Exhibit 2 - Development and Disposition Agreement — Alameda City Council, July 18, 2023 (part 3 of 3)

Type of Disposal Recipient When Description Acres
NC-EDC City of Alameda 2000 East Housing 75.00
Lease Termination City of Alameda 2000 Lease Termination 161.50 Federal Agency to Federal
Agency U.S. Coast Guard 2008 Marina Village Housing 28.00 PBC City of Alameda 2009 Via U.S. Dept. of Interior (Park & Rec.) 44.00 NC-EDC (Phase 1) City of Alameda 2013 June 2013 Conveyance 1,379.21 PBC City of Alameda 2013 Estuary Park 8.00
Federal Agency to Federal
Agency Veterans’ Administration 2014 June 2014 Conveyance 624.00

Notes:

EDC = Economic Development Conveyance
NC = No Cost
PBC = Public Benefit Conveyance

7his page intentionally left blank
Finding of Suitability to Transfer Phase 2 - Former NAS Alameda TABLE 2: RCRA UNIT CLOSURES AND REASSIGNMENTS
RCRA Unit
Identification Description Status
Closure
Reference°Material Stored / Disposed Of
Program
Reassignment Assigned Site
AOC 398 USTs 398-1 and 398-2 Water Board
2014n
JP-5 (UST 398-1) and JP-TS (UST
398-2)
NFA without
Restrictions
UST 398-1,
UST 398-2
Petroleum
AOC 473 UST 473-1 Water Board
2000, Water
Board 2014r
Gasoline NFA without
Restrictions
UST 473-1Petroleum
BOWTS Bilge Oily Water Treatment
System
DTSC 2000a,
DTSC 2000b

NFARCRA
M-07 Building 398 solvent distillation
unit; Drize Test Shop
PD-680, paint thinners, and acetone Open CAA-03APetroleum M-10 Area 37 Annex DTSC 2000cSpent solvents (toluene, MEK, 1,1,1- TCA, and methylene chloride), waste
flammable liquids, beryllium, and
mercury
NFA
RCRA

NADEP GAP
44 ASTs 398-1, 398-2, and 398-3 Lube oil, JP-5, and M-114 solvent OpenCAA-03APetroleum

NADEP GAP
45 Building 398, Shop 96327
(Turbine Accessory Shop) GAP
Aerosol paint and paper towels
contaminated with oil
OpenCAA-03A
Petroleum

NADEP GAP
78 Building 479 Shop 65234 GAP EPA 2014Aerosol paint, primer, alcohol, poly paint, naphtha, and acetone
Response
Complete, NFA
IR 34
CERCLA

NADEP GAP
79 Building 472 Shop 65234 GAP DTSC 1999c,
EPA 2014
Blasting grit (media) Response
Complete, NFA
IR 34
CERCLA
NAS GAP 10 Building 112 GAP DTSC 1999cSolvents, lubrication and hydraulic oils, and asbestos (doubled bags)
Response
Complete, NFA
IR 03
CERCLA
OWS 608A Oil-Water Separator 608A Navy 2016a,
Navy 2015d
Wastewater from cleaning
automobiles with commercial soaps
or drive train degreasers
Response
Complete, NFA
IR 16
CERCLA
OWS 608B Oil-Water Separator 608B Navy 2016a,
Navy 2015d
Wastewater from cleaning
automobiles with commercial soaps
or drive train degreasers
Response
Complete, NFA
IR 16
CERCLA

Page 1 of 2 ends

Finding of Suitability to Transfer Phase 2 - Former NAS Alameda TABLE 2: RCRA UNIT CLOSURES AND REASSIGNMENTS (Continued) RCRA Unit
Identification Description Status
Closure
Reference°Material Stored / Disposed Of
Program
Reassignment Assigned Site
SWMU 331 Solid Waste Management Unit
Building 331
DTSC 2014,
Water Board
2013b
Diesel NFA without
Restrictions
CAA-14Petroleum
UST(R)-18/
NAS GAP 17
UST RCRA Unit 18 and Naval
Air Station Generator
Accumulation Point 17: UST
608-1
Navy 2016a,
Navy 2015d
Waste oil Response
Complete, NFA
IR 16
CERCLA
WD 608 Washdown Area Building 608 DTSC 2005e,
Navy 2007b
Wastewater from cleaning
automobiles with commercial soaps
or drive train degreasers
Response
Complete, NFA
IR 16
CERCLA
°
AOC
BOWTS
CERCLA
CAA
DTSC
EPA
GAP
IC
IR
Notes:

If blank, the site remains open
Area of Concern
Bilge oily water treatment system
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
Petroleum Program Corrective Action Area
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Environmental Protection Agency
Generator accumulation point
Institutional Control
Installation Restoration
JP-5
JP-TS
RCRA
M
MEK
NADEP
NAS
NFA
OWS
TCA
UST
Jet propellant #5
Jet propellant #5 thermally stabilized
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Miscellaneous area identified in RFA
Methyl ethyl ketone
Naval Aviation Depot
Naval Air Station
No Further Action
Oil-water separator
Trichloroethane
Underground storage tank
UST(R)
WD
UST numbering system as identified in RFA
Washdown area

Page 2 of 2 ends

TABLE 3: CERCLA SITE STATUS
Finding of Suitability to Transfer Phase 2 - Former NAS Alameda Closure
Identification Site Name Status Reference
AOC 1 Arsenic and cobalt (storage yard) NFA CH2MHill 2014, EPA 2015a
AOC 6 Hexavalent chromium (likely source is AST 584 stored NFA CH2MHill 2014, EPA wastewater condensate from a heater) 2015a
IR 03 Abandoned Fuel Storage Area Response Complete, includes ICs EPA 2015b, Navy 2015a, Navy 2015c
IR 16 C-2 CANS Area (Shipping Container Storage) Response Complete, includes ICs Navy 2015d, Navy 2016a, URS 2012b
IR 17 Seaplane Lagoon Response Complete, includes ICs Tetra Tech EC 2014a, Navy 2016b, Navy 2016c
IR 24 Pier Area Response Complete, NFA DTSC 2013a, EPA 2013, Tetra Tech EC 2013
IR 25 Estuary Park and the Coast Guard Housing Area Response Complete, includes ICs Navy 2007a, Navy 2007c, Navy 2015b
IR 30 Miller School Response Complete, NFA Navy 2007a, Navy 2009, Navy 2015b
IR 34 Former Northwest Shop Area Response Complete, NFA DTSC 2014, EPA 2014, ERS 2014
Notes:

AOC Area of Concern
AST Aboveground storage tank
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control
IC Institutional Control
IR Installation Restoration
LUC RD Land Use Control Remedial Design
NAS Naval Air Station
Navy Department of the Navy
NFA No Further Action

Page 1 of 1 ends

7his page intentionally left blank
Finding of Suitability to Transfer Phase 2 - Former NAS Alameda TABLE 4: PETROLEUM CORRECTIVE ACTION AREA AND AREAS OF CONCERN SITE STATUS Identification Site Name Status
Closure
Reference°
CAA-03A Petroleum Corrective Action Area 03A Open
CAA-03B Petroleum Corrective Action Area 03B Open
CAA-03C Petroleum Corrective Action Area 03C Open
CAA-09A Petroleum Corrective Action Area 09A Open
CAA-09B Petroleum Corrective Action Area 09B NFA without Restrictions Navy 2015d CAA-14 Petroleum Corrective Action Area 14 NFA without Restrictions DTSC 2014, Water Board 2013b
CAA-A Petroleum Corrective Action Area Fuel Line A NFA without Restrictions Water Board 2007 °
CAA
NAS
NFA
Water Board
Notes:

If blank, the site remains open
Petroleum Program Corrective Action Area
Naval Air Station
No Further Action
Regional Water Quality Control Board

Page 1 of 1 ends

7his page intentionally left blank
Finding of Suitability to Transfer Phase 2 - Former NAS Alameda TABLE 5: STORAGE TANK STATUS
Program
Physical
Status Contents Regulatory Status
Closure
Reference°
Capacity
(gallons)
Install
Date
Removal
DateTank
Associated
Site
Petroleum Removed Diesel 60 Unknown Before 1994 Water Board 2013c
AST 330A NFA with
Restrictions
Petroleum Removed Diesel 60 Unknown Before 1994AST 330B Open Petroleum Removed Diesel 500 Unknown Unknown Water Board 2013b
AST 331 NFA without
Restrictions
CERCLA Removed Propane 500 Unknown Unknown Navy 2007bAST 338-A1 IR 16Response Complete, NFA
Petroleum Removed Diesel 200 Unknown 1992 - 1994 Water Board 2014jAST 338-D4 NFA without Restrictions
Petroleum Removed Diesel 100 Unknown Before 1994 Water Board 2014k
AST 344A NFA without
Restrictions
Petroleum Removed Diesel 100 Unknown Before 1994 Water Board 2014k
AST 344B NFA without
Restrictions
Petroleum Removed Diesel 100 Unknown Before 1994 Water Board 2014k
AST 344C NFA without
Restrictions
Petroleum Removed Diesel 100 Unknown Before 1994 Water Board 2014k
AST 344D NFA without
Restrictions
Petroleum RemovedAST 398-1 CAA-03AOpen
Petroleum RemovedAST 398-2 CAA-03AOpen
Petroleum RemovedAST 398-3 CAA-03AOpen
CERCLA Removed Industrial
Wastewater
(condensate
from heater
containing
corrosion-
resistant
chemicals)
15,000 Unknown NA CH2MHill 2014AST 584 AOC 6NFA
CERCLA Removed Waste Oil 1,000 Unknown NA Navy 2007bAST 608 IR 16Response Complete, NFA
Petroleum Removed 115/145 AVGAS 100,000 1943 1987UST 97-A CAA-03COpen

Page 1 of 2 ends

Finding of Suitability to Transfer Phase 2 - Former NAS Alameda TABLE 5: STORAGE TANK STATUS (Continued)
Program
Physical
Status Contents Regulatory Status
Closure
Reference°
Capacity
(gallons)
Install
Date
Removal
DateTank
Associated
Site
Petroleum Removed 115/145 AVGAS 100,000 1943 1987UST 97-B CAA-03COpen Petroleum Removed 115/145 AVGAS 100,000 1943 1987 Water Board 2015h
UST 97-C NFA without
Restrictions
Petroleum Removed 115/145 AVGAS 100,000 1943 1987UST 97-D CAA-03COpen Petroleum Removed 115/145 AVGAS 100,000 1962 1987UST 97-E CAA-03COpen Petroleum Removed JP-5 10,000 1969 4/27/1995 Water Board 2014n
UST 398-1 NFA without
Restrictions
Petroleum Removed JP-TS 10,000 1969 4/27/1995 Water Board 2014n
UST 398-2 NFA without
Restrictions
Petroleum Removed Gasoline 500 1948 11/3/1994 Water Board 2000, Water
Board 2014r
UST 473-1 NFA without
Restrictions
CERCLA Removed Waste Oil 600 Unknown 2/6/1995 Navy 2016a, Navy 2015d
UST 608-1 IR 16NFA without
Restrictions
°
AOC
AST
AVGAS
CAA
CERCLA
IR
Notes:

If blank, the site remains open
Area of Concern
Aboveground storage tank
Aviation Gasoline
Petroleum Program Corrective Action Area
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Installation Restoration
JP-TS
NA
NAS
Navy
NFA
UST
Water Board
Jet propellant #5 thermally stabilized
Not applicable
Naval Air Station
Department of the Navy
No Further Action
Underground storage tank
Regional Water Quality Control Board

Page 2 of 2 ends

Finding of Suitability to Transfer Phase 2 - Former NAS Alameda

UNDERGROUND FUEL LINE STATUS
Identification
TABLE 6:

Physical Status Regulatory Status Closure Reference°Associated Site FL-018 Removed Water Board 2007CAA-ANFA without Restrictions FL-127 Removed CAA-03AOpen
FL-128 Removed CAA-03COpen
FL-131 Removed CAA-03COpen
FL-155 Closed-in-Place Water Board 2015kNA
FL-158 Closed-in-Place Water Board 2015kNA
If blank, the site remains open
Corrective Action Area
Fuel Line
Not Applicable (Not designated a site)
Naval Air Station
No Further Action
Regional Water Quality Control Board
Notes:
°
CAA
FL
NA
NAS
NFA
Water Board

Page 1 of 1 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

Finding of Suitability to Transfer Phase 2 - Former NAS Alameda Identification Description Status
Closure
Reference
TABLE 7: RADIOLOGICALLY IMPACTED SITES WITHIN THE FOST PARCEL Associated
CERCLA Site
Former Smelter Area Melting of scrap metals (Ra-226). Former smelter was immediately east of Building 66, in use until approximately 1946.

Former smelter area extends into a small portion of IR Site 3; see Figure 11.

Unrestricted ChaduxTt
2012e
IR Site 3
Seaplane Lagoon Location where seaplanes entered and exited the bay. Discharge location for the storm drain lines from Building 5 and 400 (Ra- 226).

Response Complete, with
Dredging Restrictions
Tetra Tech EC
2014a, Navy In
Press-e
IR Site 17
FOST
IR
NAS
Ra-226
Notes:

Finding of Suitability to Transfer
Installation Restoration
Naval Air Station
Radium-226

Page 1 of 1 ends

7his page intentionally left blank

Attachment 1: Responses to Regulatory Agency Comments

This page intentionally left blank.

ATTACHMENT 1. RESPONSES TO REGULATORY AGENCY COMMENTS
Finding of Suitability to Transfer Phase 2 - Former NAS Alameda Document Title: Draft Finding of Suitability to Transfer Phase 2, Former Naval Air Station, Alameda, California (May 2014)

Attachment 1, FOST for Former NAS Alameda 1

Navy Initiated Change
General As a result of significant CERCLA progress made at OU5 and OU2B, the FOST schedules for these areas have converged with those areas previously included in the DRAFT Phase 2 FOST. Therefore, in furtherance of the BRAC Program Management Office mission to dispose of Department of the Navy BRAC property the Navy is initiating changes to the Draft Final FOST Phase 2 document to incorporate the remaining portions of OU5 (i.e. IR Site 30 and the remainder of IR Site 25) and a portion of OU2B (IR Site 3 - lead impacted area).

Attachment 1, FOST for Former NAS Alameda 2

Comments from Xuan-Mai Tran, Project Manager, USEPA - dated June 11, 2014 Comment No. General Comment Response
1 EPA’s review of the Draft Finding of Suitability to
Transfer (FOST) Phase 2 for Former Naval Air Station
Alameda is based on the expectation that the following
listed documents will be finalized and/or approved prior to the FOST signature:
a. OU-2B Record of Decision (ROD)
b. IR Site 16 Explanation of Significant Differences
(ESD)
c. IR Site 16 Remedial Action Completion Report
(RACR)
d. IR Site 17 Remedial Action Completion Report
(RACR)
e. Amended Site Inspect ion for Economic
Development Conveyance (EDC) 12

1. Comment acknowledged. The OU -2B ROD, the Site 16
ESD and LUC RD , the Site 1 7 RACR, and the Amended SI
for EDC 12 have been finalized. In accordance with
resolution of comments on the Site 16 ESD, the Site 16
RACR will be a LUC/RD. In accordance with BCT
discussions, a Site 17 ESD and LUC -RD will also be
completed prior to the Final FOST.

2 EPA notes that Navy policy provides for a 30 -day public notice prior to the signing of the FOST.

2. A Notice of Intent to Sign , Finding of Suitability to Transfer ( FOST) will be publ ished in local Alameda
newspaper(s) 30 days prior to signing of the FOST.

Comment No. Specific Comments Response
1 Section 4.1.3, IR Site 17 (OU -4B), Page 9: To be
consistent with the other documents for IR Site 17
Seaplane Lagoon (SPL), please replace the acres of Site 17 SPL from “111 submerged acres…” to “approximately
110 submerged acres…”

1. Comment incorporated.

Attachment 1, FOST for Former NAS Alameda 3

Comments from Xuan-Mai Tran, Project Manager, USEPA - dated June 11, 2014 Comment No. Specific Comments Response
2 Section 4.1.3, IR Site 17 (OU -4B), Page 10: “RACR” is missing after “Final” on the second line of the first
complete paragraph.

2. Comment incorporated.
3 Section 4.8, Pesticides, Page 20: EPA does not agree with the Navy assertion regarding its obligation to address post-transfer discovery of pesticide contamination. If such contamination requires a response action, it is not
excluded from the Navy’s CERCLA obligation.

3. The Navy's position on the responsibility for legally applied pesticides remains unchanged. The FOST was not
changed as a result of this comment. Despite the Navy and EPA's difference of opinion, in the past EPA has concurred with the Navy's determination that the pa rcel is suitable for transfer but has included the following statement in its concurrence letter: "EPA concurs with the Navy's
determination that the parcel is suitable for transfer; however, it is EPA's position that residual pesticide contamination, if discovered following transfer at levels requiring a response action, is not excluded from the Navy's post -transfer
obligations."

Comment No. Minor Comment Response
1 The full justification of the document caused the spelling on some of the words to be incorrect. Please do a global search throughout the document to correct them.

1. Comment incorporated.

Attachment 1, FOST for Former NAS Alameda 4

Comments from Jennifer Ott, Chief Operating Officer, City of Alameda - dated June 12, 2014 Comment No. Comment Response
1 p. v. “Acronyms”: Include acronym for “SI”, see, e.g. pp. 11-12.

1. Comment incorporated.
2 Throughout: Numerous sites are referenced as having
received EPA and DTSC concurrence as to remedial
status, yet approvals are noted as “(P ENDING)” or
“(Navy in Press)”. Those sites are not ready for transfer until those approvals are provided in final, including EPA and DTSC approval of the Seaplane Lagoon RACR,
including Draft Appendix W, “Evaluation of Items with
Radiological Activity…”.

2. Comment acknowledged.
3 p. 1: In the first paragraph, text should refer to “a portion of” the former NAS as being the subject to the FOST.

3. Comment incorporated.
4 p. 1 : In the third paragraph, first sentence, text again should refer to “a portion of” the real property as being made available.

4. Comment incorporated.
5 2.0 Property Description, p. 1, bottom paragraph ; 4.1 CERCLA Program, p. 6, first full paragraph: The
southwest corner of IR Site 34 is not included in the
FOST Parcel (see FOST Figure 3). The first sentence in
each paragraph should state that a portion, not “all”, of IR Site 34 is in the FOST Parcel.

5. Comment incorporated.
6 §3.2 p.4: Second to last line, add an “s” to “release”

6. Comment incorporated.

Attachment 1, FOST for Former NAS Alameda 5

Comments from Jennifer Ott, Chief Operating Officer, City of Alameda - dated June 12, 2014 Comment No. Comment Response
7 4.1.2 IR Site 16 (OU-1), p. 8: Consider mentioning in this section that an automobile service and repair facility was present in IR Site 16, as is done in Section 4.2.1 for CAA- 09B (p. 13).

7. Comment incorporated.
8 4.1.3 IR Site 17 (OU -4B), p. 10, first complete sentence:

Portions of the construction debris piles that were
removed from the north shore of Seaplane Lagoon were
sometimes exposed. Please consider adding “and
intertidal” to the sentence: “Between October 2008 and
December 2009, a time- critical removal action (TCRA)
was conducted to remove the submerged and intertidal
construction debris piles located along the northern
shoreline of Site 17.”

8. Comment incorporated.
9 4.1.5 IR Site 34, p. 11, 3 rd paragraph and elsewhere ; The text states that “NFA”, defined as “no further action”, was selected for groundwater by the IR Site 34 ROD. This
implies “action” had already occurred for IR Site 34
groundwater, but none had. The selected remedy for IR
Site 3
4 states in part that “no action is required for
groundwater.” (ROD Section 2.9.1) . The FOST contains
many instances, for both CERCLA and Petroleum
Program sites, where “NFA” is used as a shorthand for
“no action”. In the interest of accuracy and to avoid
confusion among FOST readers who would wonder what
prior remedial/removal action they should be aware of,
please consider reviewing the FOST for occurrences of
“NFA” and “no further action” and substituting “no
action” when appropriate.

9. NFA is standar d language used throughout the Navy ER Program and is the appropriate terminology to use for all sites, including Site 34 that has undergone site
characterization as part of the Remedial Investigation (RI) phase of the CERCLA process. The use of NFA termi nology in the FOST is justified because the act of collecting samples and reviewing site risk are considered to be actions under both CERCLA and the UST programs.

Attachment 1, FOST for Former NAS Alameda 6

Comments from Jennifer Ott, Chief Operating Officer, City of Alameda - dated June 12, 2014 Comment No. Comment Response
10 4.2 Petroleum Products and Derivatives, p. 12, bottom paragraph, 2nd sentence: “Separately” makes the sentence ambiguous and somewhat awkward to understand. Please
consider beginning the sentence with “In addition”,
instead.

10. Text revised for clarification:
“Some of the sites included in the Petroleum Program were originally identified as part of the RFA prepared by the Navy and DTSC in 1992 (DTSC 1992b ); the purpose of the RFA
was to identify sites potentially requiring closure under RCRA regulations.”
11 4.2.1 Open Petroleum Program Sites, p. 13: Please
consider adding additional detail to the CAA discussions in this section. For example, the Navy has completed
considerable corrective -action efforts at CAAs -3A, -3B, and - 3C, which cleaned up the vast major
ity of the
petroleum contamination, and is now undertaking the final steps (hopefully) before site closure. However, the FOST does not provide this basic status information. Please
consider revising the section to provide more detail about each site, its status, and its closure prospects.

11. Comment incorporated. The text was revised as follows (italics identify updated text):

“This 9-acre site overlaps IR Site 3. The site was subdivided into CAA-03A, CAA-03B, and CAA-03C. Historic activities at CAA-03A, CAA-03B and CAA-03C resulted in the release of aviation fuel to soil and groundwater. T he Navy has performed investigations and completed substantial
corrective-action at CAAs-03A, -03B, and -03C; these efforts have cleaned up the vast majority o f the petroleum
contamination (Shaw E&I 2013 ). USTs 398- 1 and 398-2,
which are included in CAA -03A, were closed with a NFA
letter from the Water Board dated October 13, 2014 ( Water Board 2014e ); oth er components of CAA -03A are being
investigated or are under review for closure ( Table 4 and Table 5 ). UST 97- C, which is part of CAA -03C, was closed with a NFA letter from the Water Board dated April 21, 2015 (
Water Board 2015c ). Residual contamination at CAA -03B and - 03C requires further investigation and possibly
corrective action prior to requesting closure.”
12 4.2.1 Open Petroleum Program Sites, p. 13, 1 st paragraph, 2nd sentence: The sentence refers to “NFA requests” for Petroleum Program sites. Customarily at Alameda Point,

12. Comment incorporated. The text in 4.2.1, first paragraph, second sentence was changed from “NFA” requests to “site closure” requests.

Attachment 1, FOST for Former NAS Alameda 7

Comments from Jennifer Ott, Chief Operating Officer, City of Alameda - dated June 12, 2014 Comment No. Comment Response
such requests are called “Site Closure Summaries”, or
simply site closure requests. Please consider revising the FOST to identify petroleum site clo sure requests in the usual manner.
13 4th paragraph of section —last sentence —revise to read “The tables identify the program under which closure is being addressed.”

13. Comment incorporated. The text of Section 4.2, was
revised to indicate the tables that identify the program under which closure is being addressed.
14 4.2.1 Open Petroleum Sites, pp. 13 -14: Incomplete
descriptions of current investigation, remediation and/or regulatory status are provided for some of the sites (see, e.g. CAA-03C and CAA-09A).

14. Comment incorporated. See RTC # 11, above for CAA -

03. Information provided for CAA-09A is what is available to date. Information was added to the text for CAA -09B (see Response to Water Board Comment #4, below).
15 §4.1.3 IR Site 17 (p.9) and §4.7.2 General Radioactive Material (p.18): The FOST anticipates EPA concurrence and DTSC certification of the remedial action performed in
Seaplane Lagoon (“SPL”) consistent with the IR Site 17
ROD, but this is premature. During implementation of the SPL sedimen t excavation remedy, 51 radiological devices (“RDs”) were unexpectedly found within the excavated
sediment, requiring their removal and offsite disposal at an out-of-state low level radiation waste disposal site. The Navy prepared, as Appendix W to the RAC R for the
sediment removal remedy, an evaluation of, among other
risks, the potential risk of additional RDs residing in the unexcavated SPL sediment. Appendix W is currently under review by DTSC and CDPH’s Environmental Management
Branch (“EMB”). EMB has not yet commented on Appendix
W or made a written determination whether SPL can be
released for unrestricted use. Until all branches of CDPH complete their review, as necessary, SPL is not ready for

15. The Site 17 RACR documents that the RAOs in the 2006 ROD and completion criteria in the RAWP were achieved and that IR Site 17 does not pose a risk to human health or the environment under current or proposed future use. In
accordance with previous agreements between the BCT and the City, the Navy is preparing a ROD ESD and LUC/RD for Site 17, and the City will be responsible for preparing the Sediment Management Plan (S edMP). Section 4.1.3 will be modified to include the following:

“An ESD and LUC RD were completed to add ICs as a
component of the remedy. To ensure proper disposal and
prevent potential exposure to Ra -226 in the sediment
(including items with Ra -226 activity that may be present in the sediment), the ICs prohibit dredging unless performed subject to an approved Sediment Management Plan”
ATTACHMENT 1. RESPONSES TO REGULATORY AGENCY COMMENTS
Finding of Suitability to Transfer Phase 2 - Former NAS Alameda Document Title: Draft Finding of Suitability to Transfer Phase 2, Former Naval Air Station, Alameda, California (May 2014)

Attachment 1, FOST for Former NAS Alameda 8

Comments from Jennifer Ott, Chief Operating Officer, City of Alameda - dated June 12, 2014 Comment No. Comment Response
transfer. First, if EMB determines SPL cannot be release d for unrestricted use, the City of Alameda (“City”) will need to obtain from CDPH’s Radiologic Health Branch (“RHB”)
a radiologic materials license or an exemption from the license obligation, or risk being in violation of the Radiation Law for possessing radiologic materials without a license or exemption upon title transfer. Furthermore, the City’s
application for an exemption or license (if necessary) will include notice to RHB that the City’s reuse of SPL will include construction of a ferry terminal a nd marina in the northeast corner and along the eastern edge of the SPL. The City may choose to build these features by relocating
sediment from one place to another along the bottom of the SPL, or it may dispose of such sediment offsite. Also, the City ma y conduct sediment dredging for maintenance and other purposes, again with final sediment placement in the SPL or offsite.

Given the obligations of the Navy and EPA under CERCLA
and the NCP to anticipate the City’s anticipated future use of part of the SP
L for these purposes, and to select a remedy
that reasonably accommodates that future use, and in
anticipation of conditions the RHB will otherwise require as part of the license or license exemption process, the City proposes that the Navy, EPA, RHB and the City negotiate the terms of a sediment management plan (“SMP”) for SPL with protocols for the future excavation/ dragging, handling and final placement of any remaining unexcavated SPL
sediment and residual RDs, possibly including the disposal of such s ediment and RDs without further remediation,
whether dragged and placed along the bottom of the other side of the SPL or if disposed of aquatically. Once approved ATTACHMENT 1. RESPONSES TO REGULATORY AGENCY COMMENTS
Finding of Suitability to Transfer Phase 2 - Former NAS Alameda Document Title: Draft Finding of Suitability to Transfer Phase 2, Former Naval Air Station, Alameda, California (May 2014)

Attachment 1, FOST for Former NAS Alameda 9

Comments from Jennifer Ott, Chief Operating Officer, City of Alameda - dated June 12, 2014 Comment No. Comment Response
by all agencies, that SMP should be added to the Navy’s ROD for the SPL through an Explanatio n of Significant
Differences (“ESD”), as has been done at IR Site 16 (see Draft FOST, pp. 8-9), to reflect the unexpected discovery of the RDs and the updated remedial strategy to address those RDs remaining in SPL sediments, both in situ and in case of fu
ture dredging or dragging in connection with the City’s planned reuse of SPL. If the Site is not released for
unrestricted reuse by EMB, then the statement at p. 18 of the draft FOST that “existing requirements for sediment disposal are protective if futur
e dredging is performed” appears to
insufficiently address the full scope of human health and environmental concerns potentially presented by the residual RDs if dredged, and the remedial actions potentially required to mitigate them. Those potential heal
th concerns and
additional remedial actions would be better and more
directly addressed now through a site -specific SMP vetted and approved by all relevant agencies and made part of the SPL remedy through an ESD, as proposed above.
16 §5.1 CERCLA, p. 20: In first sentence, replace “property” with “FOST Parcel.”

16. Comment incorporated.
17 §5.1.1 CERCLA Sites with Remedial Action Complete, p. 20: Draft FOST refers to [“ASSUMES RESPONSE
COMPLETE AT IR S ITE 17”] and “[ASSUM ES NO
RESTRICTIONS AT IR 17”]. Neither assumption may be
correct per above discussion. May need to be revised, and add a Section 5.1.3 to refer to a SPL SMP.

17. See Response to City Comment #15, above. The text will be revised to reflect the impact of the Site 17 ESD and LUC RD on the FOST Parcel.

Attachment 1, FOST for Former NAS Alameda 10

Comments from Jennifer Ott, Chief Operating Officer, City of Alameda - dated June 12, 2014 Comment No. Comment Response
18 5.1.2 Marsh Crust, p. 20, 1 st paragraph, last sentence: The remedy selected in the 2001 Marsh Crust RAP/ROD
applies to “the marsh crust and former subtidal area”,
which is depicted in Figure 4 of the RAP/ROD. IR Site
34 is not included in the marsh crust and former subtidal area. Please consider appending “, except IR Site 34” to the subject sentence, and revising FOST Figure 10
accordingly.

18. Comment incorporated. Site 34 is not in the footprint of the Former Subtidal Area and Tidal Marshland as shown on Figure 4 in the RAP/ROD. However, the “City of Alameda Ordinance No. 2824, Alameda Municipal Code Chapter XIII, Section 13-
56" (dated June 2000), shows that IR Site 34 is
subject to the Marsh Crust/Subtidal Restriction.
19 § 5.2 Petroleum Products and Derivatives, p. 21: In the last paragraph regarding federal quitclaim deeds for
transfers of property that includes open petroleum sites, to remove ambiguity, language should be added to make
clear that although the property where these sites are
located will be enrolled in the City Program and work will be conducted pursuant to a soil/groundwater management
plan acceptable to the Water Board, “such regulatory
closure remains the Navy’s responsibility and will be
obtained at Navy direction or by negotiating an agreement with the tra nsferee to complete these actions on behalf of the Navy.”

19. Comment incorporated. A sentence was added at the end of the paragraph and the text was revised to read: “…plan is acceptable to the Water Board, in accordance with the City Program. However, s
uch regulatory closure remains the
Navy’s responsibility and will be obtained at Navy direction or by negotiating an agreement with the transferee to
complete these actions on behalf of the Navy.”
20 6.2.4 IR Site 23, pp. 24 & 25, sentence that spans the page break: The remedy selected in the 2001 Marsh Crust
RAP/ROD applies to “the marsh crust and former subtidal area”, which is depicted in Figure 4 of the RAP/ROD. A
portion of IR Site 23 is not included in the marsh crust and former subtidal area. Please
consider prefacing the
subject sentence with “A portion of”.

20. Comment incorporated. The text spanning pages 24 -25 was revised to read: “A portion of IR Site 23 includes areas where the Marsh Crust is known to exist…” [now on p. 26] ATTACHMENT 1. RESPONSES TO REGULATORY AGENCY COMMENTS
Finding of Suitability to Transfer Phase 2 - Former NAS Alameda Document Title: Draft Finding of Suitability to Transfer Phase 2, Former Naval Air Station, Alameda, California (May 2014)

Attachment 1, FOST for Former NAS Alameda 11

Comments from Jennifer Ott, Chief Operating Officer, City of Alameda - dated June 12, 2014 Comment No. Comment Response
21 § 6.2.4 IR Site 23, pp. 24-25: In second paragraph, please clarify whether two OWSs referenced have been removed
or not.

21. Comment incorporated. The test was revised to include this sentence: “Navy Public Works pressure -washed the oil water separators and sealed the surface access ways prior to base closure..” [now on p. 31]
22 § 6.2.5 IR Site 27, p. 25 First sentence, change to read that I R Site 27 is located “adjacent to” [not “in”] the southeastern portion of Seaplane Lagoon.

22. Comment incorporated. The text was revised to read: “IR Site 27, the Dock Zone, is located southeast of IR Site 17 and northeast of IR Site 24; it is 15.8 acres in size.”
23 6.2.9 Petroleum Sites, p. 32, 2 nd sentence of AOC 3 (EDC 12) and AOC 5 (EDC 12) sections : The text states
that “no further action is required” for each of the AOCs.

However, the Navy has referred both of these AOCs to the Petroleum Program for evaluation of petroleum
contamination. Pleas e consider appending “for the
CERCLA Program” to the subject sentence and adding
following it with the sentence: “However, these sites have been transferred to the Alameda Point Petroleum Program to evaluate petroleum contamination.”

23. Comment incorporated. The text was revised to read:

AOC 3: “The FOST Parcel is not expected to be impacted by any releases from this site. The Final SI Addendum for EDC 12 concluded that no further action is required under
CERCLA (CH2MHill 2014) , but because of petroleum
compounds in soil exceeded residential scre ening values, AOC 3 was transferred to the Alameda Point Petroleum
Program for evaluation. The entire site was within the 2013 FOST Parcel.”
AOC 5: “The FOST Parcel is not expected to be impacted by any releases from this site. The Final SI Addendum for EDC 12 concluded that no further action is required under
CERCLA (CH2MHill 2014) , but because petroleum
compounds in soil exceeded residential screening values, AOC 5 was transferred to the Alameda Point Petroleum
Program for evaluation. The entire site was within the 2013 FOST Parcel.”

Attachment 1, FOST for Former NAS Alameda 12

Comments from Jennifer Ott, Chief Operating Officer, City of Alameda - dated June 12, 2014 Comment No. Comment Response
24 Attachment 3: Hazardous Substances Notification Table Entry for IR Site 17 should note probability of additional RAs being located in remaining undredged SPL sediment
and proposed revision to the remedy to reflect preparation and adoption of a SMP.

24. Footnote for IR Site 17: “No hazardous substances are known, but there is a potential for some fragments/items with radioluminescent paint to be present in the sediment based on items found during the dredging conducted for the
remediation. Under CERCLA, there is no unacceptable risk associated with these potential items. A ROD ESD and
LUC/RD have been prepared to ensure proper disposal of
these items if removed from the SPL sediments.”
25 Table 3: CERCLA Status: Status should reflect proposed revision to the remedy to reflect preparation and adoption of a SMP.

25. See response to City comment 15. The status of Site 17 does not need to be updated in Table 3, but the references for the “response complete” status will be updated to include the final RACR for Site 17, the ROD ESD and LUC/RD, which
are still pendin
g. The ESD and LUC/RD will be finalized
prior to FOST signatures.
26 Table 5: Storage Tank Status, Table 6: RCRA Unit Status:

On these tables, many of the storage tanks and RCRA
units that are associated with other sites, for example CAAs, have “See Ass ociated Site” as the entry under the Status column heading. This entry may give the
impression that the storage tank or RCRA unit is to be
closed with the associated site. However, the closure
strategy the Water Board and the Navy are utilizing is to first close discrete sites within a CAA followed by
separate closure of the CAA itself. Please consider
replacing “See Associated Site” with the appropriate
status, which in most cases is “Open”.

26. Comment incorporated. Tables 5 and 6 were revised to reflect the current status of the storage tanks and RCRA units as either “Open” or “Closed”.

Attachment 1, FOST for Former NAS Alameda 13

Comments from James Fyfe, Department of Toxic Substances Control, Hazardous Substance Engineer - dated June 27, 2014 Comment No. Comment Response
1 Page 1, Section 2.0, second paragraph: “The FOST Parcel consist of seven sites, including five Installation
Restoration (IR) sites: 16, 17, 24, 34, and portions of 3…” should be corrected to state: “The FOST Parcel consist of seven sites, including five Installa
tion restoration (IR)
sites: 16, 17, 24, and portions of 3 and 34…” Make the same correction on Page 6, second paragraph from top.

1. Comment incorporated. Two additional IR Sites have
been added to the FOST Parcel (see Navy Init iated Change above). The text on pages 1 and 6 was revised to read: “The FOST Parcel consist s of nine sites, including seven
Installation Restoration (IR) sites: 3, 16, 17, and 30 and portions of 24, 25 and 34;…”
2 Page 2, Section 3.0, first paragraph: “…the State of
California Department of Health Services (now referred to as the California Department of Toxic Substances Control [DTSC])…” should be corrected as: “the state of
California Department of Health Services Toxic
Substances Control Program (now referred to as
California Department of Tox ic Substances Control
[DTSC])…”

2. Comment incorporated. The text was revised to read: “In September 1992, the Navy, the State of California
Department of Health Services Toxic Substances Control
Program (now referred to as California Department of Toxic Substances Control [DTSC]), …”
ATTACHMENT 1. RESPONSES TO REGULATORY AGENCY COMMENTS
Finding of Suitability to Transfer Phase 2 - Former NAS Alameda Document Title: Draft Finding of Suitability to Transfer Phase 2, Former Naval Air Station, Alameda, California (May 2014)

Attachment 1, FOST for Former NAS Alameda 14

Comments from James Fyfe, Department of Toxic Substances Control, Hazardous Substance Engineer - dated June 27, 2014 Comment No. Comment Response
3 At this time, there are several sites in the FOST Parcel for which there is no concurrence that remedial actions are complete. The sites and their respective status for each site are as follows:
a) OU-1, IR Site 16: Currently the Navy is
requesting that the Record of Decision for Site 16
Groundwater be modified via and Explanation of
Significant Difference (ESD) due to the Beneficial
Use Exception (BUE) bei ng granted by the Water
Board for groundwater at Site 16. With the BUE,
RGs [remedial goals] are revised from MCLs
[maximum c ontaminant levels] to a higher
calculated value based on the risk of inhalation
from vapor intrusion. The ICs that were
developed as a final remedy for Site 16 remain
unchanged but the levels of contamination that
require the ICs to remain in force will b e
increased.
3a. Comment acknowledged. The Site 16 ESD was
completed in September 2015.

3 b) OU-4B, IR Site 17: The Navy has issued a draft
final Remedial Action Completion Report (RACR)
for Site 17. There are still remaining issues related
to radiol ogical contamination at Site 17.

Numerous small rad iologically contaminated
devices were discovered in the Seaplane Lagoon
during dredging and it is assumed that similar
devices remain scattered throughout the lagoon.

As a result, unrestricted radiologic al release of
Seaplane Lagoon is not possible. Also, the Navy
is seeking unrestricted release of portions of the
3b. Comment acknowledged. The Navy is preparing a ROD
ESD and LUC /RD for Site 17 to address potential future dredging. The Site 17 RACR, ESD, and LUC/ RD will be
finalized prior to transfer.

The lagoon shoreline is not part of the parcel in this FOST.

Attachment 1, FOST for Former NAS Alameda 15

Comments from James Fyfe, Department of Toxic Substances Control, Hazardous Substance Engineer - dated June 27, 2014 Comment No. Comment Response
lagoon shoreline (radiological anomaly area, storm
drain outfalls, and shore survey units).
3 c) OU-2B, IR Site 3 (portion): Site 3 contains two
lead-contaminated areas and one cobalt -
contaminated area. The lead sites are excluded
from the FOST Parcel and will be transferred at a
later date after remedial action (excavation and
replacement of contam
inated soil) is completed.

The remedy for cobalt in Site 3 is institutional
controls (ICs). The ROD for OU -2B is currently
in draft final form and the remedial design is in
preliminary form.
3c. Comment acknowledged . The OU-2B ROD was
finalized in March 2015, and all of Site 3, not just a portion, is now included in the FOST Parcel. The OU -2B Soil
RACR and the LUC RD will be complete prior to
completion of the FOST.
3 d) AOC 1 and AOC 6: The Amended Site Inspection
Report for EDC 12, which includes AOC 1 and
AOC 6, has not yet been finalized and the
regulators have not yet concurred with the Navy’s
determination that no f urther action is required for
AOC 1 and AOC 6.
3d. In accordance with the Alameda FFA document review
process, The Addendum to Final Site Inspection Report
Transfer Parcel EDC -12 concluding no further action for AOC-1 and AOC -6 was submitted in August 2014 and
accepted by the agencies.

Attachment 1, FOST for Former NAS Alameda 16

Comments from James Fyfe, Department of Toxic Substances Control, Hazardous Substance Engineer - dated June 27, 2014 3 e) Pier 3 (located in IR Site 24): The Navy
completed a cleanup of radioactive contamination
on Pier 3 and issued a free release determination in
1996. A Final Status Survey Report (FSSR) was
finalized in October
2013 recommending no
further action in the area. California Department
of Public Health , Environmental Management
Branch has yet to concur with the FSSR and issue
a Recommendation for Unrestricted Radioactive
Release for Pier 3.
3e. Comment acknowledged. Site 24 is a sediment site
which does not include structures (i.e. Pier 3). The TERM-1 Parcel includes the landside base and almost half of Pier 3.

The entirety of Pier 3 reverted to the City of Alameda when the Navy’s lease of TERM -1 was terminated. The FSSR
(October 2013) was finalized resolving agency comments in accordance with the Alameda FFA document review
process, and concluded no further action is required for Pier 3 .
4 Will finalization of the FOST Phase 2 be delayed until remedial action is completed or “operating properly and successfully” (with concurrence f ro
m regulators) for all
sites contained in the FOST Parcel?

4. The FOST Phase 2 may be further delayed or sites
removed (or added) such that all sites contained in the FOST Parcel have remedial action completed or are
determined to be OPS prior to completion of the FOST.

The Navy anticipates that all site s will have remedial actions completed prior to publication of the final FOST Phase 2 as currently scheduled.

Attachment 1, FOST for Former NAS Alameda 17

Comments from George Leyva, Project Manager, Regional Water Quality Control Board - dated June 30, 2014 Comment No. Comment Response
1 DTSC’s October 2011 Guidance for the Evaluation and
Mitigation of Subsurface Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air is applicable and we expect the guidance to be considered
and implemented for all FOST parcels being transferred.

1. The vapor intrusion pathway is evaluated as part of the restoration process. DTSC guidance is considered in the restoration process and implemented where appropriate.
2 The term “beneficial use ex ception” cited in several locations in the report should be changed to “exception to sources of drinking water policy.” As an example, under Section 4.1.1 IR Site 30 (OU -2B), the last paragraph of page 10 should be changed to:
“By letter dated August 6, 2012, the Navy provided
information demonstrating that groundwater under th e
portions of IT Site 3 identified above meet State Water Board Resolution NO. 88- 63 and Regional Water Board
Resolution NO. 89- 39, “Sources of Dri nking Water,”
exception criteria (a) and (c): proximity to San Francisco Bay and potential for
salt water intrusion, high salinity,
current county restrictions on we ll installation in shallow groundwater, and potential for surface runoff to
contaminate groundwater (Navy 2012a). The regulatory
agencies concurred with the Navy’s assessment (Water
Board 2012a, USEPA 2012b). As a result, standards for
cleanup are based upon protection of ecological resources and human health, by both direct and indirect exposures.” See also page 9 and page 12, and revised as needed.

2. Comment incorporated as below with minor variances
noted in italics.. The term “beneficial use exception” was removed from the OU-2B ROD, and the FOST was
revised to use the suggested language throughout.

“By letter dated August 6, 2012, the Navy provided
information demonst rating that groundwater in the
southeast portion of the base, including all of IR Site 3, meets State Water Board Resolution No. 88 -63 and
Regional Water Board Resolution No. 89- 39, “Sources of Drinking Water,” exception criteria (a) and (c).

Information presented included proximity to San
Francisco Bay and potential for salt water intrusion, high salinity, current county restrictions on well installation in shallow groundwater, and potential for surface runoff to contaminate groundwater (Navy 2012a ). The regulatory
agencies concurred with the Navy’s assessment ( Water
Board 2012a, USEPA 2012c ). Therefore, it is unlikely
that shallow groundwater will be used as a municipal
water supply

Attachment 1, FOST for Former NAS Alameda 18

Comments from George Leyva, Project Manager, Regional Water Quality Control Board - dated June 30, 2014 Comment No. Comment Response
3 As for any of the properties being considered for a FOST transfer please indicate whether, or not, the IR site is located above any known tarry refinery waste (TRW)
areas. For any area located above TRW with contaminant
concentrations that create, or threaten to create, a
condition of pollution or nuisance that is harmful to
human health or the environment, and if the TRW has
been or will be evaluated and closed under CERCLA and
not the Petroleum Program, then the FOST must state that the State will continue to regulate the TRW, including
requiring additional site investigation, cleanup, and/or institutional controls under Water Board authority.

3. This FOST does not include property with TRW.

Property adjacent to the FOST Parcel, which transferred in 2013, includes OU-2A where TRW is present.
4 Section 4.1.2 – IR Site 16 (OU-1) – The report states “No COCs were identified in the RI report for soil under any of the IR Site 16 scenarios based on the human health risk assessment (HHRA).” Even though this report pertains to CERCLA hazardous waste issues, if there is soil or
groundwater contamination of petroleum above residential and/or commercial cleanup goals, please state this also. If a petroleum cleanup is needed, please include this site in Table 4- Petroleum Program.

4. Petroleum Program Site CAA 9B is located within IR
Site 16 and is included in Table 4 as a closed petroleum site. CAA 9B was closed along with IR Site 16 through the OU-1 ROD ESD (Navy 2015d).
5 Section 4.2.1 – Open Petroleum Program Sites – AST 331 is described in this section as a closed site. However, it is not listed as a closed site in Section 4.2.5 –
Closed Sites.

Please review and correct if needed.

5. Comment incorporated. AST 331 was added to the list
of closed sites under 4.2.5. It is also listed on Table 5 as closed with agency concurrence.

Attachment 1, FOST for Former NAS Alameda 19

Comments from George Leyva, Project Manager, Regional Water Quality Control Board - dated June 30, 2014 Comment No. Comment Response
6 Section 4.2.1 – Open Petroleum Program Sites – Please consider the first section to read: “The Petroleum Program sites within the FOST Parcel discussed in this section are open and will be transferred prior to obtaining regulatory closure subject to the restrictions disc ussed in Section 5.2.

The open sites are those with…”

6. Comment incorporated. The text was revised to read:
“The Petroleum Program sites within the FOST Parcel
discussed in this section are open and will be transferred prior to obtaining regulatory closure subject to the
restrictions discussed in Section 5.2. The open sites are those with…”
7 Section 4.2.1 Open Petroleum Program Sites - Please
change “The Petroleum Program sites within the FOST
Parcel discussed in this section are open” to “The
Petroleum Program sites within the FOST Parcel
discussed in this section are open and will be transferred prior to obtaining regulatory closure subject to the
restrictions discussed in section 5.2. The open sites are those with….”

7. Comment incorporated.
8 Section 4.2.1 – Open Petroleum Program Sites – CAA-
03B & CAA -03C – Please cite source reports des cribing characterization and that provide representative soil and groundwater data. In addition, unless this Water Board has agreed to a “No Further Action” for a site, please
delete statements that assert that “no source contamination remains” from the FOST.

8. Comment incorporated. See Response to City Comment
#11, above, for text revisions to CAA -03(A, B, and C). A citation (Shaw E&I 2013) was added at the end of the new paragraph under 4.2.1, Open
Petroleum Sites, describing
CAA03. The text saying “the site has been characterized and there is no source remaining,” was deleted.

Attachment 1, FOST for Former NAS Alameda 20

Comments from George Leyva, Project Manager, Regional Water Quality Control Board - dated June 30, 2014 Comment No. Comment Response
9 Section 4.8 Pesticides – Please correct the typo on p. 20 in reference to Title 42; the appropriate code citing should be section 9620 not 06720. Section 9620 provides that a
deed of transfer shall contain: (ii) a covenant warranting that –
(I) All remedial action necessary to protect human
health and the environment with respect to any
such substance remaining on the property has been
taken before the date of such transfer, and
(II) Any additional remedial action found to be
necessary after the date of such transfer shall be
conducted by the United States.

9. Comment incorporated. The typo was corrected.
10 Section 5.0 Summary of Restrictions – The report
indicates that ICs will be prepared. Comment: Even
though the ICs may be prepared independent of the FOST, we request to review the full deed restriction document prior to Water Board final concurrence with the FOST.

10. Comment acknowledged. The Water Board will be
provided a review copy of the proposed deed restrictions when the deeds are drafted; however, please note deeds
are not drafted prior to the Final FOST.
11 Section 6.1 EnviroStor and Geotracker Listed Sites – Please delete sentence as underlined below:
“Two sites including eight USTs, USTs 173- 1 through
173-3 and USTs 13-1 through 13-5, shown as located east of Main Street, are part of Former NAS Alameda.

However, the location is inaccurate and the status is not current in GeoTracker. Site closure letters have been issued by the Water Board for each of these sites, and the USTs are actually
located west of Main Street, but outside
of the FOST Parcel. These two sites with eight USTs are not expected to impact the FOST Parcel.”

11. Comment incorporated. The latitudes and longitudes
for the USTs are provided here for the Water Board’s use in GeoTracker:

ENVUST_ID POINT_X POINT_Y
UST 13-1 -122.29771556800 37.78150336350
UST 13-2 -122.29772382200 37.78146835270
UST 13-3 -122.29772606000 37.78143642780
UST 13-4 -122.29773673300 37.78137690580
UST 13-5 -122.29768344700 37.78137310360
UST 173-1 -122.29190024700 37.78067628840
UST 173-2 -122.29186735500 37.78067140450
ATTACHMENT 1. RESPONSES TO REGULATORY AGENCY COMMENTS
Finding of Suitability to Transfer Phase 2 - Former NAS Alameda Document Title: Draft Finding of Suitability to Transfer Phase 2, Former Naval Air Station, Alameda, California (May 2014)

Attachment 1, FOST for Former NAS Alameda 21

Comments from George Leyva, Project Manager, Regional Water Quality Control Board - dated June 30, 2014 Comment No. Comment Response
Comment: If there is an error on GeoTracker we should
try to fix it rather than state in this report that GeoTracker is not correct. The locations on GeoTracker are easily correctable but we need exact latitude and longitude
information which originate with the
discharger/responsible party.

UST 173-3 -122.29187689400 37.78062497530
Conversations between the Navy and Water Board
indicate that USTs 173-1, - 2, and -3 were not formally closed. The text was rewritten as follows (italics identify updated text):

“Two sites including eight USTs, USTs 13-1 through 13-5 and USTs 173-1 through 173-3, are part of Former NAS
Alameda. Site closure letters were issued by the Water
Board for USTs 13 -1 through 13 -5 in 2001, and USTs
173-1, -2, and -3 in 2014. T he USTs are located west of Main Street, but outside of the FOST Parcel . These two sites with eight USTs are not expected to impact the
FOST Parcel.”
12 Section 6.2.1 IR Site 4 – “The 100-foot IC buffer for the OU-2B groundwater plume beneath IR Site 4 impinges on
the FOST Parcel.” Comment: If the IR Site 4 overlaps
onto FOST property, then that portion of the FOST should be “carved out” and retained for further remedy.

12. Comment acknowledged. However, the OU-2B plume
buffer zone is not an area w here groundwater contains
contaminants above remediation goals. The institutional controls associated with the buffer zone are included in the OU -2B LUC RD, which will be finalized p rior to
transfer.
13 Section 6.2.2 IR Site 11 – The report refers to the OU -2B ROD – Please add a reference for this document.

13. Comment incorporated. Reference to the OU-2B Final
ROD dated March 2015 has been added.

Attachment 1, FOST for Former NAS Alameda 22

Comments from George Leyva, Project Manager, Regional Water Quality Control Board - dated June 30, 2014 Comment No. Comment Response
14 Section 6.2.8 Radiological Sites – Seaplane Apron drying pad – The report states that a survey will be done when the drying pad is removed. Please state in this section that any previously undiscovered radiological contamination is a “Navy Retained Condition” and will be cleaned up as
directed by DTSC/CADPH.

14. Comment acknowledged. The report was revised to
clarify the status of this area: The work was completed in accordance with the Site 17 RAWP and with the
contractor’s RAD license. All work was cond
ucted with
CDPH-RHB oversight. Upon completion of the work the
drying pad was removed and a radiological survey was
conducted (Appendix Z to the Site 17 RACR) to confirm
that drying pad activities did not contaminate the
underlying surface, allowing down posting of the
Radiologically Controlled Area (RCA). This portion of
the property will not be transferred to the city at this t ime (Navy is retaining ownership of the area associated with the drying pad).
15 Section 6.2.9 Petroleum Sites – AOC-23, please add the word “and” in this sentence – “This site consists of
petroleum site AOC 23 and a 1,3-dichloroethane
plume…”

15. Comment incorporated. The text was revised to read:
“This site consists of petroleum si te AOC 23 and a
1,3-dichloroethane plume…”
16 Section 6.2.9 Petroleum Sites – CAA-11A & 11B – The
report states “The Water Board was provided a Summary
Closure Report for these petroleum sites in October of
2011 (Navy 2011b). The Water Board has not issue d NFA
concurrence for these sites as of the date of this FOST.” Comment: Several of these sites may have already been
closed. Please review your records and express the current status of those closures.

16. C omment acknowledged. The Tables have been
updated in accordance with current status.
17 In the paragraph regarding AOC 3 and AOC 5 (EDC 12), on page 32, where the report states “no further action is
required” please change the sentence to read “no further action is required for CERCLA related contamination. Any petroleum related cases will be cleaned up separate from

17. See Response to City of Alameda Comment # 23,
above.

AOCs 3 and 5 are adjacent sites and Table 4 addresses
sites within the FOST Parcel; therefore AOCs 3 and 5
ATTACHMENT 1. RESPONSES TO REGULATORY AGENCY COMMENTS
Finding of Suitability to Transfer Phase 2 - Former NAS Alameda Document Title: Draft Finding of Suitability to Transfer Phase 2, Former Naval Air Station, Alameda, California (May 2014)

Attachment 1, FOST for Former NAS Alameda 23

Comments from George Leyva, Project Manager, Regional Water Quality Control Board - dated June 30, 2014 Comment No. Comment Response
CERCLA activities.” Also, please include these sites on Table 4 Petroleum Program.
were not added to Table 4.

Attachment 1, FOST for Former NAS Alameda 24

This page intentionally left blank.

Attachment 2: Hazardous Substances Notification Table

This page intentionally left blank.

Attachment 2, FOST for Former NAS Alameda 1 of 8
ATTACHMENT 2: HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES NOTIFICATION TABLE
Finding of Suitability to Transfer Phase 2, Former NAS Alameda

Identification a
Media/
Description Hazardous Substance b,c
Reportable
Quantity (lbs)
b
CAS
Number
RCRA
Waste
Code b
Quantity
Stored,
Released, or
Disposed d
Date Stored,
Released, or
Disposed d
Stored (S),
Released
(R), or
Disposed (D)
Action Taken e
Cobalt NA NA NA Unknown Unknown R
Lead 10 7439–92–1 NA Unknown Unknown R
Lead 10 7439–92–1 NA Unknown Unknown R
Chlordane 1 57-74-9 U035 Unknown Unknown R
Dieldrin 1 60–57–1 P037 Unknown Unknown R
Heptachlor 1 76–44–8 P059 Unknown Unknown R
Heptachlor Epoxide 1 1024-57-3 NA Unknown Unknown R
PCBs 1 1336–36–3 NA Unknown Unknown R
Nickel 100 7440-02-0 NA Unknown Unknown R
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 100 541-73-1 NA Unknown Unknown R
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 100 106-46-7 U072 Unknown Unknown R Cyanide NA 57-12-5 NA Unknown Unknown R
Tetrachloroethene 100 127–18–4 U210 Unknown Unknown R
Trichloroethane 100 79–01–6 U228 Unknown Unknown R
Vinyl chloride 1 75–01–4 U043 Unknown Unknown R
Soil
Groundwater
IR Site 16
Between 1990 and 2009 a series of soil and groundwater
investigations and removal actions were conducted at the site in correlation with OU-1. The OU-1 ROD selected the
remedial action of soil excavation and off-site disposal, which was conducted from November 2009 to July 2010. The ROD
selected remedial action of ISCO/Bioremediation, monitored natural attenuation and ICs for groundwater. The RACR for soil remedial action documents that the RAOs have been met and the action is complete. The ESD for groundwater
documents that RAOs have been met for groundwater.

IR Site 3 Soil
Between 1991 and 2008, a series of soil and groundwater investigations were conducted at the site. The OU2B ROD, which includes IR Site 3, was signed in 2015. The ROD
selected ICs for cobalt-impacted soil and excavation of lead impacted soil. The excavation work has been completed. No action is required for other soil within IR Site 3. No remedial action is required for groundwater at IR Site 3; however, ICs associated with a VI buffer zone for the OU-2B plume to the south of IR Site 3 extend into IR Site 3. All ICs are in place.

Attachment 2, FOST for Former NAS Alameda 2 of 8
ATTACHMENT 2: HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES NOTIFICATION TABLE
Finding of Suitability to Transfer Phase 2, Former NAS Alameda

Cadmium 10 7440–43–9 NA Unknown Unknown R
Chromium 5,000 7440–47–3 NA Unknown Unknown R
Lead 10 7439–92–1 NA Unknown Unknown R
PCBs 1 1336–36–3 NA Unknown Unknown R
Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
(DDT) 1 50-29-3 NA Unknown Unknown R
Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane
(DDD) 1 72-54-8 NA Unknown Unknown R
Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethene
(DDE) 1 72-55-9 NA Unknown Unknown R
Radium 226 0.1 Ci 7440-14-4 NA Unknown Unknown R
Cadmium 10 7440–43–9 NA Unknown Unknown R
Lead 10 7439–92–1 NA Unknown Unknown R
PCBs 1 1336–36–3 NA Unknown Unknown R
Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
(DDT) 1 50-29-3 NA Unknown Unknown R
Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane
(DDD) 1 72-54-8 NA Unknown Unknown R
Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethene
(DDE) 1 72-55-9 NA Unknown Unknown R
Between 1993 and 2013, various investigations and removal actions were conducted at IR Site 17. A TCRA was
conducted between October 2008 and December 2009 to
remove debris piles along the shoreline. Between July 2008 and September 2010, another TCRA was conducted for IR
Sites 5 and 10, which included the stormwater lines that discharge into the lagoon. Between January 2011 and 2013, dredging removed contaminated sediment in the northeast and northwest corners of the site; the dredge spoils were dried, radiologically surveyed, sampled, and properly
disposed. During sediment processing, 51 radiological
devices with Radium 226 activity were removed and properly disposed. The RACR documents that the RAOs from the
ROD have been met. No hazardous substances are known
to remain on site, but there is a potential for some
fragments/items with radioluminescent paint to be present in the sediment based on items found during the dredging
conducted for the remediation. Under CERCLA, there is no unacceptable risk associated with these potential items. ICs for future sediment management were added to the remedy via a ROD ESD and LUC RD to ensure proper disposal of
these items if removed from the Seaplane Lagoon sediments.

Remedial action is complete.

IR Site 17 Sediment
Sediment sampling was conducted in 1997, 2005, and 2006.

No human health risks were identified, but the northeastern corner of the site was identified as an area of ecological concern. The ROD selected sediment removal via dredging to remediate the area of ecological ocncern. The remedial action occurred between December 2011 and June 2012.

The RACR documents that the RAOs have been met and
remedial action is complete.

IR Site 24 Sediment
Attachment 2, FOST for Former NAS Alameda 3 of 8
ATTACHMENT 2: HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES NOTIFICATION TABLE
Finding of Suitability to Transfer Phase 2, Former NAS Alameda

IR Site 25 Soil PAHs NA NA NA Unknown Unknown D
Between 1994 and 2005, a series of soil and groundwater investigations were conducted at the site. These
investigations concluded that metals in the soil are present at concentrations consistent with background levels, but PAHs were identified as COCs in IR Site 25 soil. The PAHs are not related to a Navy release but appear to be associated with contaminated fill placed at the site prior to the Navy obtaining the property. Two TCRA's were conducted in 2000 and 2001- 2002 to address PAHs in IR Site 25 soil. Over 66,700 cubic yards of soil was removed during the TCRAs and disposed off- site; then clean topsoil was added to return the excavated areas to grade. The ROD for IR Site 25 soil was signed in 2007 and selected ICs for soil beneath structures and at depths greater than 4 feet bgs. Groundwater at IR Site 25 is part of the OU5/FISCA IR-02 groundwater discussed below.

In 2015 a ROD Amendment recommended NFA for
OU5/FISCA IR-02 Groundwater with regulatory concurrence.

Remedial action is complete.

PAHs NA NA NA Unknown Unknown D
Aroclor 1254 1 11097-69-1
NA Unknown Unknown R
Cadmium 10 7440–43–9 NA Unknown Unknown R
Chromium 5,000 7440–47–3 NA Unknown Unknown R
Copper 5,000 7440–50–8 NA Unknown Unknown R
Lead 10 7439–92–1 NA Unknown Unknown R
IR Site 30 Soil
Between 1994 and 2005, a series of soil and groundwater investigations and a removal action for soil were conducted at the site. The TCRA was completed at IR Site 30 in 2004 to address PAHs in soil associated with contaminated fill placed at the site prior to the Navy obtaining the property. The TCRA also removed Aroclor 1254, cadmium, chromium, copper, and lead present in one boring location. Following the TCRA, risk assessment results showed that there is no unacceptable risk for school, daycare, residential, or other land uses. The ROD for IR Site 30 soil was signed in 2009 and selected NFA for soil. Groundwater at IR Site 30 is part of OU5/FISCA IR-02 groundwater. In 2015 a ROD Amendment recommended NFA
for OU5/FISCA IR-02 Groundwater with regulatory
concurrence.

Attachment 2, FOST for Former NAS Alameda 4 of 8
ATTACHMENT 2: HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES NOTIFICATION TABLE
Finding of Suitability to Transfer Phase 2, Former NAS Alameda

Benzene 10 71-43-2 U019 Unknown Unknown R
Naphthalene 100 91-20-3 U165 Unknown Unknown R
Arsenic 1 7440–38–2 NA Unknown Unknown R
Lead 10 7439–92–1 NA Unknown Unknown R
PCBs 1 1336–36–3 NA Unknown Unknown R
Dieldrin 1 60–57–1 P037 Unknown Unknown R
Heptachlor Epoxide 1 1024-57-3 NA Unknown Unknown R
Arsenic 1 7440–38–2 NA Unknown Unknown R
Manganese NA NA NA Unknown Unknown R
1,2-Dichloroethane 100 107-06-2 U077 Unknown Unknown R
1,2-Dichloropropane 1000 78-87-5 U083 Unknown Unknown R Chromium 5000 7440-47-3 NA Unknown Unknown R
Trichloroethene 100 79–01–6 U228 Unknown Unknown R
Cobalt NA NA NA Unknown Unknown R
Arsenic 1 7440–38–2 NA Unknown Unknown R
AOC 6 Soil Hexavalent Chromium NA 18540-29-9 NA Unknown Unknown R Results of samples collected in December 2013 did not
exceed the risk management range, therefore, NFA required. (CH2MHill 2014)
Toluene 1,000 108-88-3 U220 Unknown Unknown S
Methyl Ethyl Ketone 5,000 78-93-3 U159 Unknown Unknown S 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1,000 71–55–6 U226 Unknown
Unknown S
Methylene c
hloride 1,000 75–09–2 U080 110,994 Unknown S
Mercury 1 7439976 NA Unknown Unknown S
Beryllium 10 7440-41-7 P015 Unknown Unknown S
AOC 1 Soil
Results of samples collected in December 2013 did not
exceed screening criteria, therefore, NFA required.
(CH2MHill 2014)
Covered,
bermed
storage area
Annex Area
37/M10
(AOC 1)
DTSC concurred NFA for Alameda Annex Area 37 by letter
dated October 10, 2000.

Groundwater
IR Site 34
A series of soil and groundwater investigations were
conducted between 1993 and 2010. The ROD documented
NFA for groundwater because groundwater is not a source of drinking water. The ROD selected excavation and off-site disposal for impacted soil. No groundwater COCs were
identified. The soil remedial action was conducted between May 2013 and June 2013. The RACR documents that the
RAOs have been met and remedial action is complete.

Soil
OU5/FISCA IR-02 Groundwater
Between 1988 and 2013, a series of environmental
investigations and a remedial action were conducted for shallow groundwater at OU-5/FISCA IR-02. Benzene and
naphthalene are the COCs; there is stratification, with the highest concentrations located at depths adjacent to the Marsh Crust. A ROD for the shallow groundwater was signed in 2007; the selected remedy was biosparging with soil vapor extraction in the plume centers, monitored natural attenuation, and ICs. Biosparge wells screened at the Marsh Crust were installed between 2008 and 2009. Operation of the treatment system began in 2009 and ended in 2013. Following
evaluation of potential vapor intrusion using current
methodologies and toxicities and indoor air sampling
conducted in 2013, a ROD Amendment documenting that
NFA is required for shallow groundwater was signed in 2015.

Attachment 2, FOST for Former NAS Alameda 5 of 8
ATTACHMENT 2: HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES NOTIFICATION TABLE
Finding of Suitability to Transfer Phase 2, Former NAS Alameda

AST 338-A1
(IR Site 16) 500 gallon Propane NA 74-98-6 NA Unknown Unknown S NFA documented in 2007 ROD for OU1, tank was removed prior to 2002.

AST 584 (AOC 6) 15,000 gallon Industrial Wastewater with corrosion resistant chemicals Various NA NA Unknown Unknown S Results of samples collected in December 2013 indicated no further investigation or action was necessary. (CH2MHill 2014)
AST 608
(IR Site 16) 1,000 gallon Waste Oil Various 70514-12-4 NA Unknown Unknown S Site was investigated as part of the IR Site 16. The RACR for soil remedial action documents the RAOs have been met and the action is complete. The ESD for groundwater documents RAOs have been met.

UST 608-1
(IR Site 16) 600 gallon Waste Oil Various 70514-12-4 NA Unknown Unknown S Site was investigated as part of the IR Site 16. The RACR for soil remedial action documents the RAOs have been met and the action is complete. The ESD for groundwater documents RAOs have been met.

BOWTS
(IR Site 24)
Bilge oily water
treatment
system
Waste Oil Various NA NA Unknown Unknown S NFA from DTSC in letter dated June 22, 2005.

Paints Various NA NA Unknown Unknown S
Naphtha Various 8030-30-6 NA Unknown Unknown S
Acetone 5,000 67-64-1 U002 Unknown Unknown S
NADEP GAP 79
(IR Site 34) Building 472 Blasting Grit Various NA NA Unknown Unknown S NFA from DTSC in letter dated November 4, 1999.

NFA IR Site 34 RACR (ERS JV 2014)
Solvents 100 NA NA 55 gallon Unknown S
Lubrication and hydraulic oils Various NA NA 55 gallon Unknown S Asbestos (double bagged) 1 1332-21-4 NA Unknown Unknown S WD 608/OWS
608A/ OWS 608B
(IR Site 16)
Building 608 Waste water
Various
NA NA Unknown Unknown S
Site was investigated as part of the IR Site 16. The RACR for soil remedial action documents the RAOs have been met and the action is complete. The ESD for groundwater documents RAOs have been met.

UST (R)-18/ NAS
GAP 17
(IR Site 16)
AKA UST 608-1 Waste Oil Various 70514-12-4 NA Unknown Unknown S Site was investigated as part of the IR Site 16. The RACR for soil remedial action documents the RAOs have been met and the action is complete. The ESD for groundwater documents RAOs have been met.

M-07
(IR Site 3)
Building 398
Turbine
Accessory
Shop
Solvents 100 NA NA 15 Unknown S NFA per SWMU Evaluation Report (Tetra Tech EMI 2007) NADEP GAP 78
(IR Site 34) Building 479 NFA IR Site 34 RACR (ERS JV 2014) NAS GAP 10
(IR Site 3) Building 112 NFA from DTSC in letter dated November 4, 1999.

NFA OU2B ROD (Navy 2015a)
Attachment 2, FOST for Former NAS Alameda 6 of 8
ATTACHMENT 2: HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES NOTIFICATION TABLE
Finding of Suitability to Transfer Phase 2, Former NAS Alameda

Hydraulic Fluid Various NA NA Unknown Unknown S
Acetylene Gas Various 74-86-2 NA Unknown Unknown S
Argon Gas Various 7440-37-1 NA Unknown Unknown S
Lubrication and hydraulic oils Various NA NA 55 gallon Unknown S Paints Various NA NA Unknown Unknown S
Solvents 100 NA NA Unknown Unknown S
Corrosives 1,000 NA NA Unknown Unknown S
Paints Various NA NA Unknown Unknown S
Adhesives Various NA NA Unknown Unknown S
Waste Oil Various NA NA Unknown Unknown S
Chlorine 10 7782-50-5 NA Unknown Unknown S
Muriatic Acid 5,000 7647-01-0 NA Unknown Unknown S
Building 517
(within IR Site 3
footprint)
Garden Shop Pesticides Various NA NA Unknown Unknown S No action necessary. Materials stored on site. No spills or releases reported.

PD-680 (Solvent) NA 64742-96-7 NA Unknown Unknown S
Mercury 1 7439976 NA Unknown Unknown S
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1,000 71–55–6 U226 Unknown Unknown S Lubrication and hydraulic oils Various NA NA 55 gallon Unknown S Paints Various NA NA Unknown Unknown S
Solvents 100 NA NA Unknown Unknown S
Acrylic Lacquer Various NA NA Unknown Unknown S
Acrylic Paint Various NA NA Unknown Unknown S
Lubrication Oil Various NA NA Unknown Unknown S
Solvents 100 NA NA Unknown Unknown S
Hydraulic Fluid Various NA NA Unknown Unknown S
Paints Various NA NA Unknown Unknown S
Acetylene Gas Various 74-86-2 NA Unknown Unknown S
CANS 338A
(within IR Site 16
footprint)
Storage Facility Solvents 100 NA NA Unknown Unknown S
No action necessary. Materials stored on site. No spills or releases reported.

CANS 338H
(wihin IR Site 16
footprint)
Storage Facility
Petroleum Products Various
NA NA Unknown Unknown S
No action necessary. Materials stored on site. No spills or releases reported.

Building 337
(within IR Site 3
footprint)
Paved
chemical
supply
storehouse
No action necessary. Materials stored on site. No spills or releases reported.

Chemical storage was associated with hydraulic systems
(hydraulic fluid), welding activities (acetylene, oxygen, and argon gases; cutting fluids; and lubricant oils), and wood finishing activities (paints, stains, varnishes, solvents, adhesives, cleaners, and various corrosive materials). No action necessary. Materials stored on site. No spills or releases reported.

Building 112
(within IR Site 3
footprint)
Hydraulics;
welding and
wood finishing
Auto Repair
Facility
No action necessary. Materials stored on site. No spills or releases reported.

Building 222
(within IR Site 3
footprint)
Garden Shop No action necessary. Materials stored on site. No spills or releases reported.

Building 398
(within IR Site 3
footprint)
Turbine
Accessories
Shop
No action necessary. Materials stored on site. No spills or releases reported.

Building 608
(within IR Site 16
footprint)
Attachment 2, FOST for Former NAS Alameda 7 of 8
ATTACHMENT 2: HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES NOTIFICATION TABLE
Finding of Suitability to Transfer Phase 2, Former NAS Alameda

Aluminum Oxide NA 1344-28-1 NA Unknown Unknown S
Blasting Grit Various NA NA Unknown Unknown S
Cleaning Compounds Various NA NA Unknown Unknown S
Corrosives 1,000 NA NA Unknown Unknown S
Degreaser Various NA NA Unknown Unknown S
Ethylene Acetate 5000 141-78-6 U112 Unknown Unknown S
Hydraulic Fluid Various NA NA Unknown Unknown S
Paints Various NA NA Unknown Unknown S
Petroleum Products Various NA NA Unknown Unknown S
Solvents 100 NA NA Unknown Unknown S
Arsenic 1 7440–38–2 NA Unknown Unknown S
Lead 10 7439–92–1 NA Unknown Unknown S
Blasting Grit Various NA NA Unknown Unknown S
Building 343
(within IR Site 34
footprint)
Sheet Metal
Shop Blasting Grit Various NA NA Unknown Unknown S
No action necessary. Materials stored on site. No spills or releases reported.

Paints Various NA NA Unknown Unknown S
Solvents 100 NA NA Unknown Unknown S
Paint Waste Various NA NA Unknown Unknown S
Building 475
(within IR Site 34
footprint)
Bead Blast
Area Blasting Grit Various NA NA Unknown Unknown S
No action necessary. Materials stored on site. No spills or releases reported.

Building 476
(within IR Site 34
footprint)
Paint Storage Paints Various NA NA Unknown Unknown S
None. Materials stored on site. No spills or releases reported.

Notes:
a No chemicals were found to have been stored, disposed, or released within other areas of the FOST Parcel. b This table was prepared in accordance with 40 CFR 373 and 40 CFR 302.4. The substances which do not have chemical-specific break down (and associated annual reportable quantity) are not listed in 40 CFR 302.4, and therefore have no corresponding CAS number, no regulatory synonyms, no RCRA waste numbers, and no reportable quantities. Hazardous substances listed in this table were compiled based on known contamination at the sites and historic activities at specific locations. c The FOST Parcel may contain pesticide residue from pesticides that have been applied in the management of the property. The Grantor knows of no use of any registered pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its labeling and believes that all applications were made in accordance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA - 7 U.S.C. Sec. 136, et seq.), its implementing regulations, and according to the labeling provided with such substances. It is the Grantor’s position that it shall have no obligation under the covenants provided pursuant to Section 120(h)(3)(A)(ii) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. Sections 9620(h)(3)(A)(ii), for the remediation of legally applied pesticides.
d The quantity stored, released, or disposed, and the date stored, released, or disposed, is unknown because documentation related to storage, release, or disposal of these hazardous substances was not available during records searches for the property.
e References listed in this section are included in FOST as part of Section 10 References Paint Booth
No action necessary. Materials stored on site. No spills or releases reported.

Building 402
(within IR Site 16
footprint)
Maintenance
Shop and Sand
Blast Shelter
No action necessary. Materials stored on site. No spills or releases reported.

Building 510
(within IR Site 34
footprint)
Storage Facility
No action necessary. Materials stored on site. No spills or releases reported.

Building 477
(within IR Site 34
footprint)
Attachment 2, FOST for Former NAS Alameda 8 of 8
ATTACHMENT 2: HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES NOTIFICATION TABLE
Finding of Suitability to Transfer Phase 2, Former NAS Alameda

Acronyms and Abbreviations:

AKA Also known as NAS Naval Air Station Alameda
AST Aboveground storage tank Navy United States Department of the Navy AOC Area of Concern NFA No Further Action
bgs Below ground surface OU Operable Unit
CAS Chemical Abstract System OWS Oil-Water Separator
COC Chemical of concern PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons CFR Code of Federal Regulations PCB Polychlorinated biphenyl CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 lbs Pounds Ci Curie R Released
D Diosposed RACR Remedial Action Completion Report
DDD Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane RAOs Remedial Action Objectives DDE Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act DDT Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane RD Remedial Design
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control ROD Record of Decision EDC Economic Development Conveyance S Stored
FISCA Fleet and Industrial Supply Center Oakland, Alameda Facility/Alameda Annex SWMU Solid Waste Management Unit FOST Finding of Suitability to Transfer TCRA Time Critical Removal Action GAP Generator Accumulation Point USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency IC Institutional control U.S.C. United States Code
IR Installation Restoration UST Underground storage tank ISCO In situ chemical oxidation WD Washdown area
LUC Land Use Control
NA Not available
NADEP Naval Aviation Depot

FINAL

LAND USE CONTROL REMEDIAL DESIGN
INSTALLATION RESTORATION SITE 17

ALAMEDA POINT

ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA

February 2016

Department of the Navy
Base Realignment and Closure
Program Management Office West
San Diego, California

Document Control Number: BPMOW-2016-0002

T
his page intentionally left blank.

IR Site 17 Final Land Use Control Remedial Design i February 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................. i ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................... ii

1.0 PURPOSE ....................................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE ..................................................................................................... 1

3.0 AREA REQUIRING THE INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL ....................................................... 2

4.0 INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES AND RESTRICTIONS .. 3

4.1 Performance Objectives and Land Use Restrictions .......................................................... 3

4.2 Legal Mechanisms Prior to Conveyance ............................................................................. 4

4.3 Legal Mechanisms Following Conveyance to a Non-Federal Entity .............................. 4

5.0 REMEDY IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS .............................................................................. 5

5.1 DON Responsibilities with Respect to IC Inspections, Reporting, and Enforcement .. 5

5.2 Responsibilities of the Property Owner(s) and Successors with Respect to IC Inspections, Reporting, and Implementation ................................................. 8

6.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 10

FIGURES
Figure 1: Regional Location Map ............................................................................................................... 11 Figure 2: Site Location Map ....................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 3: Area of Institutional Controls (entire IR Site 17)……………….................................................13

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: IR Site 17 IC Compliance Monitoring Report and IC Compliance Certificate Attachment 2: Interested Parties for Land Use Control Remedial Design Distribution

IR Site 17 Final Land Use Control Remedial Design ii February 2016

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ARRA Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Cal-EPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CDPH California Department of Public Health
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CRUP Covenant to Restrict Use of Property
DON Department of the Navy (United States)
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
EPA Environmental Protection Agency (United States)
ESD Explanation of Significant Differences
FFA Federal Facility Agreement
IC institutional control
IR Installation Restoration
LUC land u se control
NAS Naval Air Station
NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan pCi/g picocuries per gram
Ra radium
RACR Remedial Action Completion Report
RD Remedial Design
Regional Water Board Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region RG remediation goal
ROD Record of Decision
SMP Sediment Management Plan
TtEC Tetra Tech EC, Inc.

UCL upper confidence limit
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

IR Site 17 Final Land Use Control Remedial Design 1 February 2016

1.0 PURPOSE
This Land Use Control (LUC) Remedial Design (RD) for Installation Restoration (IR) Site 17 at Alameda Point, Alameda, California addresses the institutional control (IC) and restrictions required by the Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) issued in 2016 (United States Department of the Navy [DON] 2016). The IR Site 17 ESD was prepared following implementation of the selected remedy (removal of contaminated sediments) and supplements the Record of Decision (ROD) for IR Site 17 signed in October 2006 (DON 2006). The ROD documents selection of a remedy with five components:
(1) initial remedial action sampling to enable proper and safe handling, segregation, and disposal of sediment to be dredged; (2) dredging; (3) quality control sampling and confirmation testing; (4) dewatering; and (5) upland disposal at a permitted off-site waste disposal facility. The ESD documents a change in the remedy by adding implementation of an IC applicable to any future dredging and/or removal of sediments. This IC serves as an additional measure of protection to limit potential exposure and ensure protection of human health and the environment due to potential radium (Ra)-226 activity within the sediment when the sediment is removed.

A RD is a primary Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) document under the Federal Facility Agreement (FFA). This LUC RD was prepared in accordance with the “Navy Principles and Procedures for Specifying Monitoring and Enforcement of Land Use Controls and Other Post-ROD Actions” attached to the January 16, 2004 Department of Defense Memorandum titled “CERCLA ROD and Post-ROD Policy.” The Alameda Point FFA signatories include the DON, United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal-EPA) Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), and the Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region (Regional Water Board). The inspections and reporting requirements described herein will be effective immediately upon approval of this LUC RD by the FFA signatories.

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
The former Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda is located at the western tip of Alameda Island, which is surrounded by San Francisco Bay and the Oakland Inner Harbor (Figure 1). IR Site 17 is Seaplane Lagoon, which is located in the southeastern portion of Alameda Point, at the west end of the City of Alameda in Alameda County, California (Figure 2). IR Site 17 is a partially enclosed lagoon consisting of approximately 110 acres (DON 2006). This area was originally a tidal flat until the 1930s when seawalls were built along the eastern, western, and southern boundaries and a sheet pile wall was installed at the northern edge of the area. The interior of the lagoon was historically about 20 feet deep (DON 2006). The lagoon’s entrance is an approximately 800-foot opening in the seawall along the southern perimeter (Figure 2).

IR Site 17 is a foraging area for the California Least Tern. In accordance with the Biological Opinion (United States Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] 2012) there are restrictions on dredging during their breeding season, which is between April 1 and August 15 each year.

Since no dredging was necessary for the DON’s historical use of the lagoon, it is believed that the first dredging of the lagoon was during the remedial action when sediment in the northeast and northwest corners of the lagoon was dredged. The dredging was conducted between 2011 and 2012 and showed the sediment in the lagoon to be hard and dense. A significant amount of inert, non-hazardous debris was encountered during the dredging, including wire and large debris such as anchors and tires. It is likely

IR Site 17 Final Land Use Control Remedial Design 2 February 2016 that similar significant debris also is present in other portions of the lagoon. To ensure protectiveness, the dredging for the remediation required silt curtains around all dredge areas, and a skimmer boat was anchored within the turbidity curtain during the dredging in the northeastern portion of the lagoon based on the history of petroleum operations along the northeastern shoreline. Due to the potential for Ra-226 in the sediment, the 2006 ROD required measures during the dredging for the remediation to include “health and safety monitoring of workers and decontamination and radiological clearance of equipment.” The sediment remediation specified in the IR Site 17 ROD was successfully conducted between 2011 and 2013. For post-remediation conditions with the sediment in place, the Final Remedial Action Completion Report (RACR) documents that there is currently no unacceptable CERCLA risk for any potential use of the lagoon (Tetra Tech EC, Inc. [TtEC] 2014). In accordance with the ESD, there is potential risk if the sediment is removed. The ESD (Section 2.1) describes the site history, contaminants, and remediation (DON 2016); a brief description of post-remediation site data follows.

The IR Site 17 RACR presents the details of the remedial action and post-dredge confirmation sample results (TtEC 2014). The residual Ra-226 activity in the sediment confirmation samples is highest in the northwest remediation area, with a 95 percent (%) upper confidence limit (UCL) of 1.104 picocuries per gram (pCi/g) and maximum activity of 4.18 pCi/g. For the northeast remediation area, the maximum Ra- 226 result in the sediment confirmation samples was 1.45 pCi/g. The post-dredge 95% UCLs for the northeast and the northwest remediation areas for each contaminant either 1) were below the remediation goals (RGs) for chemicals of concern with RGs) or 2) met dredging completion criteria specified in the IR Site 17 remedial action work plan and its associated sampling and analysis plan (including for Ra-226).

The IR Site 17 RACR includes documentation of removal of small items with Ra-226 activity (believed to have Ra-226 paint on them) during the radiological surveying of the dewatered sediment from the northeast and northwest remediation areas. All items with radiological activity that were identified were removed. In addition to potential discharge through outfalls, these items may have fallen into the lagoon inadvertently from seaplanes or may have been discarded in the lagoon (TtEC 2014). Therefore, there is a potential for items with Ra-226 activity to be present in other areas of the lagoon.

As documented in the IR Site 17 RACR, based on the dredging conducted for the remediation of the northeast and northwest corners of the lagoon, one item with Ra-226 activity was identified per 1,882 cubic yards of sediment (TtEC 2014). The maximum curie content for an individual item with Ra-226 activity located in each remediation area was 0.679 uCi (TtEC 2014). The size of the recovered discrete items with Ra-226 activity varied from a ship’s compass to small pill-like items. The RACR Appendix W describes these items and evaluates potential risk should similar items be present in sediment in other areas of the lagoon. The RACR Appendix W concludes that there is no unacceptable risk due to these items within the sediment in the lagoon, if present, for any potential use of the lagoon (TtEC 2014). The City of Alameda indicates that the planned reuse of the lagoon includes a marina and a ferry terminal, which may require dredging in localized areas. There is potential risk if the sediment is removed.

3.0 AREA REQUIRING THE INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL
The area requiring the IC is the entire IR Site 17 (Seaplane Lagoon). The boundaries of IR Site 17 and, thus, the area requiring the IC, are shown in Figure 3. The total areal extent of the IC area is approximately 110 acres (DON 2006). The IC is required for the entire lagoon for the following reasons:
• The lagoon is a dynamic surface water environment with tidal influence, so in addition to the residual concentrations in the confirmation samples collected during the remediation of the

IR Site 17 Final Land Use Control Remedial Design 3 February 2016 northeast and northwest corners of the lagoon, residual concentrations of Ra-226 could be present in sediment outside the areas dredged during the remediation.

• Although no discrete items with radiological activity are known to be present within the Seaplane Lagoon sediment, both the size and disbursed distribution of these items indicates that some of the items may not have been deposited via the outfalls. These items may have fallen into the lagoon inadvertently from seaplanes or may have been discarded in the lagoon (TtEC 2014).

Therefore, discrete items may be present in other parts of the lagoon.

4.0 INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES AND

RESTRICTIONS
Section 3.2 of the ESD specifies “the addition of an IC that prohibits future dredging and/or removal of sediments throughout Seaplane Lagoon by a future property owner unless a Sediment Management Plan (SMP) is approved by the DON and regulatory agencies in writing prior to the start of the dredging/ sediment removal and is implemented for future dredging/sediment removal.” IC performance objectives are documented in the ESD and are intended to ensure protection of human health and the environment.

Ra-226 residual activity is related to the post-remediation Ra-226 activity in the sediment itself (maximum of 4.18 pCi/g in confirmation sampling) and the potential for residual Ra-226 activity due to discrete items with radiological activity in the sediment.

4.1 Performance Objectives and Land Use Restrictions
As stated in the ESD, the performance objectives for the IC are as follows:
• Minimize the potential for exposure to Ra-226 activity in the sediment that may result in risks to human health or the environment during dredging and/or sediment removal activities • Prevent re-use or disposal of dredged/removed sediment in a manner that presents unacceptable risk to human health or the environment; and
• Preserve access to the area requiring the IC (entire IR Site 17 - Seaplane Lagoon) for the relevant regulatory agencies and the DON.

There is one associated land use restriction, which is a prohibition on future dredging and removal of sediments throughout IR Site 17 unless an SMP is approved by the DON and FFA signatories in writing prior to the start of the dredging/sediment removal and is implemented for future dredging/sediment removal. This LUC RD describes responsibilities of the DON and other parties regarding inspections, notifications, reviews and reporting, enforcement, and IC termination associated with this restriction.

The SMP to be prepared by the transferee for review and approval by the DON and FFA signatories shall define Ra-226 criteria to meet the performance objectives in a manner that is appropriate for proper risk management, taking into account the proposed activities. Accordingly, the SMP will supplement dredging regulations by prescribing requirements that limit exposure to residual Ra-226 to ensure protection of human health and the environment. The transferees’ SMP particularly shall include the transferee’s detailed procedures and protocols related to their proposed dredging/sediment removal (for personnel and equipment), sediment handling/management, and disposal of the removed materials. The SMP shall present procedures that shall be implemented during future dredging and/or removal of sediments from IR Site 17. All dredging/sediment removal shall be subject to a requirement for advance notification to the DON and other FFA signatories.

IR Site 17 Final Land Use Control Remedial Design 4 February 2016 The requirements for SMP approval and compliance are independent of and in addition to requirements of applicable regulations and standards enforced by other agencies and approval of project-specific dredging work plans by all of the appropriate agencies that would regulate the dredging/sediment removal in IR Site 17. The project-specific dredging work plan for any future proposed dredging shall be reviewed and approved by DTSC and, as appropriate, other FFA signatories or their successors to ensure that SMP requirements have been properly incorporated into the work plan. DTSC, a FFA signatory, indicates that the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) performs their technical reviews for radiological sites, so it is expected that CDPH will provide technical review of the project-specific dredging work plans to support DTSC review and approval of each project-specific dredging work plan. No dredging and/or sediment removal shall be conducted until written regulatory agency approvals, from DTSC and as appropriate other FFA signatories or their successors, have been provided for the project-specific dredging work plan.

Although analysis of the Ra-226 activity (TtEC 2014) shows no unacceptable risk for any potential future uses of the lagoon, the requirement that future dredging be conducted with radiological controls is a conservative measure to ensure (1) protection of workers during sediment removal and management, (2) survey and radiological release of dredging equipment that will leave the site, and (3) overall protection of the public, including related to the disposition of the dredged sediment. This IC is due to uncertainty associated with 1) potential Ra-226 activity in the sediment, 2) the potential for discrete items with radiological activity to be present in the lagoon, and 3) the disposition/disposal of sediment removed from the lagoon in the future. The property owner shall be responsible for implementing all requirements of this LUC RD. This includes all costs associated with implementation of and compliance with the IC.

The IC is expected to be maintained indefinitely, and Five-Year Reviews will be conducted. Inspections and reporting will be conducted in accordance with requirements in Section 5.0 of this LUC RD. If site conditions change in the future (such as following significant sediment removal) and it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the DON and other FFA signatories that the ICs are no longer necessary, the ICs could then be removed.

4.2 Legal Mechanisms Prior to Conveyance
Prior to property transfer, the DON will exercise its authority as landowner to control land use to ensure that no dredging and/or sediment removal is permitted to be conducted in Seaplane Lagoon.

4.3 L egal Mechanisms Following Conveyance to a Non-Federal Entity Each transfer of fee title from the United States to a non-federal entity will include a description of the residual contamination on the property and the environmental use restrictions, expressly prohibiting activities inconsistent with the IC performance objective and restrictions. The DON will meet the statutory requirements of CERCLA 120(h)(3) for any transfer of fee title. Concurrent with the transfer of fee title from the DON to transferee, information regarding the environmental use restrictions and controls will be communicated in writing to the property owners and to appropriate State and local agencies to ensure such agencies can factor these conditions into their oversight and decision-making activities regarding the property.

The following two proprietary legal mechanisms will incorporate and be relied upon to implement the IC objective and restrictions when the property is conveyed to a non-federal entity, and shall remain in effect until terminated:

IR Site 17 Final Land Use Control Remedial Design 5 February 2016 (1) Restrictive covenants will be included in one or more Quitclaim Deed(s) from the DON to the property recipient.
(2) Restrictive covenants will be included in a Covenant to Restrict Use of Property (CRUP1) entered into by the DON and DTSC as provided in the DON/DTSC Memorandum of Agreement (DON and DTSC 2000) and consistent with the substantive provisions of California Code of Regulations Title 22 § 67391.1.

The CRUP will incorporate the land use restrictions that run with the land and are enforceable by DTSC against future transferees. The Quitclaim Deed(s) will include identical land use restrictions that run with the land and that will be enforceable by the DON against future transferees. Each quitclaim deed will contain a reservation of access to the property for the DON, EPA, DTSC, and the Regional Water Board and their respective officials, agents, employees, contractors, and subcontractors for the purposes consistent with the FFA. IC restrictions will remain in place indefinitely unless the IC has been terminated as provided in Section 5.0.

5.0 REMEDY IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
This section describes the responsibilities of the DON and future transferees for implementing the IC.

5.1 DON Responsibilities with Respect to IC Inspections, Reporting, and Enforcement
The DON is responsible for implementing, maintaining, inspecting, reporting, and enforcing the IC identified in Section 4.0 prior to conveyance of the property. As identified in Section 4.1, this entails ensuring that there is no dredging and removal of sediments in Seaplane Lagoon unless a SMP specifying appropriate health and safety controls and sediment handling procedures related to dredging/sediment removal and disposal of the sediment is approved by the DON and regulatory agencies and implemented for future dredging and/or sediment removal. The ESD establishing this IC follows successful implementation of the remedy (removal of contaminated sediments). The DON may later transfer these procedural responsibilities to another party (“transferee”) by contract, property transfer agreement, or other means. Although the DON may contractually arrange for third parties to assume responsibility for and perform any and all actions associated with the IC, the DON shall retain ultimate responsibility under CERCLA for successful implementation of the IC, including maintaining, reporting on, and enforcing the requirements. Should the IC objective fail, the DON shall ensure that appropriate actions are taken to ensure protectiveness.

The DON will undertake the following IC implementation actions to ensure that the aforementioned IC objective and restrictions are met and maintained:
(1) LUC RD Distribution: Within 30 days of receiving FFA signatories’ concurrence on this LUC RD, the DON will place the LUC RD in the Information Repository currently located at Alameda Point (see ESD for details on location and hours of operation). A copy of the LUC RD will also be sent to the following interested parties: EPA, DTSC, Regional Water Board,

1See “Memorandum of Agreement between the United States Department of the Navy and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Use of Model ‘Covenant to Restrict Use of Property’ at Installations Being Closed and Transferred by the United States Department of the Navy” dated March 10, 2000.

IR Site 17 Final Land Use Control Remedial Design 6 February 2016 and the City of Alameda. Attachment 2 presents a table with these entities and their respective mailing addresses.
(2) Site Access: Each deed will contain a reservation of access to the property for the DON, the FFA signatories, and CDPH, and their respective officials, agents, employees, contractors, and subcontractors for the purposes consistent with the DON IR Program or the FFA. Entry shall be granted to conduct investigations, tests, or surveys; inspect field activities, site conditions, and/or sediment removal activities; or construct, operate, and maintain any response, as required or necessary.
(3) Site Inspections: Beginning upon approval of this LUC RD by the FFA signatories, and continuing until the effective date of property transfer, the DON will undertake annual physical inspections of the site to confirm continued compliance with the IC performance objective and restrictions. At the time of conveyance of the site, the DON and DTSC will require, via appropriate provisions to be placed in the DON’s Quitclaim Deed(s) of conveyance and DTSC’s CRUP(s), that the landowner(s) and subsequent transferees undertake continuing annual site inspections to ensure that the IC objective and restrictions are complied with by all future user(s) as provided in Section 5.2. Photographs will be taken of any violations, when possible.
(4) Compliance Reporting: Beginning upon approval of this LUC RD and continuing until the effective date of property transfer, the DON will monitor the environmental use restrictions and controls and provide to the EPA, DTSC, and Regional Water Board an annual IC Compliance Monitoring Report and Certificate for IR Site 17 consistent with the form in Attachment 1. The annual IC Compliance Monitoring Report will assess the status of IC compliance and thus, will address, among other things, whether the restrictions were communicated in the deed(s) and CRUP, whether the owners and state and local agencies were notified of the use restrictions and controls affecting the property, and whether use of the property has conformed with such restrictions and controls. In addition, should any deficiencies be found during the annual inspection, the DON will provide the EPA, DTSC, and Regional Water Board with a separate written explanation with the IC Compliance Certificate indicating the specific deficiencies found and what efforts or measures have or will be taken to correct those deficiencies. Copies of a completed and signed IC Compliance Monitoring Report and Certificate shall be sent to the EPA, DTSC, and Regional Water Board within 60 days of the inspection date by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested annually, unless a different method is agreed to by the FFA signatories. Upon conveyance of fee title for the site to a nonfederal entity, the DON will require, via appropriate provisions to be placed in the deed(s) of conveyance and CRUP, that the landowner(s) and subsequent transferees respond to IC violations as detailed in Section 5.2 and provide to the FFA signatories an annual IC Compliance Monitoring Report and Certificate for IR Site 17 consistent with the form located in Attachment 1, unless and until the IC is terminated at IR Site 17.

If the transferee fails to provide an annual compliance monitoring report as described previously to the DON, the DON will notify the EPA, DTSC, and Regional Water Board soon as practicable. If the EPA, DTSC, or Regional Water Board does not receive the annual monitoring report from the transferee, it will notify the DON as soon as practicable. The DON shall ensure appropriate measures have been taken to verify the status of the IC and that an annual compliance monitoring report is submitted to the EPA, DTSC, and Regional Water Board within 90 days after the report’s due date.

IR Site 17 Final Land Use Control Remedial Design 7 February 2016 (5) CERCLA Five-Year Reviews: The DON shall conduct Five-Year Reviews for IR Site 17 as required by CERCLA Section 121(c) and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The Five-Year Reviews will evaluate, among other things, implementation and compliance with the IC to determine whether it is or will be protective of human health and the environment in the future. The annual IC monitoring reports prepared by the DON or transferee will be used in preparation of the Five-Year Reviews to evaluate the effectiveness of the restrictions. (6) Notice of Planned Property Conveyances: The DON will provide notice to the EPA, DTSC, and Regional Water Board at least 6 months prior to any transfer or sale of any IR Site 17 property subject to the IC so that the EPA, DTSC, and Regional Water Board can be involved in discussions to ensure that appropriate provisions are included in the transfer terms or conveyance documents to maintain effective ICs. If it is not possible for the DON to notify the EPA, DTSC, and Regional Water Board at least 6 months prior to any transfer or sale, then the DON will provide notification as soon as possible but no later than 60 days prior to the transfer or the sale of any property by the DON that is subject to the IC. The DON shall provide a copy of executed deed(s) of conveyance and CRUP to the EPA, DTSC, and Regional Water Board. In addition to the land transfer notice and discussion provisions above, the DON further agrees to provide the EPA, DTSC, and Regional Water Board with similar notice, within the same time frames, as to federal-to-federal transfer of property. (7) Opportunity to Review Text of Intended Deed Restrictions: Prior to conveyance of the site, the EPA, DTSC, and Regional Water Board will be given reasonable opportunity to review and comment upon the applicable Quitclaim Deed and CRUP language related to the IC and associated rights of entry for the FFA signatories for purposes of IC oversight and enforcement. The provisions in that deed or other enforceable document(s) will be consistent with the IC objective in Section 4.0 of this LUC RD.
(8) Notification should Action(s) that Interfere with LUC Effectiveness be Discovered: The DON or transferee will notify the FFA signatories as soon as practicable, but no later than 10 working days after the DON’s or transferee’s discovery of any activity that is inconsistent with the IC objective or use restrictions or any other action that may interfere with the effectiveness of the IC. The DON or transferee will notify the FFA signatories regarding how the breach will be addressed or has been addressed as soon as practicable, but no more than 10 working days after notification of the breach. This reporting requirement does not preclude the DON from taking immediate action pursuant to its CERCLA authorities to prevent any actual or perceived risk(s) to human health or the environment. (9) IC Enforcement: The process of addressing any activity that is inconsistent with the IC objective or restrictions, or any other action that may interfere with the effectiveness of the IC will be initiated by the landowner as soon as practicable, but no longer than 60 days after the landowner becomes aware of the breach. If a violation of a restriction is identified and/or documented by one of the FFA signatories, the entity identifying the violation will notify the other FFA signatories and the property owner within 10 working days of identifying the violation. If a violation of a restriction is identified and/or documented by the property owner, he will notify the FFA signatories within 10 working days of identifying the violation.

The FFA signatories will then consult to evaluate what, if any, action(s) should be taken, who shall take the action(s), and when the action(s) shall be undertaken. Depending on the violation, action may be taken by either the DON or DTSC. The actions may range from informal resolution with the owner or violator of an IC provision(s) as described in this LUC

IR Site 17 Final Land Use Control Remedial Design 8 February 2016 RD, to the pursuit of legal remedies or enforcement action to enforce deed or CRUP restrictions under the state property law or CERCLA if the property is transferred to a nonfederal entity. Alternatively, the DON may choose to exercise its response authorities under CERCLA and seek cost recovery from the person(s) or entity(ies) who violate a given IC objective/restriction set forth in the deed(s) transferring the property. Should the DON become aware that any future owner or user of the property has violated any IC requirement over which a local agency may have independent jurisdiction, the DON will notify these agencies of such violation(s) and work cooperatively with them to re-achieve owner/user compliance with the IC and associated restrictions.

DTSC as a signatory to a CRUP (and EPA as a third-party beneficiary) will have independent authority to enforce violations of restrictions, requirements, and obligations under a CRUP.

While DTSC may agree to consult with other parties before taking any enforcement action under a CRUP, it will not waive its authority to take action as necessary in the event of violations.
(10) Modification of Restrictions in Quitclaim Deed and DTSC Covenant to Restrict Use of Property: Modifications to the IC may be required based on changes in site conditions (e.g., reduction in the area requiring the IC) during the expected duration of the IC. When the DON or future property owner(s) determines, with EPA, DTSC, and Regional Water Board concurrence, that modifications to the IC are appropriate, the IC modifications shall be documented in accordance with procedures consistent with applicable laws and regulations.

The DON or future property owner(s) shall be responsible for providing pertinent information on the IC modifications to the City of Alameda and will also advise the interested parties listed in Attachment 2. The FFA signatories shall determine whether an Explanation of Significant Differences or some other procedure consistent with the NCP is required to support the modification of the IC. The DON shall not modify or terminate LUCs, implementation actions, or modify land use restrictions without approval by the EPA, DTSC, and Regional Water Board. The DON or transferee shall seek prior concurrence before any action anticipated by the DON or transferee that may disrupt the effectiveness of the LUCs or any action that may alter or negate the need for LUCs.
(11) Termination of ICs: When the DON determines, with FFA signatory concurrence, that the IC is no longer needed for protection of human health and the environment because levels are acceptable for unrestricted use of dredged/removed sediment and unlimited exposure, the DON and DTSC shall provide to the current landowner(s) of the property an appropriate release of the restriction (DON for the deed and DTSC for the CRUP) in accordance with State law for recordation with the deed and will also timely advise the additional interested parties listed in Attachment 2 of that action.

5.2 R esponsibilities of the Property Owner(s) and Successors with Respect to IC Inspections, Reporting, and Implementation
By including appropriate provisions in the deed(s) or other enforceable document(s) pertaining to a conveyance of fee title to the site to a non-federal entity, the DON will cause the future property owner(s) and successors to assume the following IC implementation responsibilities upon the DON's conveyance of the property in order to ensure that the aforementioned IC objective and restrictions for are complied with after property transfer:

IR Site 17 Final Land Use Control Remedial Design 9 February 2016 (1) Site Inspections: The property owner(s) will conduct annual physical inspections of the site to confirm continued compliance with all IC objective and restrictions in the Quitclaim Deed(s) and CRUP(s) unless and until all IC restrictions at the site are terminated with the FFA signatories’ approval.
(2) Compliance Reporting: The property owner(s) will notify the DON, EPA, DTSC, and Regional Water Board within 10 working days of the property owner(s)’ discovery of any violation of an IC and will include in the notification a written explanation indicating the specific IC violations found and what efforts or measures have or will be taken to correct those violations. The property owner(s) will also provide the DON, EPA, DTSC, and Regional Water Board with an annual Compliance Monitoring Report and IC Compliance Certificate consistent with the form included as Attachment 1 within 60 days of the inspection date unless and until all IC restrictions are terminated. In addition, should any IC violations be discovered during the annual site inspection, the property owner(s) will notify the DON, EPA, DTSC, and Regional Water Board within 10 days of discovery of the violation and will provide, along with the required IC Compliance Monitoring Report Certificate, a separate written explanation indicating the specific IC violations found and what efforts or measures have or will be taken to correct those violations within 10 days of notification of the discovery. The annual Compliance Monitoring Report and Certificate shall be sent to the DON, EPA, DTSC, and Regional Water Board by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested annually. The need to continue to provide such inspections and certifications on an annual basis will be re-evaluated by the FFA signatories using the CERCLA Five-Year Review process.

The future property owner(s), or other entity responsible for preparation, review, and approval of any development plans prepared for projects within the area requiring the IC, shall identify any potential for the project to impact the restrictions and/or IC effectiveness and shall coordinate with the DON, EPA, DTSC, and Regional Water Board to prevent interference with the IC effectiveness. This coordination shall include providing written plans to these agencies for review and approval prior to the start of the subject project(s).

The DON and other FFA signatories reserve the right to deny approval of projects within the area requiring the IC that are deemed to interfere with IC effectiveness. This process will be evaluated during the CERCLA Five-Year Review, as necessary, to determine whether any changes need to be implemented.
(3) Notification of Proposed Changes in Property Use:

Contemporaneous with seeking
approval from the EPA, DTSC, and Regional Water Board for restricted activities within the area requiring the IC (e.g., dredging and/or otherwise removing sediment), the landowner must notify and obtain approval from the DON of any proposals for a property use change that is inconsistent with the property use and restrictions described in the ESD (DON 2016) and the restrictions presented in this LUC RD.

IR Site 17 Final Land Use Control Remedial Design 10 February 2016

6.0 REFERENCES
Tetra Tech EC, Inc. (TtEC). 2014. Final Remedial Action Completion Report, IR Site 17, Seaplane Lagoon, Alameda Point, Alameda, California, September.

United States Department of the Navy (DON). 2006. Final Record of Decision for Site 17, Seaplane Lagoon, Alameda Point, Alameda, California. October.

United States Department of the Navy (DON). 2016. Final Explanation of Significant Differences for Site 17, Seaplane Lagoon, Alameda Point, Alameda, California, February.

United States Department of the Navy (DON) and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA). 2000. Lease in Furtherance of Conveyance Between the United States of America and the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority for the Former Naval Air Station Alameda.

June 6.

United States Department of the Navy (DON) and Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2000. Memorandum of Agreement between the United States Department of the Navy and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Use of Model ‘Covenant to Restrict Use of Property’ at Installations Being Closed and Transferred by the United States Department of the Navy. March 10.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2012. Biological Opinion on the Proposed Naval Air Station Alameda Disposal and Reuse Project in the City of Alameda, Alameda County, California. August 29.

IR Site 17 Final Land Use Control Remedial Design 11 February 2016

Figure 1. Regional Location Map

IR Site 17 Final Land Use Control Remedial Design 12 February 2016

Figure 2. Site Location Map

IR Site 17 Final Land Use Control Remedial Design 13 February 2016

Figure 3. Area of Institutional Controls (entire IR Site 17)

IR Site 17 Final Land Use Control Remedial Design 14 February 2016

This page intentionally left blank.

ATTACHMENT 1

IR SITE 17 IC COMPLIANCE MONITORING REPORT

AND IC COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE

This page intentionally left blank.

Attachment 1 Page 1 of 2
IR Site 17 IC Compliance Monitoring Report

IR Site 17, Alameda Point, Alameda, California
EPA I.D. No. CA2170023236
Property Owner:

This evaluation is the final Department of the Navy (DON) certification just prior to site conveyance (yes or no)

If for an annual inspection, this evaluation covers the period from through Certification Checklist
In Compliance Non-Compliance See Comment
1) No dredging and sediment removal at IR Site 17
unless checklist items 2 through 5 are met.
2) A requirement that future dredging/sediment removal be conducted with radiological controls to ensure the
health and safety of the workers unless the FFA
signatories or their successors determine that this is no longer required.
3) A requirement that the FFA signatories review and
approve a Sediment Management Plan (SMP) for any
future proposed dredging/sediment removal to ensure
proper procedures and disposal of sediment consistent
with residual chemical concentrations and potential
Ra-226 activities due to sediment or discrete items
with radiological activity.
4) A requirement that a dredge-specific work plan for any future proposed dredging shall be reviewed and
approved by DTSC and, as appropriate, other FFA
signatories or their successors to ensure that SMP
requirements have been properly incorporated into the
work plan.
5) No dredging and/or sediment removal shall be conducted without written approvals of the reviewers specified in checklist items 3 and 4 above.
6) Any violations of these LUCs were reported
within 10 business days of discovery, and an
explanation of those actions taken or to be taken was
provided within 10 days of notification of discovery.

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the above-described restrictions have been complied with for the period noted.

Alternately, any known deficiencies and completed or planned actions to address such deficiencies are described in the attached Explanation of Deficiencies.

Signature Date
Comments:_______________________________________________________________________________ Mail completed form(s) to the DON, EPA, DTSC, and Regional Water Board in January of each calendar year.

Page 2 of 2 ends

IR SITE 17 ANNUAL IC COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE

IR Site 17
Alameda Point, Alameda, California
EPA I.D. No. CA2170023236

I ____________________________________________ hereby certify that the attached IR Site 17 Institutional Control Compliance Monitoring Report is complete and accurate. The requirements of LUC RD Section 4.0 have been met. I further certify that a copy of this compliance certificate and the attached IR Site 17 Institutional Control Compliance Monitoring Report have been sent by Registered Mail to the Federal Facility Agreement signatories.

______________(Name and Title)__________________
______________(Date)___________________________

ATTACHMENT 2

INTERESTED PARTIES FOR LAND USE CONTROL REMEDIAL DESIGN DISTRIBUTION

Attachment 2
Interested Parties for Land Use Control Remedial Design Distribution

1 U nited States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region IX 75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, California 94105
2 Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
700 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley, California 94710
3 Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region 1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400
Oakland, California 94612
4 City of Alameda
Alameda City Hall
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, California 94501

APPENDIX B

MARSH CRUST ORDINANCE

Threshold Depth in
eastern portion is updated
by Figures B-1 and B-2.

APPENDIX C

INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS CHECKLISTS AND EXAMPLE PERF

Attachment H-1
IR 14 IC Compliance Monitoring Report
Installation Restoration Site 14, Alameda Point, Alameda, California EPA I.D. No. CA2170023236
Property Owner:

This evaluation is the final Navy certification just prior to site conveyance (yes or no) If for an annual inspection, this evaluation covers the period from through Certification Checklist
In Non- See
Compliance Compliance Comment
1) No use of Site 14 for a residence, including any mobile home or factory built housing, constructed or installed for use as residential human habitation, a hospital for humans, a school for persons under 21 years of age, a
day care facility for children, a playground or any
permanently occupied human habitation other than
those used for commercial or industrial purposes.
2) No installation of new groundwater wells of
any type within the area requiring institutional
controls
a.
3) No groundwater use for any purposea (No evidence of
tampering with existing wells, no evidence of new
subusurface penetrations)
4) No altering, disturbing, or removing groundwater
monitoring wells and associated equipment
within the area requiring institutional controlsa.
5) No removal or damage to security features (such as
locks on monitoring wells, site fencing, or signs) or to survey monuments, monitoring equipment, piping or
other appurtenances.
6) Notification provided for any unauthorized change in land use.
7) Any violations of these LUCs were reported
within 10 business days of discovery and an
explanation provided of those actions taken or to be
taken was provided within 10 days of notification of
discovery.

Signature Date

Comments:
a – Future property owner may provide plans to the Navy, U.S. EPA, DTSC, and RWQCB for review and approval if the plans do not impact land use restrictions provided in the LUC RD.

Mail completed form(s) to the Navy, U.S. EPA, DTSC, and RWQCB in January of each calendar year.

IR SITE 16 ANNUAL IC COMPLIANCE MONITORING REPORT

AND IC COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE

Property
owner:

This evaluation is the final Department of the Navy (DON) certification just prior to site conveyance:
 Yes  No
If for an annual inspection, this evaluation covers the period:
from through

Certification Checklist
In
Compliance
Non-
Compliance
See
Comment
1) No groundwater use for any purpose
(no evidence of tampering with existing
wells or evidence of new wells).
  
2) No land-disturbing activity (excavation;
construction of roads, utilities, or
structures; or activity that facilitates
movement of known contaminated
groundwater).
  
3) No installation of new groundwater
wells of any type (other than remedy-
related wells).
  
4) No altering, disturbing, or removing
components of the remedy including
groundwater monitoring wells and
associated equipment.
  

In
Compliance
Non-
Compliance
See
Comment
5) For all residential buildings constructed
above the IC implementation areas,
engineered vapor intrusion mitigation
systems that meet indoor air risk
criteria, and are acceptable to the FFA
signatories or their successors, have
been installed and remain in place until
COC concentrations in groundwater
meet IC termination criteria.
  
6) No construction of buildings with
ground-floor residential units or
occupancies with sensitive receptors,
including schools, child care facilities,
hospitals, and senior care facilities,
overlying the IC implementation areas
until IC termination criteria are
achieved, unless approved by FFA
signatories or their successors.
  
7) No removal or damage to security
features (such as locks on monitoring
wells, site fencing or signs) or to survey
monuments, monitoring equipment,
groundwater remediation wells,
treatment facilities, piping or other
appurtenances.
  
8) Notification and/or plans provided to
the FFA signatories or their successors
for any proposed project that may
affect the land use restrictions and IC
effectiveness.
  
9) Notification provided to the FFA
signatories or their successors for any
unauthorized change in land use.
  
10) Any violations of these LUCs were
reported within 10 business days of
discovery and an explanation provided
of those actions taken or to be taken
was provided within 10 days of
notification of discovery.
  

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the above-described land use restrictions have been compiled with for the period noted. Alternately, any known deficiencies and completed or planned actions to address such deficiencies are described in the attached explanation of deficiencies.

Signature Date

Notes and Comments:

Photographs of deficiencies, in addition to other notes and forms, to document the conditions certified in this checklist, should be provided when appropriate.

Send the completed form and all accompanying information by certified mail, return receipt requested, to DON, EPA, DTSC, Regional Water Board, and City of Alameda each calendar year.

Attachment 1 Page 1 of 2
IR Site 17 IC Compliance Monitoring Report

IR Site 17, Alameda Point, Alameda, California
EPA I.D. No. CA2170023236
Property Owner:

This evaluation is the final Department of the Navy (DON) certification just prior to site conveyance (yes or no)

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the above-described restrictions have been complied with for the period noted.

Alternately, any known deficiencies and completed or planned actions to address such deficiencies are described in the attached Explanation of Deficiencies.

APPENDIX A
INSTALLATION RESTORATION SITE 25 SOIL INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL

COMPLIANCE MONITORING REPORT
Installation Restoration Site 25
Alameda Point, Alameda, California
EPA I.D. No. CA2170023236
Property Owner:

This evaluation is the final Department of the Navy certification just prior to site conveyance (yes or no) If for an annual inspection, this evaluation covers the period from through Certification Checklist
In Compliance Non-Compliance See Comment
1) Excavation below 4 feet approved and in
accordance with a Soil Management Plan
(excluding utility repair and utility
maintenance).

2) Major site work consisting of demolition
or removal of hardscape and buildings
approved and in accordance with a soil
management plan.

3) Notification of incidents/conditions
inconsistent with requirements (copies
attached).

4) Any violations of these land use
restrictions were reported within 10
business days of discovery and an
explanation provided of those actions taken
or to be taken was provided within
10 business days of notification of
discovery.

Printed Name/Signature Date

Mail completed form(s) to the Department of the Navy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Toxic Substances Control, and California Regional Water Quality Control Board annually.

Comments:

ECSD-2201-0011-0016 Final LUCRD.doc Final Land Use Control Remedial Design IR Site 25 Soil, Alameda Point
ECSD-2201-0011-0016
October 2009

Attachment I-1
IR 26 IC Compliance Monitoring Report
Installation Restoration Site 26, Alameda Point, Alameda, California EPA I.D. No. CA2170023236

Property Owner:

This evaluation is the final Navy certification just prior to site conveyance (yes or no) If for an annual inspection, this evaluation covers the period from through Certification Checklist
In Compliance Non-Compliance See Comment
1) No use of Site 26 for a residence, including any mobile home or factory built housing, constructed or installed for use as residential human habitation, a hospital for humans, a school for persons under 21 years of age, a
day care facility for children, a playground or any
permanently occupied human habitation other than
those used for commercial or industrial purposes.
2) No installation of new groundwater wells of
any type within the area requiring institutional
controls
a.
3) No groundwater use for any purposea (No evidence of
tampering with existing wells, no evidence of new
subusurface penetrations)
4) No altering, disturbing, or removing groundwater
monitoring wells and associated equipment
within the area requiring institutional controls
a.
5) No removal or damage to security features (such as
locks on monitoring wells, site fencing, or signs) or to survey monuments, monitoring equipment, piping or
other appurtenances.
6) Notification provided for any unauthorized change in land use.
7) Any violations of these LUCs were reported
within 10 business days of discovery and an
explanation provided of those actions taken or to be
taken was provided within 10 days of notification of
discovery.

Signature Date

Comments:
a – Future property owner may provide plans to the Navy, U.S. EPA, DTSC, and RWQCB for review and approval if the plans do not impact land use restrictions provided in the LUC RD.

Mail completed form(s) to the Navy, U.S. EPA, DTSC, and RWQCB in January of each calendar year.

IR 27 IC COMPLIANCE MONITORING REPORT
Installation Restoration Site 27
Alameda Point, Alameda, California
EPA ID. No. CA2170023236

Property Owner: ___________________________________________________________________

This evaluation is the final Navy certification just prior to site conveyance (yes or no) ____________

If for an annual inspection, this evaluation covers the period from _________ through ____________

Certification Checklist

In Compliance Non-Compliance See Comment
1) Unless otherwise approved by DON and FFA
signatories, no use of IR 27 for a residence,
including any mobile home or factory built
housing, constructed or installed for use as
residential human habitation, a hospital for
humans, a school for persons under 21 years
of age, a day care facility for children, a
playground or any permanently occupied
human habitation other than those used for
commercial or industrial.

2) No installation of new groundwater wells of
any type within the area requiring
institutional controls
a.
3) No groundwater use for any purposea (no
evidence of tampering with existing wells, no
evidence of new subsurface penetrations).
4) No altering, disturbing, or removing
groundwater monitoring wells and associated
equipmentwithin the area requiring
institutional controlsa.
5) No removal or damage to security features
(such as locks on monitoring wells, site
fencing, or signs) or survey monuments,
monitoring equipment, piping or other
appurtenances.
6) Notification provided for any unauthorized
change in land use.

IR 27 IC COMPLIANCE MONITORING REPORT
Installation Restoration Site 27
Alameda Point, Alameda, California
EPA ID. No. CA2170023236
7) Any violations of these LUCs were reported
within 10 business days of discovery and an
explanation provided of those actions taken
or to be taken was provided within 10 days of
notification of discovery.

_______________________________________________ __________ Signature Date

Comments:

a – Future property owner may provide plans to the Navy, USEPA, DTSC, and RWQCB for review and approval if the plans do not impact land use restrictions provided in the LUC RD.

Mail completed form(s) to the Navy, USEPA, DTSC, and RWQCB in January of each calendar year.

IR 28 IC COMPLIANCE MONITORING REPORT
Installation Restoration Site 28
Ala
meda Point, Alameda, Ca lifornia
EPA ID. No. CA2170023236
Property Owner: ___________________________________________________________________ This
evaluation is the final Navy certification just prior to site conveyance (yes or no) ____________ If f
or an annual inspection, this evaluation covers the period from _________ through ____________ Certif
ication Checklist
In C ompliance Non-Compliance See Comment
1)Unless otherwise approved by DON and FFA
signatories, no use of IR 28 for a residence,
inc
luding any mobile home or factory built
ho
using, constructed or ins talled f or use as
residential human habitation, a ho spital for
humans, a school for persons under 21 years
of age, a day care facility for children, a
playground or any permanently occupied
human habitation other than those used for
commercial or industrial.
2) No installation of new groundwater wells of
any type within the area requiring
institutional controls
a.
3) No groundwater use for any purposea (no
evidence of tampering with existing wells, no
evidence of new subsurface penetrations).
4) No altering, disturbing, or removing
groundwater monitoring wells and associated
equipmentwithin the area requiring
institutional controlsa.
5) No removal or damage to security features
(such as locks on monitoring wells, site
fencing, or signs) or survey monuments,
monitoring equipment, piping or other
appurtenances.
6) Notification provided for any unauthorized
change in land use.

IR 28 IC COMPLIANCE MONITORING REPORT
Installation Restoration Site 28
Alam
eda Point, Alameda, Cali fornia
EPA ID. No. C A2170023236
7) Any
violations of these LUCs were reported
within 10 business days of discovery and an
explanation provided of those actions taken
or to be taken was provided within 10 days of
notification of discovery.

I, th
e undersigned, hereby certify that the above-described land use restrictions have been complied with for the period noted. Alternately, any known deficiencies and completed or planned actions to address such deficiencies are described in the attached Explanation of Deficiencies.
_______________________________________________ __________ Signature Date
Commen
ts:
a – Future property owner may provide plans to the Navy, USEPA, DTSC, and RWQCB for review and approval if the plans do not impact land use restrictions provided in the LUC RD.

Mail co
mpleted form(s) to the Navy, USEPA, DTSC, and RWQCB in January of each calendar year.

Final Land Use Control Remedial Design
Operable Unit 2A – IR Sites 9, 13, and 19
Alameda Point, Alameda, California
DCN: CAPE-3218-0006-0028
December 2013
Page B-i

IR SITES 9, 13, AND 19 ANNUAL IC CERIFICATION CHECKLIST AND

COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE

Property owner:

This evaluation is the final Navy certification just prior to site conveyance:
 Yes  No
If for an annual inspection, this evaluation covers the period:
from through

Certification Checklist
In
Compliance
Non-
Compliance
See
Comment
1) No groundwater use for any purpose
(no evidence of tampering with
existing wells or evidence of new
wells).

  
2) No land-disturbing activity
(excavation, construction of roads,
utilities, or structures; or activity that
facilitates movement of known
contaminated groundwater).

  
3) No installation of new groundwater
wells of any type.
  
4) No altering, disturbing, or removing
components of the remedy including
groundwater monitoring wells and
associated equipment.

  
5) No construction of enclosed
structures.*
  

Final Land Use Control Remedial Design
Operable Unit 2A – IR Sites 9, 13, and 19
Alameda Point, Alameda, California
DCN: CAPE-3218-0006-0028
December 2013
Page B-ii

Certification Checklist
In
Compliance
Non-
Compliance
See
Comment
6) No removal or damage to security
features (such as locks on monitoring
wells, site fencing or signs) or to
survey monuments, monitoring
equipment, piping or other
appurtenances.*

  
7) Notification provided for any
unauthorized change in land use.*
  
8) Any violations of these LUCs were
reported within 10 business days of
discovery and an explanation
provided of those actions taken or to
be taken was provided within 10 days
of notification of discovery.

  
* Certification checklist items 5, 6, and 7 apply to IR Site 13 only.

Final Land Use Control Remedial Design
Operable Unit 2A – IR Sites 9, 13, and 19
Alameda Point, Alameda, California
DCN: CAPE-3218-0006-0028
December 2013
Page B-iii

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the above -described land use restrictions have been compiled with for the period noted. Alternately, any known deficiencies and completed or planned actions to address such deficiencies are described in the attached explanation of deficiencies.

Signature Date

Notes and Comments:
a These prohibited or restricted activities may be conducted provided that the requirements in the LUC RD are followed. If the inspector finds that a prohibited or restricted activity has occurred, the inspector shall check whether the activity was conducted in accordance with approved plans for that activity .

Activities that are conducted in accordance with the approved plans will be considered “in compliance.” Comments should be attached to the compliance checklist to describe how the requirements in the plans were adhered to.

Activities that are not conducted in accordance with the approved plans would be considered “non-compliance.”

Photographs, in addition to other notes and forms, to document the conditions certified in this checklist, should be provided.

Send the completed form and all accompanying information by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the Navy, EPA, DTSC, Water Board, and City of Alameda each calendar year.

Attachment 1 Page 1 of 2
OU-2B IC Compliance Monitoring Report

OU-2B, Alameda Point, Alameda, California
USEPA I.D. No. CA2170023236
Property Owner:

This evaluation is the final Department of the Navy (DON) certification just prior to site conveyance (yes or no)

If for an annual inspection, this evaluation covers the period from through Certification Checklist
In Compliance Non-Compliance See Comment
1) No residential use at IR Site 3 in the area of cobalt- impacted soil and at IR Site 4 in the area of hexavalent chromium-impacted soil (shown on LUC RD Figure
3).
2) No intrusive activities without prior approval by the agencies approving or concurring on the OU-2B ROD
or their successors at IR Site 4 in the area of hexavalent chromium-impacted soil shown on LUC RD Figure 3.
3) No domestic use of shallow groundwater.
4) No drilling of groundwater wells of any type (other
than remedy-related wells).
5) Requirement for engineered vapor intrusion mitigation systems acceptable to the FFA signatories or their
successors for all buildings constructed on the area
overlying the impacted shallow groundwater plus the
approximately 100-foot buffer area until VOC
concentrations in groundwater do not pose an
unacceptable risk due to the vapor intrusion pathway.
6) No construction of buildings with ground-floor
residential units or occupancies with sensitive receptors, including schools, child care facilities, hospitals, and senior care facilities, overlying the impacted shallow
groundwater plus the 100-foot buffer area until remedial goals are achieved.

7) No disturbing/removing/altering security features (such as locks on monitoring wells, site fencing, or signs) and components of the remedy, including monitoring wells,
survey monuments, groundwater remediation wells,
treatment facilities, and associated equipment and
warning signs.
8) Notification and/or plans provided to the FFA
signatories or their successors for any proposed project that may affect the land use restrictions and IC
effectiveness.
21

Page 2 of 2 ends

In Compliance Non-Compliance See Comment

9) Notification provided to the FFA signatories or their successors for any proposals for a land use change that is inconsistent with the land use restrictions.
10) Any violations of these LUCs were reported to the DON, USEPA, DTSC, and Water Board within 10 business days
of discovery, and an explanation of those actions taken or to be taken was provided within 10 days of
notification of discovery.

Signature Date

Comments:

Mail completed form(s) to the DON, USEPA, DTSC, and Water Board in January of each calendar year. 22 Header

**For LIFOC, City must request
PERF. For Deed, Developer or City
may request PERF.

Date

Ms. Amy Jo Hill, BRAC Operations
33000 Nixie Way
Bldg 50 2nd Floor Attn Amy Jo Hill
San Diego, CA 92147

Subject: PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FORM (PERF) FOR PROPOSED (Insert the activity, for example Construction, Biological Enhancement, Demolition of Above Ground Structures, etc.) ACTIVITIES WITHIN LIFOC PARCEL (X) AT NAS Alameda
Dear Ms. Hill:

CONTRACTOR/CITY is pleased to submit this project environmental review form (PERF) request to perform construction activities in the (Lease in Furtherance of Conveyance (LIFOC) or Transfer Deed) Parcel X. State why it’s being amended, if applicable. (X) activities are scheduled to begin in (date).

Your cooperation is greatly appreciated. If you have questions and/or require additional information, please feel free to contact me at (510) 747‐4747or my local point of contact X.

Sincerely,

Jen Ott

2 | Page

TITLE (Insert Subject Line Header)

1.0 PROPOSED PROJECT
Contractor‐list Introduction of project and the parcel description (consider location/adjacent to and extending on to other parcels)
Provide Schedule (not just start date, expected duration etc.) Provide a Description of technical work

Example:
a. Alameda Point, Northwest Territory Runway. Proposed License Area 36,000 square feet (0.83 acres) (area marked with orange boarder with GPS markers) within the “Open Spa ce” area). See Figure 1 and 2. The site area was selected with the following considerations:
i. With consideration of current and planned usage of space by the city. ii. With consideration to minimize impact to ongoing remediation efforts. iii. With consideration to the 2012 Biological Opinion (2012‐F‐0524). iv. With consideration to creating the largest possible unoccupied and undeveloped area around the test site.
b. Schedule: Month to Month
c. Tenant will prepare site by removing asphalt apron next to runway and pour a small concrete pad (see Figure 4). No fencing will be constructe d.
d. Tenant will temporarily place equipment on the site to perform a small number of short duration (5 second) rocket engine tests. During tests, all equipment will be securely fastened to the ground and will not leave the site. Equipment will be moved to the site for periods of one to two weeks

approximately every three months. Equipment will be secured on site and either locked up in a shipping container or monitored by a security guard, as appropriate. e. Tests that involve ignition of flammable materials will be coordinated with and monitored by

Alameda Fire Department.
f. The byproduct of the tests are water and the CO2 equivalent to what is consumed by a typical tree in the period of a few months. Tenant has planted several trees to offset CO2 emissions for the tests.

2.0 EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS
Contractor‐It is mandatory to list all restrictions listed in the FOSL, LIFOC, Record of Decision (ROD)/Land Use Control Remedial Design (LUC RD), Deed, and/or CRUP restrictions.

Examples:

Applicable Restrictions Proposed Activity
LIFOC Section 8.1 – Lessee and sublessee
shall not begin excavation, construction,
alteration, maintenance or repairs of the
Leased Premises without the prior written
consent of the government.

Opening manholes
LIFOC Section 11 – Non‐Interference
with operations: Lessee shall not
conduct operations or make any
alterations on Leased premises that
would interfere with or otherwise
restrict operations, environmental clean‐
up or restoration actions by
Government, EPA, state environmental
Placement of storage shed over
existing monitoring well.

3 | Page

regulators, or their contractors.

LUC RD No digging.

3.0 STATUS OF ONGOING ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIONS WITHIN PARCEL X Contractor to list those IR Site, AOC or Petroleum Sites that are in the property. If there are No IR, AOC or Petroleum – say how this finding is reinforced by current and relevant documents (FOST or FOSL). Contractor to note if the property is untr ansferred (covered by LIFOC and other environmental restrictions from ROD/LUC RD)

Examples:
a. This area is located on untransferred property adjacent to IR 32 and is covered by the restrictions in the LIFOC. IR 32 is currently planning for remedial action starting in 2018.

b. This area is also adjacent to IR 1. IR 1 is currently in the Long Term Management phase. Access is required to the site on an ongoing basis to sampling groundwater and perform site inspections.

4.0 POTENTIAL PROJECT IMPACTS
Contractor‐provide a short list of potential issues of what can go wrong as a result of your intended specific to each IR item above. If none/say none.

Examples
 Work will occur within 3 feet of the Navy treatment system. Potential to encounter contaminated soil, etc.
 Work will occur directly above the IR 32 easement area. The potential exists for interfering with area’s activity.
 Survey Area A is on Navy property, on their 4A parcel. Per Navy comment , there are IC’s (institutional
controls) within this area. As almost all survey work will be conducted via surface or air, with the exce
ption of inserting a rod into existing storm drain manholes, there will be no expected impact.

5.0 PROPOSED MEASURES TO BE IMPLEMENTED
Contractor‐ proposed specific onsite mitigation measure in this section (see examples listed below). This section is for the Contractor to show how he or she will eliminate the potent ial impacts listed above in Section 4. 0, Potential Project Impacts. The contractor should identify applicable Soil/Site Management Plans (SMP) or Health and Safety plans that will be used onsite. If an already approved SMP is being referenced. Please refer to the SMP Sections that apply to the work.

Examples:
 To mitigate (state what risk you are mitigating), a HF representative will be present for all work within the IRP 24 easement.    The HF representative will also perform inspections of all DON facilities within the project limits, every day of construction.
 To mitigate (state what risk you are mitigating), all work alongside the conveyance system trench, plus one foot on either side of the   trench, will be performed by hand (equating to approximately 5.5 feet wide).   An exception will be for the deep portions of the existing 12‐KV line (known to be 13’‐14’ deep at existing triple RCB).  In addition, all work within four feet of any DON box or vault will be performed by hand
.
 To mitigate (state what risk you are mitigating), all work alongside the conveyance system trench, plus one foot on either side of the   trench, will be performed by hand (equating to approximately 5.5 feet wide).   An exception will be for the deep portions of the existing 12‐KV line (known to be 13’‐14’ deep at existing tri
ple RCB).  In addition, all work within four feet of any DON box or vault will be performed by hand.

4 | Page

6.0 REGULATORY COORDINATION TO DATE
If Applicable‐Agency, Real Estate Agreement will be listed and referenced in this section and attached to the PERF. Response should can be the following: Some, None, to be performed and/or demonstrated to Navy prior to construction commencement. Note to Contractor – The Navy will determine if Regulatory Co ordination is
needed for this PERF. This section lists out any prior coordination.

Example:

None.

7.0 CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL
Contractor selects those items it feels are appropriate to monitor and report on its activities (essentially enters the X in the “applicable” column).

Example:

Applicable Condition for Approval
Pre‐Activity
X
CONTRACTOR will provide to the Base Realignment and Closure Environmental Coordinator (BEC) a detailed work plan, including health and safety plan, to the Navy no less than two weeks prior to prior to commencing construction activities
X CONTRACTOR will provide to the BEC a proposed construction schedule X prior to commencement of the construction activities.

CONTRACTOR will contact the BEC two weeks prior to commencing proposed construction activities.

Photo documentation of protective measures around remediation equipment will be provided to the BEC for approval no less than one week prior to commencing construction activities
X
CONTRACTOR will provide written or email evidence of regulatory concurrence with proposed activities no less than three days prior to commencing activities
Activity
Alteration, relocation, or disturbance of any extraction wells, associated control boxes, or pipelines is prohibited without prior government approval.

HF will coordinate with the DON prior to fieldwork to discuss protection measures to prevent disturbance of remediation equipment located on the site.

Costs to repair or replace the any Government equipment (including but not limited to…) as a result of CONTRACTOR’s activities will be the responsibility of CONTRACTOR.

In the event remediation equipment is damaged, the work in the vicinity of the damaged remediation equipment will be stopped until a DON representative arrives on‐site and completes an assessment. A damage report will be submitted to the BEC within 7 days.

X Should the construction schedule change in a delay of larger than 30 days, CONTRACTOR will notify the BEC and provide an updated schedule Activities associated with the PERF will not interfere with the DON's or Regulatory Agency's access to areas with ongoing environmental activities.

Biweekly remediation system condition inspection reports with photos will be submitted to the BEC, in the absence of a BEC, to the DBCM.

Post‐Activity

5 | Page

Provide email or brief summary upon completion to indicate workplan requirements were met and there were no incidents.

General Agreements
CONTRACTOR is responsible for all costs incurred by CONTRACTOR, it subcontractors and assigns related to the excavation, disposal, and treatment of contaminated soil and/or groundwater incurred in the course of activities related to work within the easement.

CONTRACTOR is responsible for all costs of protection, repair, alteration, and replacement of groundwater monitoring and extraction wells, and any associated piping and equipment that are included in the CERCLA remedial action for this property and that have been altered, disturbed or removed during activities related to work within the easement.

8.0 Attachments/Figures
Contractor to List in separate lines all attachments and figures for this request. Please include titles as necessary.

Example:
 Survey Scope Area Exhibit, PDF
 Figure 1. Proposed License Area (Area bordered in orange with GPS coordinates)

9.0 Additional Conditions based on Navy Review

This is the section for the Navy to
fill out. Contractor does not put any information in this section. Based on a review of Section 7, the Navy may require additional measures in order to approve the request.

APPENDIX D

MEMORANDUM TO FILE FOR ADDITION OF PFOA AND PFOS

TO THE INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS FOR SHALLOW GROUNDWATER
AT OU-2C IR SITES 5, 10, AND 12

Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest
BRAC PMO West
San Diego, CA

FINAL

MEMORANDUM TO FILE FOR ADDITION OF

PFOA AND PFOS TO THE INSTITUTIONAL

CONTROLS FOR SHALLOW GROUNDWATER AT
OU-2C IR SITES 5, 10, and 12

ALAMEDA POINT

ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA
June 2018

Statement A - Approved for public release;
distribution is unlimited

DCN: KMJV-1418-0040-0003

Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest
BRAC PMO West
San Diego, CA

FINAL

MEMORANDUM TO FILE FOR ADDITION OF

PFOA AND PFOS TO THE INSTITUTIONAL

CONTROLS FOR SHALLOW GROUNDWATER AT
OU-2C IR SITES 5, 10, and 12

ALAMEDA POINT

ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA
June 2018
Prepared for:

Department of the Navy
Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest
BRAC PMO West
33000 Nixie Way, Bldg. 50
San Die
go, CA 92147

Prepared by:

KMEA MACTEC Joint Venture
9177 Sky Park Court
San Diego CA 92123-4341
(858) 278-3600
Contract Number: N62473-14-D-1418; Task Order No. 0040 DCN: KMJV-1418-0040-0003

OU-2C IR Sites 5, 10, and 12
Alameda Point, Alameda, CA Memorandum to File

1 MEMORANDUM TO FILE
DATE: June 1, 2018
SUBJECT: Memorandum to File for Addition of PFOA and PFOS to the Institutional Controls for Shallow Groundwater at OU-2C IR Sites 5, 10, and 12, Alameda Point, Alameda, CA
DCN: KMJV-1418-0040-0003
The purpose of this memorandum is to document a non-significant modification to the remedy selected in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) 2014 Final Record of Decision (ROD) for the former Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda Operable Unit (OU)-2C Installation Restoration (IR) Sites 5, 10, and 12 (Figure 1).

The United States Department of the Navy (DON) is the lead Federal agency for all CERCLA actions at former NAS Alameda, now known as Alameda Point. Alameda Point was placed on the National Priorities List (NPL) in July 1999 (United States Environmental Protection Agency [U.S. EPA], 1999) Identification Number CA2170023236. The DON has initiated the CERCLA Remedial Action (RA) selected in the Final ROD for OU-2C IR Sites 5, 10, 12 (DON, 2014) in accordance with the requirements of CERCLA, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP, 1994), and the Alameda Naval Air Station Federal Facility Agreement (FFA). Regulatory oversight and guidance during development, approval, and implementation of the RA has been provided by the DON, U.S. EPA, California Environmental Protection Agency Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), and California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region (Water Board). Collectively, the DON and the regulatory agencies are referred to as the “FFA signatories”.

The modification described in this memorandum consists of the addition of emerging contaminants perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) to the groundwater remedy currently in place, expanding the boundary of the groundwater Institutional Controls (ICs) to the entire OU-2C boundary (excluding drain lines) and the imposition of ICs on the use, handling, and disposal of shallow groundwater for emerging contaminants and contaminants of concern (COCs).

DESCRIPTION OF THE RECORD OF DECISION SELECTED REMEDY
OU-2C consists of IR Sites 5, 10, and 12 (Figure 1). Results of investigations and risk assessments for OU-2C required RA for groundwater at IR Site 5. Groundwater RA was not required for IR Sites 10 and 12 (DON, 2014). IR Site 5 was the former Naval Air Rework Facility and contains Building 5. A detailed site description and history, and discussion of selected remedies, are presented in the 2014 ROD (DON, 2014). The selected remedy for OU-2C shallow groundwater at IR Site 5 includes, as appropriate, in-situ chemical oxidation (ISCO) or enhanced bioremediation, groundwater monitoring, and institutional controls (ICs) for elevated concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (DON, 2014).

The remedial action objective (RAO) for IR Site 5 groundwater is to protect future commercial human receptors (as represented by future office workers) within IR Site 5 from potentially unacceptable risks associated with the presence of chemicals of concern (COCs) in shallow groundwater at concentrations that exceed occupational remedial goals (RGs) (DON, 2014).

OU-2C IR Sites 5, 10, and 12
Alameda Point, Alameda, CA Memorandum to File

2 The Final 2017 Remedial Design/Remedial Action Work Plan (RD/RAWP) describes the methodology for the groundwater remedy, which is currently being implemented (Tetra Tech EC, Inc. [TTECI], 2017).

REVISED INSTITUTIONAL CONTRO LS
Existing ICs are described in the ROD (DON, 2014) and the Land Use Control Remedial Design (LUC RD) (TTECI, 2017). The following addition to ICs at OU-2C is proposed:
• No use or disturbance of groundwater without an approved Site Management Plan. The Site Management Plan shall include worker health and safety, handling, and disposal protocols for groundwater impacted by emerging contaminants and COCs consistent with Federal, State and local regulations. The Site Management Plan will be approved by the FFA signatories.

The LUC RD defines specific areas requiring ICs for groundwater COCs within OU-2C in accordance with the ROD. This memorandum extends the areas requiring ICs for groundwater (Figure 1). The PFOS and PFOA IC boundary encompasses the entire OU-2C boundary.

Proposed restrictions on the use, handling, and disposal of shallow groundwater for emerging contaminants and COCs, pursuant to a Site Management Plan approved by the FFA signatories, will ensure that human health and the environment remain protected. Once groundwater COC cleanup objectives are obtained, the IC restrictions for COCs could be eliminated; the IC restrictions for emerging contaminants would remain in place until approved for removal by the FFA signatories.

BASIS FOR NON-SIGNIFICANT CHANGE
PFOA and PFOS are fluorinated compounds used in aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), which is used for fire suppression. AFFF was used in firefighting equipment testing and training, and potentially for other operations in plating shops or in hangar fire suppression systems. IR Site 5 was used for multiple industrial activities such as those associated with aircraft rebuilding and a plating shop. Building 400 at IR Site 10 was used as a rework and maintenance facility. The base power plant was at IR Site 12. Pursuant to DON policy, groundwater was sampled for the presence of PFOS/PFOA in October 2016. PFOA and PFOS were reported in the shallow First Water Bearing Zone in groundwater monitoring wells screened approximately 5 to 15 feet bgs at OU-2C exceeding the current drinking water Lifetime Health Advisory (LHA). The results for total PFOA and PFOS range from 0.02 to 19.81 micrograms per liter (µg/L) or 20 to 19,810 parts-per-trillion (ppt).

In May 2016, the U.S. EPA issued a LHA and Fact Sheet (U.S. EPA, 2016a) that states the following:
“To provide Americans, including the most sensitive populations, with a margin of protection from a lifetime of exposure to PFOA and PFOS from drinking water, EPA established the health advisory levels at 70 parts-per-trillion (ppt). When both PFOA and PFOS are found in drinking water, the combined concentrations of PFOA and PFOS should be compared with the 70 parts-per-trillion health advisory levels. This health advisory level offers a margin of protection for all Americans throughout their life from adverse health effects resulting from exposure to PFOA and PFOS in drinking water.”
OU-2C IR Sites 5, 10, and 12
Alameda Point, Alameda, CA Memorandum to File

3 On November 15, 2016, the U.S. EPA published a memorandum to clarify the appropriate application of the May 2016 drinking water LHAs for PFOA and PFOS, stating that “these HAs only apply to exposure scenarios involving drinking water and cannot be used in identifying risk levels for ingestion of food sources, including: fish, meat produced from livestock that consumes contaminated water, or crops irrigated with contaminated water” (U.S. EPA, 2016b).

PFOA and PFOS have U.S. EPA LHA values for drinking water; however, neither the U.S. EPA nor the State of California has promulgated maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). The DON is proactively proposing to expand the existing ICs at OU-2C to prevent exposure to PFOA and PFOS through contact with shallow groundwater in accordance with United States Department of Defense instruction on emerging contaminants (DoD, 2009).

BACKGROUND OF POTENTIAL PFOA/PFOS IMPACTS AT ALAMEDA POINT Shallow groundwater beneath specific designated areas of Alameda Point (i.e., southeast portion and central portion west of Saratoga Avenue) are documented as not of sufficient quality to be considered a future potential municipal or domestic water source, pursuant to State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) Resolution No. 88-63 and 89-39 “Sources of Drinking Water” (State Water Board, 2006).

Water service in the City of Alameda is currently provided by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD). The City of Alameda's reuse planning documents indicate that a new water distribution system will be installed to serve the proposed Alameda Point development area and to connect to the existing EBMUD water facilities. For additional information, refer to EBMUD’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan and the City of Alameda’s Environmental Impact Report (EBMUD, 2016; Environmental Science Associates, 2013).

OU-2C is currently under DON control with interim ICs restricting the use of groundwater in accordance with the Final ROD (DON, 2014). Groundwater is being monitored for COCs in accordance with the Final RD/RAWP (TTECI, 2017). Going forward, all redevelopment activities are to be conducted in accordance with the City of Alameda’s Site Management Plan, which requires strict protocols for any extraction, treatment, and/or disposal of soil and/or groundwater in areas with restrictions.

HEALTH AND SAFETY REGARDING PFOA/PFOS-IMPACTED GROUNDWATER The following general health and safety protocols must be followed with respect to handling PFOA/PFOS-impacted groundwater. Site workers performing intrusive work that may result in contact with PFOA/PFOS-impacted groundwater at concentrations exceeding the LHA must handle, manage, and dispose of the groundwater in a manner consistent with the current federal, state, and local rules and regulations. All protocols will be included in the Site Management Plan prepared by the transferee. The current Site Management Plan does not include PFOA/PFOS protocols.

SUMMARY OF NON-SIGNIFICANT CHANGE
Pursuant to DON policy, the DON is adding PFOA and PFOS as emerging contaminants at OU- 2C IR Sites 5, 10 and 12, and is imposing ICs on the use, handling, and disposal of shallow groundwater for emerging contaminants and COCs, pursuant to a Site Management Plan approved by the FFA signatories. This decision is not a risk-based decision, but rather is a proactive, conservative measure of safety to ensure the continued protection of human health and the environment. Once groundwater COC cleanup objectives are achieved, the IC OU-2C IR Sites 5, 10, and 12
Alameda Point, Alameda, CA Memorandum to File

4 restrictions for groundwater COCs could be eliminated; the groundwater IC restrictions for emerging contaminants would remain in place. Adding PFOA and PFOS to the existing groundwater ICs does not significantly change or fundamentally alter the RA selected in the Final ROD for OU-2C.

REFERENCES
California State Water Resources Control Board (Water Board). 2006. Resolution No. 88-63.

Adoption of Policy Entitled “Sources of Drinking Water”. February.

East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD). 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. July.

Environmental Science Associates. 2013. Environmental Impact Report, Alameda Point Project.

September.

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR §300.435. 1994.

Tetra Tech EC, Inc. (TTECI). 2017. Final Remedial Design/Remedial Action Work Plan, Operable Unit 2C/Installation Restoration Site 5 Shallow First Water-Bearing Zone Groundwater, Alameda Point, Alameda, California. February.

United States Department of Defense (DoD). 2009. Instruction No. 4715.18: Emerging Contaminants. June.

United States Department of the Navy (DON). 2014. Final Record of Decision, OU-2C (IR Sites 5, 10, and 12) Former Naval Air Station Alameda, California. April.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1999. A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision Documents. EPA 540-R-98-031. July.
_____. 2016a. Drinking Water Health Advisories for PFOA and PFOS. https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/drinking-water-health-advisories-pfoa- and-pfos. Accessed 8/4/2017.
_____. 2016b. Memorandum: Clarification about the Appropriate Application of the PFOA and PFOS Drinking Water Health Advisories. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016- 11/documents/clarification_memo_pfoapfos_dw_has.pdf. Accessed 10/26/2017. 1 FIGUREPROJECT NO.:

DATE:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:
5026-17-2040
June 2018
SB
´
0 300 600
Feet
CM
Legend
Area Requiring Institutional Controls
Alameda Point Boundary
Installation Restoration Site and Number
Operable Unit 2C
Facility Infrastructure
Location Map
1 inch = 300 feet
5 WEST MIDWAY AVENUE

WEST TOWER AVENUE (AVENUE F)

WEST RANGER AVENUE
SARATOGA ST (3RD ST)LEXINGTON ST (SECOND ST)

WEST ESSEX DRIVE

TODD STREET

SARATOGA STREET

LEXINGTON STREET

WEST RANGER AVENUE (AVENUE D)

WEST MIDWAY AVENUE

WEST MALL SQUARE

WEST TOWER AVENUE (AVENUE F)
MONARCH STREET (1ST STREET)

WEST MIDWAY AVENUE

E/W TAXIWAY
5 10
12 005
005A
11 002
009
400
039
040
041
008
092
024
114
022
021
003
023
004
017
101
400A
091
032
062
010
425
424
137
677
043
006
019
077
500
191
063
348
405
135
019-1
391
347
Document Path: P:\Projects-South\CADGIS\AUTOCAD\5026-17\2040_Alameda_PFAS_TM\GIS\PFAS_TM_FIG_01_OU2C.mxd Date Saved: 6/1/2018 11:33:37 AM Alameda Point, Alameda, California

AREA REQUIRING INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
OU-2C (IR SITES 5, 10, and 12)
Detail Area
OU-2C IR Sites 5, 10, and 12
Alameda Point, Alameda, CA Memorandum to File

Contract N62473-14-D-1418, TO 0040 June 2018

This page is intentionally blank.

Alameda BGMP
Analytical Results - PFAS in Groundwater
Amec Foster Wheeler
5023146096
7/3/2017

Page 1 of 3 ends

PFBS PFOA PFOS PFOA +
PFOS
EPA Health Advisory: 380 0.07 0.07 0.07
IR Site Sample
Location Sample ID Sample
Type
Matrix Spike
Collected
(Y/N)
Sample Date Sample
Time SDG μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L
M03-06_161027 N N 10/27/2016 11:41 1601380 0.0124 0.0266 0.0388 0.0654 EB-M03-06_161027 EB N 10/27/2016 11:50 1601380 ND ND 0.00085 J 0.00085 J FB-M03-06_161027 FB N 10/27/2016 11:45 1601380 ND ND ND ND M04-05_161027 N N 10/27/2016 10:41 1601380 ND ND 0.00979 0.00979 EB-M04-05_161027 EB N 10/27/2016 10:50 1601380 ND ND 0.000802 J 0.000802 J M04-06 M04-06_161027 N N 10/27/2016 8:41 1601380 0.00601 J ND 0.00614 J 0.00614 J MW360-4_161027 N N 10/27/2016 9:40 1601380 0.00328 J 0.0217 0.0901 0.1118 EB-MW360-4_161027 EB N 10/27/2016 9:50 1601380 ND ND ND ND FB-MW360-4_161027 FB N 10/27/2016 9:45 1601380 ND ND ND ND MW4-2-1_161027 N N 10/27/2016 13:41 1601380 ND ND 0.00507 J 0.00507 J EB-MW4-2-1_161027 EB N 10/27/2016 13:50 1601380 ND ND 0.00139 J 0.00139 J FB-MW4-2-1_161027 FB N 10/27/2016 13:45 1601380 ND ND ND ND MW4-2-11 MW4-2-11_161028 N N 10/28/2016 10:13 1601381 ND ND 0. 00268 J 0.00268 J MW4-2-14 MW4-2-14_161028 N N 10/28/2016 9:25 1601381 ND ND 0.000961 J 0.000961 J MW4-2-16 MW4-2-16_161028 N N 10/28/2016 8:40 1601381 ND ND 0.00393 J 0.00393 J MW4-2-6 MW4-2-6_161028 N N 10/28/2016 11:30 1601381 ND 0.0183 0.0323 0.0506 5-3MW1S 5-3MW1S_161025 N N 10/25/2016 9:26 1601359 0.00185 J 0.00977 0.0104 0.02017 5-3MW7S 5-3MW7S_161025 N N 10/25/2016 8:30 1601359 0.00198 J 0.0122 0.0269 0.0391 M05-02_161025 N N 10/25/2016 11:15 1601360 0.00289 J 0.101 0.0252 0.1262 EB-M05-02_161025 EB N 10/25/2016 11:25 1601360 ND ND ND ND FB-M05-02_161025 FB N 10/25/2016 11:20 1601360 ND ND ND ND M05-03_161025 N N 10/25/2016 12:56 1601360 0.00732 J 0.232 0.302 0.534 EB-M05-03_161025 EB N 10/25/2016 13:05 1601360 ND ND ND ND FB-M05-03_161025 FB N 10/25/2016 13:00 1601360 ND ND ND ND M05-20_161024 N N 10/24/2016 14:03 1601359 ND 0.0177 0.0126 0.0303 DUP05_161024 FD N 10/24/2016 14:08 1601359 0.00194 J 0.0179 0.0102 0.0281 M08-07_161025 N N 10/25/2016 10:23 1601359 1.37 1.71 18.1 19.81 EB-M08-07_161025 EB N 10/25/2016 10:30 1601360 ND ND ND ND FB-M08-07_161025 FB N 10/25/2016 10:25 1601359 ND ND ND ND M10-01_161025 N N 10/25/2016 13:50 1601360 0.0463 2.52 0.732 3.252 EB-M10-01_161025 EB N 10/25/2016 14:00 1601360 ND ND ND ND FB-M10-01_161025 FB N 10/25/2016 13:55 1601360 ND ND ND ND IR Site 4
IR Site 5
M03-06
M04-05
MW360-4
MW4-2-1
M05-02
M05-03
M05-20
M08-07
M10-01
Alameda BGMP
Analytical Results - PFAS in Groundwater
Amec Foster Wheeler
5023146096
7/3/2017

Page 2 of 3 ends

PFBS PFOA PFOS PFOA +
PFOS
EPA Health Advisory: 380 0.07 0.07 0.07
IR Site Sample
Location Sample ID Sample
Type
Matrix Spike
Collected
(Y/N)
Sample Date Sample
Time SDG μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L
M06-02_161024 N N 10/24/2016 11:38 1601348 0.00331 0.162 0.0209 0.1829 EB-M06-02_161024 EB N 10/24/2016 11:00 1601348 ND ND ND ND FB-M06-02_161024 FB N 10/24/2016 11:05 1601348 ND ND ND ND M06-04 M06-04_161024 N N 10/24/2016 9:44 1601348 ND ND 0.00616 0.00616 S6-MW06_161024 N N 10/24/2016 13:00 1601348 0.00596 2.21 0.106 2.316 EB-S6-MW06_161024 EB N 10/24/2016 12:30 1601348 ND ND ND ND FB-S6-MW06_161024 FB N 10/24/2016 12:35 1601348 ND 0.00079 ND 0.00079 S6-MW-07_161024 N N 10/24/2016 10:49 1601348 0.00449 1.16 0.0181 1.1781 EB-S6-MW-07_161024 EB N 10/24/2016 9:50 1601348 ND 0.000796 ND 0.000796 FB-S6-MW-07_161024 FB N 10/24/2016 10:05 1601348 ND 0.000665 ND 0.000665 M14-09D_161031 N Y 10/31/2016 10:23 1601391 1.2 J 24.6 J 39.2 J 63.8 J DUP06_161031 FD N 10/31/2016 10:28 1601391 1.19 J 19.5 43.9 J 63.4 J EB-M14-09D_161031 EB N 10/31/2016 10:38 1601391 ND ND ND ND FB-M14-09D_161031 FB N 10/31/2016 10:33 1601391 ND ND ND ND M14-09S_161031 N N 10/31/2016 9:40 1601391 7.87 J 34.3 J 302 J 336.3 J EB-M14-09S_161031 EB N 10/31/2016 9:50 1601391 ND ND 0.00312 J 0.00312 J FB-M14-09S_161031 FB N 10/31/2016 9:45 1601391 ND 0.000676 J 0.00158 J 0.002256 J M14-14_161031 N N 10/31/2016 8:50 1601391 0.214 J 5.56 1.54 J 7.1 J EB-M14-14_161031 EB N 10/31/2016 9:00 1601391 ND ND ND ND FB-M14-14_161031 FB N 10/31/2016 8:55 1601391 ND ND ND ND M14-22_161031 N Y 10/31/2016 12:10 1601391 3.04 J 35.2 J 258 J 293.2 J EB-M14-22_161031 EB N 10/31/2016 12:20 1601391 ND ND ND ND FB-M14-22_161031 FB N 10/31/2016 12:15 1601391 ND ND ND ND M14-23_161031 N N 10/31/2016 13:03 1601391 1.14 J 23.7 J 42.5 J 66.2 J EB-M14-23_161031 EB N 10/31/2016 13:10 1601391 ND ND 0.00311 J 0.00311 J FB-M14-23_161031 FB N 10/31/2016 13:05 1601391 ND ND 0.00161 J 0.00161 J M14-24_161031 N N 10/31/2016 13:50 1601391 1.04 J 27.6 J 67.7 J 95.3 J EB-M14-24_161031 EB N 10/31/2016 14:00 1601391 ND ND 0.0017 J 0.0017 J FB-M14-24_161031 FB N 10/31/2016 13:55 1601391 ND ND 0.00161 J 0.00161 J 26MW06 26MW06_161101 N N 11/1/2016 10:10 1601395 ND ND ND ND 26MW08_161101 N N 11/1/2016 11:20 1601395 ND 0.0162 J 0.0159 J 0.0321 J DUP07_161101 FD N 11/1/2016 11:25 1601395 ND 0.0275 J ND 0.0275 J 26SW01 26SW01_161101 N N 11/1/2016 9:13 1601395 ND 0.0367 0.0283 0.065 26SW04_161101 N N 11/1/2016 8:25 1601395 0.0418 J 0.392 0.503 0.895 EB-26SW04_161101 EB N 11/1/2016 8:35 1601395 ND ND 0.00319 J 0.00319 J FB-26SW04_161101 FB N 11/1/2016 8:30 1601395 ND ND 0.0105 0.0105 26SW04
M14-14
M14-22
M14-23
M14-24
26MW08
M06-02
S6-MW06
S6-MW07
M14-09D
M14-09S
IR Site 6
IR Site 14
IR Site 26
Alameda BGMP
Analytical Results - PFAS in Groundwater
Amec Foster Wheeler
5023146096
7/3/2017

Page 3 of 3 ends

Bold = analyte detected
Highlight = analyte exceeds screening criteria (HA)
HA = EPA Drinking Water Health Advisory
µg/L = micrograms per liter
PFAS = per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
PFBS = perfluorobutanesulfonic acid
PFOA = perfluorooctanoic acid
PFOS = perfluorooctanesulfonic acid
SDG = sample delivery group
EB = equipment blank
FB = field blank
SB = source blank
N = normal field sample (sample type)
FD = field duplicate
ND = analyte not detected
J = estimated result
All groundwater sample results validated (samples marked as type N or FD) Comparison criteria for PFBS is established in the May 2016 United States Regional Screening Level (RSL) for tapwater (U.S. EPA, 2016b).

N/A
PFOA and PFOS screening levels are based on a U.S. EPA Drinking Water Health Advisory for PFOA and PFOS (U.S. EPA, 2016a). The screening value of 0.07 µg/L will also be used as the sum of PFOS and PFOA when they are both present.

N/A

APPENDIX E

SUMMARY OF AREA-SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS

APPENDIX E

SUMMARY OF AREA-SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL

CONDITIONS

SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN
PHASES 1, 2, 3A, AND 3B TRANSFERS

PORTION OF ALAMEDA POINT

ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for
City of Alameda
Base Reuse Department
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, California 94501
Prepared by
Terraphase Engineering Inc.
1404 Franklin Street, Suite 600
Oakland, California 94612

December 3, 2020

Project Number 284.001.007

File Ref: App E - Area Specific - 2020-12-03-RLSO

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK

Appendix E
Site Management Plan
Alameda Point
Alameda, California
Terraphase Engineering Inc. Page i

CONTENTS
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................ IV

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1

2.0 SOUTHEAST ZONE ............................................................................................................... 2

2.1 CERCLA-Specific Conditions in the Southeast Zone ................................................................ 2

2.1.1 IR Site 9 (OU-2A) ................................................................................................................. 2

2.1.2 IR Site 13 (OU-2A) ............................................................................................................... 2

2.1.3 IR Site 16 (OU-1) .................................................................................................................. 3

2.1.4 IR Site 19 (OU-2A) ............................................................................................................... 4

2.1.5 IR Site 22 (OU-2A) ............................................................................................................... 5

2.1.6 IR Site 23 (OU-2A) ............................................................................................................... 5

2.1.7 IR Site 27 (OU-6) .................................................................................................................. 6

2.2 Petroleum Program-Specific Conditions in the Southeast Zone ............................................. 6

2.2.1 CAA-4B ................................................................................................................................ 7

2.2.2 CAA-4C ................................................................................................................................ 7

2.2.3 CAA-9A ................................................................................................................................ 7

2.2.4 CAA-9B ................................................................................................................................ 7

2.2.5 CAA-11A .............................................................................................................................. 7

2.2.6 CAA-11B .............................................................................................................................. 7

2.2.7 CAA-13 ................................................................................................................................ 8

2.2.8 IR 09 .................................................................................................................................... 8

2.2.9 Tarry Refinery Waste (TRW) ............................................................................................... 8

3.0 NORTHEAST ZONE ............................................................................................................ 10

3.1 CERCLA- Specific Conditions in the Northeast Zone .............................................................. 10

3.1.1 IR Site 3 (OU-2B)................................................................................................................ 10

3.1.2 IR Site 7 (OU-1) .................................................................................................................. 11

3.1.3 IR Site 8 (OU-1) .................................................................................................................. 11

3.1.4 IR Site 28 (OU-6) ................................................................................................................ 12

3.1.5 IR Site 35 ........................................................................................................................... 12

3.2 Petroleum-Specific Conditions in the Northeast Zone ......................................................... 13

3.2.1 CAA-3................................................................................................................................. 13

3.2.2 CAA-7................................................................................................................................. 13

3.2.3 CAA-8................................................................................................................................. 13

4.0 HANGAR ZONE ................................................................................................................. 14

4.1 CERCLA-Specific Conditions in the Hangar Zone ................................................................... 14

4.1.1 IR Site 26 (OU-6) ................................................................................................................ 14

4.2 Petroleum-Specific Conditions in the Hangar Zone .............................................................. 14

4.2.1 CAA-6................................................................................................................................. 14 Appendix E
Site Management Plan
Alameda Point
Alameda, California

Page ii Terraphase Engineering Inc.

4.2.2 CAA-10 .............................................................................................................................. 14

4.2.3 CAA-12 .............................................................................................................................. 15

4.2.4 CAA-B ................................................................................................................................ 15

4.2.5 CAA-C ................................................................................................................................ 15

5.0 RUNWAY ZONE ................................................................................................................. 16

5.1 CERCLA-Specific Conditions in the Runway Zone ................................................................. 16

5.1.1 IR Site 14 (OU-1) ................................................................................................................ 16

5.1.2 IR Site 15 (OU-1) ................................................................................................................ 16

5.1.3 IR Site 34 ........................................................................................................................... 17

5.2 Petroleum Program-Specific Conditions in the Runway Zone .............................................. 17

5.2.1 CAA-2................................................................................................................................. 18

5.2.2 CAA-14 .............................................................................................................................. 18

5.2.3 CAA-A ................................................................................................................................ 18

6.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 19 FIGURE
E-1 SMP Zones

Appendix E
Site Management Plan
Alameda Point
Alameda, California
Terraphase Engineering Inc. Page iii

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK

Appendix E
Site Management Plan
Alameda Point
Alameda, California

Page iv Terraphase Engineering Inc.

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AOC Area of Concern
AST aboveground storage tank
CAA Corrective Action Area
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CoC Chemical of Concern
DCB dichlorobenzene
DCE dichloroethane
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
DVE dual-phase vacuum extraction
EDC Economic Development Conveyance
EISB enhanced in-situ bioremediation
ESD Explanation of Significant Difference
FFA Federal Facility Agreement
FOST Finding of Suitability to Transfer for Former Naval Air Station Alameda, April 19, 2013
FS Feasibility Study
GAP Generator Accumulation Point
HHRA human health risk assessment
IC institutional control
IR Installation Restoration
ISCO in-situ chemical oxidation
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
MNA monitored natural attenuation
NA No Action
OPS Operating Properly and Successfully
OU Operable Unit
OWS oil-water separator
PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
Appendix E
Site Management Plan
Alameda Point
Alameda, California
Terraphase Engineering Inc. Page v
PCE tetrachloroethene
PDDGS pre-design data gap sampling
RA Remedial Action
RACR Remedial Action Completion Report
RAO Remedial Action Objective
RAWP Remedial Action Work Plan
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RD Remedial Design
Regional Water Board California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region RG Remedial Goal
RI CERCLA Remedial Investigation Report
ROD Record of Decision
SI Site Inspection
SMP Site Management Plan
SWMU Solid Waste Management Unit
TCE trichloroethene
TCRA Time-Critical Removal Action
Tech memo technical memorandum
VI vapor intrusion
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
Terraphase Terraphase Engineering Inc.

TPH total petroleum hydrocarbon
TRW tarry refinery waste
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
UST underground storage tank
VOC volatile organic compound
WD washdown area

Appendix E
Site Management Plan
Alameda Point
Alameda, California

Page vi Terraphase Engineering Inc.

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK

Appendix E
Site Management Plan
Alameda Point
Alameda, California
Terraphase Engineering Inc. Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION
For purposes of discussing environmental conditions, Alameda Point is subdivided into four zones: Southeast Zone, Northeast Zone, Hangar Zone, and Runways Zone (Figure E-1). Alameda Point is defined as shown on Figure 1 within the Site Management Plan (SMP).

The purpose of the following descriptions of the various sites is to summarize their history, environmental status, and associated potential human health risks. Further information regarding chemical analyses and remedial activities previously implemented at each of the sites is presented in applicable Navy reports, which can be accessed via the EnviroStor and GeoTracker websites.

The following subsections contain four groups of discussions: one for each of the four zones.

Within each zone’s discussions, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Installation Restoration (IR) sites are discussed first, followed by Petroleum Program sites, including the Economic Development Conveyance (EDC) 12 Areas of Concern (AOCs) and tarry refinery waste (TRW). The summaries for the IR sites and Petroleum Program Corrective Action Areas (CAAs) draw heavily from the previous Navy documents which are available via the EnviroStor and GeoTracker websites.

The IR sites, Petroleum Program sites, AOCs, and TRW area are delineated in Figures 3 and 4 of the SMP.

Appendix E
Site Management Plan
Alameda Point
Alameda, California

Page 2 ends

2.0 SOUTHEAST ZONE

2.1 CERCLA-Specific Conditions in the Southeast Zone

2.1.1 IR Site 9 (OU-2A)
IR Site 9, Building 410 (Paint Stripping Facility), is 2.9 acres located in the southeastern portion of the former NAS Alameda. Two buildings (Buildings 410 and 351), covering approximately 37,000 square feet, are present at IR Site 9. Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plant 410, also known as Structure 588, was located east of Building 351 and treated paint-stripping wastes. IR Site 9 is grouped with Sites 13, 19, 22, and 23 under Operable Unit (OU) 2A.

The OU-2A FS Report (Navy 2011a) concludes that there are no chemicals of concern (CoCs) for soil. Groundwater CoCs identified in the Feasibility Study (FS) Report include volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that exceeded drinking water standards (i.e., maximum contaminant levels [MCLs]). By letter dated August 6, 2012, the Navy provided information to support a qualification of groundwater for an exception to sources of drinking water policy (at the time called a Groundwater Beneficial Use Exception) for Southeast Alameda Point based on several lines of evidence, including proximity to San Francisco Bay and potential for salt water intrusion, high salinity, current county restrictions on well installation in shallow groundwater, and potential for surface runoff to contaminate groundwater. The Regional Water Board staff concurred with the qualification of groundwater for an exception to sources of drinking water policy. As a result of qualification of groundwater for an exception to sources of drinking water policy, MCLs do not apply as cleanup goals. The Operable Unit OU-2A Record of Decision (ROD) (Navy 2012a) documents No Action (NA) for soil and institutional control (ICs) preventing use of groundwater at Site 9.

2.1.2 IR Site 13 (OU-2A)
IR Site 13, the Former Oil Refinery, covers 17.5 acres in the southeastern portion of the former NAS Alameda. IR Site 13 includes Building 397, a 17,400-square-foot aircraft overhaul plant and engine test facility constructed in 1958 and operated by the Naval Air Rework Facility Alameda.

A self-storage facility occupies the southeastern corner of the site. The rest of the site is paved or open space. IR Site 13 is grouped with IR Sites 9, 19, 22, and 23 under OU-2A.

The revised OU-2A FS (Navy 2011a) concludes there are no soil CoCs, and benzene and ethylbenzene are groundwater CoCs at Site 13 due to localized vapor intrusion (VI) risk. The OU- 2A ROD (Navy 2012a) selects No Further Action (NFA) for soil and in situ bioremediation, with monitored natural attenuation (MNA) and ICs for the localized benzene plume in the southeast corner of Site 13 and an IC restricting use of groundwater for all of Site 13. The Regional Water Board retains its authority to regulate the TRW and/or co-located petroleum in the future at Site 13 due to the high likelihood of nuisance conditions associated with the TRW. TRW is discussed further in Section 4.2 in the SMP.

Appendix E
Site Management Plan
Alameda Point
Alameda, California
Terraphase Engineering Inc. Page 3

2.1.3 IR Site 16 (OU-1)
IR Site 16, the C-2 Shipping Container Storage (CANS) Area consists of 11.4 acres located 390 feet east of San Francisco Bay. Eighty percent of IR Site 16 is covered by asphalt, concrete, buildings, roads, and parking lots. Historically, the site was used for industrial-type activities including aircraft parking, aircraft maintenance, material and equipment staging, discarded items storage, automobile servicing and maintenance, and hazardous materials storage. IR Site 16 contains Building 608, former Building 402, and shipping containers known as “CANS” (338A through 338H) in the eastern portion of IR Site 16. The CANS were used to store avionics parts and test equipment, chemicals, and aircraft fabrication equipment. Three sheds associated with Building 608 were used as vehicle service bays. IR Site 16 also includes OWSs 608A and 608B, washdown area (WD) 608, underground storage tank (UST) (removed)-18/Naval Air Station (NAS) Generator Accumulation Point (GAP) 17 (also known as UST 608-1), and aboveground storage tank (AST) 338-A1, AST 338-D4 and AST 608. Site features WD 608, AST 338-A1 and AST 608 were closed as part of the OU-1 IR Sites 6, 7, 8, & 16 ROD (Navy 2012a). Due to possible petroleum contamination, a portion of IR Site 16 is also designated as CAA 09B, which is discussed in Section 2.2.3 herein.

No CoCs were identified in the OU-1 IR Sites 6, 7, 8, & 16 RI report (Navy 2004) for soil under any of the IR Site 16 scenarios based on the human health risk assessment (HHRA). VOCs were identified as CoCs in groundwater under the residential scenario with domestic/municipal beneficial use. The modified ecological risk assessment results did not identify any CoCs for ecological receptors at IR Site 16. The lack of habitat, including nesting and foraging range, makes for minimal likelihood of exposure and hazards to the ecological receptors.

In 1997, a non-time-critical removal action was conducted at IR Site 16 for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and lead in soil. At the time the OU-1 IR Sites 6, 7, 8, & 16 ROD was finalized in September 2007, the potential for soil contamination beneath and adjacent to oil-water separator (OWS) 608A and OWS 608B and the related potential human health and ecological risk in these locations had not been fully defined. The ROD specified that additional soil sampling, a Pre-Design Data Gap Sampling (PDDGS), should be performed in these areas. The ROD specifies that the Remedial Goals (RGs) for any additional contaminants identified during the PDDGS would be based on the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s) 2004 residential Preliminary Remedial Goals. CoCs identified in the ROD are PCBs for soil, and cis-1,2-dichloroethene (DCE), 1,3-dichlorobenzene (DCB), 1,4-DCB, tetrachloroethene (PCE), trichloroethene (TCE), and vinyl chloride for groundwater. Lead, chlordane, dieldrin, heptachlor, and heptachlor epoxide are not identified as soil CoCs in the ROD, but they were added as soil CoCs as a result of the PDDGS and were included in the RD and remedial action (RA). The purpose of the soil RA was to remove soil that exceeded the RGs for lead, chlordane, dieldrin, heptachlor, and heptachlor epoxide.

The RA for soil beneath and adjacent to OWSs 608A and 608B was completed in April 2011. An ESD (Navy 2015a) for soil was submitted in May 2012. The ESD describes further sampling and subsequent risk evaluation of a small section of soil with residual CoCs remaining beneath a functional building (Building 608). The risk evaluation determined that the remaining site soils Appendix E
Site Management Plan
Alameda Point
Alameda, California

Page 4 ends

meet the Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) and that the soil remediation is complete. The Final RACR (Navy 2012b) for the soil RA was submitted in July 2012, and USEPA and Department of Toxic Substances and Control (DTSC) indicated their concurrence by signing the RACR on June 25, 2012 and June 30, 2012, respectively.

For IR Site 16 groundwater, the selected RA in the OU-1 IR Sites 6, 7, 8, & 16 ROD called for using in situ chemical oxidation (ISCO), accelerated bioremediation, monitored natural attenuation, and short-term ICs. As reported in the ESD, IR Site 16 groundwater had two treatment areas referred to as IR Site 16 North and IR Site 16 South. ISCO was implemented in May 2010 and groundwater was monitored quarterly for a year. Analytical results indicated significant decreases in CoC concentrations from the baseline; however, 2013 monitoring data indicated that some CoCs remained above RGs in five wells on IR Site 16 North and four wells on IR Site 16 South. While monitoring was ongoing, the regulatory agencies concurred with the Navy’s groundwater assessment, which found that groundwater under this portion of Alameda Point met the criteria for exception to California’s sources of drinking water policy. As a result, drinking water standards do not apply to groundwater in the area covered under this exception, which includes IR Site 16.

The updated HHRA using post-RA groundwater monitoring data determines that as a result of the full-scale in-situ chemical oxidation (ISCO) remedial action (RA), the remaining CoC concentrations in groundwater do not present unacceptable risk to current receptors (i.e., commercial/industrial). However, there are two areas where CoCs in groundwater may potentially present unacceptable risk (i.e., greater than USEPA point of departure of 10-6) for residential site use, primarily due to potential VI risk. An explanation of significant difference (ESD) for groundwater was prepared in 2015 to document the change in the nature of the ICs remedy from the short-term ICs implemented concurrent with the active groundwater treatment identified in the OU-1 IR Sites 6, 7, 8, & 16 ROD, to permanent ICs to be implemented indefinitely as the final remedy to mitigate potential VI risk. The land use control (LUC) remedial design (RD) identifies the IC implementation areas, IC termination criteria, and groundwater monitoring requirements. The portions of IR Site 16 subject to ICs are in Parcels 75 and 77. All RA is complete, and ICs are included in the deeds prepared for Site 16 at the time of transfer to protect human health from residual groundwater contamination that could pose a risk to future residents. USEPA and DTSC concurred that RA is complete at IR Site 16.

2.1.4 IR Site 19 (OU-2A)
IR Site 19, Yard D-13 (Hazardous Waste Storage), covers 2.7 acres in the southeastern area of the former NAS Alameda. IR Site 19 includes Building 616 and Yard D-13, the only two structures on the site. IR Site 19 is grouped with IR Sites 9, 13, 22, and 23 under OU-2A.

The OU-2A FS Report (Navy 2011a) concludes that there are no CoCs for soil. Groundwater CoCs identified in the FS Report include VOCs that exceeded MCLs. By letter dated August 6, 2012, the Navy provided information to support a qualification of groundwater for an exception to sources of drinking water policy for Southeast Alameda Point based on several lines of evidence, Appendix E
Site Management Plan
Alameda Point
Alameda, California
Terraphase Engineering Inc. Page 5
including proximity to San Francisco Bay and potential for salt water intrusion, high salinity, current county restrictions on well installation in shallow groundwater, and potential for surface runoff to contaminate groundwater. The Regional Water Board staff concurred that the shallow groundwater in the water bearing zones located between ground surface and the Yerba Buena Mud Aquitard meets the criteria in State Board Resolution 88-63 in a letter dated September 13, 2012. As a result of this concurrence, shallow groundwater has been demonstrated to not likely be a potential drinking water source and achieving MCLs is no longer a remedial objective.

Direct exposure to groundwater contamination will be addressed by institutional controls. The OU-2A ROD (Navy 2012a) documents NA for soil and ICs preventing use of groundwater at Site

19. In addition, the ROD includes a restriction in appropriate real property transfer documents that prohibits domestic use of shallow groundwater and the installation of groundwater supply wells for any purpose. Regardless of whether RAOs are achieved, these restrictions to shallow groundwater use shall remain in place.

2.1.5 IR Site 22 (OU-2A)
IR Site 22, Building 547 (Former Service Station), covers 2.1 acres in the southeastern area of former NAS Alameda along Main Street (eastern property boundary). IR Site 22 was formerly a gasoline distribution and service station. All buildings associated with the service station (Building 547, 547A, and Structure 547) have been demolished. IR Site 22 is grouped with IR Sites 9, 13, 19, and 23 under OU-2A.

Lead is the only CoC identified in soil at IR Site 22 in the OU-2A RI report (Navy 2005a). No CoCs are identified for groundwater at IR Site 22. Data gaps were identified during preparation of the OU-2A FS (Navy 2011a) for IR Site 22. The draft FS recommends collection of additional data including soil samples beneath OWS 547 to be analyzed for metals, PCBs, pesticides, and VOCs.

The data gaps investigation was completed in 2008. The results of the data gaps investigation are reported in the final data gap technical memorandum (tech memo) for OU-2A and -2B, submitted in January 2009. The results of a supplemental data gaps investigation were reported in 2010. The revised FS report was submitted in June 2011.

The OU-2A ROD (Navy 2012a) documents NA for soil and groundwater at Site 22.

2.1.6 IR Site 23 (OU-2A)
IR Site 23, Building 530 (Missile Rework Operations), covers 14.3 acres in the southeastern area of former NAS Alameda along the eastern property boundary. Building 530 is the main structure at IR Site 23, along with Buildings 529 and 600. The eastern one-third of IR Site 23 is used currently as a self-storage facility. Site 23 is grouped with IR Sites 9, 13, 19, and 22 under OU-2A.

Arsenic and TRW (lead, PAHs, and benzene) are identified as CoCs in soil. No CoCs are identified for groundwater at IR Site 23.

Data gaps were identified during preparation of the OU-2A FS for IR Site 23. The FS (Navy 2011a) recommends collection of additional data, including samples of groundwater near GAP 64 for analysis of VOCs. In addition, the FS recommended collecting samples of soil beneath OWSs 529 and 530 to be analyzed for metals, PCBs, pesticides, and VOCs. The data gaps investigation was Appendix E
Site Management Plan
Alameda Point
Alameda, California

Page 6 ends

completed in 2008. The results of the data gaps investigation are reported in the final data gap tech memo (Navy 2009a) for OU-2A and -2B, submitted in January 2009. The FS report was submitted in June 2011.

The OU-2A ROD (Navy 2012a) documents NA for soil and groundwater at Site 23. The Regional Water Board retains its authority to regulate the TRW and/or co-located petroleum in the future at Site 23. TRW is discussed further in Section 4.2 of the SMP.

2.1.7 IR Site 27 (OU-6)
IR Site 27, the Dock Zone, covers 15.8 acres. IR Site 27 is located adjacent to the Seaplane Lagoon (Figures 3 and 4 of the SMP). IR Site 27 is mostly paved or covered by buildings. The site includes Buildings 68, 168, 555, and 601; Ferry Point Road and West Oriskany Avenue; inactive railroad tracks and sidings; and fenced open space between Building 168 and Ferry Point Road.

Historical activities at IR Site 27 include ship docking, ship repair, and marine painting. The eastern portion of IR Site 27 was used for storing materials and equipment, as well as vehicle parking. Building 168 was used as a warehouse and to support waterfront services, including welding activities. Building 555 was used as an electrical substation. Historically, open space at IR Site 27 was used as an aircraft parking area. The southern portion of a former fuel farm area is located in the northwestern portion of IR Site 27.

No CoCs are identified for soil at IR Site 27. Chlorinated VOCs, including vinyl chloride, TCE, and PCE, are identified as CoCs in groundwater.

The ROD (Navy 2008a) selects NA for soil and ISCO, MNA, and ICs for groundwater in the central and eastern portion of IR Site 27. Sampling was conducted to support the design of the selected remedy. The IR Site 27 Remedial Design/RA Work Plan (RD/Remedial Action Work Plan (RAWP); Navy 2009b) was submitted in June 2009. RA began in July 2009 with ISCO completed and MNA currently ongoing. A Technology Transfer Tech Memo (Navy 2010a) documents the Remedy-In- Place for IR Site 27. Evaluation of continuing groundwater monitoring is guiding the ongoing RA.

Based on the documented RA progress, USEPA has determined that the remedy is operating properly and successfully (OPS).

2.2 Petroleum Program-Specific Conditions in the Southeast Zone The open petroleum sites are shown on Figure 4 of the SMP and summarized in Table 1 of the SMP.

The discussions below summarize conditions at some of the larger Petroleum Program sites in the Southeast Zone. The applicable background documents, which can be accessed via the EnviroStor and GeoTracker websites, provide more detailed summaries than the discussions below, as well as summaries for Petroleum Program sites that are not discussed below.

Appendix E
Site Management Plan
Alameda Point
Alameda, California
Terraphase Engineering Inc. Page 7

2.2.1 CAA-4B
CAA-4B consists of the area around Building 372 that was used as an engine test facility. It includes USTs 372-1 and 372-2 (and an associated fuel spill called AOC 372 or Solid Waste Management Unit [SWMU] 372.) Both tanks were removed in 1995. It also includes former fuel oil AST 372, removed some time prior to 2002. These tanks, and the majority of the site, are not within the parcels transferred to the City.

The site also includes USTs 616-1 and 616-2 (sometimes collectively called AOC 616.) These tanks were for emergency spill control, but reportedly were never used and never held anything but water. They are closed-in-place and are within the small portion of this site that is within the parcels transferred to the City.

2.2.2 CAA-9A
The site consists of the area around Building 584, which was used for storage of corrosives, lubricating oils, and water treatment chemicals. It includes USTs 584-1 and 584-2, both removed in 1994.

2.2.3 CAA-9B
This site consists of the area around Building 608 that was used as an automobile service and repair facility. A waste oil UST (UST 608-1) and two OWSs (OWS 608A and 608B), within the site footprint, were assigned to IR Site 16, which overlaps the CAA (Section 2.1.3 herein). The OWSs were removed in 2010 under the CERCLA action for OU-1 Site 16. No tanks or other Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Units are associated with CAA-09B. The CAA was closed along with IR Site 16 through the OU-1 IR Site 16 ROD ESD (Navy 2015a).

2.2.4 CAA-11A
The site consists of the area around Building 14, which was used as an aircraft engine test and repair facility. The site includes USTs 14-1 through 14-6, sometimes referred to as UST(R)-06, which were removed in 1994, and former OWS 162. Only a small portion of the site, and none of the above-listed features, is within the parcels transferred to the City.

2.2.5 CAA-11B
The site consists of the area designated Area 37, a fuel storage area. Area 37 includes Structure 598 (also sometimes called HW-04) that was a secondary containment area for ASTs 598A through 598C. These ASTs were removed in 2004 and all are within the Finding of Suitability to Transfer for Former Naval Air Station Alameda, April 19, 2013 (FOST) Parcel. Area 37 also includes USTs 37-1 through 37-24, sometimes collectively referred to as UST(R)-07, which were removed between 1995 and 1998. A majority of the CAA and 18 of the 24 USTs are within the parcels transferred to the City.

Appendix E
Site Management Plan
Alameda Point
Alameda, California

Page 8 ends

2.2.6 CAA-13
The site consists of the area around Building 397, which was a jet engine testing facility; Building 406A, which contained control equipment for a defueling facility; Building 529, which supplied auxiliary power for Building 530; and Building 606, an administration building. The site includes former ASTs 530A through 530C, and closed-in-place OWSs 529 and 530. Free product was noted during sampling activities around the defueling facilities, sometimes referred to as Defueling Area 530. The site also includes former OWSs 397A through 397D, and a 3,500- to 17,000-gallon jet fuel spill circa 1991 when heavy rains caused these four OWSs to overflow, and a drain valve left open on a fuel supply line allowed the release of jet fuel. Dual-vacuum extraction (DVE) and biosparging systems were operated from 2003 until 2006. TRW occurs only within one area of CAA-13 (Parcels 65 and 66). Most of the site, and all the above-listed associated features, are within the parcels transferred to the City.

2.2.7 IR 09
Free product at IR 09 is being addressed under the Petroleum Program, referred to in the Petroleum Management Plan as IR SITE 09-FP1/2. The entire site is within the parcels transferred to the City.

2.2.8 Tarry Refinery Waste (TRW)
The former Pacific Coast Oil Works Refinery operated from 1879 to 1903 in the area that is now IR Site 13 and CAA-13. The TRW reported in subsurface soil at some locations in IR Sites 13 and 23 is believed to have originated during the operation of the Pacific Coast Oil Works Refinery.

TRW is believed to have been disposed on the surface near the former shoreline during refinery operations. The evaluation of the nature and extent of contamination in soil summarized in the OU-2A RI report (Navy 2005a) concludes that most chemicals reported at IR Site 13 are consistent with historical site activities, which include the former oil refinery and the aircraft storage, overhaul, and defueling area. The TRW appears to be mainly comprised of solid long chain alkanes with a very low volatile fraction and mainly occurs at depth and below the water table, although surface manifestation of this asphalt-like refining residue has been observed at several locations within IR Site 13. TRW underlies most of Parcels ALA-65-EDC and ALA-66-EDC, which are shown on Figure E-1.

TRW remains an open Petroleum Program site within CAA-13. Additional characterization and risk assessment activities are currently ongoing in accordance with the Regional Water Board letter, Revised Water Code Section 13267 Technical Report Requirements Order, Tarry Refinery Waste, Alameda Point, Alameda, dated November 8, 2018. TRW and soil impacted by TRW may not be reused at Alameda Point, unless prior approval by the Regional Water Board staff is obtained.

Appendix E
Site Management Plan
Alameda Point
Alameda, California
Terraphase Engineering Inc. Page 9
City zoning and land-use plans do not allow residential land use in the TRW area. The City will deny all requests to change the land use to residential or to operate a day-care facility or other sensitive land use, unless Regional Water Board staff approval is first obtained.

The deeds for the two transfer parcels that have TRW contain the following notification that all intrusive work must be conducted pursuant to an SMP:
"The Property has not been remediated to the satisfaction of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (“Water Board”) or has not been investigated to the satisfaction of the Water Board to determine whether corrective action is appropriate. Accordingly, the Property has not received Regulatory Closure and may contain petroleum concentrations in soil and/or groundwater that may present an unacceptable risk to human health. ... Any work conducted by the GRANTEE or its agent(s) on the Property that involves construction, soil excavation or grading, trenching or groundwater contact shall be conducted pursuant to a site management plan that is acceptable to the [Regional] Water Board, and in accordance with the City Program.” Appendix E
Site Management Plan
Alameda Point
Alameda, California

Page 10 ends

3.0 NORTHEAST ZONE

3.1 CERCLA-Specific Conditions in the Northeast Zone

3.1.1 IR Site 3 (OU-2B)
IR Site 3, Abandoned Fuel Storage Area, is an approximately 12.8-acre site located near the eastern entrance to Alameda Point. IR Site 3 is known as the Abandoned Fuel Storage Area because between the 1940s and 1970s, aviation gasoline was stored there in USTs. Nearly 80 percent of the site is covered with asphalt and concrete in the form of buildings, roads, and parking lots. IR Site 3 is grouped with IR Sites 4, 11, and 21 under OU-2B. Portions of the Petroleum Program CAAs 3A, 3B, and 3C are located within IR Site 3 to the south of Buildings 112 and 527. There are several former SWMUs that are within the footprint of IR Site 3. Only one of these former SWMUs, NAS GAP 10, is addressed under CERCLA as part of IR Site 3. The remaining SWMUs within the IR Site 3 portion of the FOST Parcel (Naval Aviation Depot GAPs 44 and 45, M-07, and AOC 398) are addressed as part of the Petroleum Program. The Petroleum Program sites located within the IR Site 3 portion of the FOST Parcel are discussed Section 3.2.1 herein.

The 2015 OU-2B ROD (Navy 2015b) identifies CoCs for IR Site 3 soils as cobalt and lead. Cobalt is present in one localized area at concentrations that exceed residential cleanup goals. This area was originally in IR Site 21, (an IR site adjacent to IR Site 3); however, after the CERCLA OU-2B FS (Navy 2011b) the boundary of IR Site 3 was modified to include this area. The remedy for cobalt impacted soil at IR Site 3 is ICs to restrict residential use. The ROD identifies two areas within IR Site 3 with lead concentrations in soil that required remedial action. The selected remedy for lead-impacted soil was excavation with off-site disposal of the contaminated soil. The soil removal from the two areas has been completed, and the excavated areas were backfilled with fill suitable for reuse and returned to original grade.

The OU-2B Soil Remedial Action Completion Report (RACR) (Navy 2015c) documents the areas within IR Site 3 where lead-impacted soil was removed and documents completion of the remedial action for soil. The USEPA submitted a letter concurring with the RACR for OU-2B Soil.

By letter dated August 6, 2012, the Navy provided information demonstrating that groundwater in the southeast portion of the base, including all of IR Site 3, meets State Water Board Resolution No. 88-63 and Regional Water Board Resolution No. 89-39, “Sources of Drinking Water,” exception criteria (a) and (c). Information presented included proximity to San Francisco Bay and potential for salt water intrusion, high salinity, current county restrictions on well installation in shallow groundwater, and potential for surface runoff to contaminate groundwater. The regulatory agencies concurred with the Navy’s assessment. Therefore, it is unlikely that shallow groundwater will be used as a municipal water supply.

The 2015 OU-2B ROD selects a groundwater remedy for a VOC groundwater plume that underlies portions of IR Sites 4, 11, and 21. While the OU-2B shallow VOC groundwater plume Appendix E
Site Management Plan
Alameda Point
Alameda, California
Terraphase Engineering Inc. Page 11
does not extend into IR Site 3, the remedy includes ICs with a buffer zone that extends beyond the perimeter boundary of the plume and onto a portion of IR Site 3.

The OU-2B ROD identifies the Area Requiring Institutional Controls and documents the ICs necessary to protect human health and attain the Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) for soil and groundwater. The LUC RD (Navy 2015d) for OU-2B documents the restrictions related to the ICs for soil at IR Site 3 and ICs for OU-2B groundwater. The LUC RD refines the IC boundaries presented in the ROD for groundwater based on evaluation of recent data.

Soil remediation is complete, and ICs have been implemented to protect human health from residual contamination in soil and adjacent groundwater.

3.1.2 IR Site 7 (OU-1)
IR Site 7, the Navy Exchange Service Station, occupies 3.9 acres on the eastern boundary of former NAS Alameda, adjacent to Main Street. IR Site 7 consists of buildings and structures that cover about 30 percent of the site, while the remainder of the site is open space covered with asphalt, concrete, and some unpaved areas. IR Site 7 is grouped with IR Sites 6, 8, 14, 15, and 16 under OU-1.

Historical uses at IR Site 7 include an automotive repair and servicing facility and an incinerator (former Building 68-3) surrounded by grassy open space. The OU-1 IR Sites 6, 7, 8, & 16 RI report (Navy 2004) identifies CoCs (arsenic, cadmium, and lead) in the soil at IR Site 7 that required RA.

No CoCs are identified for groundwater at IR Site 7; therefore, NA is identified for groundwater.

The Final OU-1 IR Sites 6, 7, 8, & 16 FS (Navy 2005b) was completed in 2005. Pre-design data gaps sampling was conducted in 2007 and 2008 to optimize the remedial design. The OU-1 IR Sites 6, 7, 8, & 16 ROD (Navy 2012a) selects the RA of soil excavation and off-site disposal, which was conducted from November 2009 to January 2011.

The RACR (Navy 2013) documents that the implemented remedy met RGs and RAOs for unrestricted use.

3.1.3 IR Site 8 (OU-1)
IR Site 8, Building 114 (Pesticide Storage Area), covers 4.3 acres in the central portion of former NAS Alameda and includes Building 191, Building 391, and sewage pumping station 10. Eighty percent of IR Site 8 is covered by asphalt, concrete, buildings, roads, and parking lots. Building 191 was used as storage for the Public Works Department, and Building 391 was used to store paints, degreasers, petroleum products, and hazardous waste. IR Site 8 is grouped with IR Sites 6, 7, 14, 15, and 16 under OU-1.

The OU-1 IR Sites 6, 7, 8, & 16 RI report (Navy 2004) identifies CoCs (lead, dieldrin, Aroclor-1254, Aroclor-1260, and total PCBs) in soil at IR Site 8 that required RA. No CoCs are identified for groundwater.

The OU-1 IR Sites 6, 7, 8, & 16 FS report (Navy 2005b) was completed in 2005. Pre-design data gaps sampling was conducted in 2007 and 2008 to optimize the remedial design. The OU-1 IR Appendix E
Site Management Plan
Alameda Point
Alameda, California

Page 12 ends

Sites 6, 7, 8, & 16 ROD (Navy 2012a) selects the RA of soil excavation and off-site disposal, which was conducted from November 2009 to July 2010.

The RACR (Navy 2013) documents that the implemented remedy met RGs/RAOs for unrestricted use. USEPA approved the Final RACR in July 2012.

3.1.4 IR Site 28 (OU-6)
IR Site 28, Todd Shipyards, covers 2.9 acres along Oakland Inner Harbor. The IR Site 28 ROD (Navy 2007a) was signed in October 2007 and includes soil excavation and disposal and groundwater metals immobilization. The ROD identifies arsenic, lead, and PAHs in soil and copper in both soil and groundwater as CoCs. The RA was completed in June 2010.

The Site 28 Interim-RACR (I-RACR; Navy 2012c) documents that all necessary soil RAs have been conducted to achieve the RAOs for soil and that the soil remedy is complete. The I-RACR also documents successful implementation of the groundwater remedy, which consisted of removing and disposing of source-area soil, applying and injecting metals immobilization compound, and follow-on groundwater monitoring. Evaluation of continued groundwater monitoring is guiding the ongoing RA. Based on the progress documented in the I-RACR, USEPA has determined that the remedy is OPS.

3.1.5 IR Site 35
IR Site 35 is composed of 23 study areas, known as AOCs. In 1995 and 1997, a Time Critical Removal Action (TCRA) for storm sewer sediment removal was completed by the Navy. A portion of this work occurred within IR Site 35. In 2001, a non-Time Critical Removal Action was conducted in AOC 12 to remove lead-containing soil. In 2002, a TCRA was conducted for soil with reported benzo(a)pyrene (B(a)P) equivalent concentrations that exceeded 1.0 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) in the top two feet of soil in the West Housing Area (IR Site 35 AOCs 4, 5, 7, 9, 13, and 14). In 2002 a TCRA was conducted at Building 195 to remove a pesticide/fertilizer shed in AOC 8. These interim actions are documented in the IR Site 35 ROD (Navy 2010b) as being protective of unrestricted site use.

A Final IR Site 35 RI/FS Report (Navy 2007b) was prepared in April 2007. Based on the findings of the RI portion of the report, eight AOCs are identified for soil action and NA for groundwater.

AOCs 19 and 22 were removed from Site 35 and included within IR Site 6 and CAA-B, respectively, prior to completion of the Final RI/FS. The IR Site 35 ROD documents NA for groundwater, NFA for AOCs 14, 15, 16, and RA for soil in AOCs 3, 10, and 12. The ROD identifies heptachlor at AOC 3 and lead at AOCs 10 and 12 as soil CoCs. The RA included soil excavation and offsite disposal followed by site restoration.

The RACR (Navy 2012d) documents that the implemented remedy met RGs/RAOs for unrestricted use. USEPA concurred with the Site 35 RACR and with site closure.

Appendix E
Site Management Plan
Alameda Point
Alameda, California
Terraphase Engineering Inc. Page 13

3.2 Petroleum-Specific Conditions in the Northeast Zone The open petroleum sites are shown on Figure 4 of the SMP and summarized in Table 1 of the SMP.

The discussions below summarize conditions at some of the larger Petroleum Program sites in the Northeast Zone. The applicable Navy and regulatory documents, which can be accessed via the EnviroStor and GeoTracker websites, provide more detailed summaries than the discussions below, as well as summaries for Petroleum Program sites that are not discussed below.

3.2.1 CAA-3
This 9-acre site overlaps IR Site 3. The site was subdivided into CAA-3A, CAA-3B, and CAA-3C.

Historic activities at CAA-3A, CAA-3B and CAA-3C resulted in the release of aviation fuel to soil and groundwater. The Navy has performed investigations and completed substantial corrective- action at CAAs-3A, -3B, and -3C; these efforts have cleaned up the vast majority of the petroleum contamination. USTs 398-1 and 398-2, which are included in CAA-3A, were closed with a NFA letter from the Water Board dated October 13, 2014; other components of CAA-3A are being investigated or are under review for closure. UST 97-C, which is part of CAA-03C, was closed with a NFA letter from the Water Board dated April 21, 2015. Residual contamination at CAA-3B and -3C requires further investigation and possibly corrective action prior to requesting closure.

3.2.2 CAA-7
The site consists of the area around Building 459 that was used as an automobile service station, and Building 506 that was used for maintenance and miscellaneous equipment storage. It includes USTs 459-1 through -8 (sometimes collectively called UST RCRA Unit [UST(R)]-16, and UST 459-7 is sometimes referred to as NAS GAP 16) and UST 506-1, all removed in the mid- to late-1990s. CAA-7 generally coincides with IR Site 7, which is discussed in Section 3.1.2 herein.

Appendix E
Site Management Plan
Alameda Point
Alameda, California

Page 14 ends

4.0 HANGAR ZONE

4.1 CERCLA-Specific Conditions in the Hangar Zone

4.1.1 IR Site 26 (OU-6)
IR Site 26, the former Western Hangar Zone, is located in the center of former NAS Alameda. IR Site 26 is covered by pavement, four aircraft hangars (Buildings 20 through 23), a painting and finishing building (Building 24), and several ancillary buildings.

No CoCs are identified for soil at IR Site 26. CoCs identified for groundwater are cis-1,2-DCE, TCE, and vinyl chloride. The final IR Site 26 ROD (Navy 2006a) documents NFA for soil and ISCO, enhanced in-situ bioremediation (EISB), MNA, and ICs for groundwater. The Final RD/RAWP (Navy 2008b) for groundwater was submitted in October 2008.

Full-scale ISCO was performed between July 2008 and February 2009. EISB was performed between October 1, 2008 and November 5, 2008. Evaluation of continuing groundwater monitoring is guiding the ongoing RA. Based on the documented RA progress, USEPA has determined that the remedy is OPS.

4.2 Petroleum-Specific Conditions in the Hangar Zone
The open petroleum sites are shown on Figure 4 of the SMP and summarized in Table 1 of the SMP.

The discussions below summarize conditions at some of the larger Petroleum Program sites in the Hangar Zone. The applicable Navy and regulatory documents, which can be accessed via the EnviroStor and GeoTracker websites, provide more detailed summaries than the discussions below, as well as summaries for Petroleum Program sites that are not discussed below.

4.2.1 CAA-6
The site consists of the area around Building 373 that was used as a fuel-loading station. It includes USTs 373-1 and 373-2 (sometimes collectively called AOC 373) and OWS 373, all removed in 1998-1999, and a solvent storage area known as GAP 37. DVE and biosparging systems were installed and operated between 2002 and 2005. A small portion of the CAA, but none of the above listed associated features, is within the Site.

4.2.2 CAA-10
The site consists of the area around Building 19 that was a control tower, photographic processing operations area, and fire/rescue station; and Building 491 that housed an emergency generator. It includes UST 491-1 (sometimes referred to as AOC 491) and ASTs 019A through 019C. The entire CAA is within the parcels transferred to the City. The tanks at the site are closed with ICs, and CAA-10 was closed without additional restrictions.

Appendix E
Site Management Plan
Alameda Point
Alameda, California
Terraphase Engineering Inc. Page 15

4.2.3 CAA-12
The site consists of the area around Building 29, which was an aircraft weapons overhaul and testing facility; Building 38, which served as an acoustical enclosure for aircraft engines; and Facilities 461A, B, and C, which served as aircraft run-up areas. The site includes former ASTs 029 and 038 and former OWS 038. The majority of the CAA and all the above-listed associated features, except OWS 038 are within the parcels transferred to the City. CAA-12, and CAA-12N were closed without restriction and CAA-12S was closed with conditions/requirements.

4.2.4 CAA-B
The site consists of the area around three east-west, parallel fuel lines (FLs) used to transport jet fuel, with multiple crossing FLs (about 22,500 feet) that link a series of fueling pits. The FLs were abandoned in place in 1998. A substantial portion of the CAA is within the parcels transferred to the City. The extent of petroleum hydrocarbons, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in soil and PAHs and lead in groundwater, has not been fully assessed in portions of CAA- B South, and further investigation and monitoring activities are required for this area prior to site closure.

4.2.5 CAA-C
The site consists of the area around Hanger 23, which was used for aircraft parking, maintenance, and fueling activities. The FLs were closed in place. DVE and air sparging systems operated in 2008 and 2009. Post-remediation monitoring is ongoing. The majority of the CAA is within the parcels transferred to the City. The Regional Water Board closed CAA C, with no restrictions on land use, in a letter dated October 19, 2015.

Appendix E
Site Management Plan
Alameda Point
Alameda, California

Page 16 ends

5.0 RUNWAY ZONE

5.1 CERCLA-Specific Conditions in the Runway Zone

5.1.1 IR Site 14 (OU-1)
IR Site 14, Former Fire Training Area, covers 14.2 acres along Oakland Inner Harbor. IR Site 14 is partially paved and relatively flat, and includes five buildings (26, 120, 121, 122, and 388) and open space. Historical use at IR Site 14 includes airfield-related materials and equipment storage, and firefighter training in the northwestern portion of the site. The buildings at IR Site 14 are currently unoccupied. Site 14 is grouped with IR Sites 6, 7, 8, 15, and 16 within OU-1.

CERCLA investigations were conducted in 1991, with follow-on investigations in 1994 and 1998, data gap sampling in 1998, supplemental RI data gap sampling in 2001, and removal of soil containing dioxins in 2001.

The IR Site 14 ROD (Navy 2007c) documents NFA for soil and selects ISCO, monitoring, and temporary ICs for groundwater. The ROD identifies vinyl chloride in groundwater as a CoC. Data gaps were identified and further investigations were conducted in March and April 2007, including a pilot test on a portion of the groundwater plume, to optimize the remedial design.

The groundwater RA began in September 2008. A Technology Transition Tech Memo (Navy 2010c) was submitted to the agencies in December 2010 and presents the findings of the post- ISCO monitoring, as well as support to transition to MNA. The MNA work plan (Navy 2011c) was completed as an addendum to the RAWP (Navy 2008c). Groundwater monitoring will continue until RAOs are achieved. Based on progress of the RA, USEPA determined that the remedy is OPS.

5.1.2 IR Site 15 (OU-1)
IR Site 15, the Former Transformer Storage Area, consists of 5.8 unpaved acres in the northwestern portion of former NAS Alameda, adjacent to the Oakland Inner Harbor. IR Site 15 includes Building 27 and former Buildings 283, 301, and 389, constructed by the Navy in the 1950s. IR Site 15 was used primarily to store petroleum products, biocides, electrical equipment, including oil-filled transformers and machinery. IR Site 15 and is grouped with IR Sites 6, 7, 8, 14, and 16 within OU-1.

An OU-1 IR Sites 14 & 15 CERCLA Remedial Investigation (RI) Report (Navy 2003) was prepared in 2003. In 2005, soil samples were collected at IR Site 15 for further PAH analysis, because detection limits for historical PAH data were elevated. The average PAH concentration in soil, expressed as benzo(a)pyrene (B[a]P) equivalents, was below the screening level of 0.62 mg/kg.

In October 2005, the Navy distributed the Proposed Plan (Navy 2005c) for IR Site 15, which includes a recommendation for NFA for soil and NA for groundwater. The Navy prepared an IR Site 15 ROD (Navy 2006b) documenting the decision of NFA for soil and NA for groundwater.

Appendix E
Site Management Plan
Alameda Point
Alameda, California
Terraphase Engineering Inc. Page 17
The ROD identifies no CoCs in either soil or groundwater. The final ROD was signed with regulatory concurrence in June 2006. IR Site 15 is closed.

5.1.3 IR Site 34
IR Site 34, Naval Air Rework Facility, is a 4.18-acre is a partially paved, relatively flat open space, which is not part of an OU. IR Site 34 was used to maintain base equipment, such as scaffolding and other apparatus. The site was used primarily for painting services, storage, wood and metal shops, and sandblasting. IR Site 34 formerly contained several structures: 12 former buildings and intervening open areas; seven ASTs; NADEP GAPs 78 and 79; UST 473-1, and 15 transformers. Two former SWMUs, UST 473-1 (also known as AOC 473), and AST 331 (also known as SWMU 331), were addressed under the Petroleum Program along with all of the ASTs.

CAA-14 is also located within the footprint of IR Site 34 and was closed out with AST 331. The Petroleum Program is discussed in Section 5.2 herein.

The remaining two former SWMUs (NADEP GAPs 78 and 79) were investigated as part of IR Site

34. All buildings, ASTs, GAPs, and transformers were removed between 1996 and 2000, except for their concrete pads. Figure 4 of the SMP shows the locations of the CAA, ASTs, the UST, and the fuel line. The southwestern 0.22-acre corner of IR Site 34 was transferred by the Navy to the Department of Veterans Affairs who will retain it in perpetuity, and is not part of the parcels transferred to the City.

Arsenic, lead, 1,4 DCB, dieldrin, heptachlor epoxide, total PCBs and TPH were identified as CoCs in soil. The IR Site 34 ROD (Navy 2011d) was issued in April 2011. The RA selected was excavation and off-site disposal of chemically impacted soil. Groundwater at Site 34 is not considered a potential source of drinking water, accordingly, drinking water standards do not apply. Chemicals in groundwater were evaluated for potential VI and impacts to surface water in the Oakland Inner Harbor. Groundwater was determined not to pose a potential risk to human health or the environment, so no further action is necessary for groundwater. The no further action decision for groundwater is documented in the 2011 ROD.

The RA for soil was conducted between May and June 2013, and the Final RACR (Navy 2014) was completed in February 2014. USEPA concurred with the Final RACR by letter dated March 4, 2014. DTSC concurred with the Final RACR by letter dated March 19, 2014. There are no CERCLA restrictions with respect to IR Site 34 soil and groundwater.

5.2 Petroleum Program-Specific Conditions in the Runway Zone The open petroleum sites are shown on Figure 4 of the SMP and summarized in Table 1 of the SMP.

The discussions below summarize conditions at some of the larger Petroleum Program sites in the Runway Zone. The applicable Navy and regulatory agency documents, which can be Appendix E
Site Management Plan
Alameda Point
Alameda, California

Page 18 ends

accessed via the EnviroStor and GeoTracker websites, provide more details than the discussions below, as well as documentation for Petroleum Program sites that are not discussed below.

5.2.1 CAA-2
The site consists of the area around UST 357 FS-1, sometimes also referred to as AOC 357 or UST 357-1. The tank was removed in 1995 and the site received closure concurrence with ICs in 2011.

5.2.2 CAA-14
The site consists of the area around Building 331 that was used as a woodworking facility and offices; it is located within IR Site 34. CAA-14 includes AST 331, also referred to as former SWMU 331. The Water Board concurred with NFA for AST 331 by letter dated March 20, 2013. CAA-14 coincides with RA Area 13 in IR Site 34. RA Area 13, including co-located petroleum contaminants, was remediated during the IR Site 34 RA as part of the CERCLA Program. IR Site 34 was certified by DTSC as having all appropriate response action completed and no further removal or RAs necessary. Therefore, all remediation work at CAA-14 has been completed, and it was closed when AST 331 was closed.

5.2.3 CAA-A
The site consists of the area around two parallel, 10-inch fuel lines used to transport jet fuel. The site was closed with concurrence in 2007 without restrictions. Although the site closure summary assumed the future land use likely would be recreational, soil and groundwater data were compared to residential criteria. The site closure summary states “With only a few isolated exceptions [all in “before” cleanup samples], the concentrations of all detected contaminants were below the applicable PRC [residential].” Preliminary Remediation Criteria (PRCs) were Alameda Point-specific screening levels that the Regional Water Board formerly used at Alameda Point Petroleum Program sites. Portions of CAA-A are both within and adjacent to IR Site 34.

Appendix E
Site Management Plan
Alameda Point
Alameda, California
Terraphase Engineering Inc. Page 19

6.0 REFERENCES
Bechtel. 2008. (Reference to be added.)
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2001. Information Advisory: Clean Imported Fill Material, October.

DTSC. 2011. Vapor Intrusion Mitigation Advisory, Final, Revision 1. October. https://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Vapor_Intrusion.cfm DTSC. 2017. (Reference to be added.)
Navy. 2003. Remedial Investigation Report, Sites 14 and 15, Alameda Point, Alameda, California, Final. June.

Navy. 2004. Final Remedial Investigation Report, Operable Unit 1, Sites 6, 7, 8, and 16, Alameda Point. November.
http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/final_documents2.asp?global_id=01970005&doc _id=5011759
Navy. 2005a. Final Remedial Investigation Report, Sites 9, 13, 19, 22, and 23, Operable Unit 2A (OU-2A), Alameda Point, Alameda, California. April.

Navy. 2005b. Final Feasibility Study Report for Operable Unit 1, Sites 6, 7, 8, and 16, Alameda Point, Alameda, California. July.
http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/final_documents2.asp?global_id=01970005&doc _id=5006442
Navy. 2005c. Proposed Plan for Installation Restoration Site 15, a Former Transformer Storage Area, Alameda Point, Alameda, California. September.
http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/final_documents2.asp?global_id=01970005&doc _id=5006440
Navy. 2006a. Final Record of Decision, Site 26, Alameda Point, Alameda, California. August. http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/final_documents2.asp?global_id=01970005&doc _id=5006464
Navy. 2006b. Final Record of Decision, Former Transformer Storage Area, Site 15, Alameda Point, Alameda, California. May.
http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/final_documents2.asp?global_id=01970005&doc _id=5006125
Navy. 2007a. Final Record of Decision for Installation Restoration Site 28, Todd Shipyards, Alameda Point, Alameda, California. September.
http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/final_documents2.asp?global_id=01970005&doc _id=5004432
Appendix E
Site Management Plan
Alameda Point
Alameda, California

Page 20 ends

Navy. 2007b. Final Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Report, IR Site 35, Areas of Concern in Transfer Parcel EDC-5, Alameda Point, Alameda, California. April. http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/final_documents2.asp?global_id=01970005&doc _id=5006476
Navy. 2007c. Final Record of Decision for Installation Restoration Site 14, Former Firefighter Training Area, Alameda Point, Alameda, California. January. http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/final_documents2.asp?global_id=01970005&doc _id=5006447
Navy. 2008a. Final Record of Decision for Installation Restoration Site 27, Dock Zone, Alameda Point, Alameda, California. February.
http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/final_documents2.asp?global_id=01970005&doc _id=5006467
Navy. 2008b. Final Remedial Design/Remedial Action Work Plan, Installation Restoration Site 26, Alameda Point, Alameda, California. October.
http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/final_documents2.asp?global_id=01970005&doc _id=5007525
Navy. 2008c. Final Remedial Design/Remedial Action Work Plan, Installation Restoration Site 14, Alameda Point, Alameda, California. December.
http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/final_documents2.asp?global_id=01970005&doc _id=5007095
Navy. 2009a. Final Technical Memorandum for Data Gap Sampling at Operable Unit 2A and 2B.

July.
http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/final_documents2.asp?global_id=01970005&doc _id=5011988
Navy. 2009b. Final Remedial Design/Remedial Action Work Plan, Installation Restoration Site 27, Alameda Point, Alameda, California. June.
www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/final_documents2.asp?global_id=01970005&doc_id=50 07530
Navy. 2010a. Technology Transfer Technical Memorandum, Installation Restoration Site 27, Alameda Point, Alameda, California. October.
http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/final_documents2.asp?global_id=01970005&doc _id=60256203
Navy. 2010b. Final Record of Decision for Installation Restoration Site 35, Areas of Concern in Transfer Parcel EDC-5, Alameda Point, Alameda, California. February. http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/final_documents2.asp?global_id=01970005&doc _id=5007574
Appendix E
Site Management Plan
Alameda Point
Alameda, California
Terraphase Engineering Inc. Page 21
Navy. 2010c. Technology Transition Technical Memorandum, Installation Restoration Site 14, Alameda Point, Alameda, California. December.
http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/final_documents2.asp?global_id=01970005&doc _id=60260663
Navy. 2011a. Final Feasibility Study Report, Operable Unit 2A, Sites 9, 13, 19, 22, and 23, Alameda Point, Alameda, California. June.
http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/final_documents2.asp?global_id=01970005&doc _id=5009496
Navy. 2011b. Final Feasibility Study Report, Operable Unit 2B, Installation Restoration Sites 3, 4, 11, and 21, Alameda Point, Alameda, California. December. http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/final_documents2.asp?global_id=01970005&doc _id=60264722
Navy. 2011c. Monitored Natural Attenuation Work Plan (FINAL), Installation Restoration Site 14, Alameda Point, Alameda, California. March.
http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/final_documents2.asp?global_id=01970005&doc _id=60270296
Navy. 2011d. Final Record of Decision, Installation Restoration Site 34, Former Naval Air Station, Alameda, California. April.
http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/final_documents2.asp?global_id=01970005&doc _id=5007568
Navy. 2012a. Record of Decision, OU-2A, Former Naval Air Station Alameda, Alameda, California.

September.
http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/final_documents2.asp?global_id=01970005&doc _id=5006449
Navy. 2012b. Final Remedial Action Completion Report, Operable Unit 1, Installation Restoration Site 16 – Soil, Alameda Point, Alameda, California. July. http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/final_documents2.asp?global_id=01970005&doc _id=60288137
Navy. 2012c. Final Interim Remedial Action Completion Report, Installation Restoration Site 28, Alameda Point, Alameda, California. July.
http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/final_documents2.asp?global_id=01970005&doc _id=5007536
Navy. 2012d. Final Remedial Action Completion Report, Installation Restoration Site 35, Areas of Concern 3, 10, and 12 in Transfer Parcel EDC-5, Alameda Point, Alameda, California. August. http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/final_documents2.asp?global_id=01970005&doc _id=5007577
Navy. 2013. Final Remedial Action Completion Report, Operable Unit 1, Installation Restoration Site 7, Alameda Point, Alameda, California. April.

Appendix E
Site Management Plan
Alameda Point
Alameda, California

Page 22 ends

http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/final_documents2.asp?global_id=01970005&doc _id=60296510
Navy. 2014. Final Remedial Action Completion Report, Installation Restoration Site 34, Alameda Point, Alameda, California. February.
http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/final_documents2.asp?global_id=01970005&doc _id=5007571
Navy. 2015a. Final Explanation of Significant Difference for Record of Decision for Groundwater at Operable Unit 1, Installation Restoration Site 16, Alameda Point, Alameda, California.

September
http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/final_documents2.asp?global_id=01970005&doc _id=60386854
Navy. 2015b. Final Record of Decision, Operable Unit-2B, Former Naval Air Station Alameda, Alameda, California. March.
http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/final_documents2.asp?global_id=01970005&doc _id=5006451
Navy. 2015c. Final Soil Remedial Action Completion Report, Operable Unit 2B, Installation Restoration Sites 3 and 4, Alameda Point, Alameda, California. November. http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/final_documents2.asp?global_id=01970005&doc _id=60393220
Navy. 2015d. Final Land Use Control Remedial Design, Operable Unit 2B, Installation Restoration Sites 3, 4, 11, and 21, Alameda Point, Alameda, California. December. http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/final_documents2.asp?global_id=01970005&doc _id=60393171
Navy. 2018. Final Finding of Suitability to Transfer Phase 3C, Former Naval Air Station Alameda, Alameda, California. September.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2017. (Reference to be added.)

Appendix E
Site Management Plan
Alameda Point
Alameda, California
Terraphase Engineering Inc. Page 23

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK

FIGURE

90 74
49 52
SAN

FRANCISCO
BAY

OAKLAND INNER HARBOR

SEAPLANE LAGOON
S u n r i s e
C o u r t
M o n a r c h S t
R a i n b o w
C o u r t
W M a l l S q
B a r b e r sP o i n t R d
K o l l m a n
C i r
M a y p o r t
C t
Ta x i w a y ' G '
P e a r lH a r b o r R dTa x i w a y ' D '
W M i d w a y A v e
Ta x i w a y ' F '
Ta x i w a y ' C '
N o r f o l k
A t l a n t i c A v e
S i n g l e t o n A v e
P a n A m
W a y
L e x i n g t o n
S t
S a r a t o g a
S t
W E s s e x D r
W T i c o n d e r o g a A v e
F e r r yP o i n t
M a i n S t
M o s l e y A v e
A t l a n t i c A v e
V i k i n g S t
R u n w a y 1 3
R u n w a y 7
W R e d L i n e A v e
Ta x i w a y ' E '
W To w e r A v e
Ta x i w a y ' H '
2 3
5 4 6
22 16
17 18
34 35
79 18
20 21
19 81
80 23
24 25
26 30
31 32
85 8687
88 89
28 27
29 40
84 83
82 78
36 39
58 70
72 71
60 61
57 38
55 59
56 42
43 45
44 73
46 51
77 76
75 50
48 53 67
66 64
65 63
62 54
37 47
PROJECT NUMBER:
0284.001.007 FIGURE E-1
File: K:\GIS\Prj\0284 - Alameda Point\MXDs\SMP\(20191119) Appendix E - SMP Zones.mxd 11/20/2019 Created by: BO Checked by: AR Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California III FIPS 0403 Feet SMP Zones
CLIENT:

PROJECT: Alameda Point
Former NAS Alameda, Alameda, CA
City of Alameda
Ü
0 1,250 2,500
Feet
1 inch = 1,250 feet
Road or Airfield
Building
Wetland
Water

SAFETY FIRST
Legend
SMP Zones
Hangar
Northeast
Runway
Southeast ## Conveyance Parcels (ALA-##-EDC)

APPENDIX F
DTSC INFORMATION ADVISORY – CLEAN IMPORTED FILL MATERIAL

APPENDIX G
REGIONAL WATER BOARD FACT SHEET: DEVELOPMENT ON
PROPERTIES WITH A VAPOR INTRUSION THREAT – JULY 2019

Fact Sheet: Development on Properties with a Vapor
Intrusion Threat ‒ July 2019
The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Board (Regional Water Board) oversees an increasing number of cleanups at properties where volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are present in soil vapor and development is occurring. These VOCs can pose a health threat to building occupants if they migrate into buildings through vapor intrusion (VI).

We will continue to require site cleanup where threats to human health or the environment exist. However, we recognize that achieving cleanup standards may take years given currently available remedial technologies, and therefore interim protective measures may be needed. Typically, VI mitigation systems (VIMS) are installed in the interim to mitigate VI threats. VIMS are not a substitute for cleanup. Operation, maintenance, and monitoring (OM&M) and agency oversight are typically warranted to ensure effectiveness. The Regional Water Board’s approach to regulating VIMS has evolved since the 2014 release of our Framework for Assessment of Vapor Intrusion at TCE-Contaminated Sites in the San Francisco Bay Region (VI Framework). This fact sheet is intended to provide developers, cities, homeowners associations, and the public a summary of expectations for development at sites were VI may pose a threat.

Types of VIMS
Traditional VIMS for the soil vapor intrusion pathway can be divided into two main categories: Subslab Depressurization Systems (SSDS) and Vented VIMS. SSDS rely on active electromechanical means to divert subslab vapors and generate a constant negative pressure beneath a building’s slab foundation to prevent contaminated vapors from migrating up into the building. Vented VIMS rely on passive or active mechanisms (e.g., thermal gradients, wind driven ventilation, or powered fans) to dilute vapors beneath the building and vent them into the outdoor air. 2 Updated Approach to VIMS
In the 2014 VI Framework, the Regional Water Board expressed a preference for passive venting systems, which have fewer moving parts and potentially require less maintenance, and we typically did not require monitoring after occupancy. Since 2014, our concerns about long-term effectiveness of VIMS have increased due to awareness of failures and limited monitoring at buildings with VIMS. We now prefer SSDS for slab on grade design because they provide greater protection and allow for simpler monitoring.

In 2019, the Regional Water Board also updated our approach to VI assessment by providing more stringent soil gas and groundwater VI Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) based on empirical attenuation factors rather than those determined using the Johnson and Ettinger VI model. We also updated the ESL guidance to recommend verification of VI model predictions and evaluation of the sewer/utility conduit air pathway. See the ESL Webpage for more information.

Evaluating Effectiveness
For vented VIMS, ongoing monitoring of contaminant concentrations (subslab and/or indoor air) is needed to demonstrate effectiveness. Long-term monitoring of indoor air can be problematic because it requires access permission, is intrusive to occupants, and data interpretation can be challenging due to confounding factors from indoor and outdoor sources of VOCs. For SSDS, the measurement of cross-slab vapor pressure differential can be used to monitor if subsurface vapors are migrating into the building.

Pressure differential monitoring can provide real-time, continuous readings more cost effectively than indoor air monitoring. This reduces the need for long-term indoor air monitoring except as a contingency measure.

Evaluating Operational Lifetime
The Regional Water Board encourages active cleanup to reduce or eliminate the ongoing need for VIMS. Therefore, the operational lifetime of the VIMS is related to the cleanup timeframe and may be years to decades until the VI threat is abated. OM&M and Regional Water Board oversight are needed for the entire duration to ensure 3 protectiveness. The operational lifetime of the VIMS will depend on site-specific data on the VI threat. An estimate of the operational lifetime should be included in the VIMS plans. The operational lifetime of the VIMS should be reevaluated as part of long-term monitoring reports and 5-year reviews conducted under our oversight. Soil vapor monitoring near the source of pollution where the VIMS is installed provides the best evidence to evaluate the VI threat and evaluate when VIMS are no longer needed.

VIMS operation can be discontinued when we determine that the VI threat has ceased.

Regional Water Board Oversight
For cases under Regional Water Board oversight, we should be informed early in the development planning process of VI issues and the need for VIMS. When we concur that VIMS are necessary, we will typically need to review the documents summarized in Table 1, below. All documents should be prepared under the direction of an appropriately licensed professional. In addition, some documents will also require approval by local agencies including, but not limited to; the local building department, local environmental health agency, air quality agency, and local water agency. Local building departments routinely rely on regulatory oversight agency concurrence with milestone documents before granting building permits or approving occupancy.

Table 1. Documents Needed for a VIMS
Document Title Milestone
VIMS Plan(s) – Including VIMS design,
OM&M, contingency plans, and financial
assurance.

Pre-construction
VIMS Construction Completion Report –
Including as-built drawings
Post-construction and pre-occupancy
Long-Term Monitoring Reports Ongoing post-construction
Five-Year Review Reports Every five years post-construction 4 Financial Assurance
Financial assurance is typically required to ensure sufficient funds are available to operate, maintain, and monitor the VIMS, and pay regulatory oversight cost recovery for the anticipated operational lifetime of the VIMS. Prior to construction, a financial assurance mechanism should be created to fund costs associated with the VIMS (e.g., OM&M, reporting, potential contingency measures, Regional Water Board oversight). Financial assurance may be in the form of a trust fund, surety bond, letter of credit, insurance, corporate guarantee, qualification as a self-insurer by a financial means test, or other acceptable mechanism. A detailed cost estimate should be provided to quantify the amount of the financial assurance needed and should be based on the length of time that residual contamination may pose a vapor intrusion risk, up to 30 years.

Expectations for Regulatory Review Timeframes
For planning purposes, assume the Regional Water Board will need 60 days per submittal for review. Actual review times may vary depending on workload and project complexity (e.g., alternative designs, site complexity). Expectations for our oversight and review timeframes should be explicitly discussed with the site’s case manager.

Questions or Comments
For general questions about our VIMS guidance, contact
[email protected]. For questions regarding a specific site, contact the Regional Water Board case manager. Contact information for the case manager can be accessed on the GeoTracker
database (https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/). To
request oversight on a project, refer to the “Requesting Oversight” information and complete the new case application on our Site Cleanup Webpage (https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/sitecleanuppr ogram.html#RequestingOversight).

APPENDIX H

EBMUD CLEAN UTILITY CORRIDOR DETAIL

REVISION
DATE NO.BY
REC.APP.

DESIGN CHECKED BY

DRAWN BY

STRUCTURE OR

ZONE DESIGNATION
SCALE
DATE

DESIGNREVIEW

APPROVED
SR.CIVIL ENGINEER

RECOMMENDED

CORROSION

CHECK BY

R.P.E. NO. C 57170

EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT

OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA
FILE:

PLOT DATE: 19-OCT-2018 06:03
H:\agre\design\2016\EA 2016\EA16012 ALA SITE A\clean utility corridor COPY 10-18-18.dgn USER: bkolodzi
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM MAP NO.

R.P.E. NO. C 67611

MGR PIPELINE INFRASTRUCTURE
0 1 2 3
1" SCALE ON ORIGINAL

CLEAN UTILITY CORRIDOR
24"

PIPE OD
NOTE 5

WARNING/ID TAPE
VA
RIES
`
DOMESTIC SERVICE LATERALS LESS THAN 3 INCHES
12"
NOTE 3
21"
3"

BRIGHT ORANGE DEMARCATION FABRIC
NOTE 4(A)

COMPACTED BACKFILL
CLASS 2 AB
`
NOTE 3

BRIGHT ORANGE DEMARCATION FABRIC
NOTE 2(B)
NOTE 4(A)

COMPACTED BACKFILL
CLASS 2 AB
24"
24"24"
3"
NOTE 4(A)(B)

COMPACTED PIPE BEDDING

CLASS I BACKFILL
NOTE 4(A)(B)

COMPACTED PIPE BEDDING

CLASS I BACKFILL
NOTE 4(A)(B)

COMPACTED BACKFILL
CLASS 2 AB
NOTE 4(A)(B)
24"
NOTE 4(A)(B)

COMPACTED BACKFILL
CLASS 2 AB
NOTE 4(A)(B)
12"
NOTE 2(A)(B)
9"
WATER MAINS 20 INCHES OR SMALLER, HYDRANTS, AND
SERVICES LATERALS 3 INCHES OR GREATER
60" MIN

SERVICE LATERAL
10-20 MILLIMETERS THICK PLASTIC
NTS
NTS
12"
42 INCHES MINIMUM COVER IN ALL AREAS.

SHALL HAVE
PIPELINES 16 INCHES AND LARGER
STREET GRADE HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED.
42 INCHES IN UNIMPROVED AREAS WHERE FINAL
24 INCHES TO PAVEMENT SUBGRADE AND
36 INCHES TO FINISHED GRADE,

SHALL HAVE MINIMUM COVER OF
PIPELINES 16 INCHES AND SMALLER
PER ESP 512.1, A3:
10-20 MILLIMETERS THICK PLASTIC

OF PAVEMENT SECTION

SUBGRADE

EXPOSURE TO CONTAMINANTS

VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOCS) TO PREVENT WORKER
(B) 10-20 MILLIMETERS PLASTIC OVER SOIL CONTAMINATED WITH

WORKER CONTACT WITH SOIL
(A) DEMARCATION FABRIC OVER CONTAMINATED SOIL TO PREVENT SHALL ESTABLISH BARRIERS SUCH AS:

CONSTRUCTED THROUGH CONTAMINATED SOIL, CONTRACTOR

INSPECTIONS OF WATER MAINS IN UTILITY CORRIDORS

6. TO PROTECT DISTRICT WORKERS PRIOR TO PERFORMING
ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE PIPELINE.

THE PIPE AS SPECIFIED AND RUN CONTINUOUSLY ALONG THE

5. WARNING/IDENTIFICATION TAPE SHALL BE INSTALLED ABOVE BEFORE THE PIPE IS INSTALLED.

INSTALLED UNDER THE MAINS, HYDRANT RUNS, AND SERVICES

IN DIAMETER) OF IMPORTED MATERIALS THAT WILL BE
COMPACTION OF THE 24" (12" FOR SERVICES LESS THAN 3"
(B) THE APPLICANT'S GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER SHALL TEST THE

4. (A) FOR COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS, SEE SPECIFICATIONS.

DELINEATION FABRIC.

EXCAVATION LEVEL AND BEFORE THE INSTALLATION OF THE
THE 24" (12" FOR SERVICES LESS THAN 3" IN DIAMETER) OVER

TRENCH DUE TO GROUND WATER, WORK MUST BE DONE BELOW

3. IF THERE IS ANY NEED TO STABILIZE THE BOTTOM OF THE

LATERALS, HYDRANT LATERALS, AND FIRE SERVICE LATERALS.

MINIMUM OF TWO SAMPLES FOR EACH OF THE MAIN SERVICE

APPLICANT SHALL COLLECT CONFIRMATION SAMPLES AT A
(B) FOR SERVICES:

SAMPLE FREQUENCY REQUIRE DISTRICT APPROVAL.

CONFIRMATION SOIL SAMPLES AND CHANGES TO CONFIRMATION
EXPOSED. COMPOSITIONING OF SIDE WALL AND FLOOR

AND GROUNDWATER SAMPLES WHERE GROUNDWATER IS

ALONG THE SIDE WALLS AND FLOOR OF THE UTILITY TRENCH,

APPLICANT SHALL COLLECT THE CONFIRMATION SOIL SAMPLES
EVERY 15 FEET ALONG THE PROPOSED UTILITY ALIGNMENT(S).

GROUNDWATER SAMPLES AT A FREQUENCY OF ONE SAMPLE

APPLICANT SHALL COLLECT CONFIRMATION SOIL AND

2. (A) FOR WATER MAINS 20 INCHES AND SMALLER:

JURISDICTION.

REGULATIONS OF CAL-OSHA AND OTHER AGENCIES HAVING

1. CONFORM TO ALL SAFETY STANDARDS, ORDERS, RULES AND
NOTES

OF PAVEMENT SECTION

SUBGRADE

K-1
676\01\2137448.5
676\05\3495333.7
7/3/2023

EXHIBIT K

CITY REGULATORY AGREEMENT
676\05\2276840.3
6/27/2023
Recording Requested By and
When Recorded, Return to:

City of Alameda
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
Attn: City Attorney
No Fee for Recording Pursuant to
Government Code Sections 6103 and 27383
(SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE)
DECL

ARATION OF AFFORDABILITY COVENANTS
This
Declaration of Affordability Covenants ("Affordability Cov enants") is made as of _______ __, 2023, (the "Effective Date"), by and between the Ci ty of Alameda, a California charter city (the "City"), and _____________________ (the "Developer"), with reference to the following facts:

RECITALS
These Affordability Covenants a re entered into on the basis of the following facts, understandings, and intentions of the City and Developer.

A. All terms not defined in these Recitals have the meaning se t forth in Article 1 below.

B. The Developer owns certain real property located in the City of Alameda, County of Alameda, State of California, as more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein (the "Property").

C. The City and Developer entered into that certain Dispositio n and Development Agreement, dated as of _________________, as amended from time to time (the "DDA") pursuant to which the City conveyed the Property to Developer. T h e r e c o r d a t i o n o f t h e s e Affordability Covenants is a condition to the conveyance of the Property pursuant to the Agreement.

D. City Municipal Code Section 30-16, added by Ordinance No. 29 66-NA adopted on June 15, 2004, sets forth certain inclusionary housing requi rements for residential development in the City ("City Inclusionary Policy"),
consistent with the intent of State law that
local governments use the powers vested in them to make adequat e provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community.

E. The Property is part of a lar ger site where approximately ____ units of residential housing located in the City of Al ameda (“Housing Project”) are to be developed and is,

676\05\2276840.3
6/27/2023
therefore, subject to the City Inclusionary Policy. The Housin g Project is subject to a discretionary approval from the City which requires that at lea s t 2 5 % o f t h e u n i t s d e v e l o p e d within the Housing Project be reserved for very low, low and mo derate income households (each a "Restricted Unit" and collectively, the "Restricted Units") i n accordance with the City Inclusionary Policy.

F. Pursuant to the City Inclusionary Policy and the conditions of approval for the Housing Project, the Developer is required to enter into this A greement on terms acceptable to the City. This Agreement shall be executed and recorded agains t the Property prior to the recordation of any parcel map or final map or issuance of any b uilding permit for the Project.

The purpose of this Agreement is t o set forth the terms and con ditions for producing and marketing the Restricted Units in greater specificity and to en sure that the Restricted Units are built as part of the Housing Project. The Developer and City d esire by the execution of this Agreement to assure the Property meets the requirements of the City Inclusionary Policy, and that the Restricted Units remain affordable permanently upon the recordation of this Agreement.

AGREEMENT

NOW, THEREFORE, the City and Developer hereby declare that the following express covenants are to be taken and construed as running with the Pro perty and, except as set forth below, shall pass to and be binding upon Developer and its succ essors, assigns, heirs, grantees or lessees to the Property or any part thereof from the date of re cordation of these Affordability Covenants, and shall continue in effect until such times as mod ified or released in writing by the City. Each and every deed, lease or other instrument conveying the Property or any portion thereof shall be held conclusively to have been executed, deliv ered and accepted subject to these Affordability Covenants, regardless of whether the covenants an d restrictions are set forth in such deed, lease or other instruments.

ARTICLE 1. Definitions. The following definitions apply in this Declaration:

(a) “Affordable rent” is the am ount of Rent considered as "affordable rent" for very low, low or moderate income households, adjusted for famil y size appropriate to the unit, pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 50053 or any successor statute thereto. If the statute is no longer in effect and no successor statute is enacted, the City shall establish the Affordable Rent for purposes of this Agreement..

(b) "Area Median Income" shall mean the median family income in the Alameda County, as annually estimated by HUD pursuant to Sectio n 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (California Health and Safety Code Section 50093). In the event such income determinations are no longer published by HUD, or are no t updated for a period of at least twenty four (24) months, th e City shall provide Developer with other income determinations which are reasonably similar with respect to the method of calculation previously published by HUD.

676\05\2276840.3
6/27/2023

(c) "Assumed Household Size" means a household of two persons i n the case of a one-bedroom unit, three (3) persons in the case of a two-b edroom Unit, four (4) persons in the case of a three-bedroom Unit, and five (5) persons in the case of a four-bedroom Home. This definition is utilized solely to calculate Affordable Housing C ost and is not intended to limit the number of people occupying a Home.

(d) "City" means the City of Alameda, a California charter city .

(e) "Developer" means _____________________________, and its successors and assigns.

(f) "Eligible Households" shall mean either a Low Income Household or a Very Low Income Household.

(g) "HUD" shall mean the United States Department of Housing an d Urban Development.

(h) "Income" has the meaning set forth in 24 Code of Federal Re gulations §570.3.
(i) "Low Income Household" means a household whose Income does not exceed eighty percent (80%) of AMI or such other low income limit as published by HUD.

(j) "Project" has the meaning s et forth in Recital D above.

(k) "Property" has the meani ng set forth in Recital B above.

(l) "Rent" means the total of m onthly payments by the Tenant of a Restricted Unit for the following: use and o ccupancy of the Restricted Uni t and land and associated facilities, including parking; a ny separately charged fees or s ervice charges assessed by Developer which are required of all Tenants, other than securit y deposits; an allowance for the cost of an adequate level of service for utilities paid by the Tenant, including garbage collection, sewer, water, electricity, gas and other heating, cooking and r efrigeration fuel, but not telephone service or cable TV; and any other interest, taxes, fees or cha rges for use of the land or associated facilities and assessed by a public or private entit y other than Developer, and paid by the Tenant.

(m) "Restricted Unit" means _________________________ of rental housing units constructed on the Property.

(n) "Tenant" means a household legally occupying a Unit pursuan t to a valid lease with Developer.

(o) "Very Low Income Household" means a household whose Income does not exceed fifty percent (50%) of AMI or such other very low in come limits pursuant to the

676\05\2276840.3
6/27/2023
standard published by HUD.

(p) "Unit" means one of the approximately ___________ (__) rent al housing units constructed on the Property.

ARTICLE 2. RENT INCOME AND OCCUPANCY RESTRICTIONS

2.01 Affordability Requirements and Restrictions.

All of the Restricted Units to be located on the Property shall be rented to very low, low or moderate income households whose income does not exceed the limits set forth below:

(a) Very Low Income. Not less than ___ of the Restricted Units con structed on the Property shall be available to Very Low Income Households a t an Affordable Rent.

(b) Low Income. Not less than ___ of the Restricted Units construc ted on the Property shall be available to Low Income Households at an Affo rdable Rent.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, Deve loper may, in its sole reaso nable judgment, elect to have a full-time property manager residing on the Property, in which event no more than two (2) of the Restricted Units may be designated as a resident manager's unit, and such Restricted Unit shall not be subject to the above affordability restrictions so long as such Restricted Unit is occupied by a full-time on-site manager for the Housing Project.

Not more than once per year, Developer may adjust rents in occu pied Restricted Units to the level allowed for the family size appropriate to the unit. Developer may adjust the rent upon vacancy of a Restricted Unit to the level allowed for the famil y size appropriate to the unit. City shall annually publish a list of all rent ceilings reflecting t he annual adjustments in the income limits for Eligible Households provided by HUD and the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD"). Developer must notify each tenant and City in writing of any increase in monthl y rent for a Restricted Unit a t least thirty (30) days in advance of the effective rent adjustment date. The written notice of r ent increase provided to City shall indicate: (1) the rent adjustment for each Restricted Unit; (2) t h e n e w r e n t a l a m o u n t f o r e a c h Restricted Unit; and (3) the effective date of the adjustment f or each Restricted Unit. Failure to provide the notice required shall be considered a default by Developer under this Agreement.

The determination of a status as an Eligible Household shall be made by Developer prior to initial occupancy of the Restricted Unit by such household a nd shall be subject to review and approval by City. The income of a ll persons residing in the Re stricted Unit shall be considered for purposes of calculating the household income. Developer sh all not discriminate against prospective tenants with qualifi ed Public Housing Authority Sec tion 8 certificates or vouchers who are otherwise qualified. D eveloper shall notify City in wr iting whenever the tenant in a Restricted Unit changes. The no tice shall indicate the name an d household size of the tenant vacating the Restricted Unit. Once the Restricted Unit is reoccupied, Developer shall notify City in writing of the new tenant's name, household size and income.

676\05\2276840.3
6/27/2023
Immediately prior to the first a nniversary date of the occupanc y of a Restricted Unit by an Eligible Household, and on each anniversary date thereafter, D e v e l o p e r s h a l l r e - c e r t i f y t h e income of the occupants of such Restricted Unit by obtaining a completed Tenant Income Certification based upon the current income of each occupant of the Restricted Unit. The Tenant Income Certification shall be in the form attached hereto as Ex hibit B. If an occupant of a Restricted Unit no longer quali fies as an Eligible Household du e to an increase in income above the limitation set forth in paragraph (a) and (b), of this Sect ion 2, the occupant may continue to occupy the former Restricted Unit; provided, however, Developer may increase the rental rate for such former Restricted Unit to market rate or the highest r ent allowable under regulatory restrictions and Develo per shall rent the next available compar able unit within the Housing Project (i.e., same number of bed rooms and bathrooms) as a Rest ricted Unit. Developer shall send written notice to City with the address and bedroom/bathro om mix of the Restricted Unit designated by Developer as the replacement Restricted Unit.

2.02 Marketing and Leasing Program.

Developer shall actively market rental of all units within the Housing Project, including the Restricted Units. Prior to lease-up of the Restricted Unit s, Developer shall provide City with a copy of its marketing program f or the Housing Project, which shall include a marketing program for the Restricted Units ("Restricted Units Marketing P rogram"). City shall review the Restricted Units Marketing Program and either approve or reques t modifications to the Restricted Units Marketing Program within thirty (30) days afte r receipt. Developer shall provide monthly updates to the Restricted Units Marketing Progr am commencing thirty (30) days after the date the Restricted Units Marketing Program is initially approved by City.

Developer is responsible for impl ementing the Restricted Units Marketing Program actively and in good faith. City m ay extend the required marke ting period in its discretion if Developer delays implementation or otherwise fails to comply wi th the Restricted Units Marketing Program as approved by City.

2.03 Satisfaction of Affordable Housing Requirement.

The City Inclusionary Policy shall be satisfied with respect to the Property if the Developer constructs or causes to be constructed the Restricted Units meeting the requirements of Article 2 above, in compliance with the schedule set forth in the DDA.

ARTICLE 3. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR HOUSING PROJECT

3.01 Reporting Requirements. Developer shall submit an annual repor t and income certification to the City. The report, at a minimum, shall include:

(a) The number of persons per Restricted Unit;
(b) Name of each Restricted Unit Tenant;
(c) Initial occupancy date;
(d) Rent paid per month; and
(e) Gross income per year.

676\05\2276840.3
6/27/2023
Such information shall be reported to the City substantially in the form of the Certification of Continuing Comp liance attached hereto as Exhib it C or in such other format as may be reasonably requested by City.

Annual income recertification sh all also contain those document s used to certify eligibility. The City, from time to time during the term of th is Agreement, may request additional or different information, if such information is required in order for the City to comply with its reporting requirements, and Developer shall promptly s upply such additional or different information in the reports required hereunder. Developer shall maintain all necessary books and records, including property, pers onal and financial records, in accordance with requirements prescribed by the City with respect to all matters covered by t his Agreement. Developer, at such time and in such forms as City may require, shall furnish to Ci ty statements, records, reports, data and information pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. Upon reasonable advance request for examination by City, Developer, at any time during normal business hours, shall make available all of its records with respect to all matters c overed by this Agreement.

Developer shall permit City to audit, examine and make excerpts or transcripts from these records at City's sole cost.

The first annual report and a nnual income certification (" Initial Report ") shall be submitted to the City within sixty (60) days of the date of the initial rental of all the Restricted Units on the Property. Subsequent annual reports and annual in come certifications or recertifications shall be submitted to the City on the annivers ary date of submittal of the Initial Report.

3.02 City Approval of Lease Forms. City shall have the right to rev iew and approve Developer’s form of lease for the Restricted Units, including d isclosures of the affordability restrictions on the Restricted Units, prior to Developer’s use of such form.

All eligibility shal l be conducted without regard to race, cree d, color, gender, religion, age, disability, familial status or national origin of the tenant or applicant for tenancy.

ARTICLE 4. PROVISION OF SERVICES AND MAINTENANCE OF PROPERTY

4.01 Maintenance. During the term of this Agreement, Developer shal l maintain, or cause to be maintained, the Property, including all improvements thereon, in a manner consistent with the provisions set forth the refor in the Alameda Municipal Code, and shall keep the entire Property free from any accumulation of debris or waste materials prior to and after construction.

If, at any time, Developer fails to maintain the Property, and h a s e i t h e r f a i l e d t o commence to cure such condition or to diligently prosecute to c ompletion the condition or the condition is not corrected after expiration of sixty (60) days from the date of written notice from t h e C i t y t o t h e D e v e l o p e r , C i t y m a y p e r f o r m t h e n e c e s s a r y c o r r ective maintenance, and Developer shall pay such costs as are reasonably incurred for s uch maintenance. The City shall have the right to place a lien on the Property should Developer not reimburse City for such costs within sixty (60) days following City's written demand for reim bursement of such costs.

676\05\2276840.3
6/27/2023
Developer, on behalf of itself, its heirs, successors and assig ns, hereby grants to City and its officers, employees and agents, an irrevocable license to enter upon the Property to perform such maintenance during normal busin ess hours after receipt of writt en notice from City and Developer's failure to cure or r emedy such failure within sixty (60 ) day s of such n otice. Any such entry shall be made only after reasonable notice to Develo per, and City shall indemnify and hold Developer harmless from any claims or liabilities pertaini ng to any such entry by City.

Failure by Developer to maintain the Property in the condition provided in this Article 4 may, in City's reasonable discretion, constitute a default under this Agreement.

676\05\2276840.3
6/27/2023
ARTICLE 5. NO TRANSFER

5.01 Prohibition. Except with respect to Permitted Transferees (as defined below), Developer shall not make any total or partial sale, transfer, c onveyance, encumbrance to secure financing, assignment or lease of the whole or any part of the Property, the Housing Project or this Agreement without the prior written approval of the City, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.

5.02 Permitted Transfers. Notwithstanding any other provision of th is Agreement to the contrary, City approval of an assignment or transfer of thi s Agreement or conveyance of the Property or Housing Project, or a ny part thereof, shall not be required in connection with any of the following (the "Permitted Transfers"):

(a) The lease of Restricted Units to Eligible Households.

(b) Assignments for financing purposes , and any subsequent transfer t o t h e lender providing such financing by foreclosure or deed in lieu of foreclosure thereunder, subject to such fina ncing being considered and appr oved by the City.

(c) Transfer of the Property and Housing Project to an affiliate en tity which controls, is controlled by or under common control with Developer.

(d) In the event of an assignment by Developer pursuant to subparagraph (c) not requiring the City’s prior approv al, Developer ne vertheless agr ees that at least thirty (30) days prior to such assignment or transfer it shall give written notice to the City of such assignment or transfer and that such transferee shall be required to assume Deve loper’s obligations under this Agreement pursuant to a written assignment and assumption agreement in a form reasonably acceptable to the City Attorney.

5.03 City Consideration of Requested Transfer. The City agrees that it will not unreasonably withhold approval of a request made pursuant to th is Article 5 provided (a) the Developer delivers written notice to the City requesting such a pproval, and (b) the proposed assignee or transferee possesses comparable operational experie nce and capability, and comparable net worth and resources, as Developer, and (c) the assignee or transferee assumes the obligations of the Developer under this Agreement pursuant to a written assignment and assumption agreement in a form reasonably acceptable to the City Attorney. Such notice shall be accompanied by evidence regarding the proposed assignee’s or pu rchaser’s qualifications and experience and its financial commitments and resources sufficie nt to enable the City to evaluate the proposed assignee or purchaser pursuant to the criteria set forth herein and other criteria as reasonably determined by the City. The City shall approve or d isapprove the request within forty-five (45) days of its receipt of the Developer’s notice a nd all information and materials required herein.

676\05\2276840.3
6/27/2023
ARTICLE 6. NO DISCRIMINATION

Developer covenants, by and for itself and any successors in in terest, that there shall be no discrimination against or seg regation of any person or group of persons on account of any basis listed in subdivision (a) or (d) of Section 12955 of the Government Code, as those bases are defined in Sections 12926, 12926.1, subdivision (m) and paragra ph (1) of subdivision (p) of Section 12955, and Section 12955.2 of the Government Code, in t he sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the Property, nor shall Developer, itself or any person claiming under or through it, establish or permit any su ch practice or practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, subtenants, subleases or vendees in the Property.

ARTICLE 7. NO IMPAIRMENT OF LIEN

No violation or breach of the covenants, conditions, restricti ons, provisions or limitations contained in this Agreement shall defeat or render invalid or in any way impair the lien or charge of any mortgage, deed of trust or other financing or security i nstrument; provided, however, that any successor of Developer to the Property and Housing Project shall be bound by such covenants, conditions, restrictions, limitations and provisions , whether such successor's title was acquired by foreclosure, deed in lieu of foreclosure, trustee's sale or otherwise.

ARTICLE 8. DURATION

The covenants contained in Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of this Agree ment shall be deemed to run with the Property and Housin g Project permanently following t h e E f f e c t i v e D a t e . T h e covenants against discrimination contained in Article 6 of this Agreement shall run with the land in perpetuity, unless otherwise terminated by the City.

ARTICLE 9. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS

The covenants contained in the Agreement shall be binding upon Developer and its heirs, successors and assigns, and such covenants shall run in favor o f the City and its successors and assigns for the entire period during which such covenants shall be in force and effect, without regard as to whether the City is or remains an owner of any lan d or interest therein to which such covenants relate. In the event of any breach of any such coven ants, or breach of any of Developer’s obligations under this Agreement, City and its succ essors and assigns shall have the right to exercise all of the right s and remedies, and to mainta in any actions at law or suits in equity or other proper proceedings to enforce the curing of suc h breach. The covenants contained in the Agreement, wit hout regard to te chnical classification and designation, shall be for the benefit of and shall be enforceable only by the City, and its successors and assigns.

ARTICLE 10. SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT

Except as otherwise expressly provided below, this Agreement sh all have priority over the liens of all mortgages, deeds of trust and other liens (oth er than the lien for current, unpaid property taxes) and Developer shall cause all such mortgagees, deed of trust beneficiaries and

676\05\2276840.3
6/27/2023
other lien holders to execute and deliver to City for recordati o n i n t h e O f f i c i a l R e c o r d s o f Alameda County, a subordination ag reement, in a form reasonably acceptable to City, subordinating such mortgages, de eds of trust and other liens to this Agreement thereby ensuring the priority of this Agreement over all such mortgages, deeds o f trust and other liens.

Notwithstanding the subordinatio n provisions set forth herein, the City may, in its sole discretion, subordinate this Agreement. Notwithstanding the above, the City agrees to cooperate with the Developer with regards to subordination of the provisi ons of this Agreement with respect to the Restricted Units that are not necessary to satis fy the City's Inclusionary Policy if subordination is necessary to facilitate financing for the Project.

ARTICLE 11. DEFAULT

Any failure by Developer to perform any term or provision of th is Agreement shall constitute a " Default" (1) if Developer does not cure such failure within thirty (30 ) days following written notice of default from City, or (2) if such failure is not of a nature which can be cured within such thirty (30) d ay period, Developer does not co mmence substantial efforts to cure the failure within thirty (30) days and thereafter prosecu te to completion with diligence and continuity the curing of such failure. Any notice of default g iven under this Agreement shall identify the nature of the failure in performance which City cl aims constitutes the Default and the manner in which such Default may be satisfactorily cured. Any failure or delay by City in asserting any of its rights or remedies, including specific performance, as to any Default shall not operate as a waiver of any Default or of any such rights or remedies or deprive City of its right to institute and maintain any actions or proceedings which it may deem necessary to protect, assert or enforce any such rights or remedies.

ARTICLE 12. NOTICES, DEMANDS AND COMMUNICATIONS

Any approval, disapproval, demand, document or other notice to be provided under this Agreement shall be given in writing and shall be sent: (a) for personal delivery by a delivery service that provides a record of the date of delivery, the ind ividual to whom delivery was made, and the address where delivery was made; (b) by first-class cer tified United States mail, postage prepaid, return receipt request ed; or (c) by a nationally recog nized overnight courier service and marked for next day business delivery. All notices shall be ad dressed to the party to whom such notice is to be given at the property address stated herein or to such other address as a party may designate by written notice to t he other. Any written notice, demand or communication shall be deemed received: (a) immediately if delivered by personal deliv ery as provided hereinabove; (b) on the third (3
rd) day from the date it is postmarked if delivered by first-clas s mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested ; and (c) on the next business d a y i f s e n t v i a n a t i o n a l l y recognized overnight courier and marked for next day business d elivery. Notices sent by a party's attorney on behalf of such party shall be deemed delivered by such party.

To City: City of Alameda
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
Attention: City Manager

676\05\2276840.3
6/27/2023
With a copy to: City of Alameda
Alameda City Hall, Rm 280
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
Attn: City Attorney
.

Authority Housing Authorit y of the City of Alameda
701 Atlantic Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
Attn: Executive Directo
r
With a copy to:

To Developer
_____________________
_____________________
Attention: _____________

With a copy to: ______________________
______________________
______________________
Attention: _____________

Any party may change the address to which notices are to be sent by notifying the other parties of the new address, in the manner set forth above.

ARTICLE 13. ATTORNEYS’ FEES

In any action or proceeding which either party brings against t he other to enforce its rights hereunder, the unsuccessful party shall pay all costs in curred by the prevailing party, including reasonable attorneys' fees, which amounts shall be a part of the judgment in any action or proceeding.

ARTICLE 14. RECORDATION OF AGREEMENT

Immediately following the Effective Date, this Agreement shall be recorded against the Property in the Official Records of Alameda County.

ARTICLE 15. COMPLIANCE MONITORING FEE

Developer acknowledges and agrees that the City is obligated to monitor compliance with this Agreement on an annual basis and, therefore, agrees to pay C i t y f o r a p o r t i o n o f i t s administrative costs for such monitoring by paying to City an a nnual monitoring fee in an

676\05\2276840.3
6/27/2023
amount of ________________Dollars ($______)which fee shall be d ue on the initial date of occupancy and each year on the anniversary date of the initial date of occupancy

ARTICLE 16. INDEMNIFICATION

Except for an award of attorney’s fees to Developer, Developer will indemnify and hold harmless (without limit as to amount) the Authority and City an d their elected officials, officers, employees, and agents in their official capacity (hereinafter c ollectively referred to as "Indemnitees"), and any of them, from and against all claims, d amages, losses and expenses including attorney’s fees arisi ng out of the performance of thi s A g r e e m e n t , a r i s i n g o u t o f o r relating in any manner to the Project, the Restricted Units, or Developer's performance or non- performance under this Agreement, including without limitation the construction or sale of any unit in the Project, caused in whole or part by any negligent a ct or omission of the Developer, except where caused by the gro ss negligence or willful miscondu ct of the Authority and/or the City, and shall protect and defend Indemnitees, and any of them w i t h r e s p e c t t h e r e t o . T h e provisions of this Article 16 shall survive expiration or other termination of this Agreement or any release of part or all of th e Property from the burdens of this Agreement, and the provisions of this Article 16 shall remain in full force and effect.

ARTICLE 17. MISCELLANEOUS

Each party agrees to cooperate with the other in the implementation and administration of this Agreement and, in that regard, shall execute any and all d ocuments which may be reasonably necessary, helpful, or appropriate to carry out the purposes and intent of this Agreement. This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterpar ts which, when signed by all parties, shall constitute a binding agreement. The words "incl ude" and "including" shall be construed as if followed by the words "without limitation." Al l exhibits and attachments hereto are incorporated by reference as though fully restated herein. This Agreement shall be interpreted as though prepared jointly by both parties, and sha ll be construed in accordance with and be governed by the laws of the State of California. If any provision of this Agreement shall be invalid, illegal or unenforc eable, the validity, legality an d enforceability of the remaining provisions hereof shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby. A waiver by either party of a breach of any of the covenants, conditions or agreements h ereunder to be performed by the other party shall not be constr ued as a waiver of any succeedin g breach of the same or other covenants, agreements, restrictions or conditions hereof. No w aiver by City of any of the conditions hereof shall be effective unless in writing expressl y identifying the scope of the waiver and signed on behalf of an authorized official of City. Any alteration, change or modification of or to the Agreem ent, in order to become effecti ve, shall be made in writing and in each instance signed on behalf of each party hereto. Nothin g contained in this Agreement or any document executed pursuant to this Agreement shall be const rued as creating a joint venture or partnership between the City, the Authority and Developer. N othing contained in this Agreement shall create or justify any claim against the Authori ty or City by any person that Developer may have employed or with whom Developer may have con tracted relative to the purchase of materials, supplies or equipment, or the furnishing or the performance of any work or services with respect to the Property or the construction of the Project.

676\05\2276840.3
6/27/2023
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Developer have caused this Agr eement to be executed on their behalf by their respective officers thereunto duly authorized, on the Effective Date first above written.

RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:

_______________________________
Executive Director, Housing Authority
CITY:

CITY OF ALAMEDA, a municipal corporation
_________________________________
City Manager

[Signature must be notarized]

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_____________________________
City Attorney

- and -

DEVELOPER::

B y :
[Signature must be notarized]
P r i n t N a m e :

I t s :

676\05\2276840.3
6/27/2023

NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
)
COUNTY OF __________________ )

On ____________________, before me, ___________________________, Notary Public, personally appeared ______________________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

______________________________________
Name: ______________________________
Notary Public

A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

Exhibit A
676\05\2276840.3
6/27/2023

EXHIBIT A

Description of Property

Exhibit B
676\05\2276840.3
6/27/2023

EXHIBIT B

Tenant Income Certification

Project Name and Address:________________________________ Date:

Restricted Units: 50% of Median Income
8 0 % o f M e d i a n I n c o m e
120% of Median Income

A d d r e s s / U n i t N u m b e r : R e n t :

T e n a n t / H o u s e h o l d N a m e : D a t e o f L e a s e :

S i z e o f H o u s e h o l d : E x p i r a t i o n :

Total Household Income: per year

The following list includes each member of the household and th eir income. Attached are federal or state income tax returns for the most recent tax yea r, current stubs from paychecks or other evidence of the income of each income-producing member of the household.

Name of
Household
Member

Relationship

Age

Social Security
Number

Annual
Income
Source of Income/
Name of
Employer

I/We the undersigned have read an d answered fully, frankly and personally each of the above questions under penalty of perjury and do hereby swear they are true.

Head of Household Date Developer/ Agent Date

Exhibit E

676\05\2276840.3
6/27/2023

EXHIBIT C

CERTIFICATION OF CONTINUING COMPLIANCE

Project Name and Address:________________________________ Date:

Total Affordable Housing Units in Project:

Very Low Income Units (not to
exceed 50% of Median Income):

Low Income Units (not to
exceed 80% of Median Income):

Moderate Income Units (not to
exceed 120% of Median Income):

The Developer, in accordance with the Affordable Housing Agreem ent dated ______________, does hereby certify to the City of Alameda that during the prec eding year, the units identified on the following pages were occupied in accordance with the Afford able Housing Agreement and does hereby further certify that the representations set forth herein are true and correct to the best of the undersigned's knowledge.

S i g n e d : D a t e :

D e v e l o p e r / A g e n t

[See Attached]

Exhibit E

676\05\2276840.3
6/27/2023

ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORT

Project Name and Address:________________________________ Date:

Very Low Income Units (Not to Exceed 50% of Median Income)

Unit No./Address

Type

Tenant Name
Annual
Household
Income

Number in
Household

Monthly
Rent

(Attach additional sheets as required.)

S i g n e d : D a t e :

D e v e l o p e r / A g e n t

Exhibit E

676\05\2276840.3
6/27/2023

ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORT

Project Name and Address:________________________________ Date:

Low Income Units (Not to Exceed 80% of Median Income)

Unit No./Address

T
ype

Tenant Name
Annual
Household
Income

Number in
Household

Monthly
Rent

(Attach additional sheets as required.)

S i g n e d : D a t e :

D e v e l o p e r / A g e n t

Exhibit E

676\05\2276840.3
6/27/2023

ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORT

Project Name and Address:________________________________ Date:

Moderate Income Units (Not to Exceed 120% of Median Income)

Unit No./Address

T
ype

Tenant Name
Annual
Household
Income

Number in
Household

Monthly
Rent

(Attach additional sheets as required.)

S i g n e d : Date:

D e v e l o p e r / A g e n t

A-1
676\05\2276840.3
6/27/2023

L-1
676\05\3495333.7
7/3/2023

EXHIBIT L

GENERAL ASSIGNMENT

THIS GENERAL ASSIGNMENT (“Assignment”) is entered into the day of _____, 20__ (the “Effective Date”), by and between the CITY OF ALAMEDA, a California charter city (the “City”), and [____________] (“Developer”).

RECITALS
A. The City and Developer have entered into that certain Disposition and Development Agreement, dated ___________, as amended, regarding the Property (the “DDA”).

Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the same meaning as set forth in the DDA.

B. Pursuant to the DDA, the City is obligated, inter alia, to assign the following to the Developer and the Developer is obligated to accept the following from Assignor any and all permits, entitlements rights, intangibles or privileges appurtenant or otherwise related to Phase, including, without limitation, the EDC Agreement (collectively, the “Phase Intangible Property”).

AGREEMENT

NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows:

1. Assignment and Acceptance. Effective as of the Effective Date, (a) the City hereby assigns the Phase Intangible Property to the Developer and (b) the Developer hereby accepts the foregoing assignment.

2. Notice. From and after the Effective Date, the notices to be delivered with respect to the Phase Intangible Property shall be delivered to:

Developer: [________]

With copies to: [________]

3. Attorneys' Fees. In the event of the bringing of any action or suit by a party hereto against another party hereunder by reason of any breach of any of the covenants, conditions, agreements or provisions on the part of the other party arising out of this Assignment, then in that event the prevailing party shall be entitled to have and recover of and from the other party all costs and expenses of the action or suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees.

L-2
676\05\3495333.7
7/3/2023

4. Entire Agreement. All attachments are incorporated herein by this reference, are an integral part of this Assignment, and will be read and interpreted together as a single document. This Assignment and the applicable provisions of the DDA set forth the complete, exclusive and final statement of the agreement between the parties as to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous agreements, understandings, negotiations and discussions, whether oral or written, between the parties regarding such subject matter.

5. Counterparts. This Assignment may be executed in one or more counterparts by actual or email signature. All counterparts so executed shall constitute one contract, binding on all parties, even though all parties are not signatory to the same counterpart.

6. Miscellaneous. This Assignment shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the respective successors, assigns, personal representatives, heirs and legatees of the city and the Developer. If any party hereto brings any action or suit against the other party hereto by reason of any breach of any covenant, condition, agreement or provision on the part of the other party set forth in this Assignment, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the other party all reasonable costs and expenses of the action or suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees, charges and costs, in addition to any other relief to which it may be entitled. This Assignment shall be governed by, interpreted under, and construed and enforceable in accordance with, the laws of the State of California.

676\05\3495333.7
7/3/2023
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Assignment as of the Effective Date.

CITY:

CITY OF ALAMEDA, a California charter city,

By: Name: Title:

DEVELOPER:

[________]

M-1
676\05\3495333.7
7/3/2023

EXHIBIT M

BILL OF SALE

This BILL OF SALE is entered into as of by and between the CITY OF ALAMEDA, a California charter city (the “City”), and [________] (“Developer”).

C. DDA. The City and Developer have entered into that certain Disposition and Development Agreement, dated ___ as amended, regarding the property commonly referred to as RESHAP (the “DDA”). Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the same meaning as set forth in the DDA. Pursuant to the DDA, the City is obligated to, inter alia, transfer the Phase _ Personal Property (defined below) to the Developer.

D. Transfer. In consideration of the portion of the Land Payment allocated to Phase and other provisions of this Bill of Sale, the City does hereby absolutely and unconditionally give, grant, bargain, sell, transfer, set over, assign, convey, release, confirm and deliver to the Developer the personal property listed in Exhibit 1 attached hereto (the “Phase Personal Property”). The Developer hereby accepts the Phase Personal Property pursuant to the terms of this Bill of Sale.

E. City’s Representation: As-Is Purchase; Waiver of Implied Warranties; Limitation of Liability.

1. The City hereby represents that the Phase Personal Property is free and clear of all encumbrances.

2. The Developer acknowledges that the Developer has had the opportunity to inspect the Phase Personal Property and, except as expressly set forth in Section 3.1, hereby agrees that the Developer is accepting the Phase Personal Property in their “As-Is” condition.

3. Except as expressly set forth in Section 3.1, the Developer agrees that no other representations or warranties (express or implied) are made by the City, and any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose are hereby disclaimed.

F. Attorneys’ Fees. In the event of the bringing of any action or suit by a party hereto against another party hereunder by reason of any breach of any of the covenants, conditions, agreements or provisions on the part of the other party arising out of this Bill of Sale, then in that event the prevailing party shall be entitled to have and recover of and from the other party all costs and expenses of the action or suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees.

G. Entire Agreement. All attachments are incorporated herein by this reference, are

M-2
676\05\3495333.7
7/3/2023
an integral part of this Bill of Sale, and will be read and interpreted together as a single document. This Bill of Sale (including all attachments thereto) and the applicable provisions of the DDA set forth the complete, exclusive and final statement of the agreement between the parties as to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous agreements, understandings, negotiations and discussions, whether oral or written, between the parties regarding such subject matter.

H. Counterparts. This Bill of Sale may be executed in one or more counterparts by actual or email signature. All counterparts so executed shall constitute one contract, binding on all parties, even though all parties are not signatory to the same counterpart.

I. Miscellaneous. This Bill of Sale shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the respective successors, assigns, personal representatives, heirs and legatees of the city and the Developer. If any party hereto brings any action or suit against the other party hereto by reason of any breach of any covenant, condition, agreement or provision on the part of the other party set forth in this Bill of Sale, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the other party all reasonable costs and expenses of the action or suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees, charges and costs, in addition to any other relief to which it may be entitled.

This Bill of Sale shall be governed by, interpreted under, and construed and enforceable in accordance with, the laws of the State of California.

[Signatures on next page]

676\05\3495333.7
7/3/2023
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed and delivered this Bill of Sale as of the day and year first above written.

CITY:

CITY OF ALAMEDA, a California charter city,
By:

Name:

Title:

DEVELOPER:
[________]

M-A-1
676\05\3495333.7
7/3/2023
EXHIBIT "1" TO BILL OF SALE

Phase Personal Property

N-1
676\05\3495333.7
7/3/2023

EXHIBIT N

CITY DISCLOSURE DOCUMENTS
Item# Area Document Title
1 CAA-7 Final Interim Technical Memorandum for Bioremediation Treatability Study at Petroleum Corrective Action Areas 4c and 7, Alameda Point, Alameda, California. May 8, 2017
2 CAA-7 Alameda Point, CAA-7 Overlay, Main Street Neighborhood.

October 2, 2016
3 CAA-7 Final Work Plan, Bioremediation Treatability Study at Petroleum Corrective Action Areas 4c and 7, Alameda Point, Alameda, California. July 2015
4 Phase I Transfer Area Site Management Plan, Phase I Transfer Portion of Alameda Point, Alameda, California. March 29, 2015
5 CAA-7 Case Summary Report. Website reference.
6 CAA-7 Petroleum Corrective Action Summary Report for CAA-7.

December 2014
7 CAA-7 IR Site 7 RACR by URS. April 2013
8 CAA-7 Investigation Report Petroleum Program Groundwater Monitoring, Alameda Point, Alameda, California. February 2013.
9 CAA-7 Finding of Suitability to Transfer for Former Naval Air Station Alameda, Alameda Point Alameda, California February 13, 2013
10 CAA-7 Corrective Action Area 7, Alameda Point, Alameda, California, Final Field Activity Summary Report, February 5, 2007
11 Marsh Crust City of Alameda Ordinance 2824
12 Marsh Crust Final RAP/ ROD for the Marsh Crust and Former Subtidal Area at Alameda Point, February 2001

O-1
676\05\3495333.7
7/3/2023
EXHIBIT O-1

NOTICE OF CITY RELEASE OF ENVIRONMENTAL CLAIMS

CITY OF ALAMEDA – OFFICIAL BUSINESS

DOCUMENT REQUIRED TO BE RECORDED

UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
37393 AND ENTITLED TO FREE

RECORDING UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 27383

RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND RETURN TO:

(Above for recorder’s use)
APNs:

MEMORANDUM OF RELEASE OF CLAIMS
(City)
This MEMORANDUM OF RELEASE OF CLAIMS (“ Memorandum”) dated as of ______________ ____, 20___ (the “Effective Date”), is made and entered into by the CITY OF ALAMEDA, a California charter city (the “ City”), and [________] (“Developer”), with respect to the real property more commonly known as ______________ of Alameda Point (the “Property”), as legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein.

WITNESSETH:

1. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the same meaning as set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein.

2. The City and Deve loper have entered into that certain Disposition and Development Agreement, dated _______________, as amended, regarding the Property (the “DDA”). As more particularly set forth in the DDA, the City on behalf of itself and anyone claiming by, through or under the City (including, without limitation, any successor owner of the NAS Alameda Property, whether acquired prior to or after the applicable Phase Closing Date), provided Developer, its partners and their respective partners, members, shareholders, man agers, directors, officers, employees, attorneys, agents, and successors and assigns (the " Developer Released Parties") a waiver of its rights to recover from , and fully and irrevocably released the Developer Released Parties from any and all Claims that t he City may have or hereafter acquire against any of the Developer Released Parties arising from or related to the Incidental Migration of Hazardous Materials that existed as of the applicable Phase Closing Date from the Property to any portion of the NAS Property acquired by the City, whether such Incidental Migration occurs prior to or after the applicable Phase Closing Date (the “Release of Claims”).

O-2
676\05\3495333.7
7/3/2023
The foregoing Release of Claims did not negate, limit, release, or discharge the Developer Released Parties in any way from, and shall not be deemed a waiver of any Claims by the City with respect to (i) any fraud or intentional concealment or willful misconduct committed by any of the Developer Released Parties, (ii) any premises liability or bodily injury claims accruing after the applicable Phase Closing Date to the extent such claims are not based on the acts of the City, its elected and appointed officials, board members, commissioners, officers, employees, attorneys, agents, volunteers and their successo rs and assigns, (iii) any violation of law by any of the Developer Released Parties after the applicable Phase Closing, (iv) any breach by Developer of any of Developer's representations, warranties or covenants expressly set forth in the DDA or any other agreement between the City and the Developer, (v) the release (including negligent exacerbation but excluding any Incidental Migration) of Hazardous Materials by the Developer Released Parties at, on, under or otherwise affecting any portion of the NAS Ala meda Property acquired by the City, which release first occurs after the applicable Phase Closing Date, or (vi) any claim that is actually accepted as an insured claim under any pollution legal liability policy maintained by Developer.

3. The sole purpose of this Memorandum is to provide notice of the Release of Claims contained in the DDA in and as a matter of the public record and, to the maximum extent permitted by law, notify and bind successor owners and lessees of any portion of the NAS Alameda Property acquired by the City to the Release of Claims contained in the DDA. To the extent that there is any inconsistency between this Memorandum and the DDA, the DDA shall control.

3. This Memorandum and the notice provided herby shall be binding upon, and shall inure to the benefit of, the City, Developer and each of their legal representatives, successors and assigns, including each future owner and/or lessee of any portion of the NAS Alameda Property acquired by the City.
[Signatures on next page]

676\05\3495333.7
7/3/2023
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Developer have executed this Memorandum as of the date indicated above.

CITY OF ALAMEDA,

By:

Type or Print Name
Title:
[________]

O-1-A-1
676\05\3495333.7
7/3/2023

EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY
(SEE ATTACHED)

[Note: Insert references to applicable Phase Transfer Property]

O-1-B-1
676\05\3495333.7
7/3/2023

EXHIBIT B

DEFINITIONS
Hazardous Materials: means any flammable explosives, radioactive materials, hazardous wastes, petroleum and petroleum products and additives thereof, toxic substance or related materials, including without limitation, any substances defined as or included within the definition of "hazardous substances," "hazardous wastes," "hazardous materials," or "toxic substances" under any applicable federal, state or local laws, ordinances or regulations.

Incidental Migration: means the non-negligent activation, migration, mobilization, movement, relocation, settlement, stirring, passive migration, passive movement, and/or other incidental transport of Hazardous Materials.

NAS Alameda Property: means the Naval Air Station Alameda and the Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, Alameda Annex and Facility , which encompasses the Naval facilities and grounds comprising the western end of the City of Alameda and consists of approximately 1,546 acres of real property, together with the buildings, improvements and related other tangible personal property located thereon and all rights, easements and appurtenances thereto, was decommissioned by the United States Department of the Navy (the "Navy") in 1993 and closed in 1997.

O-2-1
676\05\3495333.7
7/3/2023
EXHIBIT O-2

NOTICE OF DEVELOPER RELEASE OF ENVIRONMENTAL CLAIMS
CITY OF ALAMEDA – OFFICIAL BUSINESS

DOCUMENT REQUIRED TO BE RECORDED

UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
37393 AND ENTITLED TO FREE

RECORDING UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 27383

RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND RETURN TO:

(Above for recorder’s use)
APNs:

MEMORANDUM OF RELEASE OF CLAIMS
(Developer)
This MEMORANDUM OF RELEASE OF CLAIMS (“ Memorandum”) dated as of ______________ ____, 20___ (the “Effective Date”), is made and entered into by the CITY OF ALAMEDA, a California charter city (the “City”), and _____________________(“Developer”), with respect to the real property more commonly known as __________________ of Alameda Point (the “Property”), as legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein.

WITNESSETH:

1. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the same meaning as set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein.

2. The City and Developer have entered into that certain Disposition and Development Agreement, dated _______________, as amended, regarding the Property (the “DDA”). As more particularly set forth in the DDA, Developer on behalf of itself and anyone claiming by, through or under Developer (including, without limitation, any successor owner of the Property), provided the City, its elected and appointed officials, board members, commissioners, officers, employees, attorneys, agents, volunteers and their successors and assigns (the " City Released Parties ") a waiver of its rights to recover from and fully and irrevocably released the City Released Parties from any and all Claims that Developer may have or hereafter acquire against any of the City Released Parties arising from or related to:
(1) Claims Relate d to the Property : (A) the condition (including any construction defects, errors, omissions or other conditions, latent or otherwise), valuation, salability or utility of the Property, or its suitability for any purpose whatsoever; (B) any presence of Haz ardous Materials that were existing at, on, or under the Property as of the applicable Phase Closing Date;

O-2-2
676\05\3495333.7
7/3/2023
and (C) any information furnished by the City Released Parties related to the Property under or in connection with the DDA; and
(2) Claims for Incidental Migration: the Incidental Migration of Hazardous Materials that existed as of the applicable Phase Closing Date from any portion of the NAS Alameda Property acquired by the City to the Property, whether such Incidental Migration occurs prior to or after the applicable Phase Closing Date (the “Release of Claims”).

The foregoing Release of Claims did not negate, limit, release, or discharge the City Released Parties in any way from, and shall not be deemed a waiver of any Claims by Developer with respect to (i) any fraud or intentional concealment or willful misconduct committed by any of the City Released Parties, (ii) any premises liability or bodily injury claims accruing prior to the applicable Phase Closing Date to the extent such claims are not based on the acts of the Developer, its partners or any of their respective agents, employees, contractors, consultants, officers, directors, affiliates, members, shareholders, partners or other representatives, (iii) any violation of law by any of the City Released Parties prior to the applicable Phase Closing Date, (iv) any breach by the City of any of the City's representations, warranties or covenants expressly set forth in the DDA, (v) the release (including negligent exacerbation but excluding any Incidental Migration) of Hazardous Materials by anyone other than a Developer Party at, on, under or otherwise affecting the Property, or (vi) any claim that is actually accepted as an insured claim under any pollution legal liability policy maintained by the City.

3. The sole purpose of this Memorandum is to provide notice of the Release of Claims in the DDA in and as a matter of the public record and, to the maximum extent permitted by law, notify and bind successor owners and lessees of the Property, or any portion thereof, to the Release of Claims contained in the DDA. To the extent that there is any inconsistency between this Memorandum and the DDA, the DDA shall control.

3. This Memorandum and the notice provided herby shall be binding upon, and shall inure to the benefit of, the City, Developer and each of their legal representatives, successors and assigns, including each future owner and/or lessee of the Property or any portion thereof. [Signatures on next page]

676\05\3495333.7
7/3/2023
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Developer have executed this Memorandum as of the date indicated above.

CITY OF ALAMEDA,

By:

Type or Print Name
Title:

[________]

O-2-A-1
676\05\3495333.7
7/3/2023

EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY
(SEE ATTACHED)

[Note: Insert references to applicable Phase Transfer Property.]

O-2-B-1
676\05\3495333.7
7/3/2023

EXHIBIT B

P-1
676\05\3495333.7
7/3/2023

EXHIBIT P

LIST OF NAVY QUITCLAIMS DEEDS AND CRUPS
QUITCLAIM DEEDS:

1. Quitclaim Deed recorded 6/6/13 for Parcel ALA-37, ALA-38, ALA-55, ALA-57, ALA- 59 and ALA-61, Series No. 2013-199810.

2. Quitclaim Deed recorded 6/6/13 for Parcel ALA-60, Series No. 2013 199826.

CRUPS:

3. Covenant to Restrict Use of Property – Environmental Restriction (re Parcel ALA-37 (Partial), ALA-59, and ALA-60), Series No. 2013 199837.

Q-1
676\05\3495333.7
7/3/2023

EXHIBIT Q

RELEASE AND TERMINATION OF LEASE
676\05\2229203.5
6/30/2023
Exhibit Q
Recording Requested by
And When Recorded Return to:

City of Alameda
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
Attn: City Attorney
No Fee for Recording Pursuant to
Government Code Sections 6103 and 27383

TERMINATION AND

RELEASE OF LEASEHOLD INTEREST
This Termination and Release of Leasehold Interest ("Agreement") is entered into on _________, _____ by and among the City of Alameda, a municipal corporation ("City"), Alameda County, through its Department of Housing and Community Development, a political subdivision of the State of California ("HCD") and ________________________("Provider") [Insert name of appropriate collaborating partner].

RECITALS
a. The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, a joint powers authority ("ARRA"), the predecessor in interest to the City, HCD and Provider entered into that certain Legally Binding Agreement and Property Lease dated _____________ and recorded on _____ as Instrument No. ____ in the Official Records of Alameda County ("Property Lease"), whereby Provider leased from the City certain property more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein (the "Premises"). b. The Premises are located withi n the Naval Air Station Alameda and Fleet and Industrial Supply Center Alameda Annex and Facility ("NAS Alameda"), a former military base that was closed pursuant to the federal base closure law. c. The Property Lease was entered into by the Parties in accordance with the requirements of the Base Closure Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994 (the "Redevelopment Act") that requires that reasonable accommodations be made on closing military bases to meet the needs of the homeless. 676\05\2229203.5
6/30/2023
d. The Property Lease conveyed to the Provider a leasehold interest in the Premises with a term of _____ years and required that the Provider operate on the Premises _____ units of supportive affordable housing in accordance with the requirements of the Property Lease.
e. The City and HCD are also party to agreements similar to the Property Lease with _________ and _________ that require _________ and ______ to operate on the premises covered by those leases supportive affordable housing ("Collaborative Leases"). f. The City, Alameda Point Collaborative, Building Futures with Women and Children, Operation Dignity and MidPen Housing Corporation have entered into that certain Disposition and Development Agreement for Alameda Point – Rebuilding the Existing Supportive Housing dated _______ ("DDA") which provides for a development entity in which Provider or an affiliate of Provider is a general partner ("Provider Development Entity") to acquire from the City a portion of the Property described in the DDA for the development of _____ units of supportive affordable housing to be developed in accordance with the terms and provisions of the DDA.
g. The DDA implements the provisions of the Main Street Neighborhood Specific Plan adopted by the City Council of the City on March 21, 2017 ("Main Street Neighborhood Plan"). The Main Street Neighborhood Plan covers the Premises, the Property that is the subject of the DDA and property subject to the Collaborative Leases and contemplates the redevelopment of the Main Street area with a mixed use development including market rate housing and the consolidation of the existing 201 housing units currently located on the Premises and the Premises covered by the Collaborative Leases with a

7.93 acre campus that will consist of a minimum of 309 affordable housing units (inclusive of managers units) ("Replacement Housing") and up to 40,000 square feet of non-residential community-serving commercial and administrative spaces. h. In order to develop the Main Street area in accordance with the Main Street Neighborhood Plan, certain infrastructure improvements are required to be installed to serve the area. The City has entered into a disposition and development agreement with BC West Midway LLC, a market rate developer, that provides conveyance of property within the Main Street area to BC West Midway LLC in exchange for installing the infrastructure necessary to serve the area. A portion of the property to be conveyed to BC West Midway LLC includes the Premises. In order to
accomplish that conveyance
and accommodate the development of the infrastructure necessary to serve the Replacement Housing, the Provider is required to release its interest in the Premises. i. Provider has agreed to enter into this Agreement in consideration for the City's agreements pursuant to the DDA related to the conveyance of a portion of the Property 676\05\2229203.5
6/30/2023
identified in the DDA to the Provider Development Entity and to cause the development of the infrastructure necessary to serve the Replacement Housing.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals, which are incorporated herein by this reference, and the mutual benefits accruing to the parties hereto and other valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which consideration is hereby acknowledged, it is hereby declared, understood and agreed as follows:

Agreement

1. Termination of Property Lease and Release of Premises. The Property Lease is hereby terminated and Provider hereby releases all of its rights, title and interest in the Premises effective as of the date this Agreement is recorded in the Official Records of Alameda County ("Release Date").

2. Delivery of the Premises. Prior to the Release Date, the Provider shall be responsible for completing the following:
a. Provider shall have relocated any residents or occupants on the Premises in accordance with any federal, State or local laws that apply and in accordance with the DDA.
b. Provider shall have removed any encumbrances placed on the Premises by Provider or resulting from Provider's use and occupancy of the Premises, including any liens, deeds of trust, regulatory agreements, covenants, conditions or restrictions on the Premises that were placed on the Premises by the Provider prior to the Release Date. Provider shall work diligently with its lenders to remove the existing encumbrances to ensure that upon the Release Date the City has clear title to the Premises. Provider shall submit to First American Title Insurance Company ("Escrow Holder") fully executed and acknowledged releases for all encumbrances to be recorded by Escrow Holder on the Release Date.

3. Lease Termination. Provider's failure to comply with the provisions of Section 2 shall be considered an Event of Default under the Property Lease entitling the City to immediately terminate the Property Lease pursuant to Section 34(a)(ii) and regain possession of the Premises. Any such termination in accordance with this Section shall be effective immediately upon receipt by Provider of written notice from the City terminating the Property Lease and neither party shall be entitled to invoke the dispute resolutions provisions of the Property Lease.

In the event City terminates the Property Lease pursuant to this Section 3, Provider shall remain liable for the discharge of any liens on the Premises that encumber the City's fee interest in the Premises and the costs associated with the relocation of any occupants of the Premises.
676\05\2229203.5
6/30/2023

4. HCD Consent. HCD hereby consents to this Agreement and the termination of the Property Lease in accordance with this Agreement and upon the recordation of this Agreement HCD relinquishes any rights it may have to the Premises or pursuant to the Property Lease. HCD agrees to execute any documents necessary to provide clear title to the Premises.

5. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties hereto and supersedes all prior agreements, oral or written, with respect to the subject matter hereof. This Agreement shall not be construed as if it had been prepared by one of the parties, but rather as if both parties had prepared it.

6. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the legal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns of the parties.

7. California Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

8. Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed by the different parties hereto in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which together shall constitute one and the same agreement.

In WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have signed this Disposition and Development Agreement on the dates indicated below.

CITY OF ALAMEDA
By: ________________________________
Jennifer Ott
City Manager
Date: _______________________________
Attest:
________________________________
676\05\2229203.5
6/30/2023
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
____________________________________
Len Aslanian, Assistant City Attorney
Provider:

By:__________________
Its:__________________

ALAMEDA COUNTY HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, a political subdivision of the state By:___________________________
Michelle Starratt
Director
676\05\2229203.5
6/30/2023

EXHIBIT A TO TERMINATION AND RELEASE OF LEASEHOLD INTEREST Description of Premises
[To be attached.]

Alameda City CouncilJuly 18, 2023

Alameda City Council
July 18, 2023