Record of Decision for the Disposal and Reuse of Naval Training Center, San Diego, California

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy

Record of Decision for the Disposal and Reuse of Naval Training

Center, San Diego, California

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. Sec. 4332(2)(C), and the regulations of the Council on

Environmental Quality that implement NEPA procedures, 40 C.F.R. Parts

1500-1508, hereby announces its decision to dispose of Naval Training

Center (NTC) San Diego in San Diego, California.

Navy and the City of San Diego jointly analyzed the impacts of the

disposal and reuse of Naval Training Center San Diego in an

Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR)

prescribed by NEPA and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),

Cal. Pub. Res. Code, Secs. 21000-21177. The EIS/EIR analyzed five reuse

alternatives and identified the Naval Training Center San Diego Draft

Reuse Plan dated June 1997 (Reuse Plan) as the Preferred Alternative.

The City of San Diego is the Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) for

Naval Training Center San Diego. Department of Defense Rule on

Revitalizing Base Closure Communities and Community Assistance (DoD

Rule), 32 C.F.R. Sec. 176.20(a).

The Preferred Alternative proposed a mix of residential,

educational, commercial, public and recreational uses. These include

housing, two hotels, an environmental monitoring laboratory and related

administrative facility for the San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater

Department, a public safety institute, a nesting site for the

California least tern, and expansion of the adjacent San Diego

International Airport (Lindbergh Field).

Navy intends to dispose of NTC San Diego in a manner that is

consistent with the Reuse Plan. Navy has determined that a mixed land

use 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. 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. Sec. 2687 note, the 1993

Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission recommended the closure

of Naval Training Center San Diego. This recommendation was approved by

President Clinton and accepted by the One Hundred Third Congress in

1993. Naval Training Center San Diego closed on April 30, 1997, and

Navy is currently maintaining the property in a caretaker status.

The Naval Training Center is located in San Diego County,

California, within the corporate limits of the City of San Diego. The

base is bounded on the north and west by Rosecrans Street and the San

Diego communities of Loma Portal and Point Loma; on the south by San

Diego Bay and Harbor Drive; and on the east by Lindbergh Field. Harbor

Drive, a City road on Navy property, is located on the southern side of

NTC San Diego and lies adjacent to San Diego Bay.

The 541-acre property consists of two areas that are separated by a

51-acre manmade waterway known as the Boat Channel. The main part of

the base covers 377 acres and is situated west of the Boat Channel. The

other part of the base, known as Camp Nimitz, covers 113 acres and is

located east of the Boat Channel.

Navy will retain part of the NTC San Diego complex, i.e., 30 acres

containing the training and conference center known as the Admiral Kidd

Club (Building A3); the United States Pacific Fleet Intelligence

Training Center (Building 564); 7 acres containing the Consolidated

Area Telephone Service facilities (Building 600); and 1 acre

[[Page 14218]]

containing the cogeneration power plant (Building 566). Navy made the

remaining property available for possible use by other Federal

agencies.

Navy approved requests from the Department of Justice and the

United States Marine Corps for transfers of base closure property at

the Naval Training Center. Navy transferred a two-acre parcel on Camp

Nimitz containing the small arms range (Building 569) to the Department

of Justice on July 27, 1998. Navy transferred a 72-acre parcel west of

the Boat Channel to the Marine Corps for use as military family housing

on August 10, 1998. The remaining 429 acres are surplus to the needs of

the Federal Government.

This Record Of Decision addresses the disposal and reuse of these

429 acres, which contain about 270 buildings and structures that were

used for training, related administrative activities, and housing. The

base also contains recreational facilities and an undeveloped area that

has been set aside as a nesting site for the California least tern, a

Federally protected endangered species.

Some of the buildings and structures on the main part of the base

at NTC San Diego were built during the 1920s and 1930s, and they

constitute the Naval Training Center San Diego Historic District. The

Historic District includes Buildings 1 through 12, 14 through 30, 32,

35, 175, 176, 177, 178, 193, 194, 195, 198, 200, 201, 202, 208, 210,

and Quarters A, B, C, and D. The Historic District also includes other

structures, i.e., the USS Recruit (Building 430), two gun platforms

(Buildings 453 and 454), two flagpoles (Buildings 451 and 528), and the

Gate 1 Arch and Gatehouse (Main Gate). Finally, the Historic District

includes open areas, roads, gardens and a burial site. These include

Lawrence Court, Luce Court, John Paul Jones Court, Ingram Plaza,

Sellers Plaza, Preble Field, Decatur Road, Dewey Road, Perry Road,

Roosevelt Road, Sims Road, Truxtun Road, Stanley/Welty Terrace, the

gardens in front of the officers quarters, six Bunya-bunya trees, a fir

tree, and the Navy burial site on the Sail Ho golf course.

The historic buildings, which were the original structures at NTC

San Diego, are important examples of the Spanish Colonial Revival style

of architecture that is evident throughout Southern California. They

reflect Navy's decision during the 1920's to build bases that adopt

important regional architectural themes.

Navy published a Notice Of Intent in the Federal Register on May

13, 1996, announcing that Navy and the City of San Diego would prepare

an EIS/EIR for the disposal and reuse of Naval Training Center San

Diego. Navy and the City held a public scoping meeting at the Naval

Training Center San Diego Support Center on June 11, 1996, and the

scoping process concluded on June 19, 1996.

Navy and the City distributed a Draft EIS/EIR (DEIS/EIR) to

Federal, State, and local governmental agencies, elected officials,

community groups and associations, and interested persons on August 29,

1997, and commenced a 45-day public review and comment period. During

this public review period, Federal, State, and local agencies,

community groups and associations, and interested persons submitted

oral and written comments concerning the DEIS/EIR. On September 30,

1997, Navy and the City held a public hearing at the Naval Training

Center San Diego Support Center to receive comments on the DEIS/EIR.

Navy's and the City's responses to the public comments were

incorporated in the Final EIS/EIR (FEIS/EIR), which was distributed to

the public on July 31, 1998, for a review period that concluded on

August 31, 1998. Navy and the City received eight letters commenting on

the FEIS/EIR.

Alternatives

NERA requires Navy to evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives

for the disposal and reuse of this surplus Federal property. In the

FEIS/EIR, Navy and the City of San Diego analyzed the environmental

impacts of five reuse 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.

The City of San Diego, acting as the LRA, established the Naval

Training Center San Diego Reuse Planning Committee in November 1993.

The Reuse Planning Committee held public design workshops in November

1994 and March 1995, at which it solicited comments concerning reuse of

the Naval Training Center. The Committee also held public meetings in

December 1995, February 1996, and May 1996, where it provided status

reports and solicited additional comments concerning reuse of the base.

In May 1996, the Reuse Planning Committee submitted a conceptual

land use plan entitled Policies and Priorities for Base Reuse, dated

May 22, 1996, to the San Diego City Council. On July 16, 1996, the City

Council modified this plan by increasing the area designated for

airport expansion and proposing to build up to 350 homes in the

residential area. City Council Resolution No. R-287661. Based upon this

modified conceptual land use plan, the City Council developed the Draft

Reuse Plan, dated September 30, 1996.

On October 21, 1996, the City Council modified its July 1996

decision by changing the mix of proposed uses for Camp Nimitz to make

additional property available for expansion of the airport. In

particular, the City Council removed a proposed emergency vehicle

operations course from the Draft Reuse Plan dated September 30, 1996.

City Council Resolution No. R-287949. These changes were embodied in

another Draft Reuse Plan, dated June 1997, that Navy analyzed in the

NEPA process. On October 20, 1998, the City Council approved the Draft

Reuse Plan dated June 1997 as the final Naval Training Center San Diego

Reuse Plan and issued this Reuse Plan in October 1998. City Council

Resolution No. R-290901.

The Reuse Plan, identified in the FEIS/EIR as the Preferred

Alternative, proposed a mix of land uses. For the main part of the

base, west of the Boat Channel, the Reuse Plan designated areas for

residential, educational, commercial, and recreational uses. In the

southwest corner of the main base, the Reuse Plan proposed to remove

all existing structures and build 350 new houses and townhouses on 39

acres. On 29 acres located northeast of this residential area, the

Reuse Plan would use existing buildings for educational purposes and

build new educational facilities. It would be necessary to remove about

half of the existing buildings here to permit the new construction.

This complex would provide more than 640,000 square feet of space for

use as classrooms, vocational training shops, and related

administrative facilities.

A 42-acre golf course would be developed along the northwestern and

northern boundaries of the Naval Training Center property. About 58

acres southeast of the golf course would be used for offices,

restaurants, retail businesses, and museums. This 58-acre area

comprises nearly the entire Historic District, where all of the

existing buildings and structures would be retained. The Preferred

Alternative also proposed a 76-acre recreational area along the west

side of the Boat Channel and construction of a 350-room, three-story

hotel on an 18-acre site near Harbor Drive.

On the Camp Nimitz property, east of the Boat Channel, the

preferred Alternative proposed to build a 650-room, eight-story hotel

on 14 acres facing Harbor Drive. On an 8-acre parcel

[[Page 14219]]

north of this hotel, the Preferred Alternative would build an

environmental monitoring laboratory and related administrative facility

providing 100,000 square feet of space for use by the San Diego

Metropolitan Wastewater Department. On 25 acres located east of the

hotel and north of the laboratory, the Preferred Alternative would use

some existing buildings and build new facilities for training local

fire, police, and other public safety personnel. It would be necessary

to remove some of the existing buildings here to permit the new

construction associated with this public safety institute.

Under the Preferred Alternative, 26 acres of undeveloped property

located east of the public safety institute and adjacent to Terminal 2

at Lindbergh Field would be used to expand San Diego International

Airport. An additional 25 acres in this area would be used as a nesting

site and buffer zone for the California least tern. A narrow strip of

land that lies along the eastern shore of the Boat Channel would be

used as a recreational area. Finally, the Preferred Alternative would

retain Harbor Drive and the Boat Channel.

Navy analyzed a second alternative described in the FEIS/EIR as the

Entertainment Alternative. On the main part of the base, west of the

Boat Channel, the Entertainment Alternative would build 450 apartments

and duplexes on the same 39-acre parcel in the southwest corner of the

property where 350 houses and townhouses would be built under the

Preferred Alternative. The Entertainment Alternative would create a

113-acre Naval theme park located northeast of the residential area.

This part could provide restaurants, theaters, retail shops, and video

entertainment and would include the Historic District. A 1,000-room,

eight-story hotel would be built on 17 acres east of the residential

area. Additionally, a 46-acre recreational area would occupy the

western shore of the Boat Channel, and a 42-acre golf course would be

located along the northern and eastern boundaries of the base.

East of the Boat Channel, the Entertainment Alternative proposed to

make a 76-acre area at the Camp Nimitz property available for the

expansion of Lindbergh Field. Finally, this Alternative proposed to

maintain the 25-acre California least tern nesting site, Harbor Drive,

and the Boat Channel.

Navy analyzed a third alternative described in the FEIS/EIR as the

Low Traffic Alternative. This Alternative proposed a combination of

uses that would result in traffic levels similar to those generated

before closure of the Navy Training Center.

On the west side of the Boat Channel, the Low Traffic Alternative

proposed a residential area that would provide 200 new residential

units on a 22-acre parcel in the southwestern part of the Naval

Training Center property. These residential units could include houses,

townhouses, duplexes, and apartments. Southeast of this residential

area, there would be an elementary school on about 9 acres. Northeast

of the residential area, 38 acres would be used for educational

buildings. Most of the existing facilities here would be demolished to

permit the new construction.

The environmental monitoring laboratory would be located on 5 acres

southeast of the educational area. A 72-acre golf course would be

developed along the northwestern, northern, and eastern boundaries of

the Naval Training Center property. A 77-acre recreational area would

be located between the western shore of the Boat Channel and Rosecrans

Street. Like the Preferred Alternative, the Low Traffic Alternative

would introduce offices into the Historic District.

On Camp Nimitz, the Low Traffic Alternative proposed to build a

350-room, three-story hotel on 10 acres facing Harbor Drive and

maintain the 25-acre California least tern nesting site. A 68-acre

between the hotel and the least tern nesting site would be made

available for the expansion of Lindbergh Field. Finally, this

Alternative would retain Harbor Drive and the Boat Channel.

Navy analyzed a fourth alternative designated as the High Traffic

Alternative. This Alternative would increase traffic above the levels

experienced at the Naval Training Center before closure, because more

of the property would be dedicated to commercial enterprises, i.e.,

offices, retail stores, and research and development activities. This

Alternative would not provide areas for residential uses or for

expansion of the airport.

On the west side of the Boat Channel, seven areas covering 105

acres and providing more than one million square feet of space

dedicated to commercial uses would be spread throughout the main part

of the base. This Alternative would provide 35 acres along the

northwest boundary of the base adjacent to Rosecrans Street for

educational activities and about 18 acres at the northern end of the

Naval Training Center property for a golf course. Light industrial

facilities containing up to 230,000 square feet would be located in the

center of the main part of the base.

On Camp Nimitz, the High Traffic Alternative would build a 751-

room, eight-story hotel on 28 acres facing Harbor Drive. A 5-acre

wetland would be established on land located between the hotel an the

eastern shore of the Boat Channel. This Alternative would also provide

a public safety institute on 38 acres between the Boat Channel and

Lindbergh Field. Like the Preferred Alternative, the High Traffic

Alternative proposed to retain the California least tern nesting site,

Harbor Drive, and the Boat Channel. No part of the Camp Nimitz property

would be made available for expansion of the airport.

Navy analyzed a fifth alternative designated as the Minimal Airport

Expansion Alternative that is similar to the Preferred Alternative. On

the main part of the base, it proposed to develop an educational

complex, a golf course, restaurants, retail stores, museums, a

recreational area, and a hotel in the same places and configurations as

in the Preferred Alternative. This Alternative, however, would build

450 apartments and townhouses on the same 39-acre site in the

southwestern part of the property where the Preferred Alternative would

build 350 houses and townhouses.

On Camp Nimitz, the Minimal Airport Expansion Alternative proposed

to build a 650-room, 8-story hotel on 14 acres facing Harbor Drive.

North of the hotel, there would be an environmental monitoring

laboratory on 8 acres. On 44 acres north and east of the laboratory and

hotel, this Alternative would build a public safety institute. The

California least tern nesting area would be maintained on a 21-acre

site northeast of the institute. East of the nesting site, this

Alternative proposed to make a 10-acre area available for the expansion

of Lindbergh Field. Finally, the Minimal Airport Expansion Alternative

would retain Harbor Drive and the Boat Channel.

Environmental Impacts

Navy analyzed the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the

disposal and reuse of this Federal property. The FEIS/EIR addressed the

impacts of the Preferred Alternative, the Entertainment Alternative,

the Low Traffic Alternative, the High Traffic Alternative, the Minimal

Airport Expansion Alternative, and the ``No Action'' Alternative for

each alternative's effects on land use, transportation and circulation,

cultural resources, socioeconomic factors (including population,

employment, income, housing, and environmental justice), infrastructure

and utilities, biological resources, geology and soils, hydrology and

water quality, air quality,

[[Page 14220]]

public health and safety, visual resources, noise, hazardous substances

and waste, and community services and facilities. This Record Of

Decision focuses on the impacts that would likely result from

implementation of the Reuse Plan Alternative, designated in the FEIS/

EIR as the Preferred Alternative.

The Preferred Alternative would have significant impacts on land

use. The land uses proposed in the Reuse Plan would not be consistent

with the traffic reduction policies articulated in the Peninsula

Community Plan. This Plan was developed by the City of San Diego to

evaluate projects proposed to be built in Point Loma. Navy and the City

used this Plan to evaluate whether the reuse alternatives were

consistent with the City's land use policies for the Point Loma area.

The City recognizes that implementation of the Preferred Alternative

would have significant unmitigable impacts on land use that are

inconsistent with the traffic reduction policies set forth in the

Peninsula Community Plan.

The proposed development of a public safety institute could have a

significant land use impact if it were built on tidelands encumbered by

the public trust established by California law. Known as the Tidelands

Trust, it mandates that public tidelands and submerged lands be used

for the benefit of the people of California for commerce, navigation,

fisheries and recreation. The proposed safety institute, while public

in nature, would constitute a municipal use that would not be permitted

under the Trust's restrictions. The City of San Diego, however,

proposes to avoid this impact by entering into an agreement with the

California State Lands Commission that would impose public trust

restrictions on non-trust lands in exchange for the removal of those

restrictions on the property where the public safety institute would be

developed.

The proposed educational, recreational, office, and retail land

uses would have significant land use impacts because they are

inconsistent with the Lindbergh Field Comprehensive Land Use Plan

(CLUP) and San Diego's Progress Guide and General Plan (General Plan).

The CLUP, adopted by the San Diego Association of Governments in 1992,

describes the actions required to ensure that development around the

airport is compatible with air operations. In particular, the CLUP

establishes height limitations and noise attenuation requirements for

new buildings and defines appropriate uses for property near the

airport. The Naval Training Center property is subject to high levels

of noise form Lindbergh Field. Thus, the educational, recreational, and

retail uses proposed by the Preferred Alternative would be incompatible

with the noise attenuation requirements of the CLUP.

San Diego's General Plan is a statement of goals, objectives, and

implementing rules that guide the City's future development. Navy

compared the proposed reuse alternatives with the land use policies set

forth in the General Plan and concluded that the General Plan would bar

the educational, recreational, and retail uses proposed by the

Preferred Alternative from such noisy areas. These proposed uses,

however, are not inconsistent with Navy's historical use of the

property, and the City recognizes that implementation of the Reuse Plan

would result in unmitigable noise-related land use impacts.

The Preferred Alternative would generate additional traffic in the

area surrounding the Naval Training Center that would have significant

impacts on transportation and circulation. This Alternative would

generate about 53,525 average daily trips compared with 35,607 average

daily trips that were associated with Navy's use of the property.

Roadways that may experience traffic congestion include Rosecrans

Street, Lytton Street, Barnett Avenue, Chatsworth Boulevard, and Midway

Drive. The City has identified certain intersectional and roadway

improvements that would reduce some of the traffic impacts. Even with

these improvements, however, there would be significant impacts arising

out of traffic generated by implementation of the Reuse Plan.

The Preferred Alternative could have a significant impact on

cultural resources. Although no construction is currently proposed for

the Historic District, future development could cause a significant

impact by introducing buildings or landscaping that would be

incompatible with the design or scale of the Historic District. In

addition, property near Building 227 contains buried debris from the

World War II era that could be disturbed by future grading.

In accordance with section 106 of the National Historic

Preservation Act of 1966, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 470(f), Navy consulted with

the California State Historic Preservation Officer, the Advisory

Council on Historic Preservation, the City of San Diego, and an

interested party, the Save Our Heritage Organisation. These

consultations focused on ways to avoid and mitigate adverse impacts to

the Historic District that could result from disposal and reuse of the

Naval Training Center.

In July 1998, Navy, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,

and the State Historic Preservation Officer executed a Memorandum of

Agreement (MOA). The City of San Diego and the Save Our Heritage

Organisation also signed the MOA as concurring parties. This MOA

defines actions that Navy must take before it conveys the Naval

Training Center property.

Navy will nominate the Historic District for listing on the

National Register of Historic Places in accordance with 36 C.F.R.

Sec. 60.9. Navy will also ensure that a determination of eligibility

for listing on the National Register of Historic Places is concluded

for the buried World War II era debris near Building 227, before that

site is disturbed or before the property is conveyed. Additionally, the

City of San Diego will comply with its historic preservation

regulations before demolishing, altering or disturbing any building,

surface or landscape element in the Historic District.

The Preferred Alternative would not have significant adverse

socioeconomic impacts. On the contrary, this Alternative would generate

6,086 direct jobs and 10,767 indirect jobs.

The Preferred Alternative would not result in any significant

impacts on infrastructure and utility systems. The existing utility

systems are either adequate to accommodate the anticipated demand or

will be upgraded by the acquiring entities to meet that demand.

The Preferred Alternative could have a significant impact on

biological resources. The construction of facilities near the

California least tern nesting area could have a significant impact on

the suitability of this area as a nesting and breeding site for this

Federally protected bird. For example, the structures, fences,

lighting, and landscaping associated with the public safety institute,

the hotels, and the environmental monitoring laboratory could provide

perches for predators of the California least tern.

Navy held informal consultations with the United States Fish and

Wildlife Service under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973,

16 U.S.C. Sec. 1536, to identify measures that would mitigate the

impacts. During these consultations, the City of San Diego offered to

restrict future development by limiting the height of structures and

the number of exterior light poles near the nesting area. These

measures will protect the California least tern by limiting the number

of potential perches for predators. In a letter dated June 30, 1998,

the Service concurred in Navy's determination that

[[Page 14221]]

the disposal and reuse of the Naval Training Center is not likely to

have an adverse effect on the California least tern.

The Preferred Alternative could have a significant impact on other

biological resources. Implementation of the Reuse Plan could result in

the removal of ornamental trees that support a nesting colony of two

species of herons on the main part of the base at the corner of Cushing

Road and Worden Road. Construction activities or an increased human

presence could also frighten herons and other waterbirds away from

foraging areas in the Boat Channel. Additionally, changes in the volume

and chemical composition of stormwater runoff resulting from

redevelopmnet could introduce larger amounts of fertilizers,

pesticides, herbicides, and hydrocarbon pollutants such as motor oils

and fuels into the Boat Channel and adversely affect the eelgrass beds.

The impacts on herons and other waterbirds can be mitigated by

minimizing construction noise near breeding, roosting, the foraging

areas; preserving the heron nesting colony trees; and establishing a

construction buffer zone around these trees during the nesting season.

The potential impacts to eelgrass beds can be mitigated by adhering to

best management practices for the control of erosion and runoff and by

implementing stormwater pollution prevention plans.

The Preferred Alternative could have significant impacts on

geologic and soil conditions. Naval Training Center San Diego is

located in a highly active seismic region and is built on artificial

fill that has a moderate to high potential for both liquefaction and

severe erosion. Thus, new construction will be required to meet current

building codes governing seismic safety. The impacts from hazards

arising out of ground movement can be reduced to an insignificant level

by upgrading the existing buildings to comply with current seismic

safety standards. The acquiring entities can reduce the impacts from

erosion by implementing soil erosion control measures.

The Preferred Alternative could have significant impacts on the

quality of surface water. Stormwater discharges from paved road

surfaces that contain small amounts of fuels, oils, and residual

contaminants could degrade the quality of the surface water.

Implementation of appropriate stormwater pollution prevention plans can

reduce this impact to an insignificant level.

The Preferred Alternative would not have a significant impact on

air quality. The annual emissions of the common or criteria pollutants

regulated by the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. Secs. 7401-7671q, other than

oxides of sulfur, would decrease. Emissions of these oxides would

increase by about 1.34 tons per year for a total of about 7.89 tons per

year. This level is well below the significance criteria threshold for

this pollutant of 100 tons per year.

Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7506, 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 San Diego that do not meet one or more of the

national standards for ambient air quality, unless the 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 Secs. 93.153(c) (2) (xiv) and (xix). Therefore, the

disposal of Naval Training Center San Diego will not require Navy to

conduct a conformity determination.

The Preferred Alternative could have significant impacts on public

health and safety. Steam lines located above the ground and uncovered

drainage channels could present hazards to children living in the

proposed residential area. In addition, certain activities of the

public safety institute, such as tactical training, could expose guests

in the nearby hotel to safety-related hazards. The acquiring entities

can mitigate these impacts by posting warning signs and installing

fences.

The Preferred Alternative could have a significant impact on visual

resources. Some of the existing structures would be demolished to build

the proposed housing, educational facilities and hotels. Although the

precise locations and dimensions of new buildings and structures have

not yet been determined, the proposed redevelopment could impede the

views of San Diego Bay that neighborhoods northwest of the Naval

Training Center currently enjoy. This impact can be reduced to an

insignificant level by following the design and visual quality policies

set forth in local community plans, i.e., the Peninsula Community Plan

and the Midway/Pacific Highway Corridor Community Plan.

The Preferred Alternative would not have a significant impact on

noise. Noise impacts from traffic generated by the Preferred

Alternative would be insignificant. On all roadways for which the

Preferred Alternative would contribute up to 10 percent of future

traffic, the increase in noise attributable to traffic generated by the

Preferred Alternative would be imperceptible to the human ear.

The proposed expansion of Lindbergh Field would not generate noise

impacts. The airport expansion envisioned by the Preferred Alternative

would consist of roadway and parking improvements and construction of

support facilities. This expansion would not introduce any additional

flight capacity. Finally, noise arising out of construction activities

would be governed by the City's noise ordinance. San Diego Municipal

Code, Section 59.5.0404.

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

property would be less under the Preferred Alternative than during

Navy's use of the Naval Training Center property. Hazardous materials

used under the Preferred Alternative will be managed in accordance with

Federal and State regulations. Hazardous wastes transported for

disposal or generated under the Preferred Alternative and stored for

more than 90 days will be controlled by the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. 6901, et seq.

Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would not have any

impact on existing environmental contamination at the Naval Training

Center. Navy will inform future property owners about the environmental

condition of the property and may, where 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.

The Preferred Alternative would not have any significant impact on

most community services and facilities. This Alternative would,

however, have a significant cumulative impact on schools. The Reuse

Plan's proposed new houses and townhouses would result in the

introduction of about 101 students into the San Diego Unified School

District. The military family housing proposed for the 72-acre property

that Navy transferred to the Marine Corps would introduce an additional

373 students into the School District.

The impact of the Reuse Plan would be mitigated by the local

development fee assessed on new construction and applied to finance the

renovation and

[[Page 14222]]

construction of schools. Under the current local development fee

schedule, the Preferred Alternative would generate about $1.4 million

in school fees. Additionally, Navy will make property available for

school facilities on the 72-acre Marine Corps tract.

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental

Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, reprinted

in 42 U.S.C. 4321 note, 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. While there are substantial minority and low-income populations

residing in the vicinity of the Naval Training Center, these

populations will not experience disproportionately high and adverse

human health or environmental effects. Indeed, the employment

opportunities created by implementing the Preferred Alternative would

have beneficial effects on minority and low-income populations residing

within the region.

Navy also analyzed the impacts on children pursuant to Executive

Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and

Safety Risks, 3 C.F.R. 198 (1998). Under the Preferred Alternative, the

largest concentration of children would be present in the residential

and recreational areas. The Preferred Alternative would not result in

any disproportionate environmental health or safety risks to children.

Mitigation

The decision to dispose of Naval Training Center San Diego does not

require Navy to implement any mitigation measures beyond those

discussed here. Navy will take certain actions to implement existing

agreements and regulations. These actions were treated in the FEIS/EIR

as agreements or regulatory requirements rather than as mitigation.

Before conveying any property at Naval Training Center San Diego, Navy

will nominate the Historic District to the National Register of

Historic Places and determine the eligibility of the property near

Building 227, containing World War II era debris, for listing on the

Register.

The FEIS/EIR identified and discussed those actions that will be

necessary to mitigate impacts associated with the reuse and

redevelopment of Naval Training Center San Diego. The acquiring

entities, under the direction of Federal, State, and local agencies

with regulatory authority over protected resources, will be responsible

for implementing any necessary mitigation measures.

Comments Received on the FEIS

Navy and the City of San Diego received comments on the FEIS/EIR

from four local governmental agencies, three organizations and one

individual. The local agencies were the Metropolitan Transit

Development Board, the San Diego Unified Port District, the San Diego

County Water Authority, and the San Diego Unified School District. The

organizations were the Harbor Lights Foundation, the San Diego

Archaeological Center, and the San Diego Audubon Society. All of the

substantive comments concerned issues discussed in the FEIS/EIR. Those

comments that require clarification are addressed below.

The Water Authority asked Navy to conduct an analysis of the

quantity of water that would be required by the redevelopment proposed

in the Reuse Plan. Navy performed an analysis that meets the needs of

the Water Authority in Section 4 of the FEIS/EIR, i.e., Environmental

Consequences. The Reuse Plan would not have a significant impact on the

potable water supply.

The Water Authority also suggested mitigation measures to ensure

that water conservation practices would be observed in the

redevelopment proposed by the Reuse Plan. In particular, the Water

Authority asked Navy to impose requirements such as the use of low flow

plumbing fixtures; landscape plantings that need little watering; and

reclaimed water on the golf course. Section 17921.3 of the California

Health and Safety Code requires the use of low flow fixtures in new

buildings constructed in the State, and the City's plumbing standards

require the use of water conserving fixtures when replacing fixtures in

existing structures. San Diego Municipal Ordinance Section 93.0208. In

the exercise of its local land use authority, the City will place

appropriate water conservation requirements on future development

projects at the Naval Training Center property.

The Port asked Navy to clarify that the acquiring entities must

grant aviation easements to mitigate noise impacts arising out of the

incompatibility of the Reuse Plan with the Lindbergh Field CLUP. To

address the Port's concern, the City will ensure that an navigation

easement for noise impacts in favor of the Lindbergh Field operator,

currently the Port, will be placed on the property.

The Port also commented that noise impacts on residential and hotel

land uses might occur if the City does not require that subsequent

developers conduct acoustical analyses and implement attenuation

measures as a condition of granting building permits. Thus, the Port

asked that a mitigation measure be included in the FEIS/EIR that would

compel the City to comply with the noise insulation standards set forth

in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. The City will

continue to comply with its own regulations and noise ordinances and it

has adopted the State noise standards as part of its own noise

ordinances. Therefore, no additional mitigation measures are required.

The School District commented that the proposed mitigation for the

Reuse Plan's cumulative impact on school facilities was inadequate. The

District asked that the mitigation include full funding for the

construction of an elementary school. As explained in response to the

School District's comments on the DEIS/EIR, Navy's disposal of the

Naval Training Center property would not cause any impacts requiring

Navy to fund the construction of new school facilities. The FEIS/EIR

discussed mitigation measures that would reduce school overcrowding to

an insignificant level. The acquiring entities and the School District

will be responsible for implementing appropriate mitigation measures.

Regulations Governing the Disposal Decision

Since the proposed action contemplates a disposal action under the

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

101-510, 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2687 note, Navy's decision was based upon the

environmental analysis in the FEIS/EIR 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.

Section 101-47.303-1 of the FPRM requires that disposals 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 services a public or institutional propose. 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,

[[Page 14223]]

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

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, 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 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 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, 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 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 Naval Training Center San Diego,

reflected in the Reuse Plan, is consistent with the prescriptions 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 several purposes

including residential, educational, commercial, public and recreational

uses. These uses include housing, educational facilities, two hotels,

retail stores, an environmental monitoring laboratory and

administrative facility, a public safety institute, a nesting site for

the California least tern, expansion of the adjacent Lindbergh Field,

and athletic fields and open spaces. 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 Preferred Alternative responds to local economic conditions,

promotes rapid economic recovery from the impact of the closure of

Naval Training Center San Diego, and is consistent with President

Clinton's Five-Part Plan for Revitalizing Base Closure Communities,

which emphasizes local economic redevelopment of the closing military

facility and creation of new jobs as the means to revitalize the

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 property's location, physical characteristics and

infrastructure or the current uses of adjacent property. Additionally,

it would not foster local economic redevelopment of the Naval Training

Center property.

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 from implementing the Reuse Plan.

Accordingly, Navy will dispose of Naval Training Center San Diego

in a manner that is consistent with the City of San Diego's Reuse Plan

for the property.

Dated: March 10, 1999.

William J. Cassidy, Jr.,

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Conversion and Redevelopment).

[FR Doc. 99-7209 Filed 3-23-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3810-FF-M