So much is happening in West Berkeley right now: Real estate values zooming out-of-sight; many proposed projects are keeping the City’s Planning Department super busy; CalTrans is poised to click the “Go” button to launch its latest hi tech toy; the Federal Courts have entered the picture; and residents are still fighting for that basic right, clean air.
Let’s start with the Federal Courts…
On April 20, 2016, San Francisco Baykeeper, a non-profit environmental San Francisco Bay watch dog organization, filed a complaint in Federal Court in Oakland against the city of Berkeley and Community Conservation Centers (CCC) for violation of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and of the Industrial Storm Water Permit issued to Berkeley by the State of California years ago. CCC operates the recycling center under contract with the city of Berkeley that is in effect until June 30, 2016.
The complaint states that since November 6, 2010, the city of Berkeley and CCC have been discharging polluted storm water from the Berkeley City Transfer Station and Recycling Center located at 1201 2nd Street and 669 Gilman Street into Berkeley’s storm drain system which drains into San Francisco Bay by way of the Gilman Street outfall. The complaint seeks to correct this situation and levy civil penalties, including attorney fees and costs. The City was first informed of the intent to file this complaint back on November 6, 2015, as required by law.
The complaint states that storm water runoff “has been recognized as a leading cause of significant and cumulative harmful impacts to the water quality of San Francisco Bay” and that “storm water pollution accounts for more than half of the total heavy metal pollution entering the San Francisco Bay watershed each year.”
Storm water can contain heavy metal pollutants such as aluminum, chromium, copper, iron, lead, mercury, nickel, tin and zinc as well as high concentrations of suspended solids, and nitrate and nitrite, all of which can cause harm to humans and aquatic life.
Federal law requires that dischargers of storm water runoff must develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) at the time their activities begin and provide regular updates thereafter. They must also implement site-specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) that achieve pollutant discharge reductions. The lawsuit claims that neither have been developed or implemented, including requirements to report and monitor discharges.
The City Council met in Closed Session regarding this lawsuit on April 17, 2016. At the close of that Session, Mayor Bates reported that the Council had approved a “consent decree” that “requires the City and CCC to make various structural and non-structural improvements.” No other details were provided.
BNC remembers a previous problem that involved the city of Berkeley and CCC. That was 32 years ago on December 4, 1984 when then-newly-elected-City Council Member, Nancy Skinner, made a motion to rescind an existing recycling contract and negotiate a new agreement with CCC. The motion was approved and when the existing contractor sued the City, it cost residents over $1 million.
There is no question that any storm water Bay pollution problem needs to be fixed, and fixed as soon as possible. But we’d like to know how and why this problem continued for so long. We also want to know the costs — it’s a pretty good bet, it will be expensive.
Another Place to Look…
Another place to look for polluting runoff exists along the railroad tracks that run through West Berkeley. Here’s a view of what travelers see just before they arrive at Berkeley’s train station at the foot of University. This photo was taken at Bancroft Way to the east of Aquatic Park. BNC thinks that the City ought to “encourage” abutting businesses to clean up this long-standing mess and remove the graffiti on their buildings, plus send a Public Works crew out pronto to clean the clogged storm drains!
A large new development is just now coming to light in this area. It will stretch from Addison to Bancroft along Bolivar Drive directly across from the lagoon at Aquatic Park. It will include five, 45 foot tall, office buildings described as a “life science campus” with 750 parking spaces, plus some retail/commercial development on the Addison Street corner. At this time, the developer is putting forward the idea that rebuilding Bolivar Drive, the roadway that runs between the shoreline of the lagoon and the front of his proposed development, is a community benefit!
So What’s Happening on San Pablo Avenue…
On April 7, 2015 the Council approved a Memorandum of Understanding with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) to participate in multijurisdictional meetings regarding developing strategies for implementing local Priority Development Areas (PDAs) in each locality. San Pablo Avenue, from border to border, is one of Berkeley’s six PDAs. BNC didn’t oppose that action, but we did request that these meetings be open to the public so everyone could be informed about what was being planned, and maybe even have some input along the way. Eric Engstadt, Planning Director at that time, strongly opposed our request stating “these meetings are for staff.” Council agreed, and we haven’t heard a word more about what has transpired, if anything.
We recently learned that all those big blank signs mounted on poles along I-80 will begin to come alive around the end of May or in early June 2016. They are part of the new $80 Million “Smart Corridor” I-80 Freeway traffic tracking and signal system funded by a State measure approved by the voters in 2006, federal funds, local Measure B Sales Tax, and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Because the I-80 corridor from the Carquinez Bridge to the MacArthur Maze at the Bay Bridge is considered to be one of the worst traffic congested corridors in California, this new system is supposed to alert motorists to what’s ahead and indicate possible alternative routes. Did anyone say San Pablo Avenue?
The Smart Corridor is supposed to be linked to traffic lights and “electronic signs” on San Pablo Avenue (haven’t seen any of those yet) to help direct overflow in case of “an accident, construction or bottleneck.” BNC isn’t sure how the I-80 Smart Corridor was approved, but we certainly observe that whenever the Freeway gets crowded, drivers use San Pablo Avenue, new system or not. This is in addition to the traffic congestion currently being experienced on Sacramento Street and Sixth Avenue during rush hours.
So, out of curiosity, and in view of the considerable traffic that is now present in the area, we thought we would look up pending permits for new multi-family projects on San Pablo Avenue. We found three:
-
1500 San Pablo: (formerly the McNevin Cadillac building) A five-story (over 62 ft tall) building with 170 residential units (159 rental and 11 townhouses) between Jones and Cedar. Plus 10,900 sq ft of retail-food service, with 25 parking spaces for commercial, 143 spaces for rental units and 11 spaces for the townhouses (total of 179 auto spaces), and 184 bicycle spaces . The building is in two different zoning districts: CW along San Pablo Avenue and R-1A in the western portion of the lot. The townhouses (two-story) would be in this location with the rental units located in the 62 ft plus eastern portion of the lot facing San Pablo Avenue. The owner is 4Terra Investments, San Francisco. Pyatok Architects, Oakland. We also note that the promotional drawings of the project show no cars and feature a cafe facing the gas station on the corner of San Pablo and Cedar.
- The Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) held a public hearing on this project on May12, 2016. About 25 neighbors spoke in opposition to the current plan and design. They presented an alternative proposal that would keep the number of units, but change the overall height of the project to make it more compatible with the existing neighborhood The alternative plan also revised the entry and exits of the structure so that the low density neighborhoods on Jones Street would feel less of an impact from the project’s traffic. The transportation report about the project indicated there would be very little need for traffic mitigation. However, this report measured traffic on one date only, December 18, 2015, one week before Christmas when traffic in the area was quiet. The project was approved on a motion by Commissioner Clarke, seconded by Commissioner Allen.
Voting Yes: | Commissioners Allen, Clarke, Donaldson, Hahn, Hauser, Pinkston and Williams |
Voting No: | None |
Abstaining: | Commissioners Tregub and O’Keefe |
The neighbors have filed an appeal.
- 2100 San Pablo: Demolition of the existing U-Haul truck rental facility to construct 91 residential units (80 rental — of which 8 will be affordable — and 11 townhouses facing the residential area to the west), over three retail and/or restaurant/cafe spaces at the corner of San Pablo and Addison. 86 underground parking spaces will serve both. Owner is Spirit Residential, San Anselmo represented by Rhoades Planning Group. rg-architecture, San Francisco.
- 2720 San Pablo: 39 residential units over commercial. 34 parking spaces for residential, 3 for the commercial. Owner is the Charlie Group, LLC, Berkeley represented by Rhoades Planning. Devi Dutta, Architects, Berkeley.
And, Important Projects Elsewhere in West Berkeley…
Dominating the list of projects elsewhere is 1900 Fourth Street, currently known as the parking lot for Spenger’s Restaurant. The proposed project is135 apartment units built over 33,000 sq feet of retail space, including a restaurant and cafe, with 372 parking spaces and 236 bike spaces. Windows of the apartments on the north side of the site would look directly at the roadway on the top of the University Avenue overpass, railroad tracks mark the project’s western boundary. The site is designated as a Berkeley Landmark as it is believed to be part of the West Berkeley Shellmound, thousands of years old. The applicant’s statement on the Use Permit application states “investigators found no historically significant remnants of the West Berkeley Shellmound within the parking lot and have concluded to a near certainty that none exists within the property.” That statement is certainly being seriously challenged by the recent discovery of bodies dating back to Ohlone Indian/Shellmound times that were found in the area between the eastern boundary of the site and Spenger’s Restaurant. Owners are Ruegg and Ellsworth, Berkeley. The applicant is West Berkeley Investors, LLC of Danville, with their representative being Rhoades Planning Group.
That’s 424 new residential units and its only May, plus we couldn’t figure out what has already been approved but not yet begun construction, so we don’t know the full extent of potential impacts. However, with the possibility of more traffic being diverted to San Pablo Avenue from the I-80 Freeway, plus the current traffic, plus the traffic from the proposed projects, we wonder what is being done to cope with this. Last we heard, San Pablo was and still is a State Highway. Also, don’t know what’s happening with AC Transit. But added to these factors is…
The Grand Daddy of All West Berkeley Concerns, Air Quality…
On January 20, 2015, the Community Health and Housing Advisory Commissions recommended that the City Council hold a public hearing on air quality complaints regarding Lehigh Hanson Berkeley (LHB), an asphalt plant and Pacific Steel Casting (PSC), complete the compliance check list based on the 1999 Settlement Agreement with the Ocean View Neighborhood Association, and take corrective action.
You can read more about the history of PSC in BNC’s Issue 12 and all of the details as to what happened on January 20, 2015 in Issue 14. No public hearing was held, and the eight-point program proposed by BNC was never considered. BNC firmly believes that IF a public hearing had been held and linked to the health issues indicated, the City would have been compelled to take actions that would have begun to resolve this issue.
Instead, Council Members Maio and Droste were designated “to work with residents, businesses and City Staff to review complaints and make good faith efforts to mitigate impacts in the areas where the City has authority such as noise and odors and to bring their findings back to the City Council.”
Council Members Maio and Droste made three reports to the Council:
- May 26, 2015:
- Droste met with “several groups of residents” to review their concerns.
- Maio and Droste visited PSC on March 3 and LHB on March 27, 2015. They took a tour and met with management to “discuss business practices and general resident concerns.”
- The 1999 Settlement Agreement was still in the process of review by the City Manager.
- Maio and Droste requested a meeting with Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) to answer specified questions.
- July 14,2015:
- Maio and Droste met with BAAQMD, July 1, 2015.
- A “sample agenda” was provided for “upcoming meeting with BAAQMD” with specified (different) questions.
- January 19, 2016:
- Final Report to the Council which was continued to February 9, then continued again to March 8, 2016.
- October 30, 2015 City staff conducted an inspection of LHB to check compliance with 1999 Settlement Agreement.
- November 5, 2015 Maio, Droste and City staff met with LHB.
- City staff found LHB in compliance with the 1999 Settlement Agreement.
- There were no confirmed odor complaints reported from October 15 to December 13, 2015.
- LHB and PSC are to post and provide information alerts to the City regarding production schedules.
- LHB and PSC met with concerned citizens to begin a “constructive dialogue” and Maio and Droste would “continue to encourage community discussion.”
- The City met with EPA and BAAQMD over PSC’s Health Risk Assessment and agreed that manganese should be the subject of “additional health review” that would be undertaken by BAAQMD. BAAQMD reported that “all PSC monitoring filters are regularly tested, some in real time, to ensure compliance with air quality standards.”
It sounds good, but The exact status of LHB compliance with their Use Permit is unclear from the record. Neighbors noted that LHB was violating its permitting by not using a shroud to cover their trucks. They presented this information to the City Council by using Google Maps. Compliance will need to be further examined against the statement in the Maio/Droste final report. Furthermore, the West Berkeley Alliance for Clean Air and Safe Jobs responded to these reports by stating that
“Councilmembers Maio and Droste have failed to bring any meaningful resolution to the decades long environmental pollution problems in West Berkeley…”
The Alliance raised questions about
- who was invited to these meetings, who represented the “concerned residents” of West Berkeley?
“The Alliance requested that a public, community meeting be held in the evening in a West Berkeley location before any status update reports were given to the City Council. These requests fell on deaf ears.”
- whether air pollution problems could be “managed” by posting production schedules:
“This is an inadequate and ineffective step….as community members are left with the option of staying indoors, closing all doors and windows, having their children stay home or requesting that their children remain indoors at day care and schools during plant operations.” At the least “polluting industry should be mandated to stop operations on Spare the Air days…”West Berkeley has the highest childhood emergency room rate for asthma in all of Berkeley.
- designating that the additional review of the manganese health issue as a condition to PSC’s Use Permit should be undertaken by the BAAQMD instead of by the Zoning Adjustments Board does not recognize that both the BAAQMD and City are government regulators with “the authority and responsibility to protect the Berkeley community.”
And, further stated
“The Alliance had provided Councilmember Droste with data regarding the BAAQMD’s ineffective odor complaint process. The Final Status Report makes no mention of any substantive changes the BAAQMD will make to the complaint process.”
On April 19, 2016, Berkeley resident, L.A. Wood wrote to the California Environmental Protection Agency (copies to the Council) regarding BAAQMD Permit Practices. Mr. Wood writes about PSC’s Synthetic Minor Operating Permit (SMOP) that provides additional limits and monitoring to assure that the “emissions of regulated air pollutants” do “not exceed Major Facility thresholds.” He states in his letter
“BAAQMD and the court-driven settlement and subsequent changes at PSC were all unsuccessful in controlling the foundry’s emission levels. Yet, BAAQMD’s changes to the permits were very effective in bolstering the appearance that PSC was in compliance with its operating permit, thus facilitating a dishonest Health Risk Assessment in 2008…”
And further that
“This violation of the SMOP is more than just an issue of counting tons or pounds of pollutants. It is about the health of a downwind community, a growing community that includes many childcare facilities, schools and children’s play spaces. It is a residential community without buffer from PSC’s three plants. It is about the large volumes of airborne pollutant, including nickel, manganese, benzene, formaldehyde and high levels of particulate matter.” (BNC Note: See Map A below entitled “West Berkeley Community Ambient Air Quality, In-home Child Care, Preschools, Schools and Children Play Spaces, Berkeley Air Monitor 2015.”
The letter concludes by Mr. Wood requesting that
- the California Air Resource Board (ARB) investigate PSC’s operating permit process for each of the last ten years, and
- ARB undertake a review of BAAQMD’s regulatory compliance and actions, including the 2005 request for consolidation of PSC permits, SMOP applications and emission volumes for each of the last ten years.
In May 2016 when BNC was researching the problem of West Berkeley air quality we came across a copy of an of an October 18, 2006 report by Michael P. Wilson, Ph.D., MPH Assistant Research Scientist Center for Occupational and Environmental Health, School of Public Health, UC Berkeley, entitled Continuing Assessment of Pacific Steel Casting, Berkeley, California. Apparently Dr. Wilson was writing on his own behalf, and not that of the University. However, his report is best described as a real eye-opener. Here are a few excerpts:
“There is evidence that PSC is emitting a substantial quantity of toxic materials into densely populated area of Berkeley and surrounding communities.”
“Based on data reported by PSC to BAAQND total emissions of toxic air contaminants and criteria air pollutants from the plan increased 44% between 2002 and 2003.”
“According to data posted by the California Air Resources Board, between 2002 and 2003 emissions of air pollutants increased 43%, while emissions of toxic air contaminants increased 84%.”
“Children are uniquely vulnerable to the effects of chemical exposures and PSC emissions are of public health significance, particularly to children’s health.”
These include “manganese, lead and nickel which are toxic to the human neurological system.” “There is no safe level of exposure to lead for children and dispersing these substances into densely populated urban areas is inherently problematic for public health, particularly for children, and should be corrected immediately.”
“There is evidence of surface contamination by heavy metals in areas of Berkeley in the vicinity of PSC.”
“By its emissions of manganese alone, PSC was ranked #12 for public health risk among 2,171 stationary sources in six Bay Area counties by US EPA.”
PSC’s emission control plan for Plant #3 will not be sufficient to address emissions of toxic materials from this plant or those from Plants #1 and #2.“
PSC is installing pollution controls that are intended to capture phenol and other vapors that are the likely source of noxious odors experienced by residents. This technology could produce reductions in these emissions but it is not likely to capture growing quantities of metals and particulates emitted by the plant.
”The emissions of toxic materials from PSC appear to be at odds with the City’s emphasis on linking environmental protection with economic growth.“
Note: PSC did install certain emission controls, but BNC did not find records of measurements which indicated their effectiveness. We are still looking.
This raises four essential questions:
- Since West Berkeley residents have continued to register complaints about odors, and report on-going problems related to registering their complaints with BAAQMD, did the work done by PSC to reduce toxic emissions, in fact, actually accomplish that goal and to what extent?
- Why wasn’t up-to-date data regarding emissions included in the final Maio-Droste report?
- Was the ”additional manganese“ review undertaken, and what was the result?
- IF these questions can’t be answered at this time, should permits be approved by the City for new residential and business development in areas that are in the geographic area subject to these toxic emissions?
BNC is determined to find these answers, but we would also like to hear from you. Please let us hear your thoughts, pro or con, by e-mailing: bnc50@berkeleyneighborhoodscouncil.com. We would appreciate it.