Features

As controversy continues to surround the events unfolding at Campus Bay, a site where hazardous chemicals were produced for a century, Richmond officials are pondering a change in city statutes. 

One proposed change would also require a review before demolition of older buildings that could prove eligible for landmark status. 

The proposal was prompted by the events surrounding the 1999-2002 demolitions of three dozen buildings that housed the production facilities and offices of Stauffer Metals and later AstraZeneca. The firms produced a wide range of toxins, ranging from sulfuric acid to pesticides. 

The demolitions were carried out with simple over-the-counter permits issued on Oct. 21, 1999. 

City building official Fred Clement is looking into a revision to the municipal code that would prohibit issuing permits for similar buildings without a review under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 

Richmond Councilmember Tom Butt said that under state law, permits sail through unless the city has reserved the power of discretionary permit review. 

“That’s a major, gorilla-sized Catch-22,” Butt said. “As it now stands, demolition permits are ministerial procedures with no discretionary review, no public input and no CEQA review.” 

Butt said the proposals were prompted by a series of demolitions in the city, including both toxic-laden and historic buildings. 

Neighbors and critics of the events at Campus Bay, where a Marin County developer is planning a major housing project, have criticized the building demolitions and subsequent hazardous waste cleanup operations as poorly managed. 

Large clouds of dust were generated during the demolitions and cleanup, which took place under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. Jurisdiction of the site has since been divided between the water board and the state Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 

Under terms of the proposed revisions of the city code, three categories would be created that would require CEQA review:  

• Demolitions or additions to structures used to make or store toxic substances where work may release the compounds and their toxic residues. 

• Demolitions of structures built at least 50 years ago that might be eligible for the California Register of historic sites. 

• Demolitions of structures or improvements necessary for a specific project that in itself requires discretionary review. 

Sherry Padgett, a leading activist in Bay Area Residents for Responsible Development, hailed the proposed revisions. She asked that city staff also consult Cal Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the California Environmental Protective Agency and DTSC when considering potential toxic sites. 

Butt said he expects the proposed changes to be placed on a City Council agenda within a few weeks.