May 16, 2023
Community Development
DATE: May 16, 2023
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:
Lina Velasco, Director of Community Development
Subject:
Raven Bioenergy Project Appeal Consideration Appeal
Consideration
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact to the general fund related to this project; however, the proposed bioenergy facility
would create construction and operational jobs, increase the property value of the subject site, and will contribute to the economic viability of this area.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
None.
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
On December 19, 2022, an appeal was filed by Tessa
Wardle on behalf of Communities for a Better
Environment (“CBE”) and National Resources Defense
Council (“NRDC”), objecting to the Planning
Commission’s conditional approval to adopt a Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program (MMRP) and approval of a
Conditional Use Permit and Design Review (PLN21-282)
to construct and operate a bioenergy facility that converts food and green waste into transportation-grade hydrogen for various renewable energy products.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
HOLD a public hearing on an appeal filed objecting to the Planning Commission’s conditional approval to adopt a
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and approval
of a Conditional Use Permit and Design Review (PLN21-
282) to construct and operate a bioenergy facility that AGENDA
REPORT
May 16, 2023
converts food and green waste into transportation-grade hydrogen for various renewable energy products; and
EITHER: (a.) Adopt the Resolution in Attachment 1,
denying the appeal and approving the Raven project with changes to conditions of approval as represented in
Exhibit C of the Resolution, (b.) Refer the matter back to the Planning Commission to consider the significant new evidence presented after its decision, identifying the
evidence used as a basis for this decision, or (c.) Grant the appeal, deny the project, and direct staff to return with a resolution containing written findings consistent with this motion for final approval by the City Council - Community Development Department (Lina Velasco 510-
620-6841).
BACKGROUND:
The project site is located within the West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill (WCCSL) property located in the northwest area of the City of Richmond. The WCCSL property is approximately 175 acres. The project site occupies approximately 2.5 acres of the WCCSL property and is located approximately 0.25 miles west of Parr Boulevard. The northern boundary of the project site is the City of Richmond / Contra Costa County jurisdiction line; the project site is located wholly within the City of Richmond.
Existing conditions of the project site are shown in the figure below. The project site is relatively flat and partially paved, with the remainder consisting of compacted soil and ground cover along the north edge. No trees or landscaping exist. The existing landfill power generation plant and the adjacent maintenance building are primary structures that would remain. Existing trailers housing ancillary uses on the project site would be removed. The project site is fenced on the north, east and south, and connects to the surrounding WCCSL areas and operations via an existing service road.
The project site is currently served by utility infrastructure provided by East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD), West County Wastewater District, PG&E, and City of Richmond police and fire services. The owner of the property is West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill, Inc., a subsidiary of Republic Services, Inc.
May 16, 2023
Figure 1: Project Site
PROPOSAL:
The applicant, Raven SR, LLC, proposes to construct and operate a bioenergy facility that converts blended green and food waste into renewable, transportation-grade hydrogen to be exported off-site for various renewable energy products. The waste would be obtained from the existing Bulk Materials Processing Center (BMPC) located adjacent to the project site. The applicant would lease the project site, which is part of the larger BMPC. No long-term hydrogen storage would occur onsite.
The project would involve the construction of two modular structures and an industrial canopy as shown in Exhibit A, including various processing equipment. All Raven SR’s material handling systems would be located inside the proposed modular structure. This new modular structure would be located where the storage uses and remnant foundations currently exist at the north edge of the site.
The key project components include an industrial feed material handler that would be up to 31 feet tall, which is the tallest facility element. Other elements of height and size include the nitrogen tank (30 feet tall); cooling tower and fire water tank (both 25.5 feet tall); and the industrial metal canopy over the feed/unload storage area, the adjacent steam reformer structure; and the second nitrogen tank (each 26 feet tall).
This project would also require permits from the following agencies: Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), State Water Resources Control Board, State Department of Resource Recovery and Recycling (CalRecycle), and Local Enforcement Agency (LEA).
May 16, 2023
DISCUSSION:
The applicant, Raven SR, LLC, is seeking a conditional use permit and design review permit to construct and operate a bioenergy facility that converts food and green waste into hydrogen for various renewable energy products.
The project consists of the following major project components:
Two modular structures;
Feedstock storage area cover (also referred to as industrial metal canopy); Other elements of the bioenergy system including, but are not limited to: the two nitrogen tanks, cooling tower, steam reformer structure, and fire water tank; and, Site improvements including paving, utilities, fencing, etc.
Biomass and Waste to Energy Conversion Facilities
The Raven SR Steam/CO2 Reformation process would convert blended green and food waste into renewable, transportation grade hydrogen to be exported off-site for various renewable energy products. The blended green and food waste would be collected from the existing Bulk Materials Processing Center (BMPC) located adjacent to the project site, and would already have been pre-processed by Republic to remove contaminants and standardize the size of the materials. The reformation process is a three-step process that (1) converts waste to gas, (2) turns gas to H2 syngas, and (3) produces hydrogen output. The technology is strictly non-combustion, low pressure and a catalyst-free process.
The project would work in tandem with other facilities in the area, such as directing blended green and food waste from the existing BMPC for feedstock for the proposed bioenergy system. Therefore, the proposed project is complementary to existing uses in the surrounding areas.
Site Parking
The applicant does not propose to construct any new parking to serve the project; rather, employees would use the existing employee and visitor parking area located east of the hydrogen storage and load out area. The new bioenergy facility would involve 3 to 4 new employees per shift, for a total of 9 to 12 employees per day. The current site has 19 regular parking stalls and 2 ADA accessible parking stalls. The existing lot has sufficient stalls to serve the existing uses, including the proposed project. Additionally, in the visitor parking area there are 15 regular stalls and 2 ADA accessible stalls.
Bay Trail Improvements
Landscaping for the project will be provided off-site, primarily at the Landfill Loop Trail, near the Wildcat Marsh Trail and trailhead parking located approximately 1,000 feet east of the project location. Due to limited space and potential safety hazards within the proposed processing facility, no new vegetation will be installed within the project area boundaries.
May 16, 2023
Raven proposes to plant 21 drought-tolerant trees: six Coast Live Oak trees, six California Buckeye trees and nine Pink Dawn Chitalpa and Toyon trees. Trees planted would be either 15-gallon or 24” box trees, per City requirements. The applicant has prioritized drought tolerant species and will have an adequate maintenance program.
Zoning Analysis
The proposed use is defined as a Utilities, Major and is conditionally allowed in the OS, Open Space zoning district as set forth in Richmond Municipal Code (RMC) Section
15.04.206.020. The project requires a Conditional Use Permit, as well as Design Review for the new facility and associated site improvements.
Biomass and waste to energy conversion facilities falls under the Utilities, Major uses which are conditionally allowed in the OS, Open Space Zoning District. A conditional use permit is required for any biomass and waste to energy conversion facilities.
Utilities, Major is defined as generating plants, electric substations, and solid waste collection, including transfer station and materials recovery facilities, solid waste treatment and disposal, water or wastewater treatment plants, biomass and waste to energy conversion facilities, and similar facilities of private companies, public agencies or public utilities.
The site is located in the OS, Open Space zoning district; therefore, the Project must comply with the applicable development standards in section 15.04.206.040 as follows:
Maximum Height: The maximum height in the OS zoning district is 35 feet. The tallest proposed structure is ±31 feet. Therefore, the project satisfies this requirement.
Minimum Setbacks: The minimum setbacks for the OS zoning district are as follows:
Front: 20% of lot depth, not to exceed 40 feet.
Side: 10% of lot depth, not to exceed 20 feet.
Rear: 20% of lot depth; not to exceed 20 feet.
The project site is within the larger WCCSL property, in a location that exceeds the minimum 20-foot and 40-foot setback requirements; therefore, the project satisfies this requirement.
Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR): The maximum buildable floor area ratio allowed is
0.1. The proposed floor area ratio is 0.005. Therefore, the project satisfies this requirement.
The proposed project meets all the development standards set forth in the Zoning Ordinance for the OS zoning district.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RECOMMENDATION:
Pursuant to RMC Section 15.04.805 (Design Review), Major Design Review is required when improvements and development exceeds 1,000 square feet of floor area. The total floor area of all proposed structures would be approximately 40,000 square feet.
May 16, 2023
The Design Review Board provided a recommendation of approval, with conditions, to the Planning Commission of the requested Design Review Permit at its October 26, 2022 public hearing. The Design Review findings required per RMC section
15.04.805.050 are in the attached resolution with supporting statements of fact.
Two additional conditions (Nos. 7 and 8) regarding landscaping were recommended by the Design Review Board and are included in the attached resolution. Additionally, the applicant agreed to a third condition (No. 10) requested by TRAC to create and install a 2-foot by 3-foot interpretive panel about the bioenergy facility along the Landfill Loop Trail, which would be subject to approval by the City and Republic Services.
PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL:
On December 15, 2022, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to adopt the MND and Final MMRP and approve the Conditional Use Permit and Design Review of the Raven Bioenergy Project by approval of Planning Application No. PLN21-282. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 22-18 (Attachment 4), adding Condition No. 91 restricting project’s production to hydrogen only and Condition No. 92 requiring convenient and secure bicycle parking on the project site.
APPEAL ACTION:
Pursuant to Section 15.04.803.140.E of the Zoning Ordinance, the City Council determines whether an underlying decision is supported by substantial evidence and/or constitutes an abuse of discretion. The same standards and evaluation criteria, including the findings required, apply as they were for the original application. The appellate body’s review is limited to the issue(s) raised in the petition for the appeal.
The Richmond Municipal Code allows for appeal of Planning Commission decisions per Section 15.04.803.140 of the Zoning Ordinance. Communities for a Better Environment CBE”) and National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) timely submitted a joint appeal on December 16, 2022. The appeal challenged all approvals, including the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), Design Review Permit (DRP) and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Raven SR Bioenergy Project (PLN21-282).
A public hearing is required for an appeal, and new testimony and other new evidence can be provided and considered by the City Council. The City Council is not bound by the Planning Commission’s decision, and is not required to decide the matter based on the conclusions or assumptions made by the Planning Commission. Instead, the City Council has the authority to affirm, modify, or reverse the original decision. However, if the City Council decides to modify or reverse the approval, the City Council must state specific reasons for doing so and provide a decision within 30 days of the close of the public hearing. The City Council may also choose to refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for further consideration and a decision, but only if significant new evidence is presented in conjunction with the appeal, which may include substantial changes to the original proposal.
May 16, 2023
An action to grant the appeal (and deny the project) requires a majority vote of the Council members. A tie vote has the effect of rejecting the appeal, which would mean that the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project would remain in effect.
BASIS OF APPEAL:
The appeal letter (Attachment 5) submitted by Tessa Wardle on behalf of CBE and NRDC (“Appellant”) asserts that there is substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Raven Bioenergy Project would have significant adverse environmental impacts and a full, environmental impact report (“EIR”) is necessary and the draft IS/MND is inadequate in terms of provided information and mitigation measures.
The applicant’s response to the appeal (Attachment 6) recognizes the appellant’s request for further clarification regarding the proposed project. Attachment 6 includes an updated description for the project that includes further details about the operational aspects of the Raven SR technology, a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) prepared by Ramboll on behalf of the applicant, and the applicant’s suggested redlines to the Draft IS/MND to provide further clarification and details on the proposed project. The applicant asserts that an IS/MND is sufficient to address environmental concerns and are willing and have worked with the City to update the IS/MND to provide more comprehensive information. The Raven SR IS/MND vs EIR Comparison Chart (Attachment 9) expands and further clarifies the differences between the IS/MND process and completing an EIR. The City has reviewed the provided comparison chart for accuracy.
Staff also notes that the appeal letter connects the Raven project with an unrelated Chevron hydrogen project. To be clear, the proposed project is a separate and independent project from other possible hydrogen-related projects within the City that may be proposed in the near future. The Raven project has a separate and independent owner, located on a separate and independent site, has a separate and completely independent source stream to make hydrogen, and is seeking separate entitlements.
Additionally, baseline for the Raven project was established at the time that the completed application was filed by the applicant on July 30, 2021. At that time, other hydrogen-related projects had not submitted an application for an entitlement from the City. Months later Chevron submitted an application on November 15, 2021, for an alternative fueling station that would include fueling equipment for hydrogen (H2) and compressed natural gas (CNG). That application did not propose the manufacturing of hydrogen. Additionally, after Raven’s project was received no other application has been received by the City for a hydrogen production project. As a result, the Raven project is not required to analyze the potential cumulative impacts for subsequent/potentially future projects as i) the fueling station application was submitted after the Raven project’s baseline; and/or ii) CEQA does not require analysis of speculative projects that have yet to be received.
Next, any hydrogen-related projects submitted after the Raven project or at some future date would be required to comply with CEQA. As part of that process, those projects would also need to include the Raven project in either the baseline or a reasonably
May 16, 2023
foreseeable project for that project’s initial study – assuming that the type of project impacts overlap for the purposes of a cumulative analysis.
City staff submitted a request to the Lawrence-Livermore National Laboratory to clarify certain facts surrounding hydrogen’s potential hazard and environmental impacts, provided as Attachment 8 to this report. This letter states, in part, “hydrogen is a non- toxic, light gas that diffuses fast, which results in a narrow window for the right hydrogen-air mixture to result in a fire/explosion… We are not aware of any hydrogen explosions caused by hydrogen leaked from fuel cell electric vehicles, despite multiple reports of such vehicles involved in road accidents.” The letter also indicates that while there’s a possibility of hydrogen leaking out of the process and that the leakage would have negative climate impacts, the leakage would be unlikely to negate the environmental benefit of using the hydrogen as an alternative to “dirtier” fuels. There is no on-site hydrogen storage proposed.
Raven prepared a memorandum to address the matter of potential noise from the site, the Hydrogen Vent Sound Attenuation Memorandum (Attachment 3 to Attachment 7).
This document further clarifies the project applicant’s basis for affirming that the project would not exceed the noise limits imposed by Condition 42 and Richmond Municipal Code 9.52.100, which is 70 dB at the property line.
Finally, the Health Risk Assessment covered an expanded area from 1,000-foot distance to 6,000-foot distance. The HRA determined that, “The proposed project provides an overall reduction of cancer risk, chronic hazard index, acute hazard index, and particulate matter concentrations as compared to the portions of the existing landfill flare operation it would be replacing.” This overall reduction by the project effectively improves air quality as compared to current operations.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The City initiated the preparation of a draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) (State Clearinghouse #2022100145) (see Attachment 2). Its purpose is to identify any potential environmental impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed project pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines. The draft IS/MND was published for a 30-day review and comment period on October 7, 2022. The City extended the public comment period from November 7 to November 22, 2022, for a total 45-day review period. During the comment period, 19 comment letters were received.
The Planning Commission’s role was to determine the adequacy of the final IS/MND (consisting of the draft IS/MND and the Responses to Comments Technical Memorandum) for the Project and consider Raven’s request for a Conditional Use and Design Review Permits. The Responses to Comments in Attachment 3 addresses environmental comments received regarding the draft IS/MND.
After the appeal was filed, City staff worked with environmental consultants to write an Updated IS/MND (Exhibit B of Attachment 1). This updated document provided further clarification on the proposed project, its environmental impacts as well as the HRA that
May 16, 2023
was peer-reviewed by the City and environmental consultants, included as an appendix.
Given that the new information added to the Updated IS/MND merely clarifies, amplifies or otherwise makes insignificant modifications to the draft IS/MND, recirculation of the document was not required by CEQA. Regardless, to ensure greater transparency and to make additional clarifying information available to the public, the City has recirculated the Updated IS/MND for public comment. The Updated IS/MND was published for a 30- day review and comment period on March 9, 2023. The City extended the public comment period from April 7 to April 12, 2023, for a total 34-day review period for the Updated IS/MND. During the comment period for the Updated IS/MND, 19 comment letters were received, 7 were letters of support and the remaining 12 letters were a mix of environmental concerns, request for an EIR, or additional conditions. The Updated IS/MND (Exhibit B) and Responses to Comments on the Updated IS/MND Technical Memorandum (Attachment 7) will be considered by the City Council during its consideration of the appeal from the decision of the Planning Commission.
According to the Updated IS/MND, four environmental areas may have potentially significant impact unless mitigation measures are incorporated into the project. These areas are cultural resources, air quality and tribal cultural resources and biological resources. Additional details on these potential impacts are described below. An Updated MMRP is recommended and attached in Exhibit B. The resolution requires the project to comply with the adopted MMRP.
Transportation
The operation is expected to service approximately 14 hydrogen tube trucks per day, each with an average trip of 40 miles after leaving the site. In addition, up to approximately 11 biocarbon trucks per day would be in use for the co-product.
Considering this with other trucks and employees coming to and leaving the project site daily, 12 employee vehicles and 25 trucks would access the site daily.
Section 4.15 of the Updated IS/MND concludes the project would have less than significant impact on transportation. Parr Boulevard and Richmond Parkway are City- designated truck routes (established in the Richmond General Plan, Map 4.4) that serve primarily industrial areas, the additional trips would not conflict with the existing and proposed transit, roadway, bicycle or pedestrian facilities in the project vicinity.
Additionally, the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for this project is approximately 174 VMT per day, which is well below the City’s and County’s screening criterion of 836 VMT per day.
Noise
Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would result in temporary increases in ambient noise levels. As discussed in Section 4.12 of the Updated IS/MND, onsite construction activities would require the use of heavy construction equipment (e.g., excavator, loader, crane) that would generate varying noise levels. Offsite construction noise sources would consist of passing trucks and other construction- related vehicles. The proposed project would adhere to the City’s construction work hours and the construction noise level limitations.
May 16, 2023
In terms of operation, the Raven SR system would run up to 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, although an average of 1.5 days per month are planned down times. The primary source of noise during project operation would be mechanical equipment associated with the Steam/CO2 Reformation system, including heating systems, HVAC equipment. Also, feedstock would be physically deposited in the receiving area via self- unloading transfer trucks or other suitable vehicles. Per Section 9.52.100, noise levels caused by mechanic equipment on public property in residential areas should not result in noise levels in excess of 65 dBA. Given the data in Table 4.12-3 of the IS/MND and the known distance to the nearest noise receptors, the operational noise levels would be substantially below the 65 dBA standard of the City of Richmond Noise Ordinance and the operational noise impact would be less than significant.
Air Quality: Odor
Odors may exist and derive from the organic feedstock that is already produced and processed at the WCCSL. The first step in the Raven process is to dry incoming feedstock using waste heat from the LFG engines before introduction to Raven’s first stage reformer. Dry feedstocks do not typically create or form odors. To proactively address the potential for odors, the Raven SR Project included the implementation of several odor minimization procedures and regulatory requirements. These odor minimization requirements include:
Feedstock load checking at the Republic site for identification and removal of prohibited material including any highly-odorous loads; Feedstock pre-processing at the Republic site before being sent to the Raven facility;
Operations protocol for first in/first out feedstock consumption; Feedstock will typically be processed within 24 hours with a maximum limit within 48 hours of receipt;
Daily cleaning of the feedstock handling area; and
Use of odor suppressants if necessary.
Feedstock for the Raven process will only include pre-processed, consisting primarily of blended green waste and food waste. The source of this material is from the onsite composting facility referred to as the OMPF. The OMPF receives vehicle loads directly from residential and commercial organics collection programs. The OMPF operating procedures include initial visual screening and a load checking program designed to identify and remove prohibited material, including any highly odorous loads. After screening and load checking, the remaining organic material is pre-processed by grinding. Only material that has been through the screening, load checking and grinding process at the OMPF would be delivered to the Raven facility, thus minimizing the potential for receiving prohibited or highly odorous material. In addition, all incoming pre-processed feedstock received at the Raven SR facility would also be subject to the Raven SR’s own screening and load checking program as required by State solid waste facility regulations.
May 16, 2023
To further minimize potential odor effects of the proposed project, the standard operating procedures for the Raven facility would include a “first in first out protocol” for the processing of material. Typically, any material received would be processed within 24 hours of receipt through the hydrogen conversion system. As a requirement of both the draft CUP and the Solid Waste Facility Permit (SWFP) for the facility, all feedstock material would, at a maximum, be processed within 48 hours of receipt. With this minimal time effects of the proposed project in the feedstock handling area, the potential for odor would be greatly reduced as opposed to odors arising over time from decomposing feedstock.
Additional odor minimization provisions and requirements would be incorporated into the proposed project in accordance with the draft CUP and SWFP and addressing maximum volumes for daily input and storage, facility cleaning schedule, complaint response and reporting protocols, preparation and adherence to an Odor Prevention and Management Plan (OPMP) the requires an annual evaluation report. As discussed in more detail in the CEQA assessment of potential odor impacts (Section 4.3, Air Quality), Raven SR will implement operating procedures and comply with regulatory requirements related to minimizing potential odor impacts at the Raven SR facility in order to address and minimize potential odor impacts.
Therefore, any odor impacts from the proposed project would not be considered substantial nor likely contribute substantially to any existing odor sources of the WCCSL. The Updated IS/MND concludes the impact would be less than significant.
Air Quality: Dust
Activities that generate dust include excavation and equipment movement across unpaved construction sites. Dust can be an irritant causing watering eyes or irritation to the lungs, nose, and throat. Excavation, grading, and other construction activities can cause wind-blown dust that adds PM10 and PM2.5 to the local atmosphere.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has taken a qualitative approach to addressing fugitive dust emissions during construction, such that any project that implements the BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures Recommended for All Projects (Best Management Practices) would not result in a significant impact with respect to fugitive dust (BAAQMD 2017b). Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Best Management Practices, provided in the Updated IS/MND, specifies BAAQMD recommended measures and would apply to all individual projects to address construction dust. In conclusion, while air emissions from construction equipment are all below the BAAQMD CEQA thresholds construction dust emissions are always considered significant within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Quality Basin (SFBAAB) unless the mitigation measures in Section 4.3 of the IS/MND are applied.
The Updated IS/MND concludes that dust impacts will be less than significant after mitigation.
Cultural Resources
May 16, 2023
To determine the cultural resources sensitivity of the project site, a records search and background research, including a review of historic maps, aerial imagery, and geologic/soils data was completed. No cultural resources have been previously recorded in the vicinity of the project site and there are no historic-age architectural resources in or adjacent to the project site. The nearest cultural resources are a series of pre-contact archaeological sites nearly 1 mile to the east that contribute to the Lower San Pablo Creek Archaeological District. These resources would not be impacted by the proposed project.
Based on the results of the background research and environmental context, the potential for encountering archaeological resources during project implementation is low. However, in the unlikely event that a previously unrecorded archaeological resource is identified during project ground-disturbing activities and found to qualify as a historical resource or a unique archaeological resource, any impacts on the resource resulting from the project could be potentially significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1a: Cultural Resources Awareness Training and Mitigation Measure CUL-1b: Inadvertent Discovery of Cultural Materials or Tribal Cultural Resources would reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant.
Tribal Cultural Resources
As part of the IS/MND, the California State Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted to request a search of the NAHC’s Sacred Lands File and a list of Native American representatives who may have knowledge of tribal cultural resources in the project vicinity or interest in the proposed project. The NAHC noted that the Sacred Lands File has no record of any sacred sites within the project site and provided a list of 15 Native American representatives from tribal groups who may have knowledge of tribal cultural resources in the vicinity of the project site. Staff sent notices to the 15 tribes and no tribes requested consultation.
Based on the Northwest Information Center records search and the NAHC Sacred Land File negative search results, there are no known tribal cultural resources listed or determined eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or included in a local register of historical resources.
In the event that cultural materials are identified during project construction activities that are determined to be tribal cultural resources, implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1a: Cultural Resources Awareness Training, Mitigation Measure CUL-1b:
Inadvertent Discovery of Cultural Materials or Tribal Cultural Resources, and Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains, as identified in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources of the Updated IS/MND (Exhibit B), would reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant.
Biological Resources
As part of the IS/MND, a list of special-status species that occur in the project region was identified based upon review of existing information, including queries of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
May 16, 2023
(USFWS) Official Species List, and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS). Habitats at the project area were assessed for their potential to support special-status species using information about local species occurrences and species’ habitat requirements.
No special-status plant species are expected to occur on the disturbed project site.
Impacts during the non-breeding season are not considered significant, primarily due to the birds’ mobility and ability to access other high-quality foraging habitat in the region.
Also, the project site is disturbed and provides poor habitat for nesting birds. However, equipment staging and project construction could render the site and adjacent areas temporarily unsuitable for breeding birds due to the noise, vibration, and increased activity levels associated with grubbing, earth moving, heavy equipment operation, and increased human presence even when the nest itself is unaffected.
These activities could cause birds that have established a nest prior to the start of construction to change their behavior or even abandon an active nest, putting eggs and nestlings at risk for mortality. This would be considered a significant impact.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Avoid and Minimize Impacts to Nesting Birds, Except Rails, and Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Avoid and Minimize Impacts to California Black Rail and California Ridgway’s Rail would reduce potential construction related impacts to nesting special-status birds to a less-than-significant level by requiring avoidance of construction-related work during the nesting bird season, or if avoidance of the nesting season is not possible, pre-construction nesting bird surveys and establishment of no-construction buffer zones around active bird nests.
With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2, construction-related impacts would be less than significant.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
The project site is not located within a neighborhood council boundary. Staff received 13 comment letters of support for the project as well as 6 comment letters citing environmental concerns during the initial IS/MND process. In response to the Updated IS/MND, Staff received 7 letters of support for the project, 9 letters citing environmental concerns, and 3 neutral letters. All letters received are provided in the Responses to Comments Technical Memorandums (see Attachments 3 & 7).
Most of the letters citing environmental concerns requested that City Council approve the appeal and require an EIR to be completed. This request is discussed in the Basis of Appeal section of this report, starting on page 7.
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY:
The General Plan designation for the subject site is Open Space. The project would provide a service to the community, create construction and operational jobs, help in maintaining the economic viability of this area, while being conducted in a secure setting. The proposed project is harmonious with, and relates properly to, the surrounding WCCSL property and the project site itself. The project is also consistent with the General Plan Land Use Goal LU3.J – Industrial Modernization as well as the General Plan’s Policy CR5.2 – Renewable Energy and Clean Technology. The project
May 16, 2023
is also consistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan. The proposed major utilities use is consistent with the General Plan policies and the Open Space land use designation.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS:
To approve any CUP, the City Council must make the findings below in accordance with RMC Section 15.04.806.040:
1. The location of the proposed conditional use is in accordance with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan and the land use designations for the project site;
2. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use will be compatible with and will not adversely affect the livability or appropriate development of abutting properties and the surrounding neighborhood;
3. The proposed use will not create any nuisances arising from the emission of odor, dust, gas, noise, vibration, smoke, heat or glare at a level exceeding ambient conditions;
4. The proposed use complies with all applicable provisions of Article XV; and
5. The site of the proposed use is adequately served by highways, streets, water, sewer, and other public facilities and services.
Staff believes all the findings above can be made for the proposed project, and the Planning Commission made findings in alignment with the above. If the Council is inclined to approve this project and deny the appeal, the findings and recommended statements of fact for the updated mitigated negative declaration, design review and conditional use permit findings are provided in the resolution in Attachment 1; and substantially mirror the findings of the Planning Commission in its Resolution No. 22-18 (Attachment 4).
After Planning Commission approval, some details about site operations were changed, resulting in necessary adjustments to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approved by the Planning Commission. City Council has the authority to adopt an adjusted Conditional Use Permit which would supersede that approved by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission would thereafter have the authority to adjust and uphold CUP conditions in accordance with the language provided in the Updated Conditional Use Permit Conditions of Approval (Exhibit C of Attachment 1), which would be adopted as the part of the Resolution in Attachment 1.
City staff is recommending certain additional conditions to be included in the CUP, summarized as follows:
1. Incorporation of emergency hydrogen venting system.
May 16, 2023
2. Expansion on, and clarification of, the existing five-year review process to clarify review of implementation of OSHA guidelines, worker safety, air quality monitoring, and best efforts to hire North Richmond residents.
3. Zero or Near Zero Emission Vehicles best efforts language around commercial availability and contracting with third-party haulers.
Administrative language changes reflecting the adoption of the CUP by the City Council rather than the Planning Commission are also included.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – Resolution to Uphold the Planning Commission’s conditional approval in part and adopt the Updated MND , MMRP, Conditional Use and Design Review Permits by approving Planning Application No. PLN21-282
Exhibit A – Project Plans
Exhibit B – Updated IS/MND & MMRP
Exhibit C – Updated Conditional Use Permit Conditions of Approval Attachment 2 – Draft IS/MND
Attachment 3 – Responses to Comments of IS/MND & MMRP
Attachment 4 – Planning Commission’s Resolution No. 22-18 approving the Conditional Use Permit and Design Review and adopt an MND and MMRP
Attachment 5 – Appeal letter from Tessa Wardle on behalf of CBE and NRDC Attachment 6 – Applicant’s Response to the Appeal letter Attachment 7 – Responses to Comments of Updated IS/MND Technical Memorandum Attachment 8 – Letter from Carbon Management Partnerships , Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Attachment 9 – IS/MND vs EIR Comparison Chart