pages: AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-11-01.pdf, 3
This data as json
| body | date | page | text | path |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2006-11-01 | 3 | an agreement (not even actually shoveling dirt or tearing down buildings, etc.) David Brandt responded that the soonest would be two years. Member Gilmore commented that this increases the timeframe "window" and recommended that when staff returns in January with the study session of the leases, it might be worthwhile to take a look at not just the 3rd and 4th phases, but the 1st and 2nd phases, too. Ms. Little clarified that we will be presenting an entire overview of all the leasing and it can be compared against the PDC. No action was taken on this item - it was an update and for informational purposes only. 3-B. Alameda Point Environmental Remediation Update: Western Shoreline - IR Sites 1,2, and 32, Soil at IR Site 25 (Coast Guard North Housing), and Compliance with Marsh Crust Ordinance Debbie Potter gave an update on the clean-up status of these specific IR sites, as requested at the October 4 ARRA meeting. Peter Russell, environmental consultant from Russell Resources, was available to answer questions from the Board as a follow-up to the staff report provided. Member Matarrese's main concern was the Navy's option to install an engineered cap rather than a soil cover over landfill waste. Member Matarrese, along with the rest of the Board members, discussed at length their preferred alternative: having the Navy scoop out the landfill sites and haul it away. Debbie Potter discussed the process by which Peter Russell reviews all documents the Navy promulgates regarding all IR sites. She explained that we comment during the public comment period, but we do it at a staff level. She agrees with Member Gilmore about the policy-level decision that we want clean-up to a level that supports the community reuse plan and the PDC, and that the Navy has committed to clean-up to the reuses that are identified in the PDC. Ms Potter further explained, and reiterated by Peter Russell, that the ARRA-preferred option to scoop and haul the landfill is not economically feasible - and an engineered cap is potentially equally effective. She said that the City advocated the engineered cap since the beginning when we secured the pilot grant from EPA. Ms. Potter stated that the engineered cap is financially viable and is scientifically the best solution, a decision staff concluded in consultation with environmental experts. Member Matarrese commented that he had issues with the feasibility, that it didn't sound so daunting at the RAB meetings and that the scoop and haul option is actually feasible. Peter Russell responded that from a technical standpoint, the scoop and haul option would cost more. Debbie Potter sought direction from the ARRA as to a response for the public comment period due to the Navy by Nov. 10th | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-11-01.pdf |