[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 165 (Wednesday, August 26, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45467-45472]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-22938]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Record of Decision for the Disposal and Reuse of Naval Medical 
Center Oakland, CA

    Summary: The Department of the Navy (Navy), pursuant to Section 
102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 
U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), 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 Naval Medical Center (NMC) 
Oakland, California.

[[Page 45468]]

    Navy and the City of Oakland analyzed the impacts of disposal and 
reuse of the NMC Oakland property in a Joint Environmental Impact 
Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR), as required by NEPA 
and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Cal. Pub. Res. 
Code, section 21000, et seq., as amended. The City of Oakland is 
responsible for compliance with CEQA. In the EIS/EIR process, Navy 
analyzed four reuse alternatives and identified the Maximum Capacity 
Alternative as the Preferred Alternative.
    Navy intends to dispose of the property in a manner that is 
consistent with the Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative 
proposed a mix of land uses composed of residential structures, 
community meeting facilities, retail businesses, active recreational 
areas with a nine-hole golf course and driving range, athletic fields, 
and open space.
    The Oakland Base Reuse Authority (OBRA) is the Local Redevelopment 
Authority (LRA) for NMC Oakland and was responsible for planning reuse 
of the Naval facilities. During its development of alternatives, OBRA 
asked Navy and the City of Oakland to evaluate the Maximum Capacity 
Alternative. This alternative proposed a more intensive reuse of the 
NMC Oakland property than OBRA ultimately adopted in its Final Reuse 
Plan that was published in August 1996.
    In deciding to dispose of NMC Oakland 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: Naval Medical Center Oakland, known as Oak Knoll Naval 
Hospital, is located in the City of Oakland, California, about 17 miles 
east of the City of San Francisco and about nine miles southeast of 
Oakland's central business district. This 183-acre property has about 
135 acres of developed land on which the main hospital building, five 
concrete buildings, 20 wood buildings, 25 miscellaneous structures, and 
38 family housing structures are situated. There are about 48 acres of 
undeveloped open space. Much of the NMC property consists of hilly 
terrain, and about 70 percent of the site contains slopes steeper than 
15 percent.
    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 closure of the Naval 
Hospital at Oakland, California. This recommendation was approved by 
President Clinton and accepted by the One Hundred Third Congress in 
1993. Navy closed NMC Oakland on September 30, 1996.
    During the Federal screening process for NMC Oakland, two Federal 
agencies within the United States Department of Justice, the Federal 
Bureau of Prisons and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 
expressed interest in base closure property at NMC Oakland but 
subsequently withdrew their requests. Navy declared the NMC Oakland 
property surplus to the needs of the Federal Government on March 13, 
1995.
    Navy published a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register on 
September 12, 1995, announcing that Navy and the City of Oakland would 
prepare a Joint EIS/EIR to analyze the impacts of disposal and reuse of 
the land, buildings, and infrastructure at NMC Oakland. A public 
scoping meeting was held at NMC Oakland on September 27, 1995, and the 
scoping process concluded on October 12, 1995.
    On October 11, 1996, Navy and the City of Oakland distributed a 
Draft EIS/EIR to Federal, State, and local agencies, interested 
parties, and the general public. On November 13, 1996, Navy and the 
City of Oakland held a public hearing concerning the Draft EIS/EIR at 
Oakland City Hall. During the 45-day review period following 
publication of the Draft EIS/EIR, Federal, State, and local agencies, 
community groups and associations, and the general public submitted 
oral and written comments concerning the Draft EIS/EIR. These comments 
and Navy's responses were incorporated in the Final EIS/EIR that was 
distributed to the public on May 1, 1998, for a 30-day review period 
that concluded on June 1, 1998. Navy received three letters concerning 
the Final EIS/EIR.
    Alternatives: NEPA requires Navy to evaluate a reasonable range of 
alternatives for the disposal and reuse of this surplus Federal 
property. In the NEPA process, Navy analyzed the environmental impacts 
of four ``action'' alternatives. 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.
    In November 1993, the Oakland City Council established the Oakland 
Base Closure/Conversion Task Force. On March 21, 1995, the City of 
Oakland, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Oakland, and the 
County of Alameda entered into a Joint Powers Agreement that 
established the Oakland Base Reuse Authority to plan reuse of the Naval 
Hospital, and OBRA was designated as the Local Redevelopment Authority 
for NMC Oakland. The City of Oakland is the zoning authority for the 
property.
    In August 1995, OBRA submitted the Oak Knoll Reuse Plan Preliminary 
Alternatives report that proposed four alternatives: the Mixed Use 
Village Alternative, the Single Use Campus Alternative, the Residential 
Alternative and the Seniors/Community Alternative which OBRA later 
eliminated. By way of a letter dated December 18, 1995, OBRA informed 
Navy that it had added another alternative designated as the Maximum 
Capacity Alternative. The LRA identified the Maximum Capacity 
Alternative as the preliminary Preferred Alternative and asked Navy to 
evaluate this alternative in the EIS/EIR.
    In August 1996, the Oakland Base Reuse Authority published the 
Final Reuse Plan for the Naval Medical Center, Oakland. The Final Reuse 
Plan proposed the same mix of land uses as the Maximum Capacity 
Alternative, but decreased the amount of housing and commercial 
development on the NMC property. Navy and the City of Oakland analyzed 
the Maximum Capacity Alternative, the Mixed Use Village Alternative, 
the Single Use Campus Alternative, and the Residential Alternative in 
the EIS/EIR process.
    The first ``action'' alternative, the Maximum Capacity Alternative, 
was designated in the Final EIS/EIR as the Preferred Alternative and 
proposed more housing and commercial development than OBRA ultimately 
adopted in the Final Reuse Plan. The Preferred Alternative proposed a 
mix of land uses including residential structures, community meeting 
facilities, retail businesses, active recreational areas with a nine-
hole golf course and driving range, athletic fields, and open space.
    The western part of the property covers about 40 acres. In the 
Maximum Capacity Alternative, residential structures, retail 
businesses, and corporate offices would occupy 25 acres. Three hundred 
apartment units would be built on 15 of those 25 acres. Educational and 
cultural facilities would be situated on the remaining 15 acres in the 
western section of NMC Oakland.

[[Page 45469]]

    The center of the property, separated from the western part by 
Rifle Range Creek, covers about 86 acres and would contain houses and 
the nine-hole golf course. Two hundred and fifty houses, consisting of 
single family houses and townhouses, would be built on 32 of the 86 
acres. A public nine-hole golf course would be built on the remaining 
54 acres.
    While OBRA's December 1995 Maximum Capacity Alternative proposed to 
build sixteen single family homes on about five acres in the 
northeastern part of the property along the ridgeline at Keller Avenue, 
OBRA removed this proposal from the Final Reuse Plan and replaced it 
with open space. Nevertheless, Navy evaluated this potential 
residential use in the EIS/EIR to assess its impact on the environment.
    The southern end of the NMC Oakland property, covering about 20 
acres, would contain active recreational resources and houses. The 
former Club Knoll dining and meeting facility, a swimming pool, tennis 
courts, baseball and soccer fields, a picnic area, a driving range, and 
a clubhouse would occupy 15 acres at the site. Eighteen single family 
houses would be built on the remaining five acres in the southeastern 
part of the property.
    Open space uses such as recreational trails, woodlands, wildlife 
habitat, and parkland would be distributed along the boundaries of the 
property and would cover 32 acres of land under the Maximum Capacity 
Alternative. Largely because of the terrain, it would not be possible 
to build structures on about 39 acres of NMC property under this 
alternative.
    The second ``action'' alternative, described in the Final EIS/EIR 
as the Mixed Use Village Alternative, proposed a different mix of 
residential, community, commercial, active recreational, and open space 
areas from that advanced in the Preferred Alternative.
    The Mixed Use Village Alternative would provide 23 acres for use as 
a mixed use redevelopment composed of townhouses, other housing units, 
a health and social services facility, and professional offices. About 
12 acres would be used for research and development offices, 
laboratories, and meeting areas. Five acres would be used for a 
cultural or meeting facility such as a library, museum, or conference 
center. Five acres would be used for neighborhood commercial activities 
such as a supermarket, restaurants, and small shops. About 86 acres 
would be used for open space, and about eight acres would be used for 
active recreational activities. Largely because of the terrain, it 
would not be possible to build structures on 44 acres of NMC property 
in this alternative.
    The third ``action'' alternative, the Single Use Campus 
Alternative, proposed that a single large organization would occupy 
most of the developed areas of the NMC Oakland property. The Single Use 
Campus Alternative would provide 35 acres for use as an educational 
campus, conference facility or research headquarters. One acre would be 
used for neighborhood commercial activities such as restaurants and 
small shops. Active recreational areas would occupy 12 acres, and 101 
acres would be reserved as open space. Largely because of the terrain, 
it would not be possible to build structures on 34 acres of NMC 
property in this alternative.
    The fourth ``action'' alternative, the Residential Alternative, 
proposed to build single family houses similar to those in the 
surrounding residential neighborhood and to use the remaining property 
for retail businesses, active recreational areas, and open space. This 
alternative contained two options. Option 1, the low density option, 
proposed to construct 357 single family houses on 82 acres. Option 2, 
the high density option, proposed to construct 600 single family houses 
on 82 acres. Neighborhood commercial activities such as restaurants and 
small shops would occupy about two acres. About 14 acres would be used 
for active recreational activities, and 46 acres would be reserved as 
open space. Largely because of the terrain, it would not be possible to 
build structures on 39 acres of NMC property in this alternative.
    Environmental Impacts: Navy analyzed the direct, indirect, and 
cumulative impacts from disposal of this Federal property on land use, 
socioeconomics, public services, cultural resources, aesthetics and 
scenic resources, biological resources, water resources, geology and 
soils, traffic and circulation, air quality, noise, utilities, and 
hazardous materials and waste.
    The direct environmental impacts are those associated with Navy's 
proposed disposal of the NMC Oakland property and with the ``No 
action'' alternative. The indirect impacts are those associated with 
reuse of the NMC property. The cumulative impacts are those associated 
with other projects on other property in the immediate area. No 
significant direct impacts will result from Navy's proposed disposal of 
NMC Oakland. 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 impact on 
land use. The proposed uses would not disturb existing land uses and 
would not introduce uses that are incompatible with either the NMC 
property or the surrounding area.
    The Preferred Alternative would have an impact on Oakland Unified 
School District schools because it would generate an enrollment 
increase of about eight percent in the three public schools that serve 
the NMC Oakland area. This is a significant impact, because most 
schools in the District are presently operating at or near capacity.
    The Preferred Alternative would have beneficial socioeconomic 
impacts. It would enhance the area's housing resources and provide 
additional recreational facilities and areas for the public such as the 
golf course, swimming pool, tennis courts, athletic fields and parkland 
as well as generate some additional jobs.
    The Preferred Alternative would not require additional police 
facilities or increase emergency response times. It would, however, 
increase the demand for police services and create the need for 
additional police. This is a significant impact.
    The Preferred Alternative would not have any impact on cultural 
resources listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of 
Historic Places, because there are no historic properties at NMC 
Oakland. In letters dated May 31, 1994 and January 10, 1996, the 
California State Historic Preservation Officer concurred with Navy's 
determination that implementation of the Preferred Alternative would 
not have an effect on cultural resources. Additionally, as a result of 
the extensive grading and development that has taken place at NMC 
Oakland over the last 75 years, it is unlikely that subsurface cultural 
resources will be discovered during redevelopment.
    The Preferred Alternative would have a significant impact on 
aesthetic and scenic resources. The construction of houses and 
associated grading on the ridgeline in the northeastern part of the 
property with the resultant loss of trees would have had a significant 
impact on existing views of this area. However, as discussed earlier, 
OBRA removed this housing from the August 1996 Final Reuse Plan and 
left the area as open space, eliminating this impact.
    The Preferred Alternative would have a significant impact on 
biological resources. In order to build the nine-hole golf course, it 
would be necessary to remove some native vegetation such as oaks and 
other trees, shrubs, and ground cover along Rifle Range Creek.

[[Page 45470]]

    There are no threatened or endangered species present at NMC 
Oakland. Thus, the Preferred Alternative would not have any impact on 
such species.
    The Preferred Alternative would not have any significant impact on 
water resources. It would not cause substantial flooding, erosion, or 
other adverse effects on water quality.
    The Preferred Alternative could have a significant impact on 
geology and soils. It is possible that redevelopment of the NMC Oakland 
property could result in slope failures. Limiting the redevelopment of 
existing slopes to 20 percent or flatter and requiring the use of 
geotechnical measures during design and construction would reduce the 
risk of slope failure to an insignificant level.
    The Preferred Alternative would have significant impacts on traffic 
and circulation. The proposed reuse of this property would generate 
about 13,090 average daily trips, compared with the 4,804 average daily 
trips that were associated with Navy's use of the NMC Oakland property. 
This increased traffic would generate a substantial increase in 
congestion at five local intersections during the morning and evening 
periods of peak traffic volume. These impacts can be mitigated by 
installing additional traffic signals and modifying traffic lanes.
    The Preferred Alternative would not have any significant adverse 
impact on Federal air quality standards in the San Francisco Bay Area. 
However, the Preferred Alternative would have significant and 
unmitigable traffic-related emission impacts on regional Bay Area Air 
Quality Management District (BAAQMD) standards, because the air 
pollutant emissions would exceed BAAQMD standards. The proposed 
redevelopment of this property would generate more motor vehicle 
traffic than when Navy operated NMC Oakland. As a result, vehicle 
emissions associated with this traffic would exceed the BAAQMD 
significance thresholds for both ozone precursor emissions (reactive 
organic compounds and nitrogen oxides) and inhalable particulate matter 
(PM10).
    Demolition, renovation, and construction activities on the property 
would generate dust that would also have an impact on air quality. 
Implementing standard dust control measures during demolition, 
renovation, and construction would reduce this impact to an 
insignificant level.
    Section 176 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 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 such a categorically exempt activity. 
Accordingly, disposal of the NMC Oakland property does not require Navy 
to conduct a conformity analysis.
    The Preferred Alternative would have significant but mitigable 
temporary noise impacts on adjacent property arising out of demolition, 
renovation, and construction activities at the NMC Oakland site. The 
acquiring entity will reduce these potential noise impacts to an 
insignificant level by limiting demolition and construction to normal 
daytime hours.
    The existing traffic on Interstate Highway 580 adjacent to the 
western side of NMC Oakland produces high noise levels. Under the 
Preferred Alternative, residents of this area would be exposed to 24-
hour average noise levels that would exceed the 65-decibel average 
level generally considered compatible with residential development. 
This is a significant impact.
    With the exception of the potable water supply, the Preferred 
Alternative would not have a significant impact on utilities. This 
alternative would, however, increase the demand for water by 112 
percent as a result of the increased number of people residing on the 
property and golf course maintenance requirements. The acquiring entity 
will mitigate this impact to an insignificant level by coordinating 
with water suppliers in the conservation and consumption of water.
    No significant impacts would be caused by the hazardous materials 
and hazardous waste that may be used and generated in the Preferred 
Alternative. These materials will be regulated under the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6901, et seq.
    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. 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 available in the City, 
provide additional recreational facilities and areas for local 
residents, and generate some additional jobs.
    Mitigation: Implementation of the decision to dispose of NMC 
Oakland does not require Navy to perform any mitigation measures. The 
Final EIS/EIR identified and discussed those actions that will be 
necessary to mitigate impacts associated with the reuse of NMC Oakland. 
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 Final 
EIS/EIR from the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the 
Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, and the Oakland Unified 
School District. All of the substantive comments concerned issues 
already discussed in the Final EIS/EIR. Those comments that require 
clarification are addressed below.
    The Alameda County Congestion Management Agency commented that the 
standard it applies to ascertain significant environmental impacts from 
traffic congestion permits longer traffic delays than the stricter 
standard applied by the City of Oakland and used by Navy in its traffic 
analysis. Navy's use of the more restrictive standard ensured that both 
standards would be met or exceeded. the EIS/EIR discussed mitigation 
measures such as additional traffic signals and lane modifications that 
would reduce these environmental impacts to an insignificant level even 
applying the stricter City of Oakland traffic congestion standard.
    The Alameda County Congestion Management Agency also asked Navy to 
analyze traffic congestion on freeways for the years 2000 and 2010 and 
to identify measures that would reduce traffic congestion, irrespective 
of whether such congestion was significant. Navy analyzed traffic 
congestion on freeways for both years and concluded that any traffic 
congestion would be insignificant. Consequently, there was no need 
further to discuss mitigation measures.
    The Oakland Unified School District reiterated its comment on the 
Draft EIS/EIR that since the reuse of NMC Oakland would increase school 
enrollment, any redevelopment plan should also provide funding for 
building additional school facilities. As explained in response to the 
School District's comments on the Draft EIS/EIR, Navy's disposal of the 
NMC Oakland property would not cause any environmental impacts that 
would require Navy to fund the construction of

[[Page 45471]]

new school facilities. The Final EIS/EIR discussed mitigation measures 
that would reduce school overcrowding to an insignificant level. The 
acquiring entity and the Oakland Unified School District will be 
responsible for implementing appropriate mitigation measures.
    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. 2687 
note, Navy's decision was based upon the environmental analysis in the 
Final EIS/EIR 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 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. 484, as implemented by the FPMR, identifies several mechanisms 
for disposing of surplus base closure property: by public benefit 
conveyance (FPMR Sec. 104-47.303-2); 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 Oakland Base Reuse Authority's proposed reuse of 
the NMC Oakland property, reflected in the August 1996 Final Reuse Plan 
for the Naval Medical Center, Oakland and substantially embodied in the 
Preferred Alternative, is consistent with the prescriptions of the FPMR 
and Section 174.4 of the DoD Rule. The Reuse Authority has determined 
in its Maximum Capacity Alternative that the property should be used 
for several purposes, including residential, community, commercial, 
recreational, 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.
    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 redevelopment of the NMC Oakland property.
    Accordingly, Navy will dispose of Naval Medical Center Oakland in a 
manner that is consistent with the Oakland Base Reuse Authority's Final 
Reuse Plan for the property.


[[Page 45472]]


    Dated: August 17, 1998.
William J. Cassidy, Jr.,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Conversion and Redevelopment).
[FR Doc. 98-22938 Filed 8-25-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-M