[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 134 (Tuesday, July 14, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37866-37871]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18741]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Record of Decision for the Disposal and Reuse of the Department 
of Defense Housing Facility Novato, 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. Sec. 4332(2)(C), 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 Department 
of Defense Housing Facility (DoDHF) at Novato, California.
    Navy intends to dispose of the property in a manner that is 
consistent with the Hamilton Army Airfield Reuse Plan dated October 
1995, as revised in November 1996 (Revised Reuse Plan). These plans 
address reuse of both DoDHF and the Department of the Army's adjacent 
Hamilton Army Airfield (HAA). The Hamilton Reuse Planning Authority 
(HRPA), the Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) for the DoDHF property, 
prepared both the October 1995 Reuse Plan and the November 1996 Revised 
Reuse Plan. The City of Novato approved the Revised Reuse Plan in 
February 1996 and published it in November 1996.
    The Revised Reuse Plan Alternative, identified in the Final 
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) as the Preferred Alternative, 
would implement the Revised Reuse Plan. The Preferred Alternative 
proposes an adaptive reuse of certain DoDHF buildings and the retention 
of existing land uses, i.e., residential areas, community facilities, 
commercial activities, parkland, and open space.
    In deciding to dispose of DoDHF Novato in a manner consistent with 
the Preferred Alternative, navy has determined that a mixed land use 
will meet the local economic redevelopment goals of providing housing 
and recreational resources while also limiting adverse environmental 
impacts and ensuring land uses that are compatible with adjacent 
property. 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

    The Department of Defense Housing Facility at Novato is located in 
the southeastern part of the City of Novato in Marin County, 
California, about 20 miles north of the City of San Francisco. The 
property covers an area of about 411 acres on two sites that are 
separated by United States Highway 101.
    The 304-acre Main Site is located on the east side of U.S. Highway 
101 and contains military family housing, a Commissary, a Navy 
Exchange, an Officers Club, community service areas, a bowling alley, 
and recreational fields. The 107-acre Rafael Village military family 
housing site is located on the west side of U.S. Highway 101, about one 
mile northwest of the Main Site. The 142-acre Spanish Housing area lies 
adjacent to the Main Site and was formerly part of the Main Site. Navy 
will transfer this property to the United States Coast Guard (Coast 
Guard).
    The Hamilton Reuse Planning Authority developed a reuse plan for 
DoDHF Novato in October 1995. This plan, designated the Hamilton Army 
Airfield Reuse Plan, addressed reuse of both DoDHF and the adjacent 
Army Airfield. The Hamilton Army Airfield Reuse Plan proposed adaptive 
reuse of most of the existing housing and other buildings and retention 
of the existing land uses.
    The Reuse Planning Authority revised the original HAA Reuse Plan to 
take account of changes in the Coast Guard's request for an interagency 
transfer of base closure property at DoDHF. The Revised Reuse Plan 
developed by HRPA incorporated the Coast Guard's revised request. It 
was approved by the City of Novato in February 1996 and published in 
November 1996. The Revised Reuse Plan, described in the FEIS as the 
Revised Reuse Plan Alternative, is the Preferred Alternative. The 
Department of the Army issued the Record Of Decision for the disposal 
and reuse of Hamilton Army Airfield on February 24, 1997.
    Under the authority of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act 
of 1990, Public Law 101-510, 10 U.S.C. 2687 note, the 1993 Defense Base 
Closure and Realignment Commission recommended disestablishment of the 
Navy Public Works Center, San Francisco Bay, which included DoDHF 
Novato. The recommendation was approved by President Clinton and 
accepted by the One Hundred Third Congress in 1993. Navy closed the 
housing facilities at Novato on September 30, 1996.
    During the Federal screening process for the Novato housing 
facilities, two Federal agencies, the Department of Veterans Affairs 
and the United States Coast Guard, expressed interest in property at 
DoDHF. The Department of Veterans Affairs initially requested an 
interagency transfer of 54 housing units at the Main Site but later 
withdrew its request. The Coast Guard, in its revised request, sought 
282 housing units at the Spanish Housing area of the Main Site, and 
Navy will transfer the 142-acre property that contains these units to 
the Coast Guard. The remaining property is surplus to the needs of the 
Federal Government.
    Navy published a Notice Of Intent in the Federal Register on 
October 31, 1995, announcing that Navy would prepare an Environmental 
Impact Statement (EIS) to analyze the impacts of disposal and reuse of 
the land, buildings, and infrastructure at DoDHF Novato. A public 
scoping meeting was held at San Marin High School in Novato on November 
16, 1995, and the scoping process ended on December 1, 1995.
    On January 31, 1997, Navy distributed a Draft Environmental Impact 
Statement (DEIS) to Federal, State, and local agencies, interested 
parties, and the general public. Navy held a public hearing concerning 
the DEIS on February 27, 1997, at San Marin High School. During the 
forty-five day review period after publication of the DEIS, Federal, 
State, and local agencies, community groups and associations, and the 
general public submitted oral and written comments concerning the DEIS. 
These comments and Navy's responses were incorporated in the Final 
Environmental Impact Statement and was distributed to the public on 
November 21, 1997, for a thirty-day review period that concluded on 
December 22, 1997. navy received five letters concerning the FEIS.

Alternatives

    NEPA requires Navy to evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives 
for the disposal and reuse of this Federal property. In the NEPA 
process, Navy analyzed the environmental impacts of

[[Page 37867]]

two ``action'' alternatives that could result from disposal of the 
DoDHF Novato property. Navy also evaluated a ``No action'' alternative 
that would leave the property in a caretaker status with navy 
maintaining the physical condition of the property, providing a 
security force, and making repairs essential to safety. For its 
analysis, Navy relied upon the Revised Reuse Plan developed by HRPA and 
approved by the City of Novato.
    In March 1994, the City of Novato and the County of Marin entered 
into the Hamilton Reuse Planning Agreement to establish the HRPA and 
procedures for ensuring public participation in the reuse planning 
process. The HRPA is composed of representatives from the City of 
Novato, the County of Marin, and several advisory groups. The HRPA 
prepared the Reuse Plan after extensive public involvement and comment.
    This process also resulted in the establishment of the Hamilton 
Advisory Commission (HAC), a citizens committee composed of 25 
representatives from various stakeholder groups; the Technical Advisory 
Committee, a technical guidance committee composed of 33 members from 
local service districts (i.e., water districts and fire districts) and 
Federal and state agencies; and the Multi-Agency Board (MAB), composed 
of two members from the Novato City Council, one member selected by the 
City Council, two members from the County Board of Supervisors, and one 
member selected by the Board. The MAB reviewed HAC's recommendations 
and made recommendations to the Novato City Council regarding adoption 
of the reuse plan. The goal of this planning process was to develop a 
reuse plan for HAA, DoDHF and the adjacent private lands and reflected 
a consensus gained through public participation by the community.
    After the City adopted the Reuse Plan, the Department of Veterans 
Affairs withdrew its request for property at DoDHF and the Coast Guard 
revised its request for DoDHF property. As a result, the HRPA changed 
the Reuse Plan. The City of Novato approved the Revised Reuse Plan in 
February 1996 and published it as the Hamilton Army Airfield Reuse 
Plan, ``Revised November 1996''.
    The Revised Reuse Plan Alternative, designated in the FEIS as the 
Preferred Alternative, would implement the Revised Reuse Plan. It 
proposed a mix of residential, open space, parkland, community, and 
commercial uses.
    The Revised Reuse Plan identifies 10 planning areas and a runway 
area. Planning Area 1 is the Rafael Village site, a 107-acre suburban 
residential development located on the west side of U.S. Highway 101. 
Under the Revised Reuse Plan, the 503 existing Rafael Village 
structures would be demolished and 500 dwelling units would be built on 
86 of the 107 acres. The remaining property would be used for parkland 
(seven acres), open space (seven acres), and roadway (seven acres). The 
other planning areas are located at the Main Site, on the east side of 
U.S. Highway 101 and southeast of Rafael Village.
    Planning Area 2 is located in the southwest section of the Main 
Site. Known as Capehart Housing, it is a 216-acre suburban residential 
development. Under the Revised Reuse Plan, the existing 100 acres of 
housing, nine acres of parkland, and 107 acres of open space would be 
used for the same purposes as their current uses.
    Planning Area 3, the Spanish Housing area, is located east of the 
Capehart Housing and will be transferred to the Coast Guard. It is not 
available for reuse by the community.
    Planning Area 4, the Commissary Triangle, is a 13-acre site located 
at the northwest corner of the Main Site. Under the Revised Reuse Plan, 
this property would be used for community and civic purposes and would 
provide an 80-bed shelter for the homeless.
    Planning Area 5, the Navy Exchange Triangle, is located on the west 
side of the Main Site and covers 28 acres. About 26 acres would be 
dedicated to community and civic uses, i.e., a public transit center 
consisting of a park and ride lot and bus stop, a library, a charter 
school, a homeless shelter, a child care facility, and senior housing. 
The remaining two acres would be used for private commercial activities 
that would serve the local residents.
    Planning Area 6, the Town Center, is located at the northeast 
corner of the Main Site and covers eight acres. The Revised Reuse Plan 
proposes to use four of these acres as a neighborhood commercial area 
that could accommodate a theater, offices, cafes, specialty shops, 
personal service shops, and artists workplaces. Two acres would be used 
for community facilities, e.g., the former chapel, and two acres would 
serve as a central plaza.
    Planning Area 7, known as Hospital Hill, is located southeast of 
the Town Center area and is part of the Hamilton Army Airfield 
property. Navy is not responsible for this Army property and did not 
consider alternative reuses for it.
    Planning Area 8, known as the Bowling Alley, is located on the east 
side of the Main Site and covers 3 acres. The Preferred Alternative 
would use the existing bowling alley an gymnasium for recreational 
purposes.
    Planning Area 9, the Officers Club, is located on a five-acre 
landscaped hill south of the Bowling Alley and contains two buildings. 
The Revised Reuse Plan would use three acres for community and civic 
purposes with a cultural center, community center and library. Two 
acres would be used commercially to provide lodging for visitors.
    Planning Area 10, the Ballfields, is situated in the southeast 
corner of the Main Site and covers 31 acres. It contains open space, 
baseball fields, a swimming pool and poolhouse, and parking lots. The 
Preferred Alternative would use this entire area as a park and retain 
the swimming pool complex for recreational activity.
    The runway area east of the Main Site is part of the Hamilton Army 
Airfield property. Navy is not responsible for this Army property and 
did not consider alternative reuses for it.
    In the NEPA process, Navy considered a second ``action'' 
alternative, described in the FEIS as the Open Space Alternative. This 
alternative also proposed a mix of residential, open space, parkland, 
community and commercial facilities.
    Under the Open Space Alternative, all 503 existing structures at 
Rafael Village would be demolished. This property would then be used 
for open space and parkland, and no new houses would be built on the 
site. Reuse of the Main Site would be similar to the Preferred 
Alternative but would also allow the development of certain facilities 
that were designated in the Open Space Alternative as corporation 
yards. These corporation yards would provide areas for the maintenance 
and storage of up to 50 buses and 40 pieces of heavy equipment. The 
yards would also contain warehouses, office space and parking lots.
    The Capehart Housing area at the Main Site would be used in the 
Open Space Alternative to provide housing, open space, and parkland. 
The Commissary Triangle area would provide community and civic 
facilities. The Navy Exchange Triangle area would be used for community 
and civic purposes as well as neighborhood commercial activities and 
would also provide a homeless shelter. A corporation yard would be 
located in either the Commissary or Exchange Triangles. The Town Center 
area would be used for community activities. The Bowling Alley area 
would be used for recreational activities. The Officers Club would be 
used for commercial and community activities. The Ballfields

[[Page 37868]]

area would be used for parkland and open space.

Environmental Impacts

    Navy analyzed the potential impacts of the Preferred Alternative, 
the Open Space Alternative, and the ``No action'' Alternative for each 
alternative's effects on land use, aesthetics and scenic resources, 
socioeconomics (including employment, income, population, housing, 
schools, recreation, and environmental justice), public services, 
utilities, cultural resources, biological resources, geology and soils, 
water resources, traffic and circulation, air quality, noise, and 
hazardous materials and waste. This Record of Decision focuses on the 
impacts that would likely result from implementing the Preferred 
Alternative.
    The Preferred Alternative would not cause any significant impacts 
on land use, because the proposed uses of each planning area are 
similar or identical to Navy's historical uses. Although demolition of 
existing structures and construction of new facilities would cause 
short term disruption, these temporary activities would not have a 
significant impact on land use.
    The Preferred Alternative would not have significant impacts on 
aesthetic and scenic resources. The visual impacts arising out of 
demolition and construction would be minimal and insignificant as a 
result of their short duration.
    The Preferred Alternative would not result in any significant 
adverse socioeconomic impacts. Indeed, it would enhance affordable 
housing opportunities, generate additional jobs, and provide more 
recreational facilities for the City.
    The Preferred Alternative would result in a 2.9 percent increase in 
enrollment in the Novato Unified School District compared with 1995 
levels. However, since most schools in this District are operating 
below their enrollment capacities, implementation of the Preferred 
Alternative would not exceed school capacity.
    The Preferred Alternative would not result in significant impacts 
on police and fire protection or on emergency medical services in the 
Novato area. However, the number of requests for these public services 
will likely increase as the population increases.
    The Preferred Alternative would not result in significant impacts 
on utility systems, i.e., electricity, natural gas, telephone, water 
supply, storm drainage and sanitary sewer systems. The acquiring entity 
will upgrade the existing utility systems to meet current utility 
standards.
    While demolition of the Rafael Village houses would not 
significantly affect the County's landfill capacity, the additional 
demolition waste would contribute to Marin County's solid waste stream. 
Thus, a significant impact could result if demolition of the Rafael 
Village structures prevented Marin County from meeting the State's 
requirement, set forth in Cal. Pub. Res. Code, Sec. 41780, et seq., to 
reduce solid waste by 50 percent by the year 2000.
    The Preferred Alternative would not have a significant impact on 
cultural resources. There are four historic properties within an area 
designated as the Hamilton Army Airfield Discontiguous Historic 
District. These are the War Department Theater (Building 507) and the 
Amphitheater in the Town Center planning area; the Bachelor Officers 
Quarters in the Officers Club planning area (Building 201); and the 
Swimming Pool (Building 205) in the Ballfields planning area. The 
Preferred Alternative would use these buildings and structures for 
purposes similar to Navy's uses.
    Navy may convey the War Department Theater and the Bachelor 
Officers Quarters to the City of Novato through the National Park 
Service's Historic Monuments Program. 40 U.S.C. Sec. 484(k)(3). Navy 
may convey the Amphitheater and Swimming Pool to the City of Novato 
through the National Park Service's Surplus Federal Lands to Public 
Parks Program. 40 U.S.C. Sec. 484(k)(2). The National Park Service 
would review and approve plans for the adaptive reuse of these four 
properties to ensure their preservation after disposal by the Federal 
Government.
    Navy has completed consultation pursuant to Section 106 of the 
National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 470 (f), and its 
implementing regulations, Protection of Historic Properties, 36 CFR 
Part 800, with the California State Historic Preservation Officer 
(SHPO) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). The 
SHPO and the ACHP concurred on October 16, 1997 and October 30, 1997, 
respectively, with Navy's conclusion that there would be no adverse 
effect on these four properties or on the HAA Discontiguous Historic 
District if they were conveyed to the City under the National Park 
Service programs.
    Although Navy did not discover any surface archeological resources 
at DoDHF Novato, archeological resources could be present in 
undisturbed areas under the surface. If there are any such discoveries, 
work will cease in the vicinity of the discovery until professional 
archeologists have had an opportunity to evaluate the discovery and 
implement an appropriate treatment plan in accordance with the Novato 
General Plan and Cal. Pub. Res. Code Sec. 5097, et seq.
    Increased erosion resulting from demolition and new construction 
could have a significant impact on biological resources such as 
sensitive wetland and riparian habitats and on the species that inhabit 
these areas. The acquiring entity will reduce these impacts to an 
insignificant level by introducing standard erosion control measures 
such as silt fences, sedimentation basins, and other structural methods 
that minimize sedimentation runoff into creeks and wetlands during new 
construction. Additionally, in accordance with Executive Order 11990, 
Protection of Wetlands, dated May 24, 1977, Navy will place a Notice in 
the conveyance document that describes those uses that are restricted 
under Federal, State, and local wetland regulations.
    Navy has completed consultation with the National Marine Fisheries 
Service and the United States Fish And Wildlife Service pursuant to 
Section 7 of the Federal Endangered Species Act, 16, U.S.C. Sec. 1531, 
et seq. The National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish And 
Wildlife Service concurred on March 24, 1997 and March 27, 1997, 
respectively, with Navy's conclusion that disposal and reuse of the 
DoDHF Novato property is not likely to adversely affect any species on 
the Federal list of endangered or threatened species.
    The Preferred Alternative would allow redevelopment in areas at 
DoDHF Novato that contain potential geologic hazards. Thus, potentially 
significant impacts could result from demolition and construction in 
the Rafael Village area if these actions undermine or weaken unstable 
slopes. The City of Novato's General Plan requires developers to 
conduct geotechnical investigations in areas that have landslide 
potential. The acquiring entity will reduce the potential for 
landslides to an insignificant level by implementing protective 
measures during construction.
    Parts of the Main Site were built on fill over the San Francisco 
Basin's Bay Mud formation and are particularly susceptible to damage 
during earthquakes. The acquiring entity can reduce this potential for 
earthquake damage to existing structures and new construction to an 
insignificant level by upgrading the existing structures to comply with 
current seismic safety standards and by designing new structures that 
meet current building codes governing seismic safety.

[[Page 37869]]

    The Preferred Alternative could degrade surface water quality, 
because the demolition and construction of buildings may disturb the 
soil and increase erosion and sedimentation into San Jose Creek at the 
Rafael Village site and Pacheco Creek at the Main Site. The acquiring 
entity will reduce this impact on surface water quality to an 
insignificant level by implementing storm water pollution prevention 
plans and standard erosion control measures before clearing and grading 
particular sites.
    Parts of the property at DoDHF Novato could be subject to flooding. 
Certain parts of the Rafael Village, Capehart Housing, Commissary 
Triangle, Navy Exchange Triangle, Town Center, Bowling Alley, and 
Ballfields areas are located in the 100-year floodplain. In accordance 
with Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, dated May 24, 1977, 
Navy will place a Notice in the conveyance document that describes 
those uses that are restricted under Federal, State, and local 
floodplain regulations.
    Navy's evaluation of the impacts on traffic and circulation 
considered freeway operations, local roadway and intersection 
operations, public transit facilities and service, and pedestrian and 
bicycle circulation. The Preferred Alternative would not have 
significant impacts on freeway and intersection operations. It would 
generate about 12,095 average daily trips, slightly more than the 
11,340 average daily trips that were associated with Navy's use of the 
DoDHF Novato property, and it would result in a significant increase in 
the demand for public transit services. There would not be any 
significant impacts on pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
    The Preferred Alternative would have a significant but mitigable 
impact on air quality. Local dust would be generated during building 
demolition, renovation, and new construction activities. The acquiring 
entity will reduce these potential impacts to an insignificant level by 
implementing standard dust control measures during demolition, 
renovation and construction.
    Section 176 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7506, as amended, 
requires Federal agencies to review their activities to ensure that 
they do not hamper local efforts to control air pollution. This statute 
prevents Federal agencies from conducting activities that do not 
conform to an approved implementation plan but recognizes certain 
categorically exempt activities. The conveyance of real property, 
regardless of the method, is a categorically exempt activity. 
Accordingly, disposal of the DoDHF Novato property does not require 
Navy to conduct a conformity analysis.
    The Preferred Alternative would have significant but mitigable 
temporary noise impacts on adjacent land arising out of demolition, 
renovation, and construction activities at the Rafael Village, Navy 
Exchange Triangle and Commissary Triangle areas. The acquiring entity 
will reduce these potential noise impacts to an insignificant level by 
limiting demolition and construction activities to normal daytime 
hours.
    The Preferred Alternative would have a significant noise impact on 
some residents of the Rafael Village and Capehart Housing areas arising 
out of the high noise levels generated by existing traffic adjacent to 
these areas on U.S. Highway 101 and Ignacio Boulevard. Under the 
Preferred Alternative, residents of these areas would be exposed to 24-
hour average noise levels that would exceed the 60 decibel average for 
residential areas prescribed in the Novato General Plan as the upper 
limit of acceptability. This is a significant impact that cannot be 
mitigated to an insignificant level.
    Although DoDHF Novato generated a small amount of hazardous waste, 
Navy's survey identified several areas of contamination. In response, 
Navy's remediation actions include removal and remediation of 
underground storage tank areas; abatement of damaged, friable and 
accessible asbestos; and inspection for and notification of lead-based 
paint (LBP) for housing units in accordance with the Residential Lead-
Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, 42 U.S.C. 4822.
    Residential surveys for LBP showed that LBP is present in the 
Rafael Village and Capehart Housing units. Since all of the Rafael 
Village structures will be demolished, no LBP abatement will be 
performed there. The Capehart Housing units were completed after 1960 
and are therefore subject only to the inspection and disclosure 
requirements of the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act.
    No significant adverse impacts would be caused by the hazardous 
materials and hazardous waste that may be used and generated by the 
Preferred Alternative. The quantity of hazardous materials used, 
stored, and disposed of, and the quantity of hazardous waste generated 
on the property would decrease under the Preferred Alternative. 
Additionally, hazardous materials used and hazardous waste generated 
under the Preferred Alternative would be controlled by existing 
regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 
42 U.S.C. Sec. 6901, et seq., codified at 40 CFR parts 260-266.
    Navy also analyzed the impacts on low-income and minority 
populations pursuant to Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to 
Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations, reprinted in 42 U.S.C. Sec. 4321 note. There would be no 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority and low-income populations. Indeed, the Preferred 
Alternative would increase the amount of housing in the City and County 
and provide emergency shelter and transitional housing that would 
benefit the homeless and low-income residents in the area.

Mitigation

    Implementation of the decision to dispose of DoDHF Novato does not 
require Navy to perform any mitigation measures. However, the National 
Park Service must review and approve all plans for adaptive reuse of 
the four historic properties if they are conveyed under the Historic 
Monuments and Surplus Federal Lands to Public Parks programs. As 
required by Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, and 
Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, Navy will incorporate 
Notices in the conveyance document describing wetland and floodplain 
uses that are restricted under Federal, State, and local regulations.
    Navy's FEIS identified and discussed those actions that would be 
necessary to mitigate the impacts associated with the disposal and 
reuse of DoDHF Novato. The acquiring entity, under the direction of 
Federal, State, and local agencies with regulatory authority over 
protected resources, will be responsible for implementing all necessary 
mitigation measures.

Comments Received on the FEIS

    Navy received comments on the FEIS from the United States 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway, 
and Transportation District, the Novato Fire Protection District, the 
Lanham Village Homeowners' Association, Inc., and Marvelous Marin, Inc.
    The EPA commented that navy should compare the projected 
environmental impacts of the two ``action'' alternatives against two 
standards: historical environmental conditions (the standard that Navy 
applied) and those conditions that would exist under the ``No action'' 
alternative, i.e., with the facility in a

[[Page 37870]]

caretaker status. Navy believes that its use of historical or 
previously established environmental conditions is appropriate, because 
it evaluates the impacts of the proposed reuse in light of the 
conditions that existed when the facility was open and actively 
operating.
    The Golden Gate Bride, Highway, and Transportation District asked 
Navy to include additional information in the FEIS concerning existing 
public transit routes, park and ride lots, bus stops, previous land 
acquisition by the Transportation District, projected hourly transit 
trips, and the mission of the Transportation District. The District did 
not provide comments during the public scoping period or during the 
DEIS public review period.
    As discussed in the FEIS, the anticipated increase in the demand 
for public transit services under the Preferred Alternative can be 
reduced to an insignificant level by providing internal collector 
roadways within the project area that would accommodate public transit 
vehicles and by providing shuttle services to existing public transit 
routes. The inclusion of the additional information requested by the 
Transportation District would not change the results of Navy's 
environmental analysis in the FEIS.
    The Novato Fire Protection District (NFPD) commented that ti is 
currently providing emergency services to DoDHF Novato through a 
contract with Navy and the DoDHF Novato is presently located outside 
the boundaries of the NFPD. The NFPD stated that it would not be able 
to provide emergency services to the DoDHF site if Navy terminated the 
contract before other arrangements were made with the NFPD or unless 
the DoDHF property was annexed into the district.
    The Coast Guard challenged NFPD's claim that it requires a contract 
to provide emergency services to DoDHF Novato. On January 7, 1998, the 
United States District Court for the Northern District of California 
decided that NFPD's exclusion of Federal property from the fire 
district was invalid. This decision has the effect of including DoDHF 
Novato in the fire district. Novato Fire Protection District v. United 
States, No. C 96-3893 FMS (N.D. Cal., Jan. 7, 1998), reh. den. (N.D. 
Cal., Jan. 27, 1998).
    Navy also received comments from the Lanham Village Homeowners' 
Association, Inc. (LVHA) that reflect the views of a neighborhood 
adjacent to the Main Site on the DoDHF Novato property. The Homeowners' 
Association requested additional analysis of the Preferred Alternative 
with respect to the Novato Unified School District's (NUSD) request for 
a public benefit conveyance of the former Navy Vehicle Maintenance 
Building. The School District proposes to use the building as a vehicle 
repair training facility.
    The Association also requested additional analysis of a corporation 
yard that was proposed under the Open Space Alternative. The 
Association disagrees with Navy's conclusions regarding the 
environmental impacts of these components of the Preferred Alternative 
and the Open Space Alternative.
    Navy analyzed the proposed reuse of the former Navy Vehicle 
Maintenance Building under the Preferred Alternative and concluded that 
it was similar to Navy's historical use of this facility. The proposed 
NUSD vehicle repair training facility would be required to meet all 
health and safety regulations concerning noise and air emissions, and 
reuse of the Vehicle Maintenance Facility would not have significant 
impacts on land use, noise, and air quality. Navy considers this 
analysis adequate. Additionally, the land use policies in the Revised 
Reuse Plan require the acquiring entity to establish landscaping and 
buffer zones and to consider the compatibility of new uses with 
existing residential uses such as Lanham Village before approving new 
uses.
    The LVHA commented that the proposed NUSD facility could eventually 
become a regional bus repair facility. However, the School District is 
not proposing such an action in its public benefit conveyance request, 
and HRPA did not propose such a facility in the Revised Reuse Plan.
    In response to LVHA's comments on the DEIS concerning the Open 
Space Alternative, Navy considered the possible uses of the corporation 
yard in the FEIS. Navy concluded that the establishment of a 
corporation yard under the Open Space Alternative would not have 
significant impacts on land use and noise. Additionally, the Preferred 
Alternative, i.e., the Revised Reuse Plan, does not propose to 
establish an corporation yards.
    The LVHA also stated that the siting of the bus repair training 
facility or the corporation yard may raise environmental justice 
concerns. As stated in the FEIS, however, there are no significant and 
adverse environmental impacts that would disproportionately affect 
minority and low-income populations.
    Marvelous Marin, Inc. did not comment directly on the FEIS, but 
provided copies of correspondence to the Secretary of the Navy dated 
November 20, 1997. Marvelous Marin also filed suit in the United States 
District Court for the Northern District of California on September 30, 
1997, alleging that private entities and/or Marin County may have 
reversionary rights to DoDHF Novato property. Marvelous Marin, Inc. v. 
United States, No. C 97-3584 CW (N.D. Cal., filed Sept. 30, 1997). Navy 
considered these claims and concluded that no such reversionary rights 
exist. On May 6, 1998, the District Court dismissed the lawsuit with 
prejudice on the merits. Marvelous Marin, Inc. v. United States, id. 
(Order and Judgment filed May 6, 1998).
    In any entity were to establish reversionary property rights in the 
future, the City of Novato's zoning and other ordinances would still 
govern redevelopment of this property. Thus, the FEIS adequately 
addressed the potential environmental impacts of disposal and reuse of 
this property under the Preferred Alternative.

Regulations Governing the Disposal Decision

    Since the proposed action contemplates disposal under the Defense 
Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (DBCRA), Public Law 101-510, 
10 U.S.C. Sec. 2687 note, Navy's decision 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 101-47, and the Department of Defense Rule on Revitalizing 
Base Closure Communities and Community Assistance (DoD Rule), 32 CFR 
Parts 174 and 175.
    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. Section 101-47.4909 of 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 
inherent in the property, and utilization factors affecting land use 
such as zoning, physical characteristics, other private and public uses 
in the vicinity, neighboring improvements, utility services, access, 
roads, location, and environmental and historical considerations.
    After Federal property has been conveyed to non-Federal entities, 
the property is subject to local land use regulations, including zoning 
and

[[Page 37871]]

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 
Sections 101-47.1 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 DBCRA 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 DBCRA, may Navy apply disposal procedures other than the 
FPMR's prescriptions.
    In Section 2901 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1994, Public Law 103-160, 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 Section 2903(c) of Public Law 103-160, 
Congress directed the Military Departments to consider each base 
closure community's economic needs and priorities in the property 
disposal process. Under Section 2905(b)(2)(E) of DBCRA, Navy must 
consult with local communities 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 Section 174.4 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, Section 175.7(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 Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, 40 
U.S.C. Sec. 484, as implemented by the FPMR, identifies several 
mechanisms for disposing of surplus base closure property: by public 
benefit conveyance (FPMR Sec. 101-47.303-2); by negotiated sale (FPMR 
Sec. 101-47.304-9); and by competitive sale (FPMR 101-47.304-7). 
Additionally, in Section 2905(b)(4), the DBCRA established economic 
development conveyances as a means of disposing of surplus base closure 
property.
    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 HRPA's proposed reuse of the DoDHF Novato property, reflected 
in the 1996 Hamilton Army Airfield Reuse Plan and embodied in the 
Preferred Alternative, is consistent with the prescriptions of the FPMR 
and Section 174.4 of the DoD Rule. The LRA has determined in its 
Revised Reuse Plan that the property should be used for several 
purposes including residential, community, civic, commercial, parkland 
and open space. 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.
    The Revised Reuse Plan responds to local economic conditions, 
promotes rapid economic recovery from the impact of the facility's 
closure, and is consistent with President Clinton's Five-Part Plan for 
Revitalizing Base Closure Communities, which emphasizes local economic 
redevelopment of the closing military facility and creation of new jobs 
as the means to revitalize these communities. 32 CFR Parts 174 and 175, 
59 Fed. Reg. 16123 (1994). 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 
implementation of the reuse plan.
    Although the ``No action'' Alternative has less potential for 
causing adverse environmental impacts, this alternative would not take 
advantage of the property's location, physical characteristics and 
infrastructure or the current uses of adjacent property. Additionally, 
it would not foster local economic redevelopment of the DoDHF NOvato 
property.
    Accordingly, Navy will dispose of the Department of Defense Housing 
Facility at Novato in a manner that is consistent with the Hamilton 
Reuse Planning Authority's Revised Reuse Plan for the property.

    Dated: July 1, 1998.
William J. Cassidy, Jr.,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Conversion And Redevelopment).
[FR Doc. 98-18741 Filed 7-13-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-M