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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy

Record of Decision for the Disposal and Reuse of Naval Hospital,

Long Beach, California, Parcel A

The Department of the Navy (Navy), pursuant to section 102(2) of

the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et

seq., and the Regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality that

implement NEPA procedures, 40 CFR parts 1500-1508, hereby announces its

decision to dispose of Parcel A of the property comprising the Naval

Hospital at Long Beach, California.

Navy intends to dispose of the property in a manner that is

consistent with the proposed reuse and redevelopment plan submitted by

The City of Long Beach, the Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA),

described as the Retail Sales Alternative in the Final Environmental

Impact Statement (FEIS).

Background

The 1991 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission

recommended closure of the Naval Hospital at Long Beach and Naval

Station Long Beach. These recommendations were then approved by

President Bush and the One Hundred Second Congress. Operations at the

Naval Hospital ceased on March 31, 1994, and the property has been in

caretaker status since that date. Operations at Naval Station Long

Beach ceased on September 30, 1994.

The Naval Hospital property is located within The City of Long

Beach, California, and consists of two parcels. Parcel A is a 30.5 acre

site which contains the hospital buildings, associated barracks, and

warehouses. Parcel B is an adjacent 34.7 acre site that contains a

parking lot, helicopter landing pad, and Navy housing. Ownership of

Parcel B reverted from Navy to The City of Long Beach on October 17,

1995, by operation of law under the terms of the original land

acquisition agreement.

A Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register on January

28, 1994, stating that Navy would prepare an Environmental Impact

Statement that analyzed the impacts of disposal and reuse of Parcel A

of the Naval Hospital property. A 90-day public scoping period was

established, and two scoping meetings were held in the cities of Long

Beach and Lakewood on April 5 and 6, 1995. An additional scoping

meeting where Navy's presentation was translated into Spanish was held

in the adjacent City of Hawaiian Gardens on July 19, 1994.

[[Page 1903]]

In February 1995, Navy distributed a Draft Environmental Impact

Statement (DEIS) to Federal, State, and local agencies, elected

officials, special interest groups, and interested persons. Navy held

two public hearings on March 1 and 2, 1995, in Long Beach and the

adjacent City of Lakewood. Navy had the Executive Summary of the DEIS

translated into Spanish to facilitate participation in the NEPA process

by the predominantly Hispanic population of Hawaiian Gardens. Federal

agencies, California state agencies, local governments, and the general

public submitted written and oral comments. These comments and Navy's

responses were incorporated in the Final Environmental Impact Statement

(FEIS), which was distributed to the public on August 18, 1995, for a

review period that concluded on September 18, 1995.

Alternatives

NEPA requires Navy to evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives

for disposal and reuse of this Federal property. Navy's EIS process

evaluated the environmental impacts of various proposed reuses that

could result from disposal of the property. The City of Long Beach

adopted a reuse plan for the Naval Hospital property that provided for

development of the site as a retail shopping mall.

The scoping process identified more than thirty potential reuses

which fell into eight categories. Navy determined that five of these

categories, including the LRA's proposed reuse plan, constituted

reasonable reuse alternatives. Each of these five ``action''

alternatives and the ``no action'' alternative were the subject of

detailed environmental analyses. The process of narrowing the number of

alternatives selected for detailed analysis from eight to six is set

forth in Chapter One of the FEIS.

The six potential reuse alternatives considered in detail in the

FEIS were: (1) Administrative use by the Los Angeles County Office of

Education (LACOE). This alternative proposed rehabilitation of the

existing hospital building and adjacent parking lots and consolidation

of all LACOE offices on this site. (2) Health Care use as a Senior

Health Care Center. This alternative proposed rehabilitation of the

existing hospital building and adjacent parking lots for use as

residential and non-residential care for senior citizens. (3) Retail

use as retail stores. This alternative proposed demolition of existing

buildings and construction of retail outlets and associated parking

facilities. (4) Industrial use as an industrial park. This alternative

proposed demolition of existing buildings and construction of a low

profile industrial park with associated delivery terminals and employee

parking. (5) Residential use as single family housing. This alternative

proposed demolition of existing buildings and construction of single

family homes at a density of ten units per acre. (6) No Action, leaving

the property in caretaker status with Navy maintaining the physical

condition of the property, providing a security force, and making

repairs essential to safety.

Environmental Impacts

The potential impacts of each alternative were analyzed for their

effects on land use, economics, environmental justice, traffic and

transportation, aesthetics, recreation, public services, utilities,

seismicity, biological resources, historic and archeological resources,

water quality, air quality, noise, and hazardous materials. Each of the

alternatives analyzed, except the ``no action'' alternative, has the

potential for causing some adverse impact on traffic and air quality.

This potential for adverse impacts on traffic and air quality arises

from the additional motor vehicle traffic associated with each of the

five ``action'' alternatives. Each of these ``action'' alternatives

also has the potential for making a positive impact on the local

economy. This potential for positive impacts arises from the new job

opportunities and consumer spending associated with all five ``action''

alternatives.

Each proposed alternative, except the Senior Health Care

Alternative, generated a significant adverse impact on traffic for part

of the area around the Naval Hospital property. Specifically, the

additional traffic associated with these proposals would cause some

local intersections to operate below the levels of service established

by the California Department of Transportation. These adverse impacts

can be mitigated, however, by modifying the existing roadways and

intersections.

Navy will not exercise control over the Naval Hospital property

after it disposes of Parcel A. Thereafter, the property will be

governed by local zoning regulations. Other than by imposing deed

restrictions, Navy has no authority to restrict future use of the

property or require future owners to take action to mitigate the

effects of development, e.g., to build or improve roads. Deed

restrictions, however, are appropriate only when necessary to ensure

that Federal statutory or regulatory obligations imposed on Federal

agencies are satisfied, e.g., the duty to preserve endangered species,

historic structures, and wetlands.

There are no such underlying statutory or regulatory obligations

associated with Parcel A. Therefore, deed restrictions would not be

appropriate here. The FEIS, however, identified and discussed

mitigation measures which could be implemented under State and local

laws. Applying these prescriptions, the local government could require

the entity that acquires the property to build or improve roads and

intersections as a condition of gaining approval for any redevelopment

plan.

Significant impacts on air quality were related to emissions

generated by mobile sources, i.e., the increased vehicular traffic

associated with all ``action'' alternatives except the Senior Health

Care Alternative. As discussed above, after conveyance, Navy does not

possess the authority to mandate or control mitigation measures. Thus,

to the extent that air quality impacts must be mitigated in order to

maintain emission levels established by the local Air Quality Board,

that mitigation will be administered by local regulators. These

regulators could require the acquiring entity to implement mitigation

measures developed by the local Air Quality Board before issuing

construction permits or other necessary authorizations. Short term

impacts on air quality would also occur during the demolition and

construction phases of all five ``action'' alternatives, but these may

be mitigated readily through the use of construction techniques

demonstrably effective in Southern California.

The most environmentally significant consequence of implementing

The City of Long Beach's proposed Retail Sales Alternative is the

increase in traffic flow and congestion and the related effects on

local air quality. Without mitigation, the Retail Sales Alternative

would significantly affect six intersections on Carson Street between

the Los Coyotes Diagonal and Norwalk Boulevard. However, the FEIS

identified feasible mitigation measures that would accommodate present

and projected future traffic flows, achieve and maintain acceptable

service levels, and improve the traffic flow on Carson Street.

California State and local authorities bear the responsibility for

implementing these and any other appropriate mitigation measures.

Federal actions arising out of the transfer of land and facilities

are exempt from compliance with the Clean Air Act General Conformity

Rule, 40 CFR parts 51 and 93, when, as here, the Federal agency will

not retain continuing

[[Page 1904]]

authority over the property. These actions, however, must comply with

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the State

Implementation Plan (SIP). Since vehicles will be the source of more

than 98 percent of the project-related air emissions, mitigation

measures that reduce traffic congestion would also reduce the impact on

air quality. Implementation of the Retail Sales Alternative will

require compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the

SIP, and local air quality rules and regulations.

Implementation of the Retail Sales Alternative would not have any

impact on historic or archeological resources. The State Historic

Preservation Officer agrees with this finding.

In compliance with Executive Order 12898 concerning Environmental

Justice, the potential environmental and economic impacts on minority

and low income persons and communities were also assessed. Public

notices, scoping meetings, and hearings to solicit comments on the DEIS

were translated into Spanish to accommodate a local population of

citizens who speak only Spanish. Generally, any impacts caused by the

proposed development of Parcel A will be experienced equally by all

groups within the overall regional population. However, employment

opportunities created by the proposed development may favor lower

income persons. It is not likely that the minority or low income

population will experience disproportionately any adverse

environmental, health, or economic impacts.

Comments Received on the FEIS

After the Final Environmental Impact Statement was distributed on

August 18, 1995, Navy received seven comment letters. Three of these

letters set forth the authors' preferences. Four letters presented

comments regarding traffic mitigation measures, air quality, impacts on

local schools, and the adequacy with which the Senior Health Care

Alternative was treated in the FEIS. The comments did not raise any new

issues concerning the potential problems associated with traffic

congestion and did not identify or discuss any mitigation measures

other than those described in the FEIS. The California Department of

Transportation identified the property rights that must be transferred

to undertake mitigation measures that would modify intersections and

relocate traffic control devices.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) expressed concern

that Navy had identified the Retail Sales Alternative as the preferred

alternative even though vehicular traffic arising out of the retail use

would bear the greatest potential for affecting local air quality. EPA

asked Navy to consider selecting an alternative with less potential for

affecting air quality.

While Navy considered the environmental impacts of each proposed

reuse alternative under NEPA, Navy also applied Federal statutory and

regulatory standards governing the disposal of Federal property and the

economic considerations mandated by the Defense Base Closure and

Realignment Act of 1990 and the Department of Defenses implementing

Regulations in determining that the highest and best use of the Naval

Hospital property was the proposed Retail Sales Alternative. Although

this use has a higher potential for affecting local air quality, any

retail development would be controlled by emission standards prescribed

by California State and local air quality regulations. Thus, the local

Air Quality Board could preclude development of the property unless the

developer incorporates mitigation ensuring that local air quality

standards are satisfied. In light of California's demonstrable record

of seeking cleaner air for its citizens, there is no reason to conclude

that appropriate mitigation measures will not be imposed on the

development of this property.

The local school district reported that the creation of new jobs by

the proposed retail use would produce a corresponding increase in

school enrollments. The district expressed concern about a possible

increase in enrollment, because the school district's budget and

construction planning had not considered this possibility. Based upon

the economic analysis in the FEIS, it is likely that new jobs created

by the proposed Retail Sales Alternative will be filled largely by

those already residing in the local area. Consequently, it is not

likely that the local school district will experience any significant

increase in new student enrollments.

Proponents of the proposed Senior Health Care Alternative expressed

concern that this alternative had not been adequately considered in the

FEIS. They asserted that the projected revenue for the Senior Health

Care Alternative discussed in the EIS was understated and thus did not

permit an accurate evaluation of its economic feasibility. Initially,

economic information was relevant to the extent that the economic

feasibility of a proposed alternative helped identify the range of

alternatives that would be analyzed in detail. Once an alternative was

selected for detailed analysis, however, the focus shifted from

economic to environmental issues. The FEIS evaluated the environmental

impacts associated with the proposed Senior Health Care Alternative in

the same manner and to the same extent as other alternatives and

adequately analyzed its environmental impacts.

Regulations Governing the Disposal Decision

Since the proposed action constitutes a disposal action under the

Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (DBCRA), Public Law

101-510, selection of the proposed Retail Sales Alternative was based

upon the environmental analysis in the FEIS and application of the

standards set forth in DBCRA, the Federal Property Management

Regulations (FPMR), 41 CFR part 101, and the Department of Defense Rule

on Revitalizing Base Closure Communities and Community Assistance (DOD

Rule), 32 CFR parts 90 and 91.

Section 101-47.303-1 of the FPMR requires that the disposal of

Federal property benefit the Federal government and constitute the

highest and best use of the property. The FPMR defines the ``highest

and best use'' as that use to which a property can be put that produces

the highest monetary return from the property, promotes its maximum

value, or serves a public or institutional purpose. The ``highest and

best use'' determination must be based upon the property's economic

potential, qualitative values, and utilization factors such as zoning,

physical characteristics, other private and public uses in the

vicinity, former Government uses, access, roads, location and

environmental considerations.

After Federal property is conveyed to non-Federal entities, the

property is subject to local land use regulations, including zoning and

subdivision regulations and building codes. Unless expressly authorized

by statute, the disposing Federal agency cannot restrict the future use

of surplus Government property. As a result, the local community

exercises substantial control over future use of the property. For this

reason, local land use plans and zoning affect determination of the

highest and best use of surplus Government property.

The DBCRA directed the Administrator of the General Services

Administration (GSA) to delegate to the Secretary of Defense authority

to transfer and dispose of base closure property. Section 2905(b) of

DBCRA directs the Secretary of Defense to exercise this authority in

accordance with GSA's property disposal regulations, set forth at

Secs. 101-47.1

[[Page 1905]]

through 101-47.8 of the FPMR. By letter dated December 20, 1991, the

Secretary of Defense delegated the authority to transfer and dispose of

base closure property closed under the 1991 Defense Base Closure and

Realignment process to the Secretaries of the Military Departments.

Under this delegation of authority, the Secretary of the Navy must

follow FPMR procedures for screening and disposing of real property

when implementing base closures. Only where Congress has expressly

provided additional authority for disposing of base closure property,

e.g., the economic development conveyance authority established in 1993

by section 2905 (b)(4) of the DBCRA, may Navy apply disposal procedures

other than the FPMR's prescriptions.

In section 2901 of DBCRA, Congress recognized the economic hardship

occasioned by base closures, the Federal interest in facilitating

economic recovery of base closure communities, and the need to identify

and implement reuse and redevelopment of property at closing

installations. In Sec. 2905 of DBCRA, Congress directed the Military

Departments to consider each base closure community's economic needs

and priorities in the property disposal process. In particular, under

Sec. 2905(b)(2)(E), Navy must consult with the Local Redevelopment

Authority before it disposes of base closure property and must consider

local plans developed for reuse and redevelopment of the surplus

Federal property.

The Department of Defense's goal, as set forth in Sec. 90.4 of the

DOD Rule, is to help base closure communities achieve rapid economic

recovery through expeditious reuse and redevelopment of the assets at

closing bases, taking into consideration local market conditions and

locally developed reuse plans. Thus, the Department has adopted a

consultative approach with each community to ensure that property

disposal decisions consider the Local Redevelopment Authority's reuse

plan and encourage job creation. As a part of this cooperative

approach, the base closure community's interests, e.g., reflected in

its zoning for the area, play a significant role in determining the

range of alternatives considered in the environmental analysis for

property disposal. Furthermore, Sec. 91.7(d)(3) of the DOD Rule

provides that the Local Redevelopment Authority's plan generally will

be used as the basis for the proposed disposal action.

The FPMR and DBCRA identify several mechanisms for disposing of

surplus base closure property: by public benefit conveyance (FPMR

Sec. 101-47.303-2); by economic development conveyance (DBCRA

Sec. 2905(b)(4); by negotiated sale (FPMR Sec. 101-47.304-8); and by

competitive sale (FPMR Sec. 101-47.304-7). The selection of any

particular method of conveyance merely implements the Federal agency's

decision to dispose of the property. Decisions concerning whether to

undertake a public benefit conveyance or an economic development

conveyance, or to sell property by negotiation or by competitive bid

are committed by law to agency discretion. Selecting a method of

disposal implicates a broad range of factors and rests solely within

the Secretary of the Navy's discretion.

Conclusion

The Retail Sales Alternative proposed by The City of Long Beach

presents the highest and best use of Parcel A of the Naval Hospital

property. The City of Long Beach, as the LRA, has determined in its

proposed reuse and redevelopment plan that the property should be used

for retail sales outlets. The adjacent land owned by The City of Long

Beach (Parcel B) will also be used for development of the retail

shopping mall. Environmental impacts can be mitigated through State and

local processes. The property's physical characteristics are suited to

commercial development. The Retail Sales Alternative responds to local

economic conditions, promotes rapid economic recovery from the impact

of base closure, and is consistent with President Clinton's Five Point

Plan, which emphasizes job creation and economic development as the

means to revitalize base closure communities.

If only environmental considerations were determinative, the

proposal with the least potential for adverse environmental impacts

would be the Senior Health Care Alternative. This alternative, however,

does not constitute the highest and best use of the Naval Hospital

property. While the Senior Health Care proposal presents a reasonable

reuse which could benefit residents of the local community, this

alternative does not provide for the highest and best use of the

property because it is not compatible with the LRA's proposed reuse and

redevelopment plan; it is not consistent with the proposed use of

adjacent property; and it would not foster rapid economic recovery for

this base closure community through redevelopment of the closing

military installation and job creation.

The decision to dispose of the Naval Hospital property in a manner

consistent with the LRA's proposed plan also has the effect of denying

the Los Angeles County Office of Education's (LACOE) request, certified

by the U.S. Department of Education, that Navy convey Parcel A to LACOE

at no cost as a Public Benefit Conveyance. Public Benefit Conveyances

are initiated through a request to the sponsoring agency, here the U.S.

Department of Education, which was responsible for validating LACOEs

request. Navy, as the disposing Federal agency, evaluated this request

in light of the requirement that its disposal constitute the highest

and best use of the property.

The use proposed by LACOE does not constitute the highest and best

use of the Naval Hospital property. While consolidation of LACOE's

offices to a single location could provide some benefit to the local

community by making LACOE's operations more cost effective, it would

not foster the rapid economic recovery, job creation and redevelopment

for this base closure community that Congress mandated in DBCRA. Most

of the jobs associated with consolidation of LACOE's offices would be

moved to Long Beach from several nearby communities and would not

constitute new jobs that could help offset those lost as a result of

base closure. Additionally, the LACOE Alternative is not compatible

with the LRA's proposed reuse and redevelopment plan and is not

consistent with the proposed use of adjacent property.

Questions regarding the Final Environmental Impact Statement

prepared for this action may be directed to Ms. Jo Ellen Anderson (Code

232JA), Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest Division, 1220

Pacific Coast Highway, San Diego, CA 92132-5190; Telephone (619) 532-

3912.

Dated: December 22, 1995.

Robert B. Pirie, Jr.,

Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations and Environment).

[FR Doc. 96-981 Filed 1-23-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P