[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 Defenses 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 LACOEs
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