Community groups sue Richmond for approving development on toxic site

RICHMOND — Weeks after the Richmond City Council approved plans to build a mixed-used project with 4,000 homes atop a contaminated waterfront site, a coalition of community and environmental groups are challenging the decision in court.

A lawsuit filed by the Richmond Shoreline Alliance, Citizens for East Shore Parks, Sunflower Alliance, the Sustainability, Parks, Recycling and Wildlife Legal Defense Fund (SPRAWLDEF), and Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice alleges the City Council ignored evidence that the cleanup process to make way for the development would not be sufficient for future residents living on the site.

Developer Shopoff Realty Investments’ plans for the site call for building 2,000 to 4,000 housing units and up to 50,000 square feet of retail space on the 86-acre site east of Marina Bay and west of Interstate 580 on the southeastern Richmond shoreline, which was once owned by the Zeneca (now AstraZeneca) pharmaceutical company.

The proposed development and the cleanup plans for the site have long been a source of controversy. The site was a dumping ground for toxic materials for decades as a home to the Stauffer Chemical Company and then AstraZeneca.

The City Council last year voted to support a cleanup method for the site that includes removing some contaminated soil, treating the groundwater and pouring concrete over the contaminated areas, a plan that was approved by the state Department of Toxic Substances Control but is a change from the more thorough removal of the soil the council endorsed in 2018. Critics of the plan argue the capping method doesn’t go far enough.

The complaint filed in Contra Costa County Superior Court argues the 2016 environmental impact report used by the city to approve the project does not sufficiently address new evidence showing changes to the rate of sea-level rise and the potential impacts of that on the groundwater and toxic substances at the site.

“By failing to update its old environmental review, the city never addressed the most dangerous impacts.  Instead, the city justified changing its policies by reliance on outdated climate data, project details, reports and modeling of toxic effects,” said Stuart Flashman, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

Mayor Tom Butt said in an email interview that “we believe that the CEQA by the city review was conducted in full accordance with state law.”

Plus, he said, “it was not the city of Richmond that prescribed the cleanup plan for Campus Bay, it was DTSC (the Department of Toxic Substances Control). The city has no jurisdiction over Campus Bay cleanup.”

Butt argued that the more thorough soil removal process that the environmental groups want has other environmental concerns.

He pointed to information provided by the Department of Toxic Substances Control, which in a statement issued last year about its decision to approve the capping method said the more complete soil excavation method would take 10 years and require an estimated 64,370 truck trips to get rid of the material, creating “harmful impacts to the community, including air pollution, dangerous traffic and increased dust.”

The capping method, alternatively, requires about two years and 1,050 truck trips.

Butt and the City Council see the site as a place to put needed housing.

“It is an accepted fact that the Bay Area is short some 440,000 housing units, a condition that contributes significantly to excessive housing costs and even homelessness,” Butt said. “Building infill housing on sites like Campus Bay, a brownfield site, is a very sustainable solution.”

But the community groups who oppose the current plans say the future residents’ health cannot be guaranteed to be kept safe under the approved cleanup plan.

“Because of the hazards remaining in place, no onsite pre-schools, K-12 schools, or health or senior care facilities will be allowed,” the plaintiffs said in a written statement. “Yet, everyone who lives there will be at risk by living on a toxic site while the health and environmental impacts worsen as sea level rises.”

The lawsuit calls for putting a halt to any work until a new environmental review process can happen.