[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 47 (Thursday, March 9, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12524-12533]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-5824]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Record of Decision for the Disposal and Reuse of Naval Air 
Station Alameda, California, and the Fleet and Industrial Supply Center 
Oakland's Alameda Annex and Facility, Alameda, 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) (1994), 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 Air 
Station (NAS) Alameda and the Fleet and Industrial Supply Center 
Oakland's Alameda Annex and Facility (Alameda Annex), which are located 
in Alameda, California.
    Navy analyzed the impacts of the disposal and reuse of NAS Alameda 
and the Alameda Annex in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as 
required by NEPA. The EIS analyzed four reuse alternatives and 
identified the NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan (Reuse Plan), adopted 
by the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) on September 3, 
1997, and described in the EIS as the Reuse Plan Alternative, as the 
Preferred Alternative.
    The Preferred Alternative proposed to use NAS Alameda and the 
Alameda Annex for residential, educational, industrial and commercial 
activities and to develop parks and recreational areas. The Alameda 
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority is the Local Redevelopment Authority 
(LRA) for NAS Alameda. Department of Defense rule on Revitalizing Base 
Closure Communities and Community Assistance (DoD Rule), 32 CFR 
Sec. 176.20(a).
    Navy intends to dispose of NAS Alameda in a manner that is 
consistent with the Reuse Plan. Navy has determined that the mixed land 
use proposed for NAS Alameda will meet the goals of achieving local 
economic redevelopment, creating new jobs, and providing additional 
housing, while limiting adverse environmental impacts and ensuring land 
uses that are compatible with adjacent property.
    Navy plans to dispose of the Alameda Annex under the authority of 
Section 2834(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 1993, Public Law 102-484, as amended by Section 2833 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994, Public Law 
103-160, Section 2821 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1995, Public Law 103-337, and Section 2867 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, Public Law 104-106. 
Section 2687 of Public Law 104-106 authorizes the Secretary of the Navy 
to convey property associated with the Fleet and Industrial Supply 
Center at Oakland to the City of Alameda.
    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 entities and the local 
zoning authority.

Background

    Under the authority of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act 
of 1990 (DBCRA), Public Law 101-510, 10 U.S.C. 2687 note (1994), the 
1993 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission recommended the 
closure of Naval Air Station Alameda. This recommendation was approved 
by President Clinton and accepted by the One Hundred Third Congress in 
1993. The Naval Air Station closed on April 30, 1997.
    Nearly all of NAS Alameda is located in the City of Alameda. The 
southwest corner of the property is located in the City of San 
Francisco. The Air Station is bounded on the north by the Oakland Inner 
Harbor; on the east by the City of Alameda and the Alameda Annex; and 
on the south and west by San Francisco Bay. The Navy property covers 
about 2,515 acres, of which 960 acres are submerged. Navy controls an 
additional 159 acres (of which 154 acres are submerged) by way of a 
lease with the City of Alameda. Navy also controls about two acres by 
way of easements for utilities.
    Under the authority of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act 
of 1990, Public Law 101-510, 10 U.S.C. 2687 note (1994), the 1995 
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission recommended the closure 
of fleet and Industrial Supply Center (FISC) Oakland. The Alameda Annex 
and Facility were part of the Navy supply complex at FISC Oakland. This 
recommendation was approved by President Clinton and accepted by the 
One Hundred Fourth Congress in 1995. The Alameda Annex closed on 
September 30, 1998.
    Because the Alameda Annex was part of the FISC Oakland property, 
Section 2867 of Public Law 104-106 authorizes Navy to convey the Annex 
property to the City of Alameda. This authority is independent of the 
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 as well as the Federal 
Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, 40 U.S.C. 484 (1994), 
and its implementing regulations, the Federal Property Management 
Regulations, 41 CFR part 101-47.
    The Alameda Annex is located adjacent to and east of NAS Alameda 
and is situated within the boundaries of the City of Alameda. The 
Alameda Annex property is bounded on the north by the Oakland Inner 
Harbor; on the east and south by the City of Alameda; and on the south 
and west by NAS Alameda. This Navy property covers about 147 acres, of 
which six acres are submerged.

[[Page 12525]]

    During the Federal screening process, three Federal agencies 
requested interagency transfers of base closure property at NAS Alameda 
and the Alameda Annex. These included the Department of the Interior's 
United States Fish And Wildlife Service, the United States Coast Guard, 
and the Department of Transportation's Maritime Administration (MARAD).
     Navy will transfer about 900 acres (of which 375 acres are 
submerged) in the western and southwestern parts of NAS Alameda to the 
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, which will establish the 
Alameda National Wildlife Refuge. This Refuge will protect the 
Federally-listed endangered California least tern, the endangered 
California brown pelican, and several species of migratory birds 
protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, 16 U.S.C. 703-
712 (1994).
    Navy may transfer 582 residential units, an administrative building 
(Building 545), and about 69 acres in the eastern part of NAS Alameda 
to the United States Coast Guard. The Coast Guard would continue to use 
these residences and Building 545 for its housing and administrative 
requirements.
    The Maritime Administration requested piers at both NAS Alameda and 
the Alameda Annex to berth vessels that are elements of the Ready 
Reserve Force. The Maritime Administration subsequently withdrew its 
request for piers at NAS Alameda. On March 30, 1998, Navy disapproved 
MARAD's request for an interagency transfer of piers at the Alameda 
Annex.
    The remaining 1,546 acres of Navy property at NAS Alameda are 
surplus to the needs of the Federal Government. The entire 147 acres of 
Navy property at the Alameda Annex are available for disposal under the 
authority of Public Law 102-484, as amended by Public Law 103-160, 
Public Law 103-337, and Public Law 104-106.
    This Record Of Decision addresses the disposal and reuse of those 
parts of NAS Alameda that are surplus to the needs of the Federal 
Government and the entire Alameda Annex property. Navy will transfer 
its interests in the utility easements at NAS Alameda to local utility 
providers or the underlying property owners. In addition, Navy will 
return the 159 acres currently leased from the city of Alameda to the 
City on or before termination of the lease on June 30, 2005.
    The surplus property at NAS Alameda is composed of aviation 
facilities including parts of the runways and taxiways and seven 
hangars. Most of the runways and taxiways are located on property that 
Navy will transfer to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The 
Air Station also contains industrial and warehouse buildings, 
administrative offices, personnel support facilities, residential 
facilities, recreational facilities and areas, a seaplane lagoon, 
wharves, and three piers. The Alameda Annex property contains 
warehouses, wharves, administrative offices, and open storage areas.
    Of the 1,546 acres of surplus property at NAS Alameda, there are 
about 1,482 acres available to the City for economic redevelopment. The 
City proposes to develop residential, educational, industrial and 
commercial facilities on this property.
    Navy will dispose of the remaining 64 acres of surplus property at 
NAS Alameda by way of public benefit conveyances. Navy will assign 
seven acres in the center of the Coast Guard housing property to the 
United States Department of Education for subsequent conveyance to the 
Alameda Unified School District to permit the continuing use of the 
George P. Miller Elementary School and adjacent child care facility. 
Navy will assign 57 acres in the northern part of NAS Alameda to the 
United States Department of the Interior for subsequent conveyance to 
the City of Alameda for use as parks and recreational areas.
    Navy plans to dispose of the entire Alameda Annex property, 
covering about 147 acres, under the authority of Section 2834(b) of 
Public Law 102-484, as amended by Section 2833 of Public Law 103-160, 
Section 2821 of Public Law 103-337, and Section 2867 of Public Law 104-
106.
    Navy published a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register on 
February 22, 1996, announcing that Navy would prepare an EIS for the 
disposal and reuse of Naval Air Station Alameda and the Alameda Annex. 
On March 13, 1996, Navy held a public scoping meeting at Alameda High 
School in Alameda, and the scoping period concluded on March 29, 1996.
    Navy distributed the Draft EIS (DEIS) to Federal, State, and local 
agencies, elected officials, interested parties, and the general public 
on April 16, 1999, and commenced a 45-day public review and comment 
period. During this period, Federal, State, and local agencies, 
community groups and associations, and interested persons submitted 
oral and written comments concerning the DEIS. On May 18, 1999, Navy 
held a public hearing at Alameda High School to receive comments on the 
DEIS.
    Navy's responses to the public comments on the DEIS were 
incorporated in the Final EIS (FEIS), which was distributed to the 
public on October 29, 1999, for a review period that concluded on 
November 29, 1999. Navy received nine letters commenting on the FEIS.

Alternatives

    NEPA requires Navy to evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives 
for the disposal and reuse of this Federal property. In the FEIS, Navy 
analyzed the environmental impacts of four reuse alternatives. Navy 
also evaluated a ``No Action'' alternative that would leave the 
property in caretaker status with Navy maintaining the physical 
condition of the property, providing a security force, and making 
repairs essential to safety.
    On July 14, 1993, the City Council of Alameda established the 
Alameda Base Reuse Advisory Group to advise the City Council concerning 
base conversion issues. The Advisory Group also provided a forum for 
public participation in the reuse planning process. The Advisory Group 
held four public workshops on November 6, 1993, October 12, 1994, 
October 29, 1994, and January 28, 1995, where it solicited comments 
concerning reuse of the base.
    On April 5, 1994, the City of Alameda and Alameda County 
established the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority as a joint 
powers authority responsible for managing the reuse planning process 
for NAS Alameda. Between April 1994 and January 1996, ARRA issued 
newsletters and held regular public meetings where it provided status 
reports and solicited additional comments concerning reuse of the Naval 
property. On January 31, 1996, ARRA adopted the NAS Alameda Community 
Reuse Plan, dated January 1996. ARRA Resolution No. 011.
    On June 4, 1997, ARRA modified the January 1996 reuse plan by 
adding office and commercial uses to the center of the Air Station and 
reducing the amount of property dedicated to educational activities 
there. It also designated 17 acres in the northwest part of the Air 
Station for use as a sports complex. On September 3, 1997, ARRA 
modified the January 1996 reuse plan further to recognize the 
boundaries and extent of property that Navy will transfer to the United 
States Fish and Wildlife Service.
    The Reuse Plan divided the property at NAS Alameda and the Alameda 
Annex into six planning areas. The Civic Core, Planning Area One, 
covers about 334 acres in the center of NAS Alameda. This planning area 
contains the main administrative buildings and

[[Page 12526]]

parade ground, several barracks, a swimming pool and gymnasium complex, 
medical clinics, a post office, and restaurants. The western and 
southern parts of this planning area contain industrial buildings, 
warehouses, and seven aircraft hangars.
    The Main Street Neighborhoods, Planning Area Two, covers about 265 
acres in the northeastern part of NAS Alameda and the southern part of 
the Alameda Annex. It lies east of the Civic Core planning area and 
contains the residential areas on NAS Alameda and industrial buildings 
at the Alameda Annex.
    The Inner Harbor, Planning Area Three, covers about 120 acres in 
the southeastern part of NAS Alameda. This planning area contains 
industrial buildings, warehouses, and a park.
    The North Waterfront, Planning Area Four, covers about 88 acres 
situated in the northern part of the Alameda Annex along the Oakland 
Inner Harbor. This planning areas contains wharves and warehouses.
    The Marina, Planning Area Five, covers about 125 acres around the 
seaplane lagoon in the southern part of NAS Alameda along San Francisco 
Bay, south of the Civic Core planning area. This planning area contains 
three piers, two wharves, several buildings and open space.
    The northwest part of the Air Station along the Oakland Inner 
Harbor, designated in the Reuse Plan as the Northwest Territories, 
Planning Area Six, covers about 272 acres located north of the proposed 
Alameda National Wildlife Refuge. This planning area includes parts of 
the runways and taxiways.
    The Reuse Plan, identified in the FEIS as the Preferred 
Alternative, proposed a mix of land uses for each of the six planning 
areas. The Preferred Alternative would develop residential, 
educational, industrial, and commercial activities as well as parks and 
recreational areas. It will be necessary to make extensive utility 
infrastructure and roadway improvements to support the Reuse Plan's 
proposed redevelopment of NAS Alameda and the Alameda Annex.
    In the Civic Core planning area, the Preferred Alternative would 
develop a mixed use office and institutional center, providing about 
916,000 square feet of existing space and an additional 2,279,000 
square feet of space to be built. This center would be composed of 
offices and educational and commercial facilities.
    On 37 acres in the northern part of the Civic Core, this 
Alternative would build athletic fields and recreational facilities and 
expand the existing parade ground into a larger open space mall 
covering 57 acres. The Preferred Alternative would build 192 townhouses 
on 16 acres in this part of the base. It would also dedicate 52,000 
square feet of space to commercial activities that would support the 
new residents. The commercial activities would include restaurants, 
cafes, convenience stores, retail stores, and department stores. About 
one third of the buildings in this planning area would be demolished to 
accommodate the proposed redevelopment.
    On 236 acres in the Main Streets Neighborhoods planning area, the 
Preferred Alternative would develop a mix of housing units, with 1,314 
single family homes and 174 attached homes composed of existing 
residential units and new construction. On 21 acres, this Alternative 
would continue to use the George P. Miller Elementary School and 
adjacent child care center and build a new elementary school to support 
the proposed residential complex. This Alternative would use the Navy 
Lodge as a shelter; build small retail and commercial stores on four 
acres; and reserve an additional four acres for parks and recreational 
activities.
    In the northern part of the Inner Harbor planning area, the 
Preferred Alternative would develop about 910,000 square feet of space 
for light industrial activities. This development would also provide 
offices, restaurants, and service industries that would support the 
light industrial activities. On 36 acres in the southern part of the 
Inner Harbor area, this Alternative would develop a regional park to be 
included in the Bay Trail System. On 13 acres, it would develop a 
recreational vehicle park with a capacity of 135 recreational vehicles. 
Where feasible, the existing roadways in this part of the base would be 
extended to connect with the residential neighborhood outside the Air 
Station property.
    In the northern part of the North Waterfront planning area, the 
Preferred Alternative would demolish all of the existing structures and 
develop 418,000 square feet of space for mixed use facilities including 
offices. This Alternative would also develop a hotel, restaurants, a 
passenger ferry service, and a waterfront promenade here. On 12 acres, 
this Alternative would build 144 units of attached waterfront housing 
along the Oakland Inner Harbor.
    In the southern part of the North Waterfront planning area, the 
Preferred Alternative would develop 993,000 square feet of space for 
light industrial and research and develop activities. On eight acres at 
the western edge of this planning area, east of the George P. Miller 
Elementary School, it would develop an alternative education high 
school, a regional kitchen facility, a parking area, a storage area, 
and maintenance facilities for the Alameda Unified School District.
    The Preferred Alternative would develop the Marina planning area as 
a commercial marina. This Alternative would build a 900-slip marina in 
the seaplane lagoon to accommodate private and public vessels and 
facilities for a passenger ferry service and deep draft yachts. The 
three piers in the southeastern part of the Marina would be used to 
accommodate large cruise ships and historic vessels such as the former 
USS Hornet, a World War II Aircraft Carrier that is currently moored at 
Pier Three under a lease between ARRA and the Aircraft Carriers Hornet 
Foundation. This Alternative would also develop about 264,000 square 
feet of space for light industrial and commercial marine activities.
    In the northern part of the Marina planning area, the Preferred 
Alternative would develop a promenade and a civic plaza. Near the 
plaza, this Alternative would develop facilities for civic uses such as 
offices, a cultural arts center or theater, and recreational 
activities. It would also build a hotel and conference center on four 
acres in this part of the base.
    On 32 acres along the eastern shore of the seaplane lagoon, the 
Preferred Alternative would build 384 residential units composed of 
artists' lofts, low to moderate income apartments, and townhouses. It 
would allocate 100 of the 900 marina slips for those who wish to live 
aboard their vessels. All of the large industrial buildings in this 
planning area would be demolished to accommodate the proposed 
redevelopment.
    In the western part of the Northwest Territories planning area, the 
Preferred Alternative would build a 162-acre links golf course, a 
clubhouse on six acres, and a conference center. This Alternative would 
also develop a 29-acre park along the shore of the Oakland Inner 
Harbor.
    On 58 areas in the center of the Northwest Territories planning 
area, the Preferred Alternative would develop an international trade 
and commerce zone that would provide about 980,000 square feet of 
space. On 17 acres in the eastern part of the Northwest Territories, 
this Alternative would develop athletic fields that would be associated 
with the sports complex proposed for the Civic Core planning area.

[[Page 12527]]

    Navy analyzed a second ``action'' alternative, described in the 
FEIS as the Seaport Alternative. Navy considered this Alternative in 
response to the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development 
Commission's designation (in its San Francisco Bay Plan) of 220 acres 
in the northwestern part of NAS Alameda along the Oakland Inner Harbor 
for future use as a port. On September 18, 1997, the Commission removed 
this port priority use designation when it amended the San Francisco 
Bay Plan and the San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan.
    The Seaport Alternative proposed land uses similar to those in the 
Reuse Plan. However, the Seaport Alternative proposed to develop a port 
facility with five container ship berths instead of the golf course and 
international trade zone in the Northwest Territories and would develop 
a college campus instead of light industrial facilities in the Civic 
Core. The proposed port facilities in the Northwest Territories 
planning area would require construction of an additional 
transportation link such as a bridge, a tunnel, or a high rise crane in 
order to transport cargo across the Oakland Inner Harbor between 
Alameda and the Port of Oakland.
    In the Civic Core planning area, the Seaport Alternative would use 
about 916,000 square feet of existing space for a college campus and 
would develop an additional 2,279,000 square feet of space for a mixed 
use office and institutional center. This Alternative would expand the 
existing parade ground into a larger open space mall covering 57 acres 
and would build 192 townhouses on 16 acres in this part of the base. It 
would also dedicate 52,000 square feet of space to commercial 
activities that would support the new residents. The commercial 
activities would include restaurants, cafes, convenience stores, retail 
stores, and department stores. About one third of the buildings in this 
planning area would be demolished to accommodate the proposed 
redevelopment.
    On 236 acres in the Main Streets Neighborhoods planning area, the 
Seaport Alternative would develop a mix of housing units, with 1,314 
single family homes and 174 attached homes composed of existing 
residential units and new construction. On 21 acres, this Alternative 
would continue to use the George P. Miller Elementary School and 
adjacent child care center and build a new elementary school to support 
the proposed residential complex. This Alternative would use the Navy 
Lodge as a shelter; build small retail and commercial stores on four 
acres; and reserve an additional four acres for parks and recreational 
activities.
    On 63 acres in the northern part of the Inner Harbor planning area, 
the Seaport Alternative would develop a residential complex with 378 
single family homes. This Alternative would reserve eight acres for a 
school to be built in the future. On 49 acres in the southern part of 
the Inner Harbor area, the Seaport Alternative would develop a regional 
park to be included in the Bay Trail System. Where feasible, the 
existing roadways in this part of the base would be extended to connect 
with the residential neighborhood outside the Air Station property.
    In the northern part of the North Waterfront planning area, the 
Seaport Alternative would demolish all of the existing structures and 
develop 418,000 square feet of space for mixed use facilities including 
offices. This Alternative would also develop restaurants, a passenger 
ferry service, and a waterfront promenade here. On 46 acres, this 
Alternative would build 552 units of attached waterfront housing along 
the Oakland Inner Harbor.
    On eight acres at the western edge of this planning area, east of 
the George P. Miller Elementary School, the Seaport Alternative would 
develop an alternative education high school, a regional kitchen 
facility, a parking area, a storage area, and maintenance facilities 
for the Alameda Unified School District.
    The Seaport Alternative would develop the Marina planning area as a 
commercial marina. It would build a 500-slip marina in the seaplane 
lagoon to accommodate private and public vessels and facilities for a 
passenger ferry service and deep draft yachts. The three piers in the 
southeastern part of this planning area would be used to accommodate 
large cruise ships and historic vessels such as the former USS Hornet. 
This Alternative would also develop about 264,000 square feet of space 
of light industrial and commercial marine activities.
    In the northern part of the Marina planning area, the Seaport 
Alternative would develop a promenade and a civic plaza. Near the 
plaza, this Alternative would develop facilities for civic uses such as 
offices, a cultural arts center or theater, and recreational 
activities. It would also build a hotel and conference center on four 
acres in this part of the base.
    On 32 acres along the eastern shore of the seaplane lagoon, the 
Seaport Alternative would build 384 residential units composed of 
artists' lofts, low to moderate income apartments, and townhouses. All 
of the large industrial buildings in this planning area would be 
demolished to accommodate the proposed redevelopment.
    In the Northwest Territories planning area along the Oakland Inner 
Harbor, the Seaport Alternative would build a five-berth container ship 
port facility and container storage yard on 220 acres. The port 
facility would require a substantial amount of dredging in the Inner 
Harbor and the installation of several large cranes along the 
waterfront. This Alternative would also develop roads and rail service 
to move cargo. It would reserve 52 acres for parks and recreational 
activities.
    Navy analyzed a third ``action'' alternative, described in the FEIS 
as the Residential Alternative. This Alternative would increase the 
amount of property dedicated to residential uses in the Civic Core, 
Inner Harbor, North Waterfront and Northwest Territories planning areas 
compared with that proposed under the Reuse Plan. The Residential 
Alternative would develop 5,456 residential units compared with the 
2,378 residential units that the Preferred Alternative would develop.
    In the Civic Core planning area, the Residential Alternative would 
use about 916,000 square feet of existing space for a college campus 
and develop an additional 1,278,000 square feet of space for a mixed 
use office and institutional center. It would also reserve 94 acres as 
open space. It would build 960 townhouses on 80 acres in this part of 
the base and use 78,000 square feet of space for commercial activities 
to support the new residents. The commercial activities would include 
restaurants, cafes, convenience stores, retail stores, and department 
stores. About one third of the buildings in this planning area would be 
demolished to accommodate the proposed redevelopment.
    On 236 acres in the Main Streets Neighborhoods planning area, the 
Residential Alternative would develop a mix of housing units, with 
1,314 single family homes and 174 attached homes composed of existing 
residential units and new construction. On 21 acres, this Alternative 
would continue to use the George P. Miller Elementary School and 
adjacent child care center and build a new elementary school to support 
the proposed residential complex. This Alternative would use the Navy 
Lodge as a shelter; build small retail and commercial stores on four 
acres; and reserve an additional four acres for parks and recreational 
activities.
    On 63 acres in the northern part of the Inner Harbor planning area, 
the Residential Alternative would develop a residential complex with 
378 single

[[Page 12528]]

family homes. On 13 additional acres, this Alternative would build 156 
units of attached housing and reserve eight acres for a school to be 
built in the future. On 36 acres in the southern part of the Inner 
Harbor area, the Residential Alternative would develop a regional park 
to be included in the Bay Trail System. Where feasible, the existing 
roadways in this part of the base would be extended to connect with the 
residential neighborhood outside the Air Station Property.
    In the northern part of the North Waterfront planning area, the 
Residential Alternative would demolish all of the existing structures 
and develop 313,000 square feet of space for mixed use facilities 
including offices. This Alternative would also develop restaurants, a 
passenger ferry service, and a waterfront promenade here. On 34 acres, 
this Alternative would build 408 units of attached waterfront housing 
along the Oakland Inner Harbor. On 20 acres here, the Residential 
Alternative would develop a 200-slip marina. On eight acres at the 
western edge of this planning area, east of the George P. Miller 
Elementary School, this Alternative would develop an alternative 
education high school, a regional kitchen facility, a parking area, a 
storage area, and maintenance facilities for the Alameda Unified School 
District.
    The Residential Alternative would develop the Marina planning area 
as a commercial marina. This Alternative would build a 900-slip marina 
in the seaplane lagoon to accommodate private and public vessels and 
facilities for a passenger ferry service and deep draft yachts. The 
three piers in the southeastern part of this planning area would be 
used to accommodate large cruise ships and historic vessels such as the 
former USS Hornet. This Alternative would also develop about 264,000 
square feet of space for light industrial and commercial marine 
activities.
    In the northern part of the Marina planning area, the Residential 
Alternative would develop a promenade and a civic plaza. Near the 
plaza, this Alternative would develop facilities for civic uses such as 
offices, a cultural arts center or theater, and recreational 
activities. This Alternative would build a hotel and conference center 
on four acres in this part of the base.
    On 32 acres along the eastern shore of the seaplane lagoon, the 
Residential Alternative would build 384 residential units composed of 
artists' lofts, low to moderate income apartments, and townhouses. It 
would allocate 100 of the 900 marina slips for those who wish to live 
aboard their vessels. All of the large industrial buildings in this 
planning area would be demolished to accommodate the proposed 
redevelopment.
    On 226 acres in the Northwest Territories planning area, the 
Residential Alternative would build 1,200 single family homes and 312 
units of attached housing and reserve eight acres for a school to be 
built in the future. It would also reserve 38 acres for parks and 
recreational activities.
    Navy analyzed a fourth ``action'' alternative, described in the 
FESI as the Reduced Density Alternative. The Reduced Density 
Alternative proposed land uses similar to those advanced in the 
Preferred Alternative, but the extent of development would be reduced 
to provide more open space.
    In the Civic Core planning area, the Reduced Density Alternative 
would develop a mixed use office and industrial park providing about 
1,822,000 square feet of space. On 37 acres in the northern part of the 
Civil Core, this Alternative would build athletic fields and 
recreational facilities. It would expand the existing parade ground 
into a large open space mall covering 57 acres.
    On 16 acres in the Civil Core planning area, the Reduced Density 
Alternative would build 96 townhouses. It would dedicate 26,000 square 
feet of space to commercial activities that would support the new 
residents. The commercial activities would include restaurants, cafes, 
convenience stores, retail stores, and department stores. On 13 acres, 
it would a develop a recreation vehicle park with a capacity of 135 
recreational vehicles. About one third of the buildings in this 
planning area would be demolished to accommodate the proposed 
redevelopment.
    On 236 acres in the Main Streets Neighborhoods planning area, the 
Reduced Density Alternative would develop a mix of housing units, with 
793 single family homes and 144 attached homes composed of existing 
residential units and new construction. On 21 acres, this Alternative 
would continue to use the George P. Miller Elementary School and 
adjacent child care center and build a new elementary school to support 
the proposed residential complex. It would use the Navy Lodge as a 
shelter; build small retail and commercial stores on four acres; and 
reserve an additional four acres for parks and recreational activities.
    On 76 acres in the northern part of the Inner Harbor planning area, 
the Reduced Density Alternative would develop a residential complex 
with 228 single family homes. This Alternative would reserve eight 
acres for a school to be built in the future. On 36 acres in the 
southern part of the Inner Harbor area, the Reduced Density Alternative 
would develop a regional park to be included in the Bay Trail System. 
Where feasible, the existing roadways in this part of the base would be 
extended to connect with the residential neighborhood outside the Air 
Station property.
    In the northern part of the North Waterfront planning area, the 
Reduced Density Alternative would demolish all of the existing 
structures and develop 418,000 square feet of space for mixed use 
facilities including offices. This Alternative would also develop 
restaurants, a passenger ferry service, and a waterfront promenade 
here. On 12 acres, the Alternative would build 144 units of attached 
waterfront housing along the Oakland Inner Harbor.
    In the southern part of the North Waterfront planning area, the 
Reduced Density Alternative would develop 381,000 square feet of space 
for light industrial and research and development activities. On eight 
acres at the western edge of this planning area, east of the George P. 
Miller Elementary School, this Alternative would develop an alternative 
education high school, a regional kitchen facility, a parking area, a 
storage area, and maintenance facilities for the Alameda Unified School 
District.
    The Reduced Density Alternative would develop the Marina planning 
area as a commercial marina. It would build a 250-slip marina in the 
seaplane lagoon to accommodate private and public vessels and 
facilities for a passenger ferry service and deep draft yachts. The 
three piers in the southeastern part of this planning area would be 
used to accommodate large cruise ships and historic vessels such as the 
former USS Hornet. This Alternative would also develop about 115,000 
square feet of space for light industrial and commercial marine 
activities.
    In the northern part of the Marina planning area, the Reduced 
Density Alternative would develop a promenade and a civic plaza. Near 
the plaza, this Alternative would develop facilities for civic uses 
such as offices, a cultural arts center or theater, and recreational 
activities. It would build a hotel and conference center on four acres 
in this part of the base.
    On 32 acres along the eastern shore of the seaplane lagoon, this 
Alternative would build about 192 residential units composed of 
artists' lofts, low to moderate income apartments, and townhouses. All 
of the large industrial buildings in this planning area would be

[[Page 12529]]

demolished to accommodate the proposed redevelopment.
    In the western part of the Northwest Territories planning area, the 
Reduced Density Alternative would build a 162-acre links golf course, a 
clubhouse on six acres, and a conference center. This Alternative would 
also develop a 29-acre parking along the shore of the Oakland Inner 
Harbor. On 17 acres in the eastern part of the Northwest Territories, 
it would develop athletic fields that would be associated with the 
sports complex proposed for the Civic Core planning area. It would also 
reserve 58 acres as open space.

Environment Impacts

    Navy analyzed the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the 
disposal and reuse of this Federal property. The EIS addressed impacts 
of the Preferred Alternative, the Seaport Alternative, the Residential 
Alternative, the Reduced Density Alternative, and the ``No Action'' 
Alternative for each alternative's effects on land use, visual 
resources, socioeconomics, 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 implementation of the Reuse Plan, identified in the 
FEIS as the Preferred Alternative.
    The Preferred Alternative would not have a significant impact on 
land use. The land uses proposed in the Preferred Alternative would be 
generally compatible with each other and with adjacent off-site land 
uses. The development of a recreational vehicle park adjacent to 
existing residential and recreational uses would be governed by the 
City of Alameda's zoning and land use ordinances.
    The proposed development in four planing areas (Civic Core, Main 
Street Neighborhoods, Marina, and Northwest Territories) of 
residential, educational and commercial facilities that are not related 
to maritime activities could have a significant impact on land use if 
these facilities were built on tidelands encumbered by a public trust 
established by California law. The Tidelands Trust mandates that public 
tidelands and submerged lands must be used for the benefit of the 
people of California for commerce, navigation, fisheries and 
recreation. The proposed residential, educational and general 
commercial development of property in these planning areas would not be 
consistent with the Trust's restrictions.
    The City of Alameda, however, could avoid this impact by entering 
into an agreement with the California State Lands Commission to impose 
public trust restrictions on non-trust lands or by making monetary 
contributions to the Kapiloff Land Bank Fund in exchange for the 
removal of Tidelands Trust restrictions on property in these planning 
areas. The Kapiloff Land Bank Fund is a mitigation fund administered by 
the State Lands Commission.
    The Preferred Alternative would have several impacts on visual 
resources. The development of light industrial facilities in the 
Northwest Territories planning area could decrease the visual quality 
of this part of the Air Station from vantage point in Alameda and 
Oakland. However, the demolition of warehouses and the elimination of 
open storage areas in the North Waterfront planning area would improve 
views of the base from the City of Oakland's Jack London Square and 
from the Oakland Ferry Terminal located across the Oakland Inner 
Harbor. The proposed golf course and park in the Northwest Territories 
planning area would also enhance views of the former Air Station from 
the Oakland side of the Inner Harbor. Additionally, the Preferred 
Alternative provides public access to the Northwest Territories and 
Marina planning areas that will introduce new opportunities to view San 
Francisco Bay and the Oakland Inner Harbor.
    The Preferred Alternative would not have an adverse impact on the 
socioeconomics of the surrounding area. In the full buildout year of 
2020, there would be 2,378 residential units on the NAS Alameda and 
Alameda Annex properties. This would constitute about two percent of 
the projected housing increase in Alameda County. By the same year, 
implementation of the Preferred Alternative would increase the number 
of Alameda County residents by 19,400 persons. This would constitute 
only seven percent of the County's total projected population growth.
    By the year 2020, this Alternative would create 18,978 jobs, which 
constitutes about seven percent of the projected job growth for Alameda 
County. The Preferred Alternative would have a greater impact on the 
City of Alameda, because the number of new jobs constitutes about 84 
percent of the City's projected job growth.
    The Preferred Alternative would not have a significant impact on 
schools. By the year 2020, the Preferred Alternative would generate an 
increase of 1,103 school age children living in the area. The new 
elementary school to be built under the Reuse Plan would have a 500-
student capacity and would be funded by impact fees, property taxes, 
and other taxes generated by the reuse of NAS Alameda and the Alameda 
Annex.
    The proposed redevelopment of NAS Alameda and the Alameda Annex 
would increase the demand for policy, fire, and ambulance services with 
the resultant requirements for increased staffing, equipment, and an 
additional fire station. These additional City services would be funded 
by a variety of sources such as impact fees, special taxes and other 
public revenues.
    The Preferred Alternative would not have a significant impact on 
utilities. The Reuse Plan's projected demands for potable water and 
wastewater treatment would be less than the demands generated by Navy's 
historical usage.
    Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would reduce the amount 
of impervious surface on the property. Consequently, the amount of 
stormwater would also decrease.
    The amount of solid waste generated by the Preferred Alternative 
would increase during demolition and construction activities but would 
remain within the maximum daily capacity of the landfill that the City 
of Alameda uses. It would decrease over time as demolition and 
construction were completed. The City can remain in compliance with 
California and Alameda County waste diversion requirements by 
developing a solid waste management program that maximizes reuse and 
recycling of solid waste.
    The Preferred Alternative would not have a significant impact on 
cultural resources. Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic 
Preservation Act of 1966, 16 U.S.C. 470f (1994), Navy performed 
cultural resource surveys of NAS Alameda and the Alemeda Annex. In 
1992, Navy determined that while there were no individual buildings or 
structures at NAS Alameda that qualified for listing on the National 
Register of Historic Places, an area in the center of the case 
containing 38 buildings and structures qualified for listing as an 
historic district. In a letter dated September 23, 1992, the California 
State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred with Navy's 
determination.
    In 1997, Navy and the United States Army Corps of Engineers 
determined that the Air Station's south jetty on the Oakland Inner 
Harbor was also eligible for listing on the National Register. In a 
letter dated October 15, 1997, the SHPO concurred that the south jetty 
is eligible for listing on the National Register as part of the Oakland 
Inner Harbor Jetties and Federal Channel Historic District.

[[Page 12530]]

    Later in 1997, Navy determined that 49 houses in the center of the 
base were also eligible for listing on the National Register as part of 
the NAS Alameda Historic District. In a letter dated November 5, 1997, 
the SHPO concurred that the 49 houses were eligible for listing on the 
National Register as part of the Historic District.
    In 1996, Navy determined that there were no buildings or structures 
at the Alameda Annex that were eligible for listing on the National 
Register. In a letter dated July 31, 1996, the SHPO concurred with 
Navy's determination that no buildings or structures at the Annex were 
eligible for listing on the National Register.
    The Reuse Plan proposes to demolish six of the 87 buildings that 
constitute the Historic District. It is also likely that other 
buildings in the District will be demolished or modified or will 
deteriorate and that new structures will be built there. However, the 
Historic District as a whole will not be modified to such an extent 
that it is no longer eligible for listing on the National Register.
    Navy has completed consultation pursuant to Section 106 of the 
National Historic Preservation Act with the Advisory Council on 
Historic Preservation and the California State Historic Preservation 
Officer. These consultations identified actions that Navy must take 
before it conveys the NAS Alameda property and actions that acquiring 
entities must take to avoid or mitigate adverse impacts on the eligible 
structures. These obligations were set forth in a Memorandum Of 
Agreement among Navy, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 
and the California State Historic Preservation Officer dated October 5, 
1999.
    Navy will nominate the NAS Alameda Historic District for listing on 
the National Register of Historic Places in accordance with 36 CFR 
Sec. 60.9. The City of Alameda will adopt an amendment to the Alameda 
Municipal Code governing Building and Housing, i.e., Article VII, 
Historical Preservation, Section 13-21, Preservation of Historical 
Monuments, to require the review of proposed modifications to the 
exterior of historic structures. This review will ensure that the 
modifications are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's 
Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic 
Buildings. Additionally, the City will designate the NAS Alameda 
Historic District as an historic monument protected by the City's 
historic preservation ordinance. Navy will also request that the City 
of Alameda place the south jetty on the City's Historic Buildings Study 
List to provide it with the protection afforded such properties.
    The Preferred Alternative would not have a significant impact on 
biological resources. In a letter dated October 3, 1997, Navy requested 
formal consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service 
pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. 
1536 (1994). In a letter dated March 22, 1999, the Fish and Wildlife 
Service set forth its biological opinion that the disposal and reuse of 
NAS Alameda and the Alameda Annex are not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of the Federally-listed endangered California least 
tern or the endangered California brown pelican. The Service also 
concluded that since no critical habitat has been designated for either 
species on those parts of NAS Alameda and the Alameda Annex that lie 
outside the proposed Alameda National Wildlife Refuge, none will be 
adversely modified or destroyed.
    The Service, however, conditioned its opinion on the implementation 
of reasonable and prudent measures to minimize incidental take of these 
species. These measures would protect the species and their critical 
habitat within the proposed Refuge from intrusion or other dangers 
originating outside the Refuge. Navy, the City of Alameda, and entities 
that may acquire property at NAS Alameda and the Alameda Annex will be 
bound by this requirement. To fulfill its obligation, Navy will ensure 
that notifications, covenants, restrictions, and agreements to protect 
Federally-listed endangered or threatened species are in place when the 
property is conveyed.
    The Preferred Alternative would not have a significant impact on 
geology and soils. The NAS Alameda and Alameda Annex properties are 
located in a highly active seismic region and consist of a fill placed 
over submerged land or tidal flats. Thus, the property has a high 
potential for liquefaction, differential settlement, and dike failure. 
As a result, it will be necessary for developers to prepare a soils and 
geology report before the City of Alameda can issue grading and 
building permits. The City will require developers to take account of 
the conclusions of the soils and geology report and apply the standards 
of the California Building Code, the Alameda Building Code, and the 
Uniform Building Code to the design and construction of buildings on 
the former Air Station and Annex.
    The Preferred Alternative would not have a significant impact on 
the quality of surface water. The waters of San Francisco Bay, the 
Oakland Inner Harbor, and the Seaplane Lagoon would not be 
significantly affected by the proposed grading and construction if 
standard soil erosion and sedimentation control measures required by 
existing laws and regulations were implemented.
    Stormwater discharge from the proposed light industrial activities, 
marina, parking areas, golf course, and routine operations and 
maintenance in developed areas (such as the application of herbicides 
and pesticides) could enter and contaminate local water. Stormwater 
must be managed in accordance with Federal, State, and local laws and 
regulations, and the acquiring entities will be responsible for 
building adequate drainage facilities.
    Certain areas at NAS Alameda and the Alameda Annex could be subject 
to flooding from high tides, backed up stormwater runoff, a tidal wave, 
and rising sea level. The City of Alameda's General Plan, dated 
February 5, 1991, contains a guiding policy regarding flooding, 
designated 8.3.b, which states that structures to be located in 
floodplains subject to 100-year floods should have adequate protection 
from floods. Additionally, in accordance with Executive Order 11988, 
Floodplain Management, 3 CFR 117 (1978), Navy will place a notice in 
the conveyance document that describes those uses that are restricted 
under Federal, State, and local floodplain regulations.
    The Preferred Alternative should have significant impacts on 
traffic and circulation. By the year 2020, this Alternative would 
generate about 90,530 average daily trips compared with 29,000 average 
daily trips that were associated with Navy's use of the property. The 
traffic generated by the Reuse Plan would cause substantial delays 
during peak commuting hours at four intersections in the City of 
Alameda and at three intersections in the City of Oakland. Traffic 
congestion would increase significantly along two freeway segments and 
on one local roadway. During peak commuting hours, traffic congestion 
would also increase significantly on State Route 260 at the Webster and 
Posey Tubes.
    The Preferred Alternative would also generate an increase in 
traffic on the former Air Station and Annex properties. The Reuse Plan 
would improve existing roadways on the base and build additional 
roadways to accommodate the increased traffic there.
    The Preferred Alternative would have a significant impact on air 
quality. Carbon monoxide emissions from traffic generated by the Reuse 
Plan would exceed Federal and State air quality standards at two 
intersections, Tinker Avenue and Webster Street in the City

[[Page 12531]]

of Alameda and Harrison Street and Seventh Street in the City of 
Oakland.
    Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7506 (1994), 
requires Federal agencies to review their proposed activities to ensure 
that these activities do not hamper local efforts to control air 
pollution. Section 176(c) prohibits Federal agencies from conducting 
activities in air quality areas such as the San Francisco Bay Area that 
do not meet one or more of the national standards for ambient air 
quality, unless the proposed activities conform to an approved 
implementation plan. The United States Environmental Protection Agency 
regulations implementing Section 176(c) recognize certain categorically 
exempt activities. Conveyance of title to real property and certain 
leases are categorically exempt activities. 40 CFR Sec. 93.153(c)(2) 
(xiv) and (xix). Therefore, the disposal of NAS Alameda and the Alameda 
Annex will not require Navy to conduct a conformity determination.
    Navy holds Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) air 
emission reduction credits (ERCs) for stationary air emission sources 
such as boilers and furnaces, paint spray booths, fuel storage 
facilities, and jet engine test cells that historically generated air 
emissions at NAS Alameda. These annual ERCs include 52.4 tons of 
precursor organic compounds, 29.9 tons of nitrogen oxides, 61 tons of 
non-precursor organic compounds, 6.5 tons of particulate matter (PM10), 
25.3 tons of carbon monoxide, and 3.1 tons of sulfur oxides.
    The BAAQMD Emissions Bank credits can be withdrawn to offset air 
emissions from new stationary sources. Navy has allocated to ARRA 
credits for 30 tons of precursor organic compounds to support interim 
leasing requirements and redevelopment of the base. Navy will retain 
credits for 15.9 tons of precursor organic compounds and 29.9 tons of 
nitrogen oxides to meet any future permit requirements for Department 
of Defense facilities and activities. If there are no future Department 
of Defense needs, the credits will be reallocated. The remaining 
credits for precursor organic compounds were previously applied to 
permitted Navy stationary sources that were either demolished or moved 
to another base and are no longer available for future allocation.
    There were mobile source emissions at NAS Alameda and the Alameda 
Annex associated with sources such as motor vehicles and aircraft and 
ship operations. These mobile emission sources annually produced about 
169 tons of reactive organic compounds, 182 tons of nitrogen oxides, 
859 tons of carbon monoxide, ten tons of sulfur oxides, and 30 tons of 
particulate matter (PM10).
    The mobile source emission reductions resulting from the closure of 
NAS Alameda and the Alameda Annex can be applied to offset emissions 
from other Federal mobile sources in the area to satisfy Clean Air Act 
conformity requirements. Navy will retain these mobile source emission 
offsets to meet future Clean Air Act conformity requirements.
    The Preferred Alternative would not have a significant impact on 
noise. Exposure to noise from aircraft operations would be eliminated, 
because there would no longer be any aircraft operations on the 
property. Ambient noise levels would not change substantially as a 
result of the increased vehicular traffic. Noise levels in the vicinity 
of NAS Alameda and the Alameda Annex are typical of an urban 
neighborhood and are already high. Noise arising out of demolition and 
construction activities would be governed by the City of Alameda's 
noise ordinance.
    Hazardous materials and hazardous waste that may be used and 
generated by the Preferred Alternative would not cause any significant 
adverse impacts. The quantity of hazardous materials used, stored, and 
disposed of and the quantity of hazardous waste generated on the 
properties would be less under the Preferred Alternative than during 
Navy's use of NAS Alameda and the Alameda Annex. Hazardous materials 
used and hazardous waste generated by the Reuse Plan will be managed in 
accordance with Federal and State laws and regulations.
    Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would not have an 
impact on public health and safety. Navy will inform future property 
owners about the environmental condition of the property and may, when 
appropriate, include restrictions, notifications, or covenants in deeds 
to ensure the protection of human health and the environment in light 
of the intended use of the property.
    Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 3 CFR 859 
(1995) requires that Navy determine whether any low income and minority 
populations will experience disproportionately high and adverse human 
health or environmental effects from the proposed action. Navy analyzed 
the impacts on low income and minority populations pursuant to 
Executive Order 12898. The FEIS addressed the potential environmental, 
social, and economic impacts associated with the disposal of NAS 
Alameda and the Alameda Annex and reuse of the properties under the 
various proposed alternatives. Minority and low income populations 
residing within the region would not be disproportionately affected. 
Indeed, the employment opportunities, housing, and recreational 
resources generated by the Reuse Plan would have beneficial effects.
    Navy also analyzed the impacts on children pursuant to Executive 
Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health and 
Safety Risks, 3 CFR 198 (1998). Under the Preferred Alternative, the 
largest concentration of children would be present in the residential, 
educational, and recreational areas. The Preferred Alternative would 
not pose any disproportionate environmental health or safety risks to 
children.

Mitigation

    Implementation of Navy's decision to dispose of NAS Alameda and the 
Alameda Annex does not require Navy to implement any mitigation 
measures. Navy will take certain actions to implement existing 
agreements and regulations. These actions were treated in the FEIS as 
agreements or regulatory requirements rather than as mitigation. Before 
conveying any property at NAS Alameda, navy will nominate the NAS 
Alameda Historic District for listing on the National Register of 
Historic Places.
    The FEIS identified and discussed those actions that will be 
necessary to mitigate the impacts associated with the reuse and 
redevelopment of NAS Alameda and the Alameda Annex. The acquiring 
entities, under the direction of Federal, State, and local agencies 
with regulatory authority over protected resources, will be responsible 
for implementing necessary mitigation measures.

Comments Received on the FEIS

    Navy received comments on the FEIS from two State agencies, three 
local government agencies, three private organizations, and one person. 
The State agencies were the Governor's Office of Planning and Research 
and the Department of Parks and Recreation's Office of Historic 
Preservation. The local agencies were the City of Oakland, the Port of 
Oakland, and the East Bay Municipal Utility District. The private 
organizations were the Golden Gate Audubon Society, the San Francisco 
Bay Chapter of the Sierra Club, and Arc Ecology. These comments 
concerned issues already discussed in the FEIS and do not require 
further clarification.

[[Page 12532]]

Regulations Governing the Disposal Decision

    Since the proposed action contemplates the disposal of NAS Alameda 
under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (DBCRA), 
Public Law 101-510, 10 U.S.C. 2687 note (1994), Navy's decision was 
based upon the environmental analysis in the FEIS and application of 
the standards set forth in the 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. Navy's decision to dispose of the 
Alameda Annex was based upon the environmental analysis in the FEIS and 
Section 2834(b) of Public Law 102-484, as amended by Section 2833 of 
Public Law 103-160, Section 2821 of Public Law 103-337, and Section 
2867 of Public Law 104-106.
    Section 104-47.303-1 of the FPMR requires that 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 and 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 
the DBCRA directs the Secretary of Defense to exercise this authority 
in accordance with GSA's property disposal regulations, set forth in 
Part 101-47 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 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 the DBCRA or the authority 
provided in Section 2867 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1996, Public Law 104-106, may Navy apply disposal 
procedures other than those in the FPMR.
    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 closure, 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 the 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 LRA's reuse plan and encourage 
job creation. As a part of this cooperative approach, the base closure 
community's interests, as 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 LRA'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 (1994), 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 Sec. 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 left to the Federal agency's 
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 LRA's proposed reuse of NAS Alameda, reflected in the Reuse 
Plan, is consistent with the requirements of the FPMR and Section 174.4 
of the DoD Rule. The LRA has determined in its Reuse Plan that the 
property should be used for various purposes including residential, 
educational, industrial, commercial, and park and recreational 
activities. 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 proposed reuse of NAS Alameda responds to local economic 
conditions, promotes rapid economic recovery from the impact of the 
closure of the base, and its consistent with President Clinton's Five-
Part Plan For Revitalizing Base Closure Communities, which emphasizes 
local economic redevelopment and creation of new jobs as the means to 
revitalize these communities. 32 CFR parts 174 and 175, 59 FR 16123 
(1994).
    Although the ``No Action'' Alternative has less potential for 
causing adverse environmental impacts, this Alternative would not take 
advantage of the locations, physical characteristics, and 
infrastructure of the Air Station and Annex or the current uses of 
adjacent

[[Page 12533]]

property. Additionally, it would not foster local economic 
redevelopment of the base.
    The acquiring entities, 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 form implementing the Reuse Plan.
    Accordingly, Navy will dispose of the surplus Federal property at 
NAS Alameda in a manner that is consistent with the Alameda Reuse and 
Redevelopment Authority's Reuse Plan for the property. Navy plans to 
dispose of the Federal property at the Alameda Annex under the 
authority of Section 2867 of Public Law 104-106.

    Dated: February 29, 2000.
William J. Cassidy, Jr.,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Conversion And Redevelopment).
[FR Doc. 00-5824 Filed 3-8-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-FF-M