The Base Closure and Reuse Planning Process
A brief overview of the planning process which underlies military base closure
and reuse activities will put the process of assessing the potential environmental
impacts of reuse into context. This section outlines the respective roles
of federal and local agencies in the process. Figure
1 outlines this process.
Federal Role
Disposal of a military base is guided by the Federal Property and Administrative
Services Act of 1949, the 1990 Base Closure and Realignment Act, and other
laws. The product of the federal process will be a disposal plan which,
having taken into account the local base reuse plan when available, will
guide the disposal of base property.
When the federal government has made a final decision to close a military
base, the involved services within the Department of Defense (DoD) will
"screen" the base property to determine whether any DoD agency
has a housing or facility need that can be met by a portion or all of that
base. The secretary of the service may authorize the transfer of such property
to the agency, but is not required to do so. Base property not transferred
to a DoD agency is determined to be "excess" to the needs of DoD.
For this excess property, DoD undertakes a similar screening for other federal
agencies' property needs. New policies enacted by the 1994 Defense Authorization
Act limit this process of screening other federal agencies to six months
after the date the base closure was approved. Excess property not allocated
during this screening is considered "surplus" with respect to
federal government needs.
In turn, surplus properties are screened for State and local agency uses,
including use by the homeless under the McKinney Homeless Assistance Act.
State and local entities may pursue two paths towards obtaining these surplus
lands or facilities: public benefit conveyance and negotiated sale. In addition,
under the new procedures enacted in 1994, the local base redevelopment agency
may seek an "economic benefit conveyance."
A public benefit conveyance allows public and private nonprofit agencies
to acquire property at below market value for specified uses. Typical public
benefit conveyances are for such uses as public airports, prisons, recreation
facilities, and public education. A public benefit conveyance must be sponsored
by a federal agency (for example, a community wanting conveyance of a site
for a jail facility would need the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of
Justice) and will carry certain restrictions on the use of the property.
Negotiated sale, on the other hand, allows the federal government to receive
fair market value for its surplus property. Eligible public agencies may
request negotiated sale without the imposition of use restrictions.
Surplus properties not claimed by State or local governments are offered
for competitive sale to the public at fair market prices. Property disposed
of in this manner carries no federal use restrictions and is bound by local
zoning and land use regulations.
When the general disposition of the base becomes known, DoD will prepare
a plan for the disposal of surplus portions of the base. An EIS, as well
as hazardous waste remediation studies, will be completed before the disposal
plan is final. The planners will also consider the reuse plan prepared by
the local community (where no local reuse plan exists, the DoD will prepare
its own representative plan). Actual conveyances and sales of surplus properties
will occur after adoption of a federal "Record of Decision" (ROD)
for the final disposal plan.
The ROD must describe the decision, identify the factors involved in reaching
that decision, identify the alternatives considered, and specify which alternative
was considered to be environmentally preferable (40 CFR 1505.2). The agency
must also state whether all practical mitigation measures have been adopted
to avoid or minimize the environmental effects of the chosen alternative,
and if not, why not. A monitoring and enforcement program must be adopted
where applicable.
Local Role
Affected local jurisdictions are expected to begin work on a base reuse
plan concurrent with the federal activity. The California Military Base
Reuse Task Force has recommended that "impacted communities establish
a reuse planning entity immediately after a base closure decision becomes
final, and that such entity be broadly representative of all key interests
in the community, either through direct representation or inclusion in subcommittees."
Where more than one community is impacted by the base closure, which is
usually the case, inclusion of all impacted communities in this entity is
imperative. A cooperative approach, within a formal framework, is key to
smooth preparation of a reuse plan. Local reuse entities may also include
ex officio State representation when advantageous.
The initial reuse planning organization is often started by local political
leadership such as one or more mayors, a State legislator, or a Congressman.
If a planning group does not immediately coalesce, the DoD's Office of Economic
Adjustment (OEA) will attempt to bring together a representative reuse entity.
The OEA can provide grant funds for reuse planning when it is satisfied
that a representative group has been formed.
A local reuse organization may be established in any of several ways. The
specific powers of the organization, its membership, and its governance
procedures will vary depending on the circumstances of the particular base
closure and the agencies involved. When a single jurisdiction is involved,
the organization may consist of a steering committee appointed by the legislative
body to act as a focal point for ideas and to make recommendations. Where
several jurisdictions are involved, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between
them may be sufficient to establish their relative expectations and responsibilities.
A joint powers authority (JPA) comprised of the affected jurisdictions is
another alternative. The Joint Exercise of Powers Act (Government Code Section
6500, et seq.) allows member agencies to establish a JPA which meets their
particular needs and wields specified powers. Additional local options are
discussed in detail in the January 1994 final report of the California Military
Base Reuse Task Force, available from OPR.
There are numerous good reasons for affected jurisdictions to join together
to cooperatively prepare a base reuse plan. For example, the chances of
receiving a reuse planning grant from the DoD's Office of Economic Adjustment
are improved. Also, communication between the federal government and affected
local jurisdictions is easier when there is a single point of local contact.
In addition, the reuse entity can become a forum for discussing pertinent
issues and resolving differences. This reduces the chance that disgruntled
local jurisdictions will litigate to protect their interests. Furthermore,
of interest to this discussion, a single base reuse planning entity simplifies
the process of preparing the Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental
Impact Report for the reuse plan.
Regardless of the form it takes, the goal of the reuse planning process
should be an overall vision of and development policies for future uses
of the closed facility, based on a realistic assessment of available resources
and land use regulations.
Back to Table of Contents
Next: NEPA and CEQA: Comparisons and Contrasts
State of California
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
1400 Tenth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-322-2318