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.

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 . . .

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 . . .

City killing our urban forest, one tree at a time

Below are my recent emails to the city about the very real long-term damage to the street-trees in my neighborhood from not just careless but completely inimical tree pruning done by the contracted workforce hired by the city.  I cannot republish the city’s email responses because their emails contain the following:

“CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This transmittal is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this transmittal is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the transmittal to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.”

WHICH IS SO WRONG.  And for the record?  I have not heard back from anyone on city council or the city manager.  Pretty significant issue that one would think the Mayor, Vice Mayor, and other city council members would care about. Guess not.  (!)

Here are my emails to the city:

Date: November 7, 2012 7:57:36 AM PST

Subject: Re: flowering pears being destroyed by contracted tree trimmers/1000 block of Pacific 

From: Denise Lai

To: Matthew Naclerio <MNACLERI@ci.alameda.ca.us>

Cc: Todd Williams <TWilliams@ci.alameda.ca.us>, Alex Nguyen <ANguyen@ci.alameda.ca.us>, Gail Carlson <GCARLSON@ci.alameda.ca.us>, Jesse Barajas <JBarajas@ci.alameda.ca.us>, John Russo <JRusso@ci.alameda.ca.us>, Lisa Goldman <LGoldman@ci.alameda.ca.us>

Matthew,

First, I should not have to be “vigilant”.  Public Works should be allocating money to afford proper tree care—not something akin to hiring day laborers which is what this contractor provides!—and should be providing the human resources to oversee the work done.  Damage to our urban forest like this is long term, and cannot be fixed quickly. Public Works maintenance of our urban forest should not be causing the decline of the urban forest!

Second, this contractor is so cheap and unskilled that they cannot do a proper job unless 100% supervised, and probably not even then!  Firing them for breach of contract is the most effective thing to do here.  Surely the city can find enough money to pay for arborists that actually care about the trees they are pruning and the neighborhoods the trees embellish.  These guys yesterday were hack artists who couldn’t give a rat’s ass whether the fire blight was removed, spread, or the tree put at total risk from a second 30%+ removal of healthy branches within 4 months time.

Please, come by this morning and have a look at what was done.  I am working from home today and am happy to personally show you.

Nothing short of stopping this travesty dead in it’s tracks by rethinking the city’s tree care needs and altering course accordingly will be effective. If you continue to let these hack artists keep this contract, we are in for a steep increase in the rate of decline of our urban forest.

Why is the city not prioritizing this incredible and valuable resource our city owns that provides amazing value for all businesses and home values because it provides attraction and better quality of life?

Denise Lai

========================================

From: Denise Lai

To: Todd Williams <TWilliams@ci.alameda.ca.us>

CC: Matthew Naclerio <MNACLERI@ci.alameda.ca.us>

John Russo <JRusso@ci.alameda.ca.us>

Creation Date: 11/6 9:36 pm

Subject: flowering pears being destroyed by contracted tree trimmers/1000 block of Pacific

Hi Todd,

Thank you for being so responsive today, and for being so responsible. I appreciate your work and your efforts to do the best job here.

When I arrived home today around 2:30p, the tree trimmers were clear cutting the larger and lower branches of a flowering pear. They were using a chain saw to take off ALL the lower limbs, reducing a tree that has been deliberately over-pruned just a few months ago by the prior tree-trimmers to about 1/2 it’s original size earlier this year; the only part of the tree left is the top of the canopy!  For this same tree, they removed fire blight branches with their hands, simply ripping them off the tree, and left one batch of fire blight in the top of the tree, i.e., they were not being thorough, not removing the fire blight completely.  And they were not removing the fire blight safely without spreading it to healthy branches: they were using the chainsaw to cut clearly infected areas then to cut healthy branches off without cleaning the chainsaw between cuts.

The neighbor across the street said they spent a lot of time on a tree that he pointed to next to his house, that has also just been over-pruned a few months ago, and that tree is not a flowering pear!

The flowering pear across the street was pruned just before I arrived home, all the bright green healthy branches were on the street and being put into the chipper.  I’ve taken photos of that tree for you: the entire top of the tree is still full of fire blight!

This contractor needs to be fired for breach of contract, damage to our urban forest, and clear incompetence or choosing to fail to perform deliberately (whichever!).  The city NEEDS to allocate more money to tree trimming: the harm being done to our quality of life, our air quality, and our wild life habitat is unnecessary and unacceptable.

See photos below my signature here.  And please keep me informed about what can and will be done to ensure the fireblight is properly removed, treated, and healthy branches are retained.

Kindest regards,

Denise Lai

=====================================

From: Denise Lai

Subject: Re: Flower Pear Trees

Date: October 2, 2012 11:28:10 AM PDT

To: Matthew Naclerio <mnacleri@ci.alameda.ca.us>

Cc: “Bonta, Robert” <robbonta@comcast.net>, “DeHaan, Doug” <DDeHaan@ci.alameda.ca.us>, “Gilmore, Marie” <MGilmore@ci.alameda.ca.us>, “Johnson, Beverly” <BJOHNSON@ci.alameda.ca.us>, “Tam, Lena” <LTam@ci.alameda.ca.us>, “Barajas, Jesse” <JBarajas@ci.alameda.ca.us>, “Carlson, Gail” <GCARLSON@ci.alameda.ca.us>, “Goldman, Lisa” <LGoldman@ci.alameda.ca.us>, “Nguyen, Alex” <ANguyen@ci.alameda.ca.us>, “Russo, John” <JRusso@ci.alameda.ca.us>, “Williams, Todd” <TWilliams@ci.alameda.ca.us>

Hello Matthew,

Thank you for your email.  I did not know we had a certified arborist on staff. Perhaps something can be done to save these trees.  Although, at this point, some of them are beyond saving I think—they will be so deformed from pruning diseased branches off.

I have a question: there have been a number of times within the last 2 months, whole days in one case in which electric lines were involved, when Public Works, contracted tree trimmers, and AMP have been on Chapin Street and on Pacific Avenue dealing with Liquidambar branches that dropped shortly after the extreme pruning.  When out in the field, shouldn’t city employees be observing and reporting significant problems? How has this obvious (even to the untrained eye) and rapidly growing disease gone unnoticed or reported by staff?

Kindest regards,

Denise Lai

=====================================

>>> Denise Lai , 9/30/2012 4:23 PM >>>

Hello Mayor, Vice Mayor, City Council Members, City Manager, and Public Works Director,

Please be advised that the following is taking place on your watch:

1) harm to trees from over-pruning (suboptimal) of trees because your budget only allows for pruning every 5 years

2) every flower pear on 900 – 1100 blocks of Pacific Avenue (and beyond?) suddenly came down with fire blight within a month of the recent pruning that took place this summer.  The fire blight began with a single branch on each tree and has nearly taken over some trees in under 2 months.

3) Public Works is unable to be responsive in a timely manner that would remediate the disease and save these trees

Why? Because you have allowed our city contract with an arborist to lapse

Todd told me that the soonest an arborist could get out and treat these trees would be in mid-winter, after the leaves are dropped—which mean the soonest an arborist can actually treat these trees is springtime when they have leafed out again if any are still alive.  Todd, to his credit, said he’d try to schedule these trees first thing once the new contract with an arborist is approved, but that could be late October; he was skeptical that it would be in time, i.e., before the leaves fall or the disease progresses too far.

Please see the attached photograph of the tree—90% of the tree is diseased. This tree is not turning from the fall! Those are all diseased branches! Please note: these trees have been completely HEALTHY and without any disease whatsoever until the pruning took place this summer! Every flowering pear in my neighborhood, every single one of them, started getting this disease at the same time, immediately after the recent pruning. Clearly the contracted arborist did not clean their tools between trees!

WHAT is our neighborhood going to look like when these trees treated and pruned, or lost?!

This is completely unacceptable. The City is overspending on numerous projects whilst our urban forest declines right before our very eyes from substandard, deleterious (clearly the arborist this summer did NOT clean their tools between trees!), or absent tree care.

Our urban forest is valuable and irreplaceable!  WHY isn’t our city prioritizing it?!

WHAT CAN BE DONE TO SAVE THESE FLOWERING PEARS?  If we wait, we will lose them or if saved, they will be deformed from the extensive pruning.  These trees need to be treated (antibiotics) and pruned IMMEDIATELY.

I look forward to hearing from you as to whether you will be moved to protect this corner or our urban forest and hire someone immediately to take care of these trees. Or will be we force to watch them all die from mismanagement?

Kindest regards,

Denise Lai

Redundant and unnecessary

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2012 • The Alameda Sun

Redundant and unnecessary

Editor,

Charles Fasso’s op-ed (“Closing Fire Station No. 3,” Sept. 13) can only be politically motivated as it could not be further from the truth! There are no reports that contradict the 2009 ICMA report.

Moreover, the ICMA report based its findings on national fire industry standards: each fire station needs to provide a 1.5-mile radius of coverage.

What the heck does that mean for us exactly? It means that out of all of the fire stations we have in Alameda, Fire Station No. 3 is the only fire station that we do not need.

Why? Because every other fire station perfectly and slightly overlaps to provide service for the entire city. That’s right: the coverage provided by Fire Station No. 3 is redundant and unnecessary.

So why is our city leadership and management hell bent on spending millions on the redesign and expansion of the Fire Station No. 3 facility and staff and exacerbating the annual multi-million dollar overspend on overstaffing of fire services? One needs only look at the political donations made by the firefighters’ union, IAFF Local 689, to figure this one out: the local fire union has been averaging $50,000 in donations per election to local candidates and measures.

Our city’s citizen legislature is anything but.

— Denise Lai