Loading...
2006-11-01 ARRA PacketAGENDA Regular Meeting of the Governing Body of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority ***x:a:x::r:k Alameda City Hall Council Chamber, Room 390 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 . ROLL CALL 2. CONSENT CALENDAR Wednesday, November 1, 2006 Meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m. Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or adopted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the Board or a member of the public. 2 -A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 4, 2006. 2 -B. Recommendation to approve consultant agreement with Moffatt & Nichol Engineers for Pier Condition Analysis at Alameda Point in an amount not to exceed $170,226 3. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 3-A. Alameda Point Project Update 3 -B. Alameda Point Environmental Remediation Update: Western Shoreline — IR Sites 1,2, and 32, Soil at IR Site 25 (Coast Guard North Housing), and Compliance with Marsh Crust Ordinance 4. ORAL REPORTS 4 -A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative. 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.) 6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY 7. ADJOURNMENT This meeting will be cablecast live on channel 15. Notes ■ 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. • Audio tapes of the meeting are available for review at the ARRA offices upon request. APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Wednesday. October 4, 2006 The meeting convened at 7:05 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding. 1. ROLL CALL Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair of Alameda Doug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda Absent: Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda 2. CONSENT CALENDAR 2-A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 6, 2006. Approval of 2 -A was motioned by Member dellaan, seconded by Member Matarrese and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes — 4; Noes -- 0; Abstentions —1. 2-B. Approval of Subleases at Alameda Point. Member deHaan had questions about two of the subleases due to their duration and requested information about the specific tenants, as well as an overview of current leasing prospects. Nanette Banks, Finance and Administration of DSD, explained that TransFreight Express wants to relocate their corporate headquarters and distribution center at Alameda Point. The other lease is to Makani for Building 19 to be used as R&D and office space. It is an alternative energy (wind -- based) company that may also be interested in using the runways for experiments. Leslie Little, Development Services Manager, indicated that there continues to be ongoing interest in the buildings at Alameda Point, but pointed out the obviously expensive building improvements necessary to make them usable, which tends to limit some potential businesses. Approval of 2 -B was motioned by Member deHaan, seconded by Member Matarrese and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes -- 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions —1. 2 -C. Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to Execute a contact agreement with WRT /Solomon E.T.C. in the amount of $250,000 to complete Station Area planning activities for Alameda Point. Member deHaan inquired about the source of the $250,000 and whether we are in a position today to approve the contract, given the master developer situation. Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, explained that this is pursuant to a $250,000 grant received from MTC — with City contribution of $3,000 -- for the purpose of more detailed planning of the transit node. To not go forward at this time means losing the grant. This study will impact future land development plans; traffic and transit issues will need to be addressed regardless of who the developer is. Page 2 There was one speaker on this item, Diane Lichtenstein, who praised the four workshops outlined in the contract and requested that after each workshop a summary report to be generated (perhaps in the local newspaper as well as the City's website). She also recommended expanding the scope of the ferry analysis beyond the half -mile radius of the station as presently indicated. She also requested that all drafts of the report be available electronically. Approval of 2 -C was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by Member dellaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes — 4; Noes -- 0; Abstentions —1. 3. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 3 -A. Status Report on East Bay Regional Park District Request for Long -Term Lease. Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, stated that, at the September ARRA meeting, East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) representatives Doug Siden and Mike Anderson indicated that EBRPD is ready to begin funding improvements at the 26 -acre Enterprise Park through the use of Measure AA and Proposition 12 money (totaling $500,000). A portion of the Proposition 12 funds (S100,000) specify that land must be secured by the end of this year, and the project must be completed and the money expended by the end of next year. It also requires a 20 -year lease on the land. According to the staff report, there could be a smaller, Phase 1 lease or a lease for the entire 26 acres. There are several other leases in place that encumber some portions of the 26 acres, including Alameda Soccer Club (until 2008) and the Hobby Shop (until 2010). Member D ayso g mentioned that 11 years ago, there was concern that EBRPD wanted an RV parking lot as part of their plan for this land. Ms. Potter confirmed that this is no longer an option. Doug Siden, elected EBRPD representative, reiterated the funding and timing requirements. He introduced Mike Anderson, Assistant General Manager, who presented a map of the proposed area and plans. It consists of 10.6 acres and excludes current leased properties. Ultimately, the District would like the entire 26 acres but could start with this plan. Proposed plans include family picnic sites, clean up of the tennis and basketball courts, development of the shoreline trail to tie to the existing beach area, and clean up of the beach and boat launch areas. Future plans include a natural planning resource area and interpretive center, as well as boating instruction at the marina. Chair Johnson pointed out that other community groups have looked at this site, and also questioned what would happen if the community would rather keep some of the facilities as they are. Mr. Anderson responded that if the City prefers to have more community input about use of this area, EBRPD could either use $100,000 of the funds somewhere else in order to not lose them -- trimming their ultimate project to $400,000 — or use that first $100,000 to simply clean up the beach area and shoreline trail. Chair Johnson stressed that more community feedback about what type of use for the area is preferable is needed before committing to a 20 -year lease. Member Matarrese felt that the primary areas to spend the $500,000 should be the beach, bay trail and picnic grounds. Mr. Anderson agreed that this should be doable and hoped to move Page 3 forward in negotiating a lease for these specific areas. Member deHaan expressed his desire that EBRPD continue to be involved in the area and asked how the funding stream would be maintaincd in the future. Mr. Anderson indicated that possibly a small assessment district would have to be established if the project becomes larger. Member Matarrese stated that he would like a long -tern commitment from EBRPD for the area. The consensus among ARRA members and EBRPD was the first priority is extending the Bay Trail from the boat ramp along the beach to the Hornet; if additional funds remain, the other areas will be considered. Member Matarrese motioned that EBRPD make improvements on the Bay Trail from the existing boat ramp as far north as possible, including cleaning up the beach. If additional funds remain, they would be used for the picnic area and former RV parking lot. Staff was directed to negotiate a lease with EBRPD to accomplish this. Member Daysog seconded the motion, and the motion passed unanimously. 3 -B. Alameda Point Project Update. Debbie Potter, Acting Alameda Point Project Manager, gave an Alameda Point update presentation to the Board. The presentation included a chronology of the 's negotiations with the Navy and an explanation to the community on how we went from "no cost" to paying $108.5 million for the Navy property. Ms. Potter also discussed the master developer, APCP's, election not to proceed with the project and presented staffs recommendation for an initial next step. Ms Potter summarized the genesis of how we got from a no cost EDC to a 108.5 million dollar purchase price: She explained how the 's PDC and the general plan call for over 3 million square feet of commercial development. In January 2004, however, the Navy sent a letter requesting that we submit a formal amendment to our "no- cost" EDC application to formerly make the case about why we felt like we continued to be eligible for a "no -cost" EDC. The Navy's letter further stated that it could not continue to work with us to negotiate on our early transfer without such an amendment. The letter also said that they were more than happy to negotiate a "for- cost" EDC with the ARRA. Because the Navy would be the ultimate entity to deciding whether or not we were still eligible for the no cost EDC and because they had clearly communicated to us that they felt we were no longer eligible and because legislation was in the works to preclude no cost EDC's in the future, the ARRA made a decision that it would be more effective if we sat down and negotiated with the Navy for a "for - cost "conveyance. We started our "New Beginnings" with the Navy in 2004 but the federal goverrunent also eliminated no cost economic development in 2004 and none of the bases that are closed as part of the BRAC 5 are going to eligible for a no cost economic development conveyance, most of those properties are going to be disposed of as is where is. So it took us a little over 2 years to negotiate with the Navy to prepare the PDC and to negotiate a land price. And in June of this year we concluded negotiations with the Navy with a draft term sheet that included a $108.5 million dollar purchase price. On September 21st, APCP withdrew from the project, citing the downturn in the residential market and that they could no longer support the $108.5 million line price given the land plan. Page 4 With that negotiation process and chronology behind us, and the withdrawal of our Master Developer, Staff is proposing, as the initial next step, that we test the market through a request for qualifications (RFQ) process with the current terns sheet. In the event that we are unable to identify a replacement development then we would work with the Navy on an alternate disposable strategy, most likely a public sale, an approach that the Navy had been taking of late. Chair Johnson asked about the on -going work with the Navy, in the event that a buyer under the current ternn sheet doesn't come forward. Ms. Potter answered that we will continue to run our leasing program, and the Navy will continue to run it's environmental clean up program. Chair Johnson also asked about the cost of working with the Navy to move forward with alternatives if a replacement developer isn't identified. Ms. Potter explained that the 's budget did consider a scenario where the master developer didn't go forward and staff is funded in the ARRA budget and consultants would probably need far fewer consultants then we've had when we've been in activity negotiations on a term sheet and those kind of things, but we would still need to work with our environmental consultant and our out side counsel, those costs are included in the 's budget. To answer Chair Johnson's question about what types of consultants would we still continue to need, Ms. Potter answered that we would continue to use an environmental consultant because we comment on all of the Navy environmental clean up documents. Chair Johnson asked if we should ask the Navy to pay for the consultants at that point. David Brandt, Deputy Executive Director, clarified that these are consultants that we use to protect the City's interest when it comes to the work that the Navy's doing on clean up as well as if there gonna be issuing opinions about the tidelands trust, then we need to have our experts weighing in about the tidelands trust and where were believe the legal issues are and those kinds of things. Member Daysog began a discussion regarding the 's no -cost EDC agreement with the United States Navy. He referenced several paragraphs of the Navy's letter to Debbie Potter dated April 7, 2003 regarding the basis for the Navy approval of a no cost EDC. Member Daysog is very concerned about the $108 million purchase price, stating that if APCP couldn't work it through, that it would be difficult to find a replacement master developer. He'd rather see the $108 million go toward public amenities that have been contemplated. The Chair, Boardmerbers and Staff discussed, at length, the challenges we faced and the available options we continue to deal with in order to move forward. Member deHaan and Chair Johnson discussed researching a concept that looks at phases in the future to anticipate changes in the market. The Board also expressed their interest in going back to a no -cost EDC [buiid less residential), but Ms. Potter explained that, according to the Navy, a no -cost EDC was dead, because a project that included less residential was not economically viable. She said, however, that if the ARRA desires, we could continue discussions with the Navy about convincing them that were still eligible for our no cost EDC. She further discussed that the ARRA does have an agreement, an executed MOA with the Navy, but that the Navy is going to require us to submit an amendment to that no cost EDC. Page 5 David Brandt further clarified the more fundamental legal problem which is, we would have to amend our EDC application and unfortunately, the Navy will argue that there's no more legal authority over a no cost EDC so we would be essentially be giving up our no cost EDC. Chair Johnson and Member Matarrese would like more information and analysis about whether we are legally able to hold the Navy to the existing no -cost EDC agreement. Member Daysog expressed the importance of involving the public so that the $108 million isn't spent on projects that veer so far away from the community resource reuse plan and the public amenities that have already been contemplated. Ms. Potter addressed Member Daysog's concern by noting that the negotiated price of $148.5 million was based on a profor na that provided fiscal neutrality, provided for the sports complex, provided for the open space, provided for 25% affordable housing, so all of the goals that has been identified over the years were taken into account and provided for with that land purchase price. Granted that tax increment was pledged to the project that was part of it too, but it provided in all of the transit, the shuttle, the ecopath is all of the things that have been talked about over the last several years, were all accounted for in the proforma that had the $108.5 million dollar land purchase price. Member deHaan asked about the process used at other closed military bases, including Mare Island and the Presidio. David Brandt explained that the Presidio was conveyed under a trust but that federal legislation is needed for that. Mr. Brandt said that we could approach our delegation to ask if that's feasible. The first speaker on this item, Pam Telschow, expressed how glad she was that the ARRA was going back to consider every option and that they are not just going to jump into looking for a new Master Developer. Chair Johnson expressed her opinion that she felt it was a remote possibility that another developer would just step right in where APCP left off. The second speaker, Helen Sause, also echoed Ms. Telschow's concerns and the direction of the Board, urging them to select and find those developers that have very deep experiences in commercial, light industrial retail, and other forms of development. She also suggested that the selection process involve the community. Chair Johnson wanted the public to have a full understanding that although the Development Services Dept. has received numerous inquiries, those inquiries may not be viable. The third speaker, Elizabeth Krase, recommended we find a master developer that would keep keeps more of the historic buildings. Member Matarrese commented that be is heartened by the attendance of tonight's meeting and that it's very important that we also look at the strength of our controls on the planning and our city restrictions on development. He further stated that the comments from the speakers are valuable and would like to see them translated into where we go forward. Member Daysog commented that it's absolutely vital for the City of Alameda through the ARIA. to continue to be a leader in converting the base and to not allow the Navy to be in the drivers seat through a public action process. There was further discussion about the caretaking of the property and requesting that the Navy return to those responsibilities. Debbie Potter summarized the direction from the Board and other issues to explore: researching the legality and shear logistics of the numbers to see if we can revert back to a no -cost EDC; the Page 6 parallel path of moving forward with an RFQ process to see if there is a developer who wants to step into the existing field; a public sale; federal legislation on a trust; caretaker issues, etc. A motion to initiate an RFQ and to reevaluate all other options discussed was motioned by Chair Johnson and seconded by Member dellaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes -- 4; Noes — 0; Abstentions — 0. 4. ORAL REPORTS 4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative. Member Matarrese attended the September 7t1 meeting, highlighting issues regarding additional radiological testing of sites 1,2, and 32. There was also an update on site 25, the Coast Guard north housing and a observation of a violation of the marsh crust ordinance (trenching and digging). Member Matarrese would like the City to investigate further. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) None. 6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY Per Member Matarrese's earlier discussion of the RAB meeting regarding Site 25, Member deHaan requested an update at the next regular ARRA meeting on the status of Site 25. 7. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Irma Glidden ARRA Secretary Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum November 1, 2006 TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Debra Kurita, Executive Director SUBJ: Recommendation to Approve Consultant Agreement with Moffatt & Nichol Engineers for Pier Condition Analysis at Alameda Point in an amount not to exceed $170,226 Background At the April 2006 ARRA meeting, the ARRA approved the 20 -year sublease with the Maritime Administration ( MARAD). As part of that lease, the ARRA requested that a condition assessment be done on the piers to ensure compliance with the lease requirements. Discussion The condition assessment plan for the piers at Alameda Point will require structural, civil, electrical and mechanical engineers as well as divers. Inspection of the above water and below water facilities will occur as well as structural assessments of the decks, moorings, and utilities. The final report will summarize the results of the assessments and note deficiencies in the facility. Three bids were received for the project from CH2M Hill ($410,000), Moffatt & Nichol ($170,226) and Power Engineering ($300,500). Moffatt & Nichol (M&N) has provided engineering services to Alameda Point on many occasions. In 1996, they were selected by competitive bid to provide a reliminar P y condition report on the piers for the Community Reuse Plan. In 1995, they were selected to prepare a Detailed Utility Study funded by the Office of Economic Adjustment. In 2004, M &N was selected to prepare a mooring plan for the USS Hornet at Pier 1. In addition to the request for a pier condition assessment, MARAD has requested that the ARRA examine the depth of the water adjacent to the piers. M &N will also perform that work as part of this contract. Fiscal Impact The proposed contract totals $170,226. The approved MARAD budget included an estimate of $150,000 for the pier condition study and anticipated $420,000 port services cost. In August, the ARRA approved $325,000 port contract, resulting in $95,000 savings. The additional $20,226 for the pier assessment will come from the cost savings. Recommendation It is recommended that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority approve the consultant agreement with Moffatt & Nichol Engineers for Pier Condition Analysis at Alameda Point. Agenda Item 2-B CC 11-1-06 -1 -06 ARRA Honorable Chair and Members of the November 1, 2006 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2 Leslie Little Development Services Director By: Nanette Bank Finance & Administration Manager DKILALiNB : do Attachments: Bid Analysis Proposed Contract with Moffatt & Nichol Project: Ira Realty Group REAL ESTATE SERVICES Bid Analysis Alameda Point Pier 1, 2 & 3 -- Inspection MARAD Lease Date: October 20, 2006 Prepared by: Mele Payne Lynch Director - Construction Based on: Moffatt & Nichols - Scope of Work Distribution: Nanette Banks (wl attach for approval) Manny Moreno (w /attach) SCnoe of Work: 1 )current search 2. Above water inspection 3. Underwater inspection 4. Above deck structural assessment 5. Mooring Hardware Assessment 6. Facility Assessment - civil 7. Facility Assessment - Electrical 8. Facility Assessment - Mechanical 9. Report 10. Attend Meetings Bids Received: Not exceed price Moffatt & Nichols Power Engineering CH2M Hill $170,226 $300,500 $410,000 Attachment 1 Agenda Item #2 -B Cc 11 -1 -06 ARRA CONSULTANT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this 1st day of November 2006, by and between the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a Joint Powers Authority, (hereinafter referred to as "ARRA"), and Moffatt & Nichol Engineers, a California corporation, whose address is 2001 North Main Street, Suite 360, walnut Creek, CA 94596 (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant "), is made with reference to the following: RECITALS: A. ARRA is a Joint Powers Authority established by the City of Alameda and the Community Improvement Commission under the California Joint Exercise of Powers Act and a public entity lawfully created and existing under the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted. B. Consultant is specially trained, experienced and competent to perform the special. services which will be required by this Agreement; and C. Consultant possesses the skill, experience, ability, background, certification and knowledge to provide the services described in this Agreement on the terms and conditions described herein. D. ARRA and Consultant desire to enter into an agreement to provide engineering services for FY2006 -2007 Condition Assessment of Piers 1, 2 and 3 for MARAD occupancy, upon the terms and conditions herein. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows: 1. TERM: The term of this Agreement shall commence on the 1st day of November 2006, and shall terminate on the 30th day of June 2007, unless terminated earlier as set forth herein_ 2. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED: Consultant shall perform each and every service set forth in Exhibit "A" which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 3. COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT: Consultant shall be compensated for services performed pursuant to this Agreement in the amount not to exceed $170,226.00 as set forth in Exhibit "A" which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 4. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE: Consultant and ARRA agree that time is of the essence regarding the performance of this Agreement. Moffatt & Nichol Engineers October- 2006 Attachment 2 Agenda item #2-B CC 11-1-06 ARRA Page 1 5. STANDARD OF CARE: Consultant agrees to perform all services hereunder in a manner commensurate with the prevailing standards of like professionals in the San Francisco Bay Area and agrees that all services shall be performed by qualified and experienced personnel who are not employed by the ARRA nor have any contractual relationship with ARRA. 6. INDEPENDENT PARTIES: ARRA and Consultant intend that the relationship between them created by this Agreement is that of employer - independent contractor. The manner and means of conducting the work are under the control of Consultant, except to the extent they are limited by statute, rule or regulation and the express terms of this Agreement. No civil service status or other right of employment will be acquired by virtue of Consultant's services. None of the benefits provided by ARRA to its employees, including but not limited to, unemployment insurance, workers' compensation plans, vacation and sick leave are available from ARRA to Consultant, its employees or agents. Deductions shall not be made for any state or federal taxes, FICA payments, PERS payments, or other purposes normally associated with an employer- employee relationship from any fees due Consultant. Payments of the above items, if required, are the responsibility of Consultant. 7. IMMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROL ACT (IRCA): Consultant assumes any and all responsibility for verifying the identity and employment authorization of all of his/her employees performing work hereunder, pursuant to all applicable IRCA or other federal, or state rules and regulations. Consultant shall indemnify and hold ARRA harmless from and against any loss, damage, liability, costs or expenses arising from any noncompliance of this provision by Consultant. 8. .NON -- DISCRIMINATION: Consistent with ARRA's policy that harassment and discrimination are unacceptable employer /employee conduct, Consultant agrees that harassment or discrimination directed toward a job applicant, a ARRA employee, or a citizen by Consultant or Consultant's employee or subcontractor on the basis of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, handicap, disability, marital status, pregnancy, sex, age, or sexual orientation will not be tolerated. Consultant agrees that any and all violations of this provision shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement. 9. HOLD HARMLESS: Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless ARRA, its Board, officials, employees, and volunteers ( "Indemnitees ") from and against any and all Loss, damages, liability, claims, suits, costs and expenses whatsoever, including reasonable attorneys' fees ( "Claims "), arising from or in any manner connected to Consultant's negligent act or omission, whether alleged or actual, regarding performance of services or work conducted or performed pursuant to this Agreement. If Claims are filed against Indemnitees which allege negligence on behalf of the Consultant, Consultant shall have no right of reimbursement against Indernnitees for the costs of defense even if negligence is not found on the part of Consultant. However, Consultant shall not be obligated to indemnify Indemnitees from Claims arising from the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of Indernnitees. Moffatt & Nichol Engineers October 2006 Page 2 As to Claims for professional liability only, Consultant's obligation to defend Inden.nitees (as set forth above) is limited to the extent to which its professional liability insurance policy will provide such defense costs. 10. INSURANCE: On or before the commencement of the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall furnish ARRA with certificates showing the type, amount, class of operations covered, effective dates and dates of expiration of insurance coverage in compliance with paragraphs 10A, B, C, D and E. Such certificates, which do not limit Consultant's indemnification, shall also contain substantially the following statement: "Should any of the above insurance covered by this certificate be canceled or coverage reduced before the expiration date thereof, the insurer affording coverage shall provide thirty (30) days' advance written notice to the ARRA by certified mail, Attention: Risk Manager." It is agreed that Consultant shall maintain in force at all times during the performance of this Agreement all appropriate coverage of insurance required by this Agreement with an insurance company that is acceptable to ARRA and licensed to do insurance business in the State of California. Endorsements naming the ARRA as additional insured shall be submitted with the insurance certificates. A. COVERAGE: Consultant shall maintain the following insurance coverage: (1) Workers' Compensation: Statutory coverage as required by the State of California. (2) Liability: Commercial general liability coverage in the following minimum limits: Bodily Injury: $500,000 each occurrence $1,000,000 aggregate -- all other Property Damage: $1.00,000 each occurrence $250,000 aggregate If submitted, combined single limit policy with aggregate limits in the amounts of $1,000,000 will be considered equivalent to the required minimum limits shown above. Automotive: Comprehensive automotive liability coverage in the following minimum limits: Bodily Injury: $500,000 each occurrence Property Damage: $100,000 each occurrence or Combined Single Limit: $500,000 each occurrence (4) Professional Liability: Professional liability insurance which includes coverage for the professional acts, errors and omissions of Consultant in the amount of at least $1,000,000. B SUBROGATION WAIVER: Consultant agrees that in the event of loss due to any of the perils for which he /she has agreed to provide comprehensive general and automotive liability insurance, Consultant shall look solely to his/her insurance for recovery. Consultant hereby grants to ARRA, on behalf of Moffatt & Nichol Engineers October 2006 Page 3 any insurer providing comprehensive general and automotive liability insurance to either Consultant or ARRA with respect to the services of Consultant herein, a waiver of any right to subrogation which any such insurer of said Consultant may acquire against ARRA by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. C. FAILURE TO SECURE: If Consultant at any time during the term hereof should fail to secure or maintain the foregoing insurance, ARRA shall be permitted to obtain such insurance in the Consultant's name or as an agent of the Consultant and shall be compensated by the Consultant for the costs of the insurance premiums at the maximum rate permitted by law and computed from the date 'written notice is received that the premiums have not been paid. D. ADDITIONAL INSURED: ARRA, its Board, officers, employees and volunteers shall be named as an additional insured under all insurance coverages, except any professional liability insurance, required by this Agreement. The naming of an additional insured shall not affect any recovery to which such additional insured would be entitled under this policy if not named as such additional insured. An additional insured named herein shall not be held liable for any premium, deductible portion of any loss, or expense of any nature on this policy or any extension thereof. Any other insurance held by an additional insured shall not be required to contribute anything toward any loss or expense covered by the insurance provided by this policy. E. SUFFICIENCY OF INSURANCE: The insurance limits required by ARRA are not represented as being sufficient to protect Consultant. Consultant is advised to confer with Consultant's insurance broker to determine adequate coverage for Consultant. 11. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Consultant warrants that it is not a conflict of interest for Consultant to perform the services required by this Agreement. Consultant may be required to fill out a conflict of interest form if the services provided under this Agreement require Consultant to make certain governmental decisions or serve in a staff capacity as defined in Title 2, Division 6, Section 1 8700 of the California Code of Regulations. 1 ? . PROHIBITI ON AGAINST TRANSFERS: Consultant shall not assign, sublease, hypothecate, or transfer this Agreement, or any interest therein, directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise, without prior written . consent of ARRA. Any attempt to do so without said consent shall be null and void, and any assignee, sublessee, hypothecate or transferee shall acquire no right or interest by reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer. However, claims for money by Consultant from ARRA under this Agreement may be assigned to a bank, trust company or other financial institution without prior written consent. Written notice of such assignment shall be promptly furnished to ARRA by Consultant. The sale, assi gnu-nent, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Consultant, or of the interest of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member or cotenant, if Consultant is a partnership or joint venture or syndicate or cotenancy, which shall result in changing the control of Consultant, shall be construed as an assi gnment of this Agreement. Control means fifty percent (500/o) or more of the voting power of the corporate on. Moffitt". . r Nichol Engineers October 2006 Page 4 13. SUBCONTRACTOR APPROVAL: Unless prior written consent from ARRA is obtained, only those people and subcontractors whose names and resumes are attached to this Agreement shall be used in the performance of this Agreement. In the event that Consultant employs subcontractors, such subcontractors shall be required to furnish proof of workers' compensation insurance and shall also be required to carry general, automobile and professional liability insurance in reasonable conformity to the insurance carried by Consultant. In addition, any work or services subcontracted hereunder shall be subject to each provision of this Agreement. 14. PERMITS AND LICENSES: Consultant, at his/her sole expense, shall obtain and maintain during the term of this Agreement, all appropriate permits, certificates and licenses including, but not limited to, a ARRA Business License, that may be required in connection with the performance of services hereunder. 15 . REPORTS: A. Each and every report, draft, work product, map, record and other document, hereinafter collectively referred to as "Report ", reproduced, prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant pursuant to or in connection with this Agreement, shall be the exclusive property of ARRA. Consultant shall not copyright any Report required by this Agreement and shall execute appropriate documents to assign to ARRA the copyright to Reports created pursuant to this Agreement. Any Report, information and data acquired or required by this Agreement shall become the property of ARRA, and all publication rights are reserved to ARRA. B. All Reports prepared by Consultant may be used by ARRA in execution or i npiementation of: (1) The original Project for which Consultant was hired; (2) Completion of the original Project by others; (3) Subsequent additions to the original project; and /or (4) Other ARRA projects as appropriate. C. Consultant shall, at such time and in such form as ARRA may require, film furnish reports conceding the status of services required under this Agreement. D. Al] Reports required to be provided by this Agreement shall be printed on recycled paper. All Reports shall be copied on both sides of the paper except for one original, which shall be single sided. E. No Report, information or other data given to or prepared or assembled by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall be made available to any individual or organization by Consultant without prior approval by ARRA. 16. RECORDS: Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by ARRA that relate to the performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Moffatt r Nichol Engineers October 2006 I'rrgU Consultant shall provide free access to such books and records to the representatives of ARRA or its designees at all proper times, and gives ARRA the right to examine and audit same, and to make transcripts therefrom as necessary, and to allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be kept separate from other documents and records and shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final pa mezt. If supplemental examination or audit of the records is necessary due to concerns raised by ARRNs preliminary examination or audit of records, and the ARRA`s supplemental examination . or audit of the records discloses a failure to adhere to appropriate internal financial controls, or other breach of contract or failure to act in good faith, then Consultant shall reimburse ARRA for all reasonable costs and expenses associated with the supplemental examination or audit. 17. NOTICES: All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Agreement shall be given in writing and conclusively shall be deemed served when delivered personally or on the second business day after the deposit thereof in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, registered or certified, addressed as hereinafter provided. Al] notices, deniai ds, requests, or approvals from Consultant to ARRA shall be addressed to ARRA at: Development Services D ep artn en t 950 W. Mall Square, 2nd Floor Alameda CA 94501 Attention: Nanette Banks Ali notices, demands, requests, or approvals from ARRA to Consultant shall be addressed to Consultant at: Moffatt & Nichol Engineers 2001 North Main Street, Suite 360 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Attention: Richard M. Rhoads, P.E 18. TERMINATION : In the event Consultant fails or refuses to perform any of the provisions hereof at the time and in the manner required hereunder, Consultant shall be deemed in default in the performance of this Agreement. If such default is not cured within a period of two (2) days after receipt by Consultant from ARRA of written notice of default, specifying the nature of such default and the steps necessary to cure such default, ARRA may terminate the Agreement forthwith by giving to the Consultant written notice thereof. ARRA shall have the option, at its sole discretion and without cause, of terminating this Agreement by giving seven (7) days' prior written notice to Consultant as provided herein. Upon termination of this Agreement, each party shall pay to the other party that portion of compensation specified in this Agreement that is earned and unpaid prior to the effective date of termination. Moffatt & Nichol Engineers October 2006 Page 6 19. COMPLIANCES: Consultant shall comply with all state or federal laws and all ordinances, rules and regulations enacted or issued by ARRA. 20. CONFLICT OF LAW: This Agreement shall be interpreted under, and enforced by the laws of the State of California excepting any choice of law rules which may direct the application of laws of another jurisdiction. The Agreement and obligations of the parties are subject to all valid laws, orders, rules, and regulations of the authorities having jurisdiction over this Agreement (or the successors of those authorities.) Any suits brought pursuant to this Agreement shall be filed with the courts of the County of Alameda, State of California. 71. ADVERTISEMENT: Consultant shall not post, exhibit, display or allow to be posted, exhibited, displayed any signs, advertising, show bills, lithographs, posters or cards of any kind pertaining to the services performed under this Agreement unless prior written approval has been secured from ARRA to do otherwise. 22 . WAIVER: A waiver by ARRA of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition contained herein, whether of the same or a different character. 23. INTEGRATED CONTRACT: This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or nature whatsoever between the parties hereto, and all preliminary negotiations and agreements of whatsoever kind or nature are merged herein. No verbal agreement or implied covenant shall be held to vary the provisions hereof. Any modification of this Agreement will be effective only by written execution signed by both ARRA and Consultant. 24. INSERTED PROVISIONS: Each provision and clause required by law to be inserted into the Agreement shall be deemed to be enacted herein, and the Agreement shall be read and enforced as though each were included herein. If through mistake or otherwise, any such provision is not inserted or is not correctly inserted, the Agreement shall be amended to make such insertion on application by either party. 25. CAPTIONS: The captions in this Agreement are for convenience only, are not a part of the Agreement and in no way affect, limit or amplify the terr s or provisions of this Agreement. Moffatt c Nichol Engineers s October 2006 Page 7 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused the Agreement to be executed on the day and year first above written. ALAMEDA REUSE & REDEVELOPMENT MOFFATT & NICHOL ENGINEERS AUTHORITY By: Title: Zir Debra Kurita Executive Director RECrOlVI/MNDED FOR APPROVAL: /- Leslie A. Little Development Services Director Nanette E*I'ani-(7s' Finance & Administration Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: eresa Higsm City Attorney Moffatt ct Nichol Engineers October 2006 Page 8 I()FTATI & NICHOL August 24, 2006 Ms. Nanette Banks Finance & Administration Manager Development Services Department City of Alameda, California 950 West Wall Square Alameda, CA 94501 -7552 2001 N. Main Street Suite 360 Walnut Creek, California 94596 (925) 944-5411 Fax (925) 944 -4732 Exhibit "A" Subject: 2006-2007 Condition Assessment of Piers 1 2 and 3 for MARAD M &N No. 04003 -18 Dear Ms. Banks: Moffatt & Nichol (M&N) proposes to provide engineering services to the City of Alameda (City) for the 2006 -2007 City Fiscal Year condition assessment of Alameda Naval Air Station Piers 1, 2 and 3 for MARAD occupancy. The work envisioned is multidiscipline and will involve the effort of structural, civil, electrical and mechanical engineers as well as divers. Ou r proposed scope of services and associated fee estimate are detailed below. SCOPE OF WORK M&N will provide condition assessment in conformance with MARAD's long terra safe layberthing requirements. These services are anticipated to include the following activities: O Document Search ® Above Water Inspection • Underwater Inspection • Above Deck Structural Assessment O Mooring Hardware Assessment • Facility Assessment — Civil O Facility Assessment — Electrical • Facility Assessment -- Mechanical O Report O Attend Meetings Document Search The first task will be document search to obtain any relevant, existing drawings or reports on the piers. Some preliminary searches have been made to the City of Alameda drawing room Nanette Banks, City of Alameda August 24, 2006 Page 2 but only a limited amount of useful information was obtained. Under fetter head of the City of Alameda, Moffatt & Nichol will request drawings from Southwest Division in San Diego. Above Water Inspection Moffatt & Nichol will visually inspect the piles (and sheet piles on Pier 1) above water, underside of the deck and below deck utilities to assess the general condition. This work will be done from a boat. Areas of pile or sheet pile damage will be flagged for subsequent underwater inspection. Field sketches will be made as needed to identify damaged or deteriorated areas and for subsequent reporting. Underwater Inspection We propose to inspect a representative sample of the piles below water. Pier 1 is approximately 650 feet long by 50 feet wide, Pier 2 is approximately 1,240 feet long by 80 feet wide and Pier 3 is approximately 1,360 feet long by 150 feet wide. Piers 2 and 3 are concrete pile supported while Pier 1 is a cellular type structure made up of sheet piles. Pier 2 has approximately 1,000 concrete piles. Pier 3 has approximately 4,450 concrete piles (based on the Dasse Report Dated Jan2, 1991). In additional to the concrete piles, we estimate that there are approximately about 1,700 timber fender piles total on Piers 1, 2 and 3. To perform an underwater inspection on all of the piles and sheet piles is a .major undertaking — on the order of 120 days of diving. We feel this level of inspection is not necessary to establish the general condition of the piers. For the pile support piers, we propose to perform Level 1 underwater inspection on approximately 5% of the structural concrete piles and Level 2 underwater inspection on approximately 1/2% of the structural concrete piles. Level 1 inspection is a visual 1 tactile inspection of the pile from the mudline to the water surface. Level 2 inspection involves cleaning the piles at three bands -- the mudline, midlevel and splashzone as well as a strip connecting the bands. The cleaned piles are then inspected for cracks or deterioration. For Pier 1, the sheet pile supported pier, we propose to visually inspect the entire underwater surface and measure the steel thickness remaining at 28 locations. The fender piles are generally considered as a wear item. A number of these piles will be difficult to inspect due to the moored vessels. We propose to perform a Level 1 inspection on approximately 10% of these piles to qualitatively establish the condition. The proposed underwater inspection effort is summarized below: Location Number of Level 1 Structural Piles Number of Level 2 Structural Piles Number of Sheet Pile Thickness Measurements Number of Level 1 Fender Piles Pier 1 N.A. N.A. 28 43 Pier 2 75 8 N.A. 52 Pier 3 200 20 N.A. 75 We propose to perform the diving using surface supplied air and hard hats. The dive team will consist of one diver, a standby diver and a dive tender/note taker. The dive duration is estimated at three weeks. The diver will relay information to the surface via microphone and receivers in the helmets. The standby diver will be prepared to enter the water in the event of C \Documents and Settings\nbanks,ODOiLoca1 Settirngs \Ter p\N • r ette Banks Q50824.doc Nanette Banks, City of Alameda August 24, 2006 Page 3 ird a loss of communication with the diver. The divers will swap duties after 4 hours of diving. We anticipate very limited visibility. Photographs of some representative conditions will be taken. Moffatt & Nichol will provide the City with an underwater inspection report summarizing our findings as part of the general assessment report described later. In the event that the City requires an inspection all piles, we will provide a fee once drawings are obtained and an accurate pile count determined. Deck Structural Assessment We will assess the structural condition of the deck by walking the deck and noting any areas of deterioration. Based on the design drawings, the vertical load capacity of the piers will be established and compared with MARAD requirements. in the event that drawings cannot be located then approximate calculations will be performed based on our measurements and the assumed conditions to determine if the pier satisfies MARAD load requirements. Mooring Hardware Assessment Mooring hardware will be compared with the drawings (if available) to establish their design capacity. In the event that no drawings are available, then the mooring hardware will be measured and compared with catalog information to deduce the probable capacities. Hardware in poor condition will be noted and the capacity reduced appropriately. Facility Assessment — Civil The Potable water capacity and sewer system will be evaluated based on observed condition. Flow rate for the potable water will be evaluated by tapping fixtures and measuring volumes. Facility Assessment — Electrical We understand that the City of Alameda has replaced the electrical service an piers 1 and 3 and is considering the replacement of the electrical service on pier 2. We assume electrical plans and specifications are available. The new electrical service should not require field condition assessment, but the plans will be compared with the MARAD requirements. The existing electrical service on Pier 2 is old. In the event that the City elects to keep this service in use, then Moffatt & Nichol with the assistance of a local electrical engineer will assess the condition and adequacy for MARAD's requirements. This on Pier 2 is considered an additive item to the scope. Facility Assessment -- Mechanical The adequacy of the existing hydrant system will be tested to determine if it satisfies MARAD's requirements. This work will be performed by a sub consultant. Report C: \Documents and Seltings\nbanks.000\Loca1 Settings \Temp \Nanette Banks 060824.doc Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum November 1, 2006 TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Debra Kurita, Executive Director RE: Alameda Point Project Update Background On October 4, 2006, staff provided the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) with a project update. The update included a chronology of negotiations with the Navy, a summary of APCP's election to withdraw from the project and an explanation of initial next steps. Following the presentation, the ARRA Board directed staff to initiate a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) process to determine if there is a qualified developer interested in assuming master developer obligations and rights pursuant to the draft conveyance term sheet negotiated with the Navy in June. Discussion The RFQ for an Alameda Point Master Developer was issued on Thursday, October 19, 2006. A press release notifying the public of the availability of the RFQ was released the same day. The RFQ was posted on the project web site (www.alarneda-point.com). The press release was posted on the City's web site with a link to the project web site. In addition, the national Association of Defense Communities, the base closure trade organization, published an article about the RFQ in its October 20 newsletter. There and will be a mandatory bidders conference on October 30th. Fifteen developers have submitted notices of Intent to Participate in the conference. Responses to the RFQ are due on December 4, 2006. Along with their qualifications material, the developers will be obligated to submit a non - refundable fee of $20,000 in order to be considered. Staff and an economic consultant will evaluate the Responses to identify qualified developers to recommend to the ARRA Board for an exclusive due diligence period to determine interest in the project. The ARRA Board will rank the qualified developers and award the top ranked developer an exclusive 45-day pert o d to further evaluate the project. During that period the selected developer will also be expected to negotiate a 24 -month exclusive negotiation agreement (ENA) with the ARRA. The selected developer will be required to submit a $100,000 deposit at the time of selection by the ARRA Board. If the selected developer and ARRA do not execute an ENA after 45 days, the selected developer will forfeit its $100,000 deposit and shall be disqualified from proceeding further in the selection process. Agenda Item 3 -A 11-1-06 ARRA Honorable Chair and Members of the November 1, 2006 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2 If the selected developer and the ARRA execute an ENA, the developer will be required to augment its S100,000 deposit by and additional S900,000 to achieve a total good faith deposit of $1 million. The $ 1 million will be refunded to the selected developer at the execution of a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA). If the selected developer does not execute a DDA with the ARRA within 24 months, the $1 Million deposit will be forfeited and the developer will be disqualified from proceeding further. If a selected developer is disqualified . at any time during the process, the ARRA will have the option of proceeding with the next highest ranking qualified developer or discontinuing the process and proceeding with the Navy through an alternate property disposal method. ARRA staff is continuing to evaluate the viability of alternative disposal strategies, including the existing no -cost EDC, and anticipates providing the Board with a comprehensive analysis prior to its next meeting in December. Fiscal Impact It is anticipated that all costs to evaluate the developer qualifications will be covered by the responder's $20,000 non - refundable deposits. Recommendation This report is for information only and no recommendation is required Respectfu w mitted, avid Brandt Assistant City Manager By: a e .bie 'tier Acting Alameda Point Project Manager DB : DP : sb Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum November 1, 2006 TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Debra Kurita, Executive Director RE: Background Alameda Point Environmental Renlediation Update: Western Shoreline IR Sites 1, 2, and 32, Soil at IR Site 25 (Coast Guard North Housing), and Compliance with Marsh Crust Ordinance At the October 4, 2006 ARRA Board meeting, several Board Members requested additional information about specific Installation Remediation Sites (IR Sites) at Alameda Point and the Marsh Crust Ordinance, which applies to portions of both Alameda Point and the former Fleet and Industrial Supply Center Oakland, Alameda Facility /Alameda Annex (FISCA). The discussion below provides an update for IR Sites 1, 2, 32, and 25. A follow -up of the reported violation of Alameda's Marsh Crust Ordinance is also provided. A map is attached that shows the locations of the various IR Sites. Discussion Western IR Sites IR Site 1 The 78 -acre IR-1, located at the northwestern most corner of Alameda Point, includes a 14.7 -acre landfill, which was used to dispose of most Naval Air Station wastes from 1943 until 1956. Originally, IR -1 consisted of the approximate footprint of the landfill, but its boundaries were later expanded to include the surrounding area encompassing all radioactivity detected during a radiological survey. The Navy has issued the Proposed Plan for IR Site 11 (11?-1 PP), the public comment period for which is September 27 to November 10, 2006, with a public meeting on October 24, 2006. The ARRA submitted written comments to the draft proposed plan on July 27, 2006 (copy attached). AAA' s two primary convents are: 1 Proposed Plan for IR Site 1, 1943 -1956 Disposal Area, Former NAS Alameda, Navy, September 2006. Agenda item 3 -B 11 -1 -06 ARRA Honorable Chair and Members of the November 1, 2006 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2 The landfill should be topped with an impermeable engineered cap, rather than the water - penneable soil cover that the Navy proposes; and 2. The proposed land use controls should not be imposed on the portions of IR -1 outside the footprint of the landfifled wastes, because sampling has not encountered any subsurface contamination beyond the landfill proper. Any contaminated surface soil is to be removed by the Navy as part of the IR -1 cleanup. Once this is done, there is no known reason to manage IR -1 land outside the landfill proper any differently than other land in the runways area that is not part of an unclosed IR site. The Navy did not incorporate the ARRKs comments in the IR -1 PP. The Navy is proposing a soil cover for the landfill. However, the 's environmental consultant's assessment is that an impermeable engineered cap would be more appropriate. This assessment is based on the fact that the cover's primary role would be to act as a physical barrier to isolate the buried wastes from contact by human and ecological receptors and that the soil cover would do little to retard downward percolation of precipitation into the landfill. Such precipitation inflow to the buried wastes could exacerbate potential contaminant migration through groundwater. CulTeltly, there is relatively little migration of wastes from the landfill through groundwater. However, if such contaminant migration were to increase in the future, EPA and DTSC may require upgrading to an impenneable engineered cap. For now, the environmental regulators have agreed to allow the Navy to use a soil cover coupled with an intensified groundwater - monitoring program. Unfortunately, if the soil cover ever had to be upgraded to a water - impermeable engineered ca p in the future, activities at the site, such as a possible golf course, would be severely disrupted for a year or more. The IR -1 PP proposes two institution controls, which are not necessary and would be a burden to future use of the land: • Prohibit demolition activities (including paved surfaces), unless transferees gain regulatory and Navy approval and comply with a risk management plan. • Restrict excavation and/or disturbance of soil in areas within the boundary of IR -1, but outside the landfill footprint, unless transferees gain regulatory and Navy approval and comply with a risk management plan. The first of these institutional controls would prohibit removal of the runway pavement, even outside the footprint of the landfill. The second institutional control causes IR -1 soil outside the landfill to be treated differently from the rest of the runway area, even though no subsurface soil contamination above regulatory screening levels was discovered during the remedial investigation. Both of the institutional controls could make it more cumbersome to build and maintain a future golf course at IR -1. Both the EPA and the DTSC agree with this ARRA comment on the draft proposed plan. The EPA recommends that the ARRA restate its argument as a formal comment on the final IR-1 PP, and it likely would be accommodated in drafting of the Record of Decision (ROD). Honorable Chair and Members of the November 1, 2006 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 3 IR Site 2 IR Site 2 is a closed landfall at the southwest corner of Alameda Point and is planned for transfer from the Navy directly to another Federal agency, such as US Fish and Wildlife Service or Veterans Administration. Accordingly, the ARRA has no future development plans at this site that might be affected by the nature of Navy remediation of the landfill. Given these circumstances, ARRA staff generally does not comment on IR Site 2 activities, but monitors the Navy's activities there. Environmental remediation activities at this site are also closely monitored by Federal and state wildlife agencies, as well as by EPA and DTSC. IR Site 32 The 6 -acre IR-32 is located immediately east of IR -1 along the south shore of the Oakland Inner Harbor. The Navy stored equipment, vehicle, scrap, and aircraft on open space in the eastern portion of the site prior to 1953. A storage and repair of underwater weapons occurred in Building 594 on the site. There are no documented releases of hazardous materials at IR -32. The Navy removed two underground fuel tanks in 1994. IR -32 was created to address VOCs detected in groundwater in conjunction with removal of the tanks. The Navy issued a draft remedial investigation report for IR Site 32 (IR -32)2 (IR -32 RI) in late September 2006, with comments due by November 27, 2006. The IR -32 RI includes the results of field sampling, a site-specific baseline human health risk assessment (HHRA), and a screening-level ecological risk assessment (ERA). ARRA staff does not plan to submit comments on the IR -32 RI based on a review of and concurrence on the document by its environmental consultant. Following the IR-32 RI, the Navy will prepare a feasibility study to evaluate options for remediating the human health risk for residential land use. In addition, the State Lands Commission, relying on advice of the DTSC, must find that contamination remaining at the site is compatible with. Tidelands Trust uses. Coast Guard Housing North IR Site 25 Soil The 46 -acre IR -25 includes Estuary Park, the Coast Guard Housing Management Office, and the currently unoccupied Coast Guard North Village Housing. The Navy has issued the Proposed Plan for IR Site 25 soil3 (IR --25 PP), the public comment period for which was August 21 through September 20, with a public meeting on September 12, 2006. The Navy plans to issue the draft ROD for IR -25 soil on December 20, 2006. The ROD likely will not require further soil removal by the Navy. However, future landowners may incur costs to test for and potentially to remove contaminated soil, especially when improved areas, such as buildings, pavement, and trees, are 2 Draft Remedial Investigation Report, IR Site 32, Northwest Ordnance Storage Area, Alameda Point, Alameda, California, prepared by Bechtel for the Navy, September 27, 2006. 3 Proposed Plan for IR Site 25 Soil, Former NAS Alameda, Navy, August 2006. Honorable Chair and Members of the November t, 2006 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 4 disturbed. Based on a review of the document and concurrence with the conclusions by the ARRA' environmental consultant, ARRA did not submit written comments on the IR -25 PP. IR -25 soil is contaminated with polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which were present in the dredge sediments that were used to fill the marsh formerly present at the site. About 67,000 cubic yards of PAH- contaminated soil from approximately 25.5 acres of the site was excavated and hauled away between November 2001 and September 2002. This is soil where the PAH levels were the highest in near - surface soil in unimproved areas (areas not overlain by buildings, hardscape, or trees). In an earlier removal effort, the Navy excavated approximately 300 cubic yards of soil to a depth of four feet beneath Cloverleaf Park, which is located within North Village Housing. The 112 -25 PP proposes institutional controls to remedy remaining PAHs in soil. Specifically, 1. Prohibit excavation of soil from depths greater than four feet in areas that are not covered by existing hardscape unless future landowner gains regulatory and Navy approval of, and complies with, a soil management plan (SMP). EPA and DTSC will require the future landowner to enter into an enforceable agreement for building removal and major site work. 2 Require the future landowner to gain written approval from the regulatory agencies and the Navy and comply with a SMP before the demolition or removal of hardscape, buildings, and structures (e.g., concrete roadways, parking lots, foundations, sidewalks) existing at the time of ROD issuance. EPA and DTSC will require the future landowner to enter into an enforceable agreement for building removal and major site work. Future property owners, not the Navy, will be responsible for the costs of r emediating P ed?s in soil in improved areas, when the buildings, hardscape, or trees are removed. It is anticipated that DTSC will require additional assurances regarding PAH concentrations in soil prior to development of this site. For example. • Bringing in additional soil, which may be in conjunction with construction needs (for example, surcharging), creating four feet of clean soil separation between residences and dredge _fill; • Collecting additional samples from each individual lot to ensure that the PAH concentration is not locally excessive; and/or • Additional excavation if an acceptable average PAH concentration is not achieved for each lot. Groundwater contamination at IR -25, primarily benzene and naphthalene, is being addressed separately from the soil contamination. The draft ROD for IR -25 groundwater was issued for regulatory agency review on September 8, 2006. Ma rs h Crust Ordinance The Marsh Crust Ordinance (City of Alameda Ordinance 2824, February 15, 2000) is one of several institutional controls used to avoid potential human health risk from contact with marsh crust contaminants. The ordinance requires that a permit be obtained from the Alameda Chief Building Honorable Chair and Members of the November 1, 2006 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 5 Official before excavating to depths at which marsh crust might be encountercd.4 A member of the Alameda Point RAB stated at a recent RAB meeting he has observed excavation operations conducted without a necessary permit pursuant to the Marsh Crust Ordinance. The City contacted the RAB member directly for additional details, but he had no specific information regarding any violations of the Marsh gust Ordinance. The Navy recently completed a five -year review of remedies implemented for marsh crust, including the Marsh Crust ordinance.5 The review process included interviews with persons involved with implementation of the Marsh Crust Ordinance. The Catellus interviewee noted that Catellus routinely asks the City of Alameda for permits before excavating into the marsh crust. None of the interviewees mentioned any violations of the Marsh Crust Ordinance. The Navy's five - year review includes the following finding: "No significant problems or concerns regarding the implementation of land use controls for the marsh crust and the former subtidal area materials underlying FISCA and Alameda Point over the past five years were identified during the interviews." Recommendation This report is for information only and no recommendation is required. espectf David Brandt Assis . t City Ma . ger By: D b.ie Pott=r Acting Alameda Point Project Manager DB:DP:sb Attachments: Map of IR Sites ARRA's Comment Letter on IR-1 PP 4 "No permit shall be required...for excavation associated with emergency repair of public infrastructure facilities; provided, however, that soil excavated from below the threshold depth...must be managed as though it were hazardous...." Marsh Crust Ordinance 13- 56.4.b. 5 Final Report, First Statutory Five -Year Review of Remedies Implemented for Part 1--- ---PCB and Cadmium Impacted Shallow Soils, Installation Restoration Site 02(IR02), Fleet and Industrial Supply Center Oakland, Alameda Facility /Alameda Annex (FISCA) and Part I.-Marsh Crust at Meet and Industrial Supply Center Oakland, Alameda Facility/Alameda Annex (FISCA), and Marsh Crust and Former Subtidal Area at Alameda Point, Alameda, California, prepared by CDM for the Navy, April 28, 2006. 6 three representatives from the City of Alameda, three from the Navy, one from the DTSC, one from the FISCA RAB, and one from Catellus 1 rh © 'a 3 • rt m Z* i 0 cw 0 03 m r tl�C 2 C r� >m 71 0 rnr ra cn . ... ..a: hl.4::'G7:IL.'.4§..W: iR..: :: W.4.: :: 4. : :iR':V ..'..�11E'.: -. 1....iitii:..:.3:..:g..c#:.:00,:gg..12.74:FgEti:@.:51:1, t,,:,:: PI�a`v alOU S a1VM li31103 ❑NVI 0E10E11 cm ❑ m • m ❑ m m ❑ m v 10 -0 v 13 w -o 73 CD ❑ ❑ 0 0 ❑ 0 Z m m m m m m S Z E c D W f�7 CO CO CO CO CO -C Z G) r r r r r r t-- r r- r- m m m m m m m m m m m� Z Z Z Z 2 Z Z Z Z 2 �� 0) T m w r-m r Z m unnU1s n a cr la O 0 nm 3 g n' m 0 0 2 13 fdd id A aNf O9 X115 V13H O July 27, 2006 City ofAiameda California Mr. Thomas L. Macchiarella BRAE Environmental Coordinator Navy BRAC Program Management Office 1455 Frazee Road, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92108-4310 Re: Comments on May 15, 2006 Draft Proposed Plan for IR Site 1, 1943- 1956 Disposal Area, Former NAS Alameda Dear Mr. elia: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Navy's May 15, 2006 Draft Proposed Plan for IR Site 1, 1 943-1 956 Disposal Area, Former NAS Alameda (PP). Although the original comment period for this draft document has passed, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) understands that the Navy has yet to finalize the PP due to its continuing discussions with environmental regulators. The ARRA offers the following comments. GENERAL COMMENTS I. The PP should disclose that the Navy has not conducted sampling and analysis to characterize subsurface soil in IR Site 1, including the landfill contents. The Navy's IR Site 1 investigation strategy contrasts with its approach in other IR Site remedial investigations at Alameda Point. Without such disclosure, the public likely will assume the Navy has formulated and selected the remedial alternatives based on thorough knowledge of subsurface conditions,. Public comments might urge a more conservative remedial alternative for Area 1 (the landfill proper), if the public were aware of the uncertainty surrounding subsurface conditions. i)evelopment Services Department )5O \West Mall Square Alameda, California 94501-7552 '510.749.5800 * Fax 510749.5808 • T1)L) 510.522.7538 Attachment 2 Agenda Item #3-B 11-1-06 ARRA 0 Printed on 1?ecyried Paper Mr. Thomas L. Macchiarella July 27, 2006 Pg. 2 of 4 In contrast, the lack of subsurface characterization deprives decisionmakers and public commenters of a basis for deciding whether subsurface remediation, including institutional controls, is appropriate in areas other than Area 1. Currently, there is no documentation of subsurface soil contamination in these areas. None of the soil samples from deeper than two feet bgs (below ground surface) in IR Site 1 (other than in Area 1) exceed any USEPA PRGs (Preliminary, Remediation Goals). Potentially overly protective institutional controls should not be a substitute for a thorough remedial investigation. Remedial Alternatives 52-3 (a preferred alternative), S2-4, 53-4 (a preferred alternative), S5-4 (a preferred alternative), 55-5, and S5-6 are examples of this issue. These alternatives generally require institutional controls restricting contact with subsurface soils, even after the Navy remediates the surface soil, despite the absence of documentation that subsurface soils are contaminated. Imposing the burden of institution controls on land that does not require remediation would not be a cost-effective remedy. 2. The PP should more accurately state the implications of IR Site l's Tidelands Trust status. IR Site 1 is entirely within the Tidelands Trust, which is administered by the State Lands Commission (SLC). Tidelands Trust status restricts land uses to those that are water-related—for example, water-related commerce, navigation, fishing, habitat conservation, bathing, swimming, boating, general recreational purposes, and visitor-serving facilities, such as restaurants, hotels, shops, and parking areas. The SLC requires remediation of IR Site 1 to support Tidelands Trust uses. The SLC likely will look to the DTSC for guidance about whether the level of remediation at IR Site 1, including institutional controls, is appropriate for such uses. 3. As stated in ARRks comments on earlier IR Site 1 documents, the ARRA believes the Navy should install an engineered cap, rather than a soil cover, over the landfilled waste. This conclusion derives from the uncertainty that a soil cover will be effective into the future, coupled with the severe disruption of golf course operations that would occur if the Navy installs an engineered cap due to remedy failure after Alameda builds the golf course. SPECIFIC COMMENTS 1. Remedial Investigation and Prior Feasibility Studies and Removal Action Summary (p. 3) The text should disclose that the Navy has not characterized subsurface conditions in the landfill footprint through Mr. Thomas L. Macchiarella July 27, 2006 Pg. 3 of 4 sampling and analysis, except for Area lb. The Navy has collected and analyzed eight soil samples from Area 3 from below 2 feet bgs and three soil samples from Area 5. Although the Navy analyzed these samples for a wide suite of analytes, none of the results exceeds the USEPA PRGs. No soil samples from deeper than 2 feet bgs were analyzed from Areas 2 or 4. 2. Remedial Action Objectives (p. 6, left column, middle) The text states: "IR Site 1 is within the boundary of the public trust land at Alameda Point, which may not be used for general purpose industrial, retail, or commercial space; offices; or housing." It is ambiguous whether "general purpose" refers to retail and commercial space as well as industrial space. Further, offices would be an allowed use, provided they support water-related activities. A more accurate wording of this sentence would be "IR Site 1 is within the boundary of the public trust land at Alameda Point, which must be used for activities that are water-related—for example, water-related commerce, navigation, fishing, habitat conservation, bathing, swimming, boating, general recreational purposes, and visitor-serving facilities, such as restaurants, hotels, sho s and arkin areas." (changed portions are emphasized) 3. Preferred Alternatives, Alternative S1-4a for Soil Area 1 (p. 15, right. column, middle). The text should not overstate the certainty of long- term effectiveness of this remedial alternative for Area 1 (the landfill proper). The text states the following is a key point upon which the Navy bases its preference for this alternative: "Permanently removes some contamination and prevents further migration of remaining contamination." Because the Navy has not characterized subsurface conditions in Area la, it is uncertain that the remaining wastes, which may include buried drums, will not migrate in the future. A more accurate way of formulating this sentence might be: "Permanently removes some contamination and helps prevent further migration of remaining contamination." (changed portion is emphasized) Thank you for considering the ARRA's comments. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me or Peter Russell at (415) 492-0540. Sincerely, D bie Potter Base Reuse and Community Development Manager