RICHMOND, Calif. - The Brickyard Cove Alliance for Responsible Development went on record this week opposing a price reduction in what developers Laconia, Inc. have agreed to pay the city to purchase the Terminal One property on Brickyard Way where a housing development is planned.
The opposition came in the form of a letter from BCARD, outlining the group's concerns.
"BCARD maintains there should be no revision of the purchase terms for Terminal One because Laconia has caused needless additional expenditures," the letter states.
(See full text of letter below).
The Richmond City Council is expected take up the proposal - and Terminal One's future - tonight in a closed-to-the-public session.
The regular session of the council begins at 6:30 p.m. as a Zoom meeting and will include a public comment session at which time members of the public can ask questions and comment on Terminal One
The Zoom city council meeting (except for the closed session) can be accessed here:
Please click the link below to join the webinar:
https://zoom.us/j/99312205643?pwd=MDdqNnRmS2k4ZkRTOWhlUldQOUF1Zz09
Passcode: ccmeeting
The full text of BCARD's letter to the city council:
Dear Members of the City Council and Ms Laura Snideman, City Manager
I represent BCARD, Brickyard Cove Alliance for Responsible Development, a neighborhood association formed in 2015 to ensure a responsible development of Terminal One, a unique and irreplaceable property.
We sued the City and Laconia in 2016 over lapses, in our view, of the EIR; the suit was settled via mediation with, among other things, BCARD being awarded funds to serve as an independent monitoring body for the toxics remediation of T1. That has been our principle focus to date and is the reason we want to be sure the Council and new City Manager are aware of Laconia’s record regarding site cleanup. It is also the reason we would object, in the strongest possible terms, to any claims made by Laconia that remediation costs are the basis for a price reduction of the T1’s sales agreement.
Since November 2016, BCARD has submitted fourteen sets of technical comments compiled by our team of consultants drawing on expertise in soil gas, groundwater monitoring and geotechnical remediation.
The City Council has delegated complete cleanup responsibility to Laconia using portions of the $3.2 million fund received from the 2005 Settlement Agreement between the City of Richmond and Responsible Parties. Consistently, Laconia and their consultants have underperformed in terms of their ability to move the remediation process forward with the appropriate scientific rigor. The agency responsible for oversight, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), has regularly found data gaps and inadequate submittals and implementation of work plans. This has necessitated rework on Laconia’s part resulting in additional expense and project delays.
For instance, here are two recent examples from the RWQCB project manager and principle scientific reviewer as noted in his 3 March 2020 comments to Ms Velasco regarding Laconia’s consultants (and, the City’s) work:
“However, the RD [Remedial Design] report does not adequately address the Water Board’s conditions for the 2018 RAP, [Remedial Action Plan] has other deficiencies as detailed below, and therefore is unacceptable.” (Page 1)
“The Self-Monitoring Program will not adequately monitor groundwater quality and slurry wall effectiveness. Revise the RD report to provide additional piezometer-well pairs along the slurry wall alignment; long-term, quarterly self-monitoring; and an acceptable Contingency Plan if the remedy is ineffective.” (Page 3) https://documents.geotracker.
And, from the RWQCB’s letter of 24 August 2020 to Ms Velasco, the project manager stated:
“Quarterly, long-term groundwater monitoring was abandoned during the third quarter of 2019. The data gap, now spanning at least four quarters, limits our understanding of petroleum discharges to the San Francisco Bay and our ability to evaluate future slurry wall performance…Please address these comments and submit a reviewed workplan.” (Page 1-2) https://documents.geotracker.
In summary, the Regional Board’s comments suggest frustration with Laconia, (and the City as the delegating party) regarding the quality of submissions resulting in delays in moving the project forward. Accordingly, BCARD maintains cost overruns and additional expense are largely due to the management of the project by Laconia on behalf of the City. Once the property has sold, the City still has not legally relinquished its liability for the site’s cleanup and ongoing monitoring. Regardless of what Laconia does, once the Settlement funds for cleanup and monitoring are exhausted, the City will still be the responsible party; BCARD maintains there should be no revision of the purchase terms for Terminal One because Laconia has caused needless additional expenditures.
Respectfully,
Brian Lewis
Chair, BCARD Steering Committee
