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

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