2008-09-10 ARRA PacketThe Regular Meeting
of the
Alameda Reuse &
Redevelopment Authority
(ARRA)
scheduled for
September 3, 2008
has been canceled.
AGENDA
Special 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, September 10, 2008
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
rectuest 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 Joint Meeting of the City Council, ARRA, and CIC of
August 19, 2008.
3. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3 -A. Authorize PM Realty Group to Enter into a Contract with St. Francis Electric for Pier 2
Electrical Upgrades at Alameda Point for a contract not to exceed $1,344,744.
3 -B. Alameda Point Update — Presentation of the Draft Development Concept.
4. ORAL REPORTS
4 -A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative.
- RAB Comment Letter Regarding Installation Remediation Site 1
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.
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE
CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA)
AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC)
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
The meeting convened at 8:01 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 July 1, 2008 and the Special Joint City
Council and Community Improvement Commission Meeting held on August 5, 2008.
2 -B. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease for RockWall Wine Company, Inc. at
Alameda Point.
2 -C. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease for Auctions by the Bay, Inc. at
Alameda Point.
2 -D. Authorize the Executive Director to Enter a Contract, through PM Realty Group, with
General Construction Company to Dredge the Alameda Point Channel and Turning Basin
in an Amount Not to Exceed $2,586,675.
Approval of the Consent Calendar was motioned by Member Tam, seconded by Member
deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0. Member
Gilmore abstained from approving the minutes of the Special Joint City Council and
Community Improvement Commission Meeting held on August 5, 2008.
3. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3 -A. Recommendation to concur with the Non - Binding Summary of Terms and
Conditions for a transfer of the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with SCC Alameda Point
LLC to a New Entity with D.E. Shaw or transfer of an Ownership Interest in the SCC
Alameda Point LLC to D.E. Shaw; and
Recommendation to authorize the City MahagerlExecutive Director to negotiate a Second
Amendment to the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with SCC Alameda Point LLC.
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, discussed Suncal's request
for authorization to secure a financial partner to complete it's obligations under the ENA.
Approval to secure a financial partner is in Alameda's sole discretion, and authorization must be
granted by the CC, ARRA, and CIC. This request was originally scheduled for consideration in
June. At that time, staff had prepared a report that identified a number of key provisions that
should be part of any partnership agreement, including that SunCal should retain day -to -day
management responsibilities, continue to have equity stake in the project, and no removal of
SunCal as a partner except for cause; and that there should be a commitment of funds sufficient
to fund the ENA obligations and activities. Another key provision is that SunCal , as master
developer and managing investor, should retain key decision - making authority. Lastly, there is a
key provision prohibiting cross- collateralization and cross - default, essentially protecting
Alameda Point from being put at risk based on the activity or performance of other SunCal
properties.
The executed term sheet between SunCal and D.E. Shaw provides for some, but not all, of core
provisions: D.E. Shaw cannot remove Suncal as the managing investor for one year, SunCal
must maintain a $1.5 million stake in the pooled fund, and D.E. Shaw expects to invest $10
million in the ENA entitlement process. However, D.E. Shaw remains the ultimate decision -
maker over the project budget, business plan and other major decisions. In addition, SunCal can
be removed for cause or no cause after one year as the term sheet is presently drafted. Given the
changed nature of the project and that the terra sheet does not include all core provisions, staff
recommends that Alameda consider directing the City Manager to negotiate a second amendment
to the ENA that would allow us to manage some of the risk the City might be exposed to by our
inability to retain some of these core provisions in the term sheet. Amending the ENA in
several areas should include: requiring that the completion of the conveyance term sheet with the
Navy, that is now part of special legislation, be a mandatory milestone; and secondly, that we
tighten up and revise some of the timeframes that are currently contained in the ENA that don't
reflect the project going to a ballot, most likely in the land plan that SunCal's pursuing, and that
we look at an outside expiration date of the term sheet so that we have an ability to evaluate
where we are one year from now and see how the project has changed and the progress that has
been made. The recommendation is that Alameda concur with the provisions, of the term sheet
and that the operating agreement come back to the City, ARRA, and CIC in closed session for
final approval of the assignment and transfer, and that the ENA be amended and returned to the
ARRA Board at the same time for approval.
There were several speakers including Michael Kruger, who spoke in support of SunCal and its
aggressive plans to address the climate protection issues. Richard Banger spoke about his main
concern regarding the 2nd amendment and the decision making powers of D.E. Shaw. He stated
the importance of, once a 2nd amendment is drafted, that a well - publicized community meeting
take place for the public to offer comments. Helen Sause, of HOMES executive board, spoke on
behalf of SunCal, urging the City to make it possible for them to continue their work and
expressed HOMES support of SunCal, stating that the City is best serviced if the Navy doesn't
auction the land. Doug Biggs of APC also supports the efforts of SunCal, expressing how very
innovative, engaging and open they are when negotiating with APC. Elizabeth Krase asked why
the term sheet is not public record, and expressed concerns regarding the possibility of the
construction of buildings 12 to 20 stories high (as discussed at the Aug. 7th Community
Workshop on the USS Hornet) and that there was no solution for transportation or traffic
discussed and it is not realistic.
Chair Johnson thanked the speakers and clarified that the Alameda Point redevelopment Project,
itself, was not before the ARRA tonight, and that the request by SunCal for authorization to
secure a financial partner was the item before the Board.
Vice Chair Tam asked the City Attorney or staff to respond to Ms. Krase question regarding the
term sheet being public. Terri Highsmith, City Attorney, explained that the term sheet is a
confidential real property document. It is not finalized and still being negotiated, so it is
appropriate to be viewed in closed session. Once the project is completed and every action has
been taken to finalize it, any real property document discussed in closed session will become
public record.
Vice Chair Tam continued to discuss assurance that Suncal and D.E. Shaw are committed to
each other with regard to the ENA and would like to see the agreement reflected in the ENA with
regard to the financial plan. Chair Tam described an analogy about finding a different mortgage
company to re- finance your home, that they are looking at the fine print. She supports directing
staff to ensure the ENA reflects the commitment to have SunCal as master developer and that the
timeline comports with timelines that are expected.
Member deHaan was concerned and asked whether SunCal would be willing to continue, or had
a fall -back plan, in the event a non - Measure A compliant plan did not pass. Pat Keliher,
SunCal's Alameda Point Project manager, replied that indeed they have a fall -back plan and
have discussed Measure A compliant plans internally. He stressed that SunCal would not just
walk away from the project and would continue in the process for the long term
Member Gilmore thanked SunCal and D.E. Shaw for their transparency and honesty with their
public presentations and comments to the Board in closed session. She expressed that the Board
will be looking very closely at the operating agreement. Maintaining Suncal as the master
developer during the ENA process is important because that is the expectation of the community,
and that SunCal remain the master developer until it is mutually decided the project doesn't work
or is not feasible. We made a commitment to SunCal, not to a third party. Member Gilmore
stated that SunCal has been straightforward and that the desire is to move forward together with
the appropriate protection in place for the community.
Member Matarrese discussed bringing the ENA back to the Board, as its purpose is to drive us to
a Development Agreement. He stressed that the 2nd amendment to the ENA should include
provisions that protect the city. He motioned for the following amendments: 1) that we can
terminate the ENA for reasons other than for cause, either illegal activity or other malfeasance;
2) the timeline should be capped to remove the current flexibility which was termed as an
"automatic extension" and should be adjusted to meet current progress; and 3) insulate Alameda
Point from cross - default. The 2nd amendment should be brought back to the ARRA for review
with the public and then finalization.
Member deHaan asked for clarification on the relationship between D.E. Shaw and Lehman
Brothers. Debbie Potter explained that SunCal had anticipated they would self- finance, but had
initially identified Lehman Bros. as a possible financial partner. SunCal will continue to self —
fund until Alameda approves the operating agreement and 2nd amendment to the ENA. Member
deHaan wanted to know where D.E. Shaw was receiving its funds. Ms. Potter explained that
D.E. Shaw is a typical hedge fund with various investors and $40 —$50 billion in funds available.
David Brandt, Deputy Executive Director, further explained that D.E. Shaw is a privately held
hedge fund, and that the identities of their investors is confidential, we know the volumes, but we
don't know individual investors.
Member Gilmore expressed a main concern about cross default, urging that we make sure that in
the event something was to happen to another of Suncal's project, the ripple effect stops before it
reaches Alameda.
Member Matarrese summarized and reiterated his motion stated earlier. Member Tam
seconded the motion and it was passed by the following voice votes: Ayes — 5, Noes — 0,
Abstentions — 0.
3 -B. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative.
Member Matarrese did not attend the RAB meeting, as it conflicted with the Community
Meeting, which he attended. He made one comment regarding an 8/13 front -page Chronicle
article about the US Army giving the Fort Ord reuse authority 3300 acres and providing $100
million for remediation. He asked if this was true. David Brandt affirmed it is true. Member
Matarrese stated that we should talk to our elected officials on federal level and ask them why
we can't get far less acreage and the money for clean -up. Chair Johnson questioned whether
$100 million was enough for the clean up. Mr. Brandt responded that the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) believe that
it is sufficient, and that the Army is still liable for that waste. Member deHaan confirmed that
once that land is transferred to the Fort Ord reuse — it was their plan to be dissolved. Chair
Johnson discussed that this privatized clean up was what the Navy had proposed at one point,
except that we're paying for it, and that the Army operates differently than Navy.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 8:43 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
6-6
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
September 10, 2008
TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Debra Kurita, Executive Director
3
SUBJ: Authorize PM Realty Group to Enter into a Contract with St. Francis Electric for
Pier 2 Electrical Upgrades at Alameda Point for a Contract Not to Exceed
$1,344,744
BACKGROUND
In April 2006, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) approved a 20 -year
sublease with the Maritime Administration (MARAD). As part of the technical requirements in
support of the lease, the ARRA is obligated to deliver reliable electrical service to the ships. The
electrical system on pier 2 is old, unreliable and does not comply with the current standard
provided throughout Alameda. In January 2007, the ARRA approved the design work for the
electrical upgrade project in order to be ready to proceed once the Alameda Power and Telecom -
supplied transformers arrived. In July 2007, staff brought the $1.7 million project to the ARRA
Governing Board for approval. The ARRA directed staff to revise the project in order to reduce
the total costs.
DISCUSSION
Staff worked closely with Alameda Power and Telecom (AP &T) to understand the condition of
the pier electrical system to determine if the existing system could be maintained for the
remainder of the lease or if there were other strategies that could be implemented to provide
power and reduce the project cost. AP &T confirmed that the system needed to be upgraded and
moved above ground to prevent water infiltration. However, AP &T also informed staff that
market changes had recently resulted in a lower cost for a similar AP &T project and suggested
that ARRA re -bid the project to see if the cost could be lowered through that process.
The project was re -bid and advertised in the Alameda Journal for two weeks. Four companies
attended the bidders conference, and three bids were received:
Clyde G. Steagall, Inc. $1,290,131
St. Francis Electric $1,278,760
Edward W. Scott Electric $1,590,000
With 5% contingency, and an add -on alternate for concrete x -ray, and an independent testing
agency for structural scope, the contract amount is not to exceed $1,344,774. The new project
cost is approximately $400,000 less than the original cost. The project construction period is
estimated at 200 days.
Honorable Chair and Members of the September 10, 2008
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority , Page 2 of 2
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The FY2008 -09 approved ARRA budget included $1,700,000 for the Pier 2 electrical upgrade.
There is no impact to the General Fund.
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize PM Realty Group to enter into a contract with St. Francis Electric for Pier 2 electrical
upgrades at Alameda Point for a contract not to exceed $1,344,774.
Resle,ctfully submitted,
Leslie i t e
Development Services Director
r` /,✓
By: Nanette Banks
Finance & Administration Manager
City of Alameda
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
September 10, 2008
TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Debra Kurita
Executive Director
RE: Alameda Point Update — Presentation of the Draft Development Concept
BACKGROUND
On July 18, 2007, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA), Community
Improvement Commission (CIC) and City Council approved an Exclusive Negotiation
Agreement (ENA) with SunCal Alameda Point LLC (SunCal) for the redevelopment of Alameda
Point. The 24 -month ENA established key performance milestones, provided for reimbursement
of ARRA staff and third party costs, identified activities to be completed by third party entities,
and specified key personnel assigned to the project.
The ENA was amended in March 2008 to provide more time to complete two tasks: preparation
of the Development Concept and related documents, and preparation of the draft master plan. In
addition, SunCal was required to deposit $350,000 a quarter, and spend $117,000 a month, for
consultant costs to ensure progress on developing the required documents.
The Development Concept and related documents, including a business plan, infrastructure plan,
draft update of the Sports Complex Master Plan, and draft project pro forma, are due on
September 19. The draft master plan is due on November 19, 2008. SunCal will present the
draft Development Concept to the ARRA Board on September 10.
DISCUSSION
During the initial 14 -month term of the ENA, SunCal has held four community meetings and
conducted numerous meetings with stakeholders ranging from the Alameda Point Collaborative
and business owners located at Alameda Point to members of the Alameda Architectural
Preservation Society and Friends of the Alameda Wildlife Refuge. SunCal has made
presentations to a variety of community organizations including the Chamber of Commerce and
Rotary.
SunCal has also continued its due diligence work to better understand and plan for all the site's
constraints and challenges. This due diligence work includes meeting with environmental
regulators, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the United States Veterans' Affairs
Honorable Chair and Members of the September 10, 2008
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2 of 3
Department, and the United States Navy as well as continuing to work with its consultants on
traffic and transportation issues, geotechnical and civil engineering challenges, and historic
preservation and land planning concerns. These efforts will culminate with a Development
Concept and the related documents to be submitted to the City on September 19.
The process began with a community meeting in October 2007 that introduced SunCal to the
community and presented the key site constraints. At a meeting in December 2007, SunCal
presented two land plans to the community. Based on feedback received at that meeting, SunCal
held a community meeting in early August 20Q8 to present its draft land plan for Alameda Point.
At a City- sponsored Alameda Point Task Force meeting on August 27, SunCal presented its
revised land plan, and members of the Task Force and the public had an opportunity to comment
on the plan. Written comments received after the August 27 meeting are attached to this staff
report. The September 10 presentation to the ARRA Board is another opportunity for the public,
as well as the ARRA Board, to comment on the plan prior to SunCal finalizing the Development
Concept.
Following submittal of the Development Concept, SunCal anticipates holding several
community meetings on specific topics including historic preservation. These more focused
meetings will help SunCal continue to refine its Development Concept and transition it to the
required draft master plan due on November 19. In addition, staff will distribute the
Development Concept to City Boards and Commissions with a request that they review and
comment on the Development Concept prior to the November 19 due date for the draft master
plan.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT
This staff report is for information only and no action is required. Therefore, there is no
financial impact on the ARRA and General Fund budgets.
RECOMMENDATION
Receive public comment and provide feedback on SunCal's draft Development Concept.
Honorable Chair and Members of the September 10, 2008
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 3 of 3
Respect s 'y submitt
-Les ie Little
Development Services Director
By: v - .. e •tter
Base Reuse and Community Development
Manager
Attachments:
1. Comments from AP Task Force meeting, submitted by John Knox White
2. Letter from Joan Konrad
3. Letter from David Howard
ATTACHMENT 1
The Alameda Point Task Force meeting was held Wednesday night, 8/27 and was
organized in a way that allowed for rambling comments to dominate the meeting, which
lead to a number of community members being unable to give their input and a reduction
of the agendized "Task Force Discussion" from 30 minutes to about 8.
With this reduced time, I found myself spouting quick comments that didn't require
explanation and therefore, I am choosing to pass on those comments here. These are all
based on the notes I took during the meetings discussion.
There was a lot of discussion about Suburban vs. Urban development representing a good
swath of views. Clearly some portion of Alameda residents consider Alameda a suburb,
and therefore recoil at the idea that suburbs might not be the highest planning use. But
Alameda, both historically and currently, is not truly suburban anymore than Berkeley or
Albany are. The discussion of Suburban Growth vs. Urban Growth should be clear in this
distinction. Alameda is a city of 75,000 people and it is this fact that gives it its small
town feel. Nobody brags about about Small Suburban feel, because there's a difference.
In the end, the development of Alameda Point sits in the middle of two areas of influence
the city of Alameda and the Bay Area region. And we should be working to meet our
obligations for both. Whatever is developed at Alameda Point must have benefits for
existing residents. But also, we can't pretend that we don't live in a larger area and that
our decisions have zero effect on regional growth patterns. To become myopic is to
continue a problem with sprawl that has been occurring and speeding up for 50 years.
Crime came up twice during the discussion, loosely defined and never attributed, the
intimation was that building 5 story condos with stores in them will bring crime (and in
the end hurt property values). But the data on this assertion doesn't back it up. Reviews
of the FBI's crime data show no relationship between density and crime, and in fact that
surburban building patterns tend to have higher crime rates than more dense urban areas
with their street activity and eyes on the street.
Historic Preservation was a theme from a couple of speakers. However it's time for the
discussion to move beyond "Save every building plus a couple of others" and on to a
discussion of what Alameda Point is going to be and how historical preservation can
enhance it. I am concerned, as one of the speakers Wednesday night mentioned, that the
current discussion focuses too much on maintaining a military base, rather than a vibrant
neighborhood that reflects its past. We need to decide, and I'd suggest that never 15 years
of public process already has, whether we want to create a WWII "Historic
Williamsburg" without the reenactors, something that could very well become a big drag
on city finances and is probably financiallrinfeasible due to the infrastructure and clean-
up costs. Or are we aiming to create a neighborhood that reflects and complements our
existing city with it's mix of historical and new buildings and that contributes to the both
the financial, the amnenities and the character of our city.
If there was one dissappointment in the discussion on Wednesday, and one that should
have been addressed during the meeting was the thrice mentioned idea that "the
developer" was disrespecting the community by not bringing forth a measure A
compliant plan. This was spoken, at a meeting with 15 speakers, by folks who were
apparently not at the first SunCal /Alameda Point meeting where such a plan was
presented and overwhelmingly rejected. Results that mirror the conversations at APCP's
meetings on Alameda Point as well. I'm not suggesting that bringing up Measure A
Compliancy should be off the table, but the disrespectful manner in which some
community members presented the issue was disappointing at best. And I want to
acknowledge for the sake of clarity that one speaker raised her concerns about the issue
while avoiding the "evil developer" speak, it clearly is something that the community
should continue to discuss civilly.
Lastly, I think there needs to be a recognition of all the planning that has gone into this
process, from the BRAC onward, and that through this public process we have finally
arrived at two proposals that meet the goals of the General Plan Amendment for Alameda
Point, itself a document nearly a decade in the making. The community has seen two
different PDC/Measure A compliant plans and in both of them they have made their
displeasure known (not that they are not dense, but that the design of these plans does not
reflect the principles that the community has outlined as important).
It's easy to take plans and start tweaking them to meet the specific desires of each small
group, but at the end, we need to be careful that we don't end up with plans that pay
homage to our guiding principles while actively working against those very same
principles. One speaker said on Wednesday, "what happens if we do it wrong." And
that's always something to be midful of, however, we also can't bury our heads in the
sand and hope that by doing nothing, or by following 50 years of failing land -use
planning that have brought us higher transportation cost, more congestion, less farmland
and open space and a strained public infratructure, just because we might not do
everything perfectly. We have to be careful not to allow our real, and understandable
concerns, to force us into bad decisions. Doing nothing, or doing "the same" which in the
past 30 years has brought more traffic, not less, shouldn't be our map forward.
Lastly, I wanted to say again that while I made comments at the meeting about parts of
the project I'd like to see reexamined, and I'm not suggesting that the plan is 100%
perfect, SunCal has adapted their plans to what the community has said after every
meeting and Wednesday night was no different. After two years of planning with our past
developer and watching plans come forth that did not reflect many of the comments from
the meeting before, I think it should at least be recognized that Peter Calthorpe and
SunCal are at least responding.
Respectfully submitted as comments from the task force meeting,
John Knox White
Joan Konrad
42 Invincible Court
Alameda, California 94501
510 - 522 -3759
E -mail: loan konradOcomcast. net
August 28, 2008
SunCal
909 Marina Village Parkway
Alameda, CA 94501-9928
Subject: Concerns about Alameda Point Proposed Plan
Gentlemen:
ATTACHMENT 2
Your proposed goals for plan B, to have a mixed use, sustainable development focused
on walking and public transit are commendable. As the plan was presented on August
7, I have concerns about it achieving those goals in a manner consistent with the
City's General Plan. The City of Alameda General Plan, Chapter 9 puts forth seven
challenges and issues considered necessary for successful redevelopment of Alameda
Point. Will your plan meet these challenges?
1. Seamless integration of Alameda Point with the rest of the City - How will the
seamless integrate be accomplished? The plan seems not to address this issue.
How will the relationship with the Estuary and businesses at the northeast
section be handled? Will the cyclone fence along Main Street be removed? Will
the entrance gate structure at the end of Ralph Appezatto Memorial Parkway
be retained? How will connections at Tinker Avenue, Ralph Appezatto
Memorial Parkway and Pacific Avenue address the integration? One thought, a
neighborhood retail node at Market Street and Tinker Avenue would permit an
interaction of Alameda Point and Bay Port neighborhoods.
2. Fostering a vibrant new neighborhood -The General Plan wants "... to create
new and energetic areas, encompassing a variety of uses." Even though the
plan presented was preliminary, it seemed to lack the texture necessary for
vibrant neighborhoods. The uses seemed too segregated to be considered mixed
use. The layout of the neighborhoods seemed to lack the elements necessary to
promote human interaction. Will the pedestrian environment be sufficiently
pleasing and distances sufficiently short to encourage walking?
Will building street fronts in the denser areas be too massive to create a scale
compatible with the character of Alameda? I hope the building to street ratio
such as is in the live /work neighborhood east of Jack London Square and the
canyon like walls of the condominium buildings along Bay Street in Emeryville
are not the types of streetscapes being considered.
3. Maximizing waterfront accessibility — Thought seems to have been given to
access around the seaplane lagoon. I hope thought about access to the Estuary
will also be seriously considered.
4. De-emphasizing the automobile and making new development compatible with
transportation capacity — The plan B focuses on public transit. I hope future
plans will incorporate the necessary pedestrian and bike circulation into the
transportation plan.
Also, to be successful, the transit plan needs to incorporate the whole island. I
hope this is your intent. The elevated individual car transit system was
fascinating, but such elevation isolates neighborhoods rather than brings them
together. I wonder if it is appropriate for Alameda Point.
5. Ensuring economic development - Will effort be made to achieve a job /housing
balance for the people living in the proposed range of housing types? Will
densities be sufficient to make retail successful?
6. Creating a mixed -use environment —Will there be accommodations for a variety
of uses — community support services, cultural, religious, civic and recreational
within walking distances?
7. Establish neighborhood centers - The NASAlameda Community Reuse Plan
calls for three neighborhood centers, in the Civic Core, in the Main Street
Neighborhood west of Main Street and in the Inner Harbor. I believe these
centers were proposed with the idea of a high proportion of people being within
'/ mile of destinations, such as walking children to daycare, walking and biking
to schools, shopping.
I hope you plan to adjust the development plans to address the conditions of the toxic
cleanup. For instance, the Navy is proposing to put a 4 foot layer of soil to cover the
contaminated soil at the northwest corner, which is part of the proposed golf course. It
probably would be impossible to turn that area into wetlands without running into
uncharacterized industrial waste. Some in the City had proposed removing the
contaminated soil and replacing it with good soil, but apparently that is now unlikely.
Alameda Point is such a remarkable location. I wish you every success in tackling the
complexities in developing this site. We in Alameda will certainly be the winners if
you are successful.
Sincerely yours,
Joan Konrad
Copies: Frank Matarrese, Ann Cook, George Humphreys, Andrew Thomas
2
ATTACHMENT 3
David Howard
928 Taylor Ave
Alameda, CA 94501
City of Alameda
2263 Santa Clara Ave
Alameda, CA 94501
Attn: Alameda Point Task Force
Re: Objection to SunCal's proposals for Alameda Point
1 am dissatisfied with, and stand in opposition to SunCal's proposal to build 6000 housing units at
Alameda Point. Such a proposal would bring from 14,000 to 15,000 people to Alameda Point, at densities
roughly twice that of the rest of Alameda, and at a density that closely approaches San Francisco. If
SunCal has lower- density Measure A compliant proposals as they asserted before City Council earlier
this month, they should bring them forward.
Geography
Population
Housing
units
Area in
square
miles; Total
area
Area in
square
miles;
Water
area
Area in
square
miles;
Land area
Density per
square mile
of land
area;
Population
Density per
square mile
of land area;
Housing
units
Alameda city, Alameda County
72,259
31,644
22.97
12.17
10.8
6,693
2,931
San Francisco city, San Francisco County
776,733
346,527
231.92
185.22
46.69
16,634
7,421
Alameda Point - SunCal Proposal (770 acres)
14,280
6,000
1.20
0
1.20
11,869
4,987
I moved my family to Alameda to enjoy the benefits of a low to medium- density suburban community —
safe neighborhoods, plenty of parks and open space and minimal congestion of people and automobiles.
This is a perfectly legitimate way of life — one which °many people in this country choose.
SunCal's proposals take Alameda in the direction of a high - density, congested urban center, something
not in keeping with Alameda. SunCal's architect, Peter Calthorpe is known for his dislike of suburbia and
his concomittant war on the automobile, even despite the advent of high - mileage low- emission hybrid
automobiles and electric cars. Not everyone wants to, nor should be forced to live in a high - density urban
environment.
I've also done some research on the pie -in- the -sky proposal for a personal rapid transit system for
Alameda. Not one PRT system exists in productiort today to serve a community — save for the
Morgantown Virginia system built over 30 years ago and which is widely considered not a true PRT
system. PRT sounds like more false promises from a developer about mass transit solving congestion
that they create with their development.
Item 4 -A
George B. Humphreys
25 Captains Drive
Alameda, CA 94502 -6417
August 22, 2008
Mr. George Patrick Brooks,
Base Environmental Coordinator
Base Realignment and Closure
Program Management Office West
1455 Frazee Road, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 921.08 -4310
Subject: Installation Restoration Site 1: Analysis of Trenching Study and
Deficiencies in Proposed Plan
Dear Mr. Brooks:
This will confirm that the above two documents were hand delivered to you at the
August 14, 2008 meeting of the Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) at City Hall West in
Alameda, California.
The undersigned members of the RAB have reviewed and concur with the
information provided and the views set forth in those documents. We urge you to take
immediate action to correct the deficiencies in the proposed plan. It is unacceptable that
this site has for decades been releasing contaminants into the waters of the Bay,
apparently with the acquiescence of the regulatory agencies. The proposed plan, if
implemented, would leave uncharacterized industrial -type wastes in a condition
vulnerable to future releases by seismic damage, shoreline erosion, site inundation and
incursion by burrowing animals.
Sincerely,
George B. Humphreys, P. E.
Community Co- chair, Restoration Advisory Board
7!7.7..1-4---7...--
Copies to: Anna -Marie Cook; EPA, John West, RWQCB; Dot Lofstrorn, DTSC; Dr.
Peter Russell, Frank Matarrese w /a; Wayne Nastri, EPA w /a; Charles Ridenhour. DTSC
w /a; Marc Albert, Alameda Sun w /a; Community RAB members
Analysis of Trenching Report
Exploratory trenches were excavated within the waste cell area (Area 1a) of Sitel .
The stated objectives of the trenching were to:
a. Verify waste volume estimates.
b. Confirm the absence of intact drums
The final report(1) on the exploratory trenching was issued on May 16, 2008. The
findings were as follows:
a. The total waste volume within the cells could be between 94,000 and 133,000
cubic yards (cy). This corresponds to a tonnage range of from 141,000 to
200,000 tons. This can be compared to a range of between 15,000 and
200,000 tons used in the Feasibility Study Report(2) .
b. No intact drums were found.
c. Although approximately 25 % of the waste volume had radiation levels above
the Navy's criterion for removal (6,000 counts per minute), the study states
".... It should not be inferred that the distribution of radiological
contamination in the excavations is consistent throughout the volume that was
radiologically impacted, nor should it be inferred that this distribution would
be consistent throughout the site ". (Emphasis added)
It is also noteworthy that little or no evidence of municipal (household) wastes
was found, only construction debris (concrete, bricks, pipes, glass, and wood)
interspersed in the soil. This may account for the statement by Mr. Pat Brooks, the
Navy's Base Environmental Coordinator, during the aborted tour of Site 1, that a lot of
municipal wastes were excavated from Site 1 before construction of the runway. He said
that he thinks the wastes went to Site 2. This raises questions about where the wastes
from Site 1 were deposited in Site 2 and how municipal wastes could have been
transferred without taking along interspersed toxics and radiological contamination. If
the Navy excavated a substantial volume of wastes from Sitel, and the Navy can
document where this occurred (e.g. under the runway), then the cost of excavation and
removal of the remaining wastes would be much less than estimated in the Proposed Plan
($92 million).
The Navy still has not adequately characterized the contents of the waste cells.
According to the Spring 2007 Basewide Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report (3), IR
Site 1 accepted all of the solid waste generated at Alameda Point between 1943 and 1956.
Wastes included municipal garbage, construction debris, transformers, cleaning solvents,
oil /lubricants, ordnance and explosive waste, and radiological materials such as radium
dials and buttons. There was a golden opportunity to take samples and analyze them for
toxics during the exploratory trenching. Unfortunately, the Navy was explicit that they
were not going to characterize the wastes and that they were only trying to prove the
absence of intact drums (a negative objective). Even though the Navy said they weren't
going to characterize the wastes, measurements of radioactivity were made during the
trenching operations.
Figure 1 -1 from the trenching report is attached and has been annotated by the
writer. Note that five of the trenches were located relatively close to the walls separating
the waste cells. These locations have been circled in the figure. If the locations of these
trenches were off only slightly, the trenches may have been cut into the walls between the
cells or into the sloping portions of the walls. Thus, it would not be surprising if little or
no waste debris were found.
Of the eleven trenches, seven showed some excessive radioactive contamination
(as indicated on the trenching logs for the respective trenches). Perhaps more
significantly, six of the seven cells had some radioactively contaminated soil in the
excavated soil.
Consider the carefully worded conclusion of the trenching report, i.e. that it
should not be inferred that the radiological contamination is consistent throughout the
waste volume. The word "consistent" can be taken as meaning uniform or at the same
concentrations throughout. Certainly no one would expect that. What can be reasonably
concluded is that radioactive contamination of the subsurface material is widely scattered
throughout the waste cells (but not uniformly).
Another observation from Figure 1 -1 is that the southernmost cell (in which
trench T -6 was excavated) overlaps or abuts the shoreline. This indicates that either
wastes from this cell are currently exposed to the Bay or that they could easily be
exposed by minor shoreline erosion in the future. Note also the notation from the T -6
trench log that all the excavated soil from this cell was radioactively impacted. One
would expect some radioactive contamination of the adjacent beach area.
It is also significant that little or no municipal (household) wastes were found and
that Mr. Brooks stated that such wastes were moved to Site 2. The Navy early on relied
on the presence of municipal rather than industrial wastes as justifying the "presumptive
remedy" of source containment. It appears that the justification for the "presumptive
remedy" has been substantially weakened.
From the report and accompanying photographs, it appears that trenching only
went down 7 or 8 ft from the surface to the groundwater level. There could be wastes
buried deeper. It is likely that groundwater and the depth of the bay mud aquitard do not
coincide. If the wastes were used as fill, the wastes could extend down to the original
level of the Bay's bottom (i.e, sand or mud). See the attached figure from a presentation
by the Navy's former Remedial Project Manager, Mr. Rick Weissenborn, that shows the
sea level 8 ft below the surface, but fill going down to about 25 ft below grade or 17 ft
below sea level. One can reasonably assume that the groundwater level is approximately
at, or slightly above, sea level. Aerial photos of the Site 1 waste cells (from the
Feasibility Study) appear to show ponds in the bottom of at least two cells. This indicates
that the excavations went substantially below the groundwater levels.
Conclusion
The trenching report demonstrates that a substantial fraction of the material buried
in the waste cell area is radiologically impacted. Further, this radiologically- impacted
material is widespread and randomly scattered. If this material finds its was to the
surface in the future, it will have to be removed from the site because it is radiologically-
impacted at levels (> 6,000 counts per minute) that are unacceptably high.
References:
(1) "Final Summary of Findings Exploratory Trenches, Revision 1, IR Site 1, Former
Naval Air Station, Alameda, Alameda Point, Alameda, California ", May 15,
2008, prepared by Tetra Tech EC, Inc. for BRAC Program Management Office
West.
(2) "Draft -Final Feasibility Study Report IR Site 1, 1943 -1956 Disposal Area,
Alameda Point, Alameda, California ", Jan. 2006, prepared by Bechtel
Environmental, Inc. for the BRAC Program Management Office West.
(3) "Final Spring 2007, Alameda Basewide Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report,
Alameda Point, Alameda, California ", April 2008, prepared by Innovative
Technical Solutions, Inc. for BRAC Program Management Office West.
3
a z
Saal
Ca w
5 m
C."
Ca
tra
taa.
COI
.11111•11111111111•MINIMMO
300
14.1.
1214%1,
it
1
liSO Mt. RAP
RAD Lorq
/7
MAt-L Atvrr 1:2,4p
; E
RAD SOME
PoSslisoi
ovaRi-Apa
sHoR4LiNE
ALL PAP thiPA,cTED
5 TrzENcH GLO$E ¶b arkiE:
OF 11 TR M.t4 CHS
7 HAD same P.Ar) cctenkm ArnoN
4 vv/e. 1RouP M TAm AT( opq
F
HAP ME RAP CCNTAMINA•TioN
LEGEND
IR SITE 1 AND 32 BOUNDARIES
DISPOSAL AREA BOUNDARY
SEASONAL WETLAND BOUNDARY
RMA BOUNDARY
TRENCH LOCATIONS
'SEASONAL WETLAND AREA
C.), RAp- 114.4 PA c mr) saiL O. coo cPtvti
DISPOSAL CELL
225 CY TOTAL VOI-uptt ey.co.varracqp(4,3)
150
300
SCALE IN FEET
Figure 1-1
TRENCH LOCATIONS
IR SITE 32 AND THE SHORELINES OF IR SITES 1 AND 2
ALAMEDA POINT - ALAMEDA, CA
I cuatam ;
1
1
1
1
i8
is 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1111
0
0
(1.31i NI TIYJS "NPNLIGIA) AZ . L
400 0 400 Feet
Feasibility Study for IR Site 1
Figure 2-2
1947 Historical Aerial Photograph
Alameda, California
SOURCE: PACIFIC AERIAL SURVEYS. 1947, SCALE 1:2,400.
Date: 12/16/05
File No,: 068E13582
Job No.: 23818-068
Rev No.: B
Deficiencies in the Proposed Plan
The Navy's proposed plan for the waste cell (Area 1 a) portion of Site 1 is 4 feet
of soil cover and in -situ chemical oxidation for treatment of the volatile organics plume.
In November 2006, the community RAB members took the position that excavation of
the contaminated portion of the wastes is the appropriate remedy for Area 1 a because the
types of waste materials disposed of in the waste cells contained a larger proportion of
industrial type (potentially hazardous wastes). The proximity to San Francisco Bay,
nearby wetlands, and a high water table, favor excavation and off -site disposal rather than
source containment as the preferable alternative. The City took the position in 2007 that
they would not accept transfer of a site containing uncharacterized wastes with a soil
cover. Nevertheless, the Navy is proceeding with plans to issue a Record -of- Decision
based on the Proposed Plan.
An example of current best practices for military landfills (Z) is the excavation and
off -site disposal of contaminated material at the 5 -acre former Connaught Military
Landfill near Ottawa, Canada. The site contained mechanical debris from target
maintenance, potential unexploded ordnance, paint cans with paint residue, hospital
wastes, broken concrete and hydrocarbon impacted soil. Off -site disposal costs were
reduced by sorting our inert waste materials (concrete, bricks, and steel) and disposing of
them on -site. The site was considered environmentally sensitive because of its proximity
to the Ottawa River, the City of Ottawa and a bird sanctuary (an analogous situation to
that which exists at Sites 1 and 2).
Concerns about the Navy's proposed remedy include:
a. The source containment, as proposed, is inadequate because the sandy
soil cover does not meet low- permeability standards for hazardous
waste landfills and there is no lateral containment. The most southern
waste cell apparently overlaps the shoreline and also contains
radiologically impacted materials. The Navy has recently said that a
rodent barrier and plastic sheet will be added to the top cover, but this
has not yet been documented in writing and there aren't any design
specifics. An example of an integrated containment system is the
Mare Island landfill (2) . That application represents integrated source -
containment. The RCRA Subtitle C cap includes a composite gas vent
layer, a geocomposite clay layer, a 60 -mil high- density polyethylene
geomembrane, a geocomposite drainage layer and two feet of cover
soil. The 72 -acre landfill site was surrounded by a 7,300 -ft long soil -
bentonite slurry wall 25 -ft deep and keyed into a naturally - occurring
clay layer underlying the site.
b. The integrity of the top cover may be compromised by liquefaction
and sand boils (3) as a result of a large earthquake. There is
considerable doubt as to whether the Navy will be able to design the
1
top cap to resist damage during and/or following a large earthquake in
the S. F. Bay area. There is nothing to show that four feet of cover
will prevent radioactivity or other toxic materials from being brought
to the surface by liquefaction as a result of a major earthquake. The
Navy says that the seismic design of the cap will be addressed during
the remedial design phase. However, there may be no practical,
economic way of preventing such liquefaction. The Navy took the
position during the May 2008 RAB meeting that geysers and sand
boils will not occur at Site 1. However, there is ample scientific
evidence that liquefaction has occurred in poorly consolidated sandy
fill areas during both the 1906 earthquake and the 1989 Loma Prieta
earthquake. During the Loma Prieta event, liquefaction occurred in
the Marina District in San Francisco, at Treasure Island, and along the
Cypress freeway in Oakland. Sand boils occurred on Treasure Island
during the Loma Prieta seismic event (3) (see the attached photos
showing these sand boils). Sand boils and/or geysers represent the
conversion of kinetic energy from the seismic shaking into pore (or
static) pressure. This pore pressure can cause liquefaction and/or sand
boils. Whether or not sand boils or geysers result, of course, will
depend on the violence and duration of the earth movement. The sand
boils that happened on Treasure Island during the Loma Prieta event
evidence the fact that this can occur. The photos indicate that holes 2
to 3 fi in diameter were created and that sand and subsurface water
were ejected from the holes. The Feasibility Study for Site 1 (4) , in
fact, reported that evidence of liquefaction also was observed at IR
Site 1 after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. The Navy's seismic
stability study showed 20 fi of lateral displacement of the shoreline
and 1 '/2 ft of vertical displacement in the cover material after a major
seismic event.
It is important that the bayside stability of Site 1 be maintained
both to prevent disposed waste materials from being directly released
into S. F. Bay, and to maintain the shoreline integrity of the planned
park and golf course. The earlier study proposed a rock column/soil
cement barrier along the bayside of Site 1. The Navy has retreated
from that recommendation and has said that the bayside stability
would be achieved by a method to be determined during the remedial
design phase. The writer asked, and was assured, that access would be
provided to the Site 1 beach area during the July 16, 2008 site tour.
However, that area had been fenced off and freshly placed rip rap
made it impossible to determine whether shoreline erosion had
occurred or whether waste material had been exposed to the bay. One
possible solution to shoreline instability, that has been mentioned by
the Navy, is the use of `seismic vents ". Such vents would consist of
perforated pipes filled with gravel. They would allow pore pressure,
which might cause liquefaction, to be vented to the surface during a
seismic event. Such venting could also cause toxic materials and
radiologically contaminated soil to be released to the surface.
c. Ground squirrels, gophers and other burrowing animals may penetrate
the cover and baysideperimeter. The four -foot cover thickness was
selected to provide 2 ft of cover, plus 2 ft to protect against penetration
by ground squirrels. The Navy cited a study in the Site 2 Remedial
Investigation that ground squirrels do not dig holes deeper than 2 feet.
The writer's personal observations are that ground squirrels often dig
their burrows along banks. On Bay Farm Island, the squirrels have
burrows at the top of the shoreline and have a labyrinth of burrows
under the rip rap. These burrows appear to go parallel to the slope for
10 or 15 ft. Also, burrowing owls use the burrows abandoned by
ground squirrels and jack rabbits. The owls enlarge and extend the
burrows up to a depth of seven feet (s) . Gophers burrow as deep as 6
feet to create nest and food storage chambers (6)
d. The trenching study has shown that radiologically impacted soil is
widely scattered within the waste cell area. Physical isolation by the
top cover may be compromised by a major seismic event and/or
penetration by burrowing animals. Maintenance personnel for the
proposed shoreline park and golf course( or restored wetlands) will not
be equipped with radiation detectors and likely will not be trained in
radiological removal or recognize the danger presented by surface
releases of soil contaminated by radioactive and toxic materials.
e. In -situ chemical, oxidation (ISCO) may not be effective in treating the
solvent plume because the injected oxidants may force the
contaminants away from the injection points. Subsurface
heterogeneities and preferential flow paths can cause uneven
distribution of the oxidant, resulting in untreated pockets of
contaminants (7). Because the volatile plume is close to the shoreline,
there is a danger that the injection of oxidants will displace the plume
into the bay. Also, within the ISCO treatment zone, changes in the
oxidation states and/or pH may result in the mobilization of radium
and other toxic metals ) . If you have high concentrations of
contaminants in a well- defined plume, there is a good opportunity to
remove a lot of mass by pumping and treating. Later, ISCO could be
used for polishing.
f. The high concentrations (exceeding 100,000 ug/L) of volatile organic
compounds (VOC's) in the groundwater plume indicate that dense
non - aqueous phase liquids (DNAPL's)probably are present under the
plume. The Proposed Plan (9) for Site 1 states that DNAPL's may be
present. These DNAPL'S have a tendency to make the bay mud
aquitard more permeable. Thus, it would be expected that pathways
might open up for contaminants to flow into the second water - bearing
zone.
g. The radium hazard is not whole body radiation, but rather, internal
via inhalation and ingestion. Radium is a bone - seeker that can cause
bone cancer, leukemia, or lung cancer if it gets into the body. Direct
contact with radiologically impacted soil and toxic materials brought
to the surface in the future poses an inhalation and ingestion hazard to
adults and children who might come into contact with such exposed
materials. The 1,600 -year half -life of radium brings into question the
long -term containment integrity due to seismic activity, shoreline
erosion, burrowing animals, and site inundation (global climate change
and tsunamis). Note that even without the effects of man-made
greenhouse gases, the bay water level has risen 25 to 30 ft over the last
3,500 years (8) . The Navy has said that it does not have to design for
rising sea levels, but it is illogical to design for some physical
phenomena and not others.
h. The presentation by SunCal on August 7, 2008 showed the western
portion of the "northwest territories" being used for wetlands
restoration, with return to Bay wetlands instead of a golf course. If it
is planned to excavate portions of Site 1 to create permanent wetlands,
this appears incompatible with leaving large quantities of
uncharacterized wastes and radiologically impacted soil in place under
a cap. In fact, the creation of an engineered cap in such a situation
appears wasteful. There needs to be closer coordination between the
Navy, the City of Alameda and the developers regarding cleanup,
restoration, and development plans.
References
(1). Don Plenderlieth, Golder Associates, "Cleanup Duty ", pg. 41, Mechanical
Engineering, Feb. 2008.
(2). "Successful Public- Private Partnership at Former Mare Island Naval Shipyard ",
2006, 4 pages, U. S. Department of the Navy.
(3). "Treasure Island Reuse Plan, Existing Conditions Report: Volume 2, Physical
Characteristics, Building and Infrastructure Conditions, prepared by ROMA Design
Group, Cerbatos & Associates Consulting Electrical Engineers, Cervantes Design
Associates, Don Todd Associates, Manna Consultants, Moffat & Nichol Engineers,
Olivia Chen Consultants, Inc., Takahashi Consulting Engineers, and Treadwell & Rollo,
Inc., for The Office of Military Base Conversion, Planning Department, City & County
of San Francisco, and the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, August 1995, Second
Edition.
(4). "Draft- Final Feasibility Study Report IR Site 1, 1943 -1956 Disposal Area, Alameda
Point, Alameda, California, Volume 1, Part A ", page 2 -28, Jan. 2006, prepared by
Bechtel Environmental, Inc. for the BRAC Program Management Office West.
(5). "The Gull's Call ", May /June 2008, article on page 7, "Burrowing Owls on Bay Farm
Island" by Gerry Long.
(6). Alameda Journal, June 13, 2008, article by Nzong Xiong, "Going after Gophers;
learn how to get rid of the uninvited lawn guests ".
4
(7). "Draft Feasibility Study, IR Site 32, Alameda Point, Alameda, California ", June
2007, prepared by Bechtel Environmental, Inc. for BRAC Program Management Office
West.
(8). "Geologic Guidebook of the San Francisco Bay Counties ", Bulletin 154, State of
California, Division of Mines, 1951.
(9) September 2006, "Proposed Plan for IR Site 1, 1943 -1942 Disposal Area, Former
NAS Alameda ", BRAC Program Management Office West.
Large sand boils near the western edge of Treasure Island.
Photo courtesy of David T. Schrier
TREASURE ISLAND REUSE PROJECT
Treasure Island, California
LOMA PRLETA EARTHQUAKE
PHOTOGRAPH
Project No. 1719.01 - Figure 7
Treadwell&Rollo
1
Large sand boils near the southwest corner of Treasure Island.
Photo courtesy of David T. Schrier
TREASURE ISLAND REUSE PROJECT
Treasure Island, California
LOMA PRIETA EARTHQUAKE
PHOTOGRAPH
Proiect No. 1719.01 I Figure 8
Sand boils and ponded water at school yard on 12th Street, Treasure Island, on October 18, 1989.
Photo courtesy of David T Schrier
TREASURE ISLAND REUSE PROJECT
Treasure Islam', California
LOMA PRIETA EARTHQUAKE
PHOTOGRAPH
Project No. 1719.01 Ague 11
TreadweERollo
Questions
1 What were the volumes and locations of wastes moved from Site 1 to Site 2
during construction of the runway? Where in Site 1 did the wastes originate?
Where in Site 2 were the wastes deposited?
2. During the TCRA, for each location in Site 1, Site 2, and Site 32 what were the
volumes and depths of radiologically impacted soil excavated and removed?
(Note that during the site tour, were told that there was very little waste and that it
was only on the surface at the "radium disposal pit ". This seems counterintuitive
in view of the Navy's letter that stated that radiologically impacted soil in Areas
3a and 3b were deeper than expected.)
3. Where was radiologically impacted soil taken for disposal?
4. During the TCRA, for each location in Site 1 what were the volumes and depths
of soil contaminated with PAH's that were excavated and removed? Was the
bum area lb the only location involved?
5. During the TCRA, what were the volumes of soil excavated from the firing range
berm? What volume of lead- contaminated soil was disposed of offsite and where
did it go? How far below grade did the excavation go? What was the volume of
below -grade material that was excavated and removed? (A former Navy fighter
pilot stationed at Alameda said that they took their Corvairs onto downward
sloping ramps and test fired their 20 -mm cannons into a below grade pit.) Was
the soil removed from the firing range berm surveyed for radioactivity? (Note that
the exploratory trench in the area showed "all rad contaminated ")
6. During the exploratory trenching, of the 57 cu yd of radiologically impacted soil
removed, what volumes came from the respective trenches?
7. Why are groundwater- monitoring wells, sampled for groundwater monitoring
reports, approximately 100 yd apart? At this spacing, contaminated plumes as
large as the known plume could be entering the Bay between monitoring wells.
8. Will the barge(s) that protrude from the bank along the shoreline be removed
before transfer of the site? This situation appears to present an attractive nuisance
and danger to those (especially children) using the shoreline park and beach area.
9. Is excavation and removal of the most southern waste cell planned because of its
proximity to the Bay, shoreline seismic weakness and the prevalence of
radiologically impacted soil?
August 14, 2008
Ms. Anna -Marie Cook
U.S. EPA
Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105 -3901
a,,✓{C
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 7.1 w�
ic
BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT OFFICE WEST
1455 FRAZEE R0, SUITE 900
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108.4310
Ms. Dot Lofstrom
Department of Toxic Substances Control
8800 California Center Drive
Sacramento, CA 95826 -3200
Mr. John West
Regional Water Quality Control Board
1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400
Oakland, CA 94612
Dear Federal Facility Agreement Members:
5090
Ser BPMOW.DR/0535
JUN 2 5 2008
Subj: PROPOSED CHANGES TO CLOSURE STRATEGIES FOR SITE 1 AND SITE 32,
ALAMEDA POINT, ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA
The Navy outlined a proposal to modify the closure strategy for Installation Restoration (1R) Site 1 at
the April 15, 2008 and June 17, 2008 BRAC Cleanup Team (BU'l') meetings. The proposed change in
strategy is based upon the latest findings of the Sites 1, 2, and 32 Time- Critical Removal Action (TCRA)
conducted from February 2007 through the present. The findings of the TCRA affect the Conceptual Site
Models and the closure strategies for adjacent Sites 1 and 32 and for the area located east of Site 1 and
south of Site 32. This letter proposes a change of closure strategy for these areas.
i
The Sites 1, 2, and 32 TCRA is now complete, with the exception of the final radiological status
survey, some outstanding laboratory analyses, and report preparation. To accomplish the TCRA
objectives for Sites 1 and 32 the Navy intended to: 1) determine the extent of surface radiological
impacts; 2) Remove discrete radiological objects from surface soil (less than 2 feet below ground
surface); and, 3) Obtain radiological free - release for these areas.
The TCRA included Site l Areas 3a, 3b, 5b, and Site 32, which are outside of the landfill footprint.
The potential for radiological contamination in these areas was considered low, with potential radiological
contamination possible in surface soil due to site grading, spillage during refuse shipment, and wind
erosion. Preliminary findings of the TCRA are as follows:
• Radiological contamination is limited to radium -226, which was used in the manufacture of
luminescent dials and gauges;
• Low levels of radium -226 were found in soil at Site 1 Areas 3a, 3b, 5b, and at Site 32; the vertical
extent was not investigated behw.?, feet bt low_ground surface;
5090
Ser BPMOW.DR/0535
JUN 2 5 2008
• The lateral extent of radium -226 in soil east of Site 1 and south of Site 32 was not completely
determined; and
• The lateral and vertical extent of radium -226 in soil does not fit the current conceptual site model
for Site 1 Areas 3a and 3b and Site 32, warranting a change in the model.
Conditions at Site 1 Areas Ia, lb, 2a, 2b, 4, 5a, and groundwater were not investigated as part of this
TCRA.
Prior to the TCRA, no action was considered appropriate for Site 32 soil and the following three
remedial alternatives were considered for soil at Site 1, Area 3a and 3b:
1. No action;
2. Tier 2 ecological risk assessment, hot spot relocation, institutional controls, and a wetlands
mitigation plan;
3. Tier 2 ecological risk assessment, hot spot removal and off -site disposal, institutional controls,
and a wetlands mitigation plan.
While the low levels of radium -226 found at Site l can easily be identified in surface soil, deeper
contamination may not be detected by radiological surveys. Given the deeper than expected
contamination at Areas 3a and 3b, and more widespread contamination than expected east of Site 1, at
Site 32 and south of Site 32, it would be appropriate to evaluate additional remedial alternatives for soil. ,1
Based upon the preliminary TCRA findings, the Navy is proposing to remove portions of Site 1 and
include them in Site 32. Site 1 would include Areas Ia, lb, 2b, 4, 5a, 5b, and groundwater as described in
the Site l Proposed Plan. In addition to Site 32 soil and groundwater, Site 32 would be expanded to
include Site 1 Areas 2a, 3a and 3b, and soil located east of Site 1 and south of Site 32 (actual extent to he
determined by a radiological survey). The Navy would then prepare the following documents:
Site 1
• Includes Areas 1 a, 1 b, 2b, 4, 5a, 5b, and groundwater.
• The existing Site 1 Draft ROD will be used as a basis to issue a Draft -Final ROD describing the
change in strategy and deletion of Areas 2a, 3a, and 3b from Site 1.
• No changes are proposed for the selected remedies in the remaining areas.
• During the planning stages of remedial action for Site 1, the Navy will conduct a radiological survey
to determine the lateral extent of radium -226 at Site 32.
Site 32
• Includes soil at Site 1 Areas 2a, 3a and 3b, soil and groundwater at Site 32, and soil located east of
Site 1 and south of Site 32 in an area yet to be determined.
• An RI/FS addendum that includes findings from the TCRA and explains the addition of Site 1 areas
and the expanded soil areas.
• A Site 32 Proposed Plan and ROD will be issued after BCT concurrence with the FS
amendment.
2
5090
Ser BPMOW.DR/0535
JUN 2 5 2008
The NCP at 40 CFR Section 300.430(f)(3)(ii) sets forth the requirements that apply when new
information becomes available after a Proposed Plan has been released to the public that changes the
proposed remedy with respect to scope, performance, or cost such that the remedy significantly differs
from that described in the Proposed Plan. If the public could reasonably anticipate the change, then a
revised Proposed Plan is generally not necessary; the change need only be described in the ROD.
For areas to be addressed in the Site 1 ROD, no significant changes are anticipated. Therefore, the
Navy proposes to move forward on the Site I ROD without issuing a revised_Proposed Plan or seeking
additional public comment.
Site 32 will include a Proposed Plan and public comment period. This will ensure that the public is
informed of, and involved with, the revised remedy selection process for Site 1 Areas 2a, 3a, and 3b, Site
32 soil, and for those areas that had their proposed remedy affected by the TCRA findings. This strategy
minimizes delay with the selected remedies for Site 1, while allowing BCT input and public review and
comment on soil and groundwater remedies for Site 32.
The Navy looks forward to discussing these proposed changes with the BCT. If you have any
questions or comments, please call Mr. Derek J. Robinson at (619) 532 -0951 or me at (619) 532 -0907.
Sincerely,
GEOE OE PATRICK BROOKS
BRAC Environmental Coordinator
By direction of the Director
Enclosures: (1) IR Site 1 Post - Remedial Excavation NaI Field Readings and Soil Sample
Ra226 Analytical Results
(2) IR Site 32 Post - Remedial Excavation Soil Sample Ra226 Analytical Results
(3) Current and Proposed Areas of Installation Restoration Sites 1 and 32
3
Copy to
Ms, Xuan -Mai Tran
U.S. EPA
Region EX
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105 -3901
Ms. Suzette Leith
U.S. EPA
Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105 -3901
Mr. Robert Wilson
California DPH
1616 Capital Avenue, MS 7405
Sacramento, CA 94234 -7320
Mr. Peter Russell
Russell Resource, Inc.
440 Nova Albion Way
San Rafael, CA 94903
Mr. George Humphreys
Community Co -chair
Restoration Advisory Board
25 Captains Drive
Alameda, CA 94.502
4
5090
Ser BPMOW.DR/0535
'JUN 2 5 2008
Orr44,43 , *614514
14p544,3;,
443 5 15, , 3
14566545543 • 5544
443' 4, 3
5::44 • 4:
A
2IA5R2
4‘..).A28
14
•§,- *,;
•4:3'
.4.557541,Z4n4444,44.44,444X44a44:-MM4,•,4,4:W,4,35444,444,44•4i4444;V3)4444444i,444,444435,4N,414.4V,M4?4V.f44.V44:V.Y,4',4,,kIX44„MO'444744ir4334434,,4444W34'=::54•4445;44,4'4,r447444::434443,4,444434444,4,4i7QV444.404444444,34•4444a,4:4,44•44,423;,4:,=444gmug"44amv,sl
5 44343 4 ,455 34,344,5
k Site Post-Remedial Excavateee
4A
4 IF
_65
• 6 4.44
CM:6
41
376
Ga
1724)
#45
12 i4<#.# •
142
4 64c.44. 5144414114# L44#444 46,444446444 ,;
41 644444226 44414444 .. , .... .
, ,:•-,„;'' 'f: 64)440 ' '4 fb'j., 28) <464Jarriecm '.,,,';''o-,,irri
64,
4
204
acw and ;'fr,-4iriwir
..,.
Additionally; iTOni
oerfonyied a pilot-scats i.tierriorisnatiori
in ground) treatinent for the remediation of
chlorinated solvents and petripleuril
groundwater at IR Site 1. 'The demonstration used
a funnel-and-gate system to reduce concentrations
of VOCs in groundwater, In 2003, a geotechnical
and seismic study was conducted to examine the
ability of the embankment that separated the area
of solid waste from the shoreline to prevent
releases of solid waste into San Francisco Bay.
Contaminants identified in soil included total
petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), PAHs, pesticides,
PCBs, metals. and radium. For management
purposes, the site was divided into the following five
geographical areas for soil (see Figure 3), and site-
wide radium-impacted waste in soil. TPH
contamination is being addressed under a separate
corrective action program and is not discussed
further in this Proposed Plan.
Area it ia forrrier
1DUM elTea
uspected radiurri-c:Oritainifig
(AsfeEi lb), SUrfaCe soil in this :!:::Wea
contaminated with PAHs, pesticides „PCBe and
metals. In addition, elevated fadiurr leveis .were
measured in this area.
Area 2 consists of the paved areas (such as
runways and taxiways) outside of the former
disposal area. Radiological surveys were not
conducted because paved surfaces shield
radium levels from detectors, Area 2 is
presumed to have elevated radium levels similar
to those in Area 3 (see discussion below),
Area 3 consists of the unpaved areas outside of
the former disposal area. Surface soil in this
area is contaminated with PAHs, PCBs; and
metals. In addition, elevated radium levels were
measured in Area 3.
Area 4 consists of the former pistol range berm,
and is located within the boundaries of Area 1,
Surface soil in this area is contaminated with
PAHs, PCBs, and munitions
b
Oakland Inner Harbor
FORMER
BURN AREA
and explosives of concern
(MEC). Radium was not
identified on the surface of
Area 4 : subsurface readings
vere not taken in this area.
G
AREA4-
FORMER—
PISTOL RANGE
PROPOSED PUSUD-----°-------
./ ,
REACH AREA = ,
i '','
4-------,_
SAN FRANADo RAY ----,
AREA as
IR SITE 1 BOUNDARY
1-FOOT ELEVATION GIINTOUR BUTERVAL
APPRO.NIMATE 'SEASONAL WETLANDS BOLA
BUFLENNO OR STRUCTURE
ROAD OR RUNWAY
WATER
PRoposa., KIEL V.:. BEACH AREA
CM. VIEA.2.'
_171,11 - INFERRED FORMER D-OS .. AREA
AREA 2 PAiED AREA OUTSIDE BAERDEAL
VIEA BOUNDARY
AREA 3- UNFAMAMA OUTSIDE 11DS AREA BOUNDARY
AREA TTAINTARANDE
AREA - Si-COHRLINA sr.tis,s
i
1 AtAIV^Ar I i
WM
i . =
L