6

Plan okayed to dump Patterson Ranch soil in Dumbarton Quarry pit

In today’s paper:

FREMONT — Developers can dump hundreds of tons of pesticide-laden soil into the Dumbarton Quarry without endangering the health of nearby residents or visitors to the park planned atop the fill, a state agency has ruled.

The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board says that soil from Patterson Ranch — a 102-acre former farm at Ardenwood Boulevard and Paseo Padre Parkway, where developers plan to build 500 homes — contains about a dozen pesticides but their levels that do not threaten human life or the area’s groundwater.

As a result, as much as 210,000 cubic yards of the soil — equivalent to a 100-foot-high mound of dirt covering an entire football field — can be dumped in the quarry, said Keith Roberson, an engineering geologist with the agency.

But the approval comes with conditions, Roberson said.

For more of the story, click here.

 

Chris DeBenedetti

  • Bill Spicer

    Have toxic waste, come to Fremont, The Capital of Toxic Waste. Where are our local politicians, I thought they were suppose to protect us.
    Council Election coming up this year, keep in mind who will keep us safe.
    This is so wrong on so many levels, where is the Sierra Club, Planning another picnic!!!!
    Fremont will be known as the toxic dump capital of the Bay Area……..

  • bbox231

    Here’s the question – - had DQA originally said they would like to acquire the right to continue to use the quarry in exchange for filling the resulting pit with slightly toxic fill – would we have agreed? Now that circumstances beyond our control (?) have arrived at this new result – - what consequence did we exact for this failure to perform?

    While some would argue that we should have anticipated this result even as the original promise of a lake was made, let’s move forward.

    Having been screwed out of the original deal, what did Fremont ask for and receive in return?
    Answer to which appears to be “nothing” at this point.
    If that’s true – we’ve completely ignored a legitimate opportunity to return something back to the community in exchange for a failure to deliver what was originally promised.

    I don’t see how you can conclude anything other than – in this instance – this Council appears to have subordinated the interests of the community to the convenience of DQA.

  • Bill Spicer

    Bbox, The soil is NOT slightly Toxic, it is very toxic, that is why they have all the dust controls. The Toxicity levels do threaten a persons life. Why would they NOT let them build there. So now we have a endless march of trucks dumping toxic soil in the Dumbarton Quarry

  • bbox231

    I guess in my feeble little mind, being “slightly” toxic is a bit like being “kinda pregnant” . . . wouldn’t you agree?

    I just dunno how much of this soil one would have to ingest or inhale before you began to grow a third eye . . .

    What I do know is DQA appears to have defaulted on a contract. A contract which originally allowed DQA to extract value from our land in exchange for a future promise of some value to be returned to Fremont in the form of a park and a lake. A lake that wasn’t full of toxic soil.

    What I know is that DQA got what they originally bargained for.

    What I am NOW TOLD is – assuming DQA delivers on the NEW deal – that the Fremont community will receive something very different from that which was originally promised.

    All of which seems wrong to me.

    At the very least, there is considerable value in this latest deal that has now been shifted into the pockets of DQA and away from the Fremont community.

    AND, it seems that our Council is largely blasé about this result.

  • Dan Ondrasek

    Box – you have nailed it perfectly. If you and I have
    an agreement and I come through on my part of it and you don’t deliver, there
    should be (monetary) compensation for a lack of performance. Period.

    DQA made a lot of money from that quarry; they can’t return
    the gravel, they can return the money or some part of it.

    From my understanding, the issue is EBRPD’s and they left a
    large sum of money on the table. Money that they will need when Cargill
    Salt wants to build the 900,000 square feet of industrial building (that they
    somehow got permission to build by a past blindfolded Council) in front of the
    Quarry. Think of how that will look right in front of the Coyote Hills
    (South).

    Regarding approval: EBRQB is interested in water. My concern
    for all of my friends and old neighbors downwind from this pit is the “air
    quality” I have seen the winds pick up objects that weigh 40 pounds and hurl
    them long distances when I lived there. I am sure toxaphene will have no
    problem making its way into the lungs of those who live anywhere near.

    This was and continues to be nothing short of a “hustle.”

  • bbox231

    Just to be clear, Dan – while the final swing of the bat on this issue belonged to EBRPD – our Council and Planning Commission both had an opportunity to weigh in. . .

    http://www.ibabuzz.com/tricitybeat/2013/07/26/fremont-planning-commission-approves-conversion-of-dumbarton-quarry-into-park/