Letters regarding the proposed
Berkeley Containment Zone Policy

 
back to UST

HAMILTON • COHN • THATCHER & ASSOCIATES,OAKLAND, CA
RE: Containment Zone, March 11, 1996

Dear Mayor Dean & City Council Members: -Unfortunately I have a prior commitment on Tuesday night and cannot attend the meeting.

I have been an active Industrial/Commercial Realtor in the East Bay for over 35 years; specializing in West Berkeley. I have represented most of the firms and owners in the area and have located a large percentage of the firms in West Berkeley. At the present time I am representing many owners for the sale or leasing of their properties, as well as representing several firms that want to locate in West Berkeley. Environmental issues have become a major part of my business; I have to deal with every city in. the East Bay. Most cities have larger staffs and are more progressive in dealing with environmental issues than Berkeley. The combination of a small staff and, in many cases, excessive regulation has placed Berkeley in a less than competitive position with cities like Emeryville, Richmond, and Oakland.

Needless to say, I am in favor of a "Containment Zone" in West Berkeley. I have had three (3) transactions in Berkeley that have taken from two (2) to over four (4) years to get the necessary clearances from the city's environmental department to proceed with the closing of sales. The expense to the sellers has been so great that in two (2) cases the sellers have actually lost money on their sales. Not only has there been excessive costs related to sales, but we have lost new businesses that wanted to come to Berkeley, but could not wait the needed time for "closure". This has also lead to a decline in values which translates into a decline in tax revenues in West Berkeley. A "Containment Zone" would lead to faster transactions, which would enable firms to come to Berkeley in. a timely manner and not look to the surrounding cities. Also, values would stabilize and tax revenues would. increase.

I feel that before any action is taken by the Council the issue needs to be studied more. A study would provide additional information needed to pass "Containment Zone" legislation. There are many cities in. California and nationally that have adopted containment zones and have had very successful results. I would be most happy to supply any information I have on the problems in West Bertley, and share my experience and knowledge with you.

Thank you, very much, for your consideration of this matter. I highly recommend the passage of "Containment Zone" legislation. If you feel you cannot recommend such legislation at this hearing, please, do not vote against it - recommend further study. The benefits to the city are enormous and a quick negative action would only hurt West Berkeley's economy.

Arnold W. Cohn
INDUSTRIAL & COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE & INVESTMENTS

Berkeley Chamber Of Commerce "OPPOSITE THE GOLDEN GATE"
RE: Proposed Containment Zone Policy, March 12, 1996

Dear Mayor Dean and Members of the Council:

It is of great concern to the Berkeley Chamber of Commerce that you are considering major changes in the way you respond to State and local environmental issues without involving those most impacted. The fact that policies are being contemplated without setting up a task force comprised of representatives of business, as well as environmental and planning staff and Council policy makers, means decisions will be made without careful input in an emotionally charged atmosphere that has excluded us. It is this type of action that reinforces our image as a city that does not care about its business community.

The Berkeley Chamber of Commerce does not believe this is the intent of the City Council. Neither do we believe you want our neighboring communities to grow economically at Berkeley's expense. And yet, we have only recently learned that the Planning Commission and the Council have been working on this review of new environmental policies for several months. Do you believe any other city in this State would conduct such a review without having extensive, detailed analyses by affected businesses?

We respectfully request that you defer your decisions about containment zones until we all have all the facts. We ask the City Council to form a task force which will include representatives of those businesses most impacted by both existing and the proposed new policies from the State. We believe that careful work with all sides represented will give this community the best opportunity for both environmental and economic well-being.

Very truly yours,
Miriam Ng, President


LLNL Report: Bad science?
L A Wood, City of Berkeley

Last fall, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) presented a report on the LUST program. With the aid of an EPA grant and subsequent contributions from the petroleum industry, Dr. David W. Rice, Jr., an environmental scientist at the lab, conducted a year long study. It rationalizes that fuel hydrocarbons have limited impacts on human health, the environment, or California's groundwater resources when contaminants are just left in place to naturally degrade over time.

A cloud of suspicion surrounds the LLNL study. It appears to have been written to justify a pre-established conclusion. This study has no business being used as a policy making tool as long as it remains in its present draft form, unreviewed by the independent scientific community. Instead, it is being touted as the scientific basis for sounding the retreat from the cleanup of contaminated sites. This is not good science or policy making.

While not doubting the health risks from contaminants like benzene, the LLNL report suggests these carcinogens will naturally degrade long before they reach any water supply. This is a very simplistic view of bio-remediation which has little application outside the laboratory.

No less controversial an issue is the state's reliance on hydrologic containment. Hydrologic containment is simply the art of containing ground water. It is not an exact science. In fact, It is plagued with uncertainty.

There are many cases statewide which illustrate this point. A good example of how difficult it is to anticipate ground water movement can be seen at one of the LLNL's own contaminated, Superfund sites. The presence of heavy rains at Site 300 raised the water table to a point that ground water mixed with on-site generated wastes (including uranium and tritium) in unlined trenches, adding to the contamination.

It's time for a full review and a CEQA, too! Who do they think fooling?!

home
©2007 berkeleycitizen.org