[emphases mostly added by soula culver]

May 28, 2004

Ms. Caron Parker
Planning Department
City of Richmond
1401 Marina Way South
Richmond, CA 94804

Re: Simeon Development Notice of Preparation of Draft Environmental Impact Report, 4/23/04

Dear Caron:

I am writing to register strong opposition to the rezoning of the Simeon/Zeneca property on South 47th, South 49th and Meade Streets, from industrial to residential or high-density residential use. I am opposed to any change in the current 50 foot height limit on buildings along the shoreline.

No determination by the City of Richmond regarding Environmental Impact of any future proposed development on the site should move forward without unencumbered prior clearance from the California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control to insure indefinite future protection of human health and safety on the site, including nearby properties.

All comments herein apply not only to the proposed residential development, but also to the commercial, retail and "big box alternative" described on Page 8, Attachment C of the City of Richmond Planning Department Staff Notes for the Planning Commission Study Session, dated March 18, 2004.

Some of the reasons for my opposition to the proposed development include:

  1. The 85+ acre Simeon/Zeneca/ICI Americas/Stauffer property has been documented as one of the most complex toxic dumps in the State of California.
    1. Include as part of scope in Sections III Air Quality, VI Geology and Soils, VII Hazards and Hazardous Materials, VIII Hydrology and Water Quality, XVII Mandatory Findings of Significance
  2. Shoreline building height would be compromised if increased over the current 50-foot height limit – all residents of the Bay Area who view the shoreline would have a negative visual impact with taller structures and bird flight patterns would be negatively impacted.
    1. Include as part of scope in Sections I Aesthetics, IV Biological Resources, IX Land Use and Planning and XVII Mandatory Findings of Significance
  3. High density housing would have negative ecological impact on shoreline wildlife including known endangered species.
    1. Include as part of scope in Sections I Aesthetics, IV Biological Resources, IX Land Use and Planning and XVII Mandatory Findings of Significance
  4. Lack of public transportation including access to BART and established bus routes would create excessive traffic.
    1. Include as part of scope in Sections III Air Quality, IV Biological Resources, IV Geology and Soils, VII Hazards and Hazardous Materials, VIII Hydrology and Water Quality, IX Land Use Planning, XI Noise, XIII Public Services, XIV Recreation, XV Transportation/Traffic, XVI Utilities and Service Systems/Energy Conservation and XVII Mandatory Findings of Significance
  5. High density residential housing would significantly increase traffic noise, pollution and congestion.
    1. Include as part of scope in Sections III Air Quality, IV Biological Resources, IV Geology and Soils, VII Hazards and Hazardous Materials, VIII Hydrology and Water Quality, IX Land Use Planning, XI Noise, XIII Public Services, XIV Recreation, XV Transportation/Traffic, XVI Utilities and Service Systems/Energy Conservation and XVII Mandatory Findings of Significance
  6. High density housing with thousands of residents on such a small parcel bordering the San Francisco Bay Trail would significantly decrease the quality of experience of San Francisco Bay Trail users.
    1. Include as part of scope in Sections III Air Quality, IV Biological Resources, IV Geology and Soils, VII Hazards and Hazardous Materials, VIII Hydrology and Water Quality, IX Land Use Planning, XI Noise, XIII Public Services, XIV Recreation, XV Transportation/Traffic, XVI Utilities and Service Systems/Energy Conservation and XVII Mandatory Findings of Significance
  7. Significant portion of the property was identified for restoration of original tidal marshlands with water levels matching high and low tides.
    1. Include as part of scope in Sections IV Biological Resources, IV Geology and Soils, VII Hazards and Hazardous Materials, VIII Hydrology and Water Quality, IX Land Use Planning and XVII Mandatory Findings of Significance
  8. Prior Zeneca cleanup attempts between 1998 and 2003 on the first 50 acres of the 85-acre parcel showed little to no concern for the health or quality of life of the downwind and surrounding community, which raises major suspicions about motives of developers and environmental engineers involved in the project. It has all the indications of corporate pressure for short-term gain through capitalization of the multi hundred million dollar view the public has access to today. There is no indication of long-term interest in the site or the community.
    1. Include as part of scope in Sections III Air Quality, IV Geology and Soils, VII Hazards and Hazardous Materials, VIII Hydrology and Water Quality, IX Land Use Planning and XVII Mandatory Findings of Significance

My primary concern is for the health of future inhabitants of the property.

  1. I do not believe the property can be remediated to a level where small children and frail elderly would not have their health compromised through exposure to capped contaminated soil and contaminated ground water.
  2. The list of known carcinogenic organic, inorganic and volatile toxins on the site is extensive. There is no dispute among experts at the California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control and the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board about the site being one of the hottest and most complex toxic dumps in the state.
  3. Zeneca and Stauffer have records of toxins from their site poisoning the ground water of nearby and not-so-nearby neighbors for decades.
  4. Stauffer was so concerned about the toxicity levels 15 years ago that they conducted monthly water tests of wells on nearby properties, and property owners were to told to cap off wells and to never use local ground water because the water was so contaminated.
  5. Zeneca conducted no such water testing on neighboring properties within the last fifteen years. New property owners and new tenants of nearby properties are not aware of the extreme toxicity of the ground water.
  6. The full extent of the underground toxic plume has never been measured or documented.
  7. Scientific studies have established direct links between toxic ground water and resulting toxic vapors entering closed buildings through concrete slabs and accumulating to levels very hazardous to humans.
  8. Simeon and Zeneca have not measured the accumulating vapors in neighboring buildings to determine the level of toxicity created from the known contaminated groundwater.
  9. Simeon and Zeneca are in the process of a self-monitored cleanup, which allows them far more latitude to proceed without strict governmental agency oversight. Currently the California Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board has responsibility to insure Zeneca maintains self monitored standards and records.


I have worked across the street, downwind and 50 feet from the Simeon/Zeneca property line for the last seven years. I have a personal interest in following the health of the community because I was diagnosed last year with chondroma or chondrosarcoma. Chondroma is a very rare tumor that is the precursor to chondrosarcoma, an extremely rare bone (cartilage) cancer. Thoracic surgeons at UCSF removed a tumor the size of a small fist with four ribs, part of my sternum, all related abdominal muscles and reconstructed my chest wall with a prosthetic 8 inch round Marlex mesh patch. There is a 50/50 chance the tumor will return for the rest of my life and there is no cure other than cutting it out with very wide margins. No chemotherapy or radiation will kill it. Nearly every doctor I visited on the path to surgery and since asked me if I had been exposed to some unusual toxins. Just prior to the chest wall resection, I was diagnosed with three uterine fibroid tumors and a complex septated ovarian cyst the size of a lemon. Within the last month, I have been diagnosed with a different type of rare follicular Hurthle cell tumor, currently the size of a marble in my thyroid, growing inward. Surgery is scheduled in June. If it is malignant, there is no known cure other than excision. If it returns somewhere else in my body, the prognosis is grim.

Twenty two others who worked within the downwind business neighborhood during the first toxic cleanup phase have been diagnosed with unusual health conditions including more thyroid, female and male reproductive organs, kidney, bladder, pancreas and heart problems. Ten have died. We are not professional statisticians or environmental engineers. Any rational person would begin to suspect a direct relationship between our growing health problems and the cleanup practices.

Our recent inquiries into the cleanup practices at the site have surfaced the fact that no governmental agency was required to be on site during the first cleanup phase because it is self monitored. Zeneca and Simeon are only required to send monthly or quarterly reports to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board for review. Given the lack of funding and staff shortages at most state agencies, the reports received little attention. They were filed with few comments. The California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control, which is generally more strict and watches out for human health and safety was not asked by the Water Quality Control Board to participate in cleanup oversight.

Within the last two months, the Department of Toxic Substances Control was given a copy of the proposed mitigation measures for proposed buildings to be constructed on the toxic site. The proposal was drafted by Simeon's environmental engineers. Even though Simeon's document was addressed to the Water Quality Control Board, DTSC intervened and issued an extensive fatal flaw letter April 6, 2004. The points within the letter are wide and varied. The City of Richmond Planning Department has a copy of the fatal flaw letter.

Subsequently, Simeon executives and their environmental engineers have stated in public forums that the fatal flaw letter was based on erroneous information and there are no problems with the proposal. I am not an environmental engineer, however, just a few examples of what appear to be very relevant to the future health and safety of anyone working or living on the property include:
  1. DTSC questioned why organic chemicals were omitted from the list of Chemicals of Potential Concern. DTSC states cumulative risk from multiple chemicals including all organic chemicals and multiple exposure pathways must be considered.
  2. DTSC cites that the recent remediation and consolidation of cinder landfill upsets soil equilibriums. Soil and gas values could still be increasing. Data needs to be gathered to determine contamination of groundwater to determine an equilibrium.
  3. Risk from future vapor intrusion from groundwater was not calculated in the proposal.
  4. DTSC recommends expanding the investigation to determine full off-site migration and full lateral extent of contamination.

The environmental engineering firm, Levine Fricke submitted "Technical Memorandum on Engineering Controls to Mitigate the Potential for Soil Vapor Intrusion into Indoor Air Lots 2 and 3 of Subunit 1, Meade Street Operable Unit, 1390 South 49
th Street, Richmond, California, March 25, 2004, 001-09120-02-018" to the California Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board on March 26, 2004. The following sections are self-explanatory and revealing:

Page 21, last three paragraphs (bold emphasis added)
"4.0 Conclusions
"Remediation alternatives (Scenario 1) are feasible but will not necessarily meet the low concentrations necessary to reduce calculated risks from soil gas intrusion to below accepted risk thresholds. Additional remediation of the area where soil gas concentrations exceed criteria will likely be prohibitively expensive, take up to 10 years, and may not be successful in meeting the criteria over the long term. It is likely that soil gas and further groundwater remediation could be implemented in selected hot spot areas; however, these limited measures would likely not achieve the ultimate residential targets.
"Based on the analysis presented in this technical memorandum, various engineering controls are available to mitigate the potential for soil vapor intrusion into proposed residential buildings at the Site. Alternative mitigations proposed for the Site are podium-style open-air or mechanically ventilated garages below the residential living space or crawl space and garage space with low-permeability underlying membrane and enhance passive ventilation. Based on conservative soil vapor intrusion models, both of these mitigation scenarios (Scenarios 2 and 3) will adequately reduce potential risk from soil gas intrusion.
"Successful implementation of these mitigation measures necessitates a financial and institutional mechanism that will ensure that the agreed-upon steps are taken and adequate oversight of the project continues indefinitely. Once the RWQCB has approved the engineering control or other measures required, the City of Richmond has committed to taking the primary governmental oversight responsibility for the enforcement of the building design, maintenance, and monitoring requirements contained in this document. The mitigation measures described in this document are intended to address the vapor intrusion pathway, and upon approval by the RWQCB they will be incorporated into an overall Risk Management Plan for the Site. The Risk Management Plan will address all environmental concerns and requirements at the Site, including clean utility corridor, soil management, landscaping, drainage requirements, and groundwater and surface-water monitoring."

In other words, according to Simeon's environmental engineers, the site cannot ever be completely remediated to residential standards and the City of Richmond has agreed to take the risk for indefinite future engineered remediation control oversight. Instead of Simeon successfully remediating the property, the proposal is for twenty four hour per day, seven day per week, (indefinite round the clock) fans on ground floors to suck out known soil gas toxins. The multiple life-time maintenance of the low-permeable barrier (under large constructions/buildings) and ongoing operation of fans becomes the responsibility of a currently bankrupt City which doesn't have enough money to keep fire stations open and moth-balled its only ladder truck.
Further, of the 40 acres "remediated" to date, three hot spots have surfaced (including very high PCE readings) which are so serious that plans are underway to reremediate in the exact location where future buildings are expected to be constructed. The new site cap needs to be penetrated, some type of pumping station constructed to take out ground water and clean it through a scrubbing unit before gases are released into the air – an operation that will likely take years to stabilize. How would the City of Richmond solve that problem if 3,000 residents were living on the site and "stability" changed – say 5, 10, 20, 30 or 50 years from now. How can the City of Richmond take on that liability?

In addition to the 4.0 Conclusions cited above, the same March 25, 2004, Technical Memorandum includes a January 23, 2004, signed letter from Steven Duran, Assistant City Manager, City of Richmond, Community and Economic Development Group, addressed to Mr. Russ Pitto, President and CEO Simeon, which states the following (bold emphasis added):
"I have reviewed your letter of January 21, 2004, in the above regard and want to confirm that City staff is ready, willing and able to take responsibility for (1) the inspection of the engineering controls as they are being installed, (2) review of the inspection and maintenance reports submitted by Simeon's consultants and (3) coordination of any follow-up actions indicated by those reports.
"As you know, the Building Department, which will take the lead on these responsibilities, is a full cost-recovery operation. So I will task Chief Building Official Fred Clement with working out the financial details with you.
"We are very excited about your proposed Campus Bay residential project and look forward to helping facilitate the process. Please call me anytime you need my assistance."


Included in the March 25, 2004, Technical Memorandum in Appendix D is a description of the "Annual Inspection Report" as follows:
"The site manager will submit an annual Inspection Report to the City of Richmond Building Department that is satisfactory to the Department and document the monitoring and maintenance of the vapor mitigation measures. If the building is constructed using the Community Podium Parking Under Residential Area design, the Annual Monitoring Report must include the following:
    1. "Photodocumentation showing that openings constructed on the sides of ground floor parking are free from obstruction
    2. "If mechanical ventilation is employed, record of mechanical ventilation system operations, including hours of operation, downtime and significant maintenance that has occurred
    3. "If mechanical ventilation is employed, annual test results of ventilation system showing that the outflow meets design requirement calculated during design for a minimum of a 24-hour test conducted by a qualified HVAC consultant
  1. the building is constructed using the Community Podium Parking Under Residential Area deisgn, the Construction Quality Assurance Report must include following:
    1. "Photodocumentation showing that openings constructed on the frontage of the crawl space and garage area are installed properly and free of obstruction
    2. "A wind-driven fan maintenance and monitoring log using the format shown in Form D-6 (which is attached in this appendix). The activites shown shall include at a miniumu a "hands-on" inspection to ensure that the fan rotates freely and that grease is adeed to bearing mechanism as necessary, and notes regarding any significant maintenance activity and/or replacement of the fans
  2. City of Richmond must make an annual site visit to confirm maintenance and monitoring of the vapor mitigation measures. The site manager must maintain on site approvals of the Annual Maintenance and Monitoring Reports in writing from the City of Richmond Building Department that include Form D-4 or Form D-5, which are attached to this appendix, as appropriate. A copy of this approval must be maintained at the Site by the site manager for the duration of existence of the building. This approval must be available to representatives of the City of Richmond or State of California upon request."

Nothing in the proposal describes a back-up plan or summarizes worst case scenarios such as earthquake, huge building fire with fire trucks pumping immense amounts of water onto the site soaking the toxic cap semi-permeable barrier or subtle earth movement which allows toxic vapors to exceed allowable limits in between annual inspections of building ground floor fans. The US Environmental Protection Agency continues to update impacts of toxins on human health as scientific evidence mounts that the known contaminants on this site are very, very dangerous. How would the City respond if some of the hazard measurements, which are allowable today, are moved to an intolerable level and there are buildings housing 3,000 people or more on the site? Or children with asthma or other afflictions are identified as "at higher risk" when exposed to new lowered exposure limits. Does the realtor selling the future property ask each potential buyer – "Does your child have any kind of known breathing disorder? If so, this isn't the residence for you." How can the City of Richmond take on this potential liability?

I want to emphasize the long term and extraordinary risk associated with building on this property. Cleaning up brownfields is laudable. Cleaning up brownfields and exposing nearby residents and future inhabitants and workers is unconscionable. The proposal is to construct buildings on top of extensively contaminated capped toxins with the expectation that either the natural bay wind or 24 hour per day, 7 day per week fans will blow the accumulating toxins out from the ground floor and keep humans safe. It assumes no tree roots will pass through the cap into the toxins. It assumes cracks in the surface can be repaired without causing risk to humans. Everyone knows we are in close proximity to a major earthquake fault line. Try to imagine the chaos when cracks in the cap emerge after a major trembler. Further, the developer is proposing maintenance and responsibility for the site cap be passed back indefinitely to the City of Richmond at some point in the future.

New green grass, leafy trees and inviting signs to explore the newly opened Campus Bay Development with the billion dollar view do not give a clue about the lurking lifetime threats underground. They are insidious and invisible. Nearly everyone has heard of the Love Canal. Few people know that the Love Canal toxic site is fewer than 50 acres. This Simeon/Zeneca/Stauffer site is 85 acres and has the potential to become as well-known if illness clusters start to accumulate among site workers and residents.

I want to thank the City of Richmond for reopening the Notice of Preparation for the Draft Environmental Impact Report and allowing a broader community base be heard regarding the proposed development. We have the distinct impression that the Richmond Redevelopment Agency is pushing the Planning Department and elected officials to get this proposal passed in spite of its obvious risks and poor match to site use.

The local community believes you have a responsibility as our local officials to seriously investigate whether residential use is the appropriate classification for property, which has an extensively documented history of complex and extremely hazardous toxins and may never be completely remediated to levels safe for human habitation, especially small children and elderly whose immune systems are developing or weak.

Sincerely,


Sherry Padgett
Danville, CA
sherrybp@pacbell.net

I am a fifth generation Californian and my new grandchild will be seventh generation. I am a 20 year resident of Danville, and have worked seven years across the street (50 feet) from the proposed development site.