Wednesday, May 15th: public comment meeting on Alameda Point

Guest Post by Susan Galleymore

The Navy has another Public Comment meeting coming up…in the library again. This time Derek Robinson, the Navy’s BRAC (Base Realignment And Closure) Environmental Coordinator, will be there (to keep things in line??). Please, please alert your friends and neighbors and let’s get folks out again . . . and more of ‘em if we can.

Here is some info – date, etc – and docs:

Wednesday, May 15th, Navy Public Comment meeting. 6:30 pm, Oak Street Library. Hear the Navy’s Proposed Plan for Operable Unit 2B – the Superfund area east of Seaplane Lagoon that the City proposes for it new “city core” at Alameda Point. Read the Navy’s Proposed Plan for OU 2B. Too technical? Come to the meeting and ask questions about it.

More info to understand OU 2B

• Map of underground/groundwater plume
  
• Summary table of contaminants
• Description of OU 2B; contributed by Dale Smith, RAB Community Co-chair
• What’s the RAB?

Remember, this is the area the city “fathers…and mothers” plan for AP’s “city core”…and, to that end, they’re paid a consulting company $250,000 for a plan. Meantime, the Navy is still busy with clean up – it is among the filthiest areas on the base – and they expect to have their Feasibility Study ready around about November. We discussed this at length at last night’s Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) meeting, and even Derek agreed the city may have waited before making this payday.

Then again, it says a lot that the city’s Economic Development Department is “in charge” of AP…rather than the best outcome for current and future residents, a sustainable city, or wildlife . . .

~~~~~~~~~~~from: http://alamedapointinfo.com/current

There are two ways to provide comments during this 30-day period: (1) offer oral or written comments during the public meeting and/or (2) provide written comments by mail, e-mail, or fax.

PUBLIC MEETING – May 15, 2013
Alameda Free Library
1550 Oak Street
Alameda
6:30 pm to 8:00 pm

SEND WRITTEN COMMENTS TO:
Derek Robinson
BRAC (Base Realignment And Closure) Environmental Coordinator
Department of Navy
BRAC Program Management Office West
1455 Frazee Road, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92108-4310
derek.j.robinson2@navy.mil

The Hospital.

Elliott Gorelick’s post today warrants republishing (see below here).  And PLEASE SHARE this post with others; it could protect one’s quality of life. It could safe a life.

The hospital itself told me they nearly killed me in the Emergency Department (ED) a couple of years ago, they don’t know why I didn’t die. This, during a minor (read: easy straight forward diagnosis and treatment) medical emergency (that was extremely painful, i.e., required emergency attention). Not only did I nearly die whilst in the Alameda Hospital ED, I was about 200% worse once home . . . 

The Navy’s preferred Alternative BA-1 plan for The Point . . .

. . . isn’t a solution at all. Read on:

Residents and RAB Respond to the Navy’s Proposed Change of Plan

Guest post by Susan Galleymore

More than two dozen residents attended the Navy’s public comment meeting held in the City of Alameda’s main library  on April 9th. The presentation addressed the Navy’s reversal of an earlier decision to remove contamination from the “Burn Area” of the former waste dump on the north western tip of Alameda Point.  Their new plan, Alternative BA-1, leaves contaminants in place topped with a soil cover and installs a Waste Isolation Bulkhead (“WIB”) to reduce the flow of contaminants into the bay.  (Read the Navy’s “Proposed Plan for Modified Remedy at IR Site 1 Burn Area.”)

Residents’ comments indicate uniform disapproval of the change:  

The Navy is bamboozling San Francisco

On Treasure Island, significant radioactive contamination has been found where it should not have been, or rather, where the Navy claims there is none.  The Navy, it is now being proven, willfully disregards its own history and only “looks” for the contaminants it want to look for, ignoring the rest . . . and then lying about how independent legitimate testing–that shows significantly different results than the Navy is disclosing—does not mean anyone should look closer, do more tests, consider additional contaminants. Yeah right.

The Bay Citizen investigated this and reported on it yesterday in a story titled:

Nuclear byproduct levels on Treasure Island higher than Navy disclosed

Alameda: consider ourselves warned.

The Navy is bamboozling us

See a local news report on last night’s meeting trying to win support a plan that doesn’t remediate the soil and places the ongoing burden of protecting environmental and public health on the City of Alameda. City Manager Russo is apparently all for this. (!) Story is here.

Got radium-226, uranium-238, VOCs, SVOCs, PAHs, Pesticides, Metals, and Dioxins/Furans?

We sure do.  At The Point. Moreover the Navy has a nifty (not) plan to save themselves millions in soil remediation which will place an ongoing/forever and multi-million dollar burden on our fair city to protect our environmental and public health. How do you spell #FAIL?

Guest post by Francis McIlveen

“The Navy’s proposed (solutions to provide) steel bulkheads would have to be inspected every year for corrosion, and then tested every 5 years ($25K each test), and then cost another $50K every 10 years to replace the sacrificial zinc or aluminum anodes .  (see FFS, the section on the details of the WIB, and the estimated future maintenacnce requirements/costs). in the splash zone (where waves splash the steel) the steel is expected to wear away at the rate of 7 to 8 millimeters per year. (also in the FFS).

So, that means . . .

Wall Street Comes to Alameda!

Friends;

Now here’s a story that should be brought to the attention of our county supes… This is stunning; in a county as poor and needy …and a public servant is pulling down a huge amount of money, not as bad as Bell, but bad enough. Check the link below, if you can’t see it go to sfgate or read today’s Chron. Alameda’s county’s administrator, Susan Muranishi pulls down $423,664 a year, $24,000 in equity pay to assure she makes at least 10% more than anyone else in the county. and about $54,000 a year for having stayed with the county for more than 30 years, and a yearly performance bonus of $24,000 It gets better…. an additional $9,000 a year for serving on an ad hoc committee of the Board that oversees the sale of excess land. But wait! she also gets an $8,292 yearly car allowance, and finally she also has separate exec. private pension for which the county chips in $ 46,500 a year.!!!

And here’s an interesting fact; I recognized her picture in the sfgate (it wasn’t in the Matier & Ross article) as a person who enjoys our Mariner Square Hot tub with non other than Keith Carson who represents Berkeley on the county Board. And the article says he voted for her deal not realizing how the numbers were ballooning up over the years” (!!)

GIVE ME A BREAK……

Anyway I think we should blast this off to all we know requesting letters to be sent to our county supes urging them to restructure her compensation. Then we should look for candidates to replace those who voted for this crime.

- Gretchen (the watch- dog, not the lap dog)

http://blog.sfgate.com/matierandross/2013/03/25/alameda-county-administrator-tops-in-pay/

Be advised:

LAST WEEK our city argued in court last week the our public safety services (police and fire) did not have a duty to rescue Mr. Raymond Zack (who did not know how to swim) when he was despondent and standing in 4 to 5 feet of extremely calm water at Crown Beach while his elderly mother stood on the shore begging for action.

TODAY the judge ruled for immunity of firefighters over duty. And the judge finds further that: ”under the circumstances presented there was no moral blame attendant to the conduct of responding officers and firefighters.”

I have been told that this ruling impacts all cities in the state of California, not just the City of Alameda.

I’m wondering why our fire and police are some of the highest paid in the SF Bay Area . . .    I’ve argued for years that because the fire procedures and protocols are so exceedingly substandard for the industry of firefighting (and I’ve shown this), that the fire staff cannot be held to any performance standards. Hell, our city has worked multiple times, year after year, to cover up fire failures . . .

City of Alameda: Villainous

Our city took a position in court yesterday that our public safety services did not have a duty to rescue Raymond Zack.  Our elected officials and city manager should be ashamed of themselves.

See the story on last night’s ABC news here; excellent reporting by Alan Wang.

Mr. Wang, however, was provided false information. He reported that our fire department did not have funding for water rescue training. To do that, Mr. Wang had to have believed what he was told, which means that disinformation had to have come from a source he believed to be credible. So who gave him the disinformation? Was it our city? Our fire department? The firefighter’s union, IAFF Local 689?

The City of Alameda funded water rescue training and re-certifications to be completed in 2009 (source document is here).

The City of Alameda budgeted for the AFD to perform 8 to 10 water rescues per year for 2009 -2012 (source document is here).

Every resident and visitor to the City of Alameda has a right to expect to be rescued by our public safety services.

Given the information in the source documents noted above: Without a doubt (it is incontrovertible that) we all—

Mr. Zack, his family, and all residents and visitors to the City of Alameda—

had a right to expect Mr. Zack to be rescued by our public safety services.

Our city is arguing that they had no duty to perform. How perverse. It is unconscionable that our city should argue this. And it is villainous . . .

Are you applying for the vacant seat on the Alameda Heathcare District Board? If so, your app is due on January 3rd.

The information about the Alameda Healthcare District Board vacancy is here.

Also, AHD Board Member Gorelick’s first post of 2013 is here.  His post contains 3 points. I’ve taken the liberty of republishing his third point:

3.  The application process for the Board seat vacated by Stewart Chen is ongoing.  Thursday, January 3 is the last day to apply so, if you were considering it, you may have to scramble.  Unfortunately, there is little chance that the Board majority would allow someone with the idea of closing the Hospital on, but perhaps you enjoy quixotic efforts.   Several times I have referred to the previous application process where the odious Williams was chosen where it was ridiculously obvious that she was the designated choice.   Unless you have been solicited to apply by one of the Board majority, don’t count on having a chance of actually serving.  - Elliott Gorelick, January 1, 2013