A group of environmental organizations whose members felt excluded from planning of the Northern Waterfront Economic Development Initiative have invited officials to describe the plan to the public Saturday in Antioch.

The groups then plan to explain their concerns — particularly that suggested development along the Carquinez Strait coastline fails to include renewable energy options.

At the meeting, organized by the Bay Area Refinery Corridor Coalition, Gary Craft, principal of Craft Consulting Group, Lafayette, will speak about the initiative, as will Rich Seithel, Contra Costa County chief of annexations and economic stimulus programs.

The Northern Waterfront Economic Development Initiative has been described by Contra Costa County as a regional, cluster-based economic development strategy with the goal of creating 18,000 new jobs by 2035.

According to information provided by the county, the initiative leverages existing assets and competitive advantages and focuses on manufacturing in advanced transportation fuels, biotech and biomedical, manufacturing, food processing and clean technology.

The targeted land stretches from Hercules 50 miles upstream to Oakley, and covers 28,000 acres, or 47 square miles.

The initiative is a public and private collaboration among Contra Costa County and the cities of Hercules, Martinez, Concord, Pittsburg, Antioch and Oakley and private industry associations.

One of the initiative’s documents said that the industrial waterfront has 61 percent of Contra Costa County’s industrial zoned lands and contributes a third of the county’s gross regional product. The initiative’s goal is to double the number of advanced manufacturing jobs by 2035, which, with a multiplier effect, would create a total of 18,000 high-wage jobs.

The document said the initiative is considered positive for the environment because expanding local employment would reduce commuting. That, in turn, would reduce air pollution, especially from greenhouse gas emissions.

The development would include infrastructure investment, permit streamlining, import and export expansion and manufacturing process improvements. Other improvements would address moving goods by rail, truck and marine freight vessel.

The initiative would target clean technology, transportation fuels, diversified manufacturing, food and beverage processing and life sciences, and has been described as a way to be competitive in the 21st-century global economy.

In April 2013, in preparation of the January 2014 publication of “Revitalizing Contra Costa County’s Northern Waterfront,” District V Contra Costa County Supervisor Federal Glover wrote, “It’s long been a vision of mine to revitalize Contra Costa County’s Northern Waterfront. As a young man … I gained a deep appreciation and understanding of how important Pittsburg’s working waterfront is to the community.

“Likewise, I see the revitalization of the county’s Northern Waterfront as vital to anyone concerned with economic development in Contra Costa County.”

Glover wrote that a regional group made up of private industry, cities and other public agencies as well as community groups would have more influence than individual organizations and people.

He wrote that the county’s northern waterfront is one of Contra Costa County’s greatest but most underused economic assets. “I want to change that,” he wrote.

The 2014 document supported Glover’s view, saying the area has deep water channels, marine terminals, two Class 1 railroad lines, manufacturers, electric generating capacity industrial land, a skilled workforce and proximity to growing markets in Northern California.

It said the current workforce of 26,000 and the companies where they’re employed generate $21.6 billion, and manufacturing alone contributed $9.3 billion, or 13.9 percent of the county’s overall gross regional product of $67 billion.

The area has been home to Redwood Manufacturing, Selby Smelting and Lead, Union Oil, Mountain Copper, Hercules Powder Works, California Fruit Packers Association, C&H Sugar and Columbia Steel, among others.

By 1962, the manufacturers employed nearly 40 percent of the Contra Costa County workforce. That has declined to 7 percent, the document said. The northern waterfront’s share of manufacturing has experienced a similar decline as Contra Costa County’s economy has shifted to the service sector.

The companies that have remained are oil refineries, petrochemical plants, metal fabrication, sugar processing and life science firms, described as the core from which a “more vibrant and diversified regional economy” could be built.

The document suggested development be undertaken in clusters that are anchored by global companies making products for local and regional markets, such as chemical, pharmaceutical and transportation products; those anchored by food and beverage, fabricated metals, printing and those producing products for which shipping time is a critical factor; those clusters producing energy- and resource-intensive products such as metals, refined petroleum and non-metal mineral construction materials that need power generation and ports that are on the northern waterfront; and clusters of emerging industries making new products, such as clean technology, recycled materials, alternative energy and water technologies that would be near Bay Area researchers’ and producers’ headquarters.

The report concluded that the outlook for industrial development on the northern waterfront was uncertain, but could be favorable if local governments act together and take the actions needed to capitalize on emerging trends.

“Local governments and stakeholders should work together to create a new framework for regional cooperation with a clear focus and objective of enhancing the Northern Waterfront as a competitive location for industrial development,” the document said.

However, members of the Bay Area Refinery Corridor Coalition (BARCC), the San Francisco Bay chapter of the Sierra Club and the Interfaith Climate Action Network of Contra Costa County have expressed reservations about the initiative, even though it hasn’t progressed far enough to require review under the California Environmental Quality Act.

Group members said the initiative has too little emphasis on renewable energy production, such as solar and wind power generation, and instead promotes refineries. Moreover, members said residents have not had an opportunity to weigh in on the recommendations.

Once Craft and Seithel speak on Saturday, BARCC members will elaborate on their concerns, said Andres Soto, a member of both BARCC and Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community.

“We have a list of requests,” Soto said.

“It’s a master plan project. It includes dredging to allow larger ships,” he said.

Instead of industrial development as suggested by the initiative, Soto said he would prefer developing the land into the “Karkin Bioregion.” The name “Karkin” is closer to the pronunciation of the Native-American word that has evolved into “Carquinez,” he said.

Instead of focusing on fossil fuels and industries of the past, he said, Contra Costa County should encourage renewable energy and forward-thinking industries.

“The Selby slag heap leaches into the bay,” putting heavy metals such as mercury, selenium and lead into the water, Soto said. “That’s just one example.” The region also is home to several refineries and Dow Chemicals, he pointed out.

Another BARCC member, Stephanie Hervey, said she hoped to convince Contra Costa County to focus on clean energy production as a way to create “living-wage and union jobs,” and said the region could become a boost to the local economy.

High-paid workers could remove contaminations from the area’s brownfields, Hervey said. Then the land could be used for farming.

“California supplies a third of the food, but the Central Valley is in the middle of a drought,” she said. Increasing farming in Contra Costa County could address the local need for food.

Hervey said she became involved in the issue after moving to Richmond and living through the 2012 Chevron Refinery explosion. She said she has had health problems since that time.

“That’s a delicate bioregion,” she said of the Carquinez waterfront.

Another concern Soto expressed: global warming and inevitable sea level rise. “That will impact the entire region,” he said.

Marilyn Bardet, who with Soto is a member of Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community, said the document appears to assume continuation of the practice of building on brownfields.

“They build on brownfields all the time,” Bardet said. “Whether this is good, that’s what this is about.”

The Sierra Club’s San Francisco chapter, one of the meeting’s sponsors, also is disappointed in the lack of renewable energy proposed for the area, spokesperson Virginia Reinhart said. Nor, she said, is the initiative taking into consideration other forms of “green growth.”

“There are no renewable energy targets,” Reinhart said, nor does the plan thus far provide for tracking sustainable industries.

Because the Bay Area is a leader in sustainable endeavors, renewable energy and community choice utilities, she said, refocusing on that segment of industry could create 450,000 jobs.

“Our hope is more people will become aware of the initiative and will become involved in the process,” said Pamela Arauz, another BARCC member.

“We need to take care of business in our back yard,” Soto added.

The meeting is open to the public and will start at 10 a.m. in the Nick Rodriguez Community Center, 213 F St., Antioch. Lunch will be served, so those interested in attending need to register at http://northernwaterfrontlunchrsvp.eventbrite.com or through Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/events/809066505881284/.

Those interested in more information may call 925-709-4295 or email info@bayarearcc.org.