HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Reso 2013-35 - Costco Overriding Considerations ApprovalRESOLUTION NO. 2013-35
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH MAKING FINDINGS
PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE ("PRC") SECTION 21081 AND CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ("CEQA") GUIDELINES SECTION 15091 AND A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH PRC §21081(b)
AND GUIDELINES§15093 IN CONNECTION WITH THE DECISION TO CERTIFY THE COSTCO
WHOLESALE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND APPROVE THE COSTCO
WAREHOUSE STORE AND FUELING STATION PROJECT
WHEREAS:
1. The City Council has certified as adequate and complete an Environmental Impact Report
EIR") for the Costco Wholesale Project. The EIR consists of a Draft Environmental Impact
Report, dated January 2013, ("DEIR"), and a Final Environmental Impact Report, including
responses to comments on the DEIR, dated November 2013, and additional responses to
late comments, dated December 2013, ("FEIR"); and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program; and
2. The Project includes a Rezoning to amend the Airport Industrial Park Planned Development
to change the Land Use Designation of the Costco Project site to Retail Commercial from
Industrial/Auto Commercial and Light Industrial/Mixed Use and a Site Development Permit in
order to allow the construction of a 148,000 square foot membership-based retail store and
20-pump fueling station on a 15.33 acre site on the east side of Airport Park Boulevard
between Ken Fowler Auto Center and the southern terminus of Airport Park Boulevard; and
3. The EIR has identified significant environmental impacts of the Project; and
4. The EIR has determined that not all of the project specifc adverse environmental impacts
can be mitigated to less than signifcant levels; and
5. The Final EIR has found that certain Air Quality, Transportation and Traffic, and Global
Climate Change impacts cannot be mitigated to a level considered less than signifcant; and
6. As stated below, the City Council has made the findings and the statement of overriding
considerations required under CEQA, where, as here, a project has one or more adverse
environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance; and
7. The Project Proponent hereby undertakes a legally binding commitment to comply with the
mitigation measures under the Project ProponenYs control, which are incorporated into the
Project and/or included as conditions of project approval; and
8. The City Council has determined to approve the Project; and
9. The City Council has based its decision on the whole of the record, which includes those
items identifed in Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e), including, but not limited to,
the EIR, induding the appendices to the EIR and the staff reports; and
10. The record of proceedings upon which this decision is based, including the Costco
Warehouse EIR and Costco Warehouse and Fueling Station project file, is maintained in the
office of the Planning and Community Development Department, Civic Center, 300
Seminary Avenue, Ukiah. CA 95482, as the custodians of the record, and is available for i
public inspection upon request of the Director of Planning and Community Development or
his designee; and
1
11. PRC section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines section 15091 provide that the City shall not
approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed which identifies one or
more significant environmental impacts, unless it makes specified findings; and
12. PRC section 21081(b) and CEQA Guidelines section 15093 require a Statement of
Overriding Considerations to approve a project that will have any unmitigated adverse
environmental impacts.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Ukiah finds as follows:
1. The EIR was prepared and made available for public review and comment in full compliance
with the procedures set forth in CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.
2. The EIR was considered by the Planning Commission at a public meeting on November 21,
2013 and the Planning Commission voted 3-1 to recommend the City Council certify the EIR;
and the EIR was considered by the City Council at public meetings on December 4 and
December 18, 2013.
3. The City Council has considered all documents submitted during the public comment period
for the EIR and all testimony presented during its meetings as well as the EIR, the Staff
Reports, dated November 21, 2013, December 4, 2013, and December 18, 2013, the Costco
Warehouse and Fueling Station project files, and the minutes or recording of the November
21, 2013, Planning Commission meeting. The Staff Reports are incorporated herein by
reference. The City Council has independently reviewed and analyzed this resolution and
the EIR and they accurately reflect the Council's judgment.
4. The Project is described in the EIR, including the DEIR at pp. 2-1 to 2-14, and FEIR pp. 4-1 to
4-5. This description is incorporated herein by reference.
5. The EIR evaluated the impacts of the Project itself, as well as its impacts in combination with
impacts from past, present and probable future projects. Those impacts, both individual and
cumulative, along with recommended mitigation measures and suggested conditions, are
summarized in Table ES-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures, FEIR pp. ES-3 to
ES-14.
6. Measures designed to avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of
the Project as identified in the EIR are set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Plan ("Plan"), attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. The
measures constitute binding commitments of the Project Proponent, if the Project is
approved by responsible agencies upon acceptable conditions and undertaken by the
Project Proponent, and those measures shall be incorporated into the Project and monitored
in accordance with the Plan.
a. Aesthetics:
Proiect Specific Impacts (Lipht and Glare): The EIR concluded implementation of the
Project may create a new source of substantial light or glare which could adversely affect
daytime or nighttime views of the area. (DEIR, pp. 3.1-10 to 3.1-11) The EIR identified
mitigation measures that would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. (FEIR,
pp. Aesthetics mitigation measure 3.12) The mitigation measures include: locating,
aiming, or shielding light fixtures to minimize light trespass over property lines; use of full
cut-off and night-time friendly fixtures; preparation of a photometric plan that complies
with specific quantified light levels; and turning off all or 50% of parking lot lighting one
hour after store closure.
The Project Proponent commits to these mitigation measures as conditions of approval
2
for the rezoning and site development permit. [That commitment and all Project
Proponent commitments referenced in these findings will be made conditions of the Site
Development Permit required for the project which is the mechanism for enforcing the
Project Proponent's commitment.] The City Council, therefore, fnds that these mitigation
measures constitute changes or alterations which have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project which will mitigate or avoid or reduce to insignificance the adverse
environmental aesthetic effect of potential light and glare.
b. Geology and Soils:
Proiect Specific Impacts (Seismic Ground Shakinq): The EIR concludes that the Project
could expose people to injury or structures to damage from potential rupture of a known
earthquake fault, strong ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure, or landslides.
DEIR, pp. 3.4-10 to 3.4-13) The EIR includes mitigation measures that would reduce
the seismic ground-shaking impacts to a less than significant level. (Geology and Soils
mitigation measures 3.4.1a) The mitigation measures include: preparation of a
site-specific design level geotechnical report prepared by a registered geotechnical
engineer to be submitted to the Building Inspection Division as part of the building permit
submittal required for construction of the Project; incorporation of the recommendations
included in the geotechnical report into the foundation design, earthwork, and site
preparation Project plans; and that the Project structural engineer review site specific
investigations, provide any additional mitigations necessary to meet Building Code
requirements, and incorporation of all applicabie mitigation measures from the
investigation into the structural design and ensure that all structural plans meet current
Building Code requirements; City review of all Project plans and other relevant
construction permits for compliance with the applicable geotechnical investigation and
Code requirements.
Proiect Specific Impacts (Liquefaction and Earthquake Induced Settlement): The EIR
concludes the Project could expose people to injury or structures to damage from
potential liquefaction and earthquake induced settlement. (DEIR, pp. 3.4-10 to 3.4-13)
The EIR includes mitigation measures that would reduce the liquefaction and earthquake
induced settlement impacts to a less than significant level. (Geology and Soils mitigation
measure 3.4.1b) The mitigation measures include: submittal of a site-specific, design
level geotechnical investigation prepared by a registered geotechnical engineer that
complies with all state and local code requirements, includes site specific mitigations for
mitigation of liquefiable soils; identified mitigations reviewed for compliance with CGS
Geology Guidelines related to protection of public safety from liquefaction; incorporation
of all mitigations in the site specific mitigations into the Project plans for foundation
design, earthwork and site preparation; review of the site specifc recommendations by
the Project structural engineer and the inclusion of recommendations from the Project
structural engineer into the structural design plans and compliance of all structural plans
with current Building Code requirements; registered City geotechnical engineer or third
party engineer retained to review the geotechnical report and site-specific geotechnical
investigation, approve the final report, and require compliance with all geotechnical
mitigations; and City review of Project plans for grading foundations, structural,
infrastructure, and all other relevant construction permits to ensure compliance with the
geotechnical investigation and Code requirements.
Proiect Sqecific Impacts (Fill Soils): The EIR concluded that the Project could be located
on fll soils that are potentially unstable, or that could become unstable as a result of the
Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse. (DEIR p. 3.4.14 to 3.4.15) The EIR includes mitigation measures
that would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. (Geology and Soils
mitigation measures 3.4.1 a and 3.4.1b) The mitigations include all of the mitigations for
3
seismic ground-shaking, liquefaction, and earthquake induced settlement identified
above.
The Project Proponent commits to these mitigation measures for the above-described
effects on geology and soils as conditions of approval for the rezoning and site
development permit. The City Council, therefore, finds that these mitigation measures
constitute changes or alterations which have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which will mitigate or avoid or reduce to insignificance the adverse environmental
effects relating to geology and soils.
c. Hazards and Hazardous Materials:
Proiect Specific Impacts: The EIR concluded that during construction, the Project could
create a hazard to the public or environment through upset or accident conditions
involving the use or release of hazardous materials or the release of hazardous wastes
to the environment resulting from contaminated soil and/or groundwater. (DEIR, p.
3.5-14) Although the available studies suggest no contaminated soil and/or groundwater
would be found on site, mitigation has been included in the unlikely event contamination
is encountered. (Hazards and Hazardous Materials mitigation measure 3.52) The
mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. The
mitigation measure includes: the halting of work if contaminated soil and/or groundwater
is suspected or discovered during Project construction activities; identification of the type
and extent of the contamination in coordination with overseeing authorities; development
of an appropriate method to remediate the contamination; and determination of the
appropriate disposal method.
The Project Proponent commits to these mitigation measures for the above-described
impacts relating to hazards and hazardous materials as conditions of approval for the
rezoning and site development permit. The City Council, therefore, finds that these
mitigation measures constitute changes or alterations which have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project which will mitigate or avoid or reduce to insignifcance the
adverse environmental effect relating to hazards and hazardous materials.
d. Hydrology and Water Quality:
Proiect Specific Imqacts (Dewaterinq and Discharqe): The EIR concluded that
subsurface excavation during Project construction could require dewatering which may
result in a discharge that could adversely affect water quality. (DEIR, p. 3.6-16 to 3 6-17)
The EIR includes mitigation measures that would reduce this impact to a less than
significant level. (Hydrology and Water Quality mitigation measure 3.62) The mitigation
measures include: coordination with the City regarding dewatering activities and
compliance with provisions of the dewatering permit; applicant Submittal of a Report of
Wastewater Discharge and Application for NPDES Permit along with a feasibility study
for the reuse of the groundwater to RWQCB; and discharge flows only upon receipt of the
Discharge Authorization Letter from the RWQCB. (Hydrology and Water Quality
mitigation measure 3.6.2)
Proiect Specific Imqacts (Impervious Surfaces and RunoTfl: The EIR concluded that the
installation of new impervious surfaces associated with the Costco building and parking
lot would increase the impervious surfaces on the site which could decrease stormwater
infiltration and increase stormwater flows, causing downstream flooding, erosion, or
sedimentation. (DEIR, pp. 3.6-17 to 3.6.19) The EIR includes mitigation measures that
would reduce this impact to a level considered less than significant. (Hydrology and
Water Quality mitigation measure 3.6.4) These mitigations include: preparation and
submittal of a Final Drainage Plan by the Applicant to the City Engineer and North Coast
4
Regional Water Quality Control Board for the final design/plan of the Project that includes
the proposed storm drainage system, vegetated swales, and water quality features;
storm water system designed, implemented, and maintained such that there would be no
net increase in Project condition downstream runoff; Final Drainage Plan based on
modeled runoff volumes and flow rates specific to the with-Project conditions; design and
implementation by the Applicant of volume- and/or flow- based Treatment Control Best
Management Practices (BMPs) as defined in attachment 4 of the State Water Resources
Control Board small municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) General Permit;
and submittal of design drawings and any related documents or specifications to the City
of Ukiah and North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to implementation
implementation of Hydrology and Water Quality mitigation measure 3.6.4).
Cumulative Impacts: The EIR concludes implementation of the Project, in conjunction
with other foreseeable development in the City, could result in cumulative hydrology and
water quality impacts. (DEIR, p. 3.6-21 and 3.6-22) The EIR includes mitigation
measures that would reduce this impact to a level that is considered less than significant.
Hydrology and Water Quality mitigation measure 3.6.4) The mitigations include all of
the mitigations for impervious surfaces and runoff as described above (Hydrology and
Water Quality mitigation measure 3.6.4).
The Project Proponent commits to these mitigation measures for the above-described
impacts relating to hydrology and water quality as conditions of approval for the rezoning
and site development permit. The City Council, therefore, finds that these mitigation
measures constitute changes or alterations which have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project which will mitigate or avoid or reduce to insignificance the adverse
environmental effects relating to hydrology and water quality.
e. Biological Resources:
Proiect Specific Impacts (Special Status Species): The EIR concluded
construction-related activities could affect special status species (nesting birds). (DEIR,
pp. 3.12-12 to 3.12-13) The EIR includes mitigation measures that would reduce this
impact to a level considered less than significant. (Biological Resources mitigation
measure 3.12.1) The mitigation measures include: preconstruction survey by a qualifed
biologist of all potential habitats within 30 days of the start of grading or other
construction-related activities if construction will occur during bird nesting season
February 15 through August 31); in the event an active nest is found, a no-work buffer
zone is required or as required by the DepaRment of Fish and Game; and no mitigation is
required if the preconstruction survey indicates nests are inactive or potential habitat is
unoccupied. (Biological Resources mitigation measure 3.12.1)
The Project Proponent commits to these mitigation measures for the above-described
impacts on biological resources (special status species) as conditions of approval for the
rezoning and site development permit. The City Council, therefore, finds that these
mitigation measures constitute changes or alterations which have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project which will mitigate or avoid or reduce to insignificance the
adverse environmental effects on biological resources.
f. Cultural Resources:
Proiect Specifc Impacts (Archeoloqical and Paleontoloqical Resources): The EIR
determined that ground disturbing activities associated with implementation of the
Project could result in a substantial adverse change to previously unknown archeological
or paleontological resources and identified mitigations to reduce this impact to a level
considered less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 3.14-10 to 3.14-11) These mitigation
5
measures include: ceasing activity in the vicinity of the find until the find is evaluated by a
qualified archeologist and a Native American representative; notifying the City of Ukiah in
the event the find may be significant; development of a treatment plan for resources
determined to be significant; and consultation with Native American representatives in
determining the appropriate treatment for prehistoric or Native American cultural
resources. (Cultural Resources mitigation measure 3.14.2)
Proiect Sqecific Impacts (Discoverv of Human Remains): The EIR also determined that
ground disturbing construction activities associated with implementation of the Project
could result in damage to previously unknown human remains and identified mitigation
measures to reduce this impact to a level considered less than significant. (DEIR, p.
3.14-11) These mitigation measures include: compliance with Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5 which requires no further disturbance until the County Coroner has made
the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98;
coroner notification of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in the event
the remains are determined to be of Native American descent; and NAHC determination
of the Most Likely Descendent, who will assist in determining disposition of the remains.
Cultural Resources mitigation measure 3.14.3)
The Project Proponent commits to these mitigation measures for the above-described
cultural resources impacts as conditions of approval for the rezoning and site
development permit. The City Council, therefore, finds that these mitigation measures
constitute changes or alterations which have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which will mitigate or avoid or reduce to insignificance the adverse environmental
effects on cultural resources.
g. Transportation and Traffic (Public Transit, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Facilities):
Proiect Specific Impacts: The EIR determined that implementation of the Project would
conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, pedestrian, or
bicycle facilities or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. (DEIR,
p. 3.10-28) The EIR identified mitigation measures that would reduce this impact to a
less than significant level. (FEIR, Transportation and Traffic mitigation measures 3.10.2a,
3.10.2b, 3.10.2c) These mitigation measures include: providing a location for a bus
shelter on the Project site and construction of a concrete pad for a bus shelter;
construction of sidewalks as shown on the Project plans; installation of high visibility
crosswalks across driveway entrances to the site and installation of ADA compliant curb
ramps; installation of pedestrian connections from the Project frontage and main parking
area to the store entrance; installation of a Class III bike route on Airport Park Boulevard;
and installation of bike parking as required by Airport Industrial Park Planned
Development Ordinance 1098.
The Project Proponent commits to these mitigation measures for the above-described
impacts relating to public transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities as conditions of
approval for the rezoning and site development permit. The City Council, therefore, finds
that these mitigation measures constitute changes or alterations which have been
required in, or incorporated into, the project which will mitigate or avoid or reduce to
insignificance the adverse environmental effects relating to public transit, pedestrian, and
bicycle facilities.
h. Transportation and Traffic (Treffic Volume and Queuing):
1. Proiect Specific Imqacts (Existinq Plus Proiect Conditions) The EIR concludes the
Project would increase traffic volumes on area roadways under Existing Plus Project
Conditions. The analysis in the EIR indicates the level of service (LOS) at the
6
intersection of Airport Park Boulevard/Talmage Road would not meet the acceptable
LOS established by the General Plan. General Plan Circulation and Transportation
implementation measure CT-16.4(e) establishes the acceptable LOS for signalized
intersection and four-way stops as LOS D. Under Existing Plus Project Conditions,
the intersection of Airport Park Boulevard/Talmage Road would operate at LOS E. In
addition, queuing would exceed available storage in two locations: 1) westbound
Talmage Road/Airport Park Boulevard left turn; and 2) southbound Talmage
Road/US 101 Ramp right turn. The EIR traffic study indicates that under existing
conditions (without the Project) both intersections also have queues that exceed
available storage. (DEIR. Appendix E, pp. 10-11)
The EIR includes mitigation measures that would reduce this impact to a level
considered less than significant. The mitigation includes the construction of Talmage
Road Interchange improvements with the provision of two left-turn lanes on the
westbound Talmage Road approach to Airport Park Boulevard (FEIR, Transportation
and Traffic mitigation measure 3.10.1).
2. Cumulative Impacts (Future 2030 Plus Proiect Level of Service): The EIR concludes
that the Project would increase traffic volumes on area roadways under Future
2030) Plus Project Conditions. The analysis in the EIR indicates the level of service
LOS) at three intersections would not meet the acceptable LOS established by the
General Plan. (DEIR, pp. 3.10-33 to 3.10-35) General Plan Circulation and
Transportation implementation measure CT-16.4(e) establishes the acceptable LOS
as LOS D or better. Under Future (2030) Plus Project Conditions, the intersection of
Airport Park Boulevard/Talmage Road would operate at LOS F; the intersection of
Talmage Road/US 101 Southbound Off-Ramp would operate at LOS E; and the
intersection of South State Street would operate at LOS E.
The EIR includes mitigation measures that would reduce this impact to a level
considered less than significant(FEIR, Transportation and Traffic mitigation measure
3.10.1 and 3.10.4). The mitigation measures include: installation of a left-turn lane on
the eastbound approach of South State StreeVHasting Avenue and the construction
of Talmage Road Interchange improvements with the provision of two left-turn lanes
on the westbound Talmage Road approach to Airport Park Boulevard (FEIR,
Transportation and Traffic mitigation measure 3.10.1).
3. Proiect Specific Impacts (Near-Term Plus Proiect): The EIR concludes that the
Project would increase traffic volumes on area roadways under Near-Term
Baseline) Plus Project Conditions. The analysis in the EIR indicates the level of
service (LOS) at two intersections would not meet the acceptable LOS established
by the General Plan. General Plan Circulation and Transportation implementation
measure CT-16.4(e) establishes the acceptable LOS as LOS D or better. Under
Near-Term Plus Project Conditions, the intersection of Airport Park
BoulevardlTalmage Road would operate at LOS E, and the intersection of Talmage
Road/US 101 Southbound Off-Ramp would operate at LOS F. In addition, queuing
would exceed available storage in two locations: 1) westbound Talmage
Road/Airport Park Boulevard left turn; and 2) southbound Talmage Road/US 101
Ramp right turn. The EIR traffic study indicates that under near-term conditions
without the Project), both intersections also have queues that exceed available
storage. (DEIR. Appendix E. pp. 22-23)
The EIR includes mitigation measures that would reduce this impact to a level
considered less than significant (Transportation and Traffic mitigation measure
3.10.3 requires implementation of mitigation measure 3.10.1). The mitigation
includes the construction of Talmage Road Interchange improvements with the
7
provision of two left-turn lanes on the westbound Talmage Road approach to Airport
Park Boulevard.
4. Cumulative Impacts (Future 2030 Queuinq): The EIR concludes that under Future
2030) Plus Project Conditions, the Project would contribute to an existing
inadequate queuing storage condition. The analysis in the EIR indicates queuing
storage would exceed maximum queues at westbound Airport Park
Boulevard/Talmage Road left turn and Talmage Road/US 101 Southbound
Off-Ramp right turn. The EIR traffic study indicates that under Future conditions
without the Project), both intersections also would have queues that exceed
available storage. (DEIR, Appendix E, pp. 27-28) The EIR includes mitigation
measures that would reduce this impact to a level considered less than significant.
Implementation of Transportation and Traffic mitigation measure 3.10.1) The
long-planned mitigation includes the construction of Talmage Road Interchange
improvements with the provision of two left-turn lanes on the westbound Talmage
Road approach to Airport Park Boulevard.
With respect to 14, A-D, above, the improvements which will reduce the adverse
traffic impacts to a level of insignificance are called the "Talmage Road Interchange
Improvements." The City of Ukiah is pursuing the Talmage Road Interchange
Improvements as a separate City-sponsored project, because those improvements
are required for the build-out of the Redwood Business Park, with or without the
Project. Costco is subject to an off-site traffic mitigation fee imposed on parcels in the
Airport Industrial Park pursuant to Government Code Section 66000 et seq. These
fees were imposed to help fund a portion of the Talmage Road Interchange
Improvements and will be used for this purpose. As of the preparation of the EIR,
funding sources for the full cost of theTalmage Road Interchange Improvements
have been identified, but full funding has not yet been secured. However,
Transportation and Traffic mitigation measure 3.10.1 requires that the Project
funding must be obligated prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Project
and the interchange improvements substantially completed prior to issuance of the
certificate of occupancy for the Project (FEIR, p.4-12); thus assuring that no
Project-related traffic will be allowed to occur before these City-sponsored traffic
mitigations are funded and substantially completed.
A portion of the Talmage Road Interchange Improvements (Southbound Hwy 101
off-ramp and Talmage intersection reconstruction, "Cal Trans Improvements") is
within the California Department of Transportation ("Cal Trans") right of way and
subject to its jurisdiction. The remaining improvements at Airport Park Boulevard and
Talmage Road (`City Improvements") are within the City's rights of way and subject
to its jurisdiction. The City can design and construct the City Improvements but the
design and construction of the Cal Trans Improvements are within Cal Trans'
jurisdiction and are its responsibility. If funding were not secured for the Cal Trans
Improvements or Cal Trans does not approve the timely construction of those
improvements, the City Council finds that the above-described traffic impacts would
be significant and unavoidable because specific economic, legal, social,
technological, or other considerations (lack of funding or timely approval by Cal
Trans), make infeasible any further mitigation of them.
i. Air Quality:
Proiect Specific Impacts (Operational Emissionsl: The EIR concluded that operation of
the Project would generate significant emissions of criteria air pollutants that could
contribute to existing nonattainment conditions for nitrous oxide (NOX), PM 10, and PM
2.5 and degrade air quality. The EIR analysis indicates that vehicle trips are the primary
8
source of these emissions. (DEIR, pp. 3.2-13 and 3.2-14, and table 32-5) The EIR
includes mitigation measures that would reduce the level of this impact. (FEIR, pp. 4-6 to
4-8, Air Quality mitigation measures 322a, 322b and 3.2.2c) The mitigation measures
include: incorporating building and site design features that achieve a building energy
efficiency rating greater than the Title 24 requirement; incorporating sustainability
features into the project, including the use of locally extracted building materials where
feasible, pre-manufactured building components to reduce construction waste,
pre-manufactured wall panels with insulation designed to conserve energy by increasing
R-value and solar reflectivity, reflective roof material that complies with requirements for
USEPA's Energy Star energy efficiency program, skylights as part of a daylight
harvesting system, tree planting to reduce summer heat gain in the parking lot, plant
palette that includes a substantial amount of drought tolerant species, and an irrigation
system that minimizes water use and ensures water goes directly to the intended
planting area; implementation of ineasures to reduce motor vehicle trips and operational
emissions, induding promoting the use of alterative fueled vehicles and equipment and
providing incentives for employees to use altemative transportation, such as
carpooVvanpool, transit, bicycling, or walking; and use of low VOC coatings.
The Project Proponent commits to these mitigation measures relating to operational
emissions as conditions of approval for the rezoning and site development permit. The
EIR concludes, however, that the implementation of these mitigation measures would
not reduce the impact to a less than significant level and, therefore, the City Council finds
that the impact would be significant and unavoidable because specific economic, legal.
social, technological, or other considerations, make infeasible any further mitigation of
operational emissions to a level considered less than significant.
Cumulative Impact (Operational Emissions): The EIR concluded that construction and
operation of the Project would result in cumulatively considerable increases in criteria
pollutant emissions. (DEIR, pp. 32-16 and 3.2-17)The EIR identifies the same mitigation
measures for cumulative emission impacts as for operational emissions impacts
implementation of Air Quality mitigation measures 3.2.2a through 322c).
The Project Proponent commits to these mitigation measures relating to the cumulative
impact of operational emissions as conditions of approval for the rezoning and site
development permit. The EIR concludes, however, that the implementation of these
mitigation measures would not reduce the impact to a less than significant level and,
therefore, the City Council finds that the impact would be significant and unavoidable
because specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, make
infeasible any further mitigation of operational emissions to a level considered less than
significant.
j. Global Ciimate Change:
Proiect Specific Impacts (Operational Emissions): The EIR concludes the Project could
generate greenhouse gas emissions that may have a significant impact on the
environment. (DEIR, pp. 3.11-16 to 3.11-18 and table 3.11-3) The EIR includes
mitigation measures that would reduce this impact (implementation of Air Quality
mitigation measures 322a through 3.2.2c). The mitigation measures include:
incorporating building and site design features that achieve a building energy effciency
rating greater than the Title 24 requirement; incorporating sustainability features into the
project, including the use of locally extracted building materials where feasible,
pre-manufactured building components to reduce construction waste, pre-manufactured
wall panels with insulation designed to conserve energy by increasing R-value and solar
reflectivity, reflective roof material that complies with requirements for USEPA's Energy
Star energy efficiency program, skylights as part of a daylight harvesting system, tree
9
planting to reduce summer heat gain in the parking lot, plant palette that includes a
substantial amount of drought tolerant species, and an irrigation system that minimizes
water use and ensures water goes directly to the intended planting area; implementation
of ineasures to reduce motor vehicle trips and operational emissions, including
promoting the use of alterative fueled vehicles and equipment and providing incentives
for employees to use alternative transportation, such as carpool/vanpool, transit,
bicycling, or walking; and use of low VOC coatings. These are the same mitigation
measures included for Air Quality operational emissions. The Project Proponent
commits to these mitigation measures relating to global climate change as conditions of
approval for the rezoning and site development permit. The EIR concludes that the
implementation of these mitigation measures would not reduce the impact to a less than
significant level and that this impact would remain significant and unavoidable; therefore,
the City Council finds that the impact would be significant and unavoidable because
specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, make infeasible
any further mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions to a level considered less than
significant.
FINDINGS REGARDING UNMITIGATED ADVERSE IMPACTS:
The EIR has identified the following seven significant and unavoidable impacts that, as explained
in the preceding sections, are subject to mitigation measures that will substantially lessen their
adverse environmental impacts, but those impacts cannot be successfully mitigated or avoided to
a level of insignificance.
1. Transportation and Traffic Impact 3.10.1: Implementation of the Project would increase traffic
volumes on area roadways under Existing Plus Project conditions (Final EIR, p. ES-11).
2. Transportation and Traffic Impact 3.10.3: Implementation of the Project would increase traffic
volumes on area roadways Near-Term conditions (Final EIR, p. ES-12).
3. Transportation and Traffic Impact 3.10.4: Implementation of Project would increase traffc
volumes on area roadways under Future (2030) conditions (Final EIR, p. ES-12).
4. Transportation and Traffic Impact 3.10.5: Under Future plus Project conditions, traffic associated
with the Project would contribute to inadequate queuing storage at Talmage Road/Airport Park
Boulevard and Talmage Road/US 101 Southbound Off-ramp (Final EIR, p. ES-12).
The EIR identifies improvements to the intersection of the Highway 101 southbound
intersection with Talmage Road that would mitigate the impacts identified above. These
improvements are currently being undertaken by the City of Ukiah as a separate
City-sponsored ("Talmage Interchange Improvement ProjecY'). The purpose of this Project is
to remedy the existing and future queuing conditions described above and to make traffic and
circulation to serve future build-out of the Airport Industrial Park, as well as the future
circulation needs in the immediate area and to accommodate population growth.
Improvements within Caltrans right-of-way will require Caltrans approval of design plans and
an encroachment permit. The City has been in consultation with Caltrans throughout the
design phase of the Talmage Interchange Improvements and Caltrans agrees that
improvements to the interchange are needed.
Although the City has identified potential funding sources for these improvements, including a
possible grant under the Entitlement Communities Community Development Block Grant
CDBG") program; proceeds from the 2011 Series A Tax Allocation Bonds issued by the
City's former redevelopment agency and a loan from the California lnfrastructure and
Economic Development Bank ("iBank"), as of the consideration of the EIR and proposed
Project, funding for these improvements has not been secured. However, Mitigation
10
Measure3.10.1 requires that the Project funding must be obligated prior to the issuance of a
building permit for the Project and the interchange improvements substantially completed
prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the Project. Nevertheless, without funding
for the improvements necessary to mitigate the impacts identified in the EIR, the impacts
remain significant and unavoidable, if the Project is completed. While Transportation and
Traffic mitigation measure 3.10.1 should prevent adverse traffic impacts from occurring, the
adverse air quality and greenhouse gas emission impacts associated with Project traffic
remain significant and unavoidable.
5. Air Quality Impact 3.2.2: Operation of the Project would generate significant emissions of criteria
air pollutants that could contribute to existing nonattainment conditions and degrade air quality
Final EIR, p. ES-3).
6. Air Quality Impact 3.2.5: Construction and operation of the Project would result in cumulatively
considerable increases in criteria pollutant emissions (Final EIR, p. ES-5).
7. Global Climate Change Impact 3.11.1: The Project could generate GHG emissions that may
have a significant impact on the environment or conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted to reduce GHG emissions (Final EIR, p. ES-12).
For the following reasons, the City Council finds that specific economic, legal, social,
technological or other considerations make infeasible the project alternatives identified in the
EIR.
The primary City objectives of the proposed Project, as explained in the DEIR, p. 2-5, are to:
locate regional retail development within the existing commercial areas; locate retail
development within existing commercial areas of the City; enhance the retail opportunities within
the City of Ukiah; fulfill the City's role as a regional retail center and reduce the number of vehicle
trips to retail centers in Sonoma County and thereby reduce regional air pollution and
greenhouse gas emissions; further develop the Airport Industrial Park in accordance with the
City's general plan and Ordinance No. 1098; encourage development that generates enough
revenue for the City to pay for the City services received by the development; and encourage
urban design that enhances the US 101 corridor.
The primary Project ProponenYs objectives, as explained in the DEIR, p. 2-5, are to: provide a
Costco facility on a site with good access in a central location within the trade area; provide a
Costco facility in a location that is convenient to employees to travel to work; increase the
number of employees and contribute to a jobs/housing balance; provide a Costco facility to
better serve Costco members within the greater Ukiah area; and enhance the area with an
economically viable development which is architecturally designed to be sensitive to the Ukiah
community and compatible with Costco's needs for a new warehouse.
The trafFic, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions impacts that cannot be mitigated result
from the vehicle trips associated with the Project. Consideration of an alternative location or a
reduced Project size would not reduce the level of traffic, air quality, or greenhouse gas
emissions to less than significant levels. Due to the nature of the Project, which sells limited
numbers of goods in bulk quantities, the Project relies on vehicles for the delivery of goods and
customer trips. In order to reduce the air quality and greenhouse gas emissions impacts to a
less than significant level, the number of vehide trips would need to be reduced to two-percent
2%) of the number of trips estimated for the Project (see FIER, pp. 3-75 to 3-76, response to
comment 18). This reduction in vehicle trips would make the Project financially infeasible for the
Project Proponent.
FINDWGS REGARDING THE FEASIBILITY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES DISCUSSED IN
EIR:
11
The following social, economic, legal, technological, and other considerations make the three
alternatives identified and analyzed in the EIR infeasible. The three alternatives are: 1) no project
alternative; 2) alternative location; and 3) reduced project alternative.
1. No Project Alternative: Under the No Project Alternative, the Project would not be undertaken
and the site would not be developed. This alternative would reduce most of the impacts
associated with the Project; however, this alternative would not achieve any of the Project
objectives (DEIR, p. 2.5). Under this alternative, there are transportation and traffic impacts
under the following conditions: under existing conditions, the maximum queue exceeds available
storage for the Talmage Road/US 101 Southbound Off-Ramp right turn; under near-term
baseline) conditions, the maximum queue exceeds available storage for the Talmage
Road/Airport Park Boulevard westbound left turn and the storage for the Talmage Road/US 101
Southbound Off-Ramp right turn; and under Future (2030) conditions, the maximum queue
exceeds available storage for the Talmage Road/Airport Park Boulevard westbound left turn and
the storage for the Talmage Road/US 101 Southbound Off-Ramp right turn.
The no project alternative is not feasible, because it would not achieve any of the project
objectives and does not eliminate existing traffic congestion problems.
2. Alternative Location: This alternative would locate the Project on the west side of Airport Park
Boulevard across from the currently proposed location on three separate parcels totaling 14.69
acres. Since the location of this alternative is similar to the proposed Project location, Urban
Decay, Geology and Soils, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use, Noise, Public Services and
Utilities, Cultural Resources, and Biological Resources impacts would be similar to the Proposed
Project. This alternative site is located in Airport Compatibility Zone B1 of the Mendocino
County Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan, which is more restrictive than Zone C (the zone
in which the proposed Project is located). The purpose of the compatibility criteria is to assure
compatibility with noise and safety criteria for uses and development located within the
boundaries of the CLUP. (Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan, p. 7-10) The Costco store is
considered an "intensive retail" use, a use considered "Not Normally Acceptable" in the B1 zone.
Development in this location within the 61 zone would be subject to more restrictive
development conditions than development of the proposed site which is in zone C.
Although the Project may be allowed in this location if determined to be consistent with the
commercial uses allowed, it may exceed the allowed development density or be inconsistent
with other criteria established to the safety and compatibility of ensure uses located within the
CLUP. If the density exceeded the density allowed in the B1, the impact would be equal or
greater than the proposed Project (DEIR, p. 5-9 and 5-10, Hazards and Hazardous Materials).
Denser development means more people per acre, which means more people potentially
impacted by an aviation accident (plane crash) on the site. The B1 Compatibility zone is an area
of"substantial risk" as opposed to the currently proposed Costco site, which is located within the
C Zone, an area of "limited risk" (Table 7A Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan Report, July
1996).
If the Project at this alternative location was found to be inconsistent with the Mendocino County
Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan as discussed above, the Project would be inconsistent
with applicable plans and regulations, resulting in a potentially significant Land Use and Planning
impact which does not exist at the proposed location for the Project.
The construction and operational activities under this alternative would be similar to the
proposed Project since it is served by and would receive access from the same street network.
Therefore, this alternative would generate a similar number of vehicle trips as the proposed
Project. This similar number of vehicle trips would result in similar traffic, air quality, and
greenhouse gas emissions impacts as the proposed Project. The traffic, air quality and
greenhouse gas emissions impacts would remain significant and unavoidable under this
12
alternative (DEIR, pp. 5-8 to 5-11 and FEIR, p. 4-14).
Because the alternative location alternative poses the potential for increased impacts in other
areas not posed by the proposed project (i.e., hazards and land use compatibility), and it would
not achieve substantially different or reduced impacts as compared to the proposed project in
other areas, this alternative is considered less desirable from a policy standpoint by the City
Council and is therefore considered infeasible.
3. Reduced Project Size Alternative: This Reduced Project Size Alternative (No Fuel Station)
would remove the fueling station from the Project, which would eliminate 492 p.m. peak hour
vehicle trips. The construction related impacts of this alternative would be similar to the
proposed Project. The elimination of 492 vehicle trips would still not reduce the Existing plus
Project, Near-Term plus Project, or Future (2030) traffic impacts to a less than significant level
and the impact would remain significant and unavoidable under this alternative (DEIR, pp. 5-6 to
5-8, and 5-11, FEIR, p. 4-14).
The removal of the fueling station would reduce some emissions from mobile and area
sources by eliminating 492 p.m. peak hour vehicle trips and the need for fueling trucks.
This reduction in vehicle trips would reduce the area and mobile source emissions
associated with the Project; however, the reduction of vehicle trips would not be
substantial in comparison with the total vehicle trips from the Project. According to Sonia
Hennum Daleiden, PE PTOE, Principal Engineer for Costco, who testified at the
December 4, 2013, City Council hearing, based on internalization data from other
Costco stores with a fueling station, the projected reduction of 492 p.m. peak hour
vehicle trips may overstate the reduction, because only members of Costco can
purchase gasoline and many members do not travel to the store only to buy gasoline.
The internalization data submitted by Ms. Daleiden show that between by 22%-44% of j
p.m. peak traffc going to the fueling station is linked to a trip to the Costco store which I
would have occurred, with or without the fueling station. For this reason, the removal of
the fueling station would not substantially reduce traffic related impacts of the Project.
Moreover, the elimination of the fueling station would not reduce the traffic related
impacts of the Project to a less than significant level (FEIR, p. 3-45, response to
comment #3). The air quality impact and global climate change impacts, although
somewhat reduced, would remain significant and unavoidable under this alternative
DEIR, pp. 5-6 to 5-8, and 5-11, FEIR, p. 4-14).
Based on the market data in the fiscal impact report and the Urban Decay Analysis, the Project
location produces substantially less revenue under this alternative. Costco representatives
have indicated that gasoline sales are an essential service they provide their
membership. Their current business model relies on gasoline sales as part of the profitability
for a warehouse. They have indicated further that gasoline sales are a very important
component to making the Ukiah warehouse profitable, particularly given the smaller
popuiation base from which this warehouse would draw as compared to other Costco
locations. For these reasons, the Costco representatives have indicated further that a no
fueling station altemative wouid not meet their objectives for the project. (November 25, 2013
email, and December 4, 2013, oral testimony from Michael Okuma, Costco) Additionally,
because the reduced project size alternative would not achieve substantially reduced impacts as
compared to the proposed project and would not provide an additional local fueling option for
City residents, this alternative is considered less desirable from a policy and practical standpoint
by the City Council. For all of the foregoing reasons. and any of them individually, this alternative
is therefore determined to be infeasible.
I
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS:
13
As set forth in the preceding sections, approving the proposed project will result in some
significant adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided even with the adoption of all
feasible mitigation measures. As determined above, however, there are no feasible alternatives
to the project that would mitigate or substantially lessen the impacts. Despite these effects, the
City Council, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15093, chooses to approve the project
because, in its judgment, the following economic, social, and other benefits that the project will
produce will render the significant effects acceptable.
Any one of these reasons is sufficient to justify approval of the project. Thus, even if a court were
to conclude that not every reason is supported by substantial evidence, the City would stand by its
determination that each individual reason is sufficient on its own to justify approval of the project in
spite of its significant adverse environmental effects. The substantial evidence supporting the
various benefits can be found in the preceding findings, which are incorporated by reference into
this section, in the documents found in the Record of Proceedings, and in the information
referenced in the discussions below.
1. The Project Would Further Develop the Airport Industrial Park Planned Development:
The Airport Industrial Park was approved in 1981 with most of the land area within the AIP
designated for industrial uses, with office/commercial and highway oriented commercial uses
allowed between Talmage Road and Commerce Drive (Use Permit 81-59). In 1991, the AIP
was amended to expand the locations where commercial uses were allowed to include part of
the area south Commerce Drive between US 101 and Airport Park Boulevard (Use Permit
91-4). In 1992 Ordinance 929 was approved in order to allow general commercial uses in
addition to Highway Oriented Commercial uses in the area bounded by Talmage Road,
Commerce Drive, US101, and Airport Park Boulevard (Ordinance 929).
In 1996, Ordinance 964 was adopted to make the following changes to the land use
designations: Industrial/Commercial to Retail Commercial; Office/Commercial to Professional
Office; and Highway Oriented Commercial/General Commercial to Highway Oriented
Commercial. This amendment increased the amount of land that allowed commercial uses
and correspondingly decreased the amount of land designated for industrial uses. In 1996,
Ordinances 979 and 991 further amended the AIP to change the designation of approximately
16 acres of land from Industrial to Industrial/Auto Commercial. In 1999, Ordinance 1024
amended the AIP PD to change the designation of the land bounded by Commerce Drive,
Airport Road, Airport Park Boulevard and the railroad tracks from Industrial to Industrial/Mixed
Use. The purpose of the amendment was to provide flexibility in the types of allowed and
permitted land uses that can occur in the designated area and to allow compatible uses that
can co-exist, support one another, and contribute to the goal of creating a self-sustaining
employment and commercial cente within the AIP (Ordinance 1024). In 2000, Ordinance
1030 expanded the commercial uses allowed in the Professional Office designation to include
hotels and sit-down restaurants. In 2004, Ordinance 1051 changed the land designated
Industrial/Mixed Use to Light Industrial/Mixed Use. The purpose of this land use designation
was to provide for a compatible mix of light manufacturing activities, commercial land uses,
professional offices, and limited low-density residential uses (Ordinance 1051).
The proposed Project would amend the AIP to change the land use designation of 15.33 acres
from Industrial/Auto Commercial and Light Manufacturing/Mixed Use to Retail Commercial.
This is consistent with the amendments to the AIP that have occurred since the original
approval of the AIP. These amendments are a reflection of an increase in demand for land
that could be developed with commercial uses and a corresponding decrease in the demand
for industrial properties. Approval of the amendment would allow development of land that
has remained undeveloped for more than 30 years. The shift from industrial development to
commercial development also reflects the lack of demand for industrial uses and Ukiah's
place as a regional as well as local destination for commercial goods and services. The
14
Project could also assist with the development of the remaining vacant land within the AIP
since there is the potential for other businesses to locate near Costco. Costco provides an
opportunity for greater market visibility of the AIP and may also act as a draw for other retailers
DEIR, p. 3.3-17)
2. The Project would Recapture Retail Saies Leakage: The City of Ukiah and Airport Park
Planned Development provide local and regional retail serving commercial areas. The
Project would expand the retail offerings in the AIP PD and City of Ukiah, thereby recapturing
sales lost through leakage. Leakage represents the demands for goods by market area
residents that are not met within the market area. Therefore, these market area residents
shop in retail centers outside of the market area (such as Santa Rosa and Rohnert Park).
In 2011 the Project's market area, which includes the City of Ukiah, experienced $188.1
million in retail sales leakage annually in the categories of motor vehicle and parts dealers,
home furnishings and appliances. building materials and garden equipment, clothing and
clothing accessories, general merchandise stores, food services and drinking places, and
other retail (DEIR, p.3.3-14 and DEIR. Appendix F, Exhibit 16).
Given the broad range of products sold at Costco, all of the leakage categories are relevant to
the Project. Recaptured sales leakage, not including sales recaptured from the Santa Rosa
and Rohnert Park Costco stores, is estimated to be $20.5 million (DEIR, p. 3.3-16, table 3.3-2
and pp. 3.3-14 to 3.3-17). In addition, the Project would recapture Costco sales made by
market area residents at the Santa Rosa and Rohnert Park Costco stores. This recaptured
leakage is estimated to be $20 million. Total recaptured leakage is estimated to be $40.5
million. (DEIR, p. 3.3-17)
The remaining retail sales leakage for the market area is estimated to be $363.8 million in the
categories of motor vehicle and parts dealers, building materials and garden equipment,
clothing and clothing accessories, general merchandise stores, and food services and
drinking places.
Therefore, the demands of market area residents for products within these categories would
not be completely met with the Project. This provides opportunities for new retail development
within the market area and for existing retailers to position their businesses to fill the unmet
demand for products in these categories. (DEIR, p. 3.3-17)
3. The Projectwould Enhance the Retail Opportunities within the City of Ukiah: The Ukiah
Costco store would include the sales of over 4,000 products in the categories of motor vehicle
and parts dealers, home fumishings and appliances, building materials, food and beverage,
clothing and accessories, general merchandise, food services and drinking places, and other
retail (DEIR, p. 3.3-13, table 3.3-1). As stated above, the market area currently experiences
leakage in the categories of motor vehicle and parts sales, home furnishings and appliances,
building materials and garden equipment, clothing and clothing accessories, general
merchandise stores, food services and drinking places, and other retail. The Project would
increase the retail offerings in categories that experience leakage which would expand the
retail opportunities within Ukiah and allow Ukiah and market area residents to shop in Ukiah.
DEIR. pp. 3.3-14 to 3.3-17)
4. The Project would Locate Local and Regional Serving Retail Within an Existing
Commercial Area in the City of Ukiah: Costco is a business that draws from a large market
area as demonstrated by the market area identified for the Project (DEIR, pp. 3.3-2 and 3.3-5,
and figure 3.3-2). This is further exemplified by the number of Costco members that have
Ukiah addresses or that are located within the market area. In 2012, there were 18,288
Costco members with Ukiah addresses, not all within the incorporated City limits. These
I
15
members made 201,809 trips to the Santa Rosa and Rohnert Park Costco stores in 2012. In
2011, there were 18,335 Costco members within the Project market area.
The Project would provide local and regional serving retail within the AIP which is an area that
has been developed with local and regional serving businesses. The AIP is an area that has
been designated by the City as an area appropriate for regional commercial development
based, in part, on its location adjacent to US 101, access to US 101, and ability to attract
commercial development. The demand for commercial development within the AIP has
increased over time as exemplified by the amendments to the AIP that have expanded the
allowed and permitted commercial uses and increased the amount of land area that allows
commercial development.
5. The Project would Provide an Opportunity for Residents of the City of Ukiah and
Greater Ukiah Valley to Shop Locally: In 2012, there were 18,288 Costco members with
Ukiah addresses. These members made 201,809 trips to the Santa Rosa and Rohnert Park
Costco stores in 2012. In 2011, there were 18,335 Costco members within the Project market
area. In 2011, market area members spent $20.6 million at the Santa Rosa Costco, including
3.3 million in gasoline sales, and $4.9 million at the Rohnert Park Costco, including gasoline
sales. It is reasonable to assume that with the construction of a Ukiah Costco store, a portion
of these trips would be recaptured and redirected to the Ukiah Costco store (DEIR, p. 3.3-14).
6. The Projects would Help to Fulfill the City's Role as a Regional Retail Center and Reduce
the Number of Vehicle Trips to Retail Centers in Sonoma County and Thereby Reduce
Regional Air Pollution and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: As stated above, in 2011 and 2012
there were more than 18,000 market area residents with Costco memberships. In 2012, Costco
members with Ukiah addresses made 201,809 trips to the Santa Rosa and Rohnert Park Costco
stores. Construction of a Ukiah Costco store would allow some of these trips to be redirected
to the Ukiah Costco store.
The EIR air quality and greenhouse gas emissions analysis indicated that the majority of the
emissions generated by operation of the Project was the result of vehicle trips. (DEIR, 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 Project
has the potential to reduce regional air pollution since at least some portion of the more than
200,000 annual trips made by Costco members with Ukiah addresses would be redirected to
the Ukiah Costco. In order to be conservative in its analysis, the air quality and GHG analysis
in the EIR did not include a deduction for potentially redirected vehicle trips. This redirection
of trips to the Ukiah Costco store has the potential to reduce vehicle miles traveled in the
region and to correspondingly reduce vehicle emissions. The reduction in vehicle emissions
could result in a reduction in regional air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
7. The Project would Create Employment Opportunities Within the City: The Project would
create 175 to 200 new full and part-time jobs. Sixty-percent of the jobs would be full-time and
40%would be part-time. In January 2012, the unemployment rate in Ukiah was 10.2%. Ukiah
has a workforce of 7,160 people with 6,430 people employed, leaving 730 people potentially
available to fill the 175 to 200 jobs that would be created by the Project. The Project would
also create construction jobs. Based on the unemployment rate in Ukiah and the number of
people available for employment, some of the construction jobs would be filled by Ukiah
residents or people from Ukiah Valley. Construction jobs filled by workers from outside the
Ukiah area would benefit the City of Ukiah by increasing lodging, dining, and shopping in the
area while these employees work on construction of the Project.
8. The Project would Create Above Minimum Wage Jobs with Benefits Within the City:
Information provided by the applicant provides a sampling of wages: Service Assistant
11.50 - $20.30 per hour; Service Clerk $12.00 - $22.00 per hour; and Meat Cutters $12.00 -
23.50 per hour. (November 14, 2013 email from Jeff Berberich) Entry level managers start
16
between $60,000 and $68.000 per year and senior level managers start between $68.000 and
74,000. (Michael Okuma, Costco, November 21, 2013 Planning Commission public
comment)
Costco provides insurance benefits, including medical, dental, vision, pharmacy, mental I
health, life insurance, disability, and long-term care. Costco pays 90% of the cost of the
insurance and the employee pays 10% of the cost. Costco also provides an employee
assistance program, flexible spending accounts, employee stock purchase program, 11 paid
holidays, college student retention program, and 401(k). Costco provides a matching
contribution to the 401(k) and makes an annual contribution. (Michael Okuma, Costco,
November 21, 2013 Planning Commission public comment) Full-time employees receive
benefits after 90 days. Part-time employees working more than 23 hours per week receive
core medical, dental, and vacation benefits after 6 months and are guaranteed 24 hours per
week (Michael Okuma, Costco, public testimony, November 21, 2013 Planning Commission
meeting and November 14, 2013 email from Jeff Berberich)
Costco has an employee turnover rate of 5.8% after the first year. The industry average is
approximately 20%. (Michael Okuma, Costco, November 21, 2013 Planning Commission
public comment.)
9. The Project would Provide Certainty as to the Number and Types of Jobs Created with
the Development of the Project Site: Development of the site with the Costco Project would
provide the City certainty as to the number and types of jobs created, wages paid, and
benefits provided. The number and types of jobs provided, wages paid, and benefits provided
by the Costco Project have the potential to be jobs that provide better wages and benefits than
if the site were developed with several smaller scale retail and/or service developments that
could provide lesser wages and benefits
10. The Project would Generate Tax Revenue for the City Allowing the City to Fund
Needed Services: The Project would generate additional revenue for the City's general fund
from sales tax, measure S sales tax, property tax, franchise tax. other taxes, licenses. permits.
and fees. The gross general fund revenue generated by the Project is estimated to range
from $471.194 to $709,149. Measure S sales tax is estimated to range from $198,051 to
308,856. The estimated cost of providing the City services for the Project is $57,477. The net
general fund revenue is estimated to range from $413.747 to $651,702, excluding Measure S
sales tax. and $611,798 to $960,557, including Measure S sales tax. (Ukiah Costco Fiscal
Impact Analysis dated July 2013, p.3, exhibit 1.)
11. The Project would Generate Additional Revenue for Mendocino County, Local School
Districts, and Other Special Districts: The Project would generate revenue for the County
of Mendocino and a variety of special districts due to an increase in property tax revenue and
special purpose sales tax, including the 1/8 cent library sales tax and the 1.25% tax funding
county law enforcement, mental health, and other Mendocino County services. (Fiscal Impact
Analysis, p. 10 and Appendix A. exhibit 4) The property tax revenue generated by the Project
is estimated to be: Mendocino County $65,001; Ukiah Unified School District $92.886;
Educational Augmentation Funds $42,510; Mendocino Community College $17,420; and
Mendocino County Office of Education $11,180. In addition, $15,146 would be shared by the
library, Russian River Cemetery District, County water agencies, and others. (Ukiah Costco
Fiscal Impact Analysis dated July 2013, pp. 4-5) The special purpose sales tax generated for
the County would exceed the City sales tax. excluding Measure S.
12. The Project would Contribute Funds to Needed Infrastructure Improvements: In 1999,
the City Council adopted the Redwood Business Park Capital Improvement Program and
associated fee schedule. The Project is required to pay the capital improvement fee which is
based on the size of the development. Based on a development area of 15.33 acres, the
17
capital improvement fee is estimated to be $152,640 based on the retail and gas station uses
of the site and thelr respective acreages. (memo from Ben Kageyama, Public Works dated
November 14, 2013)
13. The Project would Improve Pedestrian Circulation and Expand the Use of Public
Transit: The Project would provide the following pedestrian facilities: sidewalks along the
Airport Park Boulevard frontage; sidewalks along the noRhern project frontage; a pedestrian
pathway through the parking lot that connects the fueling station to the front of the building; a
sidewalk from Airport Park Boulevard along the south elevation of the store to the store entry;
and a concrete pad for the installation of a new bus shelter adjacent to the new sidewalk
located along the northern project frontage (plans date stamped November 12, 2013).
The Project would provide a pad for a bus shelter as shown on the Project plans. Mendocino
Transit Authority would provide and install a bus shelter on the created pad and would extend
the bus route to serve the Project site (FEIR, Appendix A, letter from MTA dated May 21,
2013).
14. The Project includes energy conserving measures: The Project would include
energy conservation features including: building envelopes insulated to meet or exceed
current energy code requirements; commissioning of inechanical systems;
installation of energy star rated skylights; reduction in the interior warehouse lighting by
from 100°!o to 66% to 33% to 0%, based on daylight contribution through the skylights;
interior and exterior photo sensors to measure daylight and reduce the amount of
lighting based accordingly; lighting controlled by the overall project energy
management system; parking lot and exterior lights controlled by a photo sensor and
time clock; use of high-efficiency light source and ballasts (pulse start Ceramic Metal
Halide HID) and bi-level switching for fluorescent fixtures; Cool Roof designs designed I
to reduce heat transfer through the roof; HVAC comfort systems controlled by a
computerized buflding management system to maximize efficlency; hlgh efffclency,
direct ducted HVAC units; use of energy efficient Transformers; use of variable speed
motors on make-up air units and booster pumps; direct vent gas water heaters that are
94% efficient or greater, use of reclamation tanks to capture heat released by
refrigeration equipment to heat domestic water in lieu of rejecting heat to the outside;
use of pre-englneered metal bullding for efficlency and sustalnable materiais when
compared to a full height masonry counterparts (results in the consumption of fewer
building materials in construction, burning of fewer fossil fuels in transportation since
steel contains over 8% recycled content and is 1% recyclable). (Project Description
dated November 13, 2013).
The Project is subject to the requirements of the California Green Building Code. Air Quality
mitigation measure 32.2a requires the Project to incorporate sustainability features into the
building and site design to achieve a building energy efficiency rating that is greater than the
Title 24 requirement in order to reduce energy consumption and associated GHG emissions
FEIR, p. ES-3 and ES-4, FEIR, pp. 5-3 sand 5-4).
Based on the foregoing findings, the benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse air quality and
global climate change operational emissions impacts, and traffic and transportation level of serve
and queuing impacts. Moreover, Mitigation Measure 3.10.1 (requiring a commitment of funds
before a building permit can issue and substantial completion of traffic mitigation improvements
before a certificate of occupancy can be issued) and Costco's declared commitment not to open
a Ukiah store tor business until the tra c mitigations are complete assures that the traffic
mitigations will be completed before the Project generates traffic.
18
Adopted on December 18, 2013, by the following roli call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Crane, Thomas, Landis, a id i:ayor Baldwin
NOES: one
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Phi ip E. Bal in, Mayor
ATTEST:
l i !' ((, .v li,,
Kristine Lawler, City Clerk
19