pages: AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-10-01.pdf, 3
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2008-10-01 | 3 | 3-B. Report on Restoration Advisory Board Comment Letter on Installation Restoration Site 1. Ms. Potter summarized that at the ARRA meeting on September 10, the Board received several letters regarding Site 1. Staff was directed to work with the environmental consultant, Dr. Peter Russell, to prepare a response to RAB letters. The ARRA's position is that land fill should be dug up and hauled off, this position has been consistent during the public comment process, which is not concluded. A final draft Record of Decision (ROD) is due on Oct. 28th, which will give us further opportunity to provide comments on the final draft ROD. However, as all of this work has been going on, the results of the additional trenching did not reveal waste, so the sense is that there is no longer a landfill at Site 1. We would like to send a letter to the Navy requesting they do a little more work to determine whether a land fill is still present at Site 1. The Navy began remediation on groundwater contamination. Member Matarrese reminded staff that the original concern expressed was, not that there was a landfill, but that it was uncharacterized and unknown. He wants to make sure all contaminated materials are removed, and inert ones remain in place. Ms. Potter stated that we must go through the CERCLA process, and that the time-critical removal was for the material down to two feet. Member Matarrese asked how Site 1 could be closed if there is still objectionable material there. Ms. Potter responded by stating that the work effort and investigation as part of IR Site 32 work includes going further than two feet, and the moving of the materials allows the changing of the boundaries of the IR sites and what they are studying. Member Matarrese would like a risk assessment provided to the City with anticipated development in mind - to build a case for the ultimate price tag for the property, i.e., if the property goes to auction, the contamination status would affect the price. There were two speakers on this item. James Leach, RAB member for 9 years, is there voluntarily because they are experts and have done clean-up and provide oversight to a high degree. George Humphreys, Co-Chair of the RAB, commented on Dr. Russell's evaluation of the Site 1 issue. Member Matarrese motioned to accept the report with future reports to include a risk assessment of the significant issues being discussed from a technical standpoint. The motion was seconded my Member deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes - 5, Noes - 0, Abstentions - 0. Ms. Potter discussed two additional recommendations included in the staff report; first was the request for authorization to request that the Navy further explore issue of whether there is still a landfill, and second, that staff be given authorization to prepare and send a letter on the draft final ROD. Since there is no opportunity to provide back to ARRA before it's sent, Member Matarrese suggested it come back to the Board at a the second Council meeting in November (November 18). Member Matarrese motioned to approve the two additional recommendations, seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes - 5, Noes - 0, Abstentions - 0. 4. ORAL REPORTS 4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative. - Highlights of September 4 Alameda Point RAB Meeting. | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-10-01.pdf |