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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A98-22938

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Notice
- **Published:** August 26, 1998
- **Citation:** 63 FR 45467

## Text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A98-22938. Public record. Not legal advice.