Special Column on Tourtelot Cleanup

[Marilyn Bardet <mjbardet@earthlink.net>]

Special Column on Tourtelot Cleanup
Submitted to the Benicia Herald, Monday, May 3

Tourtelot Cleanup Whose Win-Win Is It?  
  
    "One of the things that is unique about whats happening in Benicia is
that the process that is used here will be a model for other cleanups
across the U.S., because of the degree of safety measures were employing."
Granite Managements PR person, Sam Singer, was speaking about the
Tourtelot Property Cleanup Project. His corporation is directing it and
paying for it, so they can hurry up and build 400 single family homes on
their 220 acre property here--a former leased property of the Benicia
Arsenal. The Arsenal is one of 143 "Formerly Used Defense Sites" under
investigation by the Army Corps of Engineers--in California alone--that
have known buried ordnance problems. There are a total of a 1,050 FUDS of
blight in California awaiting federal investigations and cleanups. We
should be so lucky to have Tourtelot cleanup privatized. You'd think.

    Here are a few daringly speculative thoughts about the impacts of
privatization and the 'precedent' we appear to be offering other
communities nation-wide as a sterling reward for accepting corporate
privatization of a defense environmental cleanup, in preparation for a
housing development. Read on, and then figure whos winning when they tell
us its a "win-win" situation.

    According to reliable sources familiar with financial mechanisms for
defense site cleanups, Granite will seek partial reimbursement from the
U.S. Department of Defense for their privately financed Tourtelot cleanup.
In fact, the trend is that DoD is anxious to transfer former defense sites
and get environmental cleanup projects as much as possible privatized, off
their books. Its not a stretch, then, to imagine that Granite will get
partial cost-recovery, since the developer wields great authority in
Sacramento and Washington D.C.

    Recall that Ford Motor Credit Division is the parent "company." Ford
Motor hardly needs the chump change, but they could use a few good
precedents like Tourtelot, to 'input' to the national policy debate raging
among federal regulators and the Department of Defense about such things
as defense cleanups for housing. They might own a few more contaminated
properties, including transferred defense sites.

    Wait a minute, you say. No matter who owns "Granite," they're entitled
to be reimbursed: DoD is the Responsible Party that left the TNT, lead,
other explosive residues, shrapnel and buried ordnance in Tourtelot turf
in the first place. But listen carefully to what Mr. Singer is saying, in
the May 2nd Ben-Herald article: "We're going to clean all the ordnance
that we find and, to absolutely assure that no human comes into contact
with any ordnance, we're going to put 40 to 60 feet of fill on top of it."
It is the remaining ordnance--UXO--the buried unexploded artillery shells
and/or any other potentially explosive devices that might possibly elude
the detection equipment (good to 4 feet in dry conditions) or been missed
in the "by-hand" removals that will be done. So far, 8 live rounds have
been found and reported on Tourtelot.

    From what I gather from Mr. Singer, and from the recent April 27th
public meeting on the Tourtelot project, cut-and-fill largely constitutes
the cleanup method. The incredible amounts of cut-and-fill proposed, for
the so-called final "100% quality assurance"--the level of protection the
City and Granite are promising--could represent reimbursable costs, since
the excavation work is being characterized as part of the cleanup projects
extra-protective measures for public safety, in light of the property's
final use.

    Now lets assume Granite earns some DoD reimbursement money. When
everything is lined out by Granite's accountants, what will be the
difference in costs between the cut-and-fill for cleanup and cut-and-fill
for the housing development? It remains to be seen just how much
additional cut-and-fill will be required for carving out housing
lots--following the cut-and-fill done for the extra "100% quality
assurance."

    No matter what way you cut it, the distinctions are a bit muddied.
It's quite plausible that U.S. tax-payers will be subsidizing not only a
defense environmental cleanup in Benicia, but excavation for a private
housing development! Ah, the wonders of corporate welfare privatization
schemes!

    Another muddiness: Tourtelot cleanup and development were supposed to
be reviewed as two separate projects. It was said that development
wouldn't be discussed until AFTER we judged the quality of the final
cleanup. An environmental review was supposed to inject some objectivity
into the process. Oh well. The EIR is being done by EarthTech, the outfit
contracted to do the cleanup! Apparently, there was only one applicant for
the EIR job! The City says it will try to get a consultant to do some
"peer review" on it.

    Right now, theres absolutely NO public accountability on this or any
other project proposed as part of the great Granite Package for Benicia.
Period. There are no federal or state regulators commited to oversight on
this cleanup or any other new proposal for development currently being
considered for public review. Granite has enough clout to make regulators
want to stay out. The City is a lame 'lead agent'.

    The City ran an ad the other day that invited the public to attend "A
Public Participation Meeting to discuss the Rose Drive Cleanup and
Development Agreement for a Religious Assembly Site and Golf Course and
Development Project for Southampton Units D-6, D-7, D-1 and G-3." That
last bit spells housing on Tourtelot. If your head isn't spinning from
this circus, you haven't read the fine print.

    In the final analysis, here's a glimpse of the Tourtelot 'precedent'
and its portent: Granite will take off the top of a ridgeline and dirt
from excavation of a former bomb demolition area in the vicinity of the
wetlands in the "South Valley"' and put all this dirt at the bottom of the
"North Valley", to fill it up. Any UXO possibly remaining is supposed to
be somewhere toward the bottom, deep down, below the future development.
After the 'cut-and-fill for cleanup' is done--as depicted on one
topographical cut-away map shown by Granite at last weeks public
meeting--the final look of the terrain will be that of a flat butte,
representing the cheapest and least appealing configuration of a site for
future development. Another cost-saving measure for Granite--a beaut of a
flat-top.

    About the butte: in the old defunct 1989 EIR on the original housing
development project, a 'berm' was recommended, to be created to protect
the character of rural views from Lake Herman. Sorry, the berm has been
negotiated away. More Granite muscle for cost-saving? People interested in
rural Benicia open space/parkland should protest this one. Go on a picnic
to Lake Herman, look south across the lake and then to the east, then
imagine a broad, flat butte with 400 pale stucco homes circling around.
Could be Arizona. 

    One more Granite coup: The City is apparently getting $9,000 in
development fees per house, according to a comment by Mayor Hayes. Most
cities get at least twice that in Contra Costa County, according to City
of Fairfax planning director, Elizabeth Patterson, who is a Benicia
resident and a member of our planning commission.

    Had too much of a good "win-win"? Maybe I'm dreaming, but I think Ford
Motors got enough from this town already--including City Hall.