Skip to content

zeneca site richmond fence

Fearing new council would quash plan, Mayor Butt rushed to pass Zeneca decision, citizens’ group says

on May 28, 2021

This is the last story in a four-part series. 

In December, new claims that Mayor Tom Butt used his office to influence a development decision on another controversial Richmond property were filed in court, marking the third time in four years that the mayor’s actions sparked a legal fight. 

This time, the property was the former Zeneca Inc. industrial site on Richmond’s south shoreline. The multitude of chemicals left in the soil and water at the 90-acre site as a result of decades of manufacturing means the site rivals Point Molate as a lightning rod for conflict between environmental groups and supporters of development. 

 The site had hosted a chemical plant for a century. For more than 60 years, it was home to Stauffer Chemical Co. and later was purchased by the British pharmaceutical company Zeneca, which is now AstraZeneca, maker of one of the COVID-19 vaccines. Zeneca shut down its Richmond plant in 1997. A few years later, the state Department of Toxic Substances Control took over the site, which contained a long list of contaminants, including high levels of arsenic.

Richmond City Council had been eying the tract for residential development, but that would require more cleanup. In a 2016 letter to DTSC, attorneys for Zeneca said it had spent $20 million on remediation and pledged another $30 million, but the company expressed reservations about the city’s plan to put houses there.

arsenic monitors near Zeneca site
The Zeneca site, with posts marking wells that monitor arsenic levels. (File photo)

In 2018, DTSC offered several options for how to proceed, including a costly full remediation and a less costly capping of the site, effectively tamping down the contaminated soil after removing the top layer. The council that year backed full remediation. Its position changed in 2019, however, when the potential for any development on the site in the near future hinged on a less-aggressive plan.

“This city is not financially as sovereign as some of you may think,” council member Nathaniel Bates said when voting in favor of the change. “This city needs revenue. This community needs jobs. This is an opportunity for this city to be bold [and] creative to clean up this site.”

The plan passed 5-2 in September 2019, with Butt joining the majority. Immediately, it met with opposition.

“Until it’s cleaned up, don’t put people on it, or we’re going to have our own Love Canal situation here down in Richmond,” Eric Bloom, chair of a citizen advisory committee to DTSC, said at that 2019 meeting.

With the state allowing a cleanup plan that would pave the way for housing, the council last fall considered a proposal to build a large-scale project on the Zeneca site. Hilco Redevelopment Partners and the Southern California-based developer Shopoff Realty Investments proposed a mixed-use project featuring 4,000 housing units and 50,000 square feet of retail space. 

When three members of the Richmond Progressive Alliance won council seats in November, Butt feared the plan would unravel. 

“I don’t want to start all over again next year when the Richmond Progressive Alliance has a majority,” Butt said in November. “If it doesn’t get done before they take office, I can tell you, they’ll do everything they can to stop it.”

The plan did meet with strong opposition, with many citizens speaking against it and many others urging the council to delay the decision a few weeks until newly elected members were seated.

The council, led by Butt, scheduled a vote on a development agreement with Shopoff for early December. That meant that a new City Council that was unlikely to support the deal wouldn’t get to vote on the agreement because it would not be sworn in until January. 

“I think that the mayor really wanted to get this done while he still had a council majority. … I think he pushed this through as fast as he could,” said Stuart Flashman, an attorney who represents the five environmental groups that filed the latest lawsuit.

The lawsuit claims that Butt used his position as mayor to cut off council members’ attempts to ask questions about the development agreement and the environmental impacts of the proposed project.

Butt disputes that claim. “I did not cut anyone off, unless they exceeded their time limit,” he said in a recent email.

Attorneys for the city have not yet filed a response to the lawsuit.

With a lawsuit challenging the Point Molate project on appeal and the possibility that the owners of the PowerPlant Park cannabis growing site will reopen their case against the city, Richmomnd may be looking at a period of prolonged litigation. 

Whether Butt instigated any of that litigation will be up to the courts to decide. 

 (Read Part One: Lawsuits claim Richmond mayor steered development decisions in violation of ethics laws; Part Two: Recusals didn’t keep Mayor Butt from meddling in zoning, lawsuit claim; Part Three: Groups claim Mayor Butt excluded public from Point Molate development decision.)


  1. Deborah Bayer on May 28, 2021 at 3:09 pm

    Thanks for a good summary of the argument. The mission of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control is supposedly to protect the public, but acts more like a fan club for developers. In the case of the Zeneca site the DTSC refuses to look at how sea level rise could undermine their proposed “clean-up” to residential standards.

  2. Janet Johnson on May 28, 2021 at 5:02 pm

    The Richmond Shoreline Alliance pressed the city council to take sea level rise into account before they gave blanket approval to put housing on the former AstraZeneca toxic waste dump. Sea level rise doesn’t just refer to the published figures; storm surges and king tides must also be taken into account, increasing estimated figures by a third or more. If the 550,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil are not removed but instead are capped, as called for in the current plan, water with cancer- and Parkinson’s-causing toxics will rise to the surface and inundate ground floor residences.
    Sea level rise is only one of many serious difficulties with this Superfund-qualified site, one of the ten most contaminated in California, which local activists have been trying to get cleaned up for decades.
    Find out more at

  3. John on May 28, 2021 at 8:28 pm

    This series began by claiming it would examine the mayor’s decisions to recuse himself from city council deliberations and votes for which he supposedly has a conflict of interest.

    And yet it has instead presented one case (North Shore) in which he did have a conflict and recused himself as required, a second case (Point Molate) for which the author claims there was a conflict but no actual conflict exists, and a third case (Campus Bay) in which the author fails to even make the claim of conflict.

    Instead this entire train wreck of journalism just comes across as more RPA-inspired anti-housing gobbledygook with some occasional cheap shots at the mayor.

  4. david ernst on May 29, 2021 at 10:39 am

    So sick of Tom Butt and his self interests.

  5. John on May 29, 2021 at 1:33 pm

    This series was supposed to be about the mayor’s decisions around recusal from city council deliberations and votes when faced with potential conflicts of interest.

    Instead it has presented one case where he had a conflict and recused as required, one case where a claim of conflict was made but such conflict did not exist, and one case where the author didn’t even bother making a claim of conflict.

    In the end this series was really nothing more than the Confidential once again parroting RPA anti-housing propaganda.

  6. John on June 2, 2021 at 5:14 am

    Moderation test

  7. Rod on June 3, 2021 at 4:27 pm

    There is no doubt this new counsil would terminate this project.
    Mayor Butt did the right thing

Richmond Confidential welcomes comments from our readers, but we ask users to keep all discussion civil and on-topic. Comments post automatically without review from our staff, but we reserve the right to delete material that is libelous, a personal attack, or spam. We request that commenters consistently use the same login name. Comments from the same user posted under multiple aliases may be deleted. Richmond Confidential assumes no liability for comments posted to the site and no endorsement is implied; commenters are solely responsible for their own content.

Card image cap
Richmond Confidential

Richmond Confidential is an online news service produced by the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism for, and about, the people of Richmond, California. Our goal is to produce professional and engaging journalism that is useful for the citizens of the city.

Please send news tips to

Latest Posts

Scroll To Top