2008-11-05 ARRA PacketAGENDA
Regular Meeting of the Governing Body of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Alameda City Hall
Council Chamber, Room 390
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA. 94501
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m.
1. ROLL CALL
2. CONSENT CALENDAR.
Consent Calendar items are considered rOL tine and will be enacted, approved or adopted by one motion unless a
request for removal for discussion or explanation is received fro the Board or a member of t pub
2 -A. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of September 10, 2008.
2-B. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of October: 1, 2008.
2--C. Approve a Permanent Waiver of License Fees for Alameda Unified School Di strict Student
Activities.
2-D. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for Building 43 Associates,
Inc. at Alameda Point.
3. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3 -A. Alameda Point Update Review and Comment on SunCal's Development Concept
4. ORAL REPORTS
4-A. oral. report from Member MataiTese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative.
Highlights of October 2 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
(Any person may address the governing body in. regard to any matter over which the
governing body has jurisdiction that is not on the agenda.)
f. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
7. ADJOURNMENT
ARRA Agenda November 5,2008
This meeting will be cabiecast live on channel 15.
Page 2
Notes
K Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact the ARRA Secretary at 749 -5800 at
least 72 hours before the meeting to request an interpreter.
Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) is available.
Minutes of the meeting are available in enlarged print.
R Audio tapes of the meeting are available for review at the ARRA offices upon request.
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, September 10, 2005
The meeting convened at 7;27 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
L ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Doug deHaan
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Lena Tan-.
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
2 -A. Approve the minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of the City Council, ARRA, and CIC of
August 19, 2008.
Approval of the Consent Calendar was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded. by
Member deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0.
3, REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3 -A.. Authorize PM Realty Group to Enter into a Contract with St. Francis Electric for
Pier 2 Electrical Upgrades at Alameda Point for a contract not to exceed $1,344,744.
Leslie Little, Development Services Director, gave an overview of the item. and discussed the
Spring 2006 sublease of MARAD approved le the ARRA for 20 years for use of the piers at
Alameda Point. Pier 2 is an older, unreliable facility, and doesn't comply with current standards.
To upgrade to code, the underground transformers would need to be relocated above ground to
meet Alameda Power Telecom (AP &T) requirements. In January 2007, the ARRA approved
design work for the electrical upgrade for Pier 2 improvements and the project was bid. A bid
was received for $1.7M for the project. The Board then directed staff to revise the project to
reduce the total cost. Staff and MARAD worked closely with AP &T to revise the technical
k
requirements to just upgrade the existing systems, which reduced the project cost significantly
for the next bid. Three bids were received, with St. Francis Electric with the lowest bid at
$1.29M. Staff is requesting approval to add a 5% contingency with add -on alternative for
concrete x- raying and independent testing fog: the Pies: 2 Electrical upgrades, for a total. cost not
to exceed $1,344,744.
Member Matarrese commented that the impact to the ARRA budget is that we are $400,000,
and asked how much the ARRA owes to the City General. Fund. Ms. Little replied that the
ARRA has two loan obligations, 1) ARRA debt obligation of $2.4M, and 2) the Alameda Point
Improvement Project (APIP) of $1.258M. Member Matarrese recommended it be considered
that the $400,000 be paid back to General. Fund as part of a loan payment. Ms. Little explained
that the ARRA currently carries that as an expenditure, and it would go back to the General Fund
Reserve.
Staff and the Board discussed the ARRA lease revenues, and how they are not sufficient to cover
expenditures in totality. Member Gilmore asked whether there were any other large capital
projects that were going out for bid on this year. Ms. Little replied that the last roof repair project
was finished, as well. as the preliminary assessment of the pier conditions, and that work will be
scheduled to start the piling and pier replacements. The greatest issue is that there are old
systems at Alameda Point if there were a water or sewer problem or other major activity, we
need cash on hand to resolve those issues.
Member Matarrese expressed his concern that we're funding infrastructure that doesn't belong to
us, the City doesn't own the property, it still belongs to Navy. we're adding value to what the
Navy is putting a high price tag on. He stated that he would much rather put that money toward
unfunded liabilities of General Fund services. Member Gilmore agreed, stating that, in theory,
should we have a major system malfunction, there are tenants that pay to cover these issues.
There should be a balance while we're in a holding position with the Navy.
Vice Chair Tarn. motioned for approval of the Contract with St. Francis Electric, the
motion was seconded. by Member deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: S,
Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0
3 -t3. Alameda Point Update Presentation of the Draft Development Concept.
Debbie Potter:, Base Meuse and Community Development Manager, introduced Pat Keliher and
Peter Calthorpe, Urban Designer, who presented a powerpoint presentation. of the draft
development concept to the Board and public. The presentation can be viewed at
www.ala Leda ointcom munit .corm. After the presentation, Chair Johnson opened the item to
the Boardrnembers for discussion. Member Matarrese asked if both plans assume a $108M
payment to the Navy, to which Ms. Potter replied, "yes."
Member Gilmore asked Mr. Calthorpe for more specific information regarding his comment on
the importance of phasing the transportation enhancements so housing could keep pace with the
capacity in the tube, asking if it can work, and when we will know. Pat Keliher, SunCal's
Alameda Point Project Manager, explained that Fehr: Peers, their Transportation Consultant, is
doing a detailed study on the traffic improvements and what the triggers are for the
enhancements. Mr. Keliher further stated that there is $90M worth of traffic improvements up to
the 4000 unit threshold, and that Fehr Peers plan to have a public meeting focused specifically
on the transportation issues.
Chair Johnson asked if the Sports Complex will be part of the SunCal. Presentation, to which Mr.
Keliher replied, "yes." He said that the Business Plan will include the commercial and retail
assumptions. Mr. Calthorpe added that the core area has to be built last, that a Main Street
environment cannot be built until the retail. demand is in. place.
Chair Johnson opened discussion to the public speakers. There were several speakers, most of
whom were in favor of supporting SunCal's plan. The ones that were not in favor of the SunCal
plan were concerned about the density of proposed mid -rise (12 -20 story residential units), non
Measure A compliance, and transportation issues.
Member deHaan requested Mr. Keliher verify that the density of Alameda on the west end,
specifically the Summer Homes, was 30 units per acre and three stories high. His concern
regarding the density was the Tube traffic and the alternative of bringing the bus service through
the Tube. Mr Keliher assured member deHaan that all these details are currently being vetted
out with Fehr Peers and will be presented at their public meeting. Ms. Potter further explained
that there is always only going to be two lanes in the tube, and what one of the alternatives is, is
for a queue jump lane for the bus, which doesn't require additional lanes. The queue jump lane
gives priority to the buses and encourages increased ridership. Mr. Keliher added that all
questions will be answered between the concept plan submittal and master plan submittal, and
that the transportation solution is a driving factor.
Member Gilmore requested a meeting before the City Council which is focused on transportation
issues be part of SunCal' S presentation schedule. Mr. Keliher affirmed her request. Member
Gilmore further discussed that the two plans are not Measure A compliant, and asked what
SunCal's plan was if the citizens were to reject their proposals. Mr Keliher responded by saying
that they have no magic Measure A plan that could be financed, and there is no third alternative,
they would have to start over. Member. Gilmore appreciated his honesty on the matter.
Member Matarrese addressed the transportation issue regarding commercial traffic truck
routes, etc., and asked whether there was going to be a recommendation from the Transportation
Commission. Ms. Potter explained that the plan is to route the Development Concept to all. the
boards and commissions for review and comment. Member Gilmore requested that the school
year commute traffic also be addressed.
Member Matarrese requested to see a commercial and industrial component of the plan, to be
examined with the same depth, what might be envisioned, and what are some of the plans to
bring the commercial and businesses in. He further discussed that Alameda does not have a
large commercial tax base. Economically, the tax burden is spread and residential. tax. payers are
shouldering the main load and maybe are at capacity. He would like to know the best Unix of
commercial. and how we might attract commercial business.
Vice Chair Tarn.. discussed the importance of their role (as the ARRA Board) for the long -term in.
guiding and approving a Development Plan that future councils and the community can
adaptively react to, manage, and govern under different challenges; as this plan will. manifest
beyond the time that they're on. this Board. She stated it is important to focus on the vision and
the core principles incorporated in the Genera`I plan, as they will. all be pertinent 15 years later.
Chair Johnson thanked Pat and Sun.Cal for doing a good job of working with the community and
being forthright with them. It's a difficult challenge and she appreciates all. their efforts.
Member deHaan asked about the Fed -to-fed transfer to the VA of some of the property. Mr.
Keliher replied that SunCal has to assume the potential impacts of the VA hospital whether it
happens or not, stating that it devalues the other phases. They would work hand -in -hand with
the VA, making certain that the infrastructure and traffic impacts are taken in consideration. For
example, a VA Hospital is a 2417 facilities hospital, it doesn't operate just during peak hours, so
when the traffic element is applied, it's another challenge. Member Matarrese requested dollar
figures attached to any reports on the this issues, stating that if the plan is for a Fed -to -Fed
transfer, then that cost should be shaved -off the $108M price for the impacts caused by the
remaining federal land.
4. ORAL REPORTS
4 -A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative.
E RAB Comment Letter Regarding Installation Remediation Site I
t
Member: Matarrese wasn't able to attend last meeting, but received communication, a letter, from
Co- chair, George Humphreys, regarding the Site 1. rem.ediation plan. and Record of Decision
(ROD) which raised a lot of questions. The ARRA board took the position that they would not
accept uncharacterized landfill from Site 1, which was supposed to be scooped and removed
after characterization. Mr. Humphreys provided a summary of his letter and discussed some of
the technical details, highlighting the deficiencies in the Navy's proposed plan to remediate Site
1.
Mr. Humphreys explained that his letter is straightforward, stating that Site 1 has been releasing
contaminants to the bay for a number of decades and deficiencies in the site need to be remedied.
There is uncharacterized industrial -type waste that could be released in event of earthquakes,
shoreline erosion, inundation by global warming, and by burrowing animals. The City asked for
trenching, with the stated objectives to verify there weren't any intact drums. The trenching
report showed that, of the 11 trenches the Navy identified, seven of them showed levels of
radioactive contamination. It was concluded that the radium. contamination is widespread and
scattered. He said a letter was sent from the Navy to the environmental agencies proposing to
move portions of Site I to Site 32, to shrink site 1, because they had found radioactive waste
deeper. He also described photos of liquefaction and sand boils during the Loma Prieta
earthquake, which he explained was a mechanism of how contaminated waste could be released
in the future, if left in place.
Member Matarrese reiterated that we have expertise on this board and commended the RAB for
taking a vote, making a stand and bringing these issues to light. He had two key concerns; first
that the material found was not ordinary household waste, rather, it is industrial waste plus
radioactive, which appears to be pervasive. It seems the Navy glossed over this in their proposed
plan. Secondly, Member Matarrese commented that it was disturbing that the plan was to
excavate some of the radioactive material and just bury it on another part of Alameda Point. He
requested the Board get a technical recommendation corroborating this report so that the ARRA
can tape a position with the Navy and the regulators that what is proposed is not acceptable.
David Brandt, Deputy Executive Director, said that staff would have something by the next
ARRA meeting.
Debbie Potter, in response to Member Matarrese's concern about the waste being relocated,
clarified the process. She explained that, at the request of the City, additional trenching was
done which identified more radioactive materials than anticipated. The Navy conducted a time
critical removal of hot spots at Site 1, and proposed to move some of the remaining fill to Site
32. The plan was to grow Site 32, continue to test and modify boundaries so that Site 1
boundaries no longer included radioactive material. All this would trigger a brand new public
process for comment, new proposed plans, and provide input on how it should be rem.ediated.
Member Matarrese viewed the relocation plan as a stall tactic and stated that the Navy should be
forced to remove the waste to a secure facility. Ms. Potter stated that the Navy will remove all
radioactive waste. Member Matarrese questioned why, if it were safe, does it have to be moved
and buried. Ms. Potter explained that it was her understanding that they are moving it in order to
excavate along the shoreline to address seismic issues. Dale Smith, RAB member, added that the
materials being moved were hazardous, but not radioactive. Chair Johnson stated that she
generally doesn't life the idea of moving the waste to another site, even if it's not contaminated.
Mr. Humphreys added that a key point is that there was no sampling of the soil inside that cell
area, which would determine if there were any non radioactive materials (i.e., PCBs, heavy
metals, etc.).
The Board requested that Peter Russell, Alameda Point's environmental consultant, provide a
technical analysis of the materials from the RAB regarding Site 1, a written report of highlights
after every RAB meeting, and his analysis on Navy documents he's reviewed.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
(Any person may address the governing body in regard to any matter over which the
governing body has jurisdiction that is not on the agenda.)
There was one speaker, Bill. Smith, who spore about Various topics.
6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Vice Chair Tam informed the other Members that Michael Park from the Alameda Theater
would like to schedule a re -shoot of the Council Members for his film that previews movies,
because of construction noise in the background.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 11:22 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
s
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING. OF THE
ALAMEDA REZ USE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
The meeting convened at 7:36 p.m. with Chair ,Johnson presiding.
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Doug deHaan
B oardm.ernber Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Lena Tarn
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
w
r
2--A.. Authorize Execution of a No -Cost Sublease for Alameda Development Corporation at
Alameda Point.
Member Gilmore motioned approval of the Consent Calendar, seconded by Member Tam,
and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes 5, Noes 0, Abstentions Of
3. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3 -A. .Approve the Executive Director's Recommendation Regarding Disposition of the
Notices of Interest for the Homeless Accommodation /Public Benefit Conveyances for
the North Housing Parcel and Authorize the Executive Director to Negotiate the
Required Legally Binding Agreement
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, gave a brief overview of the
item, stating that in. November 2007, the Navy declared the North Housing Parcel, an additional
42 acre parcel, as surplus. The ARRA, as the Local Reuse Authority (LRA) is charged with.
conducting the federal screening process, a mandated step before the Navy can dispose of
property. Three Notice of Interests (NOls) and two requests for Public Benefit Conveyances
(PBCs) were reviewed in early September. The NOls were analyzed against a number of criteria
including what project was being proposed, how well the project met unidentified needs of
homeless needs assessment, financial feasibility, and the organization's capacity to carry out the
project. one NOI from the East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation (EBALDC), didn't
meet the threshold requirement and was notifidd that they did not meet screening process. Of the
remaining two NOIs, the evaluation committee does not recommend moving forward with the
NOI received form Alameda Point Collaborative (APQ and Building Futures with Women and
Children (BFWC), to provide location for the Midway Shelter, in the event it loses it's lease
where currently located. There is a path forward to working with Navy on the existing location
of the shelter, which the Navy has committed to in writing to retain midway shelter in current
location. Also, the 42-acre site was not an appropriate location for a multi- service center, which
should be in central location accessible by public transit.
The committee is recommending the NOI received from the City Housing Authority, APC, and
BFWC for 120 units of permanent supportive housing for formerly homeless people, with the
recommendation to move forward at 90 units rather than 120 units.
The two PBCs received were from the City's Recreation. and Park department and from.. Habitat
for Humanity for self -help housing. We are recommending the PBC from Rec and Parr, and will
indicate our support for Habitat for Humanity for 20 to 30 units of self -help housing. The Habitat
for Humanity PBC is approved by the federal housing agency, HUD; and the Department of
Interior would approve the Rec and Park PBC.
The next step is to begin. negotiating a Legally Binding Agreement (LBA). The LBA is an
agreement document that goes forward to HUD, along With our amendment to the Community
Reuse Plan (Reuse Plan.), HUD reviews the Reuse Plan and makes the ultimate determination of
how well it meets the needs of homeless acco' mmodation. We are scheduling two community
meetings in November, on the 3' with the Planning Board, and on Nov. 24 on the amendment
to the Reuse Plan, and draft LBA at its Dec. 3 meeting. The statutory requirement is to get
everything to IUD in. December.
Member Matarrese asked how HUD weighs different factors during their evaluation of the
proposals. Ms. Potter explained that typically, the screening process regulations are broadly
drafted in order to give local jurisdictions a lot of leeway and opportunity for the Reuse Plan to
meet their needs. What they are looking for is a balance of homeless accommodation, and what
they call "other community goals in terms of job generation, economic development, housing,
and open space. Member Matarrese asked if there is a previous process which we were involved
in. Ms. Potter replied that the 1996 Community Reuse Plan was the last time we were involved
in. that process. Member Matarrese informed staff and the Board that he just received a letter
from. the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSQ regarding the remediation of site
Where the Midway Shelter is Located. The letter informed of DTSC's plan to evaluate the impact
of removing viscous material and widespread contaminated material from. that site. Staff will
follow -up.
Chair Johnson called public speakers. Doug Biggs, Interim Executive Director of the APC spoke
in support of the city's recommendation. He discussed the homelessness crisis in today's
economy. Liz Varela, Executive Director of the BFWC, supports Doug Bigg's comments, and
appreciates the City's recommendation. on the BPWC NOI and its efforts of relocating the
Midway Shelter.
Member deHaan asked staff to give a background on the remediation requirements and how the
Navy is going to address that. Ms. Potter explained that the south east corner of the North
Housing parcel, there is a plume Which extends to that area and will be remedi ated. The Navy
has started remediation of the plume, and we made it clear when we put out the request that there
is an environmental issue. None of the proposals we received asked for property anywhere near
that site. There has been prior time critical removal that has all been completed. Ms. Potter
added that there was no removal under hardscapes or roads, so anyone who will develop that site
has to take that in consideration.
Member Matarrese expressed concern that we should not move forward where uncalculated
liability for any unrem.ediated land is passed on to any future to non profit.
Member Matarrese motioned to provide direction that in the Community Reuse flan and
in the negotiations of the LBA we include disclosure of significant liability of
uncharacterized contamination under hardscape and contamination beyond two feet, and
that we have these LBAs carne back to ARRA. The motion was seconded by Member
deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes 5, Noes o, Abstentions o,
3 -8. Report on Restoration Advisory Board Comment Letter on Installation Restoration
Site 1.
Ms. Potter summarized that at the ARR.A meeting on September 10, the Board received several
letters regarding Site 1. Staff was directed to work with the environmental consultant, Dr. Peter
Russell, to prepare a response to RAB letters. The ARRA's position is that land fill should be
dug up and hauled off, this position has been consistent during the public comment process,
which is not concluded. A final draft Record of Decision (ROD) is due on Oct. 28th, which will
give us further opportunity to provide comments on the final draft ROD. However, as all of this
work has been going on, the results of the additional trenching did not reveal waste, so the sense
is that there is no longer a landfill at Site 1. We would like to send a letter to the Navy
requesting they do a little more work to determine whether a land fill. is still present at Site 1.
The Navy began remediation on groundwater contamination.
Member: Matarrese reminded staff that the original concern expressed was, not that there was a
landfill, but that it was uncharacterized and unknown. He wants to snake sure all contaminated
materials are removed, and inert ones remain in place. Ms. Potter stated that we must go through
the CBRCLA process, and that the time critical. removal was for the material down to two feet.
Member Matarrese asked how Site 1 could be closed if there is still objectionable material. there.
Ms. Potter responded by stating that the work effort and investigation. as part of IR Site 32 work.
includes going further than two feet, and the moving of the materials allows the changing of the
boundaries of the IR sites and what they are studying. Member Matarrese would like a risk
assessment provided to the City with anticipated development in mind to build a case for the
ultimate price tag for the property, i.e., if the property goes to auction, the contamination status
would affect the price.
There were two speakers on this item.. James Leach, RAB member for 9 years, is there
voluntarily because they are experts and have done clean -up and provide oversight to a high
degree. George Humphreys, Co -Chair of the RAB, commented on Dr. Russell's evaluation of
the Site 1 issue.
Member Matarrese motioned to accept the report with future reports to include a risk
assessment of the significant issues being discussed from a technical standpoint. The
notion was seconded my Member deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes
5, Noes 0, Abstentions 04
DTs. Potter discussed two additional. recommendations included in the staff report; first was the
request for authorization to request that the Navy further explore issue of whether: there is still a
landfill, and second, that staff be given authorization to prepare and send a letter on the draft
final ROD. Since there is no opportunity to provide back to ARRA before it's sent, Member
Matarrese suggested it come back to the Board at a the second Council meeting in November
(November 18).
Member Matarrese motioned to approve the two additional recommendations, seconded. by
Member deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes 5, Noes 0, Abstentions
0.
4. ORAL REPORTS
4 -A. oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative.
Highlights of September 4 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member Matarrese stated that the next RAB meeting is tomorrow night and the minutes from the
last.meeting have been presented.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
(Any person may address the governing body in regard to any matter over which the
governing body has jurisdiction that is not on the agenda.)
There was one speaker, Bill Smith., who spoke various topics.
6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member deHaan asked if there was an update on the GSA property behind Foster Freeze. Ms.
Potter informed him that staff will get and update and provide it to the City Manager as an off
Agenda item..
Member Matarrese stated that the Board has received a stack of documents from SunCai, but has
not seen a document that fits the description of a Business Plan. He requested that staff ask
SunCai for a business plan. David Brandt, Deputy Executive Director, affirmed Member
Matarrese's request.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 9:12 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
�r
Irma Glidden.
ARRA Secretary
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
November 5, 2008
T0. Honorable Chair and Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Debra Kurita, Executive Director
y
SUBJ; Approve a Permanent waiver of License Fees for Alameda Unified School
District Student Activities
BACKGROUND
For the past several years, Alameda High School. has needed space in an. available Alameda Point
building for the preparation of both its annual "Homecoming" float and Grad Night sets. If a
building is available, the request has been accommodated.
DISCUSSION
Since the High. School regularly manes the request for the hangars and fee waivers, staff is
seeking approval of a permanent automatic waiver for both Homecoming and Grad Night
activities, if a building is available. The School. District will provide the required insurance and
comply with al.1 regulations when occupying Alameda Point building.
BUDGET CONS IDERATIONIFINANCIA.L IMPACT
T license fee for this type of event is $1,000 per day. The average use for Homecoming is five
days, and the average use for Grad Night is approximately 150 days.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the waive- of the license fees for Alameda Unified School. District student activities.
Re pec idly submitted,
Leslie Little
Development rvices Director
By: Vanettte Ban s
Finance &Administration Manager
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authorio
Interoffice Memorandum.
November 5, 2008
TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Debra Kurita, Executive Director
SUBJ: ALIthori.ze Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for Building 43
Associates Inc. at Alameda .Point
BACKGROUND
The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) governing Board approves ali Alameda
Point subleases with a lease term. greater than one year. The proposed sublease for Building 43
Associates, Inc. is for five years.
DISCUSSION
Attachrneiit A describes the business terms for the proposed sublease for Building 43 Associates,
Inc. in. a portion of Building 43. The rent for Building 43 Associates, Inc. is $23,820 annually, or
$0.3803 per sq. ft. in the first year. There is a 3% increase each year in the subsequent years. The
building will. continue to be used for light manufacturing and office. Building 43 is in poor to fair
condition.
In accordance with the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement between the ARRA and Sun Cal.
Companies, this lease has been discussed with representatives from. SunCal. Companies and has their
concurrence.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION 1 FINANCIAL IMPACT
Th.i.s Lease will. generate $23,820 in the first year. These funds will be retained by the ARRA.
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize negotiation. and execution. of a sublease for Building 43 Associates, Inc. at Alameda
Point.
Honorable Chair and Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
November 5, 2008
Page 2
Respectfully submitted,
fi
f
Leslie Little
Development Services Director
By: Nanette Ban ks
Finance Admin.i.stration Manage:
Attachment: A. Proposed Sublease Business Terns
B. Site Map
ATTACHMENT A
PROPOSED SUBLEASE BUSINESS TERMS
TENANT
BUILDING
SIZE (SF)
TERM
RENT
Building 43
Assocla es, Inc.
43
5,220
5 yrs
$1,985/mo.
Aq
MONARCH ST,
3
---i
m
m
O
ul
CD
CD
l�
1>
9
0
SECOND
a
CD
ST
Z-
f'l O
3
TACHMENT B
TI-
w
D J
F-"
-PSI
S391
CD
KL--JL
uR T...
IF
I HIKIJ
s
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority 3 �A
Memorandum
To: Honorable Chair. and Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
From: Debra Kuri to
Executive Director
Date: November 5, 2008
Re: Alameda Point Update Review and Comment on SunCal's September 19,
2008 Development Concept
BACKGROUND
In July 2007, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA), Community
Improvement Commission (CIC), and City (together Alameda) entered into an Exclusive
Negotiation Agreement (ENA) with SCC Alameda Point LLC (SunCal.) to secure the required
land use entitlements to redevelop Alameda Point. The ENA identifies a number of mandatory
performance milestones necessary to complete the entitlement process during the ENA term,
including the preparation of a Development Concept. SunCal submitted this document, along
with a draft Business Plan, draft Sports Complex Master Plan Update, and Infrastructure Plan, on
September 19, 2008. Alameda issued a press release notifying the public that the documents
were received and were available for review on -line at www.al.am.eda-- p oint.com and at the
Alameda Free Library. The September 19 submittal was also provided to the ARRA Board at
that time.
In addition to making the documents available to the public, SunCal. presented its Development
Concept to eight boards and commissions during the month. of October. Both Alameda and
SunCal advertised these meetings. Staff also completed its preliminary review of the
Development Concept. The November 5 ARRA. meeting is an opportunity for the ARRA to
provide feedback on the Development Concept and to review and comment on input received
from the boards and commissions. No action is required.
Following the ARRA meeting, SunCal will evaluate all of the comments received and prepare its
draft Master Plan, final Sports Complex Master Plan. Update, and final Business Plan.
Completion of these documents is a mandatory milestone under the ENA. The draft master plan
and related documents are due to Alameda on December. 19, 2008.
DISCUSSION
The following is a summary of the comments received from the boards and commissions.
November 5, 2008
Page 2 of 7
Bistorical Advisor Board October 2, 2008
Staff requested that the Historical Advisory Board review and comment on the historic
preservation and adaptive reuse components of the Development Concept. The following
comments were trans pitted from the public or individual board members:
Support was expressed for SunCal's decision to preserve the Bachelors Officers Quarters
and the "Big whites
Concerns were expressed about the loss of four of the five Seaplane Bangers, Building 8,
which is in the "Shops Area Building 19 (the Control Tower Building and the small
boathouse (Building 15).
Demolition of buildings in Later phas6s should be delayed as long as possible or until
such time that the development of that phase is ready to move forward to provide
additional time for market conditions to adjust. Such delay of demolition might provide
new opportunities to feasibly reuse buildings.
A "range of building types" should be preserved at Alameda Point.
There was a discussion about the implications of a future National Register Nomination
for the Historic District if large portions of the District were to be removed by the
development.
Library Board October 8 2008
The Library Board provided comments and direction regarding the need for library services and
facilities at Alameda Point to serve the Alameda Point development and/or the west end of
Alameda. Specifically, the Board stated that:
There was a documented need for library facilities within the west end of Alameda.
Approximately 15,500 square feet would be needed for a new library that could also
accommodate a literacy program for west end residents.
The facility should be located adjacent to the neighborhoods and other civic uses.
There might be opportunities to do a "joint use" library facility with the proposed school
at Alameda Point.
t
Reuse of one of the historic buil dings might be possible, but the technological
requirements for a modern library may snake adaptive reuse of an historic building cost
prohibitive relative to building a new library.
Recreation and Park. Commission October 9 2008
This meeting provided an opportunity for the Recreation. and Parr Commission and the
community to focus on the open space and recreational proposals in the Development Concept
and the draft Sports Complex Master Plan Update. The Commission provided the following
comments:
The plans for the Sports Complex and the open. space and parks were well received by the
Recreation and Parr Commission, with several members expressing positive reactions to
the proposed plans.
Given the weather conditions at Alameda Point, consideration should be given to
enclosing all or portions of the swim center within. the Sports Complex.
November: S, 2008
Page 3 of 7
There should also be serious consideration given to strategies that create energy efficient
buildings. For example, the swim center will require large amounts of energy. Solar
panels or other clean energy strategies should be considered to reduce the carbon
footprint of the facility.
The Sports Complex should include a stage or similar facility or structure that could be
used for individual or group "performance" sports such as cheerleading.
There might be opportunities and cost benefits to co- locating the proposed school. sites
with the proposed open spaces.
Drought tolerant and "bay friendly" landscaping should be used to the maximum extent
possible in all the open space and park. facilities.
open spaces, parks, and the Sports Complex should be phased in with each phase of the
development, beginning with the first phase.
Housin Corr m- ssion October 1 2008
At this meeting, staff requested that the Housing Commission review and comment on the
housing proposals and strategies. The Commission made the following comments:
The plans for a diversity of housing types and affordability levels were well received by
the Commission, with several members expressing positive reactions to the housing
proposals and the Development Concept as a whole.
Drought tolerant and "bay friendly" landscaping should be used to the maximum extent
possible throughout the plan area.
The paragraph in the introduction of the Development Concept that talks about
"skyrocketing housing prices" in. the Bay Area should be updated to reflect current
economic conditions.
The scale and location of the commercial buildings proposed along Main Street should be
carefully considered to ensure compatibility with existing developments across Main
Street, which include a Mousing .Authority property.
The Mousing Commission is willing and available to provide additional comments and
suggestions as the plans become more definitive and more detailed regarding housing
types, the location of affordable housing, and the juxtaposition of new and existing
development.
Economic Development Commission October 16 2008
Staff requested that the Economic Development Commission (EDQ review and comment on. the
economic development, jobs, and commercial. development proposals in the Development
Concept Plan. The EDC provided the following feedback:
Commissioners expressed concern about focusing on a large single user for commercial
space and the project's financial vulnerability in the event such a user would close its
campus.
SunCal was encouraged to plan carefully for the mix of uses and ensure that the range of
uses was well integrated (e.g., children at play, retail traffic, residential neighborhoods,
commercial activity, etc.)
Commissioners noted that analysis of historic preservation /adaptive reuse costs would be
very important to understanding overall project feasibility.
November 5, 2008
Page 4 of 7
The Development Concept assumes one job for 300 square feet of commercial.
development. What is Alameda's existing jobs per square foot ratio?
Are there examples of projects, developed by SunCal or other developers, which
document changed behavior regarding use of public transportation, improved ridership,
etc.?
Trans ortation Commission October 22 2008
The purpose of the meeting was to focus community discussion and evaluation on the
transportation strategies proposed to support the land use plan. The Transportation Commission
had the following comments:
The Commissioners expressed their general support for the overall. content and direction
of the transportation strategy and its focus on proven technologies; such as Bus Rapid
Transit, shuttles, Cap: Share and other well known transportation alternatives. They
appreciated SunCal's willingness to innovate, listen to the community, and adjust its
plans accordingly to address Alameda's priorities and suggestions. Commissioners
agreed with SunCal's decision to de- emphasize Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) in the
Development Concept.
Since the transportation program. is very conceptual, it is difficult to fully understand or
quantify the impact of the land use plan on. the transportation. network, specifically the
Tubes. It will be very important for SunCal to provide more details about each
component of the program., the costs and ridership benefits of each component, and the
overall traffic impact or benefit of each phase of the transportation strategy so that
Alameda will have a clear understanding of the full benefits and potential impacts on the
Tubes of the proposed development program.
The Commissioners expressed their appreciation for "Day one" transportation strategies
that are in place when the first houses and businesses are occupied, and encouraged
SunCal to fully develop a comprehensive and detailed "Day one" transportation program.
to attract "transit minded" residents and businesses to Alameda Point.
one -way streets may not be appropriate at Alameda Point.
The school may be needed in Phase I since the Ruby Bridges School is already at
capacity.
A reexamination of the benefits of AC Transit Route 63 i s warranted, and there may be
benefits to changing that route to mare more efficient use of transit investments by AC
Transit and SunCal.
Locating a transit stop at the oval at the Atlantic Entrance to the site may be problematic
if it necessitates a "split" station.
Serious consideration should be given to market rate pricing for the Ferry Terminal
parking lot to maintain an 85% occupancy rate.
The parking ratios for commercial development need to be carefully considered to
provide incentives and support for alternatives to the automobile.
There is a need for better coordination between the ARUP Estuary Crossing Study and
the SunCal transportation plans.
The West Alameda Business Association needs to be included in future transit routing
discussions.
November 5, 2008
Page 5 of 7
More work is needed to define and clarify which transit services in. addition to the shuttle
could be accessed with the "Eco- Pass
For comparative purposes, the Santa Clara corridor would be a good example of a higher
density area in Alameda with excellent transit services that might reflect the density and
transit services being proposed at Alameda Point. To inform the community, it may be
beneficial to examine the transit ridership characteristics of these existing Alameda
residents to determine the transit ridership characteristics that might be expected at
Alameda Point with similar densities and transit services.
H There should be an analysis of the projected ridership of the proposed BRT system to
determine whether the ridership would justify the costs. If the analysis shows that
ridership might be low, then SunCal and Alameda should consider other ways to spend
transportation funds.
N SunCal and the community should be very clear about both the transportation benefits
and potential impacts of the proposed development so that all. Alameda residents
understand what is being proposed and the implications of the project on the daily
commute from the west end of Alameda.
Social. Services Human Relations Board SSHRB october 23 2008
The SSHR.B meeting provided an opportunity to comment on services to low income residents,
including housing, transit, childcare, and recreational facilities. Board members had the
following comments:
Support was expressed for the 25% affordable housing obligation. If homeowners
association costs or special. assessments are required as part of the development, these
fees should be considered when determining the affordability of units.
Further consideration. should be given to the balance of rental and ownership affordable
units. Attention should be paid to the number of units accessible for people with
disabilities.
9 Consideration of grocery facilities should include an analysis of their affordability for
low-income people.
The Development Concept appears to address transit needs identified in. the Board's
Community Needs Assessment. Attempts to locate units within five minutes of transit
should consider the walking speeds of seniors and people with disabilities.
The Eco -Pass should incorporate a sliding scale for low income residents and people with
disabilities.
There is a need to ensure first source hiring applies to all new employers who occupy the
Point. Phasing plans should consider job training and placement programs needed to help
meet first source hiring goals.
A consultant should be hired to facilitate a planning process between SunCal and
Alameda Point Collaborative that ensures the relocation of residents from Alameda Point
Collaborative, Bessie Coleman Court, and Operation Dignity causes as little disruption as
possible and prevents displacement.
Public spaces should accommodate the needs of people with disabilities by providing
benches, smooth and level walking paths, and picnic tables that are wheel chair
accessible.
November 5, 2008
Page G of 7
The Sports Complex should include disability friendly facilities, similar to the Miracle
League ball field proposed for the North Housing Parcel.
There is a need to ensure that west end social service resources are maintained, including
the strong collaboration. between the Alameda Food Bank, the Alameda Point
Collaborative, and American Red Cross Alameda Service Center.
As more details become available, there is a need to compare the Social Service human
Relations Board's Community Needs Assessment to the plan.
Planning Board October 27 2008
The Planning Board meeting provided an opportunity for the Board and the community to review
and comment on the land use planning, design, and sustainability aspects of the Concept. The
Planning Board made the following comments:
The Development Concept is a good conceptual plan for Alameda Point and is well. done.
The Development Concept should include design principles about the importance of
waterfront design. to create a vital, safe, and pedestrian friendly waterfront.
The Development Concept does a good job of addressing the need for density and the
diversity of housing.
The Development Concept sets very high expectations and SunCal needs to be careful
about setting expectations that may not be realistic. SunCal should not "over promise,
and under deliver
The phasing of the schools may need to be moved up earlier in the schedule to
accommodate growth in enrollment.
There is a need for a library in the project.
The analysis of civic facilities should consider a larger area than just Alameda Point. For
example, the College of Alameda has a track that is not always available to the
community. The Miller School site may be an appropriate location for a new school
serving the west end and Alameda Point, in addition to the current Island Nigh facility.
Co- locating public facilities, such as libraries with schools, will increase the availability
of State grants.
Given that the Sports Complex and the entire northern edge of the site will be in an area
that is not protected from floods and is adjacent to a shoreline that may fail in a major
disaster, the financial plan should include funds to rebuild public facilities that are
damaged in a flood or major disaster.
The plan should include a phasing schedule for the adaptive reuse area that is coordinated
with the phasing for the rest of the project.
The open space needs to be provided with each phase of the development. The phasing
schedule should ensure that there is no net loss of playing fields for soccer leagues.
Phase 1 in particular should be carefully considered so that it provides adequate open
space.
Development guidelines and standards are needed to ensure that the highest duality
development and a fine -grain mix of uses are provided at the site to the maximum extent
feasible.
The street design and cross sections, and the emphasis on narrow, calm. streets, is very
positive. The project should not be constrained by outdated local standards such as the
1965 City Storm. Drain Standards referenced in the Infrastructure Chapter.
November 5, 2008
Page 7 of 7
Transportation is the biggest issue facing the redevelopment of Alameda Point. The
transportation strategy needs more details and more definition about when certain
improvements will be constructed and who will pay for there.
The transportation strategy needs to be "front loaded" with "Day one" improvements to
the maximum extent feasible.
The BRT proposal could be controversial given what has occurred recently in Berkeley
and Oakland with AC 'T'ransit's BRT proposal.
Regarding the phasing of the Ferry Terminal relocation, increasing the frequency of ferry
service from the Main Street Terminal in early phases may be more important than
relocating the terminal. to the Seaplane Lagoon in the early phases.
BUDGET CONS IDERATIONIFINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to receiving board and commission comments on the Development
Concept or providing feedback on the plan.
RECOMMENDATION
This item is for review and comment on SunCal's Development Concept. No action is required.
Respect y su
r
�i
�eS I t e
Development Services Director
fe' Y
By: Debbie Potter
Base Reuse and Community Development
Manager
Russell Resources, Inc.
environmental management
ITEM 4 -A
Alameda Point RAB Meeting on October 2, 2008
Highlights, and Analysis
RAB members present: George Humphreys (co- chair), Fred Hoffman, Jinn. Leach, Dale Smith,
Jinn Sweeney, Jean Sweeney, and Michael. John Torrey
R.emediation and other: field work in progress:
debris pile removal along north. shore of Seaplane Lagoon
removal. of radiologically impacted storm drain. inside Building 5
expansion of petroleum remediation system. near Atlantic Avenue entrance
groundwater treatment at IR Site 14 (former fire training area in Northwest Territory) and
IR Site 26 (western Hangar Zone)
the petroleum. remediation system at the southern end of the western hangar row is
operational and extracting from the ground much more leaked jet fuel than was expected
New RAB m.eetin s: In an effort to prevent overly long RAB meetings, separate technical sub
committee meetings will. be held to discuss technical clean -up issues in greater detail. Both the
Navy and the environmental regulators will attend the technical sub committee meetings. This
development should foster on- going informed RAB input on the Navy's clean -up plans.
The majority of the RAB meeting was devoted to two topics: (1) IR Site 1. discussions at ARRA
Board meetings and (2) Navy clean -up achievements over the last 12 months. Completion of the
POST (Finding of Suitability to Transfer) for PBC -1 (the Sports Complex site) was discussed
briefly, including mention of continuing petroleum cleanup there. Below, further details and
evaluation. are presented on IR Site 1 and on the ramifications of petroleum residues at PBCw -1.
IR Site 1(1943 -1956 Disposal Area)
Mr. Humphreys detailed the presentations on IR Site 1 at the ARRA Board's September 10 and
October 1, 2008, meetings. Dr. Russell then explained the evaluation of the RAB's comment
ent
letters on. the Proposed Plan for IR Site 1 and the Navy's exploratory trenching into the former
disposal area. Dr. Russell prepared the evaluation at the request of the ARRA Board.
The evaluation concerni.n IR. Site 1 breaks new ground questioning the popular assumption
that the site contains a landfill. The most significant points in the evaluation are as follows.
1. The RAB's comment letters are thorough and raise important concerns. The Navy is
incorporating many of the RAB's concerns in the remedial design for the landfill.
2. The results of the Navy's exploratory trenching into the former disposal area demonstrate
that the IR Site 1 landfill likely is no longer there. virtually no landfilled waste was
found in. the eleven trenches, which strongly suggests the landfill has been moved.
3. The landfill site should under o further investigation before clean-up decisions are made.
Trenching and /or boring is needed to evaluate whether: any of the landfilled wastes
RRI, 440 Nova Albion Way, Suite 1, San Rafael, California 94903 415.902.3123 fox 815.572.8500
Page 2 of 5
October 22, 2008
Alameda Point RAB Meeting, October 2, 2008
Highlights and Analysis
remain, and, if so, their nature and extent. Sampling and analysis is needed to
characterize any chemical or radiological residues in the soil. backfilled into the former
landfill. with a more accurate understanding of the landfill site, appropriate clean -up
alternatives can be identified. For example, the remaining contamination may be so
limited that excavation with off -site disposal becomes much more feasible; a smaller or
different type of cover may be more appropriate; or wetlands reuse may be possible.
4. The draft ROD (Record of Decision) for IR Site 1 should be finalized for those areas that
do not rely on the assumption that the site contains a landfill. Specifically, excavation and
off -site disposal of the shoreline burn area and cleanup of the groundwater contamination
should be conducted as soon as possible.
The new, no- landfill presumption likely will prolong remedial decisionmaking for portions of IR
Site 1, but it has several positive effects.
l.. The new presumption breaks the impasse about whether intrusive sampling should be
done to characterize the landfill. The ARRA, the RAB, and others want the landfill site
characterized before snaking clean -up decisions. However, the BCT (Navy and the
environmental regulators) had tentatively agreed to install. a soil cover over the landfill
site without further characterization. The BCT reasoned that heterogeneous landfills are
difficult to meaningfully characterize by sampling, and a soil cover likely would be
appropriate regardless of the sampling results. The BCT had not entertained the
possibility that the landfill is no longer present. Now, the compelling ellin evidence frorn. the
Navy's explorato demands that further intrusive investigation be conducted.
This wort{ will evaluate whether any landfilled wastes remain and whether the backfilled
soil is contaminated. This information is fundamental to reasoned clean -up
decisionmaking.
2. The RAB had commented that groundwater should be cleaned up before earthmoving for
seismic stabilization of the shoreline is done. The Navy had wanted to conduct the
earthmoving first to avoid interfering with. the many wells needed for groundwater
cleanup. If clean -up decisions for Area .lb are delayed so that supplemental. investigation
can be conducted, earthmoving along the shoreline will have to be postponed too.
However, groundwater remediation should move forward as expeditiously as possible
and likely will occur before earthmoving for shoreline stabilization.
3. If further investigation confirms the no- landfill presumption, the City of Alameda will
not have any potential liability associated with having a landfill on the land it receives
from the Navy.
PBC -1 FOST Background
PBC -1 is the site of the planned Sports Complex along the Oakland Inner. Harbor shoreline, west
of the former base's north entrance. On September 30, 2008, the Navy issued the FOST for the
60 -acre PBC -1. The environmental regulatory agencies concur with this finding.
A. FOST is a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) document that is the basis of the Navy's warrantee "that all remedial action
440 Nova Albion Way, Suite 1, Sari Rafael, California 94903 415.902.3123 fax 815.572.8600
Page 3 of 5 Alameda Point RAB Meeting, October 2, 2008
October 22, 2008 Highlights and Analysis
necessary to protect human health and the environment with respect to any hazardous substance
remaining on the property has been taken before the date of transfer," However, petroleum
products are not "hazardous substances" as defined by CBRCLA. Accordingly, cleanup of
petroleum contamination is not warranted to have been completed by the time of transfer. This is
the case with PBC -1.
Due to on -going cleanup of petroleum contamination. on PBC -1, the FDST requires the deed to
contain a land use restriction protecting monitoring wells, and prohibiting deep excavation
without an SMP (site management plan) approved by the Navy and regulatory agencies. This
Land use restriction. is applicable to two areas of PBC -Ithat are contaminated with petroleum.
ADC 23G and CAA -6. Together:, these two areas account for about 15 percent of PBC -1, as
shown on the figure below from the FDST. The restrictions can be released once the Navy
obtains regulatory closure from the Water Board (San Francisco Bay Regional water Quality
Control. Board), the responsible regulatory agency.
Eo
eg
a
x
a�
y ACC 37
r F.: r:31gr Oft3. 373
GAP
EI-S pwce� bwndm
_le Bca indari
smuldaf
C."'A
A0C: 22Q+
E r��w ref
A::c h; i� rl Cv
FCC FW E >ep1.3 u4 ,�'11Ci
'?t` 'vtsl FE3"OvT J E': !y:r� Ir;'; 5
Akimodo RQin3, MamadY, CA
e. �:ea:rr.: •�al; r<a- sSest, +.r �>:g�::,{.
FIGURE 5
CERCLA AND PETROLEUM
PROGRAM SITES
F "I0 1l wAr al) ilN to 7F3 a rer
Dr FUL01 5eli Cc111e) ncc
ADC 23G (Area of Concern 23G) is a former automotive gas station site in the north central
portion. of PBC -1. It occupies almost eight percent of the transfer parcel. The Navy has
concluded soil and groundwater at ADC 23G is clean enough for the intended reuse. The Water
Board concurs with. this conclusion and plans to issue a closure letter, unless petroleum.
contamination in groundwater rises above ecological risk thresholds during four more quarters of
monitoring. Thus, prohibitions against digging and damaging monitoring wells at ADC 23G
likely can be lifted by the end of 2009.
440 Nova Albion Way, Suite 1, San Rafael, California 94903 435.962.3123 fax 815,572.8600
Page 4 of S
October 22, 2008
Alameda Point RAB Meeting, October 2, 2008
Highlights and Analysis
CAA -6 (Corrective Action Area 6) is a 6 -acne former fuel transfer station for trucks servicing
aircraft on base. A portion of CAA -6 overlaps the south central portion of PBC -1, occupying
about seven percent of the transfer parcel. The Navy has completed active cleanup of soil and
groundwater, but ecological risk thresholds still may not have been meet further investigation
is needed of possible contaminant migration to Oakland Inner Harbor through the storm drain
system. The water Board is expected to grant regulatory closure of CAA -6 within five years.
Ramifications of Residual Petroleum Contamination on Reuse as the Sports Complex
The FOST's requirements that monitoring wells be protected and that an SMP be used durin
digging) are compatible with future use of PBC -1 as the S arts Complex. Known pe troleurn
residues are of ecolo ical. concern with res ect to Oakland Inner Harbor but are too low to
resent unacceptable human health risks with recreational use. According to SunCal's September
1 J, 2008 Alameda Point Redevelopment Concept Plan, AOC 23G will be used for parking, a
play area, a lawn area, and a BMX /mountain bike park.. CAA -6 will be used for picnic areas,
basketball courts, and softball. /baseball fields. These uses likely will require digging deeper than
six inches to install irrigation systems, storm drain lines, foundations for lighting and fences,
sub -base for pavement, etc.
Given S unCal's redevelopment schedule, AOC 23G and CAA -6 likely will be for. mall y closed
by the water Board and the digging and monitoring -well protection restrictions lifted before the
Sports Complex is built. But notwithstanding that, an SMP should be a requirement for the
reasons discussed below.
All of PBC -1 should be redeveloped an SMP even if the FOST does not require it. As with
most of Alameda Point, the possibility of unexpected contamination at PBC -1 cannot be ruled
out. Historical information about the Navy's activities at Alameda Point is incomplete: no
detailed records are available about historical uses of much of the base, for substantial. periods.
Before environmental awareness became prevalent in the 1970s, chemical. spills and
environmentally unacceptable practices were not documented. Even where suspected
contamination has been investigated, sampling might have missed small hot spots. For example,
if manor undetected leaks occurred, small areas of petroleum. contamination might be found in
CAA -A, a fuel pipeline corridor that crosses PBC -1 and for which the water. Board has granted
formal. closure. (This area is the unlabeled yellow corridor in the figure above.) Although the
probability of unknown contamination in any particular spot is very low, one or more unexpected
hot spots likely will be encountered over the course of base redevelopment. Managing this type
of uncertainty is a primary goal of SMPs.
SMPs can be very valuable tools for redeveloping brownfields areas. They coordinate with
construction projects' customary health and safety plans to inform workers of the site history,
contaminants that potentially are present and their health effects, whom to notify if
contamination is encountered, and special procedures for handling contaminated soil and
groundwater. SMPs typically allow separate stockpiling of soil that apparently is contaminated
with substances associated with the site. This allows construction to continue while the
440 Nova Albion Way, Suite 1, San Rafael, California 94903 415.902.3123 fax 815.5 72.8600
Page 5 of 5
October 22, 2008
Alameda Point BAB Meeting, October 2, 2008
Highlights and Analysis
disposition of the contaminated soil is managed on a separate timeline. If contamination were
encountered without an SNIP, construction would stop while environmental regulators assess the
situation and direct further measures. SMPs often avoid such delays, which can impact
construction project schedules.
440 Nava Albion Way, Suite 1, San Rafael, California 94903 415,902,3123 fax 815,572,8600