July 11, 2023
City Council
DATE: July 11, 2023
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:
Vice Mayor McLaughlin
Subject: Develop a Shoreline Resiliency Plan with Inclusion of an Inventory of Toxic Sites on the Richmond Shoreline
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Approximately $250,000
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
2030 General Plan adopted in 2012; Climate Action Plan
adopted in 2016; Sea Level Rise presentations in 2021
and 2023 by UC Berkeley Dr. Kristina Hill; Resolution 43- 21 (to take action to mitigate the potential impacts of sea level rise in Richmond)
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
Richmond has 32 miles of shoreline, more than any other city along the Bay. It is our responsibility to create a shoreline resiliency plan to guide us into the future in creating a sustainable shoreline with cleanup of toxins, recreation and education opportunities, and preparation for sea level rise and flood protection in these urgent times as the climate crisis continues to deepen.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
DIRECT staff to circulate an RFP to contract with a
shoreline consultant for the creation of a Shoreline
Resiliency Plan with inclusion of an inventory of toxic sites along our shoreline and come back to the Council
by end of year with a recommended consultant to create
this plan over the course of 12 months. Vice Mayor
McLaughlin (510-620-6636)
AGENDA
REPORT
July 11, 2023
DISCUSSION:
Over the past two decades, Richmond has shown itself to be a leader in the environmental and health arenas. Our Environmental and Health page of the City’s website shows the incredible amount of work and policy changes we have done thus far. https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/1610/Environmental-and-Health-Initiatives.
Richmond completed its Climate Action Plan (CAP) 7 years ago in 2016. Objective 8 in our 2016 CAP is “Resiliency to Climate Change” and a shoreline protection plan is one of its recommended strategies. In addition, our 2030 General Plan approved in 2012 includes an “Energy and Climate Change Element” that references the need to protect our shoreline and natural resources as a policy recommendation.
Additionally, the City Council recently approved an overarching goal (through our recent goal-setting meetings) to address: Shoreline issues and Ecological sustainability. A sub- goal was to “Consider a shoreline resiliency inventory plan (which includes preparation for sea level rise).”
The purpose of this item is to direct staff to circulate an RFP for a consultant to create a Shoreline Resiliency Plan with the inclusion of an inventory of toxic sites along our shoreline. A good definition of a resilient shoreline and why it is needed is stated on the Citizens for East Shore Parks (CESP) website as follows:
What is a Resilient Shoreline?
A Resilient Shoreline relies on preserving and strengthening the natural shoreline, including expanded marshes, systems to address rising sea levels due to climate change, storm surges and King Tides.
Why a Resilient Shoreline?
Climate change adds urgency to expanding the amount of shoreline protected from development. Open space along the shoreline provides expanded opportunities to implement mitigation and larger-scale restoration efforts compared to areas with development abutting the shoreline. Adding marshes and other recommended natural shorelines is a major step in mitigating sea rise.
Richmond has 32 miles of shoreline, more than any other city along the San Francisco Bay. Our extensive shoreline adds much beauty to our city, as well as offering opportunities for recreation and other healthy activities.
However, Richmond also has a history of heavy industry along our shorelines. Many of these industries have long since moved out of Richmond, and at the same time have left their toxic legacy behind. As the climate crisis continues to deepen, we, in Richmond, are faced with increased problems surrounding these toxic sites.
Sea level rise is rightly a major concern for our community. With increased weather events, we can only expect more flooding and other harmful impacts to humans,
July 11, 2023
property and our natural resources. Given the number of toxic sites on our shoreline, both superfund sites and brownfields, not only is flooding an enormous concern, but the spread of toxins triggered by sea level rise and rising groundwater sets up a scenario of mobilizing the dangerous toxins along our shoreline into surrounding sites and the Bay.
The threat of earthquakes and liquefaction adds additional concerns about the spread of these toxins in ways that will heavily impact us as a community and our resources.
Over the course of recent years, new information and data has been generated, including enhanced scientific data on accelerated sea level rise, lowered thresholds for certain toxins in regard to their impact on human health, and new strategies to protect vulnerable populations.
Creating a Shoreline Resiliency Plan, with inclusion of a toxic site inventory, is in Richmond’s interest.
Some of the important components of this plan and inventory must start with the understanding that our shoreline is an integrated ecosystem. An impact to one part of the shoreline impacts other parts, so it is essential that we look at the shoreline as a whole. For example, correcting a flooding pattern for one area of the shoreline, can potentially only move the flood waters to another area of the shoreline. In addition, toxins along our shoreline know no boundaries and can travel off site (a situation that has already occurred in many cases) to nearby sites and into the Bay and other waterways creating further contamination and public health problems.
It is important to note that this shoreline plan has two major areas of focus (1) a toxic inventory, and 2) nature-based sea level rise protection and shoreline restoration/resiliency strategies). Undertaking these tasks will necessitate a strong public outreach component.
1. Toxic Inventory.
Many of us are well aware of the toxic Zeneca site on our southeast shoreline. This is a Superfund-qualified site made up of a slew of hazardous toxins. Currently an unlined cap covers 500,000 cubic yards of hazardous materials, making it an unlicensed Hazardous Waste Dump on our shoreline. At present, a project is underway to build 4,000 housing units at this toxic site. Simultaneously, there are lawsuits to DTSC (the Department of Toxic Substance Control) to stop this irresponsible development project.
While this is a private site, the City should be concerned about the threats to our community, our environment and the threat of liability for the City.
The Richmond Southeast Shoreline Area Community Advisory Group (known as the “CAG”) reviews the work of DTSC and has done so for the last nearly 20 years. The CAG not only reviews the toxic Zeneca site, but it reviews all the DTSC regulated sites along our southeast shoreline. The CAG’s study and analysis of thousands of DTSC documents continues to be a great source of information for us all. See Attachment 1 for
July 11, 2023
a brochure created by the CAG. The map identifies the various toxic sites. Contra Costa County also has maps of toxic sites in Richmond.
Attachment 2 indicates the areas within the Marina Bay housing development where contamination exists. It will be important to have these sites identified within the inventory along with any comments from the CAG (some of whom live in Marina Bay housing) and Marina Bay residents.
In addition, there are toxic sites along other parts of our shoreline that should be included in this inventory.
While our City staff may have access to DTSC regulated sites, the CAG’s extensive knowledge needs to be shared with the City via a consultant who will be charged with creating this Toxic Inventory. This will allow the City to have a one-stop inventory for understanding the complexities of toxins along our shoreline, and the community’s concerns about these. Such an inventory should not only list the contaminated shoreline sites, but should list the specific regulatory agency assigned to each site (e.g. DTSC, US EPA, Water Board). It should also list the names of toxins, the level of toxic contamination on each site and their threat to human health and the environment. It should not be limited to our southeast shoreline, as our north shoreline has some serious problems of contamination as well. The inventory should indicate any clean up already done and further needed clean up along with proposed clean up strategies (Note: different clean up strategies may be proposed by the community and the regulatory agency, which should be noted in the inventory). In addition, the responsible parties for the cleanup should be listed. And finally, protective measures should be identified for the community while toxins remain on sites (signage, education, etc).
Having such a Toxic Inventory will guide us in our future efforts to create a sustainable shoreline. Although funding for cleanups will take considerable time, it will be useful for the Inventory to discuss funding possibilities which include: engaging the regulatory agency to require the responsible party to foot the bill, accessing climate grants, and pressuring the state and federal government to strengthen standards of clean up with the onus on the responsible party.
It will be important for the consultant to interview and review the work of Dr. Kristina Hill, PhD, UC Berkeley, who has provided presentations to the City Council and the public.
See Dr. Hill’s presentation “Sea Level Rise: Impacts on Richmond” here:
https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/64926/Hill-Richmond-City- Council-Feb-28-short-2023-PDF
Dr. Hill adeptly explains how the toxins will be mobilized with sea level rise and ground water elevations and spread to neighboring sites and into the Bay and other waterways such as creeks, causing the ecosystem and public health to be compromised big-time.
2. Research and examine strategies for nature-based shoreline restoration and climate resiliency
July 11, 2023
While most site restorations will need to wait until cleanup is funded and completed, there may be some areas of our shoreline that are not constrained by cleanup needs, where a couple pilot projects for a “living shoreline” can be envisioned for implementation in the near term. Ultimately, our goal should be to create a “living shoreline” with nature-based protections. The City of Hayward has created a great plan for Shoreline adaptation. See here:
https://www.hayward-
ca.gov/sites/default/files/210510_Hayward%20Shoreline%20Adapatation%20Master%2 0Plan_Document_Pages.pdf S tarting on page 87 it talks about nature- based strategies.
A good set of goals for nature-based restorations and climate resiliency can be modeled after (or modified from) Hayward’s plan:
PROJECT GOALS
Create a Resilient Shoreline Environment for People and Ecology • Enhance the shoreline’s ecological value and adapt to sea level rise • Enhance recreational opportunities and adapt to climate change • Create a management framework for adapting to sea level rise over time • Provide refuge to help endangered shoreline species to adapt climate change
Enhance the Shoreline Environment to Reduce Risk to Critical Infrastructure and Built Assets
• Align with and enhance existing management and capital improvement plans • Reduce risk to regional critical utilities from sea level rise, groundwater intrusion, and flood events
• Reduce risk to transportation infrastructure from sea level rise, groundwater intrusion, and flood events
• Reduce risk to agency assets such as the San Francisco Bay Trail and marsh restoration project(s)
Build Social Resilience in the Community
• Promote social equity, environmental justice, and public health • Preserve the local economy and increase resilience to climate change • Prevent the disruption of key community services
Build Capacity for Future Generations to Adapt to climate change • Build organizational and community capacity
• Provide a place for education, interpretation and understanding of the shoreline and climate change
• Foster stewardship of the shoreline’s cultural and ecological resources In addition, our Shoreline Plan should list the types of restoration jobs that can be created from soft engineering projects, which protect and restore natural habitats. (Note:
such jobs can be added to our Green-Blue New Deal).
Exemptions
July 11, 2023
Exempted from this Shoreline Plan will be the Port of Richmond, as the Port is being examined via a Strategic Plan of its own, given its focus on economic development potential for revenue generation and job creation in the green and blue economy.
However, the Shoreline Plan and the Port Plan should complement each other in terms of their sustainability measures (greening the Port and greening the shoreline go hand in hand).
Additionally, there are some sites along our shoreline that have legal restrictions currently attached to them. The City and community will need to examine separately (apart from this shoreline plan) such sites.
Shoreline sites that have some legal restrictions based on current agreements or other legal requirements are listed below:
Pt. Molate
Campus Bay
Terminal One
Brickyard Cove Residential Project
Public Outreach process: Community and stakeholder interviews and citywide meetings
One of the key components of this plan and inventory is to seek input from community and stakeholders. Interviews and community meetings should be conducted.
Here is a list of various stakeholders, organizations and regulatory agencies that should be contacted:
1. Richmond City Council
2. Appropriate City staff
3. Richmond Southeast Shoreline Area CAG
4. Richmond Shoreline Alliance
5. Pt. Molate Alliance
6. Blue Frontier
7. Citizens for East Shore Parks
8. Sierra Club of West County
9. Native Plants Society
10. Watershed Project
11. Dr. Kristina Hill, PhD UC Berkeley
12. Mothers against Toxic Housing
13. Richmond Neighborhood Coordinating Council
14. Department of Toxics Substance Control (DTSC) San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
15. US EPA
16. Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC)
17. East Bay Regional Park District
July 11, 2023
18. West County Wastewater District
At least one citywide meeting should be conducted to inform and hear input from the community at large.
There are also a host of already completed shoreline adaptations plans by other agencies and organizations along with some recent articles that may lend some insight to this project. See attachment 3. Some of these plans are very comprehensive and were created with significant funding and an extended time frame, it would be beneficial for Richmond’s plan to be smaller in cost and scope, as it is essential to get this plan in place as soon as possible. This item proposes a 12-month timeline and $250k compensation for a consultant.
Implementing this plan will be a long-term endeavor, but getting the guidelines in place is essential with the knowledge that the plan could and should be amended, expanded and/or modified as we move into the future, given changing circumstances of the climate crisis and other factors.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – CAG Brochure identifying toxic sites on southeast shoreline Attachment 2 – Marina Bay map identifying toxic spots in the Marina Bay area Attachment 3 – List of links to other shoreline plans