pages: AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-10-03.pdf, 3
This data as json
| body | date | page | text | path |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2007-10-03 | 3 | consultation to make sure that whatever the VA does, they cannot harm the endangered species. Ms. Potter clarified that the USF&W are not pursuing ownership of the property at this time and that if the Navy goes forward with the property transfer to the VA, the Navy will retain clean-up obligations for the property. Vice Chair Tam questioned what SunCal's follow-up with the VA has been to this point regarding the site, if their dialogue with the VA includes potential alternative sites. Ms Potter responded that SunCal has had one additional follow-up meeting with the VA and that SunCal is aware of their need ultimately, and that this issue is a key item on SunCal's Project Master Schedule. It is noted that Chair Johnson arrived at this point in the discussion (7:52 p.m.). Ms. Potter gave her update on SunCal, including that the first two community meetings have been scheduled, the first on 10/24 at Mastick Senior Center. The agenda for this meeting includes introduction of SunCal and their partners to the community, framing the project and their approach to the project, and site constraints. A second meeting is tentatively scheduled on 12/12 at the O'club to solicit feedback from community regarding the range of development scenarios, and their key focus to continue surveying property and preparing to do sampling - the technical work to support the land-planning effort. Member Matarrese asked if we're on track with zoning issues. Ms. Potter explained that she has prepared an off-agenda report discussing that the status of the public trust designation protects us more than locking in zoning, and recommends that staff not do anything ahead of the entitlement process. FM requested that this item be agendized. Chair Johnson asked if the mortgage crisis is a risk to SunCal. Ms. Potter said that SunCal has reassured they are not impacted by that crisis. Chair Johnson wants to be kept updated of SunCal's activities regarding the project. This report was for information only. No motion or action was required. 3-C. Approve and Submit Comment Letter on the Draft Record of Decision for Installation Restoration Site 1 (1943-1956 Disposal Area). Ms. Potter summarized a letter sent to the EPA requesting additional investigative work be done at IR Site 1. She explained that trenching activities are concluded at the site and key concerns identified: no intact drums were found, but the waste had low-level radioactivity. The cost of digging up and hauling off the landfill is very expensive so staff's recommendation is to take the Navy's approach outlined in their draft ROD to cap the landfill. Member Matarrese had deep concerns about the radioactive and hazardous waste and groundwater migration of the contaminants out of the landfill. Dr. Peter Russell addressed the concerns and explained that the landfill was closed and no waste put in for 50 years, with a good deal of monitoring and investigation, it appears not to be any migration of contents. Dr. Russell further explained that 11 trenches were dug and there were no drums or containers whatsoever, except for one broken which was consistent with the Navy's supposition that what drums were placed in there were crushed. It is unlikely that there are many, if any, drums. Another issue was the volume of waste - the Navy over-estimated by a factor of two or three, so accordingly, they inflated the cost by two or three. Their feasibility study did not consider radioactivity in landfill, and now that there is, we do not have an argument that the cost for the removal is at the Navy's estimate. | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-10-03.pdf |