Res. No. ____
ATTACHMENT 1
DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. ____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL O F THE CITY OF RICHMOND
DENYING THE APPEAL OF, AND AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION AS MO DIFIED, REGARDING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PLN21-282, AND I) ADOPTING AN UPDATED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION; II) APPROVIN G A MITIGATIO N MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM; AND III) APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE
AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMITS FOR THE RAVEN BI OENERGY PROJECT (PLN21-282)
WHEREAS, on July 30, 2021, Raven SR, LLC (“applicant ” or “permittee”), filed Planning Application No. PLN21 -282, requesting approval of design revie w and conditional use permits for the proposed Raven Bioenergy Project (“pro ject”) to be located at 1 Pa rr Boulevard in the OS (Open Space) District, Assessor’s Parcel No. 408-140-009 (“project site”); and
WHEREAS, the project involves the construction an d opera tion of a bioenergy facility that would convert food and green waste into transportation - grade hydrogen; and
WHEREAS, the project is governed by the Ri chmond General Plan and Richmond Municipal Code (“RMC”); and
WHEREAS, the Project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Public Resources Code 21 000-21189) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000-15387); and
WHEREAS, the City, a s the lead agency under C EQA, pr epared an environmental initial study for the project; and
WHEREAS, based on the analysis in the initial study, the potentially significant effects of t he project could be reduced to a less -than-significant level through implementation of specific mitigation measures, and subsequently, a mitigated negative declaration was prepared; and
WHEREAS, on November 7, 2022, a notice of intent to adopt a mitigated negative declaratio n (“NOI”) was distributed for 30 -day public review and comment period, in accordance with CEQA Guidel ines Section 15072 and 15105; and
WHEREAS, on December 7, 2022, the public review and comment period for the mitigated negative declar ation was extended f or an additional 15 days to Res. No. ____
allow interested parties more time to review the document; and
WHEREAS, although not re quired by CEQA, the City responded to all written comments received during the public review and comment period; and
WHEREAS, on or prior to December 2, 2022, not ice of the December 15, 2022 public hearing was given in accordance with Richmond Municipal Code (“RMC”) Section 15.04.803.070 (Public Notice) and applicable State law; and
WHEREAS, on December 15, 2022, the Planning Commission considered the miti gated ne gative declaration (State Clearingh ouse #2022100145) and conditional use and design review permits , and held a public hearing on the project, at which time oral and/or written testimony was considered; and
WHEREAS, following the close of the public heari ng on the matter , the Planning Commission made findings regarding the mitigated neg ative declaration, and conditional use and design review permits, and voted to conditionally approve Planning Application No. PLN21-282; and
WHEREAS, within the 1 0-day appeal period provided to file an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision, an appeal was timely filed with the City; and
WHEREAS, to provide clari ty to questions r aised in the appeal , the City prepared an updated mitigated negative declaration to clarify, amplify, and refine the language of the mitigated negative declaration . Among other items, the update provide d an additional description of proposed operational details, information from a health risk assessmen t (HRA), and more details regarding the project’s impacts on air quality and greenhouse gases; and
WHEREAS, although not required by CEQA, o n March 9, 2023, a notice of intent to adopt a n updated mitigated negative declaration was distributed for a 30-day public review and comment period; and
WHEREAS, on March 14, 2023, the public review and comment period for the updated mitigated negative declaration was extended through April 12, 2023, for a total of 34 days, to allow interested parties more time to r eview th e document and a clarified table; and
WHEREAS, written comments were received, and a lthough not re quired by CEQA, the City responded to all written comments received during the public review and comment peri od and made those responses available on April 2 6, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the City provided no tice of the City Council hearing on the appeal as required by law; and
WHEREAS, on May 16, 2023, the City Council received and reviewed the Res. No. ____
appeal of the Planning C ommission’s decision granting Planning Application No.
PLN21-282, including the mitigated negative declaration for the project, at a duly noticed meeting; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing w as held, and the opportunity for public comment on the appeal of the Planning Commission ’s decision was prov ided; and
WHEREAS, any and all public testimony a nd evidence, both written and oral, was considered by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, after conside ring any public testimony and receiving information provided to date, the City Council closed public testi mony and deliberated on the appeal based on the evi dence in the administrative record; and
WHEREAS, after consideration of said public testimony and information in the record, the City Council determined that there was substantial evidence in the record that the project complied with the RMC, CEQA, and all requirements for approval of Planning Application No. PLN21-282; and
WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to deny the appeal and uphold the decis ion of the Planning Commission to approve Planning Appl ication No.
PLN21-282 as furth er conditioned , including the adoption of the updated mitigated negative declaration for the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of t he City of Richmond resolves and finds as follows:
Recitals
1. The City Council finds t hat the recitals are true and correct and incorporates the same herein as if set forth in full.
Administrative Record
2. The record of proceedings (“Record”) for the project includes, but is not limited to: (1) all staff reports, City f iles and records and other documents prepared for and/or submitted to the Planning Comm ission, City Council , and the City relating to the project; (2) the evidence, facts, findings and other determinations set forth in this resolution; (3) the City of Rich mond General Plan and the RMC; (4) all applications, designs, plans, studies, data and correspondence submitted by the applicant in connection with the project; (5) all docu mentary and oral evidence received at public hearings or submitted to the City relating to the project; (6) all other matters of common knowledge to the Planning Commission and City Council including, but not limited to, City, state Res. No. ____
and federal laws, policies, rules re gulations, reports, records and projections related to development wi thin the City and its surrounding areas; and (7) all documents specified under applicab le State law including Public Resources Code section 21167.6(e).
Mitigated Negative Declaration Findings:
3. The City Council find s and determines that there is no substantial evidence in the record that Planning Application No. PLN2 1-282 may have a significant effect on the environment as identified by the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, as updated, prepared f or the project. The City Council finds that an Initial Study (Environme ntal Assessment) was prepared f or this project in accordance with the requirements of the Califor nia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, and reflects the Council’s independent judgement and analysis. This process included the distribution of requ ests for comment from other res ponsible or affected agencies and interested organizations. Prepa ration of the Environmental Assessment necessitated a thorough review of the proposed p roject and rel evant environmental issues and considered previously prepa red environmental and technical studies. While the proposed project could have a potentially sig nificant effect on the environment, based on its independent judgement and analysis, th e City Council finds that feasible mitigation measures or alternatives h ave been incorporated into the project in order to avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where no significant effect on the environment will occur, and there is no subs tantial evidenc e in the record that this project may have any direct, ind irect or cumulative effects on the environment that are potentially significant and adverse. Th e proposed project will not result in any adverse effects which fall within the “Mandat ory Findings of Significance” contained in Section 15065 of the State CEQ A Guidelines. The project -specific mitigation measures included in the Project to avoid potenti ally significant effects are set forth in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declarat ion and accompa nying Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. With th e projec t specific mitigations imposed, there is no substantial evidence in the record that this project may have significant direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on the environme nt. As such, the City Council finds and de termines that there is substant ial evid ence in the administr ative record to support the Planning Commission determination that the project has been adequately environmentally assessed as required by CEQA . The City Council also finds and determines that in light of the entire administrative record and the substantial evidence before it, the project has been adequately environmentally assessed as required by CEQA.
Res. No. ____
Conditional Use Permit Findings and Statements of Fact:
4. The City Council finds and determines that there is subst antial evidence in the administrative record to support the City Council’s review of the Planning Commis sion’s adoption of Planning Application No. PLN21 -282 as being consistent with the re quirements of the Municipal Code requirements applicable to conditional use p ermits, including RMC Sectio n 15.04.806.040. Add itionally, the City Council also finds and de termines that there is substantial evidence in the entire administrative record that Planning Application No. PLN21 -282, as conditioned, is consistent with the re quirements of the Municipal Code requirements applicable to conditional use permits . The City Council further approves, accepts as its own, incorporates as if set forth in full h erein, and makes each and every one of the findings, based on the evidence in the record, as set forth below.
5. The location of the proposed c onditional use is in accordanc e with the General Plan and any specific plan and land use designations for the project site.
Statement of Fact: The project site is not located in any specific plan area. The General Plan l and use designation for the project site is “Open Space”. Accordin g to the General Plan, this designation is intended to include wetlands, mudflats, cr eek corridors and other natural preservation areas, as well as private lands used fo r recreational purposes or deed -restricted for open space preservation, and utilities. The proposed use falls under the classification of “Utilities, Major” and is therefor e consistent with the General Plan land use designation. RMC Section 15.04.1 04.020 d efines “Utilities, Ma jor” as generating plants, electric substations, and solid waste c ollection, including transfer stations and materials recovery facilities, solid waste treatment and disposal, water or wastewater treatment plants, biomass and w aste to energy conversion fac ilities, an d similar facilities of private companies, public agencies or public utilities.
6. The location, size, design and operating c haracteristics of the proposed use will be compatible with and will not adversely aff ect the livability or appropriate development of adjacent properties and the surrounding neighborhood.
Statement of Fact: The project site is in a non -residential area th at is dominated by industrial uses with similar operating characteristics, including the West County Wastewater District Treatment Plant, EBMUD’s North Richmond Water Reclamation Plant, th e Richmond Sanitary District, and other refuse services.
7. The propos ed use will not create any nuisances arising from the Res. No. ____
emission of odor, dust, gas, no ise, vibration, smoke heat or glare at a level exceeding ambient conditions.
Statement of Fact: The project is required to comply with RMC Articles
15.04.604 (Lighting an d Illumination), 15.04.605 (Noise), and
15.04.608 (Performance Standards). These arti cles pre scribe standards and limitations designed to avoid potential nuisances from glare, noise, odors, particulate matter, air contaminants, and vibration.
The mitigated negative declaration also identifies measures that the project will implement to mit igate th e projec t’s potential air quality impacts.
8. The proposed use complies with all applicable provisions of Article XV.
Statement of Fact: The proposed use falls unde r the classification of “Utilities, Major” and this classification is permitted in th e OS (Op en Space) District after review and approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. RMC Section 15.04.206.040 (Development Standards) prescribes d evelopment standards for the OS District and the project meets these standards which include minimum and maximum height, setbacks, and floor area ratio. The project also complies with RMC Article 15.04.805 (Design Review), which requires Major Design Revie w for industrial additions or improvements over 1,000 square feet. On October 26, 202 2, the D esign Re view Board considered the project and recommend ed the Planning Commission grant design review approval, subject to conditions of approval.
9. The site of the proposed use is adequately served by highways, streets, water, sewer and other public facilities and services.
Statement of Fact: The project site is in an area adequately served by existing public infrastructure, streets, and highways such as Richmond Parkway and Interstates 80 and 580. In addition, there is adequate capacity in nearby public f acilities and servic es to serve the project site.
Design Review Permit Findings:
The City Council finds and determines that there is substantial evidence in the administrative record to support the City Council’s review of the Planning Commissio n’s adopt ion of Planning Application No. PLN21 - 282 as being consistent with the requirements of the Muni cipal Code requirements applicable to design review permits, includ ing RMC Section 15.04.805.050. Add itionally, the City Council also finds and determines that there is substantial evidence in the entire administrative record that Planning Application No. PLN21-282, as conditioned, is consistent with the requirements of the Municipal Code requirements Res. No. ____
applicable to design review permits. The City Council further approves, accepts as its own, incorporates as if set forth in full herein, and makes each and every one of the findings, based on the evidence in the record, as set forth below.
10. The project is consistent with General Plan and any applicable specific plans;
Statement of Fact: The project site is not located in any specific plan area. The General P lan land use designation for the project site is “Open Space”. Acco rding to the General Plan, this designation is intended to include wetlands, mudflats , creek c orridors and other natural preservation areas, as well as private lands used for recreational purposes or deed -restricted for open space preservation, and utilities. The proposed use falls under the classification of “Utilities, Major” and is ther efore con sistent with the Genera l Plan land use designation. RMC Section 15.04.104.020 defines “Utilitie s, Major” as generating plants, electric substations, and solid was te collection, including transfer stations and materials recovery facilities, solid w aste treatment and disposal, water or wastewater treatment plants, biomass and waste to energy conversio n facilities, and similar facilities of private companies, public a gencies or public utilities. The project will advance several General Plan policies, including EC2.2 ( Climate- Friendly Fuel) which calls for supporting the production and distribution of c limate-friendlier fuel at appropriate locations; and EC5.1 (Green Businesses and Jobs), which calls for promoting green industries, including those that fill the growing need for clean fuels.
11. The project is consistent with any applicable design guidelines;
Statement of Fact: There are no design guidelines in place for the area in which the project is located; however, the Design Review Board considered the proje ct on Oc tober 26, 2 022, and recommended the Planning Commission grant design review approval, s ubject to conditions of approval.
12. The project is consistent with any approved tentative map, use permit, variance, or other planning or zoning approval that the project required;
Statement of Fact: The design review and conditional use permit for the pro ject have been reviewed concurrently to ensure consistency between the approvals. No tentative map, variance, or other planning or zoning approval are being requested.
13. The project is consistent w ith the design review criteria in Section
15.04.805.04:
a. The overall design of the project, including its scale, massing, Res. No. ____
site plan, exterior design, and landscaping, reflects design integrity and the relationshi p of form and function in a coherent manner.
b. The project design evidences a sense of place and
consideration of scale, mass, height, building siting, an privacy in a neighborhood and community context; does not overwhelm or adversely impact adjoining prop erties; an d respe cts prevailing setbac ks and the scale and heights of neighboring buildings and how they relate to the street.
c. The project’s design elements, materials, s ignage, and landscaping are internally consistent, fully integrated with one another, and applied in a manner that is vi sually consistent with the proposed architectural design.
d. Lighting a nd lighting fixtures are designed to complement buildings, be of ap propriate scale, provide adequate light over walkways and parking areas to create a s ense of pe destrian safety, and avoid creating glare.
e. The proposed building design and landscaping suppo rts public safety and security by allowing for surveillance of the street by people inside buildings and elsewhere on the site.
f. Landscaping is designed to be compatible with and enhance the architectural character of the buildings on site. Proposed planting materials avoid conflicts with views, lighting, and signage.
Statement of Fact: The project will meet design criteria “a” through “f.” The project will achieve a des ign that will be compatible with the surrounding uses in the area. The project building s will be low in height to reduce impacts on views and are within the existing WCCSL property. The project includes landscaping improvements offsite to the Landfill Loop Trail and the trail head parking lot. Conditions of approval will ensure any new lighting and lighting fixtures are designed to avoid creating glare.
NOW, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that for al l the foregoing reasons, and each of them, the C ity Council finds that there was no substantial evidence submitted into the administrative record that w ould warrant denial of Planning Application No. PLN21 -282, including the design review permit, conditional use permit, or the mitigated negative declara tion, for this pr oject as conditioned during the public hearing and appeal process. As such, the appeal is denied in its entirety.
Res. No. ____
NOW, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that f or all the foregoing reasons, and each of them, the City Council upholds the Planning Commission approval of Planning Application No. PLN21 -282 as further conditioned by the City Council.
Further, for all of the foregoing reasons and based upon the substanti al evidence in the record before it, and given that after the conditions and restrict ions added by the Planning Commission and after the appeal, ther e is no substantial evidence in the admi nistrative record that would warrant denial, the City Council also independently approves Planning Application No. PLN21 -282 as further conditioned by t he City C ouncil a s set forth be low. This approval includes approval of the submitted Project Plans (Exhibit A) , adoption of the up dated Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project (Exhibit B), including the associated Mit igation Monito ring and Reporting Program included as a part of Exhibit B, as the project will not result in any significant, a dverse, environmental impacts with the mitigation imposed. The City of Richmond Community Development Department, Planning Divisio n, located at 450 Civic C enter Plaza, Richmond, CA 94804 designated as the custodian of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon whi ch the de cision is based. The City Council authorizes the Director, or designee, to execute and file with the Contra Costa County Clerk, as appropriate, a Notice of Determination for approval of the project. Finally, the approval of the design review and conditional use permit for Planning Application No. PL N21-282, is subject to the Project- Specific Conditions of Approval provided as Exhibit C.
NOW, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately.
----------------------------------------
I certify that the foregoing resolution was passe d and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting held on May 16, 2023 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
Clerk of the City of Richmond
(SEAL)
Approved:
Mayor
Approved as to form:
City Attorney