[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 24, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1902-1905]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-981]



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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy


Record of Decision for the Disposal and Reuse of Naval Hospital, 
Long Beach, California, Parcel A

    The Department of the Navy (Navy), pursuant to section 102(2) of 
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
seq., 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 Parcel A of the property comprising the Naval 
Hospital at Long Beach, California.
    Navy intends to dispose of the property in a manner that is 
consistent with the proposed reuse and redevelopment plan submitted by 
The City of Long Beach, the Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA), 
described as the Retail Sales Alternative in the Final Environmental 
Impact Statement (FEIS).

Background

    The 1991 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission 
recommended closure of the Naval Hospital at Long Beach and Naval 
Station Long Beach. These recommendations were then approved by 
President Bush and the One Hundred Second Congress. Operations at the 
Naval Hospital ceased on March 31, 1994, and the property has been in 
caretaker status since that date. Operations at Naval Station Long 
Beach ceased on September 30, 1994.
    The Naval Hospital property is located within The City of Long 
Beach, California, and consists of two parcels. Parcel A is a 30.5 acre 
site which contains the hospital buildings, associated barracks, and 
warehouses. Parcel B is an adjacent 34.7 acre site that contains a 
parking lot, helicopter landing pad, and Navy housing. Ownership of 
Parcel B reverted from Navy to The City of Long Beach on October 17, 
1995, by operation of law under the terms of the original land 
acquisition agreement.
    A Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register on January 
28, 1994, stating that Navy would prepare an Environmental Impact 
Statement that analyzed the impacts of disposal and reuse of Parcel A 
of the Naval Hospital property. A 90-day public scoping period was 
established, and two scoping meetings were held in the cities of Long 
Beach and Lakewood on April 5 and 6, 1995. An additional scoping 
meeting where Navy's presentation was translated into Spanish was held 
in the adjacent City of Hawaiian Gardens on July 19, 1994. 

[[Page 1903]]

    In February 1995, Navy distributed a Draft Environmental Impact 
Statement (DEIS) to Federal, State, and local agencies, elected 
officials, special interest groups, and interested persons. Navy held 
two public hearings on March 1 and 2, 1995, in Long Beach and the 
adjacent City of Lakewood. Navy had the Executive Summary of the DEIS 
translated into Spanish to facilitate participation in the NEPA process 
by the predominantly Hispanic population of Hawaiian Gardens. Federal 
agencies, California state agencies, local governments, and the general 
public submitted written and oral comments. These comments and Navy's 
responses were incorporated in the Final Environmental Impact Statement 
(FEIS), which was distributed to the public on August 18, 1995, for a 
review period that concluded on September 18, 1995.

Alternatives

    NEPA requires Navy to evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives 
for disposal and reuse of this Federal property. Navy's EIS process 
evaluated the environmental impacts of various proposed reuses that 
could result from disposal of the property. The City of Long Beach 
adopted a reuse plan for the Naval Hospital property that provided for 
development of the site as a retail shopping mall.
    The scoping process identified more than thirty potential reuses 
which fell into eight categories. Navy determined that five of these 
categories, including the LRA's proposed reuse plan, constituted 
reasonable reuse alternatives. Each of these five ``action'' 
alternatives and the ``no action'' alternative were the subject of 
detailed environmental analyses. The process of narrowing the number of 
alternatives selected for detailed analysis from eight to six is set 
forth in Chapter One of the FEIS.
    The six potential reuse alternatives considered in detail in the 
FEIS were: (1) Administrative use by the Los Angeles County Office of 
Education (LACOE). This alternative proposed rehabilitation of the 
existing hospital building and adjacent parking lots and consolidation 
of all LACOE offices on this site. (2) Health Care use as a Senior 
Health Care Center. This alternative proposed rehabilitation of the 
existing hospital building and adjacent parking lots for use as 
residential and non-residential care for senior citizens. (3) Retail 
use as retail stores. This alternative proposed demolition of existing 
buildings and construction of retail outlets and associated parking 
facilities. (4) Industrial use as an industrial park. This alternative 
proposed demolition of existing buildings and construction of a low 
profile industrial park with associated delivery terminals and employee 
parking. (5) Residential use as single family housing. This alternative 
proposed demolition of existing buildings and construction of single 
family homes at a density of ten units per acre. (6) No Action, leaving 
the property in caretaker status with Navy maintaining the physical 
condition of the property, providing a security force, and making 
repairs essential to safety.

Environmental Impacts

    The potential impacts of each alternative were analyzed for their 
effects on land use, economics, environmental justice, traffic and 
transportation, aesthetics, recreation, public services, utilities, 
seismicity, biological resources, historic and archeological resources, 
water quality, air quality, noise, and hazardous materials. Each of the 
alternatives analyzed, except the ``no action'' alternative, has the 
potential for causing some adverse impact on traffic and air quality. 
This potential for adverse impacts on traffic and air quality arises 
from the additional motor vehicle traffic associated with each of the 
five ``action'' alternatives. Each of these ``action'' alternatives 
also has the potential for making a positive impact on the local 
economy. This potential for positive impacts arises from the new job 
opportunities and consumer spending associated with all five ``action'' 
alternatives.
    Each proposed alternative, except the Senior Health Care 
Alternative, generated a significant adverse impact on traffic for part 
of the area around the Naval Hospital property. Specifically, the 
additional traffic associated with these proposals would cause some 
local intersections to operate below the levels of service established 
by the California Department of Transportation. These adverse impacts 
can be mitigated, however, by modifying the existing roadways and 
intersections.
    Navy will not exercise control over the Naval Hospital property 
after it disposes of Parcel A. Thereafter, the property will be 
governed by local zoning regulations. Other than by imposing deed 
restrictions, Navy has no authority to restrict future use of the 
property or require future owners to take action to mitigate the 
effects of development, e.g., to build or improve roads. Deed 
restrictions, however, are appropriate only when necessary to ensure 
that Federal statutory or regulatory obligations imposed on Federal 
agencies are satisfied, e.g., the duty to preserve endangered species, 
historic structures, and wetlands.
    There are no such underlying statutory or regulatory obligations 
associated with Parcel A. Therefore, deed restrictions would not be 
appropriate here. The FEIS, however, identified and discussed 
mitigation measures which could be implemented under State and local 
laws. Applying these prescriptions, the local government could require 
the entity that acquires the property to build or improve roads and 
intersections as a condition of gaining approval for any redevelopment 
plan.
    Significant impacts on air quality were related to emissions 
generated by mobile sources, i.e., the increased vehicular traffic 
associated with all ``action'' alternatives except the Senior Health 
Care Alternative. As discussed above, after conveyance, Navy does not 
possess the authority to mandate or control mitigation measures. Thus, 
to the extent that air quality impacts must be mitigated in order to 
maintain emission levels established by the local Air Quality Board, 
that mitigation will be administered by local regulators. These 
regulators could require the acquiring entity to implement mitigation 
measures developed by the local Air Quality Board before issuing 
construction permits or other necessary authorizations. Short term 
impacts on air quality would also occur during the demolition and 
construction phases of all five ``action'' alternatives, but these may 
be mitigated readily through the use of construction techniques 
demonstrably effective in Southern California.
    The most environmentally significant consequence of implementing 
The City of Long Beach's proposed Retail Sales Alternative is the 
increase in traffic flow and congestion and the related effects on 
local air quality. Without mitigation, the Retail Sales Alternative 
would significantly affect six intersections on Carson Street between 
the Los Coyotes Diagonal and Norwalk Boulevard. However, the FEIS 
identified feasible mitigation measures that would accommodate present 
and projected future traffic flows, achieve and maintain acceptable 
service levels, and improve the traffic flow on Carson Street. 
California State and local authorities bear the responsibility for 
implementing these and any other appropriate mitigation measures.
    Federal actions arising out of the transfer of land and facilities 
are exempt from compliance with the Clean Air Act General Conformity 
Rule, 40 CFR parts 51 and 93, when, as here, the Federal agency will 
not retain continuing 

[[Page 1904]]
authority over the property. These actions, however, must comply with 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the State 
Implementation Plan (SIP). Since vehicles will be the source of more 
than 98 percent of the project-related air emissions, mitigation 
measures that reduce traffic congestion would also reduce the impact on 
air quality. Implementation of the Retail Sales Alternative will 
require compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the 
SIP, and local air quality rules and regulations.
    Implementation of the Retail Sales Alternative would not have any 
impact on historic or archeological resources. The State Historic 
Preservation Officer agrees with this finding.
    In compliance with Executive Order 12898 concerning Environmental 
Justice, the potential environmental and economic impacts on minority 
and low income persons and communities were also assessed. Public 
notices, scoping meetings, and hearings to solicit comments on the DEIS 
were translated into Spanish to accommodate a local population of 
citizens who speak only Spanish. Generally, any impacts caused by the 
proposed development of Parcel A will be experienced equally by all 
groups within the overall regional population. However, employment 
opportunities created by the proposed development may favor lower 
income persons. It is not likely that the minority or low income 
population will experience disproportionately any adverse 
environmental, health, or economic impacts.

Comments Received on the FEIS

    After the Final Environmental Impact Statement was distributed on 
August 18, 1995, Navy received seven comment letters. Three of these 
letters set forth the authors' preferences. Four letters presented 
comments regarding traffic mitigation measures, air quality, impacts on 
local schools, and the adequacy with which the Senior Health Care 
Alternative was treated in the FEIS. The comments did not raise any new 
issues concerning the potential problems associated with traffic 
congestion and did not identify or discuss any mitigation measures 
other than those described in the FEIS. The California Department of 
Transportation identified the property rights that must be transferred 
to undertake mitigation measures that would modify intersections and 
relocate traffic control devices.
    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) expressed concern 
that Navy had identified the Retail Sales Alternative as the preferred 
alternative even though vehicular traffic arising out of the retail use 
would bear the greatest potential for affecting local air quality. EPA 
asked Navy to consider selecting an alternative with less potential for 
affecting air quality.
    While Navy considered the environmental impacts of each proposed 
reuse alternative under NEPA, Navy also applied Federal statutory and 
regulatory standards governing the disposal of Federal property and the 
economic considerations mandated by the Defense Base Closure and 
Realignment Act of 1990 and the Department of Defenses implementing 
Regulations in determining that the highest and best use of the Naval 
Hospital property was the proposed Retail Sales Alternative. Although 
this use has a higher potential for affecting local air quality, any 
retail development would be controlled by emission standards prescribed 
by California State and local air quality regulations. Thus, the local 
Air Quality Board could preclude development of the property unless the 
developer incorporates mitigation ensuring that local air quality 
standards are satisfied. In light of California's demonstrable record 
of seeking cleaner air for its citizens, there is no reason to conclude 
that appropriate mitigation measures will not be imposed on the 
development of this property.
    The local school district reported that the creation of new jobs by 
the proposed retail use would produce a corresponding increase in 
school enrollments. The district expressed concern about a possible 
increase in enrollment, because the school district's budget and 
construction planning had not considered this possibility. Based upon 
the economic analysis in the FEIS, it is likely that new jobs created 
by the proposed Retail Sales Alternative will be filled largely by 
those already residing in the local area. Consequently, it is not 
likely that the local school district will experience any significant 
increase in new student enrollments.
    Proponents of the proposed Senior Health Care Alternative expressed 
concern that this alternative had not been adequately considered in the 
FEIS. They asserted that the projected revenue for the Senior Health 
Care Alternative discussed in the EIS was understated and thus did not 
permit an accurate evaluation of its economic feasibility. Initially, 
economic information was relevant to the extent that the economic 
feasibility of a proposed alternative helped identify the range of 
alternatives that would be analyzed in detail. Once an alternative was 
selected for detailed analysis, however, the focus shifted from 
economic to environmental issues. The FEIS evaluated the environmental 
impacts associated with the proposed Senior Health Care Alternative in 
the same manner and to the same extent as other alternatives and 
adequately analyzed its environmental impacts.

Regulations Governing the Disposal Decision

    Since the proposed action constitutes a disposal action under the 
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (DBCRA), Public Law 
101-510, selection of the proposed Retail Sales Alternative was based 
upon the environmental analysis in the FEIS and application of the 
standards set forth in DBCRA, the Federal Property Management 
Regulations (FPMR), 41 CFR part 101, and the Department of Defense Rule 
on Revitalizing Base Closure Communities and Community Assistance (DOD 
Rule), 32 CFR parts 90 and 91.
    Section 101-47.303-1 of the FPMR requires that the disposal of 
Federal property benefit the Federal government and constitute the 
highest and best use of the property. The FPMR defines the ``highest 
and best use'' as that use to which a property can be put that produces 
the highest monetary return from the property, promotes its maximum 
value, or serves a public or institutional purpose. The ``highest and 
best use'' determination must be based upon the property's economic 
potential, qualitative values, and utilization factors such as zoning, 
physical characteristics, other private and public uses in the 
vicinity, former Government uses, access, roads, location and 
environmental considerations.
    After Federal property is 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. For this 
reason, local land use plans and zoning affect determination of the 
highest and best use of surplus Government property.
    The DBCRA directed the Administrator of the General Services 
Administration (GSA) to delegate to the Secretary of Defense authority 
to transfer and dispose of base closure property. Section 2905(b) of 
DBCRA directs the Secretary of Defense to exercise this authority in 
accordance with GSA's property disposal regulations, set forth at 
Secs. 101-47.1 

[[Page 1905]]
through 101-47.8 of the FPMR. By letter dated December 20, 1991, the 
Secretary of Defense delegated the authority to transfer and dispose of 
base closure property closed under the 1991 Defense Base Closure and 
Realignment process to the Secretaries of the Military Departments. 
Under this delegation of authority, the Secretary of the Navy must 
follow FPMR procedures for screening and disposing of real property 
when implementing base closures. Only where Congress has expressly 
provided additional authority for disposing of base closure property, 
e.g., the economic development conveyance authority established in 1993 
by section 2905 (b)(4) of the DBCRA, may Navy apply disposal procedures 
other than the FPMR's prescriptions.
    In section 2901 of DBCRA, Congress recognized the economic hardship 
occasioned by base closures, the Federal interest in facilitating 
economic recovery of base closure communities, and the need to identify 
and implement reuse and redevelopment of property at closing 
installations. In Sec. 2905 of DBCRA, Congress directed the Military 
Departments to consider each base closure community's economic needs 
and priorities in the property disposal process. In particular, under 
Sec. 2905(b)(2)(E), Navy must consult with the Local Redevelopment 
Authority before it disposes of base closure property and must consider 
local plans developed for reuse and redevelopment of the surplus 
Federal property.
    The Department of Defense's goal, as set forth in Sec. 90.4 of the 
DOD Rule, is to help base closure communities achieve rapid economic 
recovery through expeditious reuse and redevelopment of the assets at 
closing bases, taking into consideration local market conditions and 
locally developed reuse plans. Thus, the Department has adopted a 
consultative approach with each community to ensure that property 
disposal decisions consider the Local Redevelopment Authority's reuse 
plan and encourage job creation. As a part of this cooperative 
approach, the base closure community's interests, e.g., reflected in 
its zoning for the area, play a significant role in determining the 
range of alternatives considered in the environmental analysis for 
property disposal. Furthermore, Sec. 91.7(d)(3) of the DOD Rule 
provides that the Local Redevelopment Authority's plan generally will 
be used as the basis for the proposed disposal action.
    The FPMR and DBCRA identify several mechanisms for disposing of 
surplus base closure property: by public benefit conveyance (FPMR 
Sec. 101-47.303-2); by economic development conveyance (DBCRA 
Sec. 2905(b)(4); by negotiated sale (FPMR Sec. 101-47.304-8); and by 
competitive sale (FPMR Sec. 101-47.304-7). The selection of any 
particular method of conveyance merely implements the Federal agency's 
decision to dispose of the property. Decisions concerning whether to 
undertake a public benefit conveyance or an economic development 
conveyance, or to sell property by negotiation or by competitive bid 
are committed by law to agency discretion. Selecting a method of 
disposal implicates a broad range of factors and rests solely within 
the Secretary of the Navy's discretion.

Conclusion

    The Retail Sales Alternative proposed by The City of Long Beach 
presents the highest and best use of Parcel A of the Naval Hospital 
property. The City of Long Beach, as the LRA, has determined in its 
proposed reuse and redevelopment plan that the property should be used 
for retail sales outlets. The adjacent land owned by The City of Long 
Beach (Parcel B) will also be used for development of the retail 
shopping mall. Environmental impacts can be mitigated through State and 
local processes. The property's physical characteristics are suited to 
commercial development. The Retail Sales Alternative responds to local 
economic conditions, promotes rapid economic recovery from the impact 
of base closure, and is consistent with President Clinton's Five Point 
Plan, which emphasizes job creation and economic development as the 
means to revitalize base closure communities.
    If only environmental considerations were determinative, the 
proposal with the least potential for adverse environmental impacts 
would be the Senior Health Care Alternative. This alternative, however, 
does not constitute the highest and best use of the Naval Hospital 
property. While the Senior Health Care proposal presents a reasonable 
reuse which could benefit residents of the local community, this 
alternative does not provide for the highest and best use of the 
property because it is not compatible with the LRA's proposed reuse and 
redevelopment plan; it is not consistent with the proposed use of 
adjacent property; and it would not foster rapid economic recovery for 
this base closure community through redevelopment of the closing 
military installation and job creation.
    The decision to dispose of the Naval Hospital property in a manner 
consistent with the LRA's proposed plan also has the effect of denying 
the Los Angeles County Office of Education's (LACOE) request, certified 
by the U.S. Department of Education, that Navy convey Parcel A to LACOE 
at no cost as a Public Benefit Conveyance. Public Benefit Conveyances 
are initiated through a request to the sponsoring agency, here the U.S. 
Department of Education, which was responsible for validating LACOEs 
request. Navy, as the disposing Federal agency, evaluated this request 
in light of the requirement that its disposal constitute the highest 
and best use of the property.
    The use proposed by LACOE does not constitute the highest and best 
use of the Naval Hospital property. While consolidation of LACOE's 
offices to a single location could provide some benefit to the local 
community by making LACOE's operations more cost effective, it would 
not foster the rapid economic recovery, job creation and redevelopment 
for this base closure community that Congress mandated in DBCRA. Most 
of the jobs associated with consolidation of LACOE's offices would be 
moved to Long Beach from several nearby communities and would not 
constitute new jobs that could help offset those lost as a result of 
base closure. Additionally, the LACOE Alternative is not compatible 
with the LRA's proposed reuse and redevelopment plan and is not 
consistent with the proposed use of adjacent property.
    Questions regarding the Final Environmental Impact Statement 
prepared for this action may be directed to Ms. Jo Ellen Anderson (Code 
232JA), Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest Division, 1220 
Pacific Coast Highway, San Diego, CA 92132-5190; Telephone (619) 532-
3912.

    Dated: December 22, 1995.
Robert B. Pirie, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations and Environment).
[FR Doc. 96-981 Filed 1-23-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P