Loading...
2009-09-02 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, September 2, 2009 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 July 7, 2009. 2 -B. Approve minutes of the Special Meeting of July 21, 2009. 2 -C. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for the City of Alameda for Building 60 Alameda Point. 2 -D. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for the City of Alameda for Building 162 at Alameda Point. 2 -E. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for Conmar, Inc. at Alameda Point. 2 -F. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for The Pacific Pinball Museum at Alameda Point. 2 -G. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for Navigator Systems at Alameda Point. 3. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS None 4. ORAL REPORTS 4 -A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative - Highlights of August 6 Alameda Point RAB Meeting. ARRA Agenda — September 2, 2009 Page 2 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 747 -4800 at least 72 hours before the meeting to request an interpreter. • Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) is available. ■ Minutes of the meeting are available in enlarged print. ■ Audio tapes of the meeting are available for review at the ARRA offices upon request. APPROVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Tuesday, July 7, 2009 The meeting convened at 8:20 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding. 1. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Beverly Johnson Boardmember Lena Tam Boardmember Frank Matarrese Boardmember Marie Gilmore Vice Chair Doug deHaan 2. CONSENT CALENDAR 2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 3, 2009. 2-B. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease for Vigor Marine, LLC at Alameda Point. 2-C. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for Bay Ship & Yacht Co., Inc. at Alameda Point. 2-D. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for Puglia Engineering of California, Inc. at Alameda Point. The Consent Calendar was motioned for approval by Member Gilmore, seconded by Vice Chair deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0 3. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS None. 4. ORAL REPORTS 4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative - Highlights of June 4th Alameda Point RAB Meeting. Member Matarrese was unable to attend the June 4th meeting in which the OU-2 feasibility study was discussed. The July RAB meeting is cancelled, so Member Matarrese will report on the August Meeting. Member Gilmore asked a question about the RAB's decision to have a facilitator from the Navy to assist in conducting effective meetings. She was curious of the genesis of the idea, since the RAB has been in existence for many years, why only now is the Navy providing a facilitator? RAB member Michael Torrey stated that this is not the first time that the Navy is providing a facilitator, but that the previous ones had to be cut due to funding issues. George Brooks, the Navy's Environmental Coordinator, asked if there could be another facilitator. Member Matarrese explained that the RAB Board changed and agreed that it was a positive step for the RAB. 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) There were no speakers. 6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY Vice Chair deHaan asked for an update on the Sun Cal milestones. Assistant City Manager, David Brandt, stated that there is a payment requirement due on July 19th, and qualified signatures, or an alternative plan, was due in mid September for the City Council to accept. The Navy requirement is now July 2010. 7. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 8:24 p.m., by Chair Johnson. Respectfully submitted, rma Glidden ARRA Secretary APPROVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Tuesday, July 21, 2009 The meeting convened at 9:59 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding. 1. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Beverly Johnson Boardmember Frank Matarrese Boardmember Marie Gilmore Vice Chair Doug deHaan Absent: Boardmember Lena Tam 2. CONSENT CALENDAR 2-A. Approve the Proposed Sale of the Two Sewage Ship Waste Offload Barges. The Consent Calendar was motioned for approval by Member Matarrese, seconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 4, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0 3. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS None. 4. ORAL REPORTS None. 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) There were no speakers. 6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY Vice Chair deHaan discussed the SunCal and Catellus timelines for their respective projects. He requested the Board be provided with an update presentation on SunCal's project timeline. 7. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m., by Chair Johnson. Respectfully submitted, Irma Glidden ARRA Secretary Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Memorandum To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority EJ From: Ann Marie Gallant Interim Executive Director Date: September 2, 2009 Re: Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for the City of Alameda for Building 60 Alameda Point BACKGROUND The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) governing Board approves all Alameda Point subleases with a lease term greater than one year. The proposed sublease for the City of Alameda for Building 60 is for five years. DISCUSSION The City of Alameda has occupied Building 60 at Alameda Point for the past 12 years. This building is the Albert H. Dewitt O'Club & Conference Center used as an event and conference center. Attachment A describes the business terms for the proposed sublease for City of Alameda in Building 60. The rent for the City of Alameda in Building 60 is waived. Building 60 is in fair condition. In accordance with the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement between the ARRA and SunCal Companies, this lease has been discussed with representatives from SunCal Companies and has their concurrence. FINANCIAL IMPACT The rent for this lease is waived. RECOMMENDATION Authorize negotiation and execution of a sublease for City of Alameda for Building 60 at Alameda Point. Honorable Chair and Members of the September 2, 2009 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2 of 2 Respe ully submitted, Leslie Little Economic Development Director NM:ig Attachment: A. Proposed Sublease Business Terms B. Site Map ATTACHMENT A PROPOSED SUBLEASE BUSINESS TERMS TENANT BUILDING SIZE (SF) TERM RENT City of Alameda (Rec & Park Dept) 60 29,550 5 yrs Waived ATTACHMENT B ff qPIDLO 11-1AA-3CE 'H iogIV -1pauzeIV JO AID Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Memorandum To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority From: Ann Marie Gallant Interim Executive Director Date: September 2, 2009 Re: Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for the City of Alameda for Building 162 at Alameda Point BACKGROUND The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) governing Board approves all Alameda Point subleases with a lease term greater than one year. The proposed sublease for the City of Alameda for Building 162 is for two years. DISCUSSION The City of Alameda has occupied a portion of Building 162 at Alameda Point for the past year. This building is used to house surplus personal property to be sold at auction. Attachment A describes the business terms for the proposed sublease for the City of Alameda in Building 162. The rent for the City of Alameda in Building 162 is waived. Building 162 is in poor condition. In accordance with the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement between the ARRA and Sun Cal Companies, this lease has been discussed with representatives from Sun Cal Companies and has their concurrence. FINANCIAL IMPACT The rent for this lease is waived. RECOMMENDATION Authorize negotiation and execution of a sublease for City of Alameda for Building 162 at Alameda Point. Honorable Chair and Members of the September 2, 2009 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2 of 2 Respe gully submitted, Leslie Little Economic Development Director NM:ig Attachment: A. Proposed Sublease Business Terms B. Site Map ATTACHMENT A PROPOSED SUBLEASE BUSINESS TERMS TENANT BUILDING SIZE (SF) TERM RENT City of Alameda (Finance Dept.) 162 30,000 2 yrs Waived oe] diej Li ATTACHMENT B 11 CM p3 E 1> fl CM Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Memorandum To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority From: Ann Marie Gallant Interim Executive Director Date: September 2, 2009 Re: Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for Conmar, Inc. at Alameda Point BACKGROUND The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) governing Board approves all Alameda Point subleases with a lease term greater than one year. The proposed sublease for Conmar, Inc. is for two years. DISCUSSION Conmar, Inc. has occupied Building 98 at Alameda Point for the past 10 years. This building is used for light industrial, statuary, concrete casts and similar small construction uses. Attachment A describes the business terms for the proposed sublease for Conmar, Inc. in Building 98. The rent for Conmar, Inc. is $31,980 annually, or $0.3250 per sq. ft., with a three-percent increase in the second year of the lease. Building 98 is in fair condition. In accordance with the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement between the ARRA and Sun Cal Companies, this lease has been discussed with representatives from Sun Cal Companies and has their concurrence. FINANCIAL IMPACT This lease will generate $31,980 in the first year. These funds will be retained by the ARRA. RECOMMENDATION Authorize negotiation and execution of a sublease for Conmar, Inc. at Alameda Point. Honorable Chair and Members of the September 2, 2009 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2 of 2 Respe tfully submitted, Leslie Little Economic Development Director NM:ig Attachment: A. Proposed Sublease Business Terms B. Site Map ATTACHMENT A PROPOSED SUBLEASE BUSINESS TERMS TENANT BUILDING SIZE (SF) TERM RENT Conmar, Inc. 98 8,200 2 yrs $2,665/mo. ATTACHMENT B co r L C) 7 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Memorandum To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority From: Ann Marie Gallant Interim Executive Director Date: September 2, 2009 Re: Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for The Pacific Pinball Museum at Alameda Point BACKGROUND The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) governing Board approves all Alameda Point subleases with a lease term greater than one year. The proposed sublease for The Pacific Pinball Museum is for two years. DISCUSSION The Pacific Pinball Museum, formerly Neptune Beach Amusement Museum, has occupied Building 13 at Alameda Point for the past three years. The building is used for the storage of museum artifacts only. Attachment A describes the business terms for the proposed sublease for The Pacific Pinball Museum in Building 13. The rent for The Pacific Pinball Museum in Building 13 is $18,540 annually, or $0.1931 per sq. ft. with a three - percent increase in the second year of the lease. Building 13 is in fair condition. In accordance with the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement between the ARRA and SunCal Companies, this lease has been discussed with representatives from SunCal Companies and has their concurrence. FINANCIAL IMPACT This lease will generate $18,540 in the first year. These funds will be retained by the ARRA. RECOMMENDATION Authorize negotiation and execution of a sublease for The Pacific Pinball Museum at Alameda Point. Honorable Chair and Members of the September 2, 2009 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2 of 2 Respe ully submitted, Leslie Little Economic Development Director .7/ NM:ig Attachment: A. Proposed Sublease Business Terms B. Site Map ATTACHMENT A PROPOSED SUBLEASE BUSINESS TERMS TENANT BUILDING SIZE (SF) TERM RENT The Pacific Pinball Museum 13 8,000 2 yrs $1,545/mo. Bquid 3mPBd ayi c CD (D 3 1 1 r ATTACHMENT B CO LI Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Memorandum To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority From: Ann Marie Gallant Interim Executive Director Date: September 2, 2009 Re: Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for Navigator Systems at Alameda Point BACKGROUND The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) governing Board approves all Alameda Point subleases with a lease term greater than one year. The proposed sublease for Navigator Systems is for five years. DISCUSSION Navigator Systems has occupied Building 14 at Alameda Point for the past three years. This building is used for the storage of museum artifacts only. Attachment A describes the business terms for the proposed sublease for Navigator Systems in Building 14. The rent for Navigator Systems in Building 14 is $82,248 annually, or $0.2183 per sq. ft. with a three-percent increase in each of the subsequent years of the lease. Building 14 is in poor condition. In accordance with the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement between the ARRA and Sun Cal Companies, this lease has been discussed with representatives from Sun Cal Companies and has their concurrence. FINANCIAL IMPACT This lease will generate $82,248 in the first year. These funds will be retained by the ARRA. RECOMMENDATION Authorize negotiation and execution of a sublease for Navigator Systems at Alameda Point. Honorable Chair and Members of the September 2, 2009 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2 of 2 Respe ully submitted, Leslie Little Economic Development Director NM:ig Attachment: A. Proposed Sublease Business Terms B. Site Map ATTACHMENT A PROPOSED SUBLEASE BUSINESS TERMS TENANT BUILDING SIZE (SF) TERM RENT Navigator Systems 14 31,394 5 yrs $6,854/mo. dy3e] did ATTACHMENT B swapAS JO B6!ABN RRVP Russell Resources, Inc. Item 4 -A environmental management Alameda Point RAB Meeting on August 6, 2009 Highlights and Analysis The Alameda Point RAB did not meet in July 2009. This highlights and summary of the August 2009 RAB meeting was prepared from draft meeting minutes prepared by the Navy's contractor. Dr. Russell, the ARRA's contractor who normally attends RAB meetings, was on vacation on August 6, 2009, and could not attend the meeting. RAB members present: Dale Smith (Community Co- chair), George Humphreys, Joan Konrad, Jim Leach, and Michael John Torrey RAB Facilitator Marsha Pendergrass, a Navy contractor, served as RAB Facilitator. Her facilitation will continue with future meetings. IR Site 2 Proposed Plan The Navy presented its recommendation for remediation of IR Site 2. This site is the former landfill in the southwest corner of Alameda Point. It is included in the area planned for transfer to the Department of Veterans Affairs, which would build an office, clinic, benefit center, and columbarium to the north of IR Site 2. This landfill is the successor of the former landfill in the northwest corner of Alameda Point, which is designated IR Site 1. Navy sampling indicates that little contamination is present in either of the two wetland areas of IR Site 2. Contaminants primarily are present in the non - wetland landfill areas and in the uppermost groundwater layer. Contaminated groundwater appears not to be flowing into San Francisco Bay so as to pose an unacceptable ecological risk. Groundwater at IR Site 2 is not a potential drinking water supply because of low yield and saltiness. RAB members commented that they have a video of Navy activities while the landfill was still operating. They say it shows the Navy crushing drums and allowing the liquid contents to drain into the soil. Community Co -chair Smith will try to find the video to show to the Navy. According to the Proposed Plan, the Navy proposes to install a soil cover over the buried wastes, to monitor groundwater quality, and to institute land use controls. The Navy will enhance the wetland's functionality as part of the remediation. The Navy will address impacts of sea level rise due to global warming as part of required five -year reviews to evaluate remedial action taken. The Navy's policy of considering sustainability as a component of remedial action began after the Feasibility Study for IR Site 2. However, the Navy's remedial design for IR Site 2 will RR!, 440 Nova Albion Way, Suite 1, San Rafael, California 94903 415.902.3123 fax 815.572.8600 Page 2 of 2 Alameda Point RAB Meeting, August 6, 2009 September 2, 2009 Highlights and Analysis incorporate the sustainability process. The Navy announced that its formal sustainable remediation policy is being developed and will be issued in about one year. On Thursday, August 27, 2009, from 6:30 pm to 8:00 pm, the Navy will hold a formal public meeting on the IR Site 2 Proposed Plan in Building 1, Room 201 at Alameda Point. Miscellaneous Dot Lofstrom, the DTSC representative, noted that her agency has a 32 -hour work week most weeks, which is slowing her review of Alameda Point documents. Several RAB and community members noted that there appears to be a lack of clear information in Alameda about the extent to which the Navy will clean Alameda Point, and how much cleanup will be left to others. Pat Brooks, the Navy Co -chair said that one of the primary responsibilities of the RAB is to share the information with the community and he thinks the Navy could help the RAB by providing them with information on the clean -up work. 440 Nova Albion Way, Suite 1, San Rafael, California 94903 415.902.3123 fax 815.572.8600 AGENDA 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, September 2, 2009 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 July 7, 2009. 2 -B. Approve minutes of the Special Meeting of July 21, 2009. 2 -C. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for the City of Alameda for Building 60 Alameda Point. 2 -D. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for the City of Alameda for Building 162 at Alameda Point. 2 -E. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for Conmar, Inc. at Alameda Point. 2 -F. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for The Pacific Pinball Museum at Alameda Point. 2 -G. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for Navigator Systems at Alameda Point. 3. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS None 4. ORAL REPORTS 4 -A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative - Highlights of August 6 Alameda Point RAB Meeting. APPROVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Tuesday, July 7, 2009 The meeting convened at 8:20 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding. 1. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Beverly Johnson Boardmember Lena Tam Boardmember Frank Matarrese Boardmember Marie Gilmore Vice Chair Doug deHaan 2. CONSENT CALENDAR 2 -A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 3, 2009. 2 -B. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease for Vigor Marine, LLC at Alameda Point. 2 -C. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for Bay Ship & Yacht Co., Inc. at Alameda Point. 2 -D. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for Puglia Engineering of California, Inc. at Alameda Point. The Consent Calendar was motioned for approval by Member Gilmore, seconded by Vice Chair deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0 3. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS None. 4. ORAL REPORTS 4 -A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative - Highlights of June 4th Alameda Point RAB Meeting. Member Matarrese was unable to attend the June 4th meeting in which the OU -2 feasibility study was discussed. The July RAB meeting is cancelled, so Member Matarrese will report on the August Meeting. Member Gilmore asked a question about the RAB's decision to have a facilitator from the Navy to assist in conducting effective meetings. She was curious of the genesis of the idea, since the RAB has been in existence for many years, why only now is the Navy providing a facilitator? RAB member Michael Torrey stated that this is not the first time that the Navy is providing a facilitator, but that the previous ones had to be cut due to funding issues. George Brooks, the Navy's Environmental Coordinator, asked if there could be another facilitator. Member Matarrese explained that the RAB Board changed and agreed that it was a positive step for the RAB. APPROVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Tuesday, July 21, 2009 The meeting convened at 9:59 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding. 1. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Beverly Johnson Boardmember Frank Matarrese Boardmember Marie Gilmore Vice Chair Doug deHaan Absent: Boardmember Lena Tam 2. CONSENT CALENDAR 2-A. Approve the Proposed Sale of the Two Sewage Ship Waste Offload Barges. The Consent Calendar was motioned for approval by Member Matarrese, seconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 4, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0 3. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS None. 4. ORAL REPORTS None. 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) There were no speakers. 6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY Vice Chair deHaan discussed the SunCal and Catellus timelines for their respective projects. He requested the Board be provided with an update presentation on SunCal's project timeline. 7. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m., by Chair Johnson. Respectfully submitted, Irma Glidden ARRA Secretary 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 Tuesday, September 15, 2009 Meeting will begin at 7:32 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. None. 3. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 3 -A. Approve Comment Letter on Draft Final Record of Decision for Alameda Point Installation Restoration Site 1 (1943 -1956 Disposal Area). 4. ORAL REPORTS None. 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 747 -4800 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. Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority 3-A From: Ann Marie Gallant, Interim Executive Director Date: September 15, 2009 Re: Approve Comment Letter on Draft Final Record of Decision for Alameda Point Installation Restoration Site 1 (1943-1956 Disposal Area) BACKGROUND The Navy issued its Draft Final Record of Decision (ROD) for Installation Restoration (IR) Site 1 on August 3, 2009. IR Site 1 is the landfill located at the northwest tip of Alameda Point. The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) has consistently submitted comments, beginning with comments provided on the Navy's Proposed Plan (PP) in November 2006, and concluding as recently as its October 2007 comments on the Navy's draft ROD, requesting that the Navy excavate the landfill and dispose of it off Alameda Point. However, the Draft Final ROD continues to specify isolation beneath a soil cover as the remediation strategy. In addition, the Draft Final ROD, as written, includes two other provisions, discussed below, that are inconsistent with previous ARRA comments. However, subsequent discussions over the last four weeks between the Navy and the environmental regulatory agencies suggest that these issues may be satisfactorily resolved before the ROD is finalized. At its October 1, 2008 meeting, the ARRA Board directed staff to prepare a comment letter on the draft final ROD once it was issued. The draft comment letter is attached for ARRA Board consideration and approval. A Chronology of IR Site 1 Remedial Decision-Making is also attached. DISCUSSION The comment letter (a) reiterates the ARRA's objection to any remedy that leaves buried waste in IR Site 1; (b) insists that contaminated soil and debris in Area 1 b be excavated and disposed off site, to the extent needed to protect human health and the environment; (c) reiterates that ICs restricting digging where all wastes are to be removed, such as Area 1 b, would be burdensome and unnecessary; and (d) requests the Navy to include in its IR Site 1 remedial design the radiological investigation sought by CDPH. Agenda Item #3-A ARRA 9-15-09 Honorable Chair and Members of the September 15, 2009 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2 of 4 Area 1 a (main historic landfill) The Navy and the environmental regulatory agencies that make up the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Cleanup Team (BCT) have expressed the opinion for several years that excavating the buried wastes in Area la for off-site disposal would be very costly and disruptive, without commensurate benefit to human health and the environment. The results of the Navy's exploratory trenching into Area 1 a suggest that the landfill may already have been excavated and moved elsewhere, probably to IR Site 2. The recent discovery of more extensive radiological contamination at IR Site 1 than had previously been documented likely. makes excavation and off-site disposal of contaminated soil and debris even more costly than originally estimated. Based on the discovery of radiological contamination, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH), the California agency concerned with cleanup of radiologically contaminated sites, has become involved with review of the Navy's Site 1a remediation activities. CDPH commented to the Navy on March 12, 2009, "If the non-federal entity [in this case, the ARRA] accepts the transfer of radiologically impacted sites, then the non-federal entity will be required to obtain a radioactive materials license or license exemption from the CDPH — Radiologic Health Branch." In its comments on the Draft Final ROD dated August 25, 2009, the CDPH states the following": "Also, please note that, if the transferee of the site is required by CDPH-Radiological Health Branch (RHB) to apply for a radioactive materials license/license exemption application, CDPH-RHB may require site radiological characterization of the surface and subsurface soil, final status survey data with dose assessments and additional information." The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is working with CDPH to craft Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) Institutional Controls (lCs) for the ROD that could substitute for a license from CDPH. This is a similar approach to that used for a former landfill at Hunters Point. If the CDPH does not accept CERCLA ICs as a substitute for a radioactive materials license/license exemption, then the ARRA could be asked to conduct an expensive radiological investigation of Area la, and potentially other areas of IR Site 1. The Navy should have completed this investigation earlier in the CERCLA process. However, if the Navy were to incorporate this work into its remedial design for IR Site 1, then the CDPH would have the information it seeks, and the ARRA would not be burdened with an expensive investigation. Therefore, the comment letter to the Navy requests that the Navy conduct the requested work as part of the remedial design. Area lb (burn area) The Draft Final ROD appears to scale back the extent to which the Navy will remediate the burn area. Even though numerous Navy documents and statements made in presentations to the Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) and BCT indicate all contamination will be excavated from Area lb and disposed off site, the Navy maintains that the Draft Final ROD simply clarifies, rather than changes, the PP's remediation proposal for Area 1 b. Honorable Chair and Members of the September 15, 2009 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 3 of 4 The Draft Final ROD states that excavation in Area lb will be done only "to the extent of visible waste." BCT members pointed out that basing removal on the presence of a visible burn layer likely will fail to remove all contamination. First, burning could have occurred in some areas of Area 1 b so that underlying soil became contaminated before heavy equipment pushed the ash and debris westward into the Bay. Such contaminated soil would not be cleaned-up under the Draft Final ROD, because a "visible burn layer" would no longer be present. Second, working the burn area with heavy equipment could mix burn residue with soil so that a burn layer is no longer visible and the contamination would be evident only with laboratory analyses. The burn area is defined on the basis of historical aerial photography. The Navy should conduct the cleanup proposed in the PP and draft ROD: excavate soil and debris from Area 1 b to the extent it exceeds remedial goals, dispose of the excavated material off site, and backfill the excavation with clean backfill. It is not appropriate to clean up contamination only if it is visible. Discussions within the BCT, since publication of the Draft Final ROD, may lead to resolution of this issue. One proposal is for the Navy to excavate contamination anywhere burn residue can be detected, regardless of depth. Such removal would extend as deep as necessary to excavate all contaminated soil and debris that is above remedial goals, whenever burn residue is observable. In addition, soil in portions of Area 1 b that do not exhibit burn residue would be excavated down to groundwater to the extent remedial goals are exceeded. The draft comment letter supports this proposal. The Draft Final ROD contains provisions for stringent ICs restricting digging throughout IR Site 1. The BCT is revisiting the need for such ICs in areas, such as portions of Area 1 b, where contamination above remedial goals is to be removed completely. Because IR Site 1 ICs will be a burden to redevelopment by the transferee, the comment letter requests the Navy to appropriately tailor the ROD's IC requirements. Area 5 (shoreline area) In a change from the Draft ROD, the Draft Final ROD requires placement of riprap over exposed sand areas along the shoreline after removal of soil contamination in the top two feet. The riprap is to extend from the high tide line to approximately two feet below mean sea level. Once this is done, access to the shoreline may be limited. This component of the remedy was added to help stabilize the shoreline and prevent exposure to potential contamination greater than two feet deep. The Navy plans to issue a fact sheet to the general public that includes a discussion of the need for placing riprap on IR Site l's beaches. Honorable Chair and Members of the September 15, 2009 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 4 of 4 FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no financial impact from submitting comments to the Navy on its draft final ROD. RECOMMENDATION Approve Comment Letter on Draft Final Record of Decision for Alameda Point Installation Restoration Site 1 (1943-1956 Disposal Area). Resper ully submitt Leslie A. Little, Director Economic Development Department LL:DP:sb Attachments: 1. Comment Letter 2. Chronology ATTACHMENT 1 September 15, 2009 Mr. Pat Brooks BRAC Environmental Coordinator Navy BRAC Program Management Office 1455 Frazee Road, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92108 -4310 Re: Comments on the July 31, 2009 Draft Final Record of Decision for Installation Restoration Site 1, 1943 -1956 Disposal Area, Alameda Point, Alameda, California Dear Mr. Brooks: The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) has reviewed the Navy's July 31, 2009, Draft Final Record of Decision for Installation Restoration [IR] Site 1, 1943 -1956 Disposal Area Alameda Point, Alameda, California (Draft Final ROD). At its meeting on September 15, 2009, the ARRA Board directed staff to submit the following comments. The ARRA reiterates its long- standing position that excavation and removal of the waste is the only satisfactory remediation for the IR Site 1 landfill. Merely covering the buried wastes is unacceptable. The landfill is not compatible with this urban setting on the shores of San Francisco Bay, particularly in light of the widespread radiological contamination associated with it. No landfill was present when the Navy acquired this property. The Navy should clean up after itself and remove its landfill. The Draft Final ROD appears to significantly change the proposed remediation for Area lb, the burn area. The Proposed Plan's strategy of removing soil and debris above remedial goals throughout the bum area should not be relaxed. Contamination in the burn area that is above remedial goals should be excavated for off-site disposal, regardless of whether it is associated with a visible burn residue. The remedy for IR Site 1 must be appropriate for recreational use, without placing unnecessary burdens on the users. It is not necessary to impose institutional controls (ICs) that restrict digging in areas, such as Area lb, where all contamination above remedial goals is to be excavated and removed. The ARRA is aware that the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) is considering requiring the transferee (the ARRA) to obtain a radiological materials license /license exemption from CDPH for IR Site 1, in p art because CDPH believes the site is insufficiently characterized radiologically. Please include an investigation in the remedial design for IR Site 1 to complete the radiological characterization that CDPH may otherwise force the ARRA to do. 1. The Navy should remove all wastes from the IR Site 1 landfill, with off-site disposal. At its November 1, 2006, meeting, the ARRA Board acted to adopt the following two positions. The ARRA Board unanimously reaffirmed these positions at its October 3, 2007, and September 15, 2009, meetings. Mr. Pat Brooks September 15, 2009 Page 2 of 5 • Alternative S 1 -5 (complete removal of wastes in the landfill) is the only appropriate remediation for soil in Area 1, and • Alternative S 1 -4a (soil cover on the landfill) is unacceptable remediation for soil in Area 1 Among the considerations favoring Alternative S1 -5 are: • The Navy's only characterization of wastes buried in the Area 1 landfill consists of eleven, twenty- foot -long trenches, approximately one trench per acre. This landfill was the primary waste disposal location for the Naval Air Station Alameda from 1943 until 1956. The base generated large amounts of hazardous wastes during this time, many of which have caused extensive soil and groundwater contamination elsewhere on Alameda Point. It is reasonable to assume similar wastes are buried in Area 1. Although no chemical analyses were done, the trenching encountered widespread low -level radioactivity. No intact drums were found. If the radioactivity and other contaminants migrate from the landfill, they likely will constitute unacceptable risks to human health and the environment. The landfill should be excavated and disposed of offsite before this occurs. • The landfill is very close to San Francisco Bay and the Oakland Inner Harbor. Earthquakes, tsunamis, storm surges, and long -term shoreline erosion could lead to hazardous wastes reaching these water bodies. If the wastes were disposed offsite, aquatic habitats in the area would be protected from these hazards. • The Draft Final ROD proposes to remediate contaminated groundwater flowing from the landfill toward San Francisco Bay using in situ chemical treatment. Yet potentially buried wastes will continue to recontaminate groundwater, unless the source of the groundwater contamination —the landfill —is removed. The Navy may need to continue groundwater remediation for the foreseeable future because the source of contamination is still present. The planned treatment will not clean up toxic metals or radioactivity in the groundwater. Excavating the landfill with offsite disposal allows pemianent groundwater cleanup. • Future land use of the landfill footprint will be complicated and more costly because buried hazardous wastes and radioactivity are present. The planned future use of the landfill is recreational. Design, maintenance, and operation of recreational facilities will be more difficult due to the wastes, for example, topographic contouring, irrigation, landscape planting, accommodation of wells for landfill monitoring, etc. If the landfill were excavated and disposed offsite, routine design, maintenance, and operation of the recreational facilities could occur. • The public's enjoyment of this area will be lessened by the presence of a hazardous waste landfill. Some potential users of this planned segment of the Bay Trail may avoid the area for fear of the low -level radioactivity and other wastes. Regardless of whether Mr. Pat Brooks September 15, 2009 Page 3 of 5 such fears are justified, the public's recreational use of park areas should not be compromised, unless necessary. The ARRA believes a soil cover over the landfill (Alternative S1 -4a, the Navy's preferred alternative) is unacceptable. It is highly uncertain that a soil cover will be effective into the future. If groundwater migration from the landfill worsens, the environmental regulatory agencies likely would require the Navy to upgrade the soil cover to an engineered cap and install a perimeter, impermeable barrier. Retrofitting an engineered cap and perimeter, cut -off wall will severely disrupt the operations of any recreational facilities. 2. The Navy should not scale back the plan to excavate all soil and debris that exceed remediation goals from Area ib, the burn area. The Navy's September 2006 Proposed Plan and its April 2007 Draft ROD both describe excavation of all contamination from Area lb. "Excavation and Off-Site Disposal: Excavate soil from Area lb (3.7 acres), and dispose of excavated soil and radium - impacted items at an off -site facility." (Proposed Plan, p. 8) "Alternative S1 -4a for Soil Area 1. This alternative would achieve the Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) by removing soil from Area lb. Excavated soil would be screened for radiological contamination and contaminated soil would be disposed of off site." (Proposed Plan, p. 15) "The former bum area (Area lb) occupies approximately 3.7 acres, and is located entirely within Area 1. "Alternative S 14a will remove all contaminated soil, waste material, and, if found during the Final Status Survey, radiological material from Area lb; dispose of the soil off site; and replace removed materials with clean imported backfill." (Draft ROD, p. 9 -1 and 12 -1) The bum area was originally identified on the basis of historical aerial photographs. But in the Draft Final ROD the Navy scales back the scope of its remediation, potentially to a much smaller area. "The Navy will excavate Area lb to remove the burn layer, including any portions of the bum layer located below the water table, and to remove soil with contamination above the remediation goals so that the base of the excavation meets the remediation goals. The Navy will continue to excavate Area lb laterally to remove the visible bum layer. Once the bum layer is removed and remedial goals have been met at the base of the excavation, the Area lb excavation will be considered complete." (p. 12 -2 and 12 -3) Mr. Pat Brooks September 15, 2009 Page 4 of 5 During historic burning operations, the Navy routinely used heavy equipment to push the burned waste into San Francisco Bay. This may or may not have resulted in a "visible burn layer" depending on the nature of the material burned and the amount of mixing with soil occurred while pushing the burned waste into the Bay. Further, burned or unburned wastes could have leached into the ground at specific burn sites, contaminating underlying soil that was not pushed into the Bay with the burned wastes. Such contaminated soil would not be associated with a "visible burn layer" and would not be excavated for off -site disposal according to the Draft Final ROD. It is not appropriate to excavate contamination solely on the basis of visible residues. Chemical testing must be used to confirm that remedial goals have been met throughout the historic burn area. In discussions among BCT members after issuance of the Draft Final ROD, a proposal was developed that appropriately remediates Area lb to protect human health and the environment. The proposal includes comprehensive soil sampling of Area lb for chemical contamination, radiological contamination, and evidence of burn residue. In areas where evidence of burn residue is present, contaminated soil and debris above chemical or radiological remediation goals would be excavated regardless of depth. In areas of Area lb where evidence of burn residue is not present, contaminated soil above remedial goals would be excavated down to the water table. If the radiological disposal trench in Area lb is encountered, contaminated soil and debris above remedial goals would be excavated regardless of depth and regardless of whether evidence of burn residue is present. Excavated soil and debris that is above remedial goals would be disposed off site, and the excavation filled with clean imported backfill. This proposal is much more protective of human health and the environment than the strategy described in the Draft Final ROD. Please conform the ROD to this proposal. 3. The ROD needlessly specifies ICs restricting land - disturbing activities in Area 1b. Once soil and debris in the burn area has been excavated and removed, ICs restricting digging will be unnecessary, except perhaps to support the seismic stability of adjoining areas. Nevertheless, the Draft Final ROD imposes ICs, including those restricting digging, across all of IR Site 1, irrespective of the fact that contamination above remedial goals will have been removed from portions, if not all, of Area lb. The final ROD should recognize that less stringent ICs are appropriate for Area lb. Summary Merely covering the landfill with four feet of soil is unacceptable. The buried low -level radiological waste and other wastes should be excavated and removed from Alameda Point. Only landfill removal will restore the area to the environmental quality it had when the Navy acquired it. Area lb, the burn area, should be excavated, with off -site disposal, so that human health and the environment are protected. The proposal described above, which is based on removal of soil and debris above remedial goals, should be specified in the ROD. The Draft Final ROD currently includes ICs that would restrict digging in Area lb, even though soil and debris that exceeds remedial goals will be removed. These restrictions on land - disturbing Mr. Pat Brooks September 15, 2009 Page 5 of 5 activities will be a time - consuming and costly burden on ARRA, the transferee, without any commensurate benefit to public health or the environment. Please include radiological characterization to the satisfaction of CDPH in the remedial design for IR Site 1. The ARRA cannot undertake an expensive radiological investigation of IR Site 1 as part of obtaining a radiological materials license exemption from CDPH. Thank you for considering ARRA's comments. Sincerely, Leslie A. Little, Director Economic Development Department. cc: Xuan -Mai Tran, USEPA Anna -Marie Cook, USEPA Dot Lofstrom, DTSC Robert Wilson, CDPH John West, Water Board Peter Russell, Russell Resources, Inc. ATTACHMENT 2 CHRONOLOGY OF IR SITE 1 REMEDIAL DECISION-MAKING The following description of the milestones leading to the draft final ROD highlights the evolution of the Navy's cleanup plans for IR Site 1, especially Area 1a (main historic landfill) and Area lb (burn area). September 2006: The Navy issues its PP for IR Site 1, which proposes to isolate the landfilled waste beneath a soil cover. The PP specifies excavation of Area 1 b, the burn area, to meet remedial action objectives, with off-site disposal of contaminated soil. November 9, 2006: The ARRA comments in a letter to the Navy that the ROD should specify removal of all wastes from the IR Site 1 landfill, with off-site disposal. February 2007 through March 2008: The Navy conducts a Time-Critical Removal Action (TCRA) to excavate and dispose off site the low-level radiological contamination that is in shallow soil and in a disposal trench in Area 1 b. In some locations, not all radiological contamination was removed because it extends deeper than had been anticipated. April 11, 2007: The Navy issues its draft ROD for IR Site 1, which carries forward the remedy outlined in the PP. The burn area remedy is clarified to include removal of all contaminated soil and waste material, with offsite disposal. The draft ROD's Responsiveness Summary responds to the ARRA's November 2006 comments on the PP by asserting that burying wastes beneath a soil cover best satisfies the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) selection criteria. June 25, 2007: The ARRA comments in a letter to the USEPA that further characterization of Area 1a is needed before selecting a remedy. The letter suggests trenching. August 28, 2007: The Navy finalizes its work plan for digging exploratory trenches into Area la to address the ARRA's June 2007 comment that the landfill is too poorly characterized for remedy selection. October 4, 2007: The Navy updates the RAB on the results of the exploratory trenching, which occurred in early September 2007. The trenches encountered surprising little buried refuse, but low-level radioactive contamination is present more extensively than had been expected. October 25, 2007: The ARRA comments on the draft ROD in a letter to the Navy that the ROD should (a) specify a remedy that removes all waste, with off-site ATTACHMENT 2 Page 2 disposal, and (2) not require institutional controls (ICs) restricting digging in areas, such as Area 1 b, where all wastes are to be removed. May 16, 2008: The Navy issues a report of findings from exploratory trenching into Area 1 a, the main historic landfill. June 25, 2008: The Navy issues a letter proposing to transfer the eastern portion of IR Site 1 to IR Site 32, an adjacent site, for remedial decision making. The unexpected, widespread presence of low-level radiological contamination in soil would have delayed remedy selection for IR Site 1. Areas la and lb remain in IR Site 1. October 20, 2008: The ARRA comments to the Navy in a letter that the results of exploratory trenching into Area la strongly suggest that the landfilled wastes may have been relocated and are no longer present, contrary to the conceptual model for IR Site 1. The letter asks that further investigation of this issue be conducted before selecting a remedy for Area 1 a, but that cleanup of the balance of IR Site 1 should not be delayed. December 15, 2008: The Navy responds to the ARRA's October 2008 letter, rejecting the idea that IR Site 1 wastes may no longer be present. The Navy says trenching and prior investigations are consistent with the conceptual model for Area la that a landfill exists. April 8, 2009: The Navy issues its draft TCRA report for cleanup of near-surface radiological contamination at IR Site 1 (and nearby IR Sites 2 and 32). August 3, 2009: The Navy issues its draft final ROD for IR Site 1, which carries forward the remedy proposed in the PP. This is the first document in which the Navy states that it will (a) only remove contamination in Area lb if it is associated with a "visible burn layer", and (b) place riprap on all exposed beach sand. August 31, 2009: The Navy issues its final TCRA report for cleanup of near-surface radiological contamination at IR Sites 1, 2, and 32.