HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-12-04 Packet - Agenda Item 11a Attachment 5 - Public Comment ATTACHMENT 5
Item 11a
Costco Wholesale Project
Environmental Impact Report ( EIR)
Certification
Additional Public Comment Received after
Planning Commission Packet
and prior to City Council Packet
Y
William D . Kopper
Attorney at Law
417 E Street
Davis, CA 95616
(530) 758-0757
Fax (530) 758-2844
November 19, 2013
City of Ukiah
Planning and Community Development Department
300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482
RE : City of Ukiah Costco Wholesale Project
Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH#20.11112025)
Dear Members of the Planning Staff and Planning Commission:
I represent Ukiah Citizens for Safety First, a California Association, Rachel Land, Patty
Hernandez, Sandy McKee, and Teri Stout. These are their comments. We incorporate into these
comments those of all other individuals and entities commenting on the Final Environmental Impact
Report for the City of Ukiah Costco Wholesale Project. Ukiah Citizens for Safety First, Rachel
Land, Patty Hernandez, Sandy McKee, and Teri Stout, oppose the City of Ukiah Costco Wholesale
Project. We incorporate into these comments the attached letter from Dr. Mark Grismer,
Hydrologist.
With respect to the Costco Final Environmental Impact Report, we have the following
comments :
19 Failure to Provide Information and Traffic Impacts.
An agency abuses its discretion by failing to proceed in the manner required by law if its
actions or decisions do not substantially comply with the requirements of CEQA. (Public Resources
Code § §21168 , 21168 . 5 ; Communities For a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality
Management District (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310.) Most appellate decisions hold that a claim that an EIR
failed to include information necessary for an adequate analysis of a particular environmental issue
should be treated solely as a question of law. In Madera Oversight Coalition, Inc. v. County of
Madera (2011 ) 199 Cal.AppAth 48 , 102, the court stated: "Whether an EIR is sufficient as an
informational document is a question of law subject to independent review by the courts ." Likewise
in Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (2001 ) 87 Cal.App.4th
99, 118 , the court held that the failure to include adequate information is a procedural error and there
is no deference to an agency' s decision.
In letter I-35 prepared by Mr. Dan Smith, Traffic . Engineer, and included in the Final
Environmental Impact Report, Mr. Smith quotes the DEIR on page 3 . 10-22 as follows :
The distribution of project traffic was determined based on the
population densities in the preliminary and secondary market areas
r
City of Ukiah
Planning and Community Development Department
November 19, 2013
page 2
identified in "Costco Wholesale Warehouse Urban Decay Analysis"
prepared in April 2012 by ALH ECON. The potential route to and
from each market area was determined based on current travel
patterns to and from the project area, and a percentage of assigned
project-generated vehicle trips were derived from the share of each
market area. These distribution percentages were then applied to the
trip generation estimates to determine the number of vehicle trips on
each route to and from the market destinations.
Mr. Smith points out that DEIR Table 3 . 10 4 presents the percentages of Project traffic
approaching/departing via major routes as the end result of the analytical process described in the
DEIR. He further states that neither the DEIR nor its Appendix E Traffic Impacts Study included
the actual data and computation steps involved in deriving the results presented in Table 3 . 10-8 . In
Mr. Smith' s comment he asked for the initial data and computational steps that translated the market
analysis into the end results shown on Table 3 . 10-8 .
The response in the Final Environmental Impact Report did not provide the data. Instead,
the FEIR included the following statement:
The distribution assumptions for the project were based on a number
of factors including market area information from the Costco
Wholesale Warehouse Urban Decay Analysis, ALH Urban and
Regional Economics (August 2012) . All assumptions were reviewed
and approved by City Staff before completion of the traffic
operational analysis . In addition to the market area, another major
factor considered was the prominence of services provided in the City
of Ukiah to the Mendocino County population. With all County
services provided in Ukiah as well as the majority of shopping,
professional services and restaurant opportunities, residents of
Mendocino County typically drive into Ukiah with multiple trip
purposes. The majority of these services are located along the State
Street corridor, north of Talmage Road. Therefore, in determining
the expected distribution of trips to/from Costco, these link trips to
the State Street corridor were factored into the estimates . Because
Costco offers some goods which require refrigeration, these linked
trips would most likely save Costco for the last errand on the route.
In the end, although the market analysis may have indicated a higher
percentage of trips oriented to the 101 Interchange at Talmage Road,
the expectation of these regional trips linked to Ukiah services, were
the primary factor in increasing the local trip routes. Using this
process, the potential impacts to local streets would be captured.
The response to Comment No . 28 it is clearly nonresponsive to the request for the actual data
and computational steps that produce the results in Table 3 . 10-81 To obtain this information, these
commenters sent a letter to City Staff specifically asking for this information (Exhibit A), and also
sent a Public Records Act Request to the City Clerk for this information. In response to the Public
Records Act Request, the City Clerk provided some information on how the trip distribution was
City of Ukiah
Planning and Community Development Department
November 19, 2013
page 3
calculated, but it was not complete.
Clearly, the information showing trip distribution is critical to a determination as to whether
the proposed intersection improvements at Talmage/Airport Boulevard and the US- 101 /Talmage
Road interchange will be successful in mitigating the Project' s impacts. Table 3 . 104 shows only
34% of Project trips approaching and departing from US- 101 from the north of Talmage. Almost
all of Ukiah is north of this location, Willits and the surrounding rural areas are north of this location.
All of the market areas to the east would approach and depart along SR-20, which is also to the north
of the US401 /Talmage interchange. The area to the south is served by another Costco in Santa
Rosa. If in fact the number of trips approaching from the north from US 101 should be much greater
than 34%, then the queing lengths on Talmage between the off-ramp intersection and the intersection
with Airport Boulevard will be a much more critical problem. The failure to provide the needed trip
generation calculations in the EIR is a procedural violation of CEQA. CEQA is a procedural statute
and it is necessary for the City of Ukiah to comply with CEQA procedures by providing the
necessary information so that the public can evaluate the Project' s impacts.
Throughout the Final Environmental Impact Report, the FEIR relies upon a letter from
Caltrans dated April 15, 2013 , to claim that the proposed mitigation measure at the US- 101 /Talmage
Road interchange will be adequate mitigation for the Project impacts. The Caltrans evaluation
focused on the primary mitigation measures pertaining to the state owned facilities, which included
the reconfiguration of the US - 101 southbound off-ramp loop, the signal installation at the
intersection of US - 101 southbound off-ramp and Talmage Road, and installation of two westbound
left turn lanes at the intersection of Talmage Road and Airport Boulevard. After consulting with
GHD and W-Trans to obtain the current preferred design alternative concepts and the modeling
output information, Caltrans stated : "We concluded that the mitigation measures proposed in the
DEIR adequately mitigate projected traffic impacts on state facilities . " The April 15 , 2013 , letter
states only that the interchange mitigation proposal appeared to be operationally capable of
mitigating the Project' s traffic impacts as predicted by the traffic models . Nevertheless, the same
letter warns that Caltrans must approve encroachment permits, which will involve conformity review
in accordance with Caltrans ' design standards. The interchange mitigation Project has not passed
that level of review yet.
These commenters provided information showing that the mitigation measures at the US -
101 /Talmage interchange do not comply with Caltrans design standards, and will require design
exceptions . In addition to the comments that we have already provided on this issue, we attach as
Exhibit C a letter prepared by Mr. Dan Smith dated August 14, 2013 . This letter shows that there
are serious safety-related non-conformities to Caltrans design standards included in the proposed
Talmage/US- 101 interchange mitigation measures. These safety related non-conformities are likely
to result in Caltrans ' denial of design exceptions. The applicable information shows that the
proposed interchange mitigation is not acceptable or feasible mitigation, even if the fundjng was
available. Therefore, the EIR fails as an informational document. It does not accurately report to
the decisionmakers or the public that even if funding may be available in the future for the proposed
interchange improvements, that the interchange improvements are not likely to be approved by
Caltrans or built because of the safety-related non-conformities to Caltrans ' design standards. The
EIR fails to address this critical issue in any way, and instead misleads the public and decision-makers
to believe that the April 15 , 2013 , letter is an approval of the proposed mitigation. The misleading
information in the EIR makes it inadequate as a matter of law. The EIR is also inadequate because
f
City of Ukiah
Planning and Community Development Department
November 19, 2013
page 4
it fails to respond to comments. An EIR mmust address the comments of an expert witness and
provide a reasoned and thorough response to such comments. In Comments 16 and 17 of Letter I-35 ,
Mr. Dan Smith points out that the proposed mitigation at the Talmage Road/US- 101 interchange
does not need Caltrans ' design standards and would require design exceptions . In the response to
comments, the FEIR completely ignores these comments and fails to address the issue of the need
for design exceptions. There is no information as to why such design exceptions must be safe. The
FEIR' s failure to address this important environmental issue renders the EIR inadequate.
There is a lack of funding to complete the interchange mitigation at Talmage Road/US - 101 .
Currently, the City is contemplating a lawsuit against the State to reclaim some of the City' s
redevelopment funds to pay for the interchange modification, but the potential success of this
litigation is questionable. Additionally, the City has investigated borrowing the money from the
State of California for the interchange improvement, but at the present time the loan has not been
approved. Because the funding for the interchange improvement is uncertain, the City has taken the
position in the Environmental Impact Report that the traffic impacts at the US- 101 /Talmage Road
interchange, on a segment of Talmage Road, and at the Talmage Road/Airport Boulevard
intersection are significant and unavoidable. Because of these significant traffic impacts, the City
can only approve the Costco Project on a statement of overriding considerations . In approving a
statement of overriding considerations, Guidelines § 15093 (a) provides the following guidance :
CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable,
the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including
region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of the proposed
Project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining
whether to approve the Project. If the specific economic, legal,
social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or
statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed proj ect outweigh the
unavoidable adverse environmental effects , the adverse
environmental effects may be considered "acceptable" .
In the case of the environmental impact of proceeding with the Costco Project without
mitigation at the Talmage/US - 101 interchange, there is no plausible way that the City could find that
the economic benefits would render the environmental effects "acceptable". It should never be
acceptable for the City to approve a Project that will cause traffic impacts that will likely result in
severe accidents and deaths. As shown in the comments of Dan Smith (Letter I-35 : 9- 14), the
existing plus Proj ect conditions (without mitigation at the Talmage/US- 101 interchange) will cause
traffic queues in excess of 1325 feet. As a consequence, there will be traffic queues onto the freeway
mainline, which is an extremely hazardous situation. Additionally, the near term plus Project
condition, without mitigation will create an actual queue in excess of 1525 feet, which would be an
extremely hazardous situation because cars would be backed up and stopped on the freeway
mainline.
In Mr. Smith' s comments he pointed out that DEIR Table 3 . 10 40 concluded that the
southbound - to - westbound movement on the US - 101 off-ramp at Talmage would cause queues of
1037 feet in the existing plus Project condition. He states that this calculation is incorrect because
the southbound - to - eastbound movement becomes additive to the queue and that movement was
ignored in the EIR' s calculation. In the response to comments, the FEIR entirely ignores this
City of Ukiah
Planning and Community Development Department
November 19, 2013
page 5
comment and does not address a computational error in the Environmental Impact Report. The EIR
is therefore non-responsive to an important comment that addresses a significant safety problem.
The FEIR is required to respond to this comment of an expert that sets forth an environmental
impact.
Likewise, under the near term and Project conditions, the DEIR shows that the southbound
to . westbound movement would cause queue lengths of 1192 feet. Mr. Smith comments that the
traffic on the southbound to eastbound movement would become additive to the queue and therefore
the actual queue would be in excess of 1525 feet. The response to comments in the FEIR fails to
address this issue. This cominent raises a potentially significant impact, and the FEIR is required
to respond. Considering that there is no response, the reasonable assumption is that Mr. Smith is
xcorrect and that the queues will back out on to the US401 mainline. This is a very hazardous
tsituation and may result in severe collisions and deaths. Based on these facts, the City should not
be able to approve the Project on a statement of overriding considerations . Additionally, the City
should determine that the Environmental Impact Report is inadequate because the EIR has failed to
respond to a significant comment about traffic impacts that may be a severe public safety hazard.
An EIR is required• to respond to significant comments of an expert witness .
Implementation Measure CT- 16 .4(d) of the City's General Plan states as follows :
Continue to analyze project impacts on the capacity of the City' s
roadway system as part of CEQA review, and require design and.
mitigation measures in consultation with provider agencies . If CEQA
review or other analysis of the traffic impacts of a proposed
development project concludes that a proposed project would result
in a significant deterioration of service or would cause Level of
Service standards to be exceeded, .respond in one of the following .
ways : ... . ....
: .. .
i) Require project redesign in order to prevent service
from deterioration or capacities being exceeded, provided ' that
economic use of the property is not prevented.
ii) Condition the project on a developer funding of
improvements needed to maintain services and/or provide additional
traffic improvements.
. iii) . Approve the. project if it can be. found that it will :
• Generate substantial overriding public benefits ;
• Be in compliance with the other goals and policies
of the general plan; and further .
• Benefit the public health, safety and general welfare
of the community.
City of Ukiah
Planning and Community Development Department
November 19 , 2,013
page 6
It is apparent that the Costco Project without the mitigations at the Talmage Road/US- 101
interchange is not consistent with this general planned provision. As shown in these comments and
the previous comments of Mr. Dan Smith, without the interchange mitigation measures, the Project
creates a severe traffic hazard. Additionally; the draft Environmental Impact Report on pages 3 . 10-
24 and 3 . 10-25 states that the Project will cause significant impacts without mitigation on Talmage
Road and the Talmage Road/Airport Boulevard intersection. Nevertheless, the EIR does not make
any findings that the Project will "benefit the public health, safety and general welfare of the
community". This finding is one of the essential findings before the City can approve the Project.
In light of the potential severe safety hazards of approving the Project without the interchange
mitigation of Talmage Road/US401 , these commenters contend that the Project's non-compliance
with General Plan Policy CT- 16 .4(d) is a fundamental non-compliance, and therefore as a matter of
planning and zoning law the City cannot approve the rezoning. Clearly, the City of Ukiah General
Plan does not permit the City to approve a rezoning where the rezoning creates a severe traffic
hazard. _
From a CEQA perspective the EIR fails to discuss the Project' s inconsistency with General
Plan Implementafion Measure CT- 16 :4(d) . Such a discussion is required by CEQA. Additionally,
Guideline § 150-65 (a)(4) states that a mandatory finding of significance is necessary where a Project
will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The danger
posed by going forward with the Costco Project without the interchange improvements certainly
triggers a mandatory finding of significance.
20 The Final EIR Fails to Adequately Evaluate and Respond to Comments .
Conclusory statements unsupported by specific references to empirical information, scientific
authorities, or explanatory information are insufficient as responses to comments made by agencies
or the public. (Guideline § 15088 (c) .) Recommendations and objections on major environmental
issues that are rejected must be -addressed in detail, and the lead agency:-should.-explain its reasons
for not: accepting those suggestions . (Guideline § 1508.8(c); People v. County ,of Kern ( 1976) 62
Ca1.App . 3d 761 .) A specific response is required, when a continent raises a specific question about
a significant environmental issue. (Guideline § § 15088 (b), 15204(a) ; Cleary v. County ofStanislaus
( 1981 ) 118 Ca1.App. 3d 848 .) Depending upon the nature of the comment, a reasoned ,analysis of the
issue and references to supporting evidence may be required. (See, Flanders Foundation v. City of
Carmel- lay-The-Sea (2012) 202 Cal .App. 4603 , 615 .)
Specific, detailed responses, supported by a reasoned analysis, are particularly important
when the EIR' s impact analysis is criticized by experts or other agencies with expertise in the area.
At . a minimum, the Final EIR must acknowledge the conflicting opinions and explain why
Q r .
suggestions made in the comments have been supporting its statements with relevant sugbes rejected, pp g ant data.
(Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Committee v. Board ofPort Commissioners (2001 ) 91 Cal.App . 4th
1344) 1367, 1371 .)
In light of these requirements, the Ukiah Costco Warehouse Project FEIR falls short of -the
requirements of law.
In comment No . 127, Dr. Mark Grismer; Professor of Hydrology at the University of
California, Davis, commented that "the bioswale and detention storage designs for
City of Ukiah
Planning and Community Development Department
November 19, 2013
page 7
containing/treatment stormwater runoff from the site should consider the frequency of"overtopping"
or feature failure due to repeated rain events." Dr. Grismer states : "Using rainfall data from the past
20 years, a hourly/daily flow model can be created that includes the proposed stormwater control
features and determines when and how often the capacity of such features would be exceeded by
repeated storm events typical of the north coastal area." He states that this type of analysis has been
common in other EIR documents such as Boulder Bay and the Homewood Mountain Resort. He
also states that there needs to be some discussion of how the bioswales will be cleaned of heavy
metal and automobile derived materials on an ongoing basis because of 'the , accumulation of
pollutants in the soil could be at potentially health-threatening levels. These comments suggesting
potentially significant environmental impacts were simply not addressed in the Final Environmental
Impact Report. They were ignored in violation of the law.
An EIR must consider a significant environmental impact. The CEQA Guidelines provide
that an agency must evaluate and respond to timely comments on the Draft EIR that raise significant
environmental issues . (Public Resources Code §21091 (d) ; Guidelines, § 15088 .) Responses must
describe the disposition of the issues raised in the comments. If the agency rejects a recommendation
or objection concerning a significant environmental issue, the response must explain the reason why.
In. the case of the comments of Dr. Mark Grismer, he identified two additional significant
environmental issues. One of the environmental issues is related to the mitigation measure of the
bioswale and detention storage designs for containing/treating storm water run off. Dr. Grismer
stated that the frequency of "over topping" or feature failure due to repeated storm events, may be
a significant environmental impact that should be studied. This potential impact was completely
ignored. Additionally, Dr. Mark Grismer. stated that the bioswale and detention storage facilities
would result in a build up over time of heavy metals and automobile derived materials into the soil .
He stated that these build ups could potentially reach health-threatening levels . This is another
P otential environmental impact related to a proposed mitigation measure .
An EIR is required to
identify and evaluate significant environmental impacts that may result from a mitigation measure.
In this case, the EIR did not study or address either impact. An EIR' s impact findings are legally
inadequate if there is no evidence or other information showing the issue was studied. (City of
Maywood v. Los Angeles Unified School District (2012) 208 Ca1 .App.4th 362, 395 .)
In this case, Dr. Grismer raises two significant impacts on the environment related to the
Project that were not studied in the EIR and were not responded to in the Final Environmental
Impact Report. Dr. Grismer states that the bioswale and detention storage facilities containing storm
water run off from the site could over top or feature failure due to repeated rain events . This
potentially significant impact was not studied and there was no response to Dr. Grismer' s comments .
Secondly, Dr. Grismer states that the storm water run off through onsite containment would cause
the accumulation of heavy metals and pollutants into the soil to potentially health-threatening levels .
The EIR does not address this significant :effect or respond.to- Dr. Grismer.' s comments. The EIR is
inadequate because it does not address a potentially significant environmental effect.
Dr.. ;- Grismer points out in his letter - that , for the 10-year storm event; - the hydrological
modeling showed that the Proj ect would cause an increase in water elevations at the drainage outfalls
of approximately 1 .3 feet. However, for the 100-year event, the modeling shows the Project causes
no increase in water levels of the north culverts . The EIR provides no explanation for this
discrepancy, and Dr. Mark Grismer, who is an internationally respected hydrologist states that the
increase in water levels should be similar for the 100-year event as the 10-year event. The FEIR does
City of Ukiah
Planning and Community Development Department
November 19, 2013
page 8
not respond to this comment in violation of CEQA, and there is no information in the Record
supporting these anomalous results . As Dr. Grismer points out, if the Project produces the same
increase in water levels in the 100-year flood event as the 10-year event, then the Project Site would
flood during the 100-year event. As the court in Laurel Heights ImprovementAssociation v. Regents
of the University of California stated : "Vile do not suggest that a court must uncritically rely on every
study or analysis presented by a proposed proponent in support of its position, a clearly inadequate
or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference:':' (Laurel Heights.ImproverrcentAssociation
v. Regents of the University of California ( 1988) 47 Ca1. 3d 376, 409, FN12 .) .InAhis .case, the FEIR
and the City need to respond to Dr. Grismer' s comment and explain how the Project would cause
no increase in water surface levels in the 100-year flood event, when it. causes -a 1 .3 foot increase
during the 10-year storm event. Dr. Grismer's comments address an important environmental impact
that has not been answered.
Dr. Grismer.points out in his comments that the Shaaf & Wheeler Hydrology Memo points
out that there is great uncertainty in determining the timing of Russian River flood flow peaks and
storm water drainage peaks. He states that the hydrological modeling for the Project is improper
because it assumes that the culvert drainage capacity would not be limited by clogging or
submergence. He suggests because of the persistently high water table resulting from the high river
water levels, that the LID features of the parking lot as well as the lower southwest corner drainage
outlet may be compromised or inundated during repeated storms when the river stage is at or near
flood levels . The EIR does not discuss this potential significant impact or make any
accommodations to mitigate for such an impact raider flood conditions. The impact Dr. Grismer
identified would cause the release of polluted materials into the Russian River, and also the Project
Would increase the flood flows in the Russian River. Nevertheless, this impact is not addressed in
the EIR, there is no mitigation, and the EIR does not find that the Project will have a significant
impact on hydrology. The project EIR is inadequate with respect to its findings with respect to
hydrology.
In Letter I- 10, Comment No . 11 , the commenter points out that the Costco site is currently
open space, devoid of structures, and separated from any other visible developrn%nit. The commenter
further states that the height and massing of the various structures, as-well as numerous 37-foot high
parking lot lighting poles, and a parking lot that will stretch nearly a quarter of a. mile long adjacent
to Highway 101 would degrade the appearance of this section of the local General Plan' s scenic
corridor. The commenter points out that the EIR rationalizes that the Project would be consistent
with other businesses to the north. However, the Ukiah' s General Plan Policy states that the City
is to protect entrances or gateways to the City. The response to this comment is ,inadequate. The
FEIR does not explain how the construction of the Proj ect would be consistent with the General Plan
designation-of Highway 101 as a General Plan Scenic Corridor. Moreover, the FEIR does not
provide any facts or reasonable .explanation as to why the fact that there is an existing Ken Fowler
Auto Center, Food Maxx, Staples, and Walmart to the north has any relevance as to whether the
construction. of a very large Costco store, parking lot; and light poles would not "have a substantial
adverse effect on a scenic vista." The FEIR fails to respond to the comment that the Project is
inconsistent with the scenic corridor designation of 101 and the City Gateway Designation,
The Final EIR fails to respond adequately to Comment Nos. 14 and 15 (Letter 1- 10) .
Comment No . 15 states that the Project will substantially degrade the existing visual character of
quality of the site by adding a. parking lot for 600 vehicles along a nearly one-quarter mile section
City of Ukiah
Planning and Community Development Department
November 19, 2013
page 9
of Highway 101 . Comment No . 15 states that the parking lot should have visual screening . The
FEIR' s response to Comment No . 15 is that the City policy and regulation (Ordinance 1098) requires
landscaping and .visual treatment for the parking lot. However, the proposed landscaping between
US 101 and the parking. lot is deciduous, which means for four to six months of the year the parking
lot will be a visual blight: . In contrast, the Walmart store and parking lot is screened from the
freeway with conifers. In essence, the FEIR admits in response to Comment No . 15 that the visual
impact is significant. Otherwise, landscaping would not be necessary in order to mitigate the impact.
The landscaping m that is proposed is not adequate mitigation because it is deciduous landscaping
rather than conifers such as Redwoods that would sufficiently screen the parking lot. The FEIR fails
to. adequately-respond, to a comment from an expert witness .as .to. visual.blight impact, and adequacy
of the proposed mitigation. The FEIR does not state that use of Redwoods or conifers as screening
is infeasible. The commenter -has proposed feasible mitigation, which the City has chosen not to
apply in violation of CEQA.
The fourth Standard of Significance for a visual impact is described on p. 3 . 1 -9 of the DEIR
as follows : "Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect daytime
or nighttime views in the area . " In response'to comments, the City added anew section to Mitigation
Measure No . 3 . 1 .2 . In this section, the City limited the average light level to no greater than 4 foot
candles, and not to exceed 10 foot candles in any location. Despite the request in the comments for
the City to identify the Standard of Significance, it was applying to lighting, the City was only able
to identify a section of Ordinance 1098 as setting forth the standard for lighting for the Project. In
pertinent part, this section states : "A lighting plan shall be submitted for review and approval with
all site development and use permit applications. All lighting plans shall emphasize security and
safety, and shall minimize energy uses ." This does not appear to be a Standard of Significance.
CEQA encourages lead agencies to adopt and publish "Thresholds of Significance" for use
in determining whether environmental impacts are significant. A Threshold of .Significance is
defined as "an identifiable quantitative, qualitative, or performance.level of a particular environment
eff "
ect. Guidelines § 15064 , 7(a) .) In the case of the Project lighting,. the. ..
( � the. : City of Ukiah has
identified no Standard of Significance as to whether the lighting would have-a significant impact.
If evidence is submitted tending to show that the environmental. impact might he significant despite
the significant . standard used in the EIR, the Agency must address that evidence. (Protect the
Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.AppAth 1099, 1111 .) In this
case, the use of excess lighting has two impacts : 1 ) it affects the visual beauty of the valley at night,
especially for residents who live in the hills and look down at the City of Ukiah. Mr. Dale LaForest
documented this impact in his comments. Additionally, the -use of excess lighting causes the use of
additional energy. This energy impact has not adequately been addressed in the Environmental
Impact Report.. There are clearly ways to mitigate the use of energy for lighting, including the use
of low-energy-use LED lights in the parking lot. . Mr. LaForest sets forth a number of different
standards for lighting levels adopted by international agencies and local agencies : He has set forth
the standards of the International Dark Sky Society, the Illumination Engineers Association, the
California Energy. Commission Standards, and other agencies that have adopted lighting standards .
The City provides no supporting evidence for adopting a Standard of Significance that would allow
such a high usage of lighting and energy on the Costco parking lot in light of expert comments that
a standard of significance, which would allow lower levels would have less visual impact and save
energy.
City of Ukiah
Planning and Community Development Department
November 19, 2013
page 10
In Letter I- 12, the commenter points out that at the Hampton Inn along Airport Boulevard,
the nearest guest rooms have large windows and patio doors, as well as balconies for outdoor seating.
The building is very close to Airport Boulevard . The commenter points out that the large sliding
glass windows are more vulnerable to sound. Additionally, the fact that the balconies have chairs
where hotel guests can sit mean that the areas are an outdoor activity area protected by the City' s
noise ordinance. The commenter states that the City' s 60 dbA standard should have been applied
at the front of the hotel where the balconies are located, rather than at the back of the hotel where
the swimming pool is located. In the response to comments, the FEIR admits that the impact of the
Project on the hotels on Airport . Boulevard would be about 1 . 8 to 3 . 1 dbA, or a significant impact
on the face of it. However,. the FEIR states : "The fact that the building is for transients/temporary
lodging (i.e. , patrons would 'not experience a significant change in the noise environment since they
are not long-term residents) rather than residential units, and the General Plan recognized the
external noise exceedances may be acceptable if the internal level of 45 dbA is maintained, the noise
level increase was determined to result in a less than a significant impact." This explanation cannot
be sustained in light of the facts set forth in the DEIR. On page 3 . 8 -6 of the DEIR, the DEIR reports
that hotels, as well as residences and schools, are sensitive receptors to noise. Furthermore, the City
of Ukiah General Plan treats transient lodging in exactly the .same manner as a residential land use.
(See p. 3 :8- 11 of the .DEIR and the City of Ukiah General Plan Noise Element.) The FEIR' s
response to comments must be supported by reasoned analysis and factual information when a
comment showing the significant environmental impact is propounded by an expert witness. The
response on p. 3 -59 of the Final Environmental Impact Report is conclusory. There is no. basis to
conclude that short-term lodgers would not be affected by higher noise levels in comparison to long-
term residents,
The commenter also states that the sound level at the interior of the rooms on the second and
third floors of the Hampton Inn is probably higher than 45 db after Project traffic noise is added .
The FEIR states that the cumulative plus traffic noise would be 69 :8 db, and estimates that if the
hotels were constructed in accordance with Title 24 standards, then the sound attenuation of the
walls and windows would be 27 .25 dbA. However, the FEIR does not provide the actual modeling
and assumptions as to the amount of window area in the wall. Even double-paned windows conduct
noise much more readily than do solid walls . As pointed out in the Final Environmental Impact
Report (p. 3 -60), the FEIR assumes that the SGC rating of the wall and window would be 3225 dbA.
However, the CalTrans TENS (CalTrans, 1998) Report, states that the actual exterior to interior
transmission loss for traffic noise frequencies is up to 10 dbA less than the SGC rating: If this
conservative rating was used, the interior noise level would be more like 47 dbA in accordance with
the modeled results. The EIR is deficient because the authors of the ' EIR have failed to conduct
actual measurements of the noise transmission ratings of the hotel exterior wall. This analysis would
be relatively easy .to complete . Measurements would only need to be taken at .the. location of the
exterior of the Hampton Inn hotel and on the inside of the Hampton Inn hotel room: Such a
measurement would show the actual sound transmission through the exterior walls of the Hampton
Inn facing .Airport. Boulevard. These commenters contend that. the .level will...exceed 45 dbA once
Project traffic noise is added. The information in the FEIR. as merely .speculative. 'There is noise
modeling, �but is not based on sufficient data. Use of the most conservative information on p. 3 -60
shows thege would be an exceedance on the interior of the hotel. The speculation included on p. 3 -
60 that the sound levels on the interior of the Hampton Inn would be less than significant does not
constitute substantial evidence.
Y
City of Ukiah
Planning and Community Development Department
November 19, 2013
page 11
In Letter L23.,. Comment No. 13 , the commenter states that the Project is inconsistent with
General Plan Policy GP-20 . 3 , which states, "maintain and enhance air quality." The DEIR
unequivocally concludes that the Project will .result in air quality impacts by increasing ozone
precursors and particulates in an air basin that is already impacted. Moreover, the commenter states
that there will be many more area-wide vehicle miles traveled by shoppers. who bypass more costly
stores to access the Costco big box store. This very large vehicle draw is documented by the
economic analysis included in the DEIR. The Project is fundamentally inconsistent with the General
Plan requirement to "maintain and enhance -air quality. " This is. the type of mandatory General Plan an
Policy that is fundamental d unambiguous and does not allow discretion and interpretation on
application. "See Families Unafraid v. County ofEl Dorado ( 199 8) 62 Cal .AppAth 1332.) The City
cannot approve the Project without amending its. General Plan,
3. A Project Description in an EIR. Must be Accurate
(County oflnyo v. City of Los Angeles ( 1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 199 .) A shifting Project
Description or an inadequate Project Description renders a Project Environmental Impact Report
inadequate. (See San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2007) 1-49 Cal .App.4th
645 ; Communitiesfor a Better Environment v. City of Richmond (2010) 184 Cal .AppAth 70, 806)
in Letter 1-23 ,. Comment No . 14, the commenter pointed out an inconsistency in the Project
Description in the Air.Quality Model . In.the response, the authors state that the Project is described
as follows :. " 148,000 square feet of discount club, 20 pump gas stations, and 643 parking spaces."
The Draft Environmental Impact Report states the Project has 608 parking stalls; where.592 parking
stalls are required by City. ordinance (page 2-9) . There is an apparent inconsistency in the EIR as to
>the number of parking spaces . In the County of Mendocino comments (Letter A-4), the County
states as follows : "'The Project states there are 57 extra parking spaces than required." This comment
is unanswered in violation of CEQA' s requirements to provide answers to comments. Clearly, if the
response in the FEIR to Comment-Letter I-23 (No.1.4) .is_ correct, there are a substantial number of - -
extra parking spaces. . The County of Mendocino ' s comments about the added energy use from
lighting the extra parking spaces and the unnecessary added run off attributable to the . expended
asphalt are relevant and must be responded to . Because of the Project inconsistency in the EIR; the
environmental impacts cannot accurately be determined.
In response to Comment No . 16, Letter 1-23 , the FEIR states that the CalEEMod output
shows that an average daily trip rate of 11 ,204 is assumed; consistent with the traffic study . for the
DEIR . Apparently, the authors of the EIR used the default mileage input in the model of 13 miles
per trip . However, Mr. Greg Gilbert points out in his letter, dated March 13 , 2013 , that the model
allows for the actual input of vehicle miles traveled. He states, because of the very large market area
and draw set . forth in the Economic Study that the air pollution modeling should have been based
upon the actual vehicle miles traveled per trip, rather than a default setting of the model . This
particular comment is not answered in the FEIR. The FEIR response to Comment No. 16 does not
explain why the actual trip rates and mileage as determined by the Market Study were not used to
estimate the Costco emissions . Response to Comment No. 16 is not adequate as a matter of law.
If the--trip rates are longer than included in the model, the air quality. impacts may be even greater
than reported in the FEIR, increasing the air quality impacts of the Project.
Comment No . 17 in Letter I-23 states that in the DEIR Air Quality Appendix, the daily trip
rates are provided yet the table ' s annual `'MT reflects very low values . The Response to Comments
I
City of Ukiah
Planning and Community Development Department
November 19, 2013
page 12
refers the reader of the FEIR to the answers to Comment Nos. . 14 and 16. However, the responses
C
to Comment Nos . 14 and 16. do not respond to Comment No, 17. Comment No . 17 appears to be
unanswered in violation of EQA. A very low. value for VMT may mean the Project will have
greater air quality impacts than reported in the EIR.
In Letter I-30; the commenter, a licensed acoustical engineer, stated that the Project sound
measurements did not include the information required by CalTrans to calibrate the highway noise
prediction models. Further, the commenter noted that the impact of vibrations generated by heavy
trucks on hotel guests was not measured, predicted or evaluated. (See Letter I-30, Comment No , 2 )
In response to this comment, the City states : "City decision makers will consider all comments when
deciding on the proposed Project." This comment violates CEQA because it does not address a
comment that focuses on an environmental impact of the Project that is not adequately addressed by
the EIR. Firstly, the attached CalTrans Technical Noise Supplement (October 1998) requires the
noise model to be calibrated for the noise calculations to have any credibility or accuracy. (See p.
66, et. seq.) The EIR needs to answer this criticism. If the noise model was not calibrated, then the
calculation of noise levels included in the EIR is not valid and no conclusions can be drawn by the
EIR about the noise impacts of the Project. Additionally, the impact of truck vibration on the two
hotels that are adjacent to Airport Boulevard is a otentiall significant environmental p Y g tal effect.
. Noise
vibration may wake sleeping persons at night. Noise vibration is one of the impacts to be considered
under Guideline . Appendix G and the EIR. The EIR does not respond as to why . there were no
vibration measurements completed. . Comment 2 raises significant impacts that have not been
answered in the EIR.
In Comment No . 4 (Letter I-30), the acoustic engineer states : "Contrary to CEQA, the impact
of substantial temporary or periodic increase in the sound levels was not evaluated as related to
heavy trucks passing the three transient living quarters along Airport Boulevard." The impacts of
the sources are expected to be significant because of their impact on sleep . The response to comment
refers the reader to Comment No . 112-2 for a response. Comment No . I12-2 states as follows : "The
addition of Costco trucks is not expected to result in significant sleep-disturbing impacts at the hotels
since nighttime delivery trucks already occur on Airport Boulevard for the existing commercial uses
(such as Walmart) and are a part of the existing noise environment. " This is not an adequate
response . : An EIR is to evaluate a potential impact and 6provide a factual basis -for a conclusion.
FICON and other acoustical noise organizations have set forth criteria for Single Noise Event Levels
that may interfere with sleep. This EIR does not evaluate single event. sound or complete any SNEL
calculations to determine whether or not the Project may have a significant impact on sleep . These
calculations are necessary and required. (See Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Commission v. Board
of Port Commissioners (2001 ) 91 Cal .App.4th. 1344 .) Since the time of the Berkeley case, the
standards for evaluating the impact of single event level noise on sleep has become more
sophisticated and more common in its use . It is not reasonable for the authors of the FEIR to
conclude that a more than doubling of night time heavy truck traffic will not result in a significant
impact on sleep for the transient residents along Airport Boulevard. The EIR needs to conduct a
study to address this issue.
In Comment No . 5 , the acoustical engineer states : "Traffic counts are required during field
sound measurements to make accurate noise predictions. CalTrans in its 1998 Technical Noise
Supplement requires filed traffic counts to calibrate noise prediction programs, but traffic counts
were not done, nor was the model calibrated. The Draft EIR references this publication." The
City of Ukiah
Planning and Community. Development Department
November 19, 2013
page 13
acoustical engineer is ` correct in his statement that the Draft EIR references `the Technical Noise
Supplement and relies upon it. However, it did not comply with the requirement that field sound
measurements be accompanied by traffic counts . Even though this comment was propounded by an
experienced noise engineer, the FEIR states : "See response to Comment I- 12-2." Comment I- 12-2
does not respond to this comment. In ' fact, I12-2 admits that the noise measurements were
unattended and that it could not be used to calibrate the traffic noise model. As stated in response
to I12-2, it is obvious that the. Traffic Noise Model was based upon traffic counts completed in. the
Traffic . Study. However, .without corroborating sound measurements that were completed. in
accordance with the requirement of the TENS Manual, the modeling results are riot accurate. Please
see the TENS Manual which is attached. The authors of the EIR need to further respond to
aft
Comment No . 5 to explain why the noise modeling data is accurate despite the failure of the noise
engineers to comply with the requirement of the TENS Manual.
In Comment No . 6, the acoustical engineer states as follows : "Long-term sound tests did not
include an observer to identify sources. Because the meter was placed in a parking lot of a hotel,
traffic into and. out of the lot could have resulted in ` false' .readings. Sound generated by vehicles
moving around the hotel ' s parking lot is not a part of the ` ambient' or background sound level. The
actual background sound levels could be lower." If the actual background sound levels are lower
than stated in the EIR, then the Project' s impact on noise would be greater. This would be a
significant impact. Additionally, if the ambient levels are lower, the Project may have a substantially
greater impact than set forth in the Draft Environmental Impact Report. In response to this comment,
the authors of the DEIR state that the lack of an observer.to determine the noise sources during the
.tests does not effect the result of the analysis . However, this response is conclusory. Without an
:observer, there .s no basis. to determine whether the test results were subject to false readings. The
response to Comment No . 6 does not set forth anv facts or reasonable basis to show that the Project
may. or may not have a greater impact on the noise environment than predicted by the Noise. Study.
The response 'is inadequate as a matter of law and renders the Environmental Impact Report
inadequate.
In Comment No. 7, the acoustical engineer states : "The selected site test was across the street
from the main entrance to a Walmart. : Significant flow of traffic into and out of the
shopping center
with speeds that differ substantially -from vehicles passing by to locations farther from the test site
would skew the results. " This comment is not answered at all. Even though selection of a test site
was necessary to determine ambient sound levels, the authors of the DEIR provide no justification
from selecting a site that would be likely to produce greater sound levels than a normal pass by site.
This appears to be a fatal flaw in the Noise Study in the Environmental Impact Report. Nevertheless,
the Final Environmental Impact Report is silent on this important issue. The FEIR fails to respond
to an important comment that addresses : a significant environmental impact. Moreover, the
acoustical engineer states : "The closer the average Leq sound level is to the 1,10 sound level, the more
transient events had a significant impact on the results. Vehicles widely separated represent transient
events, reducing the accuracy of prediction models." The acoustical engineer further states : "The
source of the sounds where the Leq sound levels is close to the L,o is unknown, limiting the value
of the results." The EIR did not address this concern about the validity of.the sound measurement
tests and their accuracy for determining ambient noise levels and the noise impact of the Project. If
the data is fatally flawed because of the lack of an observer and corroborating data, then the EIR
cannot rely on the noise testing. These concerns should be answered in the FEIR. Instead, the FEIR
did riot provide any response to expert testimony that showed the Project may have a greater impact
City of Ukiah
Plaiming and Community Development Department
November 19, 2013
page 14
on the .environment than predicted in the Environmental impact Report because of the lack of an
observes and the reasonable likelihood that the testing data is . inaccurate. In fact, if the nosie
measurement data is inadequate, then the Project may have a significant impact on the noise
environment.
In letter 1-30, comment 8 , the acoustical engineer states that the draft EIR provided no
information about the tonal content of the sound. Mr. Pettyjohn states : "Without this information,
the interior sound levels cannot be predicted at the transient lodging as required by the California
Building Code. This makes the draft EIR incomplete." The response to I-30 78 , states that this
comment is answered in comment I- 12-2 . Comment I42-2 does not address the impact of tonal
content of the sound. Clearly, 6Mr. Pettyjohn is stating that some sounds (either low frequency
Sounds or high frequency sounds) are more likely to penetrate windows and walls in comparison to
sounds of other tonal content. Mr. Pettyjohn states that information about the tonal content is
necessary to make a prediction as to interior sound levels in the transient lodgings. Mr. Steve
Pettyjohn is an acoustical engineer and an expert in the field. Therefore, his comment must be
answered in the EIR. The failure to respond is a violation of CEQA.
In comment 9, Letter I-30, the acoustic engineer states : "Interior sound measurement should
have been made concurrent with the exterior test to learn whether the guestrooms adj acent to Airport
Boulevard would be impacted by the introduction of heavy trucks at 4 : 00 a.m. Similarly, this would
have provided needed infoY�mation regarding the probability. of. sleep or speech interference
occurring. This comment is again answered by reference to comment I= 12-2 . Comment I-12-2 .does
not provide any explanation as to why the noise study is satisfactory, even though it does not include
noise measurements inside the hotel rooms along Airport Park Boulevard. The FEIR has failed to
adequately answer this comment.
In Comment No. 11 , Letter I-30, the acoustical engineer states the Project will double or
more than double the volume of traffic passing the hotels, resulting in a minimum 38(a) increase
in the Leq sound level . The EIR responds to this comment by reference to the response to comment
I12-2 . 112-2 does not respond to this comment. The EIR simply fails to respond to an expert
comment as to the level of sound increase that will be expected due to the Project' s increase in the
level of traffic in front of the hotels. This is a violation of CEQA.
In Comment 12, Letter I-30, the acoustic engineer states that Table 3 . 8-6 gives predicted and
future existing day-night average Ldn sound levels at many locations. Since the model was not
calibrated, the accuracy of the prediction is questionable. The Table states that the predictions are
for Ldn sound levels, but page 3 . 8- 18 of the draft EIR states that the peak hour volumes were used.
Mr. Pettyjohn further states : "This is not the correct method of predicting the Ldn as it requires the
average daily volume of automobiles, medium trucks-and-heavy-trucks. The results cannot be
labeled Ldn sound levels unless the correct data is used. They could be called peak traffic volume
sound levels, but the City does not have a standard for [such] values . Additionally, the traffic speeds
durin g P eak volumes decrease as. does the percentage: of.hea Y trucks-.' .-- This ismot re presented: of
what may be occurring the remainder of the time , The FEIR responds as follows : "As a general rule,
in areas where the noise environment is dominated by traffic, the Leq during .the peak-hours is
generally equivalent to the Dnl(Ldn) at that location (Caltrans, 1998)". The authors of the FEIR then
point out that the Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement is an established reference document. As
set forth on page 51 of the Technical Noise Supplement, the methodology used by the EIR authors
City of Ukiah
Planning and Community Development Department
November 19, 2013
page' 15
is wrong. The TENS Manual states as follows :
The previous section showed that the Ldn is defined as an energy-
average 24 hour Leq with a nighttime penalty of 1Odba assessed to
noise levels between the hours of 2200 and 0700 ( 10: 00 p.m. and
7 : 00 a.m.) . If traffic volumes, speeds and mixes were to remain
constant through the entire 24 hours, and if there were no nighttime
penalty, there would be no peak hour and each hourly Leq would
equal the 24 hour Leq. Hourly traffic volumes would then be 100%
divided by 24, or 4 . 17% of the average daily traffic volume (ADT) .
Peak hour correction would not be necessary in this case. Let this be
;a. the reference condition.
To convert the peak hour Leq to Ldn, at least 2 corrections must be
made to the above reference condition. First, we must make a
correction for peak hour traffic volumes expressed as a percentage of
ADT. Secondly, we must make a correction for the nighttime penalty
of l Odba. For this we need to know what fraction of the ADT occurs
during the day and what fraction occurs at night. Depending upon the
accuracy desired and information available, other corrections can be
made for different day/night traffi.c . mi.xes and speeds.
The TENS Manual then sets forth the formulas to make the corrections so that Leq and Ldn
can be converted. Clearly, the TENS . Manual does not support the contention that the peak traffic
levels can be used in place of Ldn. This contention is unsupported and is clearly wrong. (See
attached TENS Manual.) Because the EIR has not calculated Ldn as required by City Ordinance and
the EIR Standard of Significance, the noise results are inadequate and cannot be used to draw
conclusions . The Project may have a significant impact on the noise environment.'
In comment 14, Letter I-30, the author states that Table 3 . 8-6 shows predicted Ldn sound
levels for Airport Boulevard south of Talmage Road and Airport Park Boulevard north of Commerce
Drive. Mr Pettyj ohn states it is unlikely that the volumes are different enough to make a significant
difference in sound levels . He also points out the measurement position was only 400 feet north of
the intersection. Mr. Pettyjohn asks for an explanation of why the numbers are different. He also
asks that the authors of the EIR provide the data used in the prediction. In response to this comment,
the FEIR refers . the reader to comment I- 12-2 . Comment I- 12-2 does not address this continent at
all and is therefore non-responsive to an expert comment. Clearly, discrepancies in the noise data
and noise volurties may be .related to an impact on the environment.
In Comment i 5 , Letter I-30 , .Mr. Pettyjohn states that a noise increase of 1 . 5db is significant
when the existing Ldn sound level is 65dba or greater. He further states,. that .the field tests in the
DEIR showed Ldn sound levels of about 66db(a) over 3 days . Mr. Pettyjohn states : "Even the 1 .7db
increase would be significant. Using the lower predicted existing Ldn sound levels results in an even
greater increase." . In response to Comment 15 the reader is referred to the response to Comment I-
12-2 . Apparently, the only response to this comment is that because the buildings along Airport
Boulevard are used for transient uses the impact is not significant. The authors of the EIR state no
information in the City' s General Plan or the DEIR that would support such a conclusion. The
City of.Ukiah
Planning and Community Development Department
November 19, 2013
page 16
answer to Comment 15 is non-responsive.
In Comment 16, Mr. Pettyjohn states that the draft EIR does not show that the predicted
traffic noise levels were made at the face of the hotel closest to the road. He states that this value
is required to predict the sound levels . inside the guest rooms. Based on his experience as an
acoustical engineer,. Mr. Pettyjohn states the large windows in the sliding glass doors could cause
the interior Ldn sound level to exceed the State' s limit. In response to this comment the FEIR refers .
the reader to the response to comment I12-2. Response I12-2 does not- address .why there were no
noise level readings taken at the face of the hotel closest to the road. These readings would of course
be increased by the . Project. noise level . However, the base readings are necessary to determine
whether the ' 45dba level can be met inside the hotel room. " W. Pett iohn' s comments raises' a
*ignificant environmental issue. The EIR is required to respond to this comment with data and
=information, rather than a conclusory comment that does not provide any response .
Comment I-23 , Letter 1-30, includes a request for information as to how vibration impacts
of heavy trucks passing close to the hotels along Airport Boulevard may have an environmental
impact. The response to comments does not directly respond to this particular comment. The
response states that Project construction would not involve activities that are typically associated
with significant groundborn vibration. Further, the response relies on an FTA report that states peak
particle velocity of . 076 inches per second at 25 feet would not result in building damage . However,
the. comment goes to groundborn vibrations from trucks at night that. may disturb sleepers in the
adjacent hotels. This comment is not responded to in the FEIR. This is a potential environmental
impact that is required to be addressed in the EIR.
'
In Comment No . 8 , Letter I-33 ; the commenter states t hat the Project EIR does not comply
with Appendix F. of the CEQA Guidelines, which mandates a discussion of a Project' s energy use.
Specifically an EIR is to provide-the-"total estimated daily vehicle trips to be-generated b_y_the Project
and the additional energy consumed per trip by mode" . In response to this comment the FEIR refers
the reader to section 3.. 9 of the DEIR and section 3 .9 . 8 of the DEIR. This section. of the EIR deals
with public utilities . Section 3 . 9 . 8 states that the Project would generate a demand for 2 .44 kilowatt
hours : of electricity per year. However, there is no information about- the energy to be . -.used in
transportation. The largest source of energy consumption for this Project would -be transportation
sources. In response to the • comment the reader of the EIR is referred to page 28 (sustainable
building features), 3 .9-9 (California Code of Regulations Title 24), 3 . 9- 14 (the electrical use in the
building), and 3 . 11 - 16 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions) . The EIR is devoid of information concerning
energy use by transportation sources, and use of natural gas; if any. Moreover; as pointed out in
comments on.-the -Project outdoor. -lighting will .exceed all lighting standards by 2 to 5 times. The
energy use of this over-lighting is not discussed in the EIR. The EIR fails to consider energy use as
a significant environmental impact. However, the use of energy is closely related to the generation
of greenhouse gas emissions, the depletion of natural resources, and environmental destruction, and
therefore it is.in and of itself a significant environmental impact. The EIR fails to adequately address
the requirements of Appendix; F .or respond to comments. on .energy use.
In Comment No . 9, Letter 1-33 , the commenter suggests that the EIR needs a more thorough-
examination of the Project' s energy use. Rather than responding to this comment, the FEIR states
that energy, use is accommodated within the sections of the EIR that discuss air quality impacts and
GHG emissions . The requirement for a discussion of the Project' s energy use in Appendix F is a
City of Ukiah
Planning and Community Development Department
November 19, 2013
page 17
separate requirement. The- claim that the . Project encourages alternative transportation, such as
electric, and alternative clean-fuel vehicles, is not supported .by the. EIR. The modified. mitigation
measure 3 .2 ,2(b) provides as an alternative mitigation measure suggesting preferred parking for zero
emission vehicles and one electrical recharge station. Alternatively, the Project could provide for
CNG refueling at the gas station. One electrical recharge station is certainly not sufficient to
encourage electric vehicle use. Mr. Greg Gilbert, Air Pollution Control Specialist, suggested many
more effective mitigation measures, which the authors of the . EIR have failed .to include as final
mitigation measures . . The FEIR does not adequately respond to the comment asking for a more
complete discussion of the Project' s energy use and energy conservation.
In Comment No . 11 , (Letter 33 ) the commenter asks that the screening from Highway 101
4be provided by redwood trees or a similar conifer that would provide screening all year round. The
I WalMart is screened by conifers. The EIR fails to respond why it would not be feasible to
use a Redwood tree or a similar evergreen tree to screen the Costco to provide a visually more
pleasing view from Highway 101 . The EIR should respond to this comment. Aesthetic impacts are
a potentially significant Project impact.
In Comment 12, the commenter points out that "over-illumination is responsible for
approximately 2 million barrels of oil per day of energy wasted in the United States. Further,
approximately 2040% of energy used in residential, commercial, and industrial uses is lighting
energy, In. order to reduce energy use, the commenter suggests tb.at the EIR : should adopt the
Illuminating Engineers Society . and International Dark: Sky Association lighting. standards .for the
parking lot spaces. As a standard of significance for reducing excess lighting and to preserve the
aesthetic values of the valley environment: These standards are 5 .0 lumines per square foot and not
more than 840 lumines for parking space . The authors of the FEIR- provide no standard of
significance for adequate lighting, and apparently are content to allow Costco to light up the parking
lot to the degree that it desires . The EIR fails to show that-the high level of lighting that is proposed
does not have a significant impact on energy use and also on the aesthetic environment. Moreover,
the response to Comment 12 is inadequate. The authors of the FEIR do not explain why a more
energy conserving standard would not reduce a potentially significant impact.
Sincerely,
n,,
WILLIAM D . KOPPER
WDK
Mark E. Grismer PhD PE
Vadose-Zone Engineering Hydrologist
7311 Occidental Road
Sebastopol , CA 95472
(530) 304-5797
15 November 2013
TO : Bill Kopper JD
RE : Review of Ukiah Costco FEIR Hydrology & Drainage response
As requested, I have reviewed the response to our review of the Hydrology and Water Quality
related sections of the proposed Costco Draft EIR in Ukiah with particular focus on the proposed
project impacts on stormwater runoff and water quality. As part of that review, I also reviewed
the 9/ 18/13 Memo from Schaaf & Wheeler (S &W) to Kier & Wright that considered the project
site drainage conditions.
Overall, ESA appears to have updated the MS4-related information that I outlined in my earlier
review and then rely on the S&W memo to support the conclusion that drainage from the site
will not change significantly after project construction. The S&W memo uses revised rainfall
depths for the different design storms that exceed those used initially and seem consistent with
the data I : outlined as well . For the LID related aspect of stormwater detention and treatment on-
site they defer to the City/County for enforcement of the infiltration capacity of 5 in/hr that I
have yet to see actually occur in practice, much less actually see maintained. Bio-swale and
similar type LID features annually ` clog ' (they are designed to in part for water quality
considerations) and are not annually re-evaluated and re-habilitated prior to the annual rainy
season. My latter paragraphs related to bio-retention features and their possible effects on water
quality remain of concern, particularly during high Russian River flow periods when the shallow
water table will be within several feet of the ground surface.
The rather poorly written S &W memo summarizes a hydraulic analysis of the pre- and post.
project stormwater runoff conditions (flows and resulting water elevations in earth channel
adjacent to the site to the east) . This analysis should be better coordinated with the site drainage
plans developed by Kier & Wright as some of the elevations reported differ slightly. Though
noted in the response to comments, the site drainage plan still shows the detention pond base
elevation as 74 .2 ft. I presume all of the site drainage plan elevations are less 500 ft; that is, the
pond base elevation is about 574.2 ft. Similarly, the parking lot area is at about 581 -582 ft
elevation (roughly similar to current conditions), the building pad at about 585 ft and the lowest
southwest corner drainage outlet below the gas station area is at about 580. 7 ft. Keeping these
elevations clear is important as in the S&W memo they note that the FEMA floodplain in the
area is at about 582 . 5 ft on the north end of the site and about 580 ft on the south end. The invert
elevations of the two outlets from the project site to the earthen channel running parallel to
Highway 101 also differ between those reported by S &W and provided in the site drainage plan
by a few tenths of a foot. In the S &W analysis, they report that the decreased permeability at the
1
project site post-development (reflected in slightly increased curve numbers, a judgment call,
larger values could have been used) results in about 19% greater flows from the 2-yr storm,
12 . 5 % greater for the 10-yr storm and about 8% greater for the 100-yr storm at the north
drainage outlet to the east of the site. Increased flows at the southern outlet are relatively smaller
between pre- and post-project conditions (i . e. 5 - 10% greater). The significance of these greater
stormwater drainage flows post-project is the increase in water elevations at the drainage outfalls
summarized in Table 4 of the S&W memo . At the north culverts outlet the water level increases
by > 1 .3 ft for the 10-yr storm event from pre- to post-project conditions, though there is
practically no change when considering the 100-yr event; a curious result to be sure. One might
speculate that model prediction of > I ft increase in water surface elevation under free-flow
conditions post-development should translate into a similar increase for a much greater storm.
Moreover, under flood conditions from the Russian River causing local water levels to rise to the
580 ft elevation, an additional foot increase would cover portions of the site parking lot.
The S&W memo underscores the uncertainty in determining the timing of River flood peaks and
stormwater drainage peaks as well as that the modeling presumes that the culvert drainage
capacity is not otherwise limited (e.g. clogging, submergence), that is, does not affect predicted
outflows. In the Ukiah area, the Russian River flows are largely determined by upstream
conditions and persist for some time following recurring substantial rain events on the north
coast. The persistently high water table resulting from the high River water levels, especially if
they reach the 580-582 ft elevations suggest that LID features of the parking lot as well as the
lower southwest corner drainage outlet will be compromised and/or inundated, or nearly so
during repeated storms when the River stage is at flood levels . For example, the southwest
corner drainage outlet at 580 .7 ft will be inundated and surface runoff from that. region of the
parking lot will simply join the Russian River flows . Similarly, the parking lot stormwater flows
to the east channel may be limited by submerged culverts. It would be difficult to retain the
stormwater drainage on-site under these flood conditions. No doubt some of this flooding
problem occurs under existing conditions, but without the problems associated with greater and
earlier peak flows and possible water quality concerns that would occur post-project
development.
From February 2013 review
Finally, the bioswale and detention storage designs for containing/treating stormwater
runoff from the site should consider the frequency of "overtopping " or feature failure due to
repeated rain events. While this notion is captured in part by the return period of the design
storm concept (e. g. 10 or 25 year periods), it is critical towards the City meeting MS4 and
TMDL related goals. During the rainy season as soils saturate, groundwater levels rise and
detention basins steadily fill, the stormwater retention/detention system capacity diminishes and
both groundwater and surface water contamination potential increases. Using rainfall data
from the past 20 years, a hourly/daily flow model can be created that includes the proposed
stormwater control features and determines when and how often the capacities of such features
will be exceeded by repeated storm events typical of the North Coastal area. We have used such
analyses in other DEIR type documents (e. g. Boulder Bay and Homewood Mountain Resorts) in
the Tahoe Basin, where similar to that of the Russian River basin there is considerable concern
about water quality impacts. Such information should be required as part of the design report.
By way of correction, Figure 2-4 indicates a base elevation of the detention pond as �74 feet,
2
well below groundwater elevations anticipated in the site area given a surface elevation of 600
feet above msl. This anomaly requires further explanation or correction.
While use of bioswales and detention storage facilities enable some management of
stormwater runoff through onsite containment and possible degradation of pollutants, there
remain at least two issues of concern related to soil and groundwater contamination. Studies of
LID features (i. e. bioswales, pervious pavement, etc) and the retention of pollutants such as
heavy metals and automobile derived materials are ongoing and the matter of eventual
accumulations of pollutants in the soil to potentially health-threatening levels has not been
resolved. Possible excavation and disposal of the contaminated soils may be required.
Moreover, the "engineered " sand mixtures required for the design infiltration rates are less
likely to adsorb and degrade pollutants (such as BTEX, petroleum derived compounds) as (night
be expected in typical soils opening the possibility of greater groundwater contamination from
deep percolation of minimally treated stormwater runoff. Effective soil treatment strategies
include incorporation of carbon materials (e. g woodchips, compost or biochar) into the swales
or ponds base materials. These matters require further acknowledgement and explanation in the
DEIR.
3
EXHIBIT A
William D . Kopper
Attorney at Law
417 E Street
Davis, CA 95616
(530) 758-0757
Fax (530) 758-2844
November 13 , 2013
SENT VIA EMAIL [kjordan @cityofukiah.com]
AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL
Kim Jordan
Planning and Community Development Department
Ci ty of
Ukiah
300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482
RE: Costco Wholesale Project Final EIR SCHNo. 2011112025
Dear Ms . Jordan:
In accordance with the attached letter for Mr. Daniel Smith, Traffic Engineer, we are asking
that the City of Ukiah provide to us data that supports the traffic analysis that is included in the Final
Environmental Impact Report. Specifically, we are looking for the traffic generation calculations,
the data showing trip generation, the modeling inputs and outputs, the assumptions that were
included in the modeling, and the computational steps that show how the EIR concluded that a
certain percentage of the trips to the Costco store would approach the store on US 101 Northbound,
US 101 Southbound, and from other directions . As pointed out in Mr. Smith' s letter, this
information has not been provided. In order to evaluate the traffic elements of the EIR, we need the
missing information. An EIR is a full disclosure document and the City is required to provide
information upon request that is necessary to evaluate the EIR.
Sincerely,
r J
William D . Kopper
Attorney at Law
WDK/wrn
enclosure
f9SMITH ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT
November 12, 2013
Ms. Kim Jordan
Planning and Community Development Department
City of Ukiah
300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482
Subject: Costco Wholesale Project Final EIR SCH # 2011112025
Dear Ms. Jordan:
The undersigned is a commenter on the Draft EIR on the Costco Wholesale Project.The last
sentence of our comment now labeled Comment I35 — 28 in the Final Environmental Impact
Report, reads as follows : " Please present the initial data and computational steps that
translate the market analysis into the end results shown on Table 3- 10 . 8 . "
The Final EIR' s purported response is a narrative reply to its summarization of the
subject comment. It completely fails to present the requested data and computational
steps that translate the market analysis into the end results shown on Table 3- 10 . 8 .
Please provide the requested data and computations in a timely fashion so that our
review can be completed in time for the public hearings on this matter.
Sincerely,
Smith Engineering & Management
A California Corporation
Daniel T. Smith Jr., P. E.
President
TItA1- 1 : 1c TRANS11L) a 'rAT [ 0N NIANAG1:N1EN I'
5311 Lowry Road . Union Citt' CA 94587 tcl: 510.489.94' 1* x: 510.4891478
ReNae
MOM
From: ReNae < rnoel @omsoft.com >
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 11:03 AM
To: ' kjordan @cityofukiah.com '
Subject: Costco Wholesale Project Final EIR SCH No. 2011112025
Attachments: Jordan Itr 11 - 13 -13 . pdf
Please see attached letter from William D . Kopper,
Sincerely,
W. ReNae Noel
Paralegal
Law Office of William D. Kopper
417 E Street
Davis, CA 95616
(530) 758-0757
Fax: (530) 758-2844
Confidential Information . This email contains privileged and confidential information . If
you are not the intended recipient , delete this e - mail from your computer and notify the
sender immediately .
2
__ _ - __ __
H
H
W
i
William D . Kopper
Attorney at Law
417 E Street
Davis, CA 95616
(530) 758-0757
Fax (530) 758-2844
November 13 , 2013
SENT VIA EMAIL [klawler @cityofukiah.com]
AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL
City Clerk
City of Ukiah
300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482
RE: Public Records Act Request
Dear Staff:
Pursuant to the California Public Records Act, please provide to me the f011oWi
documents : n g
All raw data, modeling input and output, modeling assumptions, and
computational steps that show how the market analysis in the Costco
Wholesale Project EIR translated into the trip generation figures on
Highway 101 in the northbound direction to the proposed Costco, in
the southbound direction to the proposed Costo, and from other
directions to the proposed Costco .
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Our office will pay any costs of copyin th
documents. In the alternative to copying the documents, you may simply email them t e at the
following address — kopperid(a�omso o m ft. com
Please be advised that a response to this request is due within 10 days .
Sincerely,
William D . Kopper
Attorney at Law
WDK/wrn
ReNae
From: ReNae < rnoel @omsoft.com >
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 11:04 AM
To: 'klawler @cityofukiah.com '
Subject. Public Records Act Request
Attachments: City Clerk Itr 11-13 -13.pdf
Dear Ms. Lawler:
Please see attached Public Records Act Request,
Sincerely,
W. ReNae Noel
Paralegal
Law Office of William D . Kopper
417 E Street
Davis, CA 95616
(530) 758-0757
Fax: (530) 758-2844
Confidential Information . This email contains privileged and confidential information . If
You are not the intended recipient , delete this e - mail from your computer and notify the
sender immediately .
i
ReNae
From: Kristine Lawler < klawler @cityofukiah.com >
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 11:07 AM
To: ReNae
Subject: RE: Public Records Act Request
Dear Ms. Noel,
The office of the Ukiah City Clerk has received your public records request and will respond by November 23 , 2013 .
Sincerely,
Kristine Lawler
Ukiah City Clerk
From : ReNae [mailto : rnoel @omsoft.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 11 : 04 AM
To : Kristine Lawler
Subject: Public Records Act Request
Dear Ms. Lawler:
Please see attached Public Records Act Request,
Sincerely,
W. ReNae Noel
Paralegal
Law Office of William D. Kopper
417 E Street
Davis, CA 95616
(530) 758-0757
Fax: (530) 758-2844
Confidential Information . This email contains privileged and confidential information . If
you are not the intended recipient , delete this e - mail from your computer and notify the
sender immediately .
1
V
H
H
W
r< i ' ,
� 1 u ,�� 7 t p .fir r r v r � r r � Y r I ` / I Ott ii r r
i
.1: v �: w .. L"; a. r 7 .r rr . ..� r r ., � k ,� , : � M + r , i :;k,Sr +' .r. : 0, � .' '', ;
.. ..'r . �;..,. , ,,. .; . . . .. . �/•.,, d �- : , '. _. r. . L � . . .. „!?;. ,..F a . .,,_x _ ,. r�' ._ , _, � . : -:: �,> -. .. 1 i , . 1 r . .. c- „•:a ..,.., L. : a':^,
... . . . _n ., „ r .v . �, ., M.. t ., ..r ,: , 'S � �.„ . r .,. .. . , v -.. V ..., 2 ... . . ., . . .f ,, . a. .,�. .::. .� .•y f r r . , r . r ..
., � .... . . } 1 K. .. ,Y S . . h. , � . . , .- . rm �ka .k `.f. . JG it ,�) ,v. e. .v i9. C:.... - 2 . .n .. )�, .. .. . , / l .+ :. 'v. !' ' :+.: R ' . .ti -
F: ... .... ... ,1, ..i.., .. v. 1 ,C H. , f. ., L ...1 , f rK J.'1. . . I ... < S+, r.. . 4 .... 1a4 ., t,. i � :1 '
. ' .. . . r 1 v �In e . . : , /r,, . K . , u ,f ... . . • Y Y ,..J . .f•Y , 7 '.r61 .. d .- 1 . Y f :, i.. �_v .,.F:. :nl . , ' :... '� 1 Y't )'. U h'
. . _ . V ..: 1 r. , . ,a ..�+u�! . ... {{-: rT r .. _ I . a s ,. ee .�u` r z,. , _, r >, v.. . :;. .. a . .. .., . i --, .. � 1. 11. .. �. .. . X 1
. - � . _,,, .. ' ... .,: � ��. d ., h / t 5+ . r e XN '¢ .. .. � ., r . ., n. n °P _ .. .. .. . . .. ._ � L” . .X. .-. e :Y. , -Tr E I
,. . . .. x . _ : ,. `�f 3v ft . . , ._. . �/,.. v I . . nrn 'i'A _ I ,�!� r.. n -. .... t a - �. 'nW'. : .. :.:e.
I . � .1 1. o ...l.;x+,,.. ,. . .,.,. .. ".� ,: .,., v 4- +n ,, ,�. . . / .�. ,. ... �. �., .i. �'" ,+r4,. .. . . .. 5 .. w. . ,� s .:lr w h:, :.:..e't C... r .ri^ ,.-. .: :,:. � -c,. ; ,! f :,
{ �'. .-). �. r. .1C"S �' v. . , .. . . r '4� �1 . r: ,T , . .-,. . . �', Y. x .4 .�.�i . .e. . . .� /r i .. r . '
.,. .. ,. . h's, "% Y &.. ,., . ..r -a l �. .Y _. 1x .. a u . . . k .. n f..{. ,. ,r , ,. . ,. ) , .fit',` ,�. 1 . A. ':' 1 .. . ,-+' d .
.,.r._". . $mow:,,. . . .... .. . .�' rc5 . ,� ,. . . j . u,,, . 4.a . „ , .r7 _ � n r. t c.x . , � ,,. .f t � { � �,^ ..er rt , ' .( y. . sit c v7 T + (':. ".: .n r .r: / '�
_ ... x . . .,. .. n.,.A�.r, , >v'� , , . , . , . ,F, . 1� r � �. . . - . th da..rs�. F , ,ar A . . ,. try ..,-.. r-- . , x, � s ;5.r... r .A : . .ur .,: 'G .i.., .. E. s'�
. . v i 3�. n , W,',.• n F �l :Gt�Fi . .::v . ,. .n �. .V. i . 6 . a. . '� , - ' I �w ,.W.,P � . ..,. < i' N4. d.. T . .✓:.., rr�`` I. `i 4 ...', I. ✓ � '
_ ...�. ..o„ � .:,�...,,., .,,i,.� . .,:>f,+ .kts . � . a ��..yyr' . r � i s. , , ,;M' . t ,e � �` . . �.Tf'S„ r•Sx s rsl . . . . 13 :,... Iw+-r� . -i _ v�5 ..., P e .z T
.. _. .,U v4�,. ,«o. .. , Wd ..h.,„x. . ,,.�„u . e_.dw_..., f rvv;;.+n ..Fa..lrt.'a::.„Gy .nlf. f.,,. ..C, .. Ld:r 4 s. : f<. ., t., :..M:: _.._3, . ,.y, xu.w_ ,r 2.:, , . . v c . ,ti.,al..ie ., �,..IY.' .w ,. ,.4 .,.w , r<. ,M1? .. : .(�° .. :rv.e.:.1, K. ,.. .I:avry I , r , ,1/. .. .
SMITH ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT
August 14, 2013
Mr, Charlie Stump, Director
Planning and Community Development Department
City of Ukiah
300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482
Subject: Talmage Road / U.S. 101 On-Off Ramp Realignment Project Initial
Environmental Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Dear Mr. Stump:
At the request of Attorney William Kopper, I have reviewed the traffic aspects of
the Talmage Road / U. S . 101 On-Off Ramp Realignment Project Initial Environmental
Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (the "IS/MND") for the Talmage Road / U.S .
101 On-Off Ramp Realignment Project ( the "Project") and supporting documentation,
particularly the Appended Traffic Impact Study by GIID Inc. . My qualifications to
perform this review include registration as a Civil and Traffic Engineer in California and
over 44 years professional consulting engineering practice in the traffic and
transportation industry. I have both prepared and reviewed traffic and circulation
analyses of envirorunental review documents, including studies of freeway interchange
modifications, shopping centers, freestanding discount stores and superstores and
discount club stores and superstores . I am familiar with the surroundings of the proposed
Project, having previously commented on environmental documents for the nearby
proposed Walmart expansion project and the COSTCO development, both of which are
potentially affected by the subject interchange. My professional resume is attached .
TRAFFIC TRANSPORTATION f,IANAGGML' NT
5,111 Lowry Road, Union City, CA 94587 tel: 510.489)0477 fax: 510.4900478
r '
IvL•. Charlie Stump
August 14, 2013
Page 2
Findings of my review are summarized below.
The IS/MND Fails To Disclose and Mitigate Potentially Significant Impacts of the
Project Design on Traffic Safety
The IS/MND categorizes the Project as having no impact on Transportation/Traffic.
Criterion 14 (d) of the Guidelines Appendix G Checklist states : "would the Project
substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment". The City has marked the box
"No Impact" on the checklist. It appears that the basis for this conclusion is the GHD
Study that the Intersection Improvement Project would improve traffic conditions at the
Interchange, and a Caltrans letter dated April 15, 2012 stating general concurrence with
the results of the study and Preferred Alternative. Nevertheless, there are design features
of the proposed interchange that that are substandard or unusual and that "substantially
increase hazards. " The City should have checked the box "Potententially significant" for
Criterion 14(d).
One dangerous design feature is the merge-down on eastbound Talmage from two lanes
to one between its intersection with the U.S. 101 southbound ramps and the structure
overcrossing the freeway. Caltrans Highway Design Manual topic 206.3( 1 ) Through
Lane Drops provides as follows : "when a lace is to be dropped it should be done by
Werhig over a distance equal to WV where W = width of lane to be dropped and V —
desig_n speed. " I Since the design speed on Talmage is at least 35 miles per hour, the taper
for termination of a 12-foot wide lane should have a length of 420 feet. In fact, the actual
taper in the design plan for the preferred alternative is only approximately 135 feet, only
32 percent of the design standard, This violation of safety standards is even more
significant , Because the remaining through lane on Talmage also tapers to the left to line
up with the overcrossing of the freeway — a transition also of about 12 foot width. So the
lane being eliminated will have to transition an actual lateral distance of about 24 feet
W = length in feet; V = design speed in miles per liour.
I' RAI• f1C 'I • RANtiP0R 'rAT10N hIANA (iVhiUNT
1311 Lowry Roma , Union City, CA 94587 tel: 510.439.9477 fax: 5 10.489.9479
Mr. Charlie Stump
August 14, 2013
Page 3
concurrent with merging into a single lane. Hence, the taper for this lane termination
should, by design standards, have a distance of 840 feet. The 135 feet provided in the
prposed intersection design is only 16 percent of Caltrans ' standards. Since the concrete
bridge railing begins just beyond the conform point, the consequences of this all-too-
abrupt transition will be at-speed crashes into an immovable object, a clear hazard that is
unaddressed in the IS/MND and which can only be mitigated by widening the
overcrossing, In my opinion the interchange design may have a significant impact on the
environment becaue it will increase safety hazards due to inadequate and below Caltrans'
standards lane merger distances in the eastbound direction on Tahnage.
A second unusual geometric feature of the proposed design is the transition from a single
lane off ramp on southbound US 101 at Talmage Road, to a four lane cross-section
approaching the intersection of the southbound off ramp with Talmage within a distance
of about 780 feet. This tapering up from one land to four lanes occurs on a 180 degree
curve of very sharp radius (about 200 feet, less on the lanes on the inside of the curve).
Within this 780- foot curved section, motorists must select the path to the correct lane or
lanes appropriate for their next intended movement. One lane is intended for those going
eastbound on Talmage. Two lanes lead to westbound Talmage lanes. that in a short
distance turn left to Airport Park Boulevard . One lane leads to a westbound Talmage
through lane or a right turn at Airport Park Boulevard . This configuration creates a
difficult navigation task for any new or infrequent user of the southbound off ramp or for
distracted drivers. Because a proposed COSTCO near this interchange is projected to
attract drivers from a vast market area, with the consequence that many will be infrequent
visitors unfamiliar with the lane configuration, the design is likely to result in many
drivers getting in the wrong lane for their destination or making late, abrupt and
hazardous lane transitions to get into the appropriate lane. For those who get in the
wrong lane, the close proximity of the Airport Park Boulevard intersection with Talmage
to the Ramp intersection with Talmage adds further adverse safety consequences . The
intersections between Talmage and the southbound offramp and Talmage and Airport
Park Boulevard are separated by only about 270 feet. A driver who ends up in the wrong
T14A1• rtr TVAN ` 11L) It •rATl0IN AI ,ANAG11M1: N .I.
5311 Lowry Road. Union City, CA 04537 tel: M0.489,9471 lam 510.489 9478
Mr. Charlie Stump
August 14, 2013
Page 4
off-ramp lane of the three exit lanes that lead to Talmage westbound, who intends either
to go straight west on Talmage or turn right at Airport Park but instead gets into either of
the left-most left turn lanes on the off-ramp, or who intends to turn left at Airport Park
but instead gets into the rightmost of the three left turn lanes on the off-rainp, will be
forced to make potentially hazardous abrupt maneuvers on the shore section of Talmage
to get into the appropriate lane, The IS/MND is deficient in failing to identify this clearly
potentially hazardous configuration which cannot be mitigated in the present design. The
design features of the intersection described here may have a significant impact on traffic
safety and will likely substantially increase hazards. This opinion is based up the facts
and analysis in this letter report.
Although the IS/MND and the appended GHD June 21 , 2013 Traffic Impact Study memo
highlight the April 15, 2013 letter from Caltrans District l Office of Community
Development and Planning, which agrees that based on theoretical traffic capacity
analysis the Project would mitigate traffic as projected in the GHD study;the subject
Caltrans letter points out that for the Project to be implemented, an additional approval
through the Caltrans Encroachment Permit process will be required. The subject Caltrans
letter notes that the Encroachment Permit process involves review for consistency with
Caltrans design standards . So the Project is not frilly approved by Caltrans and, based on
the foregoing, may not be approvable by Caltrans .
We also note that the endorsement by Caltrans District I Office of Community
Development and Planning is based on theoretical calculations of capacity flows and
queuing prepared by GHD. These theoretical calculations of intersection capacity and
queuing do not fully reflect the deleterious effects on traffic flows of the navigational
difficulties posed for unfamiliar or distracted drivers by the complex geometry and driver
decisionmaking requirements related thereto on the southbound off ramp and segment of
Talmage between said ramp and the intersection with Airport Park Boulevard , Hence,
the conclusion that the design mitigates design-year traffic may be incorrect. .
z Caltrans Highway Design Manual standards ordinarily require a mandatory minimum of 400 feet
separation between the ramp intersection and the nearest street intersection,
TRAhI: IC 4 TRANSPORTATION v MANAGEMENT
KAI I L.atvry Road, Union City, CA 0587 tel: 510.411).9477 fax; 50.480.9478
Mr, Charlie Stump
August 14, 2013
Page 5
Existing Traffic Counts Are Inconsistent With Prior Environmental Documentation
and Pose Questions as to the Reasonableness of the CIaim of Functional Traffic
Mitigation
The existing conditions traffic counts relied on in the GHD traffic impact study are
generally lower than those relied on in the Costco DEIR traffic study, Table 1 below
compares the "existing" Costco counts versus the "existing" GHD counts at the
intersection of the 101 southbound ramps with Talmage for the weekday pm peals hour,3
Table 1 , Comparison of COSTCO vs GHD Existing Traffic Counts ; Weekday PM Peals
SB off - SB off-EB WB thru WB left EB thru EB right
WB
COSTCO 527 177 361 18 841 89
GHD 430 144 321 35 767 109
Difference -97 -33 40 + 17 •74 +20
As can be seen from the table, the Costco data indicates 207 more traffic movements at
the subject intersection during the weekday PM peak than does GHD, a net of 11 . 5
percent more traffic overall. The traffic volume is greater on all of the major movements,
the GHD observations are greater on only the two most minor movements that are of far
less significance. In fact, the Costco observations are greater than GHD ' s by 14,7
percent on the four most heavily utilized movements. Since the GHD study estimates
traffic growth to the analysis year (2032) by applying a growth factor to existing counts,
low existing counts results in substantially lower forecast year traffic than had the growth
factors been applied to the higher existing counts relied on in the Costco DEIR. In
addition, because Costco traffic will be such a major component of traffic growth at this
particular interchange, and because the distribution of Costco traffic has such a dominant
polarity due to the shape and distribution of population in its market area, the movements
from the southbound off-ramp to Talmage westbound and from Talmage eastbound to the
3 This reflects data found on Figure 3 . 10-2 of the Costco DGIR and on Figure 3 of the GHD report.
rltA1• r1C * TItANti1) 0it •rATI0Ni • hi AN AGI? AI Ii NT
5311 Lowry Road , Union City, CA 94587 tel: 510.4899471 I = 510.484.9478
Mr, Charlie Stump
August 14, 2013
Page 6
northbound on ramp will grow at a disproportionately larger rate than other movements
through the intersection of Talmage and the southbound ramps.4 If the GHD analysis had
relied on the Costco existing condition counts and adjusted the anticipated growth rates
on individual movements to account for the projected polarity of Costco traffic, the GHD
traffic analysis would likely have found a significantly worse and deficient LOS and
delay at the Talmage — Southbound Ramps intersection in the "with Project" condition,
Since the GHD report claims to have relied on the Costco DEIR, its analysts should have
realized that the existing traffic turning counts GHD had collected were significantly
lower than those in the Costco DEIR and that, due to the disproportionate polarity of
Costco 's traffic distribution, application of single fixed growth rates on all movements
would have resulted in a less severe pattern of traffic demand ,
In recognition of the good faith effort to disclose impacts required by CEQA, the analysts
should have chosen to rely on the higher set of counts and to account for the
disproportionate pattern inherent in the Costco component of traffic growth. Failure to
do this renders the IS/MND inadequate. In my opinion the intersection design may have
a significant impact on traffic safety and cause a significant increase in hazards. This
opinion is based in part of the fact that the GHD analysis is based upon traffic counts that
are too low in comparison to other recent traffic counts, and therefore understate the
impacts of the Project on traffic safety,
Traffic Thresholds To Widen the Talmage Overcrossing of U.S. 101 Identified By
GHD May Be Exceeded As Soon As COSTCO Opens
The GHD report identifies a threshold that when fiiture traffic reaches 125 to 130 percent
of existing traffic, the City and Caltrans should begin actions to widen the Talmage
overcrossing of U. S . 101 , While this is posited as a condition that will happen at some
4 Table 3 , 10-8 of the Costco DEIR indicates that 34 percent of Costco traffic will approach southbound on
U.S. 101 and depart northbound on 101 . Only 8 percent of the traffic will approach northbound on 101 and
depart southbound; only 7 percent of Costco traffic will come westbound from further east on Talmage and
depart eastbound, Hence, traffic will increase disproportionately on the most problematic heavy
movements at the subject Talmage-Southbound Ramps intersection that is not accounted-for in the
analysis,
ri: nrriC T ItANS1) 0It -ra 'rt0IN hiAN .AG HIM 1: NT
511 I Lowr)• Road. Union CitY, CA 94587 tc1; 510.4&9.9477 tics: 510.489.9 478
Mr, Charlie Stump
August 14, 2013
Page 7
uncertain future date, the Costco DEIR provides evidence that this threshold will be
crossed immediately when Costco opens. The Costco DEIR includes an immediate
future scenario comprised of its existing observed traffic, the estimated traffic from a
limited number of specific approved projects in the area and the Costco traffic, a scenario
termed the Near Term + Project scenario. We have compared the Near Term + Project
scenario traffic movements at the Talmage — Southbound Ramps intersection to the
threshold level of 125 percent of the existing movement counts defined and collected by
GHD . This comparison reveals that the Near Term + Costco scenario traffic will exceed
the 125 percent threshold for the widening of the Talmage overcrossing of 101 in the
weekday evening peals hour on 3 of the 4 major movements at the intersections
Hence, rather than the Interchange improvement meetings relatively long term future
need ; the interchange improvement, which will enable the Costco,will cause the almost
immediate need. for the City to widen the U. S. 101 overpass. The IS/MND is deficient as
an information document for failing to clearly disclose to the public and decision makers
.this environmental impact and to evaluate it. The case of Protect the Historic Amador
Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.O' 1099, requires a lead agency
to consider a potentially significant environmental impact, even if the impact is not
included on the Appendix G checklist. The Project in conjunction with the related with
the Costco expansion will cause a bottleneck on the Talamage Road U.S. 101 overpass,
which will have traffic hazard impacts, and will require a widening of the overpass, This
impact needs to be addressed in the MND or an Environmentla Impact Report.
Creating a Environmental Document for the Interchange Improvement Separate
from the Costco Environmental Review Is an Improper Segmentation of What
Should Be Considered a Single Project
From the time of the Walmart Expansion environmental review, before the NOP on the
Costco project was ever initiated, it has been abundantly clear that the Costco project
s The eastbound thru, southbound to westbound off and the southbound to eastbound off all exceed the
thresholds, the westbound thru is only 10 vehicles short of the threshold.
610 ItAhflt : T It A N' S P 0 It T A TI 0 N NIANAGFINIGNl.
5,111 Lowry Rand. Union City, CA 9*17 tell, 510.489.9 477 fns; S 10.499.9 475
6
Mr. Charlie Stump
August I4, 2013
Page 8
could not go forward without an improvement to the Talmage - U.S . 101 interchange.
Yet the City has processed the environmental review of Costco and the Talmage
interchange as independent projects and has made the segmentation impacts more
damaging to meaningful environmental review by using separate data bases and analysis
methods for the respective traffic studies., This is improper improper segmentation of the
COSTCO project and the interchange improvement project violates CEQA
Conclusion
This concludes my current comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
for the Talmage Road / U.S . 101 On-Off Ramp Realignment Project. In summary, the
IS/MND is deficient in these ways ;
• As discussed in detail above, the IS/MND fails to disclose that the interchange
improvement design involves substandard and unusual geometric features that are
potentially hazardous and may not be approved by Caltrans in the design
compliance review and Encroachment Permit Review Process . As stated in this
Report, the Project may have a significant effect on the environment by causing a
substantial increase in hazards and creating safety impacts .
• The IS/MND understates the amount and more *demanding pattern of traffic
movements at the critical intersection in the interchange. As a result, it estimates
in a higher level of service and lower level of delay than is likely to take place, It
also fails address the traffic volumes the City previously disclosed in the Costco
DEIR6 traffic study, and that if these volumes are used in the Interchange traffic
study, the future volumes will be sufficiently high to cause a significant impact
even with all of the favorable assumptions about the effectiveness of the
interchange design , The 1S/MND' s traffic impact study, together with the Costco
traffic forecasts, show that it will be necessary to widen the Talmage overcrossing
of U.S . 101 . . This is a potentially signigicant environmental impact that was not
6 "rhe "Near•Term + Project" scenario,
'1' RADfIC TRANSI' UR "rATION MANAGHNIL• WY
i31 I Lowry Road, Union City, CA 9 4537 tel: 510.09,9477 fax: 510.-489,9476
• R
•
Mr. Charlie Stump
August 14, 2013
Page 9
studied in the MND. It should be studied in the MIND or an environmental impact
report.
Review of the interchange improvement Project in an entirely separate
environmental review process from the Costco project, and the use of confused
and inconsistent data and methodologies in the two traffic studies supporting the
separate environmental documents is an improper segmentation of the actual
whole of the project.
For the reasons stated in this Report, the IS/MND is inadequate and violates CEQA. The
entire project — Costco plus the interchange modification — should be analyzed in a
unified EIR.
Sincerely,
Smith Engineering & Management
A California Corporation
. .n•' • ,•rnc o
()938
pi 14
IS
or Cnt<� t� t'tt.
Daniel T. Smith Jill, P.E,
President
TRAI• flt : TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT
5311 Lowry Road. Union Cih•, CA94587 cc): 510.489.9477 City: 5111-189 478
a
SMITH ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT
DANIEL T. SMITH, Jr.
President
EDUCATION
Bachelor of Science, Engineering and Applied Science, Yale University, 1967
Master of Science, Transportation Planning, University of California, Berkeley, 1968
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION
California No. 21913 (Civil) Nevada No. 7969 (Civil) Washington No. 29337 (Civil)
California No. 938 (Traffic) Arizonallo. 22131 (Civil)
PRO F E SSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Smith Engineering & Management, 1993 to present. President,
DIGS Associates, 1979 to 1993, Founder, Vice President, Principal Transportation Engineer,
De Leuw, Cather & Company, 1968 to 1979. Senior Transportation Planner.
Personal specialties and project experience include:
Litigation Consulting. Provides consultation, investigations and expert witness testimony in highway design,
transit design and traffic engineering matters including condemnations involving transportation access issues; traffic
accidents involving highway design or traffic engineering factors; land use and development matters involving
access and transportation impacts; parking turd other traffic and tronsportation matters.
Urbnn Corridor Studies/Alternatives Analysis. Principal-in-charge for State Route (SR) 102 Feasibility Study,'Et
35-mile freeway alignment study north of Sacramento, Consultant on 1-280 Interstate Transfer Concept Program,
San Francisco, an AA/E1S for completion of 1-280, demolition of Embarcadero freeway, substitute light rail and
commuter rail projects. Principal-iii-charge, SR 238 corridor freeway/expressway design/environmental study,
Hayward (Calif) Project manager, Sacramento Northeast Area multi-modal transportation corridor study.
Transportation planner for I•SON West Terminnl Study, and harbor Drive 'traffic Study, Portland, Oregon. Project
manager for design of surface segment of Woodward Corridor LRT, Detroit, Michigan. Directed staff on I-80
National Strategic Corridor Study (Sacramento-San Francisco), US 101 -Sonoma freeway operations study, SR 92
freeway operations study, I-880 freeway operations study, SR 152 alignment studies, Sacramento RTD light rail
systems study, Tasman Corridor LRT AA/EIS, Fremont-Warm Springs BART extension plan/131R, SRs 70/99
freeway alternatives study, and Richmond Parkway (SR 93) design study.
Area Transportatlon Plans. Principal-in charge for transportation element of City of Los Angeles General Plan
Framework, shaping nations largest city two decades into 21 'st century. Project manager for the transportation
element of 300-acre Mission Bay development in downtown San Francisco. Mission Bay involves 7 million gsf
office/connmerciai space, 8,500 dwelling units, and community facilities. Transportation features include relocation
of commuter rail station; extension of MUM-Metro LRT; a multi-modal terminal for LlCr, commuter rail and local
bus; removal of a quarter mile elevated freeway; replacement by new ramps and a boulevard; an internal roadway
network overcoming constraints imposed by an internal tidal basin; freeway structures and rail facilities; and
concept plans for 20,000 structured parldng spaces, Principal-in-charge for circulation plan to accommodate 9
million gsf of office/commercial growth in downtown Bellevue (Wasp.,). Principal-in-charge for 64 acre, 2 million
gsf multi-use complex for FMC adjacent to San Jose International Airport. Project manager for transportation
element of Sacramento Capitol Area Plan for the state governmental complex, and for Downtown Sacramento
Redevelopment Plan. Project manager for Napa (Calif.) General Plan Circulation Element and Downtown
liverfront Redevelopment Plan, on parking program for downtown Walnut Creek, on downtown transportation
plan for San Mateo and redevelopment plan for downtown Mountain View (Calif.), for traffic circulation and safety
plans for California cities of Davis, Pleasant Hill and Hayward, and for Salem, Oregon.
'I' ItA141: IC '1' ItA1\ tihUlt 'rAori0N' NI ANA GI' h1GNT
5311 Lowry Road . Uninn Gt%', CA 94587 tel: 510.48 ),9477 rax: 510.4t1').9478
Transportation Centers. Project manager for Daly City Intennodal Study which developed a $7 million surface
bus terminal, traffic access, parking and pedestrian circulation improvements at the Daly City BART station plus
development of functional plans for a new BART station at Colma. Project manager for design of multi-modal
terminal (commuter rail, light rail, bus) at Mission Bay, San Francisco, ht Santa Clarita Long Range Transit
Development Program, responsible for plan to relocate system's existing timed-transfer hub and development of
three satellite transfer hubs. Performed airport ground transportation system evaluations for San Francisco
International, Oakland International, Sea•Tac International, Oakland international, Los Angeles International, and
San Diego Lindberg.
Campus Transportatiou. Campus transportation planiung assignments for UC Davis, UC Berkeley, UC Santa
Cruz and UC'San Francisco Medical Center campuses; San Francisco State University; University of San Francisco;
and the University of Alaska and others. Also developed master plans for institutional campuses including medical
centers, headquarters complexes and research & development facilities.
Special Event Facilities. Evaluations and design studies for football/bamball stadiums, indoor sports arenas, horse
and motor racing facilities, theme parks, fairgrounds and convention centers, ski complexes and destination resorts
throughout western United States,
Parking, Parking programs and facilities for large area plans and individual sites including downtowns, special
event facilities, university and institutional campuses and other large site developments; numerous parking
feasibility and operations studies for parking structures and surface facilities; also, resident preferential parkng .
Transportation System Management & Traffic Restraint. Project manager on FI•IWA program to develop
techniques and guidelines for neighborhood street traffic limitation Project manager for Berkeley, (Calif.),
Neighborhood Traffic Study, pioneered application of traffic restraint techniques in the U.S, Developed residential
traffic plans for Menlo Park, Santa Monica, Santa Cruz, Mill Valley, Oakland, Palo Alto, Piedmont, San Mateo
County, Pasadena, Santa Ana and others, Participated in development of photo/radar speed enforcement device and
experimented with speed humps. Co-author of Institute of Transportation Engineers reference publication on
neighborhood traffic control,
Bicycle Facilities. Project manager to develop an FHWA manual for bicycle facility design and planning, on
bilceway plans for Del Mar, (Calif,), the UC Davis and the City of Davis. Consultant to bikeway,plar s for Eugene,
Oregon, Washington, D.C., Buffalo, New York, and Skokie, Illinois. Consultant to U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for
development of hydraulically efficient, bicycle safe drainage inlets. Consultant on FHWA research on effective
retrofits of undercrossing and overcrossing structures for bicyclists, pedestrians, and handicapped.
MEMBERSHIPS
Institute of Transportation Engineers Transportation Research Board
PUBLICATIONS AND AWARDS
Residential Street Design and Trq#7c Control, with W. Homburger el al, Prentice Hall, 1989.
Co-recipient, Progressive Architecture Citation, Mission Bay Master Plan, with I.M. Pei WRT Associated, 1984 ,
Residential Trcd/ic Management, State of the Atli Report, U.S. Depar linen t of Transportation, 1979.
Improving The Residential Street Cnvironment, with Donald Appleyard et al„ U.S. Department of Transportation,
1979,
Strategic Concepts in Residential Neighborhood Trek Control, International Symposium on Traffic Control
Systems, Berkeley, California, 1979.
Planning and Design of Bicycle Facilities: Pi(falls and New Directions, Transportation Research Board, Research
Record 5701 1976.
Co-recipient, Progressive Architecture Award, Livable Urban Streets, San Francisco Bay Area and London, with
Donald Appleyard, 1979.
TItA1• 1: IC 'I' ItANtiPUItTAT10N NANAGF*hiUNT
5311 I_owry Roach. Union C.hvs CA 14587 tel: 510.41859,94.77 lax: 510. 1899.1.78
I
l
William D . Kopper
Attorney at Law
417 E Stteet
Davis, CA 95616
(530) 758-0757
Fax (530) 758-2844
November 13 , 2013
SENT VIA EMAIL [klawler @cityofukiah.com]
AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL
City Clerk
City of Ukiah
300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482
RE: Public Records Act Request
Dear Staff.
Pursuant to the California Public Records Act, please provide to me the following
documents:
All raw data, modeling input and output, modeling assumptions, and
computational steps that show how the market analysis in the Costco
Wholesale Project EIR translated into the trip generation figures on
Highway 101 in the northbound direction to the proposed Costco, in
the southbound direction to the proposed Costo, and from other
directions to the proposed Costco .
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Our office will pay any costs of copying these
documents. In the alternative to copying the documents, you may simply email them to me at the
following address — kopperjd@omsoft.com.
Please be advised that a response to this request is due within 10 days.
Sincerely,
William D. Kopper
Attorney at Law
WDK/wrn
Kristine Lawler
From: Kristine Lawler
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 1:25 PM
To: ' kopperjd @omsoft.com'
Cc: ' rnoel @omsoft.comI
Subject: Costco Wholesale Project Final EIR SCH No. 2011112025
Attachments: Ukiah Costco - Memorandum of Assumptions.pdf; Ukiah Costco Trip Gene ration. pdf;
Appendix D - Costco Trip Generation Surveys.pdf; Ukiah Costco Distribution.xls; Costco
Traffic Impact Study 6-28 -12.pdf
Hello Mr. Kopper,
Please find attached the requested documents in your Public Records Request, received by our office on November 13,
2013 .
Sincerely,
Kristine Lawler
From : ReNae [mai Ito : rnoel Oomsoft.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 11 : 03 AM
To: Kim Jordan
Subject: Costco Wholesale Project Final EIR SCH No. 2011112025
Please see attached letter from William D . Kopper.
Sincerely,
W. ReNae Noel
Paralegal
Law Office of William D . Kopper
417 E Street
Davis, CA 95616
( 530) 758-0757
Fax: (530) 758-2844
Confidential Information . This email contains privileged and confidential information . If
you are not the intended recipient , delete this e - mail from your computer and notify the
sender immediately .
1 _ _
Kim Jordan
From: Kristine Lawler
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 3:40 PM
To: Kim Jordan
Subject: FW : PRA Request for Costco EIR Information
From : Greg Gilbert [mailto :ggilbert@ autumnwind . us]
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 11 : 31 AM
To: Kristine Lawler
Subject: PRA Request for Costco EIR Information
Kristine :
Thank you for your time just now on the phone regarding my interest in making a Public Records Act request
for information regarding the air emissions modeling completed for the Costco EIR. Please accept this email
as that request.
Specifically, I am requesting the complete electronic version (s) of the CalEEMod modeling done for the Costco
project, inclusive of the option to evaluate the modeling inputs via the EXCEL option . I request that the
electronic version of the modeling results be sent to my email address : ggilbert @autumnwind . us at your
earliest convenience. Any information that defines the inputs chosen and used by the modelers— such as the
37% pass-by rate that may have been used in the CalEEMod modeling ( but which is not otherwise identified in
modeling outputs found in Appendix B)---is also requested .
Additionally, I am requesting clarification on a comment from the Lead Agency found in the Response-to-
Comments regarding a written comment I'd made on the DEIR that reflected my confusion about what
modeling inputs, precisely, were used to determine the project's CalEEMod-modeled emission estimates. One
component of the Lead Agency's response explained that modeling from 2013 was supplied in the
Appendices. However, the CalEEIVIod emissions modeling outputs in Appendix B are dated not later than July
of 2012. Can someone please specifically tell me where, exactly, I can get the "2013" modeled/modeling
information that their comment refers to ? I've looked online at the City' s website and am unable to locate it.
If I've understood their response-to-comment, could someone in the Planning Department explain in greater
detail what was meant by their response ?
Thanks for your timely help with this request.
Greg Gilbert, Autumn Wind Associates
916.719.5472
ggilbert(p@autumnwind . us
1
vember
Wortfo ekpMS5 MY 02 then coed-J . -&4ffie
cactstj W t aseJ C05f� OrblJo 1 4 IQ tl is V dr lanhrh
ll y l .— 1 /
io allow nA CL*e, —0 Thal amoan 4 7 ra ff t° +' t4nnml in 7 d
_rJ/ °' ! ✓'a 71lo 2K _ ans1en W � 7o ho M .7igJJoe Proved ;
o W� le-� Is j ; Gr= SG l �._ . .L / metgiAO C . �y aq 8 Pa l unql-w
____ — �qu.��e�Pr_t�_q_��'er-�o� c,r�� �%►p a. fhrou,�� � � r�4'F� � salu�,M . �'
do no+ cjIdW 4 is 44tj q_a �iro ow� a Sou, err)
_ —
— ccP,Ss Y"oa� or Ir�mssQress . y� — ---- —
--- — -- --- 917 Al
- — - ---- --- ---- --�IOV-212013 `--- —
— — ---- — - -----
COY OF UKM
Kim Jordan
From . edward mills <millschop @gmail.com >
Sent. Friday, November 22, 2013 2: 14 PM
To. Kim Jordan
Subject: cosco
not good for Ukiah. not enough population growth. many business will go by the board.
been there done that.
1
i
Kim Jordan
From: Susan McLean <mendomclean@yahoo.com >
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 9:31 AM
To: Kim Jordan
Subject: Dark Sky Concerns
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Planning Commission ,
As residents of the western hills of the Ukiah Valley, we would like to add our voices to the call to protect and even
improve a scenic and environmental asset of our area-the dark night sky.
Please consider dark sky as an important issue when/if finalizing plans for Costco.
Sincerely,
Norm and Susan McLean
450 Crestview Drive
Ukiah
1
Ukiah Planning Commission RECEIVED
Re : Costco final EIR NOV 212013
CRY OFUNM
Dear Commissioners :
n G DEPT.
Please consider these suggestions as possibilities which I believe would greatly improve the
COSTCO project and reduce the environmental impacts :
Air Quality. The EIR rightly states that the project will cause Significant Impacts on air
quality. However, the mitigation measures offered are trivial and are measures that the
project sponsor would do anyway. The EIR states that the impacts on air quality are
Unavoidable . That is because they fully expect the City to state that there are overriding
considerations.
Knowing how substantial these impacts are , the city should require that the project be down =
sized and that measures be taken to reduce vehicle trips and especially, truck trips. There is
also the growth inducement factor of such a large store. the Costco store should be smaller
than the existing Walmart store to avoid growth inducement. Square footage should be
removed from the Costco store that would reduce its environmental impacts. One way to
reduce square footage is to remove the tire store , a use which causes some of the major
impacts and contributes to Climate Change by encouraging vehicle use and an astounding
number of truck trips to deliver new and take away old tires.
Transportation and Traffic. The most serious Mitigation Measure is the Talmage Road
Interchange Improvements and it is clear that the City is energetically pursuing an improved
interchange which requires state agency approvals and funding to be provided , The
mitigation measure should be rewritten to allow no approval of Costco construction permits
_until the work on the interchange is substantially completed say 85% completed . If the City
issued permits for a Costco store to be built, it is unlikely that the City would then hold up the
opening of the store , after it is all built and they are awaiting just a certificate of occupancy.
Alternatives. In addition to the "Costco store without Gasoline Stations" Alternative ,
please add another Alternative called "Costco store without Gasoline Stations or Tire Store".
While there is no way to totally eliminate the Significant Impacts from the proposed project or
the No Gas Stations Alternative , the most severe impacts of both the Traffic Increases and
the Greenhouse Gas (GHG ) emissions would be greatly reduced .
The Final EIR should make the declaration that there would be a substantial reduction in both
the Traffic and GHG impacts , which are classified as SU (significant, unavoidable) . The effect
of the reductions could be considerable but we will never know unless the current document
sets down numbers that quantify the reductions . The absence of these numbers in the EIR
trivializes the Alternative , thus making it unlikely that the Alternative will be seriously
considered .
Wetland (Hydrology). Mitigation measures should be included thatwould restore a
functioning wetland as an offset for paving over so much original land that was never before
paved or impervious, covered over. Another mitigation measure should require that at least
20 or 25% of the pavement should be made of pervious material to allow natural drainage to
the ground to take place .
Aesthetics. Although Costco has made a special design at the store entry, it is obvious
that the store will look like all the other Costco stores and does not respond to the special
character of the Ukiah Valley which still can be appreciated from the unbuilt siteThe massive
white wall panels, the red stripe and the conventional signage do no credit to Ukiah . Where
exactly are they "using local materials"? The building design and its conformity to the brand
has created a building that lacks of aesthetic distinction should be considered an impact that
requires mitigation . An appropriate mitigation would be to require a specialized massing and
design of this building that does justice to the special character of Ukiah in its valley setting . .
Improve and correct mitigation measures . Mitigation measures should address
directly the actual impacts. Those mitigation measures which the city would require anyway
as part of project approval are not specific mitigations which address the impacts of this
particular project. The same set of mitigations should not be used again to offset several
types of impacts, that is, to be used twice or more to offset impacts . For example , Mitigation
Measures 3.2.2 a-c , which are used to offset several sets of impacts. Also note that while
Mitigation Measures 3 .2 .2 a-c are just three , the text refers to a-d and there is no fourth
mitigation , no "d".
Summarizing , I believe that the project Alternative called "Costco store without Gasoline
Stations" and additionally, "without tire store" is the best one for Ukiah and would
clearly result in much lower environmental and economic impacts. It is the
environmentally Superior Alternative ; the Commission should improve it by making workable
and worthy mitigation measures so that you can later choose a project that has merit.
While it is true that even the Alternative has impacts and would require a statement of
overriding considerations , so be it. The impacts would be lessened and the mitigation
measures would still apply, giving us an environmentally less harmful proiect Cutting back
such a huge project would not be a deal-breaker; there is no deal until these hearings are all
completed .
Please remember that this is the City's property and it is in a very real sense Public Land
You are fully within your rights through CEQA to substitute this alternative in place of the
Proposed Project when the time comes.
Mary Anne Miller, Ukiah November 21 , 2013
Mendocino Environmental Center
106 West Standley St.
Ukiah, CA 95482 RECEIVED
707 234-3236
NOV 21 2013
City Of Ukiah Planning Commission COYOFUNM
300 Seminary Ave. PMMGD
Ukiah, CA 95482
November 20, 2013
Re: Certification of EIR for Costco Project
To the Commissioners,
We the Board of Directors of the Mendocino Environmental Center with the support
of and on behalf of our members wish to state our opposition to certification of the EIR
for the Costco Project. Our objections are the following:
We believe that the EIIt does not fully address the importance of nor does it
sufficient) describe the adjacent wetland.etland. It also fails to adequately address the
adjacent Y
connectivity to the additional wetland located directly south of the Mendocino
Brewing Company facility.
We believe that the rain runoff mitigations are inadequate, considering the
nature of rainfall in Mendocino County, which includes torrential downpours a
gas station in that location will increase the risk of contamination of the wetland
during rainfall
We are concerned that the option allowing a gas station to be built at that site
adversely effects the wetlands and that this is not adequately discussed in the EIR.
The consideration of Leaking Underground Storage Tanks and the potential
hazardous movement of spilled fuel is inadequate for this site.
We are concerned that the operation of a gas station at that location will cause
unnecessary additional vehicle trips on what is essentially a cul-de-sac as there is
no sufficient outlet for traffic at the south end of the proposed site. This increased
traffic activity will cause additional pollution as well as traffic congestion that can
be avoided by approving an option that does not include a gas station.
We feel that a gas station located there will cause economic hardships for smaller
gas stations in the city which often are already offering the lowest prices and
whose profit margins are smallest. Costco will have the ability to undercut those
same small gas station owners
It is our recommendation that the EIR not be approved in its current manifestation and
that additional attention be given to the wetland. We also recommend that a reduced size
option be adopted which will mitigate the concerns regarding leaking tanks and
additional hazardous runoff from spilled fuel .
Sincerel ,
Edwin Nieves
President
Board of Directors of the Mendocino Environmental Center
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS, TRANSPORT V AND HOUSING AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN Jr. Governor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 1 , P. O. BOX 3700 : s
EUREKA, CA 95502-3700
PHONE (707) 441 -4554
FAX (707) 441 -5869 Flex your power!
TTY 711 Mew CEIVED
Be energy efficient!
NOV 19 2013
November 14, 2013
CNYOF um
F'►M10 DEPT,
Kim Jordan 1 -MEN- 101 -23 . 3
City of Ukiah Ukiah Costco Final EIR
Planning & Community Development Department SCH# 2011112025
300 Seminary Avenue DB# 19006
Ukiah, CA 95482
Dear Ms. Jordan,
Thank you for giving Caltrans the opportunity to provide additional comments on the Final
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed City of Ukiah Costco Wholesale project.
The project is located in the City of Ukiah at the southwest corner of U. S . Highway 101 and State
Route 222, or Talmage Road ( 1 -MEN- 101 -23 .3). Caltrans submitted comments to the City on
April 15, 2013 , which were addressed in the Final EIR.
Caltrans would like to reiterate some of our concerns with the° proposed project:
• The project is currently in the Permit Engineering Evaluation Report (PEER) review
process, which will determine the project details and ultimately provide approval for the
project.
• Caltrans has significant concerns with the proposed geometrics of the interchange at U. S .
Highway 101 and State Route 222, which provides access to the project site. These
concerns are currently being resolved by the project team through the PEER review
process.
• The letter sent to the City on April 15 , 2013 requests that the proposed mitigation be a
condition of approval. Furthermore, we recommend the proposed mitigation be completed
prior to opening day.
• Caltrans has significant concerns regarding the increase in runoff and water treatment
issues within the proposed Hydrology/Hydraulics Study and Drainage Plan. These
concerns are being discussed by the project team and will ultimately be resolved through
the Caltrans- Encroachment Permit process.
As areminder; any work within 'the State right of way will require an approve& encroachment
permit. Encroachment permit applications are reviewed for consistency with State standards and
are subject to Department approval. Requests for Caltrans encroachment permit application
"Caltrans improves mobility across California"
Kim Jordan
11 / 14/2013
Page 2
forms can be sent to Caltrans District 1 Permits Office, P.O. Box 3700, Eureka CA 95502-3700,
or requested by phone at (707) 445-6389. For additional information, the Caltrans Permit Manual
is available online at: <http ://www.dot.ca. og_v/hq/traffops/develo sp ery/permits/>.
If you have questions or need further assistance, please contact me at (707) 441 4540 or
tatiana.ahlstrand@dot, cEi.gov.
Sincerely,
- --- —Tatiana-Ahlstrand-- - -- -- __ - ---- — -- - -
Associate Transportation Planner
Caltrans, District 1
Office of Regional & Community Planning
c: Phil Dow
"Caltrans improves mobility across California"
Ear OF
s, STATE OF CALIFORNIA o 9
JW
r
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE of PLANNING AND RESEARCH .S
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE AND PLANNING UNIT •N''FOFCAL�Fa`�a\P
EDMUND G. BROWN JR. KENALEX
GOVERNOR DIRECTOR
November 18, 2013
Kim Jordan
City of Ukiah
300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482 -
Subject: Ukiah Costco EIR
SCH#: 2011112025
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Final Document to selected state agencies for review.
The review period closed on November 15, 2013 , and no state agencies submitted comments by that date.
This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for
draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California .Environmental Quality Act.
Please call the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the
environmental review process. If you have a question about the above-named project, please refer to the
ten-digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office.
Sincere ,
Scott Morgan
Director, State Clearinghouse
RECEIVED
- NOV 2p 2013
PWVNING DEPT.
140010th Street P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044
(916) 445-0613 FAX (916) 323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov
Document Details Report
State Clearinghouse Data Ba.
SCH# 2011112025 RECEIVED
Project Title Ukiah Costco EIR
Lead Agency Ukiah , City of
Wnv 20 2013
Type FIN Final Document
Description FYI Final e f OF UiNti .
KMING DEFT
The Project consists of the construction of a Costco Wholesale warehouse and fuel station in Ukiah,
CA. The EIR analyzes a maximum warehouse size of 148 ,000 sf and a fuel facility of up to 20 pumps
on a 15.33-acre site. The proposed Costco warehouse would include a bakery, pharmacy, optical
center, hearing aid testing center, food court, photo center, and fuel station , along with the sales of
3,800 to 4,000 retail products. The tire center would be a 5,692 sf attached building with member
access through the inside of the main Costco building and would include retail tire sales and a tire
installation facility. The fuel station , located in the southeast corner of the site, would have 16 stations
initially (and an option to expand to 20 stations) and a 2,816 sf canopy. The Costco facility will employ
approximately 175 to 200 people.
Lead Agency Contact
Name Kim Jordan
Agency City of Ukiah
Phone 707 463 6207 Fax
email
Address 300 Seminary Avenue
City Ukiah State CA Zip 95482
Project Location
County Mendocino
City Ukiah
Region
Lat / Long 390 08' 58" N / 1230 11 ' 59'1 W
Cross Streets Airport Park Blvd / Commerce
Parcel No. 180-110-8 thru 10, 180-080-57 thru 67
Township Range Section Base
Proximity to:
Highways Hwy 101 , 222
Airports Ukiah Municipal
Railways
Waterways Russian River
Schools Nokomis Elementary
Land Use Vacant - Planned Development - Commercial
Project Issues Biological Resources; Drainage/Absorption ; Economics/.Jobs; Geologic/Seismic; Noise; Public
Services; Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading ; Traffic/Circulation ; Toxic/Hazardous; Water Quality;
Wildlife; Growth Inducing ; Landuse; Cumulative Effects; AestheticNisual; Archaeologic-Historic
Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Fish and Wildlife, Region 1 E ; Department of Parks and Recreation ;
Agencies Department of Water Resources; California Highway Patrol ; Caltrans, District 1 ; Air Resources Board ;
Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 1 ; Native American Heritage Commission ; State Lands
Commission
Date Received 11 /01 /2013 Start of Review 11 /01 /2013 End of Review 11 /15/2013
Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency.