HomeMy WebLinkAboutpcm_02272013 1 UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 February 27, 2013
3 Minutes
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
6 Judy Pruden, Chair
7 Kevin Doble
8 Linda Sanders
9 Mike Whetzel
10 Laura Christensen
11
12 STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
13 Kim Jordan, Senior Planner Listed below, Respectively
14 Jennifer Faso, Associate Planner
15 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
16
17 1. CALL TO ORDER
18 The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by
19 Chair Pruden at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue,
20 Ukiah, California.
21
22 2. ROLL CALL
23
24 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Everyone cited.
25
26 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — The minutes from the January 23, 2013 meeting are included for
27 review and approval.
28
29 Commissioner Sanders made the following corrections:
30 Page 6, line 15, add a sentence to read, `Asked if there would be outdoor sales or demonstrations of
31 firearms?'
32
33 Page 6, line 49, applicanYs response: `Sales of firearms are heavily regulated so there would be no
34 display or sales outdoors.'
35
36 Page 9, line 15, correct typographical error to read, `pink.'
37
38 Commissioner poble noted comments made by Benj Thomas were inadvertently omitted from the
39 minutes and requested they be included:
40
41 Benj Thomas:
42 • Expressed his appreciation for Senior Planner Jordan and the Planning Commission for their
43 willingness to be flexible with meeting the needs of the applicant.
44 • We do not want to be in a position of inhibiting sales and is confident the Commission is moving
45 to a position where this will not occur.
46 • With regard to the application process and scheduling a special event, supports that more of the
47 work that has to be done to approve special events be something the applicant is responsible for
48 doing so in order to be able to streamline the process.
49 • The City Planning Department has done a wonderful job with examining/evaluating projects and
50 helping to streamline processes and doing more of the work upfront to benefit applicants and
51 hopes this will continue.
52
53 M/S Doble/Sanders to defer approval of the January 23, 2013 minutes to the next regular Planning
54 Commission meeting. Motion carried (5-0).
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 27, 2013
Page 1
1 5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
2
3 6. APPEAL PROCESS—There are no appealable items.
4
5 7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION
6
7 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE
8
9 9. NEW BUSINESS - EDUCATIONAL PRESENTATION
10 9A. Education and Training on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Environmental
11 Science Associates (ESA) will present an educational training on the California Environmental
12 quality Act(CEQA 101).
13
14 Planning Director Stump introduced Brian Grattidge of Environmental Science Associates (ESA).
15
16 Brian Grattidge, ESA gave a training introductory overview about the quantitative analysis conducted for
17 CEQA review of projects, the purpose and processes, how/why the document is prepared and associated
18 agency involvement, how, when and why the document applies to projects, information about the
19 decisions/determinations made thereof about document significance as it relates to timelines, potential
20 project impacts (direct, indirect, short term, long term, cumulative, growth inducing), determinations made
21 about significance of project impact given a baseline and data about the threshold of significance, indirect
22 and cumulative impacts and associated effects, elements that define/identify socio-economic effects, role
23 of Negative Declarations/Mitigation Negative Declarations, exemptions, public review process, types of
24 EIR's, scoping process, approval process concerning the final EIR and other information about study
25 conclusions as provided for in the handout.
26
27 Brian Grattidge:
28 • Regarding the CEQA process cannot replace the concept of what substantial evidence is with a
29 regulation because agencies having an association vary in their thresholds of what is acceptable
30 and what is not.
31
32 Planning Commission: Asked for an example in this regard.
33
34 Brian Grattidge: Health and water quality standards, for example, are often disputed because of
35 agencies that have varying levels of what is acceptable and what is not where an explanation is then
36 necessary why one level was chosen over another. The same scenario occurs with traffic. For example,
37 Caltrans may have a level of service and the City may have a level of service. Even though one agency
38 may have more responsibility for a particular roadway, it does not necessarily follow that this threshold is
39 used. Noise is another example where a threshold may differ from agency to agency. There may be a
40 variety of regulations where the `decimal level' is where an explanation is necessary why one threshold
41 level is being used. This does not necessarily make this acceptable if it can be argued there is some
42 other circumstance involved related to noise that is not being captured by the decimal standard chosen
43 and adopted by the existing agency. Air quality is yet another example where most EIR's rely on the air
44 quality control district because this agency has put the most research into it, but it is not automatic data.
45
46 Cited a recent court case where an agency had been challenged because it had adopted an ad hoc
47 threshold. There are times when there is no threshold where either the city has not adopted one or there
48 is not another agency with a clear threshold that can be used so what occurs in this regard is the adoption
49 of `ad hoc' thresholds in EIRs and this was the basis of the challenge in the court case concerning the
50 validity of the EIR. The court rejected the argument and basically said if proof can be shown why a
51 particular threshold was being used and why this reflects the judgment of a certain agency then this is the
52 agency's decision.
53
54 Accordingly, with regard to project impacts, added there is the project being looked at and then there is
55 the universe of projects surroundings it that may have overlapping or punitive effects. These aspects
56 must be looked in the EIR. Some impacts are easier than others. There are certain impacts where the
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 27, 2013
Page 2
1 cumulative methodology is fairly clear and/or fairly standardized. Using traffic as an example, traffic is not
2 only looked at today, but how it will be tomorrow. Other impacts such as aesthetics may be `trickier' to
3 define what the cumulative context is, but this is yet another aspect that must be considered in an EIR.
4
5 Commissioner Sanders:
6 • Referred to page 12 of the `CEQA 101' handout concerning the public review process of the EIR
7 and asked about how response to comments are processed/handled.
8
9 Brian Grattidge: A response to a comment that raises significant environmental points is required. There
10 are instances where agencies weigh in on a comment to acknowledge they are part of the process and
11 that the point has been reviewed. A comment on the merits of the project itself will not typically generate a
12 response whether written or an acknowledgment and is essentially the response of the decision making
13 body and does not get written into the EIR. The comment in this regard could be `pro' or 'con' or
14 questions/comments about the project objective and corresponding possible effects, such as economic
15 factors of the project, social/policy desirability of the project or the like typically do not solicit a full
16 response. There would be a response to comment/inquiries as to why a particular point was not looked at
17 or asking about the methodology used. As such, it may be that minor revisions need to be made in the
18 EIR.
19
20 Chair Pruden: Asked about how editorial corrections are handled in an EIR and corresponding
21 appendices.
22
23 Brian Grattidge: Incorrect reference to a document or agency would be corrected where the response
24 would be to make that editorial change.
25
26 10. PUBLIC HEARINGS
27 10A. Costco Warehouse and Fuel Station Draft Environmental Impact Report (File Nos.: 11-01-
28 REZ-SDP-CC-PC-CE/11-16-EIR-CC), South End of Airport Park Boulevard. Conduct a public
29 hearing to receive public and Planning Commission comment on the Costco Warehouse and Fuel
30 Station Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). The Project consists of the construction of a
31 Costco Wholesale warehouse and fuel station. The EIR analyzes a maximum warehouse size of
32 148,000 square feet and a fuel facility of up to 20 pumps on a 15.33-acre site. The Project would
33 include a bakery, pharmacy, optical center, hearing aid testing center, food court, photo center,
34 tire center, and fuel station, along with the sales of 3,800 to 4,000 retail products. The tire center
35 would be a 5,692 square-foot attached building with member access through the inside of the
36 main Costco building and would include retail tire sales and a tire installation facility. The fuel
37 station would be located in the southeast corner of the site and initially would have 16 stations
38 (with an option to expand to 20 stations. The Project site is located on the east side of Airport
39 Park Boulevard between Ken Fowler Auto Center and the terminus of Airport Park Boulevard.
40 The review period for the Draft EIR ends March 15, 2013 at 5:00 p.m.
41
42 The Project requires City Council approval of a Rezoning, Planning Commission approval of a
43 Site Development Permit, and City Engineer approval of a Lot Line Adjustment.
44
45 Brian Grattridge, ESA:
46 • Gave an introduction presentation on the Costco Wholesale Project Draft Environmental Impact
47 Report (DEIR) (see handout) as it relates to:
48 1. Background
49 2. Location and description of the proposed project
50 3. Entitlements
51 4. Scope of the EIR (aesthetic, air quality, urban decay, geology & soils, hazards and
52 hazardous materials, hydrology & water quality, land use noise, public services & utilities,
53 transportation & traffic, global climate change, biological resources, population & housing
54 and cultural resources)
55 5. Project impacts that are less than significant (land use, noise, population and housing, public
56 services, urban decay)
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 27, 2013
Page 3
1 6. Project impacts that are potentially significant (aesthetics, geology & soils,
2 hazards/hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, traffic and circulation, biological
3 resources, cultural resources)
4 7. Project impacts that are significant and unavoidable (air quality, traffic and circulation, global
5 climate change)
6 8. Project alternatives (no project, reduced size, off-site location alternative, other alternative
7 location)
8 9. Next steps concerning the project.
9
10 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 7:13 p.m.
11
12 DEIR, Table ES-1, Summary of Impacts and Mitiqation Measures
13 Aesthetics
14
15 Chair Pruden:
16 • Section not clear about lighting for the project and why no mitigation measure was mentioned. If
17 the business closes at 8:30 p.m., one-half the parking lot lights could be turned off at 10:00 p.m.
18 or midnight and why this was not brought up as a mitigation measure. Is of the opinion this is a
19 valid mitigation and one that should have been discussed. If some of the lights were turned off in
20 the parking lot between 10:00 p.m. and midnight, this would be past the hours of operation for
21 the business.
22
23 Commission:
24 • It may be since the project has achieved the level of Less than Significant (LTS)for this potential
25 environmental impact, no mitigation measure is necessary.
26 • Does agree turning off some lights in the parking lot would be energy saving.
27 • It may also be there are different hours of operations occurring on the site. Closing time differs
28 for the fueling station.
29 • It may also be that employees would be working later to stock shelves.
30
31 Commissioner Whetzel:
32 • Concern with regard to aesthetics pertinent to the location/orientation of the building facing
33 Highway 101 as being the first thing someone sees when coming into Ukiah. It appears there are
34 a sufficient number of trees to screen much of the building.
35
36 Commission:
37 • Flag aesthetic concern about appropriate screening of trees for the building from Highway 101.
38
39 Air Qualitv
40
41 Commissioner Sanders:
42 • How many employees will be serving the gas station? This would generate some impacts. If the
43 project was not supported with the gas station, this would reduce impacts.
44 • Of the 200 employees how many will be working in the pump gas station?
45
46 Staff: There is one attendant for the gas station.
47
48 Jack Cox:
49 • Provided staff and the Commission with a letter from himself, John Mayfield, Dan Thomas, G.
50 Wesley Caldwell, and James Thomson regarding the Costco DEIR that are incorporated into the
51 minutes as attachment 1.
52 • Concerns expressed why the Brush Street Triangle was not included as an alternative.
53
54 Chair Pruden:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 27, 2013
Page 4
1 • Referred to air quality, ES-4, that reads, `Reflective roof material will meet the requirements for
2 the USEP's Energy Star energy efficiency program.'
3 • Is concerned as to what the reflective materials mean because aircraft fly over this area.
4 Reflective in terms of heat is one thing, but reflection of light is another. Reflection of light from
5 the roof is not a good idea and should not occur.
6 • The roof should consist of a dull surface so as not to cause glare.
7 • Recommends this issue be clarified, better defined or modified.
8
9 Commissioner Whetzel:
10 • If this is the case, reflective light would be occurring `on the downwind' when the sun is more in
11 the easterly direction.
12 • The potential use of reflective roofing materials should be flagged for further review.
13
14 Urban Decav
15
16 Chair Pruden:
17 • An analysis was conducted on how the project would impact other food retailers/vendors, but for
18 the other uses that will operate in Costco there is no analysis of how they could affect local
19 audiology/ hearing aid, tire, optometrist, pharmacy, photo center businesses in town. Having
20 these types of businesses is obviously profitable for Costco. There are numerous businesses of
21 this sort in town and is not sure the reason no analysis was conducted for them. Is of the opinion,
22 these businesses would be affected. Ukiah is an area where `the pie would just get sliced that
23 much thinner' in terms of retail sales for those types of businesses that would be affected by
24 Costco and there is no discussion about which of these business types could go under.
25 • While the DEIR talks about other businesses, there is very little discussion about possible closure
26 of a tire shop/center. There are many tire stores/centers in Ukiah.
27 • Found language in the DEIR to be very unusual that states `our goods are not homemade like
28 SchaYs Bakery although you can buy a pie twice as big for the same price.'
29 • Considering the amount of detail talked about for the food stores, the document does not go into
30 any kind of detail for tire centers, optometrist, audiologist, and pharmacy businesses and how
31 these businesses might be economically impacted.
32 • Document does not identify what business could go out of business as a result of Costco. Unlike
33 the list for the grocery stores, there is no list broken down for`other retail' businesses.
34 • In terms of economic decay, the statistical information and analysis is deficient with regard to
35 `Other Retail' businesses. There is no discussion, for instance, whether or not these stores will be
36 economically impacted. As such, Table 6 on page 39 of Appendix F provides analytical
37 information for food stores, but there is no detailed information about `Other Retail' businesses.
38 • The examples given in the draft document talks about the newer buildings such as the former
39 Mervyn's and K-Mart that have been readily leased to viable businesses (Kohl's and Home
40 Depot) and does not really discuss and/or provide sales analysis for the little businesses in town.
41
42 Commissioner Sanders:
43 • Page 3.3-18 of the DEIR, bullet 3 (Other Retail), talks about other businesses.
44 • It may be beneficial to reference the appropriate addendum associated with urban decay.
45
46 Commissioner poble:
47 • Section 3.3-18 of the DEIR `Other Retail' states, `The other$5.2 million in sales occur in a variety
48 of goods (including pharmacy, pet supply, office, sporting goods,jewelry, and books).'
49 • Questioned if Chair Pruden is asking for a report about specific businesses rather than
50 categorizing their overall percentage of sales impact.
51
52 Chair Pruden:
53 • A table similar to Table 6 for `Other Retail' business, particularly for the tire service businesses
54 should have been provided giving information about sales impacts and what would likely occur.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 27, 2013
Page 5
1 Brian Grattidge:
2 • Confirmed the assorted services captured under`other retail.'
3 • Table 3.3-3, page 20 of the DEIR combines the services into retail categories, i.e., home
4 furnishing & appliances, food & beverages, gasoline stations and other retail. The intent is to
5 prioritize that area of retail having the most potential for impact this being `food & beverage'
6 followed by `home furnishings & appliances.' While a potential vacancy is unfortunate for a
7 particular business/property owner translating this to retail areas having the most potential for
8 significant environment effect is what is being looked such as for Food Maxx, Lucky's, etc.
9 • Is of the opinion placing business types in retail categories as shown in the table rather than
10 individually is helpful in understanding the overall environmental effect by category, scale of
11 what the market area is and why certain market areas are `honed' in. While Costco sells many
12 products, where sales would be most felt is grocery and food.
13
14 Mark Watson (Comfort Inn):
15 • Is a business and property owner in the Redwood Business Park
16 • Is also speaking on behalf of Doug Guillon, another business/property owner in the Redwood
17 Business Park.
18 • He, Doug Guillon and other groups that have expressed an opinion are comfortable with the
19 DEIR. Staff has done a good job of explaining the EIR, Project and impacts.
20 • Formerly a resident of Humboldt County is familiar with Costco coming into an area similar to
21 Ukiah. When Costco came to Eureka, not aware of any businesses that closed due to Costco.
22 Businesses may have closed for other reasons.
23 • Costco is a great neighbor, asset to every community they come into, and a great employer that
24 provides a good salary and benefits.
25
26 Commissioner poble:
27 • If the approach were to look at every business and identify if it would be affected comparatively
28 as it may only represent a small percentage of the sales base does this change whether or not
29 the DEIR provides sufficient information to determine its adequacy or does it have more of an
30 effect on the project itself and the project impact should it be approved? Is of the opinion there
31 has to be a stopping point somewhere such that not every single business can possibly be
32 analyzed for possible effects.
33 • One question that should likely be asked is whether gasoline stations include tire sales or is this
34 all lumped into one category. Is it necessary to break out what percentage of the sales base is tire
35 stores so it is known at least where such sales fall in comparison to the threshold established?
36 • Looking at Table 3.3-3, what category would tire sales fall within the list of four retail categories.
37 • Is not necessarily questioning whether an analysis was done for the little businesses such as tire
38 stores, but rather what category they fall under so as to get an understanding of the impact and
39 whether it is up or down relative to the Project.
40
41 Brian Grattidge:
42 • Tire sales would not be under gasoline sales.
43 • In terms of determining the sales base, tires are incorporated into the motor vehicles and parts
44 category as provided for in the appendix. Some of the tables in this document will have this
45 information.
46 • Table 3.3-3, tire sales would be included in the `Home Furnishing &Appliance' retail category.
47 • Related to optometry, pharmacy, audiology, etc., would be categorized under`Other Retail.'
48 • With regard to sales percentages and/or leakage areas that would be recaptured from Costco
49 sales in Santa Rosa and Rohnert Park is a significant part of the analysis. This leakage would
50 then be recaptured back into the Ukiah market without the existing businesses necessarily feeling
51 the full brunt.
52
53 Commissioner Sanders:
54 • Pages 44-46 of the DEIR, Cumulative Project Sales Estimates and Sales Impacts, and asked if
55 this should be added to the analysis?
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 27, 2013
Page 6
1 Chair Pruden:
2 • Finds the urban decay analysis `skimpy' in order to make a decision. In terms of the urban decay
3 analysis, there are buildings in town that have very little re-lease potential so the potential exists
4 for urban blight should these buildings become vacant. For purposes of urban decay would like to
5 have seen an analysis of how many small buildings would be affected by Costco.
6 • As such, the problem is the analysis does not give information about the number of buildings that
7 could potentially go out of business, but instead provides statistical data for four retail categories.
8 • The retail categories in Table 3.3-3 are too broad-based.
9
10 Commissioner Whetzel:
11 • It appears the businesses being discussed are categorized under `Other Retail' in the tables and
12 for clarification purposes supports having asterisks/notes identifying what types of business
13 constitute `Other Retail.' There is no information about what constitutes this retail sales category.
14 Costco sells a wide variety of products and the DEIR lists the individual retail categories such as
15 a bakery, pharmacy, optical center, hearing aid testing center, food court, photo center, tire center
16 and fuel station.
17 • The DEIR is adequate to understand the project impacts using the retail categories provided for in
18 Table 3.3-3.
19 • Related to the urban decay analysis, it would be too burdensome to identify every
20 business/building and provide statistical data about potential sales impacts.
21
22 Commission consensus:
23 • Supports Commissioner Whetzel's recommendation concerning a breakdown of what business
24 types constitute `Other Retail.'
25 • Is assuming from Table 3.3-3 that tire centers are included under`Other Retail.'
26
27 Staff:
28 • It appears the Commission is requesting the DEIR identify what part of each broader retail
29 category tire centers are included in and what percentage of sales do they make up. How a retail
30 category is broken down depends upon the table because a business type might be in different
31 retail category in different tables.
32 • What needs to be done is to identify which category includes tire services. For purposes of the
33 Table 3.3-3, it could be tire services are included in `Home Furnishings & Appliances.' The
34 Commission is asking for verification that tire services are included in that category and what
35 percentage it makes up within that category. It may be that this needs to be done for each table
36 because tire services may not be included in the same category in each table.
37 • Also, need to identify what is included in `Other Retail' which may not include tire services,
38 depending on the table.
39 • Recommended to the best of our ability any time the retail category reads, `Other Retail' include a
40 note that identifies what'Other Retail' is and also address the tire center issue.
41
42 Break: 8:05 p.m.
43
44 Reconvene: 8:15 p.m.
45
46 Geoloqv and Soil
47
48 Commissioner Sanders:
49 • Referred to page 3.4-9 of the DEIR, `The City contracts with a private firm for plans requiring
50 structural engineering review' and asked the name of the firm.
51
52 Staff: The name of the firm is Seabrook and Associates and the name of this firm has recently been
53 changed to Phillips/Seabrook Associates.
54
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 27, 2013
Page 7
1 Chair Pruden:
2 • Related to a seismic event, one of the most dangerous areas a person could be in for a new
3 building is a high stacking warehouse kind of building where there is large shelving that goes up
4 several feet. This is a concern.
5 • Questioned why environmental documents do not talk about injury and possible fatality from
6 shelving detaching or materials coming off. Costco stores have high stacking of products on
7 shelves over arms reach, which is typically a warehouse approach. There is no mitigation
8 measure mentioned in the DEIR for tying down shelving or limiting of heights. This section
9 focuses on the geo-technology of the soil.
10 • Questioned why interior building safety issues associated with seismic events such as stacking of
11 merchandise on high shelves are not addressed in environmental documents.
12 • Is the stacking of inerchandise not addressed in the DEIR because this is not considered to be an
13 environmental issue?
14
15 Commissioner Whetzel: The aforementioned issue related to safety and high stacking of shelves would
16 likely pertain to the California Building Code and applicable warehouse standards for building and/or
17 subject to other types of regulations, such as OSHA in terms of dealing with heights and other related
18 safety issues.
19
20 Staff: Confirmed stacking of inerchandise on shelves related to safety would be subject to building code
21 requirements and reviewed by the Building Official.
22
23 Brian Grattidge: Safety with regard to stacking of inerchandise on shelves is covered by a standardized
24 code and is a building code issue. CEQA documents rarely go into building code issues. Unlike some
25 buildings, the Costco building requires a geo-technical report/survey. What is generally seen is the EIR
26 analyzes, the effect of the project on the environment and not the effect of the environment on the project.
27 As such, the issue of safety as it relates to CEQA is essentially a `gray area.' If there was something
28 about the building that could be demonstrated as unique to the site, this would be handled/covered by the
29 California Building Code.
30
31 Commissioner poble: Essentially the Building Code is the mitigation measure.
32
33 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
34
35 Commissioner Sanders:
36 • Inquired about the light poles in the parking lot and potential impacts to the Airport.
37
38 Commissioner Whetzel: There would be no effect.
39
40 Chair Pruden:
41 • Referred to Appendices A-C and inquired about a geo-technical report from the consulting firm of
42 Kleinfelder for Phase I Environmental Site Assessment.
43 • Is not disputing the laboratory data in the report, but rather drew attention that the site was a
44 former ranch where the finding of arsenic is not unusual. Apparently, arsenic was not detected in
45 the soil analysis or monitoring of the groundwater. Redwood Coast Lumber Company also
46 operated on the site for many years and has no knowledge whether or not chemicals were used
47 as part of this operation.
48
49 Commissioner Sanders:
50 • It may be information regarding soil testing/sampling is explained in Appendix F, Phase II
51 information.
52
53 Chair Pruden:
54 • Asked if more soil testing was going to be done for the site for any toxins/contaminants since the
55 property did function as a ranch and a lumber company.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 27, 2013
Page 8
1 • The DEIR contains editorial information that is incorrect about the site. The property was ranched
2 beginning as early as the late 1800s rather than beginning in 1957 and continuing until the 1960s
3 as documented in the DEIR.
4
5 Brian Grattidge:
6 • There are appendices within appendices related to information/data in the Phase I and Phase II
7 Environmental Site Assessment.
8 • There will be no further soil testing for the site because sampling results done for the phases was
9 negative indicating no further sampling was required.
10 • Related to the level of significance after mitigation, (LTS) effects under 'Hazards' environmental
11 impact indicates there are no potential significant effects from hazards. Acknowledged that while
12 the Planning Commission made a good point the property has a history, based on the soils
13 testing it was determined no additional testing was necessary. Testing everything is not feasible.
14 To this end, this is the reason for Mitigation Measure 3.5.2, Hazards Remediation, `If
15 contaminated soil and/or groundwater are encountered or suspected contamination is
16 encountered during Project construction activities, work shall be halted in the area, and the type
17 and extent of the contamination shall be identified in accordance with coordination of the
18 overseeing agency' i.e., local health department, State regional water board and/or other relevant
19 agencies.
20 • No need for further testing has been identified at this time since there was no indication in the
21 environmental reports of where further testing should be done.
22
23 Commissioner poble:
24 • Is of the opinion the soil testing/sampling and methodology was conducted appropriately,
25 information is adequate and representative of what needed to be done in the way of testing for
26 contaminants on the site.
27 • The report shows the grid pattern used for soils testing. Is not comfortable questioning the work
28 done by a professional engineer and his testing methodology.
29 • Reviewed the document regarding soil and groundwater testing/monitoring and the testing did not
30 produce/show any arsenic content.
31
32 Commissioner Whetzel: Agrees with Commissioner poble.
33
34 Hvdroloqv and Water Qualitv
35
36 Commissioner poble:
37 • Referred to ES-8 of the DEIR, Impact 3.6.4, with regard to the mitigation measure for this impact,
38 and requested clarification regarding the last sentence ending, 'with-.'
39 • Questioned Impact 3.6.5 that specifically refers to the fueling station and noted the level of
40 significance after mitigation is listed as LTS and why there is no mitigation measure required. It
41 seems as though Mitigation Measure 3.6.4 might be appropriate for this. Is of the opinion there
42 should be some mitigation measures for the installation of the new fueling station and associated
43 activity thereof. The corresponding mitigation measure states `none is required.'
44
45 Commissioner Whetzel:
46 • Clarified the sentence ending 'with' extends to the next page ES-9 to read, 'project conditions.'
47 • Pointed out Impact 3.6.8, for instance, the mitigation measure states implement Mitigation
48 Measure 3.6.4.
49
50 Commissioner poble:
51 • To clarify, related to Impact 3.6.5, the level of significance after mitigation is `LTS' for this impact
52 and it may be that a mitigation measure should be implemented for this impact and suggests this
53 mitigation measure could be 3.6.4 for this category rather than `none required.'
54
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 27, 2013
Page 9
1 Commissioner Sanders:
2 • Is of the opinion the aforementioned is a good suggestion.
3
4 Commissioner Whetzel:
5 • This may be a good suggestion unless Mitigation Measure 3.6.4 encompasses the gas station
6 facility.
7
8 Brian Grattidge:
9 • The mitigation measure pertains to the entire site. The intent when looking at Table ES-1 for this
10 environmental impact is there was not something unusual a standard regulation that which is
11 included in Measure 3.6.4 would not encompass. A cross reference could be added for clarity.
12 The Commission would have to direct whether or not they were of the opinion the fueling station
13 facility is a potentially significant impact that requires mitigation to be lower than what was found
14 for measure 3.6.4 or provide for a `backstop' measure to remind everyone that the fueling station
15 is part of the Project.
16
17 Commissioner poble:
18 • Is of the opinion a mitigation measure is required for Impact 3.6.5 and it could be as simple as
19 what Mr. Grattidge is proposing.
20
21 Commissioner Sanders:
22 • Questioned the issue of drainage and flow into the Caltrans area/ditch on the east side of the site
23 for the use of the bio-swale if this element has been approved by Caltrans. It appears City staff
24 has been having conversations with Caltrans in this regard.
25 • Page 3.6-11: Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) states `The City is required to implement
26 the SWMP and comply with the General Permit. The purpose of the SWMP; City of Ukiah, 2006)
27 is to implement and enforce a series of management practices designed to reduce the discharge
28 of pollutants from urban runoff or MS4 permit.' MS4 being a standard permit that pertains to
29 runoff for buildings/parking lots and requested clarification as to City standards and the list of
30 what appears to be policy statements 1 through 6 on page 3.6.11. Is of the opinion this portion of
31 the DEIR is vague.
32
33 Commissioner poble:
34 • His understanding of the Stormwater Management Plan is the six items listed are policy
35 statements as well as headings. Each one of these statements/headings is an item that has to
36 have a document with it that shows how they are being addressed. It may be this aspect was not
37 clarified in the DEIR document.
38
39 It may the SWMP should be provided for somewhere in the DEIR document.
40
41 Land Use and Planninq
42
43 Commission:
44 No comments/questions.
45
46 Noise
47
48 Commission:
49 No comments/questions.
50
51 Public Service and Utilities
52
53 Commissioner Whetzel:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 27, 2013
Page 10
1 • With regard to the Walmart Expansion Project, there was discussion about the need for increased
2 City Police Department presence for Walmart and asked if this is a possibility for the Costco
3 Project?
4
5 Chair Pruden:
6 • Flagged the element of need for police presence for Costco because it was necessary for
7 Walmart. The number of callouts to the police department for Walmart is documented in a report
8 log. It is not known about what the situation will be for the Costco Project.
9 • It may be with how Costco operates requiring that customers be members having a picture
10 identification card to be able to shop may have an effect on the need for police presence for that
11 store.
12 • Essentially at this point there is no baseline to go by in terms of the environmental impact relevant
13 to the need for public services for Costco.
14
15 Transportation and Traffic
16
17 Commissioner Whetzel:
18 • Has concern about the condition/quality of Airport Park Boulevard to be able to handle the
19 amount of traffic Costco would likely generate. The road is not presently in good condition.
20 • Are there plans to make improvements to Airport Park Boulevard?
21
22 Chair Pruden: Should there have been an environmental analysis for impacts to Airport Park Boulevard?
23
24 Brian Grattidge:
25 • No analysis was done and/or core samples taken to determine how the roadway is holding up in
26 the case of Airport Park Boulevard because the assigned use is consistent with the assigned
27 category of use for the roadway. Wear and tear of a roadway is not necessarily an element that
28 would be looked at for an environment impact document unless there was a change in use.
29 Maintenance issues aside, the use assigned to the street is not changing to accommodate retail
30 projects.
31
32 Commissioner poble: A nexus for an increased `loading' of a road beyond what was originally planned
33 would be necessary to require a mitigation measure for maintenance and/or improvements to it as it
34 pertains to a new development.
35
36 Brian Grattidge:
37 • Public facilities may have roads designed for a particular use where the category of use is
38 consistent with the assigned category of use for the roadway. As such, no analysis was
39 necessary for the Costco Project. An evaluation may be necessary if there happens to be
40 something unusual such as amount of truck traffic related to distribution then this matter might
41 have to be looked at. While Costco may have some truck traffic related to operation, it is not
42 along the lines of distribution and the kind of thing that would trigger an analysis of that level.
43 • The Commission is correct that a determination of a nexus would be necessary in order to ask for
44 repairs/maintenance for a project that was moving into an area designated for its type of use.
45 • The General Plan does essentially cover the issue of land uses.
46
47 Commissioner Whetzel:
48 • Airport Park Boulevard is not equipped to handle multiple heavy vehicles of which many travel
49 that roadway to accommodate the different retail establishments operating in Redwood Business
50 Park.
51 • Is of the opinion Airport Park Boulevard was built substandard for those types of heavy vehicles
52 that use this road and has not held up for the wear and tear it receives.
53 • The road is unable to accommodate all the retail uses operating in the Park.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 27, 2013
Page 11
1 • Is the condition of Airport Park Boulevard an environmental issue that has not been addressed
2 and the expectations if the roadway is not repaired it will deteriorate even further which has some
3 effect?
4
5 Planning Director Stump:
6 • The City Public Works Department is developing plans for a maintenance overlay project of
7 Airport Park Boulevard that will occur sometime in the future.
8 • Confirmed the condition of Airport Park Boulevard is not an environmental issue.
9
10 Commissioner Whetzel: Repairs to Airport Park Boulevard must include more than just an overlay.
11
12 Planning Director Stump: Reference to an overlay is just a `manner of speaking.'
13
14 Global Climate Chanqe
15
16 Chair Pruden:
17 • The issue of global climate change and subsequent potential significant impacts is a topic of
18 discussion for all future projects. To this end, are there mitigation measures that might work to
19 help mitigate this particular issue?
20 • Is it possible to include a `no idling zone' as a mitigation? This type of inechanism has not been
21 used in town.
22 • Has no knowledge how long a Costco shopper stays inside a store, but it is probably 45 minutes
23 to an hour or more. It is not uncommon to see cars idling in a mini-mart and would assume for a
24 Costco shopper this would not occur often. Has observed idling of cars at Walmart. The issue of
25 no idling has never been talked about as a mitigation measure for air quality or global warming
26 impacts.
27 • It may be that idling of vehicles in parking lots should be made a mitigation measure.
28 • `Is no idling' ever used as a mitigation measure in an environmental document?
29 Commissioner Whetzel:
30 • Idling of cars would not likely be a situation that would occur at Costco.
31 Staff: Based on years of being a Costco shopper, you are often in the store for an hour or more, so
32 people do not let their cars idle.
33
34 Brian Grattidge:
35 • A mitigation measure concerning idling of vehicles has been used as a health and/or energy use
36 mitigation but not for passenger vehicles.
37 • The California Air Resources Board presently has standards for the idling of heavy trucks.
38 • A mitigation measure for idling of vehicles (non-passenger) is essentially a health mitigation
39 because of diesel emissions.
40 • There is really no getting in and out of Costco quickly because a membership card must be
41 presented and it takes time to shop in the store so idling of passenger vehicles would not likely
42 occur often.
43 Bioloqical Resources
44
45 Chair Pruden:
46 • Referred to the Klienfelder study in the DEIR document. It appears the consultants went to the
47 site for a day or two to note/observe/survey whatever birds could be seen.
48 • What is evident in the Kleinfelder document as a supporting document is that 18 acres were used
49 as the survey area. The Costco site is 15.33 acres, but 18 acres were surveyed. For study
50 purposes consultants are allowed to go off site as part of the survey.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 27, 2013
Page 12
1 • Cited page 1 of 53 in Appendix A-C, Executive Summary, dated December 9, 2011 and asked
2 about why the consultants surveyed another 2.7 acres as opposed to the actual area and is this
3 normal practice?
4 Commissioner poble:
5 • Typically in a Phase 1 Environmental Assessment, a `broad brush' effort is done and with this
6 mitigation measures are attached to the biological resources. Consultants are required to actually
7 conduct pre-construction surveys of nesting habitat within 500 feet of any construction activity. It
8 is his understanding the information must be certified through Department of Fish and Game.
9 • Essentially there is the Phase 1 Environmental Assessment and then there is the real `nuts and
10 bolts' assessment that is listed in the mitigation.
11
12 Brian Grattidge:
13 • Added, it is important to note that Phase I Environmental Assessment was not relied upon for the
14 biological resource survey. ESA sent and their own biological resource team to survey the site,
15 which is the basis for section 3.12, Biological Resources on pages 3.12-1 and 3.12-2 of the DEIR
16 where 15.33 acres were surveyed.
17 • Would assume that Phase 1 Environmental Assessment included either the State (Caltrans)
18 drainage on the east side of the property or some of the City-owned drainage facilities on the
19 south side of the property, which is how the survey got to approximately 18 acres. The correct
20 property area is noted in the biological resources section of the DEIR. The survey was a
21 reconnaissance-level survey of the Project site, literature searches, and database queries.
22 • Commissioner poble was correct in that the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment was a pre-
23 construction survey based on the type of habitat that was observed. Department of Fish and
24 Game would be notified if a viable nest was discovered and appropriate protection measures
25 would be identified by Fish and Game.
26
27 Chair Pruden:
28 • Our local Audubon Society has creditable statistics that were not used as a reference in the DEIR
29 and questioned the reason for this. The Audubon Society fully surveys those areas where the
30 proposed Project is to be located. The studies are very complete because the area is located
31 near wetlands.
32 • It appears a larger database was used as opposed to a local database.
33 • Would like to see the Audubon Society statistics for those areas in and around the proposed
34 Project in the DEIR.
35 Population and Housinq
36
37 Commission:
38 No comments/questions.
39
40 Cultural Resources
41
42 Chair Pruden:
43 • When the Ukiah Valley Area Plan was completed, some of the historical information was incorrect
44 and used for other documents.
45 • Referred to section 3.14, Cultural Resources, and requested editorial changes:
46 1. Page 3.14-2, Historical Content, `The City of Ukiah was first settled in 1856 by Samuel Lowry.
47 Initially incorporated into Sonoma County, an independent Mendocino County government
48 was established in 1859 with Ukiah as the chosen county seat (City of Ukiah, 2008; Palmer
49 1880).'
50
51 Mendocino County is an original California county formed in 1850. Ukiah became the county
52 seat in 1859. Mendocino County was never incorporated into Sonoma County. Accordingly,
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 27, 2013
Page 13
1 independent Mendocino County government was `not established,' but rather a county seat
2 was set up to 'administer.' This information needs to be corrected.
3
4 2. The Ukiah Demolition Review Committee reviewed the Dutton/Cox property in April 6, 2007
5 and this property has been part of the Dutton ranch since 1886. There is full documentation
6 that the area where Costco is to be located was farmed since 1886 and the information in the
7 DEIR states the area was farmed since 1957. This information is an incomplete
8 documentation of history that is repeated in other areas of the document that the area has
9 been ranched since 1957. She will advise staff where the misinformation occurs in different
10 sections of the DEIR.
11 Chapter 1: Purpose and Use of this EIR
12
13 Commission:
14 No comments/questions.
15
16 Chapter 2: Project Description
17
18 Commission:
19 No comments/questions.
20
21 Chapter 3.1: Aesthetics
22 Chair Pruden:
23 • The document indicates there is no aesthetic impact on the scenic corridor. Has observed the
24 new Target Store development occurring in Petaluma. Can no longer see Petaluma behind a
25 large concrete wall that is the east elevation of the Target store. The scenery has been changed.
26 • Would like to see what the Costco building will look like from the freeway other than a depiction of
27 the elevation as in how much of the hillside and/or surrounding areas can be seen.
28 • Is of the opinion the new Costco building could impact the view of the Western Hills, but does not
29 know how significant the impact would be.
30 • Referred to pages 3.1-4 and noted a visual of the building would be helpful to see if there would
31 be impacts to the scenic corridor and how significant and/or to see if the building would not
32 change the existing visual character or quality of the site or surroundings where the impact would
33 be less than significant as provided for in Impact 3.1.1 on page 3.1-9 of the DEIR. There is no
34 mitigation measure for the impact.
35 • With the big box being built there is no way of judging whether or not it is going to impact or not
36 on the scenic corridor because there is no model/information provided in this regard.
37
38 Staff:
39 • The impact analysis states the impact would be less than significant and does not say there is no
40 impact. There is no mitigation measure because the impact is less than significant.
41 Commissioner poble:
42 • Is of the opinion the information in the section related to `Aesthetics' makes sense. The DEIR
43 states the Project is in an existing business park surrounded by other businesses that have the
44 same/similar height and landscaping requirements and characteristic and therefore.
45 • Questioned if the issue is if the threshold of significance is whether or not the hillside can be seen
46 after the building is constructed or does the Project fit the visual character of the surroundings as
47 one is driving up the freeway corridor. Is fine with looking at the development in the latter context
48 in terms of it being an acceptable threshold of significance aesthetically. It did not occur to him
49 that an acceptable threshold level of significance is whether or not one could see the hillsides.
50 • The question is really about the level of significance or not. If there is some debate as to whether
51 the threshold of significance is adequate or not there needs to be a discussion.
52 • It is his understanding the General Plan designated area in the Redwood Business Park and/or
53 Airport Industrial Park (AIP)for retail/commercial types of use.
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 27, 2013
Page 14
1 Chair Pruden:
2 • The Ukiah General Plan talks about impacts to scenic corridors. Looking across from the freeway,
3 the Project would impact the scenery from Highway 101. The question is whether the impact is
4 significant or not.
5 • At the time when the Ukiah General Plan was formulated, area in the Airport Industrial Park was
6 designated for industrial/light manufacturing.
7 • Some of the area in the AIP was designated for automobile dealership type of use, such as the
8 Ken Fowler Car Dealership.
9 • Costco is a large, boxy building.
10 • Just because a consultant determines an impact not to be significant, the Planning Commission
11 still has to decide whether the impact is significant or not on behalf of the community because a
12 third party coming in would not view the Valley in the same way as the community.
13 • It appears most of the Commissioners are of the opinion the threshold level for aesthetics used in
14 the DEIR as to whether the Project impacts the scenic corridor from the freeway is correct.
15 Staff: The site is zoned for an industrial project which might actually be less attractive than a retail project
16 at the proposed location and there is no guarantee that it would provide or maintain a scenic corridor.
17 The general plan does not identify this area as a scenic corridor and does not define scenic corridor.
18
19 Commissioner Sanders:
20 • It would be beneficial to have the site development plan.
21 • Looking at the landscaping will be helpful with mitigating potential aesthetic impacts.
22 Commissioner poble:
23 • The Commission will have some control about potential aesthetic impacts because this body will
24 be looking at landscaping plans and where/how and type of trees will be placed.
25 • Just wants to make sure the environmental impact relevant to aesthetic is `categorized' correctly.
26 Chair Pruden:
27 • Was initially okay with the categorization of aesthetics with regard to the Costco project until her
28 perception changed when she saw the Target store development in Petaluma and its aesthetic
29 impact to the surrounding scenery from the freeway. Is of the opinion the City of Petaluma
30 disappeared behind a large concrete wall.
31 • The Commission will have the opportunity to look at the potential visual impact of the Project
32 during review of the Site Development Permit.
33 • The visual impact may be no greater than the existing stores in this location.
34 Commissioner poble:
35 • Asked if the Commission was okay with environmental impact 3.1 (Aesthetics) and it being
36 classified as less than significant.
37 • Just because 3.1 Aesthetic impact is classified less than significant in the environmental
38 document, the Commission still has the authority to condition and review the site development
39 permit for landscaping, etc.
40 • It is the responsibility of the Commission to review the DEIR and certify that the document is
41 adequate and one of the ways to evaluate whether or not it is adequate is to make certain the
42 impacts are identified appropriately and is satisfied with how their level of significant is evaluated.
43 • Wants to make certain the Commissioners are on the same page and that there was not some
44 debate about whether section 3.1 (Aesthetics) should have been significant and requiring
45 mitigation or less than significant. If there is some debate going on about the level of significance,
46 it should be discussed.
47 Chair Pruden:
48 • Cannot at this point bring forth enough justification to convince the Commission otherwise other
49 than the perception.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 27, 2013
Page 15
1 • Level of impact also depends upon the grade of the freeway and/or other relevant factors.
2 However, is of the opinion, `we' are losing a background visibility of our hills as we create more
3 big box stores.
4 • Looking at the 3.1 environmental impacts pertinent to aesthetics, the Commission is looking at a
5 draft EIR right now and asking questions that may be answered adequately in the Final EIR. It is
6 probably better to ask questions now rather than later.
7 Commissioner Whetzel:
8 • Looking at the map in the DEIR the building would be located further west from the freeway than
9 all the buildings situated along the freeway corridor.
10 Staff:
11 • Acknowledged the Commission does spend a lot of time looking at landscaping for projects to
12 make certain a building is sufficiently screened as part of the site development permit. So the
13 Commission is not precluding itself from addressing aesthetic concerns since it will review the
14 landscaping plan and typically requires screening between the building and highway.
15 • Clarified that while a consultant looks at thresholds and makes assessments, staff works with the
16 consultant and reviews the entire DEIR to make certain the assessment is adequate and correct.
17 Staff agrees with the assessment made in this case.
18 Chapter 3.2: Air Quality
19
20 Chair Pruden:
21 • Referred to pay 3.2-8 and questioned the definition of`Radionuclides.'
22 Commissioner Whetzel: Radionuclides is likely a particulate of some type that gives some form of
23 radiation.
24
25 Brian Grattidge: Is not an air quality analyst, but radionuclides are likely one of many of a whole range of
26 substances that may be encountered in the atmosphere that are potentially hazardous to human health.
27 These substances could be naturally occurring or manmade.
28
29 The definition of`radionuclides' was confirmed.
30
31 Chapter 3.3: Urban Decay
32
33 Chair Pruden:
34 • This section was thoroughly discussed above.
35 • Within the Urban Decay section there are quite a few economic statistics and questioned whether
36 the amount of leakage is known that will be coming back to Ukiah as a result of Costco? The
37 DEIR states $20 million dollars in leakage will be coming back. To this end, it appears Costco in
38 its market analysis is planning on acquiring many new members.
39 • How many members of Costco are within our marketing area? Was not able to find this
40 information in the DEIR.
41 Brain Grattidge: Does not have knowledge about the number of Costco members in the market area.
42 Suggests that Costco would have this information because this falls within the `trade secret area' and this
43 pertains to sales data, which is how the urban decay conclusions were assessed.
44
45 Chapter 3.4: Geoloqv and Soils
46
47 Commission:
48 No further comments/questions.
49
50 Chapter 3.5: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
51
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 27, 2013
Page 16
1 Commission:
2 • There was discussion above about the issue of glare from the roof.
3 • No further comments/questions.
4 Chapter 3.6: Hydroloqv and Water Qualitv
5
6 Commission:
7 • Noted that in the discussion above, there was a question concerning page 3.6-11 Stormwater
8 Management Plan and the City's SWMP being incorporated as a reference or in an appendix in
9 the document.
10 Chair Pruden:
11 • With regard to page, 3.6-1, Project Site Drainage, Sentence that reads, `Under existing
12 conditions, the site has not been developed, but has been partially prepared for development,
13 including grading and the installation of a preliminary stormwater drainage system, which drains
14 into a swale (maintained by Caltrans) located along the eastern flank of the Project site, between
15 the Project site and US 101,' does this mean recently because this was once a working ranch
16 since 1886? How should this sentence be interpreted?
17 • While the site is not currently developed, as a point of reference the site has a long history of
18 different developments in terms of how the subject property functions.
19 Commissioner poble:
20 • Looking at hydrology to establish a baseline, the intent is to look at the site today not what it was
21 in past history.
22 • When the pre/post runoff analysis is done, the site as it exists today would be used as the
23 baseline.
24 Brian Grattidge:
25 • Should be viewed as how the site currently presents itself. It really refers to changes to
26 impervious surfaces, noting the site has been graded such that the topography has been
27 modified. There are no structures on the site that would affect the hydrology.
28 Chapter 3.7: Land Use Plannina
29
30 Chair Pruden:
31 • There are 12 different parcels associated with the Project. Further on in the Project process there
32 will be an application for a lot line adjustment and questioned if there was an environmental
33 impact associated with combining 12 parcels into two parcels? There would likely be an
34 environmental impact if the situation were reversed where two parcels were being rezoned into
35 12 parcel for development purposes.
36 • The Costco project is almost 4 times larger than the Walmart project. It is complicated and has
37 more impacts than the Walmart project.
38 Brian Grattidge:
39 • The effect to combine the parcels comes with the ability to construct the project. The answer to
40 the question indirectly would be `yes, but related to a land use restriction there is no
41 environmental impact since any impacts are addressed in the evaluation of the Project.
42 Commission:
43 No further comments/questions.
44
45 Chapter 3, 3.8, Noise
46
47 Commissioner Sanders:
48 • Found page 3.8-10, Figure 3.8-6 helpful.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 27, 2013
Page 17
1 Commission:
2 No other comments/questions.
3
4 Chapter 3.9: Public Services and Utilities
5
6 Chair Pruden:
7 • Under section 3.9.1, there is no track record for police callouts. To this end, there are no numbers
8 to work with to make an assessmenUdetermination.
9 Commissioner Whetzel:
10 • Could use cumulative numbers from the Redwood Business Park area as a reference.
11 Staff: The Costco Project was reviewed by the City Police Department. The Police Department had no
12 concerns related to an increase in "call-outs" associated with this Project and did not indicate that there
13 would be a need for additional police services or facilities as a result of the Project.
14
15 Commission:
16 No further comments/questions.
17
18 Chapter 3.10: Transportation and Traffic
19
20 Chair Pruden:
21 • This is not the first time the Planning Commission has seen the traffic study. The Commission
22 reviewed the traffic study for the Walmart Expansion Project.
23 • Page 3.10-21 states the project is expected to generate over 9,000 new trips per weekend day
24 and over 11,000 trips on week days. This is a lot of traffic.
25 Commissioner poble:
26 • Pages 3.10-37 & 38, requested clarification the mitigation measures proposed for the traffic
27 improvements and those related to the improvements the City has preliminary plans for, these
28 mitigation measures will work with funding and a timeline for installation/construction.
29 Accordingly, the reason the transportation and traffic impacts are classified as significant and
30 unavoidable is because the funding has not been secured.
31 Brian Grattidge:
32 • Acknowledged the actual technical feasibility of the solution is that it would bring all the levels of
33 service back to within acceptable the range for both direct and in the picture analysis in the DEIR.
34 The reason for the significant and unavoidable impact is it cannot be reasonably estimated if and
35 when funding would be available to complete the improvements.
36 • The mitigation measures related to trip generation are not `small either.'
37 Commissioner Sanders:
38 • The matter of funding for the traffic improvements was discussed at a recent City Council
39 meeting.
40 Planning Director Stump:
41 • The City Council recently authorized staff to proceed with applying for a loan with I-Bank through
42 the State and is classified as an infrastructure loan. The City has received preliminary approval
43 for a loan. Final approval of a loan has not yet been made.
44 Commissioner:
45 No further comments/questions.
46
47 Chapter 3.11: Global Climate Chanqe
48
49 Chair Pruden:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 27, 2013
Page 18
1 • The proposed Project is large enough to have impacts in the area of global climate change.
2 • Suggested including a `no idling' as an effective mitigation measure.
3 • Some of the mitigation measures for traffic would be the removal of the southbound ramps and
4 explained how the improvement changes would work for people. There would also be intersection
5 improvements at Talmage Road and Airport Park Boulevard.
6
7 Brian Grattidge:
8 • 'No idling' zones are used for heavy trucks related to health impacts not for air quality or climate
9 change. No idling zones are not used for passenger vehicles.
10 Commission:
11 No further comments/questions.
12
13 Chapter 3.12: Bioloqical Resources
14
15 Commissioner Sanders:
16 • Page 3.12-2, Wetland and other waters of the U.S., `No wetlands or other waters of the U.S.
17 occur within the Project site.' The Project does border mitigated wetlands. The statement
18 minimizes the fact the Project borders mitigated wetlands. The DEIR should reflect the proximity
19 of the adjacent wetlands.
20 Chair Pruden:
21 • Currently the area does supply water as runoff to the wetlands located to the south. Once this
22 water is redirected to drainage swales, questions then whether or not any of this water will make
23 it to the wetlands.
24 • Attention should be given to the matter of drainage and supply of runoff water to the wetlands.
25 Commission:
26 No further comments/questions.
27
28 Chapter 3.13: Population and Housinq
29
30 Chair Pruden:
31 • Page 3.13-2, Population and Housing Growth Projections, questions why MCOG statistics are
32 used projecting that the population will increase 38% in the next seven years, which is not
33 accurate information. To say, the City will grow in population by 53°/a within a 20 year period is
34 not accurate and/or realistic. This is 2013 and we are already 13 years into the period from 2000
35 to 2020.
36 • Acknowledged the information in the section related to population comes from a study conducted
37 by MCOG.
38 • Questions why the City of Ukiah consensus statistic projections are not being used in the DEIR.
39 The City has growth projection figures concerning the time period from 2000 to 2020, including
40 statistics of how the City has grown population-wise during the last decade.
41 • Recommends the second paragraph related to `Population' be revised to include more realistic
42 statistical population growth information.
43
44 Commission:
45 No further comments/questions.
46
47 Chapter 3.14: Cultural
48
49 Chair Pruden:
50 • Page 3.14.2, Environmental Setting, Historical Context, will assist staff with correcting editorial
51 information on to correct the information, including the length of time there has been ranching is
52 this area.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 27, 2013
Page 19
1 Commission:
2 No further comments/questions.
3
4 Chapter 4: Other CEQA Considerations
5
6 Commission:
7 No comments/questions.
8
9 Chapter 5: Alternatives
10
11 Chair Pruden:
12 • The letter submitted by Jack Cox this evening concerns property outside of the incorporated City
13 boundaries that is contiguous to the City.
14 • Would assume project alternatives would pertain to land in the City limits and requested
15 clarification in this regard because the project alternatives referenced are within the City limits.
16 • With regard to potential annexation, what is the status of the LAFCO process in terms of the
17 City's Multiple Service Review?
18 • What is the status of the Sphere of Influence amendment?
19 Brian Grattidge:
20 • The answer to the question raised above is generally `yes,' but the more important consideration
21 relates to the General Plan in which there was a site identified in the General Plan that could be
22 used for such a retail/commercial use as Costco and all that is required is annexation.
23 • Will consult with staff about the status of this property in the Brush Street Triangle that is located
24 outside of the incorporated City boundaries. The Project would not be a City project since the said
25 property is located out of the City limits.
26 Planning Director Stump:
27 • The Multiple Service Review was approved by LAFCO and the City at the last City Council
28 meeting. The City received authorization through the adoption of a Resolution by the City Council
29 for a LAFCO amendment to reduce the City's Sphere of Influence to be consistent with the Ukiah
30 General Plan.
31 • Revenue Sharing discussions are continuing between the City and the County.
32 • Related to the question concerning status of the Sphere of Influence amendment, City Council
33 adopted a Resolution authorizing the City to proceed with making an application to LAFCO to
34 make a Sphere of Influence amendment to be consistent with the General Plan.
35 • City staff will meet with County staff to discuss planning and zoning standards for the areas in the
36 Sphere of Influence prior to making an application to LAFCO to making a Sphere of Influence
37 amendment.
38 Commission:
39 No comments/questions.
40
41 Steve Scalmanini:
42 • Page 3.3-21, Urban Decay, further information is necessary for buildings that are still vacant and
43 not leased.
44 • Questioned whether there are plans to improve the Waugh Lane bridge in association with the
45 Costco Project because it currently operates as a one-lane bridge.
46 • Would like clarification whether or not Waugh Lane is a collector street and if so, is a major or
47 minor collector street.
48 • Page 3.10-13, questions definition of`slightly' as used in the statement, 'The intersection of South
49 State Street/Talmage Road had a collision rate slightly higher than the Statewide average rate.
50 The percentage of collisions that involved injuries was 46.2 percent, which is also slightly above
51 the state wide average of 43.3 percent.' His calculated statistics in this regard provide for 28 and
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 27, 2013
Page 20
1 29 percent and is of the opinion the statistics are more than `slightly.' Recommends this
2 information be flagged for further review and accuracy.
3 • MCOG's 2030 study plan in the document concerning redesign of the entire Talmage
4 Road/Airport Park Boulevard intersection does not appear to be mentioned in the DEIR.
5 • Page 41, Appendix F, information related to `Downtown Ukiah Impacts' contains no scientific
6 content and/or concrete supporting information about businesses in the Downtown in this
7 paragraph.
8 • The document contains no information about other towns in the US the size of Ukiah that have
9 Costco stores and the experience of these communities.
10
11 Staff: Related to the Waugh Lane and Waugh Lane Bridge, classification of the street as a collector or
12 not is a question for Public Works.
13
14 Chair Pruden:
15 • Related to Waugh Lane, there are major and minor collector streets in the City as defined by
16 code. While Waugh Lane may be a collector street, it could be designated as a `minor' collector
17 street.
18 • To clarifiy, reference is given to MCOG's 2030 plan in the DEIR and/or appendices.
19
20 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 9:32 p.m.
21
22 Staff: The Final EIR may be ready for review by the Planning Commission in May.
23
24 11. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
25 Senior Planner Jordan:
26 • There will likely be no Commission meeting on March 13, 2013.
27 • A public workshop is planned for the regular 27th Planning Commission meeting regarding the
28 Green House Gas inventory project for municipal facilities communitywide and Climate Action
29 Plan.
30
31 Chair Pruden: Possibly RELEAF and the Tree Advisory Committee may want to look/discuss carbon
32 credits in urban forests even though there not legislation in place.
33
34 12. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
35 Chair Pruden: The attendance doubled for the Lantern Festival held in the Downtown last Saturday.
36
37 13. ADJOURNMENT
38 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:07 p.m.
39
40
41 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 27, 2013
Page 21
i
� Ri;a�:hment#f �
i ��
Nebruary?fi,2i)93
CiEk .�f L'kiah
IPlxnnits�;Y��olrunulutvUevelc,p�nentD��irLn±ent
:�tt�enta�,rt:TCir,t Inrd�vn
3[lU Se1nil�n�Ati•��v.ir.
L kiel-U C,�4a�82
l{L': C'p5T['O 17rF�ft 1'.�v;ronn:ci3t:tl T�lpact P.eprsrt
I
jUe,u�is.Jnrx��n:
Ilh�c,Jack Cux.JuhT,TvS�4'Yii�I��, I]o��'1'Fton:as,G.YVeak:+� C:oldv.�ell,BVIIl{�ttI174J It1Q1779417r
� are landowners iii the 6rusls Slreel Triai�l�. W�oHer iL•c FoIlola•ir�g ctrcnrneiitb dbaut
� ihe C.C�C:C}Ikaft tnviroiurtezll�al lm���t[2c�port.
As yau v.•�11 knou�,�hc 1Sruslt Steeet Trian�k�ls a�,�ailuble ns a 14c:ali��ii fu�'tl3c tY.k'-��'Cf]
ce+,�rlc�^.rnksnt�arnjrc�hnwer-c�r.the C!06'1'{'i7 I)r:�fi Em�iramxt�:ntal hnpac:t Idc�n��t fziilc�cl
� un yer€orm fact-f�ndin;; and anal�sis txr u>>�Ic:n;tand and e�ulunke #1,c 8rur;h Strcek
'1'xia�lgle�s r=�:�r�i��lc lne:�tion.
� 4Me ire k��sr}� mueh concerned d�t the 1�c'lc cf ii�tcW and nr� r��ti•irnnn���nt�l ar��ly��i*
� ne�ard;z� e17r� Brufilti �tme� '1'r!anf;le will ir�ra:rFr.rr. and hainper #t�e {I4'(iti�fri-[TUI�',1T�iT
capacity a�F tli�� �uk�lir., C':iL�� 1'laimu� Cueixznisn��n� 7i7c1 Ci[y C.rnulcil hr iincJerstsnd.
ev�it�atx� �iEil rc�.pnnd � �11e adec�uacy i,+' th�� llrall �n�iao�un��ntF�l l,r�.>o��_ R�„�c,it.
! i:r�peeia:ly uifarmatioz�abo»+��!hc'rii�itit isS.SLiCIY:i5 tilF.��'77xh Stitti?t f riaiir;l[,
1
�r; }�ou iuww from the�:.�+y ��f Ul:i�,h'n 2l�plus vear c:izeet intt�l[�r.mcri in 1,1c lllciatih _
V:illc�- 4re�Plan:snci its �n��irnnrneniaE ci�tnment, tlx4� ����•i��,clmei7ial se�Ling �7f �Etc�
k3rush Stree:TriNn�le ria an urU��t lniil] ]ota�ion a€ �il z�cr�r;anJ enull�iple }tu'ctJn 1��s
x:u4r�1�Se11I��tr12 iQCRti�IW� Fi71'Z COSTC'C)�ize de•,'eloyment. T'kie kSYUSh�it�+e�t'I'�un�Ae
cont�ii�s th� .�pprnpriate 1�id use desit;n.,tiun �.nd aonir�, [t h�s a�ailablc
uzfi•adtnichu e,�}pp�nuiutics Far trtu�spu��tati�ui t�cctis�,and other em�ixu�ur�YT,t.il EaUta�rs
suchasae5thetir l�x.�tinn and�;rcei�lioux ga9��iluctian 6ccausc nf 3tk r�istril ln��atiunin
U�e snttr�et Plau?, cs�hi�h ina}' ixtake tnr Rn�sh 41.rrcl 1'rianple aii v�tt ir��n�rxer,tall;•
seiperior aitrrnatit���m th�lict�urocxi 3u4iness 1'ark.
I
1
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 27, 2013
Page 22
4d�iitiunall}-,the gruah�+tr�:ct'I'ri.�cip;le is within thr.[:.ty nf�kiah 5phexe Uf littlue�nc�-
iThe 4'itt•;s zurmn�lv pre�persi:l�tu r;hri�ik Il�e Cih'�5yhere nf Irlluence t�ri�ntKin H11
Brush Sh�er.t'1'rianslc for pokential��zaAexatinn ulio the City�:�#llkiaE�. 'Chc Citv kk;v pre-
Ix,un�ki lhe BrushSzc.et'l'Xi�1�e irt pmpsratiunc�f i�11111?X:iL'1L131 ilIlL�I�Lkl�Il'-�7,41[YL7:�Y:QLI�.4�
�' �erm:t tUm�t�rei�71 decelopment. Thexc:f4,rr., �a� ftnci it cx3ci Hk�l ll•.r i_[]STCO Ura1t
" iutt�ironr.lezita! Tnt�ari licpnr� iaileti :o pursiae f'�}�� [ind9ng to an�l}'r� tl�c CC.�;'lCt7
px��ject���ithiz,t1����;}�tii:nus n1�he I3xu�lt Sh�cc�t'I ria:i�;le.
i
Tn "�L'ViL`{4'O�':17C L1L�TCCYS Pna�r.t:#T]k�r:cti'iptiolL��e are c�»,f;�c���t�.t �i�u Llrnslt S�rce�
Tri�i3�l�� can meeC a�l UF fhr tYaSTC��'� pi+ajec� o6jvc•titr� unfikr. lhe C�CJSTCO �Jra:C
�,•.i�nnmenta; Tntpac� Aeport 'h�t jrrnpnse:; to eliin�i�ab�• rlt�� ras slalion `_ir,m
COSTC{1'r;��rnjcrl�esaipCioii hy�`llll�.[ll�{'1,�I•.c C:V�P rncc�nrn�n:s mullipleuses and
Llu ccnnbieu#iui���+u����p�'��pd.�d Ut�C06TCD(ri�tail sales,l�re shng,F;,�„�tati�n}w��:IJ
kye�ronsistent x+�iih tkit� LV�11'slaru3ards. :�c1�j;eionallc�, �11e LT��'AP 1'S'�lEIfCA OLY7ltY'fA til
�1'44'fl,.e�[1��iC ��F�Cii SpaCC llY� :i 1'E3CTlAt1�m I.17i71�7ti317Ct1C�l4'kll.[:��i4 n��t xL•i�Lill'�'i� fYi• t�Y�
City crF Uki.,k�)�w9�ichwc:ue���illatgto cliyt�Ififi as:t 6cne€ittu tti�-+�rti7imunilv.
'I'hc Brush Strref Trian£lt.ma�;al�n be a lu���er-cusl�;�ri7auve fox�CC1SlC:C]:��7d k�r t1�4�
�ilti� of L'kaaF�. 1�V� .�rc Ctii11LLS1d5LiC dUi}Uf f�5[. U}7�]iS:flllll{�, to ixuet with ilu Lity� u[
L'kiaii, C:C75'1'CU and t•our Ens�]»IJnm�[iE.51 1[Sl�}3Cl Ct717N1{ltaist f�lY #ack linding. CGiven
tYutt tltc City of Ukiali ia prupn�i�i�tn �;o i�kc� d�nt fi,r up tb 3U V°�rs v.�itl� t:sx-pati•er
reccnuc, x�e are t•ear}• n�����17 w�rillii� to assi�t the ri:h� �ciiJti de�-elcapin� �i luwe�r �uat
���Srinn far�11c tAx-pak�er,
�i si�v;i�ti}�d�c fai]ure oI the CDSTC:C}f iTi ti�i rnn inenla�Intip�c#ftc�T��r,�t i s cic�vxl�•the latk nI
:act-Fi��lins�.�ncl civaniiiglul envirarunc�it�,l�,n�,l;>:is 1Uoul l�he Firusli 4tret�t'iriany;li�a��
fensible alt�'1'T141CI'.'f'.fnr C1CISTG�L1. L�I�i�71S}ll�f+l7;:F1 an i�al�u�l.an,,he xe�:�u,r,m��nd:,titFt, �7r`
t�e Plarn}in;�u�runission uu;ultvnakr�y�1�ir;;on oi uu'Jkit�hCiiv��,o�ri{:il rnot�lik�=.ly
[a�l.tixi bai'r conrli�r.i�ni.5 and capii3inoi�s rather fhan tact�#��Su��F�c�rt�rrLilicai:on i�i Ll�e
� cncironmental c;cxizm«��e�,nti,E�fn�S�,nl i,I�hepmject,
�inccrely, f� .v+"�^�•-
-- .� rl �
'� �� -- , �� �
���-�-� ��� ',�
�� �� � � �
-� �-�. �._ �
���--�..�,.._._ .�_.�_.���--
�
1
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 27, 2013
Page 23