Blogging Bayport Alameda

September 29, 2011

Clean up clean up everybody clean up

Filed under: Alameda, Alameda Point — Lauren Do @ 6:06 am

I posted a comment yesterday but wanted to highlight the fact that the City will be having a press conference today about the no-cost conveyance of Alameda Point to the City of Alameda.   The conference is scheduled for today at 1:30 p.m. at St. George Spirits at Alameda Point.   The lushes among you all will probably know where that is (insert wink here) but for those that do not it’s 2601 Monarch Street.  A bunch of muckety mucks are scheduled to be there along with some Navy type folks, should be an event where everyone is generally positive and giddy.

There was a question on In Alameda yesterday about the state of the environmental clean up at Alameda Point as well as some back and forth in yesterday’s comments.   While commenter “vigi” attempted to chalk up Alameda Point as too dirty to develop on, commenter “notadave” clarified that:

…The “sites 9 and 19″ quoted by vig make up a whopping 5 acres of the total development potential of over 700 acres at Alameda Point. The two sites contain an old paint building and a hazardous waste storage facility. Soil contamination was found to be lower than comparison samples from non contaminated soils. ground water contamination was found to be above target levels for some contaminants, but decreasing over time, indicating no new sources of contamination.

A detailed analysis of the proposed action is at

For more information about the state of the clean up at Alameda Point, look no further than Richard Bangert’s Alameda Point Environmental Report, which contains a wealth of information about the on-going clean up efforts at Alameda Point.

A few recent posts that may be of interest:

Definitely worth a read if you are concerned with the state of the clean up at Alameda Point.



  1. Slow news day, Lauren? OK, clicking on Nad[notadave]’s link, U will find the BCT[base cleanup team, std acronym]’s PROPOSED Plan, which invites comments from the public till Sept 24. [Did U avail yourself of the opportunity, Nad?] It does not involve the runway area at all, as Nad alleged, but OU-2A=Sites 9,13,22, & 23. [I don’t like these acronyms either, b/c there is no complete master list of them, but they’re what the DON, EPA, DTSC, & WaterBoard have been using since the 1990’s for CERCLA (read Superfund) sites. If U want to understand the process, @ some point U have to learn the language] I was quoting from a Comment Document, submitted Sept 23, 2011 by most of the RAB members to the Navy which begins: “We were disappointed that the Navy chose…” , which only covers these sites. The document is too long to reproduce here, but it will probably become available once the DON(avy) has responded to it. FYI, even Final RODs[records of decision] have been revisited over the last 2 decades, so, unfortunately, clean-ups are not as predictable as one would hope. BTW, I am so far the only RAB member calling for the video recording of these monthly meetings. They are always open to the public & I see no reason why they couldn’t be be archived like other city, state, & federal meetings.

    Comment by vigi — September 29, 2011 @ 9:30 am

  2. Vigi, I strongly encourage you to learn how to read basic english and gain a basic comprehension. Yesterday you stated as a deterrent to development that “Areas for which the Navy & Regulators chose Monitored Natural Attenuation will reach their clean-up goals in 22 years”

    I then pointed out that you should have also added that “almost all of the areas where the Navy has chosen monitored natural attenuation are in the runway area” That is an entirely factual statement, and if you read closely, “almost all” is not the same as all.

    You then put on your “expert hat” and said you were talking about areas 9 and 19, but then you failed to mention that those sites only comprise 5 acres. You also chose not to mention that those sites are in an area slated for commercial and not residential development or that the contaminants found are 30 feet below the surface. In other words, a 22 year attenuation will have no impact on development at all.

    My main point is, your role on the rab is to inform the community, and you are doing a piss poor job of that. Thank goodness there are people on the RAB like Richard Bangert, Daniel Hoyle, and Doug DeHaan who do take their role as a liaison to the public seriously.

    Comment by notadave — September 29, 2011 @ 10:05 am

  3. Lauren, thank you for posting infomation on the status of the evironmental cleanup at Alameda Point. Such information lets me know when to check in with the RAB and to better pressure the Navy to go the extra mile to meet, and even exceed, statutory requirements. Note I said meet statutory requirements as their baseline budgets often are insufficient to meet those requirements without supplmental funding.

    I was especially interested in your link to the Seaplane Lagoon dredging update. The amount of dredging proposed was less than I expected and am looking for data and opinions as to whether the proposed dredging is sufficient.

    Comment by William Smith — September 29, 2011 @ 11:57 am

  4. Thank you, Lauren, for the nice write-up about the Alameda Point Environmental Report.

    I’d like to point out to readers that they can be notified of new posts by signing up on the email notification widget on the report’s sidebar. They can also check in via where the report is listed along with other local publications.

    Comment by Richard Bangert — September 29, 2011 @ 8:26 pm

  5. Mr. Nad: the man’s name is Daniel Hoy, not Hoyle. You seem to have issues regarding the entire approach to base clean-up. U don’t like the acronyms or the site numbering, etc. Why you blame me for this, I can’t understand. Please do come to the next RAB meeting, Oct 6, 2011:6:30 pm City Hall West Rm 140

    Comment by vigi — October 1, 2011 @ 12:42 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Create a free website or blog at