buoys to the
existing 100 slips and would quadruple boat traffic in Clipper Cove.
This would increase the potential for mudflat habitat disturbance,
especially during low tides when recreational boating traffic could
erode nearshore sediments, which could directly affect invertebrate
prey species in shallow water.
Increased pedestrian and boating activity around Clipper Cove could
have a significant impact on shore and water birds by affecting
mudflats and eelgrass beds where shorebirds forage. An increase in
pedestrian activities from new residents or visitors could result in
more people exploring the mudflats during low tide, disturbing avian
species and sensitive habitat zones. In addition, the quadrupled boat
traffic could erode nearshore sediment during low tide, affecting
invertebrate and fish populations, resulting in a decrease of food
sources for migratory birds, and decrease in foraging success.
Increased boat and pedestrian activity around Clipper Cove could
have a significant impact on essential fish habitat by degrading
eelgrass vegetated areas and shallow water in the same manner that
mudflat habitat could be impacted. These areas provide important fish
spawning, rearing, and foraging habitat.
Public Safety: Significant impacts could occur in the form of
damage to structures and infrastructure on Treasure Island due to
liquefaction induced ground failure in the event of a major earthquake.
Low-lying areas of Yerba Buena underlain by heterogeneous artificial
fill are also potentially subject to liquefaction, lateral spreading,
and differential settlement hazards.
The installation of residential development in low lying areas
would result in net increased exposure of approximately 3,000
residents, 13,799 daily visitors, and property to both ponding and
flooding hazards due to seepage or overtopping of the dike. While
nearby bodies of surface water will probably not be significantly
impacted, the exposure to these types of hazards is potentially
significant.
Hazardous Waste: Construction activities at NSTI associated with
future development of the housing unit area, including demolition of
existing structures, may interfere with remedial actions under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA).
CERCLA Remediation Actions: The following measures have been
developed to mitigate potentially significant impacts to remedial
actions under the CERCLA program. DON is in the process of implementing
various remedial actions at NSTI pursuant to and in accordance with the
requirements of CERCLA and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan that will
[[Page 71103]]
remove, manage, or isolate any potentially hazardous substances present
on the property prior to conveyance. These remedial actions will ensure
that human health and the environment will be protected based on the
land use redevelopment scenario illustrated in the 1996 Draft Reuse
Plan. If the CERCLA remedy for a particular site includes land use
controls, the acquiring entity or entities will be required to comply
with the land use controls during construction and/or operations to
ensure continued protection of human health and the environment.
Subsequent redevelopment of the existing housing area that would
involve demolition of existing structures and the grading and
reconfiguring of the soil would likely be subject to land use controls
on the property. These may include compliance with a city administered
soil management plan that would require permits for soil and
groundwater disturbance, subject to proper characterization and
management. In addition, deeds conveying the affected property will
contain a notice that areas of the property not subject to remediation
efforts, such as areas beneath existing foundations, may require
additional characterization and possible response actions, subject to
appropriate regulatory oversight. Adherence to land use controls and
regulatory requirements would mitigate potentially significant impacts
to an acceptable level.
Mitigation: As a result of the identification of a number of
potentially significant impacts associated with Alternative 1, DON has
identified measures that can assist the new property owner(s) in
mitigating reuse impacts. As DON cannot exercise control over the
property once title has been transferred, DON cannot be responsible for
implementation of mitigation identified in the FEIS. The following
mitigation measures have been identified for possible implementation by
the entity (or entities) acquiring the property:
To achieve consistency between the selected reuse Alternative 1 and
city policies, it will be necessary to amend the San Francisco General
Plan to include land use designations consistent with the 1996 Draft
Reuse Plan for Treasure Island and Yerba Buena Island, prior to
approving land use actions.
SFOBB/Interstate-80 Yerba Buena Island on-ramps are substandard by
current Caltrans standards; primarily in acceleration/deceleration
lengths, ramp radii, and sight distances. Upgrading the on-ramps would
increase ramp capacity and level of operation and decrease queuing
impacts. However, upgrades to the on-ramps may be constrained by the
geology of the site (elevation change and bedrock), and structural
limitations due to the viaduct. Additional measures would include
signage and notices to residents to encourage residents and visitors to
use the second westbound on-ramp east of the Yerba Buena Island tunnel.
Similarly, redirecting traffic during the weekend, midday, peak hour to
the second on-ramp east of the Yerba Buena Island tunnel would reduce
the queue at the first westbound on-ramp. Further measures include
implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to
further reduce traffic generation during peak hours, especially during
the weekend. Implementation of additional or enhanced TDM measures
include discounted ferry passes, flex-time, public relations campaigns,
and giving employees working on Treasure Island or Yerba Buena Island
preferential access to housing on NSTI. Such measures would encourage
ferry use and encourage vehicle trips during the non-peak period, to
reduce queues on both westbound on-ramps to tolerable levels.
Additional measures include monitoring NSTI ramp traffic volumes to
ensure that the transportation goals and objectives established by the
1996 Draft Reuse Plan are successfully implemented; monitoring NSTI bus
transit demand on an annual basis (or at each phase of development) and
ensuring that planned bus services are implemented to meet or exceed
demand; implementing a similar monitoring program for ferry demand;
restriping the portion of Treasure Island Road between the Main Gate
and the westbound on-ramp on the west side of the Yerba Buena Island
tunnel from two lanes to accommodate three traffic lanes; and, using
traffic control measures, such as signage, to encourage eastbound
motorists to use the second Yerba Buena Island off-ramp (the off-ramp
on the east side of Yerba Buena Island). Implementation of TDM and
monitoring measures discussed above would help reduce traffic volumes
on this off-ramp.
In order to improve traffic volumes during the weekend, midday,
peak hour on the eastbound on-ramp on the east side of Yerba Buena
Island, Caltrans should consider the installation of a ramp metering
device if the added traffic onto this on-ramp would cause significant
traffic delay on the SFOBB mainline. The mainline includes the main
lanes of a freeway as opposed to an off ramp or exit lane. A ramp
metering device would restrict/govern the number of vehicles accessing
the SFOBB for the benefit of maintaining free flow conditions on the
SFOBB.
To alleviate increased traffic on and off the SFOBB during peak
A.M. conditions, causing westbound traffic segments to deteriorate,
traffic volumes should be monitored at each phase of development. If it
is determined that traffic from NSTI is constraining the capacity of
the SFOBB, either more aggressive TDM and transit improvements must be
implemented or additional development should be delayed until such
improvements are implemented.
Establishing direct transit service between NSTI and the East Bay
would mitigate the lack of current direct service to a not significant
level. Bus service would need to be at 10-minute headways (the interval
between the trips of 2 successive vehicles) throughout the day during
the weekday and at 15-minute headways throughout the day during the
weekend. Additional measures include monitoring NSTI bus transit demand
on an annual basis (or at each phase of development), ensuring planned
services are implemented to meet or exceed demand, and implementing TDM
measures to encourage bus transit. If monitoring indicates an imbalance
between transit service and demand, the city and county of San
Francisco could limit planned land use development on NSTI until
required services are funded.
In response to comments from Bay Area Air Quality Management
District (BAAQMD), DON has identified additional potential mitigation
measures not discussed in the FEIS. DON recommends that future
redevelopment projects implement the measures set out in sections 4.3
and 4.4 of the BAAQMD California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines: Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans
(BAAQMD 1999). First, as indicated in section 4.3 of the CEQA
Guidelines, incorporate transit-oriented development in project design.
This strategy is intended to reduce automobile usage associated with
suburban land uses by integrating residential and commercial land uses
with transportation routes and making communities more amenable to
transit, bicycle, and pedestrian activities. Second, as indicated in
section 4.4 of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, measures identified in
Tables 15, 16, and 17 to reduce vehicular emissions from commercial,
institutional, industrial, and residential uses should be implemented
in project-specific phases.
[[Page 71104]]
Implementation of these transportation measures would ensure that
the proposed actions would not contribute to significant cumulative air
quality impacts within the region.
To minimize significant impacts to mudflat habitat and eelgrass
beds, several measures are recommended for the entity acquiring the
land and applying for regulatory permits that will be required to allow
development in sensitive areas. Measures include minimizing disturbance
to sensitive habitats during construction and preparing and
implementing a plan to minimize disturbance of sensitive habitats due
to recreational activity. The permittee for the development projects
for Clipper Cove could be required to post signs along the shore
adjacent to the mudflats and at the marina to inform pedestrians and
recreational boaters that the mudflats are a protected sensitive area
and trespassing is not permitted. Buoys could be placed in the bay to
identify the restricted mudflat area. A ``No Wake'' zone could be
established in Clipper Cove to minimize shoreline and mudflat erosion.
A ``No Wake'' speed (not exceeding 5 miles per hour) is the speed at
which a vessel does not produce a wake. Any impacts related to
construction or fill would be addressed during the Army Corps of
Engineers section 404 permitting process.
Impacts on migratory birds from pedestrian and boating activities
are closely associated with impacts on mudflat habitat and eelgrass
beds. Impacts on migratory birds will be mitigated through compliance
with all applicable laws, regulations, and regulatory permits.
Additional mitigation may include posting signs along the shore
adjacent to the mudflats and at the marina, informing pedestrians and
boaters that the mudflats are a protected and sensitive area. Placing
buoys in the bay, identifying the mudflat area as restricted and
establishing a ``No Wake'' zone in Clipper Cove could also reduce
impacts.
Mitigation measures for increased boat and pedestrian activity on
eelgrass areas, mudflats, and shallow water areas are the same as those
proposed to mitigate impacts to mudflat areas.
A zone of ``improved ground'' would be created around the perimeter
of the island to reduce lateral spreading. Interior island areas shall
be similarly improved to reduce large differential settlement. All
sensitive structures, such as buildings greater than three stories,
buildings intended for public occupancy, structures supporting
essential services, and buildings housing schools, medical, police, and
fire facilities, shall be supported on pile systems or other specially
designed foundations. Detailed geotechnical studies shall be completed
in accordance with the city and county of San Francisco requirements
for individual development sites.
Filling low-lying portions of the residential area to at least 9
feet (3 meters) National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) prior to
development would mitigate the increased exposure of occupants,
visitors, and property to ponding hazards due to seepage through the
dike during some high tide events. In addition, other low-lying areas
within 500 feet (152 meters) of the Treasure Island perimeter should be
similarly filled before development is allowed.
A setback for development inboard of the perimeter dike, to allow
room for periodic dike raising without substantially increasing bay
fill, would reduce impacts caused by exposure of people and property to
flooding hazards due to dike overtopping during storms. Other measures
include raising the dike as necessary to account for site settlement or
for changes in maximum tidal heights and rises in sea levels;
inspecting the dike after each major storm to identify repair needs;
and repairing the dike promptly as required.
Response to comments received regarding the Final Environmental
Impact Statement: Below is a summary of substantive public comments
received in response to the release of the FEIS, as well as DON
responses to comments.
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) commented that
Installation Restoration (IR) Site 30 should be represented as an
active site until the CERCLA process is complete. DON agrees with this
comment and will ensure that IR Site 30 is fully addressed under
CERCLA, including the preparation of a Remedial Investigation and
Feasibility Study to determine what, if any, action is necessary.
DTSC requested additional information regarding polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) and asked DON to demonstrate that PCBs are not an
issue. DON addressed PCBs in section 4.13 of the FEIS. All PCB release
sites have been identified at NSTI, and surveys are being completed.
All PCB sites requiring a response will be remediated under CERCLA
prior to property conveyance. Additionally, DON will comply with all
applicable provisions of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (15
U.S.C. 2605) and other applicable laws and regulations designed to
minimize the risks posed by PCBs.
DTSC commented that it intends to hold any future owners of the
property liable for lead in soil around residential and non-residential
property and asked that the FEIS be modified to reflect that intent.
HUD regulations (Title X, 42 U.S.C. 4851) and the DOD/United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) ``LBP'' Joint Interim Final
Field Guide (1999) set out the standards and responsibilities regarding
lead based paint. Inasmuch as those standards and responsibilities are
fully discussed in the FEIS, modification of the FEIS is not necessary.
The BAAQMD commented that without mitigation, emissions from any of
the three project alternatives would contribute to significant
cumulative degradation of regional air quality. BAAQMD also commented
that it was unable to determine how the project emissions presented in
Table 4.6-1 were obtained. Table 4.6-1 of the FEIS was based on a
mobile source emissions inventory generated by Radian International
(1997) for DON. The data was adjusted to consider variations in project
alternative operational characteristics between 2001 and 2010.
The TDM program and other transportation mitigation measures
recommended in the FEIS (and discussed above) would reduce vehicle
trips and associated vehicle miles generated by the project and would
increase the flow of future traffic within the project region.
Implementation of these transportation measures would reduce project
emissions from the unmitigated levels presented in Table 4.6-1. In
response to this comment from BAAQMD, DON identified additional
potential mitigation measures and included them in the preceding
mitigation discussion.
One individual commented that the FEIS failed to address a
``Maximum Homeless-Use'' Alternative. The individual cites the BCCRHA
Act of 1994, which mandates that a redevelopment plan take into
consideration a number of homeless issues, including the size and
nature of the homeless population in the local communities, the
availability of existing homeless services, and the suitability of the
redevelopment plan for the use and needs of the homeless. Chapter 2.2.1
of the FEIS describes the Homeless Assistance planning process,
including the opportunities for local communities to participate in the
decision regarding disposal of military properties by requiring
homeless providers to work through TIDA. As previously stated, the
extent of the DON's role in meeting homeless assistance needs is
limited by the review conducted by HUD. Representatives of the homeless
submit notices outlining their needs and proposals to TIDA and not to
the
[[Page 71105]]
Federal agency that owns the property. TIDA may address those needs
either on or off base. TIDA, as the LRA, must prepare a redevelopment
plan for the closing installation that considers the expressed needs of
the homeless. DON has a role if and only if HUD determines that the
redevelopment plan submitted by TIDA does not meet regulatory criteria
set forth at 24 CFR part 586 and TIDA fails to revise the redevelopment
plan in a manner that HUD determines meets those regulatory
requirements.
On November 1, 1995, the Treasure Island Homeless Development
Initiative (TIHDI) submitted a Notice of Interest to the LRA for
surplus property including homeless housing, support services,
employment, and economic development programs and services. On November
26, 1996, HUD approved the San Francisco Office of Military Base
Conversion's homeless assistance submission including its proposed
agreements with TIDHI. TIDA was not established as the LRA until the
1998, at which time they inherited the approved plan. Currently, TIHDI
operates one of the most intensive San Francisco homeless provider
initiatives at Treasure Island. In addition to a day care center, TIHDI
manages 190 units housing formerly homeless individuals. DON has met
the requirements of both NEPA and BCCRHA Act in its analysis of
homeless requirements through the consideration of the 1996 Draft Reuse
Plan. Under the requirements of DBCRA of 1990, as amended, any entity
responsible for developing NSTI or implementing the redevelopment plan
would be bound by the homeless assistance requirements set forth in the
BCCRHA Act.
The San Francisco Municipal Railway Service Planning (MUNI) staff
commented that it currently provides bus service between the NSTI and
Transbay Terminal in San Francisco for residents and visitors to the
island. They concur that bus service may need to increase to meet
demand under the proposed redevelopment plan for NSTI. MUNI also
comments that they cannot commit to any service expansion to the East
Bay without a concurrent commitment of funding from an identified
source. Determining funding for increased bus service is beyond the
scope of this FEIS and should be addressed by the city and county of
San Francisco in a subsequent CEQA analysis to ensure the effectiveness
of the transportation mitigation measures associated with the proposed
maximum build-out scenario. MUNI requested a breakdown of bus service
demands in the FEIS analysis by mode, direction, and time of day. The
FEIS provided estimates of MUNI bus demand based on three different
levels of development for NSTI. These development scenarios were
designed to evaluate a range of potential environmental impacts, from
low to high. The actual development (both land uses and quantities of
land uses) that will be approved by the city and county of San
Francisco may ultimately differ from those analyzed in the FEIS.
Consequently, MUNI demand and transit usage patterns could be different
from those presented in the FEIS. The Reuse Plan assumes that ferry
services will be a travel mode between San Francisco and NSTI, in
addition to bus services. Bus passenger estimates were made for bus
trips to and from NSTI, not within NSTI. MUNI bus demand should be
analyzed in depth when the city and county approve specific development
plans for NSTI, based on the approved land use. This would include both
trips to and from NSTI as well as internal shuttle bus demand.
Conclusion: After considering the analysis contained in the FEIS,
comments from Federal, State, and local agencies, and comments from the
public, I conclude that Alternative 1 is the NEPA alternative that best
meets DON's purpose and need regarding disposal of the NSTI property
while allowing TIDA to execute redevelopment that will provide the best
opportunity for economic recovery from the closure of NSTI. While
Alternative 1 presents the potential for significant impacts in several
respects, especially traffic, reuse of the property in accordance with
TIDA's reuse plan can be accomplished without significant harm to the
environment through implementation of the mitigation measures by TIDA
or subsequent developers.
Although the No Action alternative is the environmentally preferred
alternative, it would not meet DON's purpose and need regarding
property disposal and would preclude the economic recovery intended by
Congress when it enacted the DBCRA 1990. The No Action alternative
would result in continued caretaker activities; therefore,
socioeconomic gains in terms of new jobs and increased revenue in the
region from disposal and subsequent reuse of NSTI would not be
realized.
Dated: November 17, 2005.
Eric Mcdonald,
Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. E5-6507 Filed 11-23-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P