[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 56 (Wednesday, March 24, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14217-14223]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-7209]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
