Loading...
2007-10-03 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 1. ROLL CALL 2. CONSENT CALENDAR Wednesday, October 3, 2007 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. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of September 4, 2007. 2 -B. Approve Three -Year Sublease for Sustainable Technologies at Alameda Point. 2 -C. Approve the Waiver of License Fee for Alameda Unified School District Student Activities. 2 -D. Authorize the Executive Director to Amend the Consultant Agreement with Trident Management, Inc. to Modify Exhibit C and Accommodate Technical Changes. 3. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 3 -A. Presentation by Friends of the Wildlife Refuge - An Update of Their Activities at Alameda Point. 3 -B. Alameda Point Project Update - oral report 3 -C. Approve and Submit Comment Letter on the Draft Record of Decision for Installation Restoration Site 1 (1943 -1956 Disposal Area). 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 ARRA Agenda — October 3, 2007 Page 2 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. UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Tuesday, September 4, 2007 The meeting convened at 9:34 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding. 1. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Beverly Johnson Boardmember Doug deHaan Boardmember Frank Matarrese Boardmember Marie Gilmore Vice Chair Lena Tam 2. CONSENT CALENDAR 2 -A. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of August 7, 2007. 2 -B. Approve Two -Year Sublease for Architectural Glass & Aluminum at Alameda Point. 2 -C. Approve the Proposed Sale and Disposition of Surplus Property at Alameda Point, Itemized as Five Rapid Electric Rectifiers, One Industrial Oven, Two Abrasive Blasters, and One Abar Ipson IVD Machine, for a Total Amount of $84,000 in Revenue to the ARRA. 2 -D. Approval to Provide Building 24 for No Cost for Alameda Boys & Girls Club Fundraiser. Member deHaan pulled Item 2 -D. Approval of the balance of the Consent Calendar was motioned by Member deHaan, seconded by Member Matarrese and passed by the following voice votes: 5 ayes, 0 noes, 0 abstentions. Member Gilmore abstained from Item 2 -A (Aug. 7 Minutes), as she was absent from that meeting. Member deHaan asked why Item 2 -D was brought before the ARRA on short notice. Debbie Potter, Base Reuse & Community Development Manager, explained that the ARRA Board meets once a month, and often times requests come through, particularly from non - profits or small businesses that might not be familiar with the steps and processes necessary to approve their requests. Their lack of familiarity that any requests would have to come to the board is the reason for the short notice, and as soon as the request was received, it was placed on the agenda. Ms. Potter further explained that it is not unusual to take and approve requests for fee- waivers from non - profits; but in the past, this was done administratively, and just more recently, the policy was to bring these requests to the ARRA. Member deHaan motioned to approve Item 2 -D, seconded by Member Tam, and passed by the following voice votes: 5 ayes, 0 noes, 0 abstentions. 3. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 3 -A. Alameda Point Update -- Presentation of Master Project Schedule Prepared by SCC Alameda Point LLC Debbie Potter summarized the Alameda Point project to date and introduced Pat Keliher, SunCal's Project Manager, to present the Master Project Schedule. The ENA calls for the master plan to be prepared initially, and updated on a quarterly basis and presented to the ARRA. The first update of the Master Schedule will be presented in the Dec. - Jan. timeframe. Pat Keliher walked through highlights of the Project Master Schedule and explained that the schedule was put together in a logical manner, first with the public planning process, which clearly is important to set the stage for a final development plan. The first community meeting will be scheduled very soon, and consist of land, site, design constraints and charettes. The second stage of public process includes returning back to the public to present a development concept. Mr. Keliher emphasized how critical it is to remain consistent and continue the public process throughout the project timeline. Next critical item on the schedule is the traffic, location, and infrastructure impacts of the VA issue and scope of their project. Mr. Keliher stated that SunCal began early on working together with the VA. The next key phase is the Planning and Entitlement phase where the development concept, public amenities, adaptive reuse, and historic district issues are refined. Mr. Keliher explained that SunCal has met with members of the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS), and with Chris Buckley and Richard Rutter, to evaluate buildings and uses in the historic district. SunCal's next key item on the schedule is the submittal of the Entitlement Application in March 2008. Mr. Keliher did not go into detail with the balance of schedule which includes the DA, DDA, CAA, Business Plan, MOA, Tidelands Trust Agreement, etc. He further explained that the NEPA & CEQA processes can't start until project description is in place. He expressed how critical the next three to six months are and that SunCal is committed to meeting the milestones. Member Matarrese focused on the zoning issue and asked when Zoning will be adopted. He requested that the Zoning is put under the control of the City and is locked so that the City protects itself. Debbie Potter explained that the city anticipates the entitlement package (Development Agreement, Disposition and Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Zoning amendment, and Master Plan) will all come together as one package, and, pursuant to the ENA allows this in July 2009. One of the mandatory milestones is the submittal of an initial entitlement package by May 2008, which will trigger the CEQA process. David Brandt, Deputy Executive Director, explained that the milestone is not an actual exchange, just a framework agreement of how we'll proceed. Chair Johnson requested it is made clear that the milestone is a framework. Mr. Brandt further explained that once the CEQA process is complete, the City Council can then adopt Zoning, but legally it cannot be done without an environmental review process. Member Matarrese expressed concern about zoning changes and that any changes have to go thru the City so that it is not left open if the Navy decides to change the rules. Debbie Potter explained that the intent is to execute all required documents simultaneously such that we protect our existing position as our role as the trustee. Ms. Potter assured that she will discuss with the Planning dept. about whether or not the existing EIR done for the General Plan Amendment is sufficient, or whether we will have to undertake additional environmental review. An update on this issue will be reported at the Oct. ARRA meeting. Member deHaan asked if the Navy will be able to meet the timeline, and if not, what the consequences are. David Brandt stated that we cannot guarantee that the Navy will perform and we cannot control third party delay. Debbie Potter stated that we should be hearing from the Navy about the schedule in the next day or so. Member Gilmore commented that our sense of urgency does not match the Navy's and that they need to come to the realization that time is money for everyone involved. The costs of construction, infrastructure, etc. makes the project difficult, and the factors that affect our developer, and would affect any developer, affects the Navy as well. Pat Keliher stated that SunCal has a tactical strategy to deal with the Navy — that they have a streamlined process of sharing technical studies and other documents that underpin the CEQA & NEPA processes; but that there are still a lot of unknowns, including whether there will be funding for clean -up. Chair Johnson compared the Oaknoll site to Alameda, that Oaknoll was a clean site without Tidelands Trust issues. Mr. Keliher reiterated SunCal's commitment to the challenging, but necessary task, stating that SunCal would work with the City of Alameda, their consultants and lobbyists, to deal with the changing climate ahead that may affect things moving forward. The Board thanked Mr. Keliher and SunCal for presenting the Master Project Schedule and expressed it was a job well done. 4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) There were no speakers. 5. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY None. 6. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 10:07 p.m. by Chair Johnson. Respectfully submitted, rma Glidden ARRA Secretary Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum October 3, 2007 TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Debra Kurita, Executive Director RE: Approve Three -Year Sublease for Sustainable Technologies at Alameda Point BACKGROUND The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) governing body approves all Alameda Point subleases with a lease term greater than one year. The proposed sublease for Sustainable Technologies is for three years. DISCUSSION Attachment A describes the business terms for the proposed sublease for Sustainable Technologies. This lease is a renewal lease for Building 163. The rent for SUSTAINABLE TECHNOLOGI NS is $67,980 annually, or $0.47 per sq. ft. in the first year, with a 3% increase each year in subsequent years for light manufacturing, research and development space, and small administrative office space. Building 163 is in fair condition. BUDGET CONSIDERATION / FINANCIAL IMPACT The lease is expected to raise $67,980 in the first year. These funds will be retained by the ARRA. RECOMMENDATION Approve the proposed sublease agreement. Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority By: DK/LAL/NB:dc October 3, 2007 Page 2 of 2 Respectf ly su.mitted, Leslie Little Development Services Director Nanette Banks Finance & Administration Manager Attachment: A. Proposed Sublease Business Terms B. Site Map ATTACHMENT A PROPOSED SUBLEASE BUSINESS TERMS TENANT BUILDING SIZE (SF) TERM RENT Sustainable Technologies 163 12,156 3 yrs $5,665/mo. ATTACHMENT B / C6' 7-4 0.2 LC) NIA.VHXNS 1 I cq 0 CO 0 8 co CO 609 ,LaaaLS ONIXIA RIO d Sustainable Technologies Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum October 3, 2007 TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Debra Kurita, Executive Director RE: Approve the Waiver of License Fee 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 Alameda High School wants to use Hangar 12 for its Homecoming activities October 15 -18 and has requested a waiver of the license fee. Since the High School regularly makes the request for the hangars and fee waivers, staff is seeking approval of an 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 all regulations when occupying Alameda Point building. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT The license fee for this type of event is $1,000 per day. RECOMMENDATION Approve the waiver of the license fees for Alameda Unified School District student activities. Res •ectf ,lly subm)ted, By: DKILAL✓NB:dc Leslie Little Development Services Director anette B Finance & Administration Manager Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum October 3, 2007 TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Debra Kurita, Executive Director SUBJ: Authorize the Executive Director to Amend the Consultant Agreement with Trident Management, Inc., to Modify Exhibit C and Accommodate Technical Changes BACKGROUND In September 1996, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency (ARRA) Governing Body directed the Executive Director to negotiate and execute a port management and maintenance contract with Trident Management, Inc., for port services at Piers 1, 2, and 3. Since that time, Trident has served as the ARRA's port manager. The original contract expired in 2002 and then was active on a month -to -month status until September 2006. At that time, the ARRA executed a three -year consultant agreement with Trident to provide port services at Alameda Point. Trident and ARRA staff now propose to modify that agreement slightly and have prepared an amendment to the contract for ARRA consideration. DISCUSSION Since the Alameda Naval Air Station closed, Trident Management, Inc., has served as the port manager for the ARRA. Port management services are necessary to service the Navy and Maritime Administration (MARAD) ships at Alameda Point and are also a specific requirement of the MARAD lease. Trident uses former Navy equipment and vehicles that are now owned by the ARRA, including four barges, to perform port services. Over the past year, the City's Alameda Oakland Ferry Service (AOFS) was required to lease a barge to augment its physical docking facilities. Modifying Exhibit C of the consultant agreement (attached) will remove one YC Barge, 110' x 33'x 9' in size, and enable ARRA to license the barge to the ferry service. Purchasing a new barge of this dimension would cost the AOFS approximately $1.2 million The other contract modifications include: 1. Allowing Trident to assign their management interest in the agreement to NRC Environmental Services, Inc., or a similarly qualified business entity of equal or greater experience, resources, and abilities in environmental services. Trident is currently prohibited from altering its management makeup by shifting more than 50% of the management. 2. Removing the requirement for pre - approval of the substitution of employees. Many years have passed since Trident was first created, and ARRA staff is primarily concerned with the qualification of Trident's management, not the composition of general employees. 3. Assuming the expense of insuring Buildings #15, #601, #617(a) and #68. The Navy assigns no value to Buildings 617(a) and 601, and according to the City's Risk Manager, Buildings 15 and 68 can be added to the ARRA's general insurance inventory for $200. It does not make sense to have Trident seek a separate policy for these buildings on the open market. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT The cost for the minor contract changes is $200 for insurance. RECOMMENDATION Authorize the Executive Director to Amend the Consultant Agreement with Trident Management, Inc., to Modify Exhibit C and Accommodate Technical Changes. Leslie Little Development Services Director Attachment: Exhibit C of the Trident Agreement EXHIBIT C Trident Management, Inc. Port Services Equipment Estimated Values /Mission Essential Equipment 1') 7 40 'Ion Ciro.. Hydraulic Crane TMS300t3 1967 I_ Tim Grove Rough Terrain Crane P Ffitifl 1082 50' I'ushet Tug Marinette Marine. 2 6-71 L) rrorr Diesels 1982 50' Pusher Tug Marinette Marine. 2 u -71 Detroit Ln'.scls 1976 SWO B 39 Tunk Rargu - 109' x 26' >. 6' 1976 S \ \'OR 21 Tank Barge - 100' , 26' x 6' 1976SWUB22 Tank Barge - 109'x26'x6' 1989 Oil Room Platform Barge •10' x 12' 2 1001 -IP HPV4 Evcnirujc oih 1973 Dip 3001 Oil Rccos:cry Vessel - .IRF Scientific Corp. 16' 9' YC Barge. huilt in 1940's - 110' x 33' x 9' 1988 24' Harbor Bout Peterson Builders - 2 1086 Johnson 155 HP orb 1996 21' Boston Whaler Boat - 2 1993 Evinrude V4 115 HP oih 1996 21' Roston Whaler Roat - 2 1993 Fvinntdc V4 115 I IP u/b 1993 19' Boston Whaler Boat - 2 1993 Evinrude \'4 115 HP oih 1992 25' Boston Whaler - 2 1992 Evinrude 200 HP o/h Poti.cr Litt 20,000 Ib. l orkhl - Model PDF 20 lljn.er 15,000 IL Forklift - Model 11150E Hvstcr 15.000 lb. Forklift - Model HI 50F 1ls -dcr 6,000 lb. Forklift - Model 1160XLMt. Mitsubishi 4,000 lb. Forklift - Model 550 -SS 60' Condor Manlift - Model 6608 60' Condor ti•I anlitt - Mndcl 0608 Industrial Tow 1 ractur 1987 GMC. Sierra 3500 Stake Truck I errant Sweeper - Model 265 1993 Freightliner FLS0 Vacuum Truck - 2,000 gallon Estimated fair market values bused on preixiou, :appraisals, reference to interne' sales (itc f it industrial equipment. and other marketing reference, ATTACHMENT 1 Estimated ,ceded fur Value' \la r' \d Cuntra,:1° 535,000 s CS 515.000 ?45.000 gat 5I 11.000 550,000 510,000 510.000 1'c SI0,000 Y._s '130.000 Ye, 540.000 t. e, 5;12.000 c> S12.000 r es 512.000 Yes 57.000 No 511.000 — Yes 55.001) N„ 57.000 t -,_ 55.0011 cr. CF 3.000 5:3,1100 t -_s 54.000 e, 52 000 No 1.00)) t "rs 51.090 t es 5;0rt No 52.000 '1 es 515.000 �._ 5339.300 Buildinri # Purpose 15 Administrative offices. boat and equipment storage 601 Equipment storage 617A Equipment storage 68 Maintenance shop Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum October 3, 2007 TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Debra Kurita, Executive Director RE: Approve and Submit Comment Letter on the Draft Record of Decision for Installation Restoration Site 1 (1943 -1956 Disposal Area). BACKGROUND On November 9, 2006, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) commented on the Navy's September 2006 Proposed Plan for Installation Restoration (IR) Site 1. ARRA's comment letter urged removal of all wastes for subsequent offsite disposal, citing potentially large amounts of hazardous industrial wastes, including intact drums that have yet to leak and release their contents, and proximity to the San Francisco Bay. On April 11, 2007, the Navy issued its draft Record of Decision (ROD) for IR Site 1 for review and comment by the Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC) Closure Team (BCT), which is composed of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), and the Water Board. As with its Proposed Plan, the Navy's draft ROD prescribed leaving most of the waste in place under a four -foot thick soil cover. In June 2007, ARRA requested that EPA require the Navy to conduct further investigation of the former waste disposal area at IR Site 1 before remedy selection. As a result, EPA, DTSC, and the Navy designed a trenching program for the Navy to better estimate the landfill's volume and evaluate whether the landfill contains intact drums. Now that the trenching has been completed, better - informed decision making at IR Site 1 is possible. DISCUSSION Results of Trenching Investigation The Navy trenched each of the seven landfill "cells" with a total of eleven, widely distributed trenches. The fieldwork was completed on September 12, 2007. Only preliminary trenching results are available at this time. Each trench was twenty -five feet long, three feet wide, and six to eight feet deep. The aggregate trench volume was more than 200 cubic yards. Depth to groundwater ranged from five and a half feet to eight feet below ground surface. No intact drum or ordnance was found. Low -level radioactivity was observed in all but two or three trenches. According to the trench logs, the observed debris consisted of bricks, concrete, glass, metal, rubber, telephone poles, and wood. Oily soil was noted in one trench, and discoloration was sometimes encountered. Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Landfilled Drums October 3, 2007 Page 2 The potential prevalence of intact drums was one of ARRA's key concerns and a basis of ARRA's request to EPA for further investigation. The trenching work has provided the required information to confirm the status of waste drums. No intact drums appeared in any of the trenches. However, a drum "carcass" was encountered in one trench. Although the complete absence of any intact drums can be verified only by exploring the landfill in its entirety, the likelihood of buried, intact drums is greatly reduced because none were found in any of the trenches. Volume of Landfilled Waste A second major concern addressed by ARRA's June 2007 letter to EPA was the total volume of buried wastes. In comparison to historical records, an overestimated waste volume is used in the IR Site 1 Feasibility Study's (FS) costing of the alternatives. The preliminary nature of the trenching results prevents resolution of the waste volume concern. However, regardless of the volume, the trenching results demonstrate that a substantial portion of the buried waste has low - level radioactivity. The occurrence of low -level radioactivity has a least two important ramifications on the cost of excavating and removing the landfill. First, unit disposal costs at an offsite landfill would be much greater than estimated in the FS. Second, health and safety procedures needed to excavate material with low -level radioactivity represent a costly line item that was not recognized in the FS. Therefore, even if the volume of waste is less than assumed in the FS, the total cost of its excavation with offsite disposal likely will be of the same order of magnitude as estimated in the FS due to low -level radiation in the waste. Implications for Excavation and O(site Disposal of the Former Waste Disposal Area The founer waste disposal area at IR Site 1 appears not to contain any intact drums or other containers. Further, wastes observed in the trenches are largely inert: bricks, concrete, metal, rubber, wood, etc. The low -level radioactivity of some of the buried waste would make excavation and offsite disposal much more costly than it otherwise would be. A four -foot soil cap over the former waste disposal area should protect ecological receptors and future recreational users of IR Site 1. Accordingly, the need to excavate the former waste disposal area and dispose of its contents offsite is significantly diminished. Institutional Controls at IR Site 1 The draft ROD for IR Site 1 would require institutional controls (ICs) throughout the site. However, one of the ICs, which concerns restrictions on land- disturbing activities, is unnecessary for some areas of the IR site. Specifically, ICs would require maintenance of pavement and prior Navy and regulatory agency approval before digging or other land- disturbing activities are conducted. This IC is suitable where buried wastes and contaminated soil are present. For some portions of IR Site 1, all wastes and contaminated soil are to be excavated and removed as part of the remediation (Areas lb and 3) or were not present in the first place (Area 2a). Such an IC provision would be burdensome for construction, operation, and maintenance of future recreational facilities, with no commensurate protection of public health or the Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority October 3, 2007 Page 3 environment. Therefore, there is no technical basis for the Navy to require the institutional control at Areas lb, 2a and 3. RECOMMENDATION Finalize and submit the attached draft comment letter on the Navy's April 11, 2007, draft ROD for IR Site 1. The comment letter requests that there be no institutional controls restricting land - disturbing activities in areas that are free of wastes and contamination. No further comment concerning excavation and offsite disposal of the former disposal area wastes is recommended. I;Zesppcfully submitted, Leslie Little Development Services Director By: Debbie Potter Base Reuse and Community Development Manager Attachment: Draft comment letter on the Navy's April 11, 2007 draft ROD for IR Site 1 October 4, 2007 Mr. Thomas L. Macchiarella BRAC Environmental Coordinator Navy BRAC Program Management Office 1455 Frazee Road, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92108 -4310 Re: Comments on the April 11, 2007 Draft Record of Decision for Installation Restoration Site 1, 1943 -196 Disposal Area, Alameda Point, Alameda, California Dear Mr. Macchiarella: Thank you for providing the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) with a copy of the Navy's April 11, 2007 Draft Record of Decision for Installation Restoration Site 1, 1943- 1956 Disposal Area, Alameda Point, Alameda, California (ROD). At its meeting on October 3, 2007, the ARRA Board directed staff to submit the following comments. The remedy for IR (Installation Restoration) Site 1 must be appropriate for recreational use, without placing unnecessary burdens on the users. The Navy is right to clean much of IR Site 1 of all contamination (Areas lb, 2a, 3, and 4). The Navy is going to the effort of completely cleaning the soil in these areas, as it was prior to the Navy's tenancy; therefore, it is not necessary to restrict future recreational contact with this soil as though it were still contaminated through the imposition of Institutional Controls (ICs). Area 4 is the only one of the four Areas noted above without ICs restricting land - disturbing activities. The other three areas should not be burdened through the imposition of land- disturbance ICs. Residential land use is not planned for any portion of Installation Restoration Site 1. The Navy's response to ARRA Comment 1 on the IR Site 1 Proposed Plan erroneously suggests that ARRA's comment is related to future residential use. "Although the Navy believes that proposed soil excavation and removal in areas outside Area la should remove all hazardous substances posing unacceptable risk for planned recreational reuse and ecological receptors, there is some remaining uncertainty regarding the potential presence of residual concentrations of chemicals in soil presenting unacceptable risk receptors under to (sic) other future scenarios (for example, the residential scenario)." (ROD, p. C -3, Attachment C. emphasis added) Reference to the residential use scenario in the Navy's response to ARRA's comment is irrelevant and suggests the Navy misunderstands ARRA's concerns. ARRA's comment takes issue with restrictions on contact with subsurface soil during non - residential use only. Residential use is not planned for IR Site 1. Additionally, because all of IR Site 1 will be Public Trust lands after title is transferred to a non - Federal entity, land use must be consistent with maritime uses, and residential use is specifically forbidden. ARRA is not opposed to ICs restricting residential use in IR Site 1; they would be redundant with pre- existing restrictions. Neither ARRA's comments on the Proposed Plan nor the following comments should be interpreted to suggest otherwise. 2. The proposed ICs for Area 1b (the burn area), for Area 2a, (the paved area outside of and south and east of Area 1), and for Area 3 (the unpaved areas outside of the former disposal area) should not require regulatory and Navy approval before conducting land- disturbing activities. 1) After remediation, Areas lb, 2a, and 3 will have no contamination. Areas lb and 3 will be completely cleaned. "Soil Alternative S1 -4a [the selected remedy] for Area 1 includes...excavating and disposing of all contaminated soil and waste material from [Area lb] off site...." (ROD, p. 12 -3, Section 12.2.1.1, emphasis added) "Selected soil areas where chemicals exceed remediation goals for humans and terrestrial ecological receptors would be excavated from Area 3.... Excavated areas would .be backfilled with clean fill soil." (ROD, p. 9 -5, Section 9.1.3.2, emphasis added) "This alternative [for Area 3] will provide excellent short-term and long- term protection of human and ecological receptors by permanently removing contamination...." (ROD, pp. 12 -2, Section 12.1, emphasis added) Thus, the active remedy for Areas lb and 3 consists of completely removing all contamination from which future, non - residential site users might need protection. Area 2a has no apparent soil contamination. The ROD's Principal Threat Waste section does not list any wastes in Area 2, although wastes are listed for other IR Site 1 Areas. By definition, Area 2 is outside the boundary of the landfilled wastes. To assure this, the ROD requires precise delineation of the landfill as a component of the remedy for Area 1. "Before design activities and site work begin in Area 1, a geophysical survey will be performed and test pits and soil borings will be installed to completely identify the spatial limits of contaminated soil." (ROD, p. 12 -4, Section 12.2.1.1. emphasis added) The only portion of Area 2 for which potential contamination has been documented is Area 2b. Aerial photographs from 1947, 1949, and 1953 show evidence of material storage in Area 2b, but not in Area 2a.1 Historical material storage in Area 2b does not suggest similar activities in Area 2a, because these areas are not contiguous. Area 2a is more than 300 feet from Area 2b at its closest point, and most of Area 2a is more than 1,000 feet from Area 2b. Thus, there is no indication of contamination in Area 2a from which future, non- residential site users might need protection. 2) The ROD needlessly specifies ICs restricting land - disturbing activities in Areas lb, 2a, and 3. With regard to Areas lb and 3, the ROD's ICs restrict land - disturbing activities, despite the absence of any contamination. "...excavation and/or disturbance of soil in areas within the boundary of Site 1 but outside the boundary of Area la [will be restricted], unless transferees gain regulatory and Navy approval...." (ROD, pp. 12 -1 & -2, Section 12.1) "`Land disturbing activity' includes but is not limited to...(2) construction of roads, utilities, facilities, structures, and appurtenances of any kind; (3) demolition or removal of paved areas...(5) excavation and or disturbance of soil...and (6) any other activity that involves movement of soil to the surface from below the surface of the land." (ROD, p.12 -6, Section 12.2.1.1) "The same ICs described for Soil Area 1 will be implemented for Soil Area 3 soil." (ROD, p 12 -9, Section 12.2.1.3) Neither the ROD nor any of its predecessor decision documents provide any rationale for such ICs in Areas where all contamination has been completely removed by excavation. This restriction will be counterproductive and unnecessarily burdensome to ARRA, the transferee. With regard to Area 2a, "potentially contaminated soil underlying the pavement" is no more likely than in any other portion of the extensive runways on the western end of Alameda Point. Nevertheless, the ICs proposed for Area 2 unnecessarily restrict disturbing the paved surfaces in Area 2, without distinguishing between Area 2a and 2b. "ICs also will be implemented to prohibit any excavation or disturbance of the paved areas of Area 2, including demolition activities, unless transferees gain regulatory and Navy approval and comply with a risk management plan." (ROD, pp. 12 -2, Section 12.1) 1 Final Feasibility Study Report, IR Site 1, 1943 -1956 Disposal Area, Alameda Point, Alameda, California, Bechtel Environmental, Inc. Figures 2 -2 through 2 -4, February 8, 2006. "The same ICs described for Soil Area 1 will be implemented for Soil Area 2." (ROD, p 12 -8, Section 12.2.1.2) Neither the ROD nor any of its predecessor decision documents provide any rationale for such ICs in Area where contamination was never present. This restriction will be counterproductive and unnecessarily burdensome to ARRA, the transferee. 3) The ROD contains several passages that suggest the final ROD is not intended to burden Areas lb and 3 with restrictions on land - disturbing activities. i. Area 1 prohibitions on land - disturbing activities in the Description of Alternatives section refer only to the soil cover over Area la, not to Area lb where the wastes are to be removed. "The ICs for this alternative [Alternative S1-4a, the selected remedy] are the same as those for Alternative S 1 -2." (ROD, p. 9 -2, Section 9.1.1.4) Alternative S1 -2 ICs address only the soil cover. There will be no soil cover over Area ib, because the waste will have been completely removed. ii. The ROD suggests that ICs prohibiting land- disturbing activities will not remain after Area lb and 3 soil has been excavated. "ICs [for Area 1 and, by reference, Area 3] will remain in place until RAOs and remediation goals have been achieved." (ROD, p. 12 -6, Section 12.2.1.1, emphasis added) All RAOs and remediation goals will have been achieved by completely removing all contamination from which future, non - residential site users might need protection. This is precisely what the ROD directs be done in Areas lb and 3. iii. The Description of Alternatives section does not include any prohibitions related to land - disturbing activities at Area 3. "Following soil relocation and backfilling [of Area 3], ICs would be implemented to prohibit use of the property for residential [and other sensitive uses] unless approved by the Navy and DTSC." (ROD, p. 9 -5, Section 9.1.3.2) iv. The ROD's Table 12 -1 Cost Estimate for Soil Alternatives does not include any cost for ICs at Soil Area 3, although this cost item is included for Soil Areas 1 and 2. Apparently after considering ARRA's comments on the Proposed Plan for IR Site 1, the Navy decided to remove these ICs from Area 3. Although the revision to delete these ICs was done correctly in the cost estimate (Table 12 -1) and the description of alternatives (Section 9.1.3.2), the ICs remain in the Selected Remedy section as an anachronism. 4) Land- disturbance ICs for Areas lb, 2a, and 3 should be similar to those in the ROD for IR Site 28. The digging IC in the final ROD for IR Site 28 is appropriate for Areas 1b, 2a, and 3, except, unlike IR Site 28, Areas lb, 2a, and 3 will not have contamination below two feet bgs (below ground surface). The IR Site 28 digging IC, as modified for the specifics of- Areas 1b, 2a, and 3, would be similar to the following. "(text removed) Reuse of soils excavated (text removed) during subsurface activities at Areas lb, 2a, and 3 will be limited to sites designated for commercial /industrial or recreational uses. Soil may not be removed from IR Site 1 without prior approval of the Navy and H- A signatories (except for proper landfill disposal) ". (changes from IR Site 28 ROD are emphasized) 3. The ROD does not respond to ARRA's Comment 1 on the Proposed Plan. ARRA's comment on the Proposed Plan specifically questions the rationale for ICs restricting soil- disturbing activities and disruption of the pavement in areas where contamination is not expected to remain. "The remedial investigation provides no rationale for concluding subsurface soil in IR Site 1 is any different from subsurface soil elsewhere in the runways area. Significantly, neither the Navy nor any environmental regulatory agency has identified the need for similar institutional controls on any other portions of the runways area." (ROD, p. C -2, Attachment C) With respect to Area 2, the Navy's response discusses "any residual contamination" and "any potential contamination ". These team are applicable to Area 2b where aerial photographs from the 1940s show material storage occurred, but not to Area 2a. There is no evidence of residual or potential soil contamination in Area 2a, and the Navy's response to ARRA's comment does not address this fact. Nonetheless, the ROD claims to have addressed this comment. "The responsiveness summary portion of this ROD addresses the public's comments and concerns about the selected remedial alternative for soil in Area 2 (Alternative S2 -3)." (ROD, p. 10 -5, Section 10.1.2.9) Similarly with respect to Area 3, the ROD's response to ARRA's comment does not discuss the basis for requiring ICs to restrict soil- disturbing activities. Area 3 is not mentioned in the Navy's response. Nevertheless, the ROD claims to have addressed this comment. "The responsiveness summary portion of this ROD addresses the public's comments and concerns about the selected remedial alternative for soil in Area 3 (Alternative S3 -4)." (ROD, p. 10 -7, Section 10.1.3.9) Either the Navy should expand its responses in Attachment C to the ROD to address ARRA's comment, or revise the Community Acceptance sections (10.1.2.9 and 10.1.3.9) to state that the responsiveness summary does not address all of the public's comments. Summary The ROD currently includes ICs that would require regulatory and Navy approval before undertaking land- disturbing activities in IR Site 1 Areas that are believed to be clean. However, Areas lb, 2a, and 3 will have no known contamination after remediation. These requirements for prior approval before land - disturbing activities would be a time - consuming and costly burden on ARRA, the transferee, without any commensurate benefit to public health or the environment. Rather than requiring prior approval before digging or disturbing pavement in Areas lb, 2a, and 3, the ROD should pattern land- disturbance ICs after those of IR Site 28: (1) reuse of excavated soil will be limited to sites designated for commercial /industrial or recreational uses; and (2) soil may not be removed from IR Site 1 without prior approval. All parties involved —EPA, DTSC, the Water Board, the Navy, and ARRA —have more pressing demands on their finite resources than establishing and complying with a redundant approval process. Thank you for considering ARRA's comments. Sincerely, Debbie Potter Base Reuse and Community Development Manager cc: Xuan -Mai Tran, USEPA Anna -Marie Cook, USEPA Dot Lofstrom, DTSC John West, Water Board Peter Russell, Russell Resources, Inc.