Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-12-04 Packet - Agenda Item 11b Attachment 1 - PRC CEQA Findings and SOC Costco Wholesale Project Environmental Impact Report City Council Resolution December 4, 2013 1 ATTACHMENT 1 1 2 RESOLUTION NO. 3 4 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH 5 MAKING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES 6 CODE (“PRC”) SECTION 21081 AND CALIFORNIA 7 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ("CEQA") GUIDELINES 8 SECTION 15091 AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING 9 CONSIDERATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH PRC §21081(b) 10 AND GUIDELINES §15093 IN CONNECTION WITH THE 11 DECISION TO CERTIFY THE COSTCO WHOLESALE PROJECT 12 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND APPROVE THE 13 COSTCO WAREHOUSE STORE AND FUELING STATION 14 PROJECT 15 16 WHEREAS: 17 1. The City Council has certified as adequate and complete an Environmental Impact Report 18 ("EIR") for the Costco Wholesale Project. The EIR consists of a Draft Environmental Impact Report, 19 dated January 2013, ("DEIR"), and a Final Environmental Impact Report, including a response to 20 comments, dated November 2013, (“FEIR”); and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; 21 and 22 2. The Project includes a Rezoning to amend the Airport Industrial Park Planned 23 Development to change the Land Use Designation of the Costco Project site to Retail Commercial 24 from Industrial/Auto Commercial and Light Industrial/Mixed Use and a Site Development Permit in 25 order to allow the construction of a 148,000 square foot membership-based retail store and 20-pump 26 fueling station on a 15.33 acre site on the east side of Airport Park Boulevard between Ken Fowler 27 Auto Center and the southern terminus of Airport Park Boulevard; and 28 3. The EIR has identified significant environmental impacts of the Project; and 29 4. The EIR has determined that not all of the project specific adverse environmental impacts 30 can be mitigated to less than significant levels; and 31 5. The Final EIR has found that certain Air Quality, Transportation and Traffic, and Global 32 Climate Change impacts cannot be mitigated to a level considered less than significant; and 33 6. As stated below, the City Council has made the findings and the statement of overriding 34 considerations required, where, as here, a project has one or more adverse environmental impacts 35 that cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance; and 36 Costco Wholesale Project Environmental Impact Report City Council Resolution December 4, 2013 2 7. The Project Proponent hereby undertakes a legally binding commitment to comply with 1 the mitigation measures under the Project Proponent’s control, which are incorporated into the 2 Project and/or included as conditions of project approval; and 3 8. The City Council has determined to approve the Project; and 4 9. The City Council has based its decision on the whole of the record, which includes those 5 items identified in Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e), including, but not limited to, the EIR, 6 including the appendices to the EIR and the staff reports; and 7 10. The record of proceedings upon which this decision is based, including the Costco 8 Warehouse EIR and Costco Warehouse and Fueling Station project file, is maintained in the office of 9 the Planning and Community Development Department, Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, 10 CA 95482, as the custodians of the record, and is available for public inspection upon request of the 11 Director of Planning and Community Development or his designee; and 12 11. PRC section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines section 15091 provide that the City shall not 13 approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed which identifies one or more 14 significant environmental impacts, unless it makes specified findings; and 15 12. PRC section 21081(b) and CEQA Guidelines section 15093 require a Statement of 16 Overriding Considerations to approve a project that will have any unmitigated adverse environmental 17 impacts; 18 19 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Ukiah finds as follows. 20 1. The EIR was prepared and made available for public review and comment in full 21 compliance with the procedures set forth in CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. 22 2. The EIR was considered by the Planning Commission at a public meeting on November 21, 23 2013 and the Planning Commission voted 3-1 to recommend the City Council certify the EIR; and the 24 EIR was considered by the City Council at a public meeting on December 4, 2013. 25 3. The City Council has considered all documents submitted during the public comment 26 period for the EIR and all testimony presented during its meetings as well as the EIR, the Staff 27 Reports, dated November 21, 2013, and December 4, 2013, the Costco Warehouse and Fueling 28 Station project files, and the minutes or recording of the November 21, 2013, Planning Commission 29 meeting. The Staff Reports are incorporated herein by reference. The City Council has 30 independently reviewed and analyzed this resolution and the EIR and they accurately reflect the 31 Costco Wholesale Project Environmental Impact Report City Council Resolution December 4, 2013 3 Council’s judgment. 1 4. The Project is described in the EIR, including the DEIR at pp. 2-1 to 2-14, and FEIR pp. 4-1 2 to 4-5. This description is incorporated herein by reference. 3 5. The EIR evaluated the impacts of the Project itself, as well as its impacts in combination 4 with impacts from past, present and probable future projects. Those impacts, both individual and 5 cumulative, along with recommended mitigation measures and suggested conditions, are 6 summarized in Table ES-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures, FEIR pp. ES-3 to ES-14. 7 6. Measures designed to avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of 8 the Project as identified in the EIR are set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 9 ("Plan"), attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. The measures constitute 10 binding commitments of the Project Proponent, if the Project is approved by responsible agencies 11 upon acceptable conditions and undertaken by the Project Proponent, and those measures shall be 12 incorporated into the Project and monitored in accordance with the Plan. 13 14 7. Aesthetics. 15 Project Specific Impacts (Light and Glare): The EIR concluded implementation of the Project 16 may create a new source of substantial light or glare which could adversely affect daytime or 17 nighttime views of the area. (DEIR, pp. 3.1-10 to 3.1-11) The EIR identified mitigation measures that 18 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. (FEIR, pp. Aesthetics mitigation measure 19 3.1.2) The mitigation measures include: locating, aiming, or shielding light fixtures to minimize light 20 trespass over property lines; use of full cut-off and night-time friendly fixtures; preparation of a 21 photometric plan that complies with specific quantified light levels; and turning off all or 50% of 22 parking lot lighting one hour after store closure. 23 The Project Proponent commits to these mitigation measures as conditions of approval for the 24 rezoning and site development permit. [That commitment and all Project Proponent commitments 25 referenced in these findings will be made conditions of the Site Development Permit required for the 26 project which is the mechanism for enforcing the Project Proponent’s commitment.] The City Council, 27 therefore, finds that these mitigation measures constitute changes or alterations which have been 28 required in, or incorporated into, the project which will mitigate or avoid or reduce to insignificance 29 the adverse environmental aesthetic effect of potential light and glare. 30 31 Costco Wholesale Project Environmental Impact Report City Council Resolution December 4, 2013 4 8. Geology and Soils. 1 Project Specific Impacts (Seismic Ground Shaking): The EIR concludes that the Project could 2 expose people to injury or structures to damage from potential rupture of a known earthquake fault, 3 strong ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure, or landslides. (DEIR, pp. 3.4-10 to 3.4-13) 4 The EIR includes mitigation measures that would reduce the seismic ground-shaking impacts to a less 5 than significant level. (Geology and Soils mitigation measures 3.4.1a) The mitigation measures 6 include: preparation of a site-specific design level geotechnical report prepared by a registered 7 geotechnical engineer to be submitted to the Building Inspection Division as part of the building 8 permit submittal required for construction of the Project; incorporation of the recommendations 9 included in the geotechnical report into the foundation design, earthwork, and site preparation 10 Project plans; and that the Project structural engineer review site specific investigations, provide any 11 additional mitigations necessary to meet Building Code requirements, and incorporation of all 12 applicable mitigation measures from the investigation into the structural design and ensure that all 13 structural plans meet current Building Code requirements; City review of all Project plans and other 14 relevant construction permits for compliance with the applicable geotechnical investigation and Code 15 requirements. 16 Project Specific Impacts (Liquefaction and Earthquake Induced Settlement): The EIR 17 concludes the Project could expose people to injury or structures to damage from potential 18 liquefaction and earthquake induced settlement. (DEIR, pp. 3.4-10 to 3.4-13) The EIR includes 19 mitigation measures that would reduce the liquefaction and earthquake induced settlement impacts 20 to a less than significant level. (Geology and Soils mitigation measure 3.4.1b) The mitigation 21 measures include: submittal of a site-specific, design level geotechnical investigation prepared by a 22 registered geotechnical engineer that complies with all state and local code requirements, includes 23 site specific mitigations for mitigation of liquefiable soils; identified mitigations reviewed for 24 compliance with CGS Geology Guidelines related to protection of public safety from liquefaction; 25 incorporation of all mitigations in the site specific mitigations into the Project plans for foundation 26 design, earthwork and site preparation; review of the site specific recommendations by the Project 27 structural engineer and the inclusion of recommendations from the Project structural engineer into 28 the structural design plans and compliance of all structural plans with current Building Code 29 requirements; registered City geotechnical engineer or third party engineer retained to review the 30 geotechnical report and site-specific geotechnical investigation, approve the final report, and require 31 Costco Wholesale Project Environmental Impact Report City Council Resolution December 4, 2013 5 compliance with all geotechnical mitigations; and City review of Project plans for grading foundations, 1 structural, infrastructure, and all other relevant construction permits to ensure compliance with the 2 geotechnical investigation and Code requirements. 3 Project Specific Impacts (Fill Soils): The EIR concluded that the Project could be located on fill 4 soils that are potentially unstable, or that could become unstable as a result of the Project, and 5 potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. 6 (DEIR p. 3.4.14 to 3.4.15) The EIR includes mitigation measures that would reduce this impact to a 7 less than significant level. (Geology and Soils mitigation measures 3.4.1a and 3.4.1b) The mitigations 8 include all of the mitigations for seismic ground-shaking, liquefaction, and earthquake induced 9 settlement identified above. 10 11 The Project Proponent commits to these mitigation measures for the above-described effects on 12 geology and soils as conditions of approval for the rezoning and site development permit. The City 13 Council, therefore, finds that these mitigation measures constitute changes or alterations which have 14 been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will mitigate or avoid or reduce to 15 insignificance the adverse environmental effects relating to geology and soils. 16 17 9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. 18 Project Specific Impacts: The EIR concluded that during construction, the Project could create 19 a hazard to the public or environment through upset or accident conditions involving the use or 20 release of hazardous materials or the release of hazardous wastes to the environment resulting from 21 contaminated soil and/or groundwater. (DEIR, p. 3.5-14) Although the available studies suggest no 22 contaminated soil and/or groundwater would be found on site, mitigation has been included in the 23 unlikely event contamination is encountered. (Hazards and Hazardous Materials mitigation measure 24 3.5.2) The mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. The 25 mitigation measure includes: the halting of work if contaminated soil and/or groundwater is 26 suspected or discovered during Project construction activities; identification of the type and extent of 27 the contamination in coordination with overseeing authorities; development of an appropriate 28 method to remediate the contamination; and determination of the appropriate disposal method. 29 The Project Proponent commits to these mitigation measures for the above-described impacts 30 relating to hazards and hazardous materials as conditions of approval for the rezoning and site 31 Costco Wholesale Project Environmental Impact Report City Council Resolution December 4, 2013 6 development permit. The City Council, therefore, finds that these mitigation measures constitute 1 changes or alterations which have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will 2 mitigate or avoid or reduce to insignificance the adverse environmental effect relating to hazards and 3 hazardous materials. 4 5 10. Hydrology and Water Quality. 6 Project Specific Impacts (Dewatering and Discharge): The EIR concluded that subsurface 7 excavation during Project construction could require dewatering which may result in a discharge that 8 could adversely affect water quality. (DEIR, p. 3.6-16 to 3.6-17) The EIR includes mitigation 9 measures that would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. (Hydrology and Water Quality 10 mitigation measure 3.6.2) The mitigation measures include: coordination with the City regarding 11 dewatering activities and compliance with provisions of the dewatering permit; applicant Submittal of 12 a Report of Wastewater Discharge and Application for NPDES Permit along with a feasibility study for 13 the reuse of the groundwater to RWQCB; and discharge flows only upon receipt of the Discharge 14 Authorization Letter from the RWQCB. (Hydrology and Water Quality mitigation measure 3.6.2) 15 Project Specific Impacts (Impervious Surfaces and Runoff): The EIR concluded that the 16 installation of new impervious surfaces associated with the Costco building and parking lot would 17 increase the impervious surfaces on the site which could decrease stormwater infiltration and 18 increase stormwater flows, causing downstream flooding, erosion, or sedimentation. (DEIR, pp. 19 3.6-17 to 3.6.19) The EIR includes mitigation measures that would reduce this impact to a level 20 considered less than significant. (Hydrology and Water Quality mitigation measure 3.6.4) These 21 mitigations include: preparation and submittal of a Final Drainage Plan by the Applicant to the City 22 Engineer and North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board for the final design/plan of the 23 Project that includes the proposed storm drainage system, vegetated swales, and water quality 24 features; storm water system designed, implemented, and maintained such that there would be no 25 net increase in Project condition downstream runoff; Final Drainage Plan based on modeled runoff 26 volumes and flow rates specific to the with-Project conditions; design and implementation by the 27 Applicant of volume- and/or flow- based Treatment Control Best Management Practices (BMPs) as 28 defined in attachment 4 of the State Water Resources Control Board small municipal separate storm 29 sewer systems (MS4s) General Permit; and submittal of design drawings and any related documents 30 or specifications to the City of Ukiah and North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to 31 Costco Wholesale Project Environmental Impact Report City Council Resolution December 4, 2013 7 implementation (implementation of Hydrology and Water Quality mitigation measure 3.6.4). 1 Cumulative Impacts: The EIR concludes implementation of the Project, in conjunction with 2 other foreseeable development in the City, could result in cumulative hydrology and water quality 3 impacts. (DEIR, p. 3.6-21 and 3.6-22) The EIR includes mitigation measures that would reduce this 4 impact to a level that is considered less than significant. (Hydrology and Water Quality mitigation 5 measure 3.6.4) The mitigations include all of the mitigations for impervious surfaces and runoff as 6 described above (Hydrology and Water Quality mitigation measure 3.6.4). 7 The Project Proponent commits to these mitigation measures for the above-described impacts 8 relating to hydrology and water quality as conditions of approval for the rezoning and site 9 development permit. The City Council, therefore, finds that these mitigation measures constitute 10 changes or alterations which have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will 11 mitigate or avoid or reduce to insignificance the adverse environmental effects relating to hydrology 12 and water quality. 13 14 11. Biological Resources. 15 Project Specific Impacts (Special Status Species): The EIR concluded construction-related 16 activities could affect special status species (nesting birds). (DEIR, pp. 3.12-12 to 3.12-13) The EIR 17 includes mitigation measures that would reduce this impact to a level considered less than significant. 18 (Biological Resources mitigation measure 3.12.1) The mitigation measures include: preconstruction 19 survey by a qualified biologist of all potential habitats within 30 days of the start of grading or other 20 construction-related activities if construction will occur during bird nesting season (February 15 21 through August 31); in the event an active nest is found, a no-work buffer zone is required or as 22 required by the Department of Fish and Game; and no mitigation is required if the preconstruction 23 survey indicates nests are inactive or potential habitat is unoccupied. (Biological Resources 24 mitigation measure 3.12.1) 25 The Project Proponent commits to these mitigation measures for the above-described impacts on 26 biological resources (special status species) as conditions of approval for the rezoning and site 27 development permit. The City Council, therefore, finds that these mitigation measures constitute 28 changes or alterations which have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will 29 mitigate or avoid or reduce to insignificance the adverse environmental effects on biological 30 resources. 31 Costco Wholesale Project Environmental Impact Report City Council Resolution December 4, 2013 8 1 12. Cultural Resources. 2 Project Specific Impacts (Archeological and Paleontological Resources): The EIR determined 3 that ground disturbing activities associated with implementation of the Project could result in a 4 substantial adverse change to previously unknown archeological or paleontological resources and 5 identified mitigations to reduce this impact to a level considered less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 6 3.14-10 to 3.14-11) These mitigation measures include: ceasing activity in the vicinity of the find until 7 the find is evaluated by a qualified archeologist and a Native American representative; notifying the 8 City of Ukiah in the event the find may be significant; development of a treatment plan for resources 9 determined to be significant; and consultation with Native American representatives in determining 10 the appropriate treatment for prehistoric or Native American cultural resources. (Cultural Resources 11 mitigation measure 3.14.2) 12 Project Specific Impacts (Discovery of Human Remains): The EIR also determined that 13 ground disturbing construction activities associated with implementation of the Project could result in 14 damage to previously unknown human remains and identified mitigation measures to reduce this 15 impact to a level considered less than significant. (DEIR, p. 3.14-11) These mitigation measures 16 include: compliance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 which requires no further 17 disturbance until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition 18 pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98; coroner notification of the Native American Heritage Commission 19 (NAHC) in the event the remains are determined to be of Native American descent; and NAHC 20 determination of the Most Likely Descendent, who will assist in determining disposition of the remains. 21 (Cultural Resources mitigation measure 3.14.3) 22 The Project Proponent commits to these mitigation measures for the above-described cultural 23 resources impacts as conditions of approval for the rezoning and site development permit. The City 24 Council, therefore, finds that these mitigation measures constitute changes or alterations which have 25 been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will mitigate or avoid or reduce to 26 insignificance the adverse environmental effects on cultural resources. 27 28 13. Transportation and Traffic (Public Transit, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Facilities). 29 Project Specific Impacts: The EIR determined that implementation of the Project would 30 conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, pedestrian, or bicycle 31 Costco Wholesale Project Environmental Impact Report City Council Resolution December 4, 2013 9 facilities or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. (DEIR, p. 3.10-28) The 1 EIR identified mitigation measures that would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. (FEIR, 2 Transportation and Traffic mitigation measures 3.10.2a, 3.10.2b, 3.10.2c) These mitigation 3 measures include: providing a location for a bus shelter on the Project site and construction of a 4 concrete pad for a bus shelter; construction of sidewalks as shown on the Project plans; installation 5 of high visibility crosswalks across driveway entrances to the site and installation of ADA compliant 6 curb ramps; installation of pedestrian connections from the Project frontage and main parking area to 7 the store entrance; installation of a Class III bike route on Airport Park Boulevard; and installation of 8 bike parking as required by Airport Industrial Park Planned Development Ordinance 1098. 9 The Project Proponent commits to these mitigation measures for the above-described impacts 10 relating to public transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities as conditions of approval for the rezoning 11 and site development permit. The City Council, therefore, finds that these mitigation measures 12 constitute changes or alterations which have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which 13 will mitigate or avoid or reduce to insignificance the adverse environmental effects relating to public 14 transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities. 15 16 14. Transportation and Traffic (Traffic Volume and Queuing). 17 A. Project Specific Impacts (Existing Plus Project Conditions): The EIR concludes the Project 18 would increase traffic volumes on area roadways under Existing Plus Project Conditions. The analysis 19 in the EIR indicates the level of service (LOS) at the intersection of Airport Park Boulevard/Talmage 20 Road would not meet the acceptable LOS established by the General Plan. General Plan Circulation 21 and Transportation implementation measure CT-16.4(e) establishes the acceptable LOS for 22 signalized intersection and four-way stops as LOS D. Under Existing Plus Project Conditions, the 23 intersection of Airport Park Boulevard/Talmage Road would operate at LOS E. In addition, queuing 24 would exceed available storage in two locations: 1) westbound Talmage Road/Airport Park Boulevard 25 left turn; and 2) southbound Talmage Road/US 101 Ramp right turn. The EIR traffic study indicates 26 that under existing conditions (without the Project) both intersections also have queues that exceed 27 available storage. (DEIR, Appendix E, pp. 10-11) 28 The EIR includes mitigation measures that would reduce this impact to a level considered less 29 than significant. The mitigation includes the construction of Talmage Road Interchange 30 improvements with the provision of two left-turn lanes on the westbound Talmage Road approach to 31 Costco Wholesale Project Environmental Impact Report City Council Resolution December 4, 2013 10 Airport Park Boulevard (FEIR, Transportation and Traffic mitigation measure 3.10.1). 1 B. Cumulative Impacts (Future 2030 Plus Project Level of Service): The EIR concludes that 2 the Project would increase traffic volumes on area roadways under Future (2030) Plus Project 3 Conditions. The analysis in the EIR indicates the level of service (LOS) at three intersections would 4 not meet the acceptable LOS established by the General Plan. (DEIR, pp. 3.10-33 to 3.10-35) 5 General Plan Circulation and Transportation implementation measure CT-16.4(e) establishes the 6 acceptable LOS as LOS D or better. Under Future (2030) Plus Project Conditions, the intersection of 7 Airport Park Boulevard/Talmage Road would operate at LOS F; the intersection of Talmage Road/US 8 101 Southbound Off-Ramp would operate at LOS E; and the intersection of South State Street would 9 operate at LOS E. 10 The EIR includes mitigation measures that would reduce this impact to a level considered less 11 than significant (FEIR, Transportation and Traffic mitigation measure 3.10.1 and 3.10.4). The 12 mitigation measures include: installation of a left-turn lane on the eastbound approach of South State 13 Street/Hasting Avenue and the construction of Talmage Road Interchange improvements with the 14 provision of two left-turn lanes on the westbound Talmage Road approach to Airport Park Boulevard 15 (FEIR, Transportation and Traffic mitigation measure 3.10.1). 16 17 C. Project Specific Impacts (Near-Term Plus Project): The EIR concludes that the Project 18 would increase traffic volumes on area roadways under Near-Term (Baseline) Plus Project Conditions. 19 The analysis in the EIR indicates the level of service (LOS) at two intersections would not meet the 20 acceptable LOS established by the General Plan. General Plan Circulation and Transportation 21 implementation measure CT-16.4(e) establishes the acceptable LOS as LOS D or better. Under 22 Near-Term Plus Project Conditions, the intersection of Airport Park Boulevard/Talmage Road would 23 operate at LOS E, and the intersection of Talmage Road/US 101 Southbound Off-Ramp would 24 operate at LOS F. In addition, queuing would exceed available storage in two locations: 1) 25 westbound Talmage Road/Airport Park Boulevard left turn; and 2) southbound Talmage Road/US 26 101 Ramp right turn. The EIR traffic study indicates that under near-term conditions (without the 27 Project), both intersections also have queues that exceed available storage. (DEIR, Appendix E, pp. 28 22-23) 29 The EIR includes mitigation measures that would reduce this impact to a level considered less 30 than significant (Transportation and Traffic mitigation measure 3.10.3 requires implementation of 31 Costco Wholesale Project Environmental Impact Report City Council Resolution December 4, 2013 11 mitigation measure 3.10.1). The mitigation includes the construction of Talmage Road Interchange 1 improvements with the provision of two left-turn lanes on the westbound Talmage Road approach to 2 Airport Park Boulevard. 3 4 D. Cumulative Impacts (Future 2030 Queuing): The EIR concludes the Project would 5 contribute to inadequate queuing storage under Future (2030) Plus Project Conditions. The analysis 6 in the EIR indicates queuing storage would exceed maximum queues at westbound Airport Park 7 Boulevard/Talmage Road left turn and Talmage Road/US 101 Southbound Off-Ramp right turn. The 8 EIR traffic study indicates that under Future conditions (without the Project), both intersections also 9 have queues that exceed available storage. (DEIR, Appendix E, pp. 27-28) The EIR includes 10 mitigation measures that would reduce this impact to a level considered less than significant. 11 (Implementation of Transportation and Traffic mitigation measure 3.10.1) The mitigation includes 12 the construction of Talmage Road Interchange improvements with the provision of two left-turn lanes 13 on the westbound Talmage Road approach to Airport Park Boulevard. 14 15 With respect to 14, A-D, above, the improvements which will reduce the adverse traffic 16 impacts to a level of insignificance are called the “Talmage Road Interchange Improvements.” The 17 City of Ukiah is pursuing the Talmage Road Interchange Improvements as a separate City-sponsored 18 project, because those improvements are required for the build-out of the Redwood Business Park, 19 with or without the Project. Costco is assessed an off-site traffic mitigation fee that will be used for 20 these improvements. As of the preparation of the EIR, funding sources for the Talmage Road 21 Interchange Improvements have been identified, but full funding has not yet been secured. However, 22 Transportation and Traffic mitigation measure 3.10.1 requires that the Project funding must be 23 obligated prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Project and the interchange improvements 24 substantially completed prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the Project (FEIR, p.4-12); 25 thus assuring that no project related traffic will occur before these traffic mitigations are funded and 26 substantially completed. 27 28 A portion of the Talmage Road Interchange Improvements (Southbound Hwy 101 off-ramp 29 and Talmage intersection reconstruction, “Cal Trans Improvements”) is within the California 30 Department of Transportation (“Cal Trans”) right of way and subject to its jurisdiction. The remaining 31 Costco Wholesale Project Environmental Impact Report City Council Resolution December 4, 2013 12 improvements at Airport Park Boulevard and Talmage Road (“City Improvements”) are within the 1 City’s rights of way and subject to its jurisdiction. The City can design and construct the City 2 Improvements but the design and construction of the Cal Trans Improvements are within Cal Trans’ 3 jurisdiction and are its responsibility. If funding were not secured for the Cal Trans Improvements or 4 Cal Trans does not approve the timely construction of those improvements, the City Council finds that 5 the above-described traffic impacts would be significant and unavoidable because specific economic, 6 legal, social, technological, or other considerations (lack of funding or timely approval by Cal Trans), 7 make infeasible any further mitigation of them. 8 9 15. Air Quality. 10 Project Specific Impacts (Operational Emissions): The EIR concluded that operation of the 11 Project would generate significant emissions of criteria air pollutants that could contribute to existing 12 nonattainment conditions for nitrous oxide (NOX), PM 10, and PM 2.5 and degrade air quality. The 13 EIR analysis indicates that vehicle trips are the primary source of these emissions. (DEIR, pp. 3.2-13 14 and 3.2-14, and table 3.2-5) The EIR includes mitigation measures that would reduce the level of this 15 impact. (FEIR, pp. 4-6 to 4-8, Air Quality mitigation measures 3.2.2a, 3.2.2b and 3.2.2c) The 16 mitigation measures include: incorporating building and site design features that achieve a building 17 energy efficiency rating greater than the Title 24 requirement; incorporating sustainability features 18 into the project, including the use of locally extracted building materials where feasible, 19 pre-manufactured building components to reduce construction waste, pre-manufactured wall panels 20 with insulation designed to conserve energy by increasing R-value and solar reflectivity, reflective 21 roof material that complies with requirements for USEPA’s Energy Star energy efficiency program, 22 skylights as part of a daylight harvesting system, tree planting to reduce summer heat gain in the 23 parking lot, plant palette that includes a substantial amount of drought tolerant species, and an 24 irrigation system that minimizes water use and ensures water goes directly to the intended planting 25 area; implementation of measures to reduce motor vehicle trips and operational emissions, including 26 promoting the use of alterative fueled vehicles and equipment and providing incentives for 27 employees to use alternative transportation, such as carpool/vanpool, transit, bicycling, or walking; 28 and use of low VOC coatings. 29 The Project Proponent commits to these mitigation measures relating to operational emissions as 30 conditions of approval for the rezoning and site development permit. The EIR concludes, however, 31 Costco Wholesale Project Environmental Impact Report City Council Resolution December 4, 2013 13 that the implementation of these mitigation measures would not reduce the impact to a less than 1 significant level and, therefore, the City Council finds that the impact would be significant and 2 unavoidable because specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, make 3 infeasible any further mitigation of operational emissions to a level considered less than significant. 4 Cumulative Impact (Operational Emissions): The EIR concluded that construction and 5 operation of the Project would result in cumulatively considerable increases in criteria pollutant 6 emissions. (DEIR, pp. 3.2-16 and 3.2-17) The EIR identifies the same mitigation measures for 7 cumulative emission impacts as for operational emissions impacts (implementation of Air Quality 8 mitigation measures 3.2.2a through 3.2.2c). 9 The Project Proponent commits to these mitigation measures relating to the cumulative impact of 10 operational emissions as conditions of approval for the rezoning and site development permit. The 11 EIR concludes, however, that the implementation of these mitigation measures would not reduce the 12 impact to a less than significant level and, therefore, the City Council finds that the impact would be 13 significant and unavoidable because specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other 14 considerations, make infeasible any further mitigation of operational emissions to a level considered 15 less than significant. 16 17 16. Global Climate Change. 18 Project Specific Impacts (Operational Emissions): The EIR concludes the Project could 19 generate greenhouse gas emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment. (DEIR, 20 pp. 3.11-16 to 3.11-18 and table 3.11-3) The EIR includes mitigation measures that would reduce 21 this impact (implementation of Air Quality mitigation measures 3.2.2a through 3.2.2c). The 22 mitigation measures include: incorporating building and site design features that achieve a building 23 energy efficiency rating greater than the Title 24 requirement; incorporating sustainability features 24 into the project, including the use of locally extracted building materials where feasible, 25 pre-manufactured building components to reduce construction waste, pre-manufactured wall panels 26 with insulation designed to conserve energy by increasing R-value and solar reflectivity, reflective 27 roof material that complies with requirements for USEPA’s Energy Star energy efficiency program, 28 skylights as part of a daylight harvesting system, tree planting to reduce summer heat gain in the 29 parking lot, plant palette that includes a substantial amount of drought tolerant species, and an 30 irrigation system that minimizes water use and ensures water goes directly to the intended planting 31 Costco Wholesale Project Environmental Impact Report City Council Resolution December 4, 2013 14 area; implementation of measures to reduce motor vehicle trips and operational emissions, including 1 promoting the use of alterative fueled vehicles and equipment and providing incentives for 2 employees to use alternative transportation, such as carpool/vanpool, transit, bicycling, or walking; 3 and use of low VOC coatings. These are the same mitigation measures included for Air Quality 4 operational emissions. The Project Proponent commits to these mitigation measures relating to 5 global climate change as conditions of approval for the rezoning and site development permit. The 6 EIR concludes that the implementation of these mitigation measures would not reduce the impact to 7 a less than significant level and that this impact would remain significant and unavoidable; therefore, 8 the City Council finds that the impact would be significant and unavoidable because specific economic, 9 legal, social, technological, or other considerations, make infeasible any further mitigation of 10 greenhouse gas emissions to a level considered less than significant. 11 12 FINDINGS REGARDING UNMITIGATED ADVERSE IMPACTS 13 The EIR has identified the following seven significant and unavoidable impacts that, as 14 explained in the preceding sections, are subject to mitigation measures that will substantially 15 lessen their adverse environmental impacts, but those impacts cannot be successfully mitigated or 16 avoided to a level of insignificance. 17 1. Transportation and Traffic Impact 3.10.1: Implementation of the Project would increase traffic 18 volumes on area roadways under Existing Plus Project conditions (Final EIR, p. ES-11). 19 2. Transportation and Traffic Impact 3.10.3: Implementation of the Project would increase traffic 20 volumes on area roadways Near-Term conditions (Final EIR, p. ES-12). 21 3. Transportation and Traffic Impact 3.10.4: Implementation of Project would increase traffic 22 volumes on area roadways under Future (2030) conditions (Final EIR, p. ES-12). 23 4. Transportation and Traffic Impact 3.10.5: Under Future plus Project conditions, traffic associated 24 with the Project would contribute to inadequate queuing storage at Talmage Road/Airport Park 25 Boulevard and Talmage Road/US 101 Southbound Off-ramp (Final EIR, p. ES-12). 26 The EIR identifies improvements to the intersection of the Highway 101 southbound 27 intersection with Talmage Road that would mitigate the impacts identified above. These 28 improvements are currently being undertaken by the City of Ukiah as a separate 29 City-sponsored (“Talmage Interchange Improvement Project”). The purpose of this Project is 30 Costco Wholesale Project Environmental Impact Report City Council Resolution December 4, 2013 15 to remedy the existing and future queuing conditions described above and to make traffic and 1 circulation to serve future build-out of the Airport Industrial Park, as well as the future 2 circulation needs in the immediate area and to accommodate population growth. 3 Improvements within Caltrans right-of-way will require Caltrans approval of design plans and 4 an encroachment permit. The City has been in consultation with Caltrans throughout the 5 design phase of the Talmage Interchange Improvements and Caltrans agrees that 6 improvements to the interchange are needed. 7 8 Although the City has identified potential funding sources for these improvements, 9 including a possible grant under the Entitlement Communities Community Development 10 Block Grant (“CDBG”) program; proceeds from the 2011 Series A Tax Allocation Bonds 11 issued by the City’s former redevelopment agency and a loan from the California 12 Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (“iBank”), as of the consideration of the 13 EIR and proposed Project, funding for these improvements has not been secured. However, 14 Mitigation Measure3.10.1 requires that the Project funding must be obligated prior to the 15 issuance of a building permit for the Project and the interchange improvements 16 substantially completed prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the Project. 17 Nevertheless, without funding for the improvements necessary to mitigate the impacts 18 identified in the EIR, the impacts remain significant and unavoidable, if the Project is 19 completed. While Transportation and Traffic mitigation measure 3.10.1 should prevent 20 adverse traffic impacts from occurring, the adverse air quality and greenhouse gas 21 emission impacts associated with Project traffic remain significant and unavoidable. 22 23 5. Air Quality Impact 3.2.2: Operation of the Project would generate significant emissions of 24 criteria air pollutants that could contribute to existing nonattainment conditions and degrade 25 air quality (Final EIR, p. ES-3). 26 6. Air Quality Impact 3.2.5: Construction and operation of the Project would result in 27 cumulatively considerable increases in criteria pollutant emissions (Final EIR, p. ES-5). 28 7. Global Climate Change Impact 3.11.1: The Project could generate GHG emissions that may 29 have a significant impact on the environment or conflict with an applicable plan, policy or 30 regulation adopted to reduce GHG emissions (Final EIR, p. ES-12). 31 Costco Wholesale Project Environmental Impact Report City Council Resolution December 4, 2013 16 For the following reasons, the City Council finds that specific economic, legal, social, 1 technological or other considerations make infeasible the project alternatives identified in the EIR. 2 3 The primary City objectives of the proposed Project, as explained in the DEIR, p. 2-5, are to: 4 locate regional retail development within the existing commercial areas; locate retail development 5 within existing commercial areas of the City; enhance the retail opportunities within the City of Ukiah; 6 fulfill the City’s role as a regional retail center and reduce the number of vehicle trips to retail centers 7 in Sonoma County and thereby reduce regional air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions; further 8 develop the Airport Industrial Park in accordance with the City’s general plan and Ordinance No. 1098; 9 encourage development that generates enough revenue for the City to pay for the City services 10 received by the development; and encourage urban design that enhances the US 101 corridor. 11 The primary Project Proponent’s objectives, as explained in the DEIR, p. 2-5, are to: provide 12 a Costco facility on a site with good access in a central location within the trade area; provide a Costco 13 facility in a location that is convenient to employees to travel to work; increase the number of 14 employees and contribute to a jobs/housing balance; provide a Costco facility to better serve Costco 15 members within the greater Ukiah area; and enhance the area with an economically viable 16 development which is architecturally designed to be sensitive to the Ukiah community and compatible 17 with Costco’s needs for a new warehouse. 18 19 The traffic, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions impacts that cannot be mitigated result 20 from the vehicle trips associated with the Project. Consideration of an alternative location or a 21 reduced Project size would not reduce the level of traffic, air quality, or greenhouse gas emissions to 22 less than significant levels. Due to the nature of the Project, which sells limited numbers of goods in 23 bulk quantities, the Project relies on vehicles for the delivery of goods and customer trips. In order to 24 reduce the air quality and greenhouse gas emissions impacts to a less than significant level, the 25 number of vehicle trips would need to be reduced to two-percent (2%) of the number of trips 26 estimated for the Project (see FIER, pp. 3-75 to 3-76, response to comment 18). This reduction in 27 vehicle trips would make the Project financially infeasible for the Project Proponent. 28 29 30 31 Costco Wholesale Project Environmental Impact Report City Council Resolution December 4, 2013 17 FINDINGS REGARDING THE FEASIBILITY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES DISCUSSED IN 1 EIR. The following social, economic, legal, technological, and other considerations make the three 2 alternatives identified and analyzed in the EIR infeasible. The three alternatives are: 1) no project 3 alternative; 2) alternative location; and 3) reduced project alternative. 4 5 1. No Project Alternative. Under the No Project Alternative, the Project would not 6 be undertaken and the site would not be developed. This alternative would reduce most of the 7 impacts associated with the Project; however, this alternative would not achieve any of the Project 8 objectives (DEIR, p. 2.5). Under this alternative, there are transportation and traffic impacts under 9 the following conditions: under existing conditions, the maximum queue exceeds available storage 10 for the Talmage Road/US 101 Southbound Off-Ramp right turn; under near-term (baseline) 11 conditions, the maximum queue exceeds available storage for the Talmage Road/Airport Park 12 Boulevard westbound left turn and the storage for the Talmage Road/US 101 Southbound Off-Ramp 13 right turn; and under Future (2030) conditions, the maximum queue exceeds available storage for 14 the Talmage Road/Airport Park Boulevard westbound left turn and the storage for the Talmage 15 Road/US 101 Southbound Off-Ramp right turn. 16 The no project alternative is not feasible, because it would not achieve any of the project 17 objectives and does not eliminate existing traffic congestion problems. 18 19 2. Alternative Location. This alternative would locate the Project on the west side of 20 Airport Park Boulevard across from the currently proposed location on three separate parcels totaling 21 14.69 acres. Since the location of this alternative is similar to the proposed Project location, Urban 22 Decay, Geology and Soils, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use, Noise, Public Services and Utilities, 23 Cultural Resources, and Biological Resources impacts would be similar to the Proposed Project. 24 This alternative site is located in Airport Compatibility Zone B1 of the Mendocino County 25 Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan, which is more restrictive than Zone C (the zone in which the 26 proposed Project is located). The purpose of the compatibility criteria is to assure compatibility with 27 noise and safety criteria for uses and development located within the boundaries of the CLUP. (Ukiah 28 Municipal Airport Master Plan, p. 7-10) The Costco store is considered an “intensive retail” use, a use 29 considered “Not Normally Acceptable” in the B1 zone. Development in this location within the B1 zone 30 would be subject to more restrictive development conditions than development of the proposed site 31 Costco Wholesale Project Environmental Impact Report City Council Resolution December 4, 2013 18 which is in zone C. Although the Project may be allowed in this location if determined to be 1 consistent with the commercial uses allowed, it may exceed the allowed development density or be 2 inconsistent with other criteria established to the safety and compatibility of ensure uses located 3 within the CLUP. If the density exceeded the density allowed in the B1, the impact would be equal or 4 greater than the proposed Project (DEIR, p. 5-9 and 5-10, Hazards and Hazardous Materials). Denser 5 development means more people per acre, which means more people potentially impacted by an 6 aviation accident (plane crash) on the site. The B1 Compatibility zone is an area of “substantial risk” 7 as opposed to the currently proposed Costco site, which is located within the C Zone, an area of 8 “limited risk” (Table 7A Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan Report, July 1996). 9 If the Project at this alternative location was found to be inconsistent with the Mendocino 10 County Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan as discussed above, the Project would be inconsistent 11 with applicable plans and regulations, resulting in a potentially significant Land Use and Planning 12 impact which does not exist at the proposed location for the Project. 13 The construction and operational activities under this alternative would be similar to the 14 proposed Project since it is served by and would receive access from the same street network. 15 Therefore, this alternative would generate a similar number of vehicle trips as the proposed Project. 16 This similar number of vehicle trips would result in similar traffic, air quality, and greenhouse gas 17 emissions impacts as the proposed Project. The traffic, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions 18 impacts would remain significant and unavoidable under this alternative (DEIR, pp. 5-8 to 5-11 and 19 FEIR, p. 4-14). 20 Because the alternative location alternative poses the potential for increased impacts in other 21 areas not posed by the proposed project (i.e., hazards and land use compatibility), and it would not 22 achieve substantially different or reduced impacts as compared to the proposed project in other areas, 23 this alternative is considered less desirable from a policy standpoint by the City Council and is 24 therefore considered infeasible. 25 26 3. Reduced Project Size Alternative. This Reduced Project Size Alternative (No Fuel 27 Station) would remove the fueling station from the Project, which would eliminate 492 p.m. peak 28 hour vehicle trips. The construction related impacts of this alternative would be similar to the 29 proposed Project. The elimination of 492 vehicle trips would still not reduce the Existing plus Project, 30 Near-Term plus Project, or Future (2030) traffic impacts to a less than significant level and the impact 31 Costco Wholesale Project Environmental Impact Report City Council Resolution December 4, 2013 19 would remain significant and unavoidable under this alternative (DEIR, pp. 5-6 to 5-8, and 5-11, FEIR, 1 p. 4-14). 2 The removal of the fueling station would reduce emissions from mobile and area sources by 3 eliminating 492 p.m. peak house vehicle trips and the need for fueling trucks. This reduction in 4 vehicle trips would reduce the area and mobile source emissions associated with the Project; 5 however, the impact would still not be reduced to a less than significant level (FEIR, p. 3-45, response 6 to comment #3). The air quality impact and global climate change impacts, although reduced, would 7 remain significant and unavoidable under this alternative (DEIR, pp. 5-6 to 5-8, and 5-11, FEIR, p. 8 4-14). 9 Based on the market data in the fiscal impact report and the Urban Decay Analysis, the 10 Project location produces substantially less revenue. Costco representatives have indicated that 11 gasoline sales are an essential service they provide their membership. Their current business 12 model relies on gasoline sales as part of the profitability for a warehouse. They have indicated 13 further that gasoline sales are a very important component to making the Ukiah warehouse 14 profitable given the smaller population base this warehouse would draw from. For these reasons, 15 the Costco representatives have indicated further that a no fueling station alternative would not 16 meet their objectives for the project. (November 25, 2013 email from Michael Okuma, Costco) 17 Additionally, because the reduced project size alternative would not achieve substantially reduced 18 impacts as compared to the proposed project and would not provide an additional local fueling option 19 for City residents, this alternative is considered less desirable from a policy standpoint by the City 20 Council. For all of the foregoing reasons, and any of them individually, this alternative is therefore 21 determined to be infeasible. 22 23 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 24 25 As set forth in the preceding sections, approving the proposed project will result in some 26 significant adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided even with the adoption of all 27 feasible mitigation measures. As determined above, however, there are no feasible alternatives to 28 the project that would mitigate or substantially lessen the impacts. Despite these effects, the City 29 Council, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15093, chooses to approve the project 30 because, in its judgment, the following economic, social, and other benefits that the project will 31 Costco Wholesale Project Environmental Impact Report City Council Resolution December 4, 2013 20 produce will render the significant effects acceptable. 1 2 Any one of these reasons is sufficient to justify approval of the project. Thus, even if a court were 3 to conclude that not every reason is supported by substantial evidence, the City would stand by its 4 determination that each individual reason is sufficient. The substantial evidence supporting the 5 various benefits can be found in the preceding findings, which are incorporated by reference into 6 this section, and in the documents found in the Record of Proceedings. 7 8 The Project Would Further Develop the Airport Industrial Park Planned 9 Development. The Airport Industrial Park was approved in 1981 with most of the land 10 area within the AIP designated for industrial uses, with office/commercial and highway 11 oriented commercial uses allowed between Talmage Road and Commerce Drive (Use 12 Permit 81-59). In 1991, the AIP was amended to expand the locations where commercial 13 uses were allowed to include part of the area south Commerce Drive between US 101 and 14 Airport Park Boulevard (Use Permit 91-4). In 1992 Ordinance 929 was approved in order to 15 allow general commercial uses in addition to Highway Oriented Commercial uses in the 16 area bounded by Talmage Road, Commerce Drive, US101, and Airport Park Boulevard 17 (Ordinance 929). 18 In 1996, Ordinance 964 was adopted to make the following changes to the land use 19 designations: Industrial/Commercial to Retail Commercial; Office/Commercial to 20 Professional Office; and Highway Oriented Commercial/General Commercial to Highway 21 Oriented Commercial. This amendment increased the amount of land that allowed 22 commercial uses and correspondingly decreased the amount of land designated for 23 industrial uses. In 1996, Ordinances 979 and 991 further amended the AIP to change the 24 designation of approximately 16 acres of land from Industrial to Industrial/Auto 25 Commercial. In 1999, Ordinance 1024 amended the AIP PD to change the designation of 26 the land bounded by Commerce Drive, Airport Road, Airport Park Boulevard and the 27 railroad tracks from Industrial to Industrial/Mixed Use. The purpose of the amendment 28 was to provide flexibility in the types of allowed and permitted land uses that can occur in 29 the designated area and to allow compatible uses that can co-exist, support one another, 30 and contribute to the goal of creating a self-sustaining employment and commercial center 31 Costco Wholesale Project Environmental Impact Report City Council Resolution December 4, 2013 21 within the AIP (Ordinance 1024). In 2000, Ordinance 1030 expanded the commercial uses 1 allowed in the Professional Office designation to include hotels and sit-down restaurants. 2 In 2004, Ordinance 1051 changed the land designated Industrial/Mixed Use to Light 3 Industrial/Mixed Use. The purpose of this land use designation was to provide for a 4 compatible mix of light manufacturing activities, commercial land uses, professional 5 offices, and limited low-density residential uses (Ordinance 1051). 6 The proposed Project would amend the AIP to change the land use designation of 7 15.33 acres from Industrial/Auto Commercial and Light Manufacturing/Mixed Use to Retail 8 Commercial. This is consistent with the amendments to the AIP that have occurred since 9 the original approval of the AIP. These amendments are a reflection of an increase in 10 demand for land that could be developed with commercial uses and a corresponding 11 decrease in the demand for industrial properties. Approval of the amendment would allow 12 development of land that has remained undeveloped for more than 30 years. The shift 13 from industrial development to commercial development also reflects the lack of demand 14 for industrial uses and Ukiah’s place as a regional as well as local destination for 15 commercial goods and services. The Project could also assist with the development of the 16 remaining vacant land within the AIP since there is the potential for other businesses to 17 locate near Costco. Costco provides an opportunity for greater market visibility of the AIP 18 and may also act as a draw for other retailers (DEIR, p. 3.3-17) 19 20 The Project would Recapture Retail Sales Leakage. The City of Ukiah and Airport 21 Park Planned Development provide local and regional retail serving commercial areas. 22 The Project would expand the retail offerings in the AIP PD and City of Ukiah, thereby 23 recapturing sales lost through leakage. Leakage represents the demands for goods by 24 market area residents that are not met within the market area. Therefore, these market 25 area residents shop in retail centers outside of the market area (such as Santa Rosa and 26 Rohnert Park). 27 In 2011 the Project’s market area, which includes the City of Ukiah, experienced 28 $188.1 million in retail sales leakage annually in the categories of motor vehicle and parts 29 dealers, home furnishings and appliances, building materials and garden equipment, 30 Costco Wholesale Project Environmental Impact Report City Council Resolution December 4, 2013 22 clothing and clothing accessories, general merchandise stores, food services and drinking 1 places, and other retail (DEIR, p.3.3-14 and DEIR, Appendix F, Exhibit 16). 2 Given the broad range of products sold at Costco, all of the leakage categories are 3 relevant to the Project. Recaptured sales leakage, not including sales recaptured from the 4 Santa Rosa and Rohnert Park Costco stores, is estimated to be $20.5 million (DEIR, p. 5 3.3-16, table 3.3-2 and pp. 3.3-14 to 3.3-17). In addition, the Project would recapture 6 Costco sales made by market area residents at the Santa Rosa and Rohnert Park Costco 7 stores. This recaptured leakage is estimated to be $20 million. Total recaptured leakage 8 is estimated to be $40.5 million. (DEIR, p. 3.3-17) 9 The remaining retail sales leakage for the market area is estimated to be $363.8 10 million in the categories of motor vehicle and parts dealers, building materials and garden 11 equipment, clothing and clothing accessories, general merchandise stores, and food 12 services and drinking places. Therefore, the demands of market area residents for 13 products within these categories would not be completely met with the Project. This 14 provides opportunities for new retail development within the market area and for existing 15 retailers to position their businesses to fill the unmet demand for products in these 16 categories. (DEIR, p. 3.3-17) 17 18 The Project would enhance the retail opportunities within the City of Ukiah. 19 The Ukiah Costco store would include the sales of over 4,000 products in the categories of 20 motor vehicle and parts dealers, home furnishings and appliances, building materials, food 21 and beverage, clothing and accessories, general merchandise, food services and drinking 22 places, and other retail (DEIR, p. 3.3-13, table 3.3-1). As stated above, the market area 23 currently experiences leakage in the categories of motor vehicle and parts sales, home 24 furnishings and appliances, building materials and garden equipment, clothing and 25 clothing accessories, general merchandise stores, food services and drinking places, and 26 other retail. The Project would increase the retail offerings in categories that experience 27 leakage which would expand the retail opportunities within Ukiah and allow Ukiah and 28 market area residents to shop in Ukiah. (DEIR, pp. 3.3-14 to 3.3-17) 29 30 31 Costco Wholesale Project Environmental Impact Report City Council Resolution December 4, 2013 23 The Project would locate local and regional serving retail within an existing 1 commercial area in the City of Ukiah. Costco is a business that draws from a large 2 market area as demonstrated by the market area identified for the Project (DEIR, pp. 3.3-2 3 and 3.3-5, and figure 3.3-2). This is further exemplified by the number of Costco members 4 that have Ukiah addresses or that are located within the market area. In 2012, there were 5 18,288 Costco members with Ukiah addresses, not all within the incorporated City limits. 6 These members made 201,809 trips to the Santa Rosa and Rohnert Park Costco stores in 7 2012. In 2011, there were 18,335 Costco members within the Project market area. 8 The Project would provide local and regional serving retail within the AIP which is 9 an area that has been developed with local and regional serving businesses. The AIP is an 10 area that has been designated by the City as an area appropriate for regional commercial 11 development based, in part, on its location adjacent to US 101, access to US 101, and 12 ability to attract commercial development. The demand for commercial development 13 within the AIP has increased over time as exemplified by the amendments to the AIP that 14 have expanded the allowed and permitted commercial uses and increased the amount of 15 land area that allows commercial development. 16 17 The Project would provide an opportunity for residents of the City of Ukiah and 18 greater Ukiah Valley to shop locally. In 2012, there were 18,288 Costco members 19 with Ukiah addresses. These members made 201,809 trips to the Santa Rosa and Rohnert 20 Park Costco stores in 2012. In 2011, there were 18,335 Costco members within the Project 21 market area. In 2011, market area members spent $20.6 million at the Santa Rosa Costco, 22 including $3.3 million in gasoline sales, and $4.9 million at the Rohnert Park Costco, 23 including gasoline sales. It is reasonable to assume that with the construction of a Ukiah 24 Costco store, a portion of these trips would be recaptured and redirected to the Ukiah 25 Costco store (DEIR, p. 3.3-14). 26 27 The Projects would help to fulfill the City’s role as a regional retail center and 28 reduce the number of vehicle trips to retail centers in Sonoma County and 29 thereby reduce regional air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. As stated 30 above, in 2011 and 2012 there were more than 18,000 market area residents with Costco 31 Costco Wholesale Project Environmental Impact Report City Council Resolution December 4, 2013 24 memberships. In 2012, Costco members with Ukiah addresses made 201,809 trips to the 1 Santa Rosa and Rohnert Park Costco stores. Construction of a Ukiah Costco store would 2 allow some of these trips to be redirected to the Ukiah Costco store. 3 The EIR air quality and greenhouse gas emissions analysis indicated that the majority of 4 the emissions generated by operation of the Project was the result of vehicle trips. (DEIR, 5 pp. 3.2-13 to 3.2-15, and table 3.2-5; DEIR, pp. 3.11-16 to 3.11-18 and table 3.11-3) The 6 Project has the potential to reduce regional air pollution since at least some portion of the 7 more than 200,000 annual trips made by Costco members with Ukiah addresses would be 8 redirected to the Ukiah Costco. In order to be conservative in its analysis, the air quality 9 and GHG analysis in the EIR did not include a deduction for potentially redirected vehicle 10 trips. This redirection of trips to the Ukiah Costco store has the potential to reduce vehicle 11 miles traveled in the region and to correspondingly reduce vehicle emissions. The 12 reduction in vehicle emissions could result in a reduction in regional air pollution and 13 greenhouse gas emissions. 14 15 The Project would create employment opportunities within the City. The Project 16 would create 175 to 200 new full and part-time jobs. Sixty-percent of the jobs would be 17 full-time and 40% would be part-time. In January 2012, the unemployment rate in Ukiah 18 was 10.2%. Ukiah has a workforce of 7,160 people with 6,430 people employed, leaving 19 730 people potentially available to fill the 175 to 200 jobs that would be created by the 20 Project. The Project would also create construction jobs. Based on the unemployment 21 rate in Ukiah and the number of people available for employment, some of the construction 22 jobs would be filled by Ukiah residents or people from Ukiah Valley. Construction jobs filled 23 by workers from outside the Ukiah area would benefit the City of Ukiah by increasing 24 lodging, dining, and shopping in the area while these employees work on construction of 25 the Project. 26 27 The Project would create above minimum wage jobs with benefits within the 28 City. Information provided by the applicant provides a sampling of wages: Service 29 Assistant $11.50 - $20.30 per hour; Service Clerk $12.00 - $22.00 per hour; and Meat 30 Cutters $12.00 - $23.50 per hour. (November 14, 2013 email from Jeff Berberich) Entry 31 Costco Wholesale Project Environmental Impact Report City Council Resolution December 4, 2013 25 level managers start between $60,000 and $68,000 per year and senior level managers 1 start between $68,000 and $74,000. (Michael Okuma, Costco, November 21, 2013 2 Planning Commission public comment) 3 Costco provides insurance benefits, including medical, dental, vision, pharmacy, 4 mental health, life insurance, disability, and long-term care. Costco pays 90% of the cost 5 of the insurance and the employee pays 10% of the cost. Costco also provides an 6 employee assistance program, flexible spending accounts, employee stock purchase 7 program, 11 paid holidays, college student retention program, and 401(k). Costco 8 provides a matching contribution to the 401(k) and makes an annual contribution. 9 (Michael Okuma, Costco, November 21, 2013 Planning Commission public comment) 10 Full-time employees receive benefits after 90 days. Part-time employees working more 11 than 23 hours per week receive core medical, dental, and vacation benefits after 6 months 12 and are guaranteed 24 hours per week (Michael Okuma, Costco, public testimony, 13 November 21, 2013 Planning Commission meeting and November 14, 2013 email from Jeff 14 Berberich) 15 Costco has an employee turnover rate of 5.8% after the first year. The industry 16 average is approximately 20%. (Michael Okuma, Costco, November 21, 2013 Planning 17 Commission public comment) 18 19 The Project would provide certainty as to the number and types of jobs 20 created with the development of the project site. Development of the site with the 21 Costco Project would provide the City certainty as to the number and types of jobs created, 22 wages paid, and benefits provided. The number and types of jobs provided, wages paid, 23 and benefits provided by the Costco Project have the potential to be jobs that provide 24 better wages and benefits than if the site were developed with several smaller scale retail 25 and/or service developments that could provide lesser wages and benefits. 26 27 The Project would generate tax revenue for the City allowing the City to fund 28 needed services. The Project would generate additional revenue for the City’s general 29 fund from sales tax, measure S sales tax, property tax, franchise tax, other taxes, licenses, 30 Costco Wholesale Project Environmental Impact Report City Council Resolution December 4, 2013 26 permits, and fees. The gross general fund revenue generated by the Project is estimated 1 to range from $471,194 to $709,149. Measure S sales tax is estimated to range from 2 $198,051 to $308,856. The estimated cost of providing the City services for the Project is 3 $57,477. The net general fund revenue is estimated to range from $413,747 to $651,702, 4 excluding Measure S sales tax, and $611,798 to $960,557, including Measure S sales tax. 5 (Ukiah Costco Fiscal Impact Analysis dated July 2013, p.3, exhibit 1) 6 7 The Project would generate additional revenue for Mendocino County, local 8 school districts, and other special districts. The Project would generate revenue for 9 the County of Mendocino and a variety of special districts due to an increase in property tax 10 revenue and special purpose sales tax, including the 1/8 cent library sales tax and the 1.25% 11 tax funding county law enforcement, mental health, and other Mendocino County services. 12 (Fiscal Impact Analysis, p. 10 and Appendix A, exhibit 4) The property tax revenue 13 generated by the Project is estimated to be: Mendocino County $65,001; Ukiah Unified 14 School District $92,886; Educational Augmentation Funds $42,510; Mendocino Community 15 College $17,420; and Mendocino County Office of Education $11,180. In addition, $15,146 16 would be shared by the library, Russian River Cemetery District, County water agencies, 17 and others. (Ukiah Costco Fiscal Impact Analysis dated July 2013, pp. 4-5) The special 18 purpose sales tax generated for the County would exceed the City sales tax, excluding 19 Measure S. 20 21 The Project would contribute funds to needed infrastructure improvements. In 22 1999, the City Council adopted the Redwood Business Park Capital Improvement Program 23 and associated fee schedule. The Project is required to pay the capital improvement fee 24 which is based on the size of the development. Based on a development area of 15.33 25 acres, the capital improvement fee is estimated to be $152,640 based on the retail and gas 26 station uses of the site and their respective acreages. (memo from Ben Kageyama, Public 27 Works dated November 14, 2013) 28 29 30 Costco Wholesale Project Environmental Impact Report City Council Resolution December 4, 2013 27 The Project would improve pedestrian circulation and expand the use of public 1 transit. The Project would provide the following pedestrian facilities: sidewalks along the 2 Airport Park Boulevard frontage; sidewalks along the northern project frontage; a 3 pedestrian pathway through the parking lot that connects the fueling station to the front of 4 the building; a sidewalk from Airport Park Boulevard along the south elevation of the store 5 to the store entry; and a concrete pad for the installation of a new bus shelter adjacent to 6 the new sidewalk located along the northern project frontage (plans date stamped 7 November 12, 2013). 8 The Project would provide a pad for a bus shelter as shown on the Project plans. 9 Mendocino Transit Authority would provide and install a bus shelter on the created pad and 10 would extend the bus route to serve the Project site (FEIR, Appendix A, letter from MTA 11 dated May 21, 2013). 12 13 The Project includes energy conserving measures. The Project would include 14 energy conservation featu res including: building envelopes insulated to meet or 15 exceed current energy code requirements ; commissioning of mechanical systems ; 16 installation of energy star rated skylights ; reduction in the i nterior warehouse 17 lighting by from 100% to 66% to 33% to 0%, based on daylight con tribution through 18 the skylights; interior and exterior photo sensors to measure d aylight and reduce the 19 amount of lighting based accordingly; l ighting controlled by the overall project 20 energy management system ; parking lot and exte rior lights controlled by a photo 21 sensor and time clock ; use of high -efficiency light source and ballasts (pulse start 22 Ceramic Metal Halide HID) and bi -level switching for fluorescent fixtures ; Cool Roof 23 designs designed to reduce heat transfer through the roof; HVAC comfort systems 24 controlled by a computerized building management system to maximize efficiency ; 25 high efficiency , direct ducted HVAC units ; use of energy efficient Transformers; use 26 of variable speed motors on make -up air units and booster pump s; direct vent g as 27 water heaters that are 94% efficient or greater ; use of recla mation tanks to capture 28 heat released by refrigeration equipment to heat domestic water in lieu of rejecting 29 heat to the outside ; use of pre -engineered metal building for effi ciency and 30 sustainable materials when compared to a f ull height masonry counterparts (results 31 Costco Wholesale Project Environmental Impact Report City Council Resolution December 4, 2013 28 in the consumption of fewer building materials in construction, burning of fewer 1 fossil fuels in transportation since steel contains over 80% recycled content and is 2 100% recyclable ). (Project Description dated November 13, 2013). 3 The Project is subject to the requirements of the California Green Building Code. 4 Air Quality mitigation measure 3.2.2a requires the Project to incorporate sustainability 5 features into the building and site design to achieve a building energy efficiency rating that 6 is greater than the Title 24 requirement in order to reduce energy consumption and 7 associated GHG emissions (FEIR, p. ES-3 and ES-4, FEIR, pp. 5-3 sand 5-4). 8 9 3. Based on the foregoing findings, the benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse air quality and 10 global climate change operational emissions impacts, and traffic and transportation level of serve and 11 queuing impacts. Moreover, Mitigation Measure 3.10.1 (requiring a commitment of funds before a 12 building permit can issue and substantial completion of traffic mitigation improvements before a 13 certificate of occupancy can be issued) and Costco’s declared commitment not to open a Ukiah store 14 for business until the traffic mitigations are complete assures that the traffic mitigations will be 15 completed before the Project generates traffic. 16 Adopted on December 4, 2013 by the following roll call vote: 17 18 AYES: 19 NOES: 20 ABSENT: 21 ABSTAIN: 22 23 _____________________________ 24 Douglas F. Crane, Mayor 25 26 ATTEST: 27 28 29 __________________________________ 30 Kristine Lawler, City Clerk 31