Ursula Sherman Transitional Housing Project
City of Berkeley
(Scoping comments)

return    

Harrison House, Ursula Sherman Village Housing Project (scoping comments)
L A Wood, December 24, 2001

Boss HousingThanks for the written update of the meeting that you and I attended on December 17, 2001 along with BOSS' representatives and their environmental consultant, Environ, where we discussed the proposed housing project for the Ursula Sherman Village. Here is a more detailed accounting of my concerns for the consultant(s) and any other interested parties looking at Environ's environmental proposal.

(1) Role of Consultant Environ, I believe, has a very special role to play with regards to the environmental evaluation of the Ursula Sherman Village project. As consultant, Environ will essentially serve both BOSS and the City of Berkeley. I think it is important to point this fact out. The City has limited expertise and no provisions for undertaking the task of evaluating the air quality report. Environ should be sensitive to this and attempt to put forth as evenhanded and fair a representation of the air quality issue as possible, instead of simply lobbying for its client to do a less rigorous investigation.

The financial relationship of the consultant Environ to BOSS is also of concern. As I understand it, the consultant has offered to donate to BOSS a certain amount of work without cost. This is extraordinarily generous and certainly important given BOSS's limited funding. However, I am concerned that this will tend to dictate the approach taken by Environ. This was clearly expressed by Environ's rep at our BOSS meeting who indicated that they (Environ) signed up for a simple review and had not considered a more intense investigation.

(2) AB 1553 Part of the discussion with Environ centered on Assembly Bill 1553 and issues of environmental justice. BOSS requested that Environ or the City address AB 1553 with respect to the project because it has been cited as a point of concern.

(3) PM 2.5 Data Although the city of Berkeley has collect PM 10 data at the Ursula Sherman Village site for about six months, there is no PM 2.5 data. Technical problems have prevented this. However, I believe it is fair to assume for the proposed evaluation that the amounts of PM 2.5 are at a comparable level with the PM
10 and should be factored into the review.

(4) Comparative Approach vs Health Risk Assessment The proposal by Environ calls for analysis of comparable sites. We discussed this approach and a wide range of concerns, including the difficulty in finding other local sites that could fairly represent the BOSS site.

For the record, I would rather see a formal health risk assessment based on the known data for the site and area. Sherman Village is unique because there is actual air sampling on site. Additionally, the issue of air quality at the site goes back half a decade with the Zoning Department for actual site air sampling activities. I believe these activities create a legal demand for something more than what is being proposed by Environ.

 

Berkeley Citizen © 2003
All Rights Reserved