Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-03-05369/USCOURTS-caDC-03-05369-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued February 10, 2005 Decided June 17, 2005 

No. 03-5369

SENIOR RESOURCES,

APPELLANT

BARBARA BARLOW, SAN ANTONIO, TX, ET AL.,

APPELLEES

v.

ALPHONSO JACKSON, SECRETARY,

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, ET AL.,

APPELLEES

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 01cv00983)

Gary M. Hnath argued the cause for the appellant. John F.

Cooney was on brief.

Marina Utgoff Braswell, Assistant United States Attorney,

argued the cause for the federal appellee. Kenneth L. Wainstein,

United States Attorney, and Michael J. Ryan, Assistant United

States Attorney, were on brief. R. Craig Lawrence, Assistant

United States Attorney, entered an appearance. Brian M. Privor

USCA Case #03-5369 Document #900814 Filed: 06/17/2005 Page 1 of 14
2

argued the cause for appellee Greater Kelly Development

Authority. Peter Buscemi was on brief. Mark A. Srere entered

an appearance.

Before: SENTELLE, HENDERSON and TATEL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge HENDERSON.

KAREN LECRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge: This case arises

from the 1995 closure of Kelly Air Force Base (Kelly AFB) in

San Antonio, Texas. Senior Resources, a Texas-based nonprofit charitable and educational organization, filed suit

contesting the planned conveyance of Kelly AFB property under

the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act and its

amendments. 10 U.S.C. § 2687 note §§ 2901 et seq. (Base

Closure Act or DBCRA). Senior Resources’ complaint asserted

seven constitutional and statutory claims against the Secretaries

of the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD),

Defense (DOD) and the Air Force (Federal Appellees) for their

roles in approving the Kelly AFB redevelopment plan. The

district court permitted the Greater Kelly Development

Authority (GKDA), a body created to oversee the distribution of

Kelly’s surplus property, to intervene as a defendant. Only the

district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Federal

Appellees on Senior Resources’ claim under the Administrative

Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701–706, is before us on

appeal. Because we find that the Federal Appellees acted

properly under both the Base Closure Act and the APA, we

affirm the judgment of the district court.

I. STATUTORY BACKGROUND

After the decision to close or realign a military base is

finalized, the distribution of the base’s real and personal

property and facilities to private or local government entities is

controlled by the Base Closure Act. The Base Closure Act

requires the DOD to recognize “[a]s soon as practicable” a Local

Redevelopment Authority (LRA) to oversee the formulation of

USCA Case #03-5369 Document #900814 Filed: 06/17/2005 Page 2 of 14
3

1 We note that the status of ROHs under the Base Closure Act is less

privileged than in the past. Before the 1994 amendments to the

DBCRA, surplus government property was allocated according to the

McKinney Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 11301 et seq., which gave homeless

assistance organizations priority status. 42 U.S.C. §§ 11411–12. The

Base Closure Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance

Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-421, 108 Stat. 4346 (1994) (codified at

10 U.S.C. § 2687, note §§ 2901–2914), amended the DBCRA to

permit the LRA to balance the community’s competing interests in

encouraging economic redevelopment and providing for the needs of

the homeless, no longer automatically granting priority to homeless

assistance organizations. See 140 Cong. Rec. S14457, S14461 (daily

ed. Oct. 6, 1994) (statements of Sen. Pryor and Sen. Dole).

a redevelopment plan and the conveyance of property. 24

C.F.R. § 586.20(a). See also 10 U.S.C. §2687 note § 2905(b);

24 C.F.R. § 586.5. Once the LRA is recognized, the DOD

Secretary determines what base property remains useful either

to the military or to another federal agency and designates the

property that does not serve a continuing military or federal use

as “excess property or surplus property.” 10 U.S.C. § 2687 note

§ 2905(b)(7)(B)(i). The LRA then publicizes the available

property and consults with a variety of community groups to

draft a redevelopment plan intended to mitigate the economic

dislocation caused by the base closing. Id. note § 2905(b)(7)(C).

Community groups such as “[s]tate and local governments,

representatives of the homeless, and other interested parties”

with a development proposal for a particular piece of surplus

property submit a “notice of interest” (NOI) to the LRA that

describes the applicant’s “need” for the property. Id. note §

2905(b)(7)(C)(i). 

Representatives of the homeless (ROHs) are given a semiprivileged status under the Base Closure Act.1

 The LRA is

obligated to “consult with representatives of the homeless ...

and undertake outreach efforts to provide information on the

buildings and property to representatives of the homeless.”

USCA Case #03-5369 Document #900814 Filed: 06/17/2005 Page 3 of 14
4

Id.note § 2905(b)(7)(C)(iii)(I)-(II). The Base Closure Act

provides guidance to ROHs regarding the information to be

included in an NOI and to the LRA regarding the evaluation of

the NOI. A Notice of Interest is to include: 

(I) A description of the homeless

assistance program that the representative

proposes to carry out at the installation.

(II) An assessment of the need for the

program. 

(III) A description of the extent to which

the program is or will be coordinated with

other homeless assistance programs in the

communities in the vicinity of the

installation. 

(IV) A description of the buildings and

property at the installation that are

necessary in order to carry out the

program. 

(V) A description of the financial plan,

the organization, and the organizational

capacity of the representative to carry out

the program. 

(VI) An assessment of the time required

in order to commence carrying out the

program.

10 U.S.C. § 2687 note § 2905(b)(7)(E)(i). The LRA is

instructed to “consider the interests in the use to assist the

homeless of the buildings and property at the installation that are

expressed in the notices submitted to the redevelopment

authority.” Id. note § 2905(b)(7)(F)(i). After completing the

redevelopment plan, the LRA must submit a copy of the plan

both to HUD and to the DOD. Id. note § 2905(b)(7)(G)(i). The

USCA Case #03-5369 Document #900814 Filed: 06/17/2005 Page 4 of 14
5

LRA’s submission must include, inter alia, “[a]n assessment of

the manner in which the redevelopment plan balances the

expressed needs of the homeless and the need of the

communities in the vicinity of the installation for economic

redevelopment and other development.” Id. note

§ 2905(b)(7)(G)(ii)(V).

After the LRA submits the redevelopment plan to the agencies

for approval, the HUD Secretary reviews and approves the plan.

Id. note § 2905(b)(7)(H)(i). The Secretary must 

determine whether the plan, with respect

to the expressed interest and requests of

representatives of the homeless –

(I) takes into consideration the size and

nature of the homeless population in the

communities in the vicinity of the

installation, the availability of existing

services in such communities to meet the

needs of the homeless in such

communities, and the suitability of the

buildings and property covered by the

plan for the use and needs of the homeless

in such communities; 

(II) takes into consideration any economic

impact of the homeless assistance under

the plan on the communities in the

vicinity of the installation; 

(III) balances in an appropriate manner

the needs of the communities in the

vicinity of the installation for economic

redevelopment and other development

with the needs of the homeless in such

communities; 

USCA Case #03-5369 Document #900814 Filed: 06/17/2005 Page 5 of 14
6

2 The Greater Kelly Development Authority (GKDA) is the successor

in interest to the Greater Kelly Development Corporation (GKDC).

Like the district court, we use “GKDA” to refer to both the GKDC and

the GKDA.

(IV) was developed in consultation with

representatives of the homeless and the

homeless assistance planning boards, if

any, in the communities in the vicinity of

the installation; and 

(V) specifies the manner in which

buildings and property, resources, and

assistance on or off the installation will be

made available for homeless assistance

purposes.

Id. In addition, the Secretary must “be receptive to the

predominant views on the plan of the communities in the

vicinity of the installation covered by the plan.” Id. note §

2905(b)(7)(H)(ii). If he finds that the proposed redevelopment

plan fails to meet the statutory requirements, he must explain the

plan’s deficiencies and provide the LRA ninety days to cure

them. Id. note § 2905(b)(7)(H)(v), (b)(7)(I); 24 C.F.R.

§ 586.35(c)-(d). If the plan is approved, the DOD is required to

dispose of the surplus property in accordance with the plan. 10

U.S.C. § 2905(b)(7)(K)(i); 24 C.F.R. § 586.45(c).

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 1995, the Defense Base Closure and Realignment

Commission designated a substantial portion of Kelly Air Force

Base to be closed and realigned under the DBCRA. The

complex contained nearly 1,300 acres of land and 500 buildings,

including housing, rental units, office, commercial and industrial

space totaling roughly 12 million square feet. The Greater Kelly

Development Authority was formed to serve as the LRA for the

redevelopment of the facilities and property.2 The GKDA, in

USCA Case #03-5369 Document #900814 Filed: 06/17/2005 Page 6 of 14
7

turn, formed a citizens advisory panel to review the submitted

NOIs and to make recommendations. Senior Resources

submitted its initial NOI as a representative of the homeless in

September 1996. The GKDA, however, tabled Senior

Resources’ NOI because the advisory panel determined that

Senior Resources did not qualify for ROH status under the Base

Closure Act due to its inexperience in serving the homeless.

The GKDA submitted a redevelopment plan for HUD’s

approval that did not include Senior Resources’ NOI. HUD

approved the plan in June 1997. Senior Resources then brought

suit to enjoin the implementation of the plan. See Senior

Resources v. Cuomo, No. 97-1445 (D.D.C. May 4, 1998). The

district court determined that the GKDA had improperly rejected

Senior Resources’ NOI and remanded the case to HUD for

further action. Id. at 16. 

In response, HUD withdrew its approval of the plan and

instructed the GKDA to reconsider the NOIs submitted by

Senior Resources and other representatives of the homeless. In

particular, HUD recommended that the GKDA publicize the

criteria by which it planned to evaluate the submissions. On

remand, the GKDA issued a statement of the evaluation criteria

it intended to use with respect to NOIs submitted by

representatives of the homeless, including the following: 

Consideration of the skills and knowledge

of the organization’s personnel to carry

out the proposed program, the history of

the organization in running similar

programs, the plausibility of the

organization’s ability to generate the

funding required to maintain the program,

and the extent to which there are firm

commitments from other organizations or

people to ensure the program will

succeed.

USCA Case #03-5369 Document #900814 Filed: 06/17/2005 Page 7 of 14
8

3 The other five organizations combined requested roughly 75,000

square feet of office or warehouse spac e in addition to personal

property. 

GKDA Memorandum Re: Evaluation Criteria Clarification

(Aug. 14, 1998). According to the GKDA, these criteria were

intended to fulfill the statutory mandate to consider the

“description of the financial plan, the organization, and the

organizational capacity of the representative to carry out the

program.” 10 U.S.C. § 2687 note § 2905(b)(7)(E)(i)(V).

Senior Resources resubmitted its NOI as did eight other

homeless assistance organizations. Of those, three eventually

withdrew their applications. Senior Resources’ proposal was

elaborate, requiring 344,970 square feet of warehouse space in

nine buildings, along with fifteen housing units, 53.1 acres of

land and some personal property.3Its NOI described two

programs to make use of the requested property: the Homeless

Opportunities Program for Employment (HOPE), to provide

education, shelter, social services and job training; and the

Homeless Occupational Manufacturing Enterprise (HOME), to

transform part of the property into a facility to manufacture

modular homes. Senior Resources’ proposal required

substantial financial investment; the HOME project entailed an

estimated $1.5 million in start-up costs alone. After reviewing

each NOI, the citizens advisory panel recommended granting the

requests of 4 of the other 5 ROHs (with some modifications) but

rejected Senior Resources’ NOI. The panel found that, given the

complexity of its proposal, Senior Resources lacked both the

necessary experience and financing. In addition, it found that

Senior Resources had provided insufficient detail regarding

financing, a business plan and its organizational capacity. The

GKDA followed the panel’s recommendation. 

The GKDA then resubmitted its master redevelopment plan

for HUD’s approval in December 1998. HUD did not

immediately approve the plan. Instead, on February 1, 1999,

USCA Case #03-5369 Document #900814 Filed: 06/17/2005 Page 8 of 14
9

HUD directed the GKDA to provide more detail regarding its

decision balancing the “needs of the community” with those of

the homeless. Ltr. from F. Karnas, HUD, to P. Roberson,

GKDA (Feb. 1, 1999) (citing 24 C.F.R. § 586.30(b)(4)(ii)) at 2.

After the GKDA amended the plan to comply with HUD’s

request, HUD temporarily suspended its review and instructed

the GKDA to negotiate with Senior Resources. After several

months, the negotiations proved unsuccessful and on April 18,

2001 HUD issued its formal approval of the redevelopment plan,

stating that “with respect to the expressed interests and requests

of the ROHs, [GKDA’s plan] appropriately balances the relative

needs for economic redevelopment and homeless assistance.”

HUD specifically noted Senior Resources’ lack of guaranteed

funding for its project in approving the GKDA’s decision to

deny Senior Resources’ NOI.

On May 9, 1999, Senior Resources filed suit and moved for

preliminary injunctive relief to enjoin the distribution of the

Kelly AFB property. The district court denied the requested

relief, finding Senior Resources unlikely to succeed on the

merits. Senior Resources v. Martinez, No. 01-0983 (D.D.C.

May 31, 2001). Nevertheless, the parties agreed not to distribute

the surplus property pending judicial resolution of the dispute.

On October 20, 2003, the district court granted summary

judgment to the defendants. It held that the GDKA had

employed appropriate selection criteria in evaluating the NOIs

and that HUD’s approval of the redevelopment plan was

consistent with the statutory requirements of the Base Closure

Act and the APA. Senior Resources timely filed a notice of

appeal.

III. ANALYSIS

We review a district court’s review of agency action de novo,

Holland v. Nat’l Mining Ass’n, 309 F.3d 808, 814 (D.C. Cir.

2002), and will uphold agency action unless it is shown to be

“arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in

USCA Case #03-5369 Document #900814 Filed: 06/17/2005 Page 9 of 14
10

accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). Senior Resources

asserts two errors on appeal: first, that the district court

misinterpreted the Base Closure Act by not requiring HUD to

perform an independent assessment of the needs of the San

Antonio area’s homeless population before approving the

GKDA’s redevelopment plan; and second, that HUD’s approval

of the redevelopment plan was arbitrary and capricious because

the GKDA employed criteria in addition to those listed in the

DBCRA in evaluating the NOIs submitted by representatives of

the homeless. Neither of Senior Resources’ arguments

withstands scrutiny.

The district court found that Senior Resources’ argument that

“HUD should have conducted an independent evaluation of the

needs of the homeless” is “not supported by the language of the

Base Closure Act itself.” We agree. The DBCRA requires

HUD to:

determine whether the plan, with respect

to the expressed interest and requests of

representatives of the homeless –

(I) takes into consideration the size and

nature of the homeless population in the

communities in the vicinity of the

installation, the availability of existing

services in such communities to meet the

needs of the homeless in such

communities, and the suitability of the

buildings and property covered by the

plan for the use and needs of the homeless

in such communities; 

(II) takes into consideration any economic

impact of the homeless assistance under

the plan on the communities in the

vicinity of the installation; 

USCA Case #03-5369 Document #900814 Filed: 06/17/2005 Page 10 of 14
11

(III) balances in an appropriate manner

the needs of the communities in the

vicinity of the installation for economic

redevelopment and other development

with the needs of the homeless in such

communities; 

(IV) was developed in consultation with

representatives of the homeless and the

homeless assistance planning boards, if

any, in the communities in the vicinity of

the installation; and 

(V) specifies the manner in which

buildings and property, resources, and

assistance on or off the installation will be

made available for homeless assistance

purposes.

10 U.S.C. § 2687 note § 2905(b)(7)(H)(i). In contrast to the

detailed description of the factors HUD is required to evaluate,

the DBCRA does not specify the manner in which HUD is to

carry out this review, much less require that HUD independently

verify the accuracy of the NOIs submitted by representatives of

the homeless. The DBCRA commands HUD to review the plan

“with respect to the expressed interest and requests of

representatives of the homeless.” Id. (emphasis added). If the

term “expressed” is to retain any meaning within the statutory

framework, it must refer to the material included in the ROHs’

NOIs. Requiring HUD to evaluate the plan based on its own

assessment of the conditions of the homeless, as Senior

Resources advocates, rather than the NOIs, would read the term

“expressed” out of the statute—a result contrary to basic

principles of statutory interpretation. See Hibbs v. Winn, 124 S.

Ct. 2276, 2285–86 (2004) (“[A] statute should be construed so

that effect is given to all its provisions, so that no part will be

inoperative or superfluous, void or insignificant.” (quoting 2A

USCA Case #03-5369 Document #900814 Filed: 06/17/2005 Page 11 of 14
12

N. Singer, Statutes and Statutory Construction § 46.06, pp. 181-

186 (rev. 6th ed. 2000))).

The Base Closure Act instead gives HUD a good deal of

discretion: HUD is to ensure that the plan “takes into

consideration” and “balances in an appropriate manner” the

“expressed interest” of the homeless. 10 U.S.C. § 2687 note §

2905(b)(7)(H)(i). The record is clear that HUD met its statutory

burden. As part of its redevelopment plan, the GKDA submitted

an extensive “homeless assistance submission” that examined in

detail the submission of each ROH and explained the rationale

behind its decision to accommodate or reject each NOI. HUD

went out of its way to ensure adequate consultation between the

GKDA and Senior Resources, suspending its approval process

for several months to permit further negotiations between the

two. Moreover, HUD discussed the balance between the need

for job creation and the need to assist the homeless extensively

in its approval, devoting eight pages to the topic generally, one

and one-half pages of which is directed to Senior Resources’

NOI alone. Specifically, HUD found that “Senior Resources

failed to demonstrate ... that there was some assurance to

believe that this organization was capable of implementing,

managing and producing the claimed results ... to justify the

commitment of the extensive resources to its venture.”

Memorandum of Decision, Kelly AFB, San Antonio, TX (Apr.

18, 2001) at 7. In light of the DBCRA’s broad language, we

cannot view HUD’s approval of the balance the GKDA struck

between economic development and the needs of the homeless

as arbitrary or capricious under the APA. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

Nor does the GKDA’s publication of detailed criteria it

planned to use to evaluate ROHs’ submissions undermine

HUD’s approval. The Base Closure Act requires any NOI filed

by a ROH to contain “[a ]description of the financial plan, the

organization, and the organizational capacity of the

representative [of the homeless] to carry out the program.” 10

USCA Case #03-5369 Document #900814 Filed: 06/17/2005 Page 12 of 14
13

U.S.C. § 2687 note § 2905(b)(7)(E)(i)(V). During the planning

process, the GKDA announced that it intended to evaluate a NOI

according to the following criteria:

Consideration of the skills and knowledge

of the organization’s personnel to carry

out the proposed program, the history of

the organization in running similar

programs, the plausibility of the

organization’s ability to generate the

funding required to maintain the program,

and the extent to which there are firm

commitments from other organizations or

people to ensure the program will

succeed.

Memorandum from the GKDA to ROHs (Aug. 14, 1998).

Senior Resources contends that these criteria exceed the

GKDA’s statutory authority and therefore HUD’s approval of

the redevelopment plan that applied the criteria in allocating

resources was arbitrary and capricious. Yet the GKDA’s criteria

hardly differ from the Base Closure Act’s. The DBCRA

requires an ROH to submit a “financial plan,” 10 U.S.C. § 2687

note § 2905(b)(7)(E)(i)(V), and the GKDA’s criteria merely

address the ROH’s ability to “generate” the necessary funding.

The same holds true for the criteria related to organizational

strength. The GKDA’s evaluation of organizational capacity

using the ROH’s past success and the capacity of its current

employees fits squarely within the statutory scheme. Id. Thus,

the specific criteria employed by the GKDA in evaluating an

ROH’s notice of interest provide no basis for overturning

HUD’s approval of the redevelopment plan for Kelly AFB.

For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s grant of

summary judgment to the defendants is affirmed.

So ordered. 

USCA Case #03-5369 Document #900814 Filed: 06/17/2005 Page 13 of 14
14

USCA Case #03-5369 Document #900814 Filed: 06/17/2005 Page 14 of 14