CONTAINMENT ZONE POLICY, FOR COUNCIL ACTION
From: Planning Commission, January 30, 1996
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Introduction
At their January 10, 1996 meeting, the Planning Commission viewed a video entitled "On Berkeley Soil" regarding ground soil contamination in Berkeley. The film producer, L A Wood, offered recommendations to the Commission to be forwarded to the City Council concerning Containment Zone Policy. The Planning Commission endorsed the recommendations based on the statement which accompanied the presentation of the film (see attached).
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council:
Direct a letter of concern to the State Water Resources Board Hearings expressing the City's objections to the proposed lowering of groundwater standards and stating that the City of Berkeley will not adopt the State's proposed Containment Zone Policy, based on the 1/10/96 statement which accompanied the presentation of the film, "On Berkeley Soil"; and impose major restrictions on the use of Containment Zones in Berkeley in the event that the State of California adopts a Containment Zone Policy.
Background
At its January 10, 1996 meeting the Planning Commission took the following action:
(M/S/C) that the Council direct a letter of concern to the State Water Board Hearings expressing the City's objections to the proposed lowering of groundwater standards and stating that the City will not adopt the State's proposed Containment Zone Policy, based on the 1/10/96 statement which accompanied the presentation of the film, "On Berkeley Soil"; and impose major restrictions on the use of Containment Zones in Berkeley in the event that the State of California adopts a Containment Zone Policy (Nicoloff/Spangler).
Ayes: Fred, Horowitz, Nicoloff, Peterson, Spangler. Opposed: None. Abstain: None. Absent: Anderson, Deringer, Resner, Wengraf.
Containment Zone Policies (CR#96-008)
March 12. 1996 Council Minutes Page 8
Recommendation: That Council direct the City Manager to
1) Send a letter to the State Water Board expressing the City's concerns, including: maintain quality of groundwater resources; local control over all containment zone technical reviews, designations, mitigation and management, local interpretation of basic protections to assure human health, environmental quality and local economics; protect neighboring jurisdictions with higher standards water quality standards from impacts by the designation of a containment zone; and protect quality of groundwater and soils in the public right of way.
2) Send letters to the City of Emeryville and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has allocated a "brownfields redevelopment" grant to the City of Emeryville, to study the city-wide application of a containment zone policy. Express the City's concerns including that the City of Emeryville prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and insure that there is not a greater degradation of the Bay and Berkeley's quality of groundwater because of Emeryville's actions.
3) Review the Containment Zone policy and the appropriate City response to it when the policy is enacted by the State Water Board. Expense: None
a. Communications
1. L A Wood, 1328 Bancroft Way
b. City Manager Report
c. Draft letter from Mayor Dean
d. Communications
1. Clifford Fred
2. L A Wood and Carolyn Erbele
Action: Moved, seconded, carried (Woodworth/Olds) to accept the proposed draft letter with revisions suggested by L A Wood, and continue to March 19, 1996 to give staff an opportunity to incorporate additional comments. Directed staff to provide information on State Water Board's timeline for public comments and actions and to send to the Board a copy of L A Wood's video ("On Berkeley Soil") tape. (Absent - Armstrong)
To: Mr. Walter Pettit Executive Director State Water Resources Control Board
From City of Berkeley March 5, 1996
The purpose of this letter is to provide the City of Berkeley's views on the draft amendment to the State Water Resources Control Board Resolution 92-49 on water quality. As you may know, Berkeley is a progressive City committed to environmental protection. The City has been proactive on issues such as restricting the use of ozone-depleting compounds, waste minimization, and limiting the use of radioactive materials. Berkeley citizens believe that natural resources should be safeguarded for future generations.
The proposed modifications of resolution 92-49 appear to significantly relax cleanup standards. The City recognizes that there are economic reasons for the proposed policy and if adopted the policy may support the brownfields' redevelopment concept. However, the City is concerned that the draft policy could adversely impact the quality of ground water resources.
The City of Berkeley believes that additional safeguards and procedures must be included in the amendments to the policy. These include:
• Local control over all technical requirements and reviews for designation of containment zones. In this way, the City can address local environmental and other problems in a manner more consistent with safeguarding natural resources.
• A better evaluation of environmental requirements and economic impacts resulting from the implementation of the containment zone policy. The State's resolution should include an active site discovery program, adequate site investigation, and identification of preferential pathways of migration.
|
Further, it should be noted that the containment zone resolution incorporates vague language and that its broad scope may result in very different interpretations. There is a major concern that interpretations could permit high levels of contamination to be left in place and result in the suspension of remediation efforts. It should also be noted that post closure management of containment zones needs more specification.
The containment zone policy may shift the financial burden of cleanups from responsible parties to adjacent sites or the public right-of-way. Most importantly, the Berkeley community insists on greater access to decisions related to the designation of containment zones. At the very least, public hearings must be conducted by the City in addition to State or Regional Boards for high and low risk sites.
Weldon Rucker Acting City Manager
cc: Mayor and City Council Sherry Kelly, City Clerk Ann-Marie Hogan, Auditor Steve Beicher, Acting Assistant City Manager Gil Kelley, Director of Planning and Development
Letter to John Flores, City Manager
City of Emeryville, dated March 5, 1996
Dear Mr. Flores:
The City of Berkeley staff is in the process of reviewing your grant proposal, the "Risk Management Model for Accelerating Brownfields Redevelopment for the City of Emeryvile'. The "risk management' model proposed in your application involves the implementation of a city-wide containment zone.
As a neighbor and stakeholder, the City of Berkeley has expressed concerns regarding your initiative in a letter directed to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the State Water Resources Control Board. The City is particularly concerned about potential economic and environmental impact of the proposed containment zone policy. While recognizing that an expedited cleanup process is important to both our communities, the broad scope and apparent lack of controls in the proposed policy has generated questions about actual and potential future uses of both Cities' natural resources. These concerns are as follows:
• There are inadequate mechanisms for public involvement for designation or management of containment zones as well as assigning future liabilities.
• Vague language and broad scope of the containment zone policy may generate different interpretations.
• The City requests that the policy include an active site discovery program, adequate site investigation, and identification of preferential pathways of migration.
• A better evaluation of environmental requirements and economic impacts resulting from the implementation of the containment zone policy. The State's resolution should include an active site discovery program, adequate site investigation, and identification of preferential pathways of migration.
|
Further, it should be noted that the containment zone resolution incorporates vague language and that its broad scope may result in very different interpretations. There is a major concern that interpretations could permit high levels of contamination to be left in place and result in the suspension of remediation efforts. It should also be noted that post closure management of containment zones needs more specification.
The containment zone policy may shift the financial burden of cleanups from responsible parties to adjacent sites or the public right-of-way. Most importantly, the Berkeley community insists on greater access to decisions related to the designation of containment zones. At the very least, public hearings must be conducted by the City in addition to State or Regional Boards for high and low risk sites.
Sincerely,
Weldon Rucker Acting City Manager
City of Berkeley
Clifford Fred, Planning Commissioner, Berkeley, California
March 5, 1996
RE: AGENDA ITEM C(a)2 - CONTAINMENT ZONES:
Please note that staff failed to include the January 10, 1996 Planning Commission recommendation to you on CONTAINMENT ZONES in your packet. I have attached these recommendations to this memo.
The Planning Commission recommendations are totally opposed to the staff report. The Planning Commission opposes the use of containment zones, both in Berkeley and throughout the state, and is asking the City Council to communicate that opposition to the State Water Resources Control Board.
City staff is IN FAVOR OF containment zones, even in Berkeley, and wants the opportunity to be containment zone managers. I am troubled that the staff report trivializes the environmental hazard of contaminated ground water. And, I am concerned that staff would rather please certain un-named property owners who do not want to go to the expense of properly cleaning up their contaminated property, than be concerned about the long-term environmental health and safety of the greater community.
Although our Commission took no formal vote on the staff recommendation at our February 28, 1996 meeting, our clear intent was to stand by our January 10 vote opposing containment zones. And, we were clearly opposed to the staff recommendations. Commissioners noted that staff support for "local control" is deceptive. "Local control" means that Berkeley would be powerless to do anything if Emeryville officials made their entire city one massive toxic containment zone.
Page 2 of the staff report notes that the state's "draft resolution will be undergoing review for several additional months." Thus, if the City Council is not prepared to endorse the Planning Commission's recommendation to oppose Containment Zones and to communicate this opposition to the State Water Resources Control Board and the city of Emeryville, it would be better to take NO action tonight than to adopt the staff recommendations supporting containment zones.
