HomeMy WebLinkAboutpcm_01252012 1 UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 January 25, 2012
3 Minutes
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
6 Judy Pruden, Chair None
7 Jason Brenner
8 Kevin Doble
9 Linda Sanders
10 Mike Whetzel
11
12 STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
13 Charley Stump, Planning Director Listed below, Respectively
14 Kim Jordan, Senior Planner
15 Jennifer Faso, Associate Planner
16 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
17
18 1. CALL TO ORDER
19 The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by
20 Chair Pruden at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue,
21 Ukiah, California.
22
23 2. ROLL CALL
24
25 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Everyone cited.
26
27 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — The minutes from the December 14, 2011, December 20, 2011
28 and January 11, 2012 meetings will be available for review and approval the February 8, 2012 meeting.
29
30 5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
31
32 6. APPEAL PROCESS—Chair Pruden read the appeal process. For matters heard at this meeting,
33 the final date to appeal is February 6, 2012 at 5:00 p.m.
34
35 7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION - Site visit for agenda item 9B was verified.
36
37 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE — Agenda item 9A was properly noticed in accordance with the
38 provisions of the Ukiah Municipal Code.
39
40 9. PUBLIC HEARING
41 9A. Walmart Expansion Project Site Development Permit and Statement of Overriding
42 Considerations (File Nos.: 09-28-SDP-PC and 09-42-EIR-PC)). Conduct a public hearing,
43 receive public comment, provide Planning Commission comment, and provide direction to staff on
44 the Walmart Expansion Project 1) Major Site Development Permit and associated modifications
45 to landscaping requirements, and 2) Statement of Overriding Considerations. The Project is
46 located at 1155 Airport Park Boulevard, APN 180-070-38, in the Airport Industrial Park Planned
47 Development (AIP PD). The project proposes a 47,621 square foot expansion of the existing
48 109,030 square foot store, for a total square footage of 156,651 to include expanded general
49 merchandise floor area and expanded grocery sales floor area, indoor and outdoor garden
50 centers, as well as the possibility of distilled alcohol sales, and a medical clinic and/or vision
51 center on a 13.44 acre site. Also included as part of the project is a change in store hours to 24
52 hours per day, seven days per week, modifications to the design of the exterior of the building,
53 the addition of new parking spaces, modifications to the landscaping, and other associated site
54 improvements.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 25, 2012
Page 1
1 The proposed Project requires approval of a Major Site Development Permit, two modifications to
2 the AIP PD landscaping requirements, and adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
3 As part of the Major Site Development Permit, the Planning Commission will consider the
4 applicant's request for approval of modifications to the AIP PD landscaping requirements for
5 landscaping lot coverage and shade coverage. Approval of the project would also require a
6 Statement of Overriding Consideration for the significant and unavoidable Traffic Impacts
7 identified in the Walmart Expansion EIR. This item was continued from the November 9, 2011,
8 December 14, 2011, and January 11, 2012 Planning Commission meetings.
9
10 Chair Pruden:
11 • The Planning Commission will not take action on the Site Development Permit and/or Statement
12 of Overriding Conditions at tonight's public hearing regarding the Walmart Expansion Project.
13 Since no action will be taken this evening, this is the opportunity to receive public input and for
14 the Commission to provide direction to staff regarding the Site Development Permit, request for
15 modification to the AIP PD landscaping requirements and Statement of Overriding Considerations
16 so staff can proceed with developing the necessary findings for review by the Commission at
17 another meeting.
18 • Explained how the Planning Commission will proceed at tonighYs meeting with regard to public
19 testimony and discussions about the Site Development Permit and Statement of Overriding
20 Conditions.
21 • Staff will be using the staff report (Agenda Item 9B) from the November 9, 2011 Planning
22 Commission meeting for tonighYs meeting relative to the Walmart Expansion Site Development
23 Permit& Modification to Landscape Standards.
24 • To this point in the process, the Planning Commission has not expressed their opinions about the
25 Site Development & Modification to landscape standards and Statement of Overriding
26 Considerations and will have the opportunity to do so tonight so staff can prepare the necessary
27 findings in this regard.
28
29 Senior Planner Jordan:
30 • Provided background information and actions taken by the Planning Commission and City
31 Council thus far regarding the Walmart Expansion Project.
32 • Further elaborated as to how tonighYs Planning Commission will proceed:
33 - Conduct a public hearing
34 - Take public comment and provide Planning Commission comments
35 - Provide direction to staff on General Plan consistency
36 - Provide direction to staff on AIP PD ordinance consistency
37 - Provide direction to staff on the request for the modifications to the AIP PD landscaping
38 requirements.
39 - Provide direction to staff on the Site Development Permit(SDP)
40 - Provide direction to staff on the Statement of Overriding Considerations
41 • Project approvals required:
42 - Site Development Permit
43 - Two modifications to the Airport Industrial Park Planned Development (AIP PD) Ordinance
44 1098 landscaping standards to be reviewed through the Site Development Permit process
45 and these include a deviation from the 20°/a landscaping coverage requirement that all new
46 developments shall include a landscaping coverage of 20°/o of the gross area of the parcel,
47 unless because of the small size of a parcel, such coverage would be unreasonable, and
48 deviation from the landscaping standard for the new area of the parking lot requiring that 50%
49 of the new pavement provide a tree canopy of 50% over all paved areas within 10 years of
50 planting. The project does not meet either of these standards.
51 - Statement of Overriding Conditions to override the significant and unavoidable traffic impacts
52 that were identified in the EIR.
53 - No use permit required.
54 • Specifically, there are several project Findings that have to be made in order approve the Site
55 Development Permit and they include that the proposed project:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 25, 2012
Page 2
1 - Is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the City's General Plan
2 - Is consistent with the County Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Ukiah Municipal
3 Airport Master Plan and associated Airport Compatibility criteria.
4 - Is consistent with the zoning for the property which in this case is primarily the Airport
5 Industrial Park Planned Development Ordinance 1098, and consistent with the Ukiah City
6 Code.
7 - The location, size, and intensity of the proposed project will not create a hazardous or
8 inconvenient vehicular or pedestrian traffic pattern.
9 - The accessibility of off-street parking areas and the relation of parking areas with respect to
10 traffic on adjacent streets will not create a hazardous or inconvenient condition to adjacent or
11 surrounding uses.
12 - Sufficient landscaped areas have been reserved for purposes of separating or screening the
13 proposed structure(s) from the street and adjoining building sites, and breaking up and
14 screening large expanses of paved areas.
15 - Development will not restrict or cut out light and air on the property, or on the property in the
16 neighborhood; nor will it hinder the development or use of buildings in the neighborhood, or
17 impair the value thereof.
18 - Improvement of any commercial or industrial structure will not have substantial detrimental
19 impact on the character or value of an adjacent residential zoning district. This requirement
20 does not apply to this project since it is not adjacent to a residential zoning district.
21 - Will not excessively damage or destroy natural features, including trees, shrubs, creeks, and
22 the natural grade of the site.
23 - There is sufficient variety, creativity, and articulation to the architecture and design of the
24 structure(s) and grounds to avoid monotony and/or a box-like uninteresting external
25 appearance.
26
27 Staff requests the Planning Commission determine if the Project is consistent with all the above-
28 referenced findings as part of tonighYs discussion.
29
30 Lastly, the Statement of Overriding Considerations will be addressed once the Site Development
31 Permit is discussed.
32
33 • Recommends the Commission discuss the Site Development Permit portion of the project first in
34 order to better understand the project itself. Then discuss the Statement of Overriding
35 Considerations and merits of the project.
36
37 • The aforementioned aspects of the project are discussed/analyzed in the staff report, dated
38 November 9, 2011.
39
40 Craig Davis, Ukiah Walmart store manager:
41 • Requests when discussing the Site Development Permit aspect of the Project, the Commission
42 look at 1) the historic expansion will support a strong local economy by creating essential sales
43 revenue for the City 2) The final Expansion Project will promote/enhance the appearance of the
44 surrounding area with improvements related to the building's exterior, proposed new landscaping,
45 and other amenities and/or site/interior improvements.
46 • The proposed Expansion Project will provide significant upgrades to the existing building and site
47 and is hopeful the Planning Commission will view the project as a `positive'for the community.
48
49 Deborah Herron, Spokesperson for Walmart:
50 • Is the Senior Manager of Public Affairs and Public Relations for Walmart with her responsibilities
51 directed toward Northern California.
52 • Has the pleasure of working with government agencies at all levels and their corresponding
53 boards/commissions for business matters that involve Walmart.
54 • Is here to answer questions about the project, as well as to provide additional information as
55 necessary about Walmart's Expansion Project application.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 25, 2012
Page 3
1 • Thanked the citizens of Ukiah and members of the Ukiah Walmart store for going through the EIR
2 and Site Development Permit process, noting the importance of participating in the public
3 process.
4 • Several members of the design and engineering team are present this evening to answer
5 technical questions.
6 • It is important to look at the project with regard to architecture, the natural features of the site, the
7 accessibility of off-street parking, and consistency with Ukiah's General Plan. Is of the opinion the
8 Walmart Expansion Project fits a number of these components, particularly the fit with the Ukiah
9 General Plan in that the project supports a strong local economy (GP goal/policy ED-1) by
10 contributing and significantly increasing sales tax revenue.
11 • Walmart has been in Ukiah nearly 18 years when the City Code was very different compared to
12 what the project has to work with today.
13 • The expansion will create hundreds of new construction jobs as well as 85 new permanent jobs in
14 the store.
15 • The Ukiah Walmart currently employees 240 people called `associates.' These jobs are highly
16 valued by these individuals and to their families.
17 • Ukiah Walmart has more than 300 applications on file for persons desiring to work at Walmart.
18 • This means there are more work applications than there are work positions available.
19 • The proposed project complies with GP-28, `Make Ukiah a leader in the development of
20 responsibility resource-conserving ways of living and doing business, giving the fullest
21 consideration to the impacts of our actions on future generations' and enumerated on ways
22 Walmart is doing this, such as incorporating many types of sustainable technologies into the
23 project to include LED signage, refrigeration illumination, key reclamation, daylight harvesting for
24 energy conservation purposes and other like systems.
25 • Walmart participates in a pilot program where it only has reusable shopping bags available as a
26 way to protect the environment by eliminating plastic bags.
27 • Project complies with GP-1, `Promote, attract or assist in developing businesses, particularly
28 those that add value to resources already found or processed in the Ukiah Valley,' with the
29 addition of the grocery component and increase in food sales that Walmart customers have been
30 asking for. Walmart will be able to offer a large selection of food and the opportunity to get this
31 food from local food producers.
32 • Walmart has a very extensive food/merchandise supplier base in California and spends several
33 hundred million dollars a year with California producers of products ranging from services to
34 agriculture. Having a full service grocery means that Walmart can have more suppliers to grow
35 more food and create those necessary economic jobs that help their own communities as well as
36 here in Ukiah.
37 • Several of the policies that are outlined in Ukiah's General Plan focus on bicycle and pedestrian
38 amenities and this is something Walmart takes very seriously. There are several new features
39 that have been added in this regard based on the General Plan now that were not visionary in
40 1993 when the original store was constructed, such as pedestrian access and bicycle circulation,
41 new sidewalks and walkways as well as Class III bicycle lanes and bicycle parking. Also, Walmart
42 will be contributing a proportional share of payment to extend the Class II bicycle lane on
43 Hastings Road.
44 • Spoke to the General Plan goal about development resulting in potential traffic impacts. Walmart
45 will pay its proportional fair share contribution for traffic improvements in the area recognizing the
46 development will contribute to the need for infrastructure improvements.
47 • Walmart would like to be a proportional paying partner with the City as a Transportation Plan is
48 developed for the area.
49 • Addressed the request for modification to the 20% landscaping coverage standard and noted this
50 standard was adopted in 2007. By this time the Ukiah Walmart had already been in operation for
51 13 years. While Walmart wants to make every effort to meet City requirements, it is asking for
52 this modification because what there is to work with is a site that is already developed and
53 already mapped out in a very particular way based on the Site Development Permit approvals in
54 1993. As it presently stands, the landscaping meets 15.9% coverage. While this landscaping
55 coverage difference is small, it represents an expansive difference because Walmart is doing
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 25, 2012
Page 4
1 everything it possibly can with the site, including replacement of the trees that are to be removed
2 and replace with more trees than exist today.
3 • Welcomes questions from the Commissioners.
4
5 Commission:
6 Q1. If the project is approved will Walmart bring in its own construction crew?
7 Q2. What is the average pay scale for a Walmart employee?
8 Q3. What does the term `eligible' mean?
9 Q4. Do employees pay for their own healthcare benefits?
10 Q5. Does Walmart provide healthcare for part-time employees and how many of the 240 associates
11 are full-time?
12 Q6. How many hours a week does an associate have to work per week to be eligible for healthcare
13 benefits?
14 Q7. How many employees are there in the Tire and Lube Express section of Walmart?
15 Q8. Do you know how many associates work in a particular department?
16 Q9. Do the individuals that install tires, which is a specialized skill, paid at a different rate than other
17 associates? Do you know what that rate is?
18 Q10. Are there architects available to answer landscaping and design questions?
19 Q11. Requested clarification there are more applicants waiting for employment than there are
20 associates working in the store. Is this the result of a notice of hiring because of the potential
21 expansion or were the applications already existing?
22 Q12. If it is not the will of the community to have this expansion and the project is denied, is there any
23 particular reason that Walmart cannot offer the amenities that Walmart is talking about with the
24 Expansion Project, such as energy efficiency systems, between access for handicapped persons,
25 and better landscaping in the parking lot?
26 Q13. Regardless of the outcome of the Expansion Project, will the skylights be implemented?
27 Q14. It sounds as though the implementation of skylights is depending the outcome of the project?
28 Q15. Is Walmart presently fully staffed?
29
30 Deborah Herron:
31 A1. Every project is put out to bid and can be done online. Many times local construction is awarded.
32 Every project is treated independently. The proposed project has not gone out to bid.
33 A2. Typically do not release salary figures, but can provide more information in this regard following
34 this meeting. The average full-time hourly employee makes about $12.59 an hour in California.
35 Walmart's associates are eligible for stock re-purchase so an employee can participate in a stock
36 purchase plan. The associates as part of their wage and benefit package are eligible for
37 healthcare as soon as they begin employment. There is no waiting period regardless of whether
38 or not a person is full-time.
39 A3. Eligible means a person can sign up for benefits if he/she wishes.
40 A4. There is a small portion the employee pays, but Walmart picks up the bulk of the benefit cost.
41 There are a number of healthcare plans that employees can choose from depending upon a
42 person's circumstance. A person, for instance, could choose to have just a dental plan.
43 A5. Healthcare benefits are made available to part-time employees.
44 A6. Would be happy to get additional information regarding healthcare eligibility from Walmart's
45 Human Resources Managers to better answer the questions being asked.
46
47 Craig Davis:
48 A5. To address the part-time/full-time ratio, 59% are full-time, 21% part-time.
49 A6. Does not think there is an eligibility in terms of number of hours worked. The employee has the
50 option of deciding whether or not he/she wants healthcare benefits and what kind. If a person
51 worked only 15 hours a week, he/she could apply for healthcare benefits.
52 A7. Will have to research this information. There have been questions raised whether or not
53 employees/associates working in the Tire and Lube Express will continue to have a job with
54 Walmart. This would not be the case. Every Walmart associate in those areas will be offered a
55 job elsewhere within the store.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 25, 2012
Page 5
1 A8. Does not have the exact information readily at hand, but likely there are from 20 to 25 persons in
2 each department.
3 A9. Acknowledged pay scales differ, particularly for those jobs that require special skills. Every job in
4 the store has a different pay scale depending on the skill set of that particular job. Even if an
5 associate comes to the store with past experience, they can get `credits' toward his/her wages
6 that are added to base wages. Every individual can have a different starting rate. Deborah Herron
7 can follow-up with exact numbers so the Commission has the correct information.
8 A10. Noted project architects are available to answer design/landscaping questions pertinent to the
9 Site Development Permit.
10 A11. The applications are what already exists and not the result of a potential store expansion.
11
12 Deborah Herron:
13 A11. There is a greater number of potential employment candidates than are employed in the store.
14 The notice of hiring following an expansion generally happens within 12 weeks of what is called a
15 grand opening for that expansion. This would occur after construction has been completed.
16
17 Craig Davis:
18 Al2. Walmart is currently scoping out the potential for skylights on the building, for instance, so
19 Walmart is already working toward improvement amenities regardless of whether or not the
20 Expansion Project is approved.
21
22 Deborah Herron:
23 Al2. Part of the challenge is that you are dealing with a 17+ year old building. When looking at scoping
24 for energy efficient amenities, the question is whether or not the amenity can be done. With
25 regard to incorporation of skylights/solar panels and/or photovoltaic systems the structure of the
26 existing roof would have to be looked at as to whether the amenity is possible and/or feasible.
27 The opportunities for amenities have to be explored in terms of feasibility, cost factors and
28 customer convenience. It is the customers that drive Walmart. It is the Walmart customers that
29 have been asking about adding a grocery element to the store making it more of a one stop
30 shopping experience. Customers indicate what types of products/merchandise they want to see
31 in the store. Walmart then looks at the feasibility and makes a determination about the possibility.
32
33 Cannot speak to what would be possible by way of providing for certain amenities if the project
34 were to be denied because feasibility as to structural aspects and/or the like would have to be
35 looked at.
36
37 A13. An application for a store expansion is being considered and the amenities are part of the
38 proposed expansion. In terms of incorporation skylights, with the Expansion Project comes the
39 opportunity to add approximately 50,000 sf of new roofline and this would be the time to look at
40 the existing roof and determine if skylights are possible. Part of the scoping process is if Walmart
41 is going to build a roof on a portion of the building that is new, what would it take to bring an
42 energy efficient system throughout the entire roof and how can this be done and is it possible.
43
44 A14. Does not like to answer questions with an, `I don't know.' Would be happy to follow-up about the
45 feasibility of implementing skylights and provide that detail to you.
46
47 Craig Davis:
48 A15. The Ukiah Walmart store is currently fully staffed. Walmart is not hiring at this point in time, but
49 this situation can change from one week to the next.
50
51 Senior Planner Jordan provided an overview of the Expansion Project.
52
53 The existing store:
54 - 104,152 sf building plus 4,878 sf outdoor garden center on the south side of the building on a
55 13.44 acre site
56 - 567 parking spaces plus 20 cart corrals
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 25, 2012
Page 6
1 - Sales of general merchandise, food, garden supplies, beer and wine
2 - Tire and Lube Express
3 - Food tenant space—Subway
4 - Open 6 a.m. to midnight
5
6 The proposed expansion store:
7 - 151,615 sf building plus 5,036 sf outdoor garden center that will be located on the north side of
8 the store for a total of 156,651 sf store
9 - 612 parking spaces plus 20 cart corrals that are parking spaces that function as a cart corral
10 The parking spaces are the exact number required based on 151,615 sf
11 - Increase in food sales area and general merchandise sales area, indoor garden center
12 - May also include medical clinic, vision care center, and/or sale of distilled spirits
13 - Tire and Lube Express to be removed
14 - Open 24 hours a day, seven days a week
15
16 Proposed project modifications include:
17 - Building exterior
18 - Removal of landscaping to provide required parking
19 - Removal of`Swan Hill' Olive parking lot trees and replacement with more suitable species
20 - Tree removal and tree planting along Airport Park Boulevard, Commerce Drive and Highway 101
21 - Pedestrian walkway through the parking lot from Airport Park Boulevard sidewalk to the front of
22 the store and from the Commerce Drive sidewalk to the front of the store.
23
24 Commission: Asked staff to explain the parking.
25
26 Senior Planner Jordan:
27 • The expansion based on 151,615 sf requires 612 parking spaces.
28 • The EIR evaluated 3% more square footage than what is being requested for the project in the
29 Site Development Permit. Parking is not an environmental consideration anymore. Some parking
30 studies were conducted.
31 • When the parking calculations were done, they were based on the project itself, which is 151,615
32 sf. There are exactly enough parking spaces on the site to meet the parking requirement for the
33 zoning of the property. If the project were larger like the square footage evaluated in the EIR,
34 there is not sufficient parking onsite to provide for the 3% increase in square footage analyzed in
35 the EIR.
36 • The building cannot be larger because the project would not comply with the parking
37 requirements and the project would be out of compliance with the zoning regulations.
38 • Staff is looking for direction from the Planning Commission as to whether or not the Commission
39 can support approval of the Site Development Permit and the associated landscaping
40 modifications and if not, why.
41
42 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:45 p.m.
43
44 Chair Pruden: Public comments are limited to the merits or demerits of Site Development Permit
45 pertinent to comments about physical aspects of the project as they relate to landscaping, circulation,
46 sidewalks, bicycle paths, design considerations, signage, lighting, overall appearance of this particular
47 project and how the projects functions on the site and/or other physical attributes that concern the project.
48 This is not a discussion about whether or not one shops at Walmart.
49
50 First Public Speaker: Inaudible
51
52 Laura Leigh:
53 • Walmart should be able to expand the store and offer more employment.
54 • The community needs an expanded Walmart store and supports approval of the Site
55 Development Permit.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 25, 2012
Page 7
1 • Walmart presents itself very clearly and very well.
2
3 Sandra Wilhite:
4 • Likes the project and site plans laid out for pedestrians, bicyclists.
5 • Project is beautiful.
6
7 Alan Nicholson: Has comments about off-site traffic that is not relevant to the discussion concerning the
8 Site Development Permit. Will comment on the next section of discussion as to whether or not the project
9 is consistent with the Ukiah General Plan goals, policies and objectives.
10
11 Julia Wood:
12 • Is concerned about pedestrian safety and how this can best be accomplished on and off site in
13 the vicinity of project.
14 • Has experienced hazardous walking conditions with the type of landscaping Walmart has on the
15 site. The debris from trees produces a slippery condition when the sidewalks are wet.
16 • Has no knowledge of tree species and what would be appropriate in terms of safety.
17 • Noted the Chinese Pistache tends to be dangerous because of the droppings.
18
19 Chair Pruden:
20 • The female Pistache produces seed-like droppings unlike the male Chinese Pistache. And would
21 not present a hazard.
22 • Asked Ms. Wood if she has identified portions of the Walmart parking lot that are particularly
23 dangerous to pedestrians and bicyclists and/or areas of the parking lot that have circulation
24 concerns. How should crosswalks be marked? Should this be done by paint or pavers or some
25 other technique?
26 • Are there other ways to make the site safer for people?
27
28 Julia Wood:
29 • All the entrances to the site are dangerous because where the driveways are located walking
30 facilities are not clearly designated and there are no sidewalks. There should be designated
31 crosswalks available to direct pedestrians safely from one area to another.
32 • Painted crosswalks are not really effective. Walmart has painted crosswalks in front of the store
33 that drivers pretty much ignore.
34 • Recommends having crosswalks that are clearly posted as such and high enough for drivers to
35 read. Drivers are typically not looking at the ground where many of the crosswalks are painted in
36 one type of design or another.
37 • Noted it to be a long way from Airport Park Boulevard to the store main entrance. A shorter route
38 is from Commerce Drive to the front door of Walmart.
39 • Traffic at the front doors to Walmart needs to be separated from pedestrian access areas. Right
40 now pedestrians and vehicles comingle at the entrances to Walmart. It may be that a 'safety
41 zone' should be created.
42 • Stepping off the curb into traffic at the Walmart entrances presents a safety hazard.
43
44 Peter Good:
45 • Objects with some goals/objectives of the Ukiah General Plan. There is no handicap or
46 pedestrian access to the Redwood Business Park from State Street.
47 • Unlike Washington Avenue if one views Walmart from this location he/she will notice Hastings
48 Road is narrow and so are the sidewalks that exist only on the northern side of road. So if a
49 person wants to take that route on foot, it is not safe.
50 • In 1993 when the original Walmart was approved one of the project conditions provides that
51 `sidewalks shall be put in place along the northern side of Hastings Road/Airport Road with
52 pedestrian access to Commerce Drive.' This condition makes it so there is pedestrian
53 access/handicap access to Walmart. This was not done. So, if it is not safe to travel to Walmart
54 from this area, one can travel Talmage Road to Airport Park Boulevard and this route is not
55 possible or safe either for pedestrians. The entire area including Waugh Lane does not provide
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 25, 2012
Page 8
1 for adequate pedestrian access such that sidewalks are only on one side of the street, do not
2 connect, are too narrow, do not provide for handicap access or do not exist.
3 • Walmart is a large project and there are other possible large projects in the foresight in a huge
4 business park where adequate pedestrian access/handicap access from State Street does not
5 exist.
6 • To market Ukiah as a Walkable community is not being truthful. Ukiah is only walkable on the
7 Westside.
8 • Walmart has no sidewalks in front of the building. Pedestrian access on the north and south ends
9 of Walmart is non-existent. There are crosswalks in the access driveways to safely guide
10 pedestrians to the store entrance. Walmart has not complied with the project conditions for the
11 original project.
12 • Is not sure how one can trust Walmart to actually do what they say they are going to do.
13
14 Commission: Noted while off-site issues are linked/integrated to the project, the public must stay on the
15 topic of the Site Development Permit. Opportunities to address off-site issues will occur during the
16 discussion of the Statement of Overriding Considerations.
17
18 Mary Anne Miller:
19 • No more than the code required parking should be provided.
20 • Supports consideration of the Site Development Permit at the square footage being proposed and
21 the corresponding parking for this square foot of 612 parking spaces since this is already a large
22 project as opposed to consideration of the 3°/o additional floor area that was discussed in the EIR.
23 • Any new parking accommodations should be permeable paving and this would allow water to
24 percolate down to the water table in an effort to recharge the water table.
25 • With the parking lot being such a great size, at least two major safety islands and two pathways
26 should be provided through the parking lot.
27 • Supports the concept of raising the curbs having tire stops in the parking lot to prevent vehicles
28 from invading the pedestrian planted pathways.
29 • Supports the planting of three rows of Redwood Trees to provide screening between the building
30 and Highway 101.
31 • The General Plan says major mature street trees should not be removed. The trees along the
32 mound on Airport Park Boulevard are beautiful and should be retained. Also, it is possible to
33 provide a pedestrian pathway with connecting sidewalks through the interior of the property that
34 can be linked to the area where these beautiful street trees are located.
35 • Provide landscaping near the building for aesthetic purposes. The parking lot trees should be of a
36 species that will provide for a nice shade canopy and planted/maintained properly so the trees
37 are allowed to mature and thrive.
38 • The garden center should primarily be outdoor. Plants live outdoors.
39 • The new 50,000 sf roof should have solar panels.
40
41 Mike Peterson:
42 • Has concern that there be sufficient sidewalks for pedestrians and that the design of the building
43 will be aesthetically pleasing and complementary to the other buildings in the neighborhood.
44 • Supports the project providing for pedestrian and bicycle paths.
45 • Allow for a sufficient number of trees, particularly in the parking lot.
46
47 Virginia Reynolds:
48 • Commented on the original project and project conditions that would pertain to the trees planted
49 on the site and noted many of the trees planted in the parking lot were not properly maintained,
50 have died and were not replaced.
51 • Emphasized the importance of landscaping for projects and the need for proper
52 care/maintenance and irrigation systems, particularly for parking lot trees.
53 • Cited the Windsor Walmart parking lot as a disgrace. The trees were not properly cared for and
54 have died.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 25, 2012
Page 9
1 • Questions the reasoning for moving the garden center to the north side of the building when
2 logically it should be located on the south side of the building. Having the garden center on the
3 north side would not be a way to conserve energy because of the need for grow lights and/or
4 other systems necessary for plants to grow and thrive.
5
6 Susan Knopf:
7 • Supports that Walmart should comply with the 20% landscaping coverage standard.
8 • Favors retaining as many trees as possible on the site because replacement trees will not be able
9 to provide sufficient shade for years to come.
10 • Project should comply with the number of trees required in the parking lot. Other trees and plants
11 should be planted in the ground as opposed to above ground in pots.
12 • Supports having the garden center indoors to prevent rain water from seeping through the soil in
13 potted plants that contain fertilizers/pesticides and/or other chemicals whereby the pollutant water
14 is discharged into streams and rivers.
15 • Supports the addition of sidewalks that are 6 to 10 feet wide with no obstructions.
16 • Is concerned about the proposed lighting features and supports that lighting on the building and
17 for the parking lot not be `spot lights' that are typical of lighting systems for commercial
18 establishments but rather subdued and placed such that the light is non-polluting.
19 • Asked if the sales tax revenue was an appropriate topic for the Site Development Permit
20 discussion.
21
22 It was noted the matter of sales tax revenue would likely be addressed in the Statement of Overriding
23 Considerations.
24
25 Pinky Kushner
26 • Many of her concerns have been addressed.
27 • There should be a small vegetative buffer zone between the building and Highway 101.
28 • Is concerned the access area for truck delivery is being increased such that there will be too
29 much pavement behind the building itself.
30 • Objects to lights that project outward and pollute.
31 • Inquired what is meant by Walmart having LED lit signs.
32 • It is not clear where the MTA bus will be located and how will it access the building. Is concerned
33 that the shelter for the MTA bus will open to the south and that the orientation of the shelter be
34 inappropriate. The sun is very fierce in the summer and this would be a problem.
35 • Is concerned about pedestrian access for the front of the building. Is of the opinion striped
36 walkways are not sufficient at all in terms of safety. These striped walkways are ignored over and
37 over again by drivers.
38 • Supports possibly having a raised walkway that would also be striped that acts like a very low
39 speed bump or a sidewalk.
40 • City code provides that developments have sidewalks with ADA access and be connected by a
41 accessible route of travel. This means there would be two pathways to the building from Airport
42 Park Boulevard not one. This same requirement is also addressed in California Building Code
43 section 114(b).1.2 that talks about having an accessible route of travel. This issue deserves
44 attention.
45 • The City of Ukiah also has very strong language about pedestrian access.
46 • Understands this is not a new project, but rather an expansion of an existing project whereby the
47 focus right now is on the site. However, wanted to add there is a major residential area to the
48 north of this project. Attention should be given to providing sidewalks so that people feel
49 comfortable walking south from this residential area to Walmart.
50 • There must be some kind of mistake in the original design because the AIP PD Ordinance
51 requires there be a vegetative buffer between two parcels. There is no existing vegetative buffer
52 separating the Walmart property and the gas station/Jack-in-Box property. Is of the opinion this
53 buffer should be required and recommends requiring approval of a variance if this issue continues
54 to be ignored.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 25, 2012
Page 10
1 • Is in favor of permeable paving and should not be allowed to make up the 20% of landscaping
2 coverage with permeable paving. Permeable paving is not the equivalent to landscaping and has
3 nothing to do with landscaping. Landscaping is an aesthetic wildlife issue. Permeable paving is
4 for automobiles in an effort to help cleanse the water of parking lot contaminants before it goes
5 into our water system below ground.
6 • Supports 20% landscaping be required and that the applicant should be held to this standard.
7 • Sidewalks should be 8 to 10 feet wide with no allowance given for tree wells. The tree wells
8 should be connected and the AIP PD Ordinance standards require that tree wells be connected in
9 some kind of path of vegetation. Is of the opinion, the applicant should also be held to this
10 standard.
11 • The Project should not be allowed to trim the Redwood trees adjacent to the freeway so that they
12 are not able to provide a visual buffer to the project, noting what has occurred to the Redwood
13 trees that were to act as a buffer between the freeway and the CVS building have been trimmed
14 too much so they do not provide the necessary screening.
15 • Maintain/plant trees to the south and to the west because this is where the sun is the most vicious
16 and make certain the entire building has shade.
17 • If Walmart was to incorporate `green' technologies and materials, there is no better way than to
18 have passive solar.
19 • Supports having solar panels on the original building.
20
21 Daphine McNeal:
22 • The Project is required to be consistent with the Ukiah General Plan.
23 • Has a concern that the building presents itself as box-like and is not aesthetically pleasing.
24 • Has a concern that the number of trees could be reduced and there would not be sufficient
25 shade. The entire area is blazing during the summer months with an extensive amount of
26 pavement and trees in the parking lot that provide no shade because they have died or have
27 been trimmed too much. Supports having shade for the Project in any way it can be done.
28 • Addressed the comment made by the spokesperson for Walmart that the 17-year old building
29 may be difficult to modify and this raises an alarm about the original plan and materials.
30 • Has a concern about increasing the light pollution in Ukiah Valley and supports the concept of
31 providing for downcast subdued lighting systems. Is hopeful LED lighting for the signs does not
32 produce too much illumination and create added light pollution.
33 • Suggests pedestrian crosswalks be provided for the Project and recommends they have safety
34 features other than just paint such as bumps or flashing mechanisms for increased pedestrian
35 safety.
36 • Suspects that Walmart has more traffic than Sonoma County Airport. Sonoma County Airport
37 uses flashing features for their crosswalks.
38
39 Don Larson:
40 • Four or five years ago the County held a special presentation on how to successfully mitigate the
41 water sheeting down large parking lots.
42 • The intent is to be able to capture runoff and redirect it for retention onsite and/or properly offsite.
43 There are systems/techniques/procedures that properly address runoff from pavements, one of
44 which redirects water under the pavement using French drains.
45 • It is important that water sheeting on pavement be appropriately addressed for developments.
46
47 Sandra Wilhite:
48 • Is of the opinion that skylights would be more beneficial than solar panels.
49
50 Serena Stafford:
51 • Addressed sidewalks and pedestrian access in terms of providing safety mechanisms and
52 recommends implementing a 'pebble' sidewalk at the store entrance that would prevent people
53 from slipping and possibly falling.
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 25, 2012
Page 11
1 Chair Pruden: Such techniques (bumps) are used on handicap ramps that provides for a `pebbly' surface
2 that is made of plastic material.
3
4 Ken Steely:
5 • Spoke about crosswalks and acknowledged there are lights that flash in crosswalks for safety
6 purposes.
7 • Addressed the 40-foot height of the pole lights and noted if the height is reduced more poles
8 would be necessary in the parking lot. The taller the pole the more light that is cast whereas if the
9 pole heights were reduced more poles would be needed to cover the dark areas. Also, lowering
10 the poles would interfere with the trees that would essentially create other problems.
11 • With regard to LED signs, Applebee's recently upgraded the monument sign in front of the
12 restaurant and this is an example of a LED sign. In terms of brightness, the sign has a plastic
13 overlay over the LED lights.
14
15 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 7:36 p.m.
16
17 Break: 7:36 p.m.
18
19 Reconvene: 7:47 p.m.
20
21 Chair Pruden: Commended the Planning Commissioners for their highly diligent commitment to serving
22 on the Commission and the tremendous amount of work and dedication it takes to do this job.
23
24 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 7:51 p.m.
25
26 Table 2: General Plan Consistencv Analvsis (Site Development Permit)
27
28 Pinky Kushner: Referred to the staff report regarding General Plan consistency and disagrees with
29 staff's analysis on most of the goal/policy items listed are consistent with the General Plan. Would be
30 happy to submit this in writing to the Commissioners and cited some of those goals/policies that in her
31 opinion are inconsistent:
32 • ED-1, Support a strong local economy
33 • GP-1, Promote, attract or assist in developing business, particularly those that add value to
34 resources already found or process in the Ukiah Valley
35 • GP-2, Promote business development, emphasizing local ownership of businesses in order to
36 keep capital growth within the community
37 • GP-20.2, Protect water supplies from adverse impacts. (Project does not have permeable
38 paving).
39 • GP-20.3, Maintain and enhance air quality
40 • GP-24, Conserve and enhance natural beauty of the Ukiah Valley (Special compensation would
41 have to be done in the parking lot to enhance the beauty of the Ukiah Valley).
42 • GP-26, Require that landscaping be a significant component of development and redevelopment
43 (Instead, Walmart wants a reduction to the 20% landscape standard. The reason for the
44 requested reduction is because Walmart could not accommodate the parking adequately if they
45 had the 20% landscaping. Recommends Walmart accommodate the General Plan requirements
46 and obtain a variance on the parking aspect. Why favor cars?)
47 • GP-28, Make Ukiah a leader in the development of responsible resource-conserving ways of
48 living and doing business, giving the fullest consideration to the impacts of our actions on future
49 generations. (This is inconceivable that this would be consistent).
50 • GP-29.3, Promote public transportation, services with walking distance in neighborhoods, and
51 any other feasible means of preventing needless vehicle use and pollution (This is no ride-sharing
52 promise, only minimal consideration in this regard).
53 • OC-13.1, Maintain long-term sustained yield of the Valley's groundwater system shall be the
54 standard for evaluation for groundwater protection programs (Without having a groundwater
55 system or permeable paving the groundwater system is negatively impacted).
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 25, 2012
Page 12
1 • OC-15.1, Protect water quality from adverse impacts of urban and agricultural runoff (To be fully
2 compliant you need permeable paving).
3 • It would take too much time to list all of the inconsistencies.
4
5 April Herriton:
6 • Likes the project.
7 • Has a concern about the Walmart parking lot. People have a tendency to park their cars too close
8 to others. This is very dangerous.
9 • People should have more respect for the Walmart store and refrain from littering.
10
11 Alan Nicholson: The Project is inconsistent with the following:
12 • GP-25.2, In areas to be developed or redeveloped, ensure usuable open space and common
13 space (With regard to the parking and loss of turf area will add to the urban heat island effect).
14 • CT-1.1, Land use entitlements shall be based on the classification and capacity of the street or
15 road providing primary access (EIR was not consistent in this regard).
16 • CD-17.1, Require commercial and industrial parking lots to be designed subservient to the
17 structure it serves.
18 • OC-25.1, Protect existing healthy mature trees to maintain shade and area attractiveness (This
19 project would remove trees and the newly planted trees may not survive based on the applicanYs
20 historical record concerning tree care and maintenance).
21 • OC-28.1, Upgrade the visual appearance of the corridor along Highway 101.
22 • OC-29.1, The development review process shall incorporate measures to maintain and enhance
23 the urban tree canopy. (With this comes the sense of urban space).
24 • GP-25.2, Open space would be lost to the Project's expansion.
25 • GP-26, The applicant is asking for a reduction in landscaping requirements.
26
27 Miriam Montesinos, Attorney for Applicant:
28 • Did not want to go through each goal/policy and give an opinion as to consistency.
29 • Planning staff has done a very thorough job of analyzing each relevant goal/policy for project
30 consistency with the General Plan.
31 • The law does not require a project to have an exact match for each and every policy of the
32 general plan.
33 • The law does recognize the General Plan is a moving document that has to address many
34 competing interests. It grows and changes as the community changes and for this reason the law
35 does not require that a project has consistency for each and every goal/policy. In fact, it is not
36 possible for a particular project to have consistency with each and every general plan policy
37 because the goals and policies are internally inconsistent. All that is required is to find that a
38 project conforms with the vision of the general plan for a particular project site. This is the case
39 with Walmart. It is a retail project on property that has a general plan retail/commercial zoning
40 designation.
41 • Planning staff has the expertise from a planning perspective to determine whether or not certain
42 goals/policies are consistent with the General Plan for a particular project.
43 • What is of importance with regard to project consistency with the General Plan is whether or not
44 the project is in harmony with the intent of the General Plan.
45
46 Mary Anne Miller:
47 • It may not be possible for the project to have all the goals/policies consistent with the General
48 Plan.
49 • The AIP has a master plan that would require a General Plan amendment. Does not think an
50 amendment was done. What should occur is to determine whether or not the project is consistent
51 with the AIP Ordinance 1098 that is the master plan for the AIP.
52 • There are some Project General Plan inconsistencies and they include:
53 CT-8, Encourage increased use of public transportation. (The intent is to get people out of their
54 cars, employees too).
55 CT-8.1, Make it easier to utilize bus service.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 25, 2012
Page 13
1 CT-9, Maximize the use of public transportation through efficient land use patterns and supporting
2 incentive programs.
3 CT-9.1, Include design features in new commercial and residential areas that make public
4 transportation convenient.
5 CT-9.2, Support a strategy to provide funding and incentives to increase ridership opportunities.
6 CT-11, Encourage increased use of car-or van-pooling.
7
8 Disagrees with staff that the aforementioned policies CT-8 through CT-11 do not necessarily
9 apply on a project-by-project basis. Is of the opinion these policies should be encouraged so as to
10 improve transportation. It is necessary to encourage people to get out of their cars and carpool.
11 Providing for shuttles is a good idea. A shuttle could transport handicapped persons across the
12 parking lot.
13
14 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 8:05 p.m.
15
16 Chair Pruden: The Commission will have to determine whether or not the project is consistent with the
17 Ukiah General Plan.
18
19 ED-1, Support a strong local economy
20 There is a staff request the Planning Commission determine whether or not the project is consistent with
21 this goal, which is to support a strong local economy.
22
23 Senior Planner Jordan: The entire table (Table 2) was generated from the EIR so the Planning
24 Commission has already discussed all of the General Plan goals and policies included in this table with
25 the exception of ED-1. All of these goals and policies and consistency determinations have previously
26 been reviewed by the Commission. The note `Program Level Goal/Policy' added to the relevant to
27 General Plan consistency table was done to clarify some confusion with the EIR process. As part of the
28 EIR process all goals and policies that might be relevant to the project were included for consideration in
29 order to provide information were included in the table. The `Program Level Goal/Policy' was added to let
30 people know that a particular policy was not intended to be applied on a project-by-project basis, but
31 rather how the Project might actually address a particular policy anyway even though it is not a project
32 level policy or goal. The only policy/goal that is new that the Commission and public has not discussed is
33 ED-1.
34
35 It was pointed out the first three policies/goals in the table have not been discussed.
36
37 Senior Planner Jordan: Acknowledged GP-1 and GP-2 were included in the table in the EIR, but since
38 they are not environmentally related they were not discussed.
39
40 Commission:
41
42 Project is compatible with Table 3: Airport Compatibility Criteria Analysis.
43
44 Commissioner Brenner: Has questions and asked how this should be addressed.
45
46 Chair Pruden: It may be more appropriate to ask the questions later.
47
48 Commission:
49
50 Table 4: AIP Ordinance 1098 Consistencv Analvsis discussion:
51
52 Retail Commercial Store: Consistent
53 Minimum Lot Size: Consistent
54 Maximum Lot Coverage: Consistent
55 Building Setbacks (minimum): Consistent
56 Building Height(maximum): Consistent
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 25, 2012
Page 14
1 Screening/Screening Materials (This is in reference to the areas in the back of the store).
2 The public favors that more Redwood trees be planted in this area.
3 The public would like to see some kind of designated vegetative buffer between the gas station
4 property and Walmart property.
5
6 Chair Pruden:
7 • Noted the section regarding `screening' states screening is required and pertains to screening
8 of a loading dock, recycling areas and rooftop equipment wherein examples of screening
9 types, i.e., masonry walls, landscaping or decorative fencing are provided.
10 • Flag this section because it may be an issue as to how it presents itself in terms of the
11 community's interpretation of screening.
12 • Should come back and discuss this issue as it relates to the landscaping plan and the storm
13 water treatment plan.
14 •
15 Bike Lanes/Access Driveways and Deceleration Lanes
16
17 Staff clarified Class III bike route is on-street with signage and does not include striping. Class II
18 bike lane is on-street with striping. Class III bike lane is the requirement in the AIP Ordinance
19 1098. The Project includes Class III bike route on Airport Park Boulevard. Transportation and
20 Traffic mitigation measure 4.104c requires the installation of Class III bike routes on both sides of
21 Airport Park Boulevard. Signage will be provided as part of the project.
22
23 Chair Pruden: Can a bike lane be designated for the interior of the Walmart lot? In other words,
24 once someone enters Walmart, a bike path would be designated in the parking lot that would lead
25 to bike rack.
26
27 Staff: This would be considered a Class I path and must be at least 10 feet wide. The concern
28 would be how bikes would interact with pedestrians. The question is how to accommodate bikes
29 and pedestrians and make it work. A Class I is usually an off-street path that is typically 10 feet
30 wide in order to accommodate bikes and pedestrians but is intended to accommodate bikes.
31 Class II is on the street striped pathway and Class III is simply a route that is signed.
32 Acknowledged the site plan does say Class III 'bike lane' as opposed to Class III `bike route' that
33 is signed not striped.
34
35 Staff: The site plan does not show off-site bike paths, but it is discussed in the EIR.
36
37 Commissioner Whetzel: Is there any provision for crosswalks to be implemented along
38 Commerce Drive and Airport Park Boulevard coming from Branches restaurant over to Walmart?
39 There are no crosswalks for that entire intersection.
40
41 Staff: This issue was included in the EIR as one of the mitigation measures.
42
43 Commissioner Brenner: What is the location of the bus stop?Will the facility be sheltered?
44
45 Staff:
46 • The exact location of the bus stop location will be determined by MTA, but the preferred
47 location would be on the north side of Commerce Drive to the west of the westernmost
48 driveway.
49 • The intent is for the facility to be sheltered. There will be crosswalks for safe pedestrian
50 travel to the bus stop.
51 • The bus stop will not be located on the Walmart property but rather on the street and the
52 pad for the shelter would be relocated to the landscape area that is currently lawn.
53 • Is not sure whether or not the pad is counted as part of the landscaping coverage.
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 25, 2012
Page 15
1 Commissioner Brenner: Is the pedestrian access from the north along the gas station area
2 existing? Is this pathway intended to be changed and/or improved?
3
4 Staff: Conformed the pathway is existing. There are no plans for changes or improvements.
5
6 Building Orientation: No discussion
7
8 Sidewalk Requirements:
9
10 Commission: Is 5 feet the ADA requirement for path widths?
11
12 Staff: It is the AIP Ordinance requirement.
13
14 Chair Pruden: One of discussion items is whether or not sidewalks for the Project can be
15 widened and if there are any suggestions thereof.
16
17 Staff:
18 • The EIR requires the sidewalks to be wider. Transportation and Traffic mitigation
19 measure 4.10-3d requires the sidewalks on Airport Park Boulevard and Commerce Drive
20 to be a minimum of 6 feet wide and 8 to 10 feet wide where possible. This mitigation
21 measure would be included as a condition of approval for the Project.
22
23 • With regard to sidewalk requirements, AIP Ordinance 1098 requires that lots with
24 frontage along the primary street shall provide a 5-foot curvilinear sidewalk located within
25 the required front setback. Every effort shall be made to link development with attractive
26 and accessible pedestrian facilities. Since the approval of the existing development, the
27 AIP PD Ordinance has been amended to include this requirement. The Project includes
28 5-foot wide curvilinear sidewalks along the Airport Park Boulevard and Commerce Drive
29 frontages, a pedestrian walkway from the Airport Park Boulevard sidewalk through the
30 parking lot to the front of the store, and a walkway from the Commerce Drive sidewalk to
31 the south side of the store. In some areas the sidewalk would be straighter in order to
32 accommodate existing trees and new tree plantings. The intent in this regard is to not
33 impact trees or the sidewalk.
34
35 Commissioner Brenner: Would increasing the width of the sidewalk diminish the landscaping?
36
37 Staff: Does not know how substantially the landscaping would be diminished because it is not
38 known where the sidewalks can accommodate a 6 to 10 foot width.
39
40 Commissioner poble: Are the sidewalks included or excluded in the landscape calculations?
41
42 Staff: They should have been excluded and to recommend asking this of the applicant to be sure.
43 There has not been a discussion whether or not to count the sidewalk as part of landscaping.
44
45 Building Location, Building Location and Orientation:
46 • Commission will ask about solar opportunities
47
48 Architectural Design
49
50 Chair Pruden has questions about the architectural design with regard to a porch approach to
51 the front of the store where the awning roof points upward direction rather than downward. This
52 arcade look is not feasible in terms of providing adequate shelter from the sun or rain. This is an
53 issue that needs to be discussed. Is of the opinion the trees in front of the building will provide
54 adequate shade from the sun.
55
56 Building Exteriors
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 25, 2012
Page 16
1 • Discussion about the reason for the protective bollards in front of the building.
2
3 Chair Pruden does not have a particular problem with the color scheme. The color scheme is
4 certainly not out of compliance. The color palate is a corporate branding and would like to see the
5 palate changed for Walmart stores at some point and this is in response to our community.
6
7 Commissioner Brenner:
8 • Has seen more urban Walmart stores that provide for more contextual solutions. It is
9 possible to change/vary color the context specific to palates and architectural designs
10 that cater to the desires of communities/regions.
11 • Would have liked the applicant to have voluntarily through the Design Review Board
12 process so as to address/discuss some of the design aspects of the Project. As a result
13 environmentally speaking, it may be the design for the arcade would have been
14 differently articulated.
15 • Has a concern about the north elevation with the giant roll-up doors. There is no
16 covering.
17
18 Chair Pruden:
19 • The community can recognize the color palate/corporate branding but it does not mean
20 we, as a community, have to accept it or approve it.
21 • With regard to the north elevation, the Commission can request some screening if this is
22 possible since the element of `screening' for loading docks is being addressed for
23 consistency purposes with the AIP Ordinance. This can be made a requirement.
24 Lighting
25 The issue has been raised that the lighting for the Project be lowered. The Project would like to reuse the
26 existing 39-foot poles. A determination will have to be made whether or not this is acceptable.
27
28 Chair Pruden noted Attachment 4 addresses the lighting features and inquired whether this what
29 the applicant is proposing for the `box over-head.'
30
31 Staff: As shown on attachment 4, confirmed this is what is being proposed. Referred to staff's
32 analysis regarding lighting on page 24 of the staff report and stated Aesthetics mitigation
33 measure 4.1-2 included in the EIR also addresses exterior lighting.
34
35 Chair Pruden: The outdoor lighting features are in compliance, but would like to see some of the
36 fixtures more decorative. The pole lights resemble that of a `box.'
37
38 Commission: Okay with the 39-foot height for the pole lights. However, it could be problematic in
39 the event the landscaping is done correctly and the trees in the parking lot reach a height of 39 or
40 more.
41
42 Design Amenities
43
44 Chair Pruden:
45 • Staff requests Planning Commission determine the appropriate number and location of
46 benches at the front of the store.
47 • The project does not include an outdoor area for employees. It appears there may be an
48 opportunity for an outdoor area for employees i.e., in the landscaped area to the east of
49 the outdoor garden center and/or in the triangular landscaped area to the north of the
50 parking area adjacent to the garden center. Staff acknowledges homeless people often
51 congregate in these areas and providing outdoor seating areas could create an attractive
52 nuisance.
53 • Staff is requesting the Commission determine if outdoor areas for employees should be
54 provided as part of the project. Should the Planning Commission decide to require this for
55 the project, a condition of approval would need to be included for the project.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 25, 2012
Page 17
1
2 Commission: Would like to see an employee lounge area and/or outdoor break area with design
3 amenities.
4
5 AIP Parking Requirements
6
7 Chair Pruden: According to the staff report, a minimum of 577 parking spaces are required for
8 the retail space (144,180 sf, 30 parking spaces for the indoor garden center (7,435 sf) and 5
9 parking spaces for the outdoor garden center for a total of 612 parking spaces. The project
10 includes 632 parking spaces of which 20 would be used for cart corrals providing 612 net vehicle
11 parking spaces which is consistent with the minimum number of parking spaces required for the
12 project.
13
14 Commissioner Sanders: Looking at the staff report and comments regarding the AIP Ordinance,
15 surplus parking was identified. Is of the opinion requiring a minimum of 612 parking spaces is
16 excessive. However, given the City code requirements asked about the calculations.
17
18 Staff: Clarified the number of parking spaces is based on how the building is used and the total
19 calculates to 612. The number of parking spaces provided on the site is 632, of which 20 of these
20 spaces are used for cart corrals. The absolute minimum number of parking spaces required for
21 the Project is 612 and the Project is not over-parked by a single space.
22
23 Chair Pruden:
24 • Would like the applicant to clarify where employees park their vehicles.
25 • According to the staff report, the Project provides the minimum number of parking spaces
26 required by the UCC. AIP PD Ordinance 1098 allows the Commission to deviate from the
27 parking requirements included in the UCC. Staff requests the Commission determine if
28 the Project should be required to provide additional onsite parking to meet the holiday
29 peak parking demand, enter into an agreement to use excess parking on a different site
30 to accommodate peak parking demand, implement a Transportation Demand
31 Management (TDM) program in order to ensure there is onsite parking available to serve
32 the project during the holiday season, or to approve the parking as proposed.
33
34 Staff: The Project complies with the parking requirements. It may be that during the holiday
35 season onsite parking may not be adequate to serve the holiday peak. Staff wanted to disclose
36 this to the Commission and let the Commission decide whether or not the holiday peak parking is
37 an issue.
38
39 Chair Pruden:
40 • Does not want to over-park and/or add more parking just because the Christmas sales
41 may be large.
42 • Would there a problem if Walmart went to an adjoining neighbor and entered into an
43 agreement for additional parking spaces.
44
45 Commissioner Whetzel: It may be that more information is necessary. Has there been a holiday
46 peak in past years and was this a problem.
47
48 Chair Pruden:
49 • The applicant can answer this question.
50 • Walmart has been a sponsor of the holiday trolley which does a pick up every hour or
51 two.
52 • There may be other parking options as opposed to adding more parking, such as a rental
53 agreement with a contiguous parking lot.
54
55 Commission: Is not in favor of adding more parking to the parking lot.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 25, 2012
Page 18
1 Commissioner poble:
2 • As a project condition, should how the applicant deals with overflow parking be optional
3 and be required to work with staff in this regard?
4 • People typically park where they can and walk to whatever store they want to.
5
6 Commissioner Whetzel:
7 • The Airport Industrial Park is not pedestrian friendly. There are no sidewalks and/or
8 area(s) designating a pedestrian walkway. As it is now, a person could get hit by a
9 vehicle when crossing the street.
10
11 Commissioner Brenner:
12 • Recommends asking the applicant if there is a problem accommodating peak parking
13 demand and if so provide a plan that would facilitate resolution. It may be a TDM program
14 is necessary to ensure there is onsite parking available to serve the project during the
15 holiday season that includes providing for a pedestrian pathway for the program so that
16 people can get from one parking lot to another or across a parking lot safely. It has been
17 brought to the attention of the Commission by the public that the entire Walmart site and
18 adjacent sites are not accessible. Implementation of a pathway would be a way to
19 improve the infrastructure in the area.
20 • Supports the Commission see a drawing/plan that includes a pedestrian pathway if some
21 agreement is made and is necessary to use excess parking on a different site to
22 accommodate peak parking demand particularly since this matter has been called out as
23 a mitigation issue. The agreement would address how the plan would work not only in
24 writing but in a formal rendering.
25
26 Staff: Staff is not calling the holiday peak parking demand and corresponding pathway(s) an
27 issue but rather is pointing this out because these are things the Planning Commission is
28 typically concerned about i.e., what is holiday parking, how does it differ, is it necessary
29 to address. The intent is to provide the Commission with information. There are
30 limitations on what we can require the applicant to do as part of the Site Development
31 Permit. The text in the staff report on page 25 regarding additional parking considerations
32 that addresses a TDM program and possible solutions is brought up for informational
33 purposes. We cannot require another property owner(s) to share parking
34 accommodations via an agreement to allow Walmart customers to park on their site.
35 Walmart does have a carpooling program so if there are concerns about how to manage
36 the parking and Walmart is amenable because of Planning Commission concern, the
37 existing program could include measures/options that address holiday peak parking
38 demand such as incorporating/adding the holiday trolley to the carpooling program. While
39 there are options, there are limitations as to what we can require Walmart to do.
40
41 Chair Pruden: The Planning Commission is clear on the issue of not providing for more parking
42 spaces other than what is the minimum requirement.
43
44 Commissioner Brenner: Inquired about the matter of parking in the EIR and corrected his
45 inquiry to ask about traveling across Commerce Drive that was addressed as a mitigation issue in
46 the EIR.
47
48 Staff: Parking was not addressed in the EIR. As a mitigation measure ADA access must be
49 provided across Commerce Drive.
50
51 Commissioner Brenner: If ADA access is necessary this would facilitate parking across the
52 street. Is it appropriate to ask for some sort of plan in this regard?
53
54 Staff: Since Walmart does not control the property across the street they could of their own
55 volition if the adjacent property owner(s) is amenable enter into a parking agreement to allow
56 Walmart employees and customers to park in a neighboring parking lot across the street.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 25, 2012
Page 19
1 Commissioner poble: Has reservations about forcing one property owner to go to another
2 property owner for the purpose of using parking to meet the holiday peak parking demand
3 problem on another site.
4
5 Chair Pruden: The Commission cannot require a property owner to go to another property
6 owner to use a site for excess parking accommodations. What can be done is to make safe
7 crosswalks leaving the property so that if people are crossing to another parking lot by choice
8 they can do so in a safe fashion. The Planning Commission can make sure this happens. Added,
9 in the past it is not uncommon where the Commission has had projects especially in the older
10 sections of town that did not have sufficient parking accommodations onsite and were not
11 required to meet all of the parking requirements for the project. To this end, the applicant would
12 come in with a parking lease with a neighboring property owner so that the parking
13 needs/overflow parking for the applicant can be accommodated.
14
15 Commissioner Brenner: Referred to the mitigation measure in the EIR that requires a
16 pedestrian pathway or access across Commerce Drive and would this be Walmart's responsibility
17 to deal with a point of entry?
18
19 Chair Pruden: Asked if the question pertains to crossing from the south side of Walmart property
20 over to the Furniture Center parking lot?
21
22 Commissioner Brenner: Clarified, crossing from the south side of Commerce Drive and inquired
23 whether an exact location has been identified.
24
25 Staff: Confirmed this is a mitigation measure. The pathway has to be at the intersection of
26 Commerce Drive and Airport Park Boulevard and not mid-block and/or across from where the
27 Walmart driveways are located.
28
29 There was Commission discussion about considering adding a crosswalk mid-block on
30 Commerce Drive and/or in the vicinity where the Commerce Drive bus stop would be located.
31
32 Chair Pruden: Having the bus stop to be on the opposite of the street which is so frequently used
33 by Walmart customers allows them to jaywalk on Commerce Drive and walk in unsafe conditions.
34 The interface between the two driveways without crosswalks that link the stores north and south
35 is really a dangerous situation.
36
37 Commissioner Whetzel: If the bus stop is to be moved to the north side of Commerce Drive,
38 then there should be some kind of pedestrian walkway from the south side of Commerce Drive to
39 the bus stop instead of jaywalking or taking some other access route.
40
41 Commissioner Brenner: Understands the constraints of the site and when doing a site design
42 like this often times an entry from one store does not correspond with the front entry of the other
43 store in terms of pedestrian access. However, looking at the southern side of the site, there is a
44 pedestrian path at east side of Walmart's entry off of Commerce Drive. It is possible to link the
45 two sides of Commerce Drive for general safety purposes and facilitate a pedestrian pathway
46 between those two lots. While it is mid-block at the same time it links the two sites on either side
47 at the entryways. Accordingly then, it would be feasible to put an access point that would allow
48 pedestrians to also go to the bus stop. In the event there is holiday peak parking demand and the
49 concern that someone would park on the opposite lot, this person could get across Commerce
50 Drive without jaywalking or having to walk all the way to the end of the block to Airport Park
51 Boulevard to cross the street and/or even access the bus stop without having to walk to Airport
52 Park Boulevard and back down Commerce Drive provided this is viable.
53
54 Commissioner Sanders: It would be helpful to have a pedestrian circulation plan.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 25, 2012
Page 20
1 Commissioner Whetzel: Knowing where the bus stop is to be located would assist with planning
2 for pedestrian access and providing crosswalks and sidewalks.
3
4 There was Commission discussion about sidewalks.
5
6 Commissioner poble:
7 • Often times you see the pedestrian path of travel done in a more of a textured manner
8 not just stripes and it looks nice. It has a different surface so if a person is impaired,
9 he/she understands it is for use by pedestrians. The colorful dotted ADA ramp warns
10 handicapped persons they are approaching a traffic area/intersection. For a person to
11 know he/she is in that path/crosswalk is important. Likes the look of stamped concrete
12 and other type of textured surfacing that identifies pedestrian pathways/crosswalks. Such
13 materials have a function and/or purpose in that pathways provide for properly identified
14 pedestrian pathways and they are aesthetically pleasing. This amenity should be
15 incorporated into the landscape plan so the Commission can see how what this looks
16 like.
17 • Would like to see alternative approaches with how to deal with crosswalks other than
18 striping.
19
20 Chair Pruden: The site plan indicates for three exterior doors different materials for crosswalks
21 which will require clarification as to what the materials represent.
22
23 Commissioner Brenner: A crosswalk could have a `raised bump.'
24
25 Chair Pruden: There are many types of textured possibilities for crosswalks, such as pavers. The
26 opportunity exists to do something nice in front of the building.
27
28 Loading Space: No discussion
29
30 Bicycle Parking:
31
32 Chair Pruden: Does this apply to employees on duty or total number of employees of which
33 there are 240.
34
35 Staff:
36 • The number of spaces provided is based on the total number of employees and parking
37 spaces. Based on the total number of employees, 24 bike spaces would be required. The
38 standard for determining the number of bicycle racks is 1 for every 10 employees,
39 normally on the maximum shift, but UCC does not contain this language.
40 • Referred to staff's analysis that indicates 12 parking spaces are required for the 612
41 vehicle parking spaces plus 29 based on the number of employees. The project site plan
42 indicates bike racks on the south and west sides of the building, However, the exact
43 number of parking spaces is unknown. Based on the number of employees and parking
44 spaces, it appears that 41 bicycle parking spaces would be required. Transportation and
45 Traffic Mitigation Measure 4.10-3bA requires the project to comply with this requirement
46 and this mitigation measure would be carried forward as a condition of approval for the
47 project. A condition of approval would be included requiring the location, number and
48 style of bike rack to be included as part of the building permit plans and subject to staff
49 review and approval. The project description from the applicant (attachment 1) indicates
50 bike parking would be provided as required by the UCC.
51 • Typically for bicycle parking, there is a condition of approval for bike parking that requires
52 the applicant to submit the number of employees with the building permit plans. This
53 allows staff to verify the numbers so that staff can determine how many bike spaces are
54 required for the project. The City Zoning Ordinance requirements for bicycle parking differ
55 from those of the AIP Ordinance standards because the number of bicycle spaces in the
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 25, 2012
Page 21
1 Zoning Ordinance is based on the number of parking spaces rather than number of
2 employees and number of parking spaces.
3
4 Chair Pruden: Clarification is necessary regarding the number of bicycle racks. Flag this section.
5
6 Mary Anne Miller: Stated the public would like to discuss the Statement of Overriding
7 Considerations and asked if were possible to continue the discussion on the Site Development
8 Permit.
9
10 Chair Pruden: It is important the Planning Commission continue its review of the Site
11 Development Permit so that staff has the necessary direction to formulate the findings for Project
12 approval.
13
14 Commission: Determined they would not be able to get to discussion concerning the Statement
15 of Overriding Considerations at this meeting.
16
17 The Commission has questions of the applicant regarding bicycle parking.
18
19 AIP Ordinance 1098 Landscaping Requirements
20
21 Chair Pruden:
22 • The Commission recognizes requiring a minimum of 50% landscaping coverage in 10 years is not
23 working for the community and corresponding projects. To the greater shame of Walmart, it has
24 not met the 50% landscaping coverage in 17 years and they should have.
25 • The intent is to remove the Olive trees in the parking lot that have been excessively over-pruned.
26 • Would like to know who does the landscaping for Walmart. What practices are used to maintain
27 the landscaping.
28 • There is considerable knowledge and expertise regarding landscaping maintenance/care and
29 practices in this community.
30 • The shading in front of the building needs to be addressed. Accordingly, the Crape Myrtles will
31 not grow tall enough to adequately shade the building.
32 • This community has no experience with Cherry Laurels. This species needs to be looked at.
33 • If Chinese Pistache is chosen, it needs to be the male species and not the female species.
34 • The Red Plum trees that are currently in the front of the building do not need to be removed and
35 are proposed for removal. They have a nice canopy on them now and are aesthetically beautiful
36 in the spring.
37 • Is of the opinion the number of trees to be removed is basically to give the building more
38 exposure from the street.
39 • There is a nice grouping of trees along the outside curb on the northern side of the property,
40 which serves basically as a homeless encampment at certain times of the day.
41 • There is a nice growth of trees in the front of the site along Airport Park Boulevard. If she had the
42 choice of taking out the trees in favor of a sidewalk, she would rather have the trees stay in.
43 • Would put the sidewalk on the inside of the parking lot.
44 • The landscaping plan needs work. Is offended how the project with regard to landscaping for the
45 last 17 years has been handled on the site.
46 • Would like assurance that the landscaping will not be like it has been for the past 17 years at the
47 Walmart site.
48
49 Commissioner Sanders: Would like to know the number of trees planned for removal on the site. The
50 draft EIR indicates 65 existing trees will be removed. After going through the various documents, it
51 appears the number of trees for removal is 108 and would like clarification in this regard.
52
53 Staff: The number of trees for removal has been revised. Staff requested the landscape architect be
54 conservative as to the number of the trees that will or have to be removed due to their location in
55 expansion areas and those trees that would be negatively affected by construction impacts.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 25, 2012
Page 22
1 Commissioner Sanders: How many Valley Oaks will be retained?
2
3 Staff: Does not have this information readily at hand.
4
5 Chair Pruden:
6 • Does not see effective LID treatment for the parking lot. Tree wells are not particularly successful
7 in Ukiah's climate. The parking lot sustains a brutality of heat during the summer months, which
8 makes it very difficult with the isolation of trees in tree wells to thrive.
9 • Would like to see a continuous landscaping strip to get a more viable tree canopy in the parking
10 lot.
11
12 Commissioner poble: Asked about the Olive trees and whether they are salvageable.
13
14 Chair Pruden: These trees have been over zealously pruned. If a tree dies, it must be replaced. Proper
15 care/maintenance of trees is absolutely crucial as to whether or not the parking lot trees thrive.
16
17 Commissioner poble:
18 • Inquired if there is an alternative plan the applicant has prepared that addresses the 20%
19 landscaping requirement or has this aspect been ignored?
20 • Would like to see a landscaping plan incorporating 20°/o landscaping.
21 • It is important for the applicant to make a statement in this regard about the landscaping.
22
23 Planning Director Stump:
24 • Addressed the 20°/o landscaping requirement and noted the Planning Commission has granted
25 two modifications from the 20% landscaping requirement in the AIP and provided an explanation
26 of the circumstances where these occurred.
27
28 Commission:
29 • Would like to see the 20% landscaping requirement met for the Walmart Expansion Project.
30 • Agrees with the applicant's request to grant relief from the 50% shade coverage standard.
31
32 Chair Pruden asked if the Commission supports requiring a LID component built into the parking lot.
33
34 The applicant in Attachment 1 noted the following modifications to grading, drainage:
35 1. The existing sewer, water and storm drain service to the site will remain the same.
36 2. The modified areas of the parking lot and building expansion area will be directed to existing
37 storm drain facilities.
38 3. A portion of the existing onsite water line associated fire hydrant will be relocated on the north
39 side of the existing building.
40 4. A new grease interceptor will be installed for the grocery use in the building.
41 5. An existing sand oil interceptor will be removed with the automobile Tire & Lube Express.
42 6. The front drive aisle will be replaced and regraded to provide an at-grade entry at the entry
43 vestibules.
44 7. The areas adjacent to the building and within the expansion are will be graded to meet the
45 finish floor elevation.
46 8. Adjacent areas in the parking lot will be modified to provide proper transition for exiting.
47
48 Commissioner poble:
49 • Does not support going with the drainage plan for the site specific to the methodology for the
50 treatment of water runoff and requests some clarification from the project engineer.
51 • The treatment process/system must treat all of the parking lot not just a portion.
52 • The treatment area is located on the farthest southeast corner of the property as shown on GP-1
53 (Grading & Drainage Plan).
54 • The LID swale runs along the eastern portion of the property adjacent to a roadway that appears
55 to be treating or taking in some runoff from the building and parking lot.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 25, 2012
Page 23
1 • Assumes the water retention and storage calculation was prepared by the project engineer but
2 there is no reference.
3 • Does not see in the narrative where there is any indication that the proposed water treatment
4 devices actually have been look at.
5 • Is of the opinion water treatment devices should be looked at upfront for projects because a
6 significant difference can be made.
7 • Does the proposed drainage meet the Water Quality Treatment Standards set by the State
8 Regional Water Control Board.
9
10 Looking at SP-1 (Site Plan) that shows the pervious and impervious data and GP-1 (Drainage Plan) there
11 was Commission discussion concerning the drainage and location of where the water quality treatment
12 units that will be installed for the project:.
13 • Questions regarding how the treatment system appears to be only treating one side of the site
14 that is connected to the existing storm drain system that runs along the frontage of the building.
15 • The treatment is sub-surface.
16 • Questioned how effective drainage is to occur in the parking lot with just the use of inlets in front
17 of the building that are picking up water runoff from the entire parking lot.
18 • Is the proposed drainage plan adequate to handle water runoff from the building and parking lot
19 in terms of appropriately handling retention and discharge?
20 • Where is the discharge?
21
22 There was discussion concerning drainage on the site in conjunction with the existing/proposed contour
23 line, ridge/swale line, existing/proposed storm drain line, existing improvements that will remain and new
24 improvements to be installed and how this would all function.
25
26 Commissioner poble: The discharge is located in the swale adjacent to the freeway. There is a swale
27 located on the freeway right-of-way and parallel to the area to be used for Low Impact Development (LID)
28 and/or runoff reduction (detention) improvements as shown on GP-1. This swale is existing. The LID area
29 is not existing.
30
31 There was Commission discussion whether or not the applicant should be held to the 20% landscape
32 requirement. There were some concerns that other projects have been granted relief and/or exemptions
33 from the 20% landscaping requirement. However, it was noted such relief in other cases cannot be
34 compared and/or used against this project. It has been made clear that relief from the standard would be
35 considered case-by-case according to site conditions and/or other types of issues. There may be
36 alternative landscaping options that can be considered for the Walmart Site Development Permit.
37
38 Commissioner Whetzel would like clarification regarding the Grading and Drainage Plan as he is unable
39 to locate the proposed storm drain line.
40
41 Commissioner Sanders asked how the Commission views permeable paving for the Project. The
42 California Regional Quality Control Board will be recommending best management practices be applied
43 to the Project.
44
45 Chair Pruden: Permeable surfacing/paving is not codified. City Public Works Department does not
46 require it for projects. It is a good idea, but is unsure whether it can be required. As an alternative, what
47 typically occurs is the Planning Commission typically asks applicants if they would be willing to consider
48 doing permeable paving for their parking lots.
49
50 Commissioner poble: In terms of site layout and what we are looking at to evaluate, permeable
51 pavement does not have much potential to change where the parking is, how much landscaping there will
52 be and those kinds of things. While he supports the application of permeable paving approach for parking
53 lots, is more concerned about making sure the bio-swale is large enough/long enough or the bio-retention
54 area works or the storm water quality unit is not the size of a truck. These are the things that can affect
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 25, 2012
Page 24
1 the site layout. The Planning Commission needs to know upfront what is going to affect the site and what
2 will not. Recommends getting feedback from the applicant in this regard.
3
4 Staff: Even though permeable paving is not a City requirement, it is not prohibited so long as it meets
5 Public Works standards including the needs of emergency vehicles and other relevant applicable
6 factors/criteria.
7
8 Commissioner poble: How would the Commission deal with a change to the site plan, even a small
9 change that affected the landscaping or the location of certain key features if the applicant got into the
10 detail design and discovered the Project cannot meet certain standards such as the Water Quality
11 Treatment standards and the site plan has to be changed. Does this mean the project has to come back
12 to the Planning Commission?
13
14 Staff: The plans have to be in substantial conformance with the original approval. It would, however,
15 depend upon the degree of the change so every small change does not have to come back to the
16 Commission.
17
18 Chair Pruden: What if the applicant offered to do permeable surfacing would this change the LID
19 approach?Would there be no necessity then for water treatment? There would still be the runoff from the
20 building.
21
22 Commissioner poble: Would like to be assured the Project site plans have been looked at in enough
23 detail it is not going to change and would like the applicant to address this.
24
25 Sign Requirements
26 - Signage
27 - Freeway Facing Signs
28 - Sign Illumination
29 - Sign Area
30
31 Commission: Is the applicant asking for a freeway facing sign?
32
33 Staff: Noted the applicant already has a freeway facing sign and the section addressing this matter is
34 included in the staff report. What it essentially says is if there is a freeway facing sign, the Planning
35 Commission needs to approve it as part of the Site Development Permit. A project should not have a
36 freeway facing sign unless it is part of the Site Development Permit. Staff is just acknowledging that
37 Walmart has a freeway facing sign and the project includes a freeway facing sign. Other businesses
38 in the AIP also have freeway facing signs.
39
40 Commissioner Whetzel: Will the freeway facing sign remain the same or will there be some
41 modification?
42
43 Staff: The design looks similar, but recommended the applicant more specifically address signage.
44 Page 7 of Attachment 1 does talk about the signage modifications. The Walmart signs at the front and
45 rear elevation will be internally lit by LED.
46
47 The Commission made no other comments pertinent to the section on signage.
48
49 Table 5: Desiqn Guidelines for Proiect Outside the Downtown Desiqn District Consistencv
50 - Site Features
51 - Coordination
52 - Pedestrian Access
53 - Parking Lots
54 - Landscaping
55 - Signs
56 - Lighting
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 25, 2012
Page 25
1 - Visual Appearance
2 - Walkable and Bikeable Communities
3 - Energy Conservation
4 - Green Building
5 - Visitability and Universal Design
6 - Maintenance
7
8 Chair Pruden:
9 • Addressed `pedestrian access' and in her travels to Florida has noticed that parking lots virtually
10 have a sidewalk down the middle and this is very convenient. This approach is effective with
11 stopping the interface between pedestrians and vehicles.
12 • For the Walmart site, there could be a sidewalk in the middle of the site. Why is the
13 sidewalk/pathway so far from the door?
14 • There appears to be plans for a sidewalk at the south end of the site.
15 • Does not see what point it serves to have a sidewalk at the south end of the site. Sidewalks
16 should be close to and/or connect with a doorway.
17
18 There was Commission discussion about the best and most feasible location for sidewalks in terms of
19 adequately accommodating customers and customers that are handicapped. The sidewalk/pathway down
20 the middle of the site was identified as the pedestrian walkway for handicapped persons.
21
22 There was no further Commission discussion of Table 5. The Commission requested the applicant
23 answer questions regarding Tables 4 and 5.
24
25 Stanley Iverson, TAIT and Associates, Applicant and Project Civil Engineer Consultant referred to
26 the site plans and addressed site access, location of sidewalks and planter strip areas, different textures
27 for pathways, lighting fixtures and lighting on poles in the parking lot, parking, plans for grading drainage
28 and corresponding water treatment facilities to address incremental runoff and location of storm drain line.
29
30 There was a lengthy Commission discussion with staff, Project Civil Engineer Stanley Iverson and Project
31 Architect Charles Jordan representing the Architecture Firm Shane O'Brien, Project Attorney Miriam
32 Montesinos, and Walmart stores representative Deborah Herron regarding the Project:
33
34 Deborah Herron, Walmart:
35 • Employees are encouraged to park on the north side of the site. There was discussion relative to
36 attachment 3 of the staff report and the `Employer Trip Reduction Strategies Implementation Plan'
37 and whether or not this program is in effect. The applicant acknowledged the program is in effect
38 and that there are different trip reduction strategies options available. The Program Support
39 Strategy outlines the specifics about how rideshare works and is maintained.
40
41 Commission:
42 • Not supportive of any more on-site parking other than what has been allocated.
43 • Past practices regarding care/maintenance of the landscaping has been a failure.
44 • Asked about the building overhangs and questioned why the site plans indicate the canopy tilts
45 upward with regard to providing adequate shade coverage and what possible measures can be
46 taken to better provide for more shade to the front of the store.
47 • Provide for employee area, preferably on south side of building.
48 • Can the building accommodate solar if the community decided this was important?
49 • Widening of sidewalks to 6 feet and ways to get more sidewalks on site.
50 • Supports granting the applicanYs request for relief from the tree shade coverage standard of
51 being allowed to meet the 50% shade coverage requirement within 15 years of planting as
52 opposed to 10 years as part of the approval for the Site Development Permit.
53 • Need a replacement species for Crape Myrtle. Use male Chinese Pistache trees rather than
54 female.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 25, 2012
Page 26
1 • Architectural articulation regarding roll-up doors for the garden center, possibly provide for
2 canopy on the north elevation; Other possible architectural articulation to enhance the
3 appearance.
4 • Applicant revise the renderings to depict architectural modifications.
5 • Consideration for stamped and/or colored concrete at the pedestrian crossing areas in front of the
6 store and show the pedestrian access facilities on the site plan.
7 • Revise the landscaping plan to show how the site and/or what the building footprint would look
8 with a 20% landscaping coverage and how an increase in the landscaping for the site can be
9 accomplished.
10 • Revise the site plan to also include alternative locations for the bus stop.
11 • Staff consulting with the City Engineer regarding a possible new mid-block crosswalk linking the
12 stores north and south of Commerce Drive and determine if there is a rationale for a crosswalk
13 mid-block in the vicinity of the Commerce Drive bus stop.
14 • Provide more information about the storm water treatment unit, site drainage and how applicant is
15 to effectively address runoff from the building/parking in terms of retention and discharge and the
16 capturing of pollutants.
17 • Provide for tees on the east side to screen the rear of the building.
18
19 The following additional information was specifically requested of the applicant by the Planning
20 Commission specific to attachment 1 in order to more fully understand the project:
21
22 1. Revise the western elevation to modify the upward sloping canopies to more typical downward
23 sloping canopies/awnings. Provide more shade on the western elevation particularly at store
24 entrances, and change the type of shade trees at the front of the store.
25 2. Revise the north elevation of the building in the vicinity of the roll-up doors to the indoor garden
26 center on the north elevation to provide more building articulation
27 3. Regarding the site plan, show an outside employee lounge area with design amenities (benches,
28 etc.)
29 4. Regarding the site plan, show/highlight the pedestrian access facilities and/or Pedestrian Access
30 Plan.
31 5. Provide for/use stamped and/or colored textured concrete for the pedestrian areas in front of the
32 access points to the building
33 6. Consult with Public Works and consider adding a mid-block crosswalk on Commerce Drive. The
34 intent is to provide for a new crosswalk linking the stores north and south of Commerce Drive.
35 Consider whether mid-block crosswalks are feasible, particularly for one in the vicinity of the
36 Commerce Drive bus stop and what would have to occur in this regard.
37 7. Use more tree planting strips in the parking lot rather than individual tree planting wells.
38 8. Provide information regarding tree location in regards to the detention area on the northeast
39 corner of the site.
40 9. Provide a site plan schematic showing how the 20% landscaping coverage could be achieved
41 (reduced parking, reduced building footprint, etc.) and show what compliance would look like with
42 20% landscaping coverage with calculations taking into account the bus stop pad and 6-foot wide
43 sidewalks.
44 It was noted the applicant is requesting relief from the tree shade coverage standard.
45 10. Consult with Public Works and the MTA retarding relocation of the bus stop shelter to the east
46 side of the entry driveway on Commerce Drive.
47 11. Submit an exhibit that provides details about the proposed LID improvements. Provide
48 information regarding the storm water treatment unit at the southeast corner of the site.
49 12. Regarding the Landscape Plan, add trees to the east side of the building to screen it more from
50 the highway.
51
52 The applicant agreed to provide the information to the best of its ability to the Commission including
53 submitting revised renderings depicting the architectural modifications requested by the Commission.
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 25, 2012
Page 27
1 Due to the time limitation, the Planning Commission did not have an opportunity to discuss and deliberate
2 on the Statement of Overriding Considerations and by consensus continued discussion of the Site
3 Development Permit, landscaping modifications, and Statement of Overriding Considerations to the
4 regular February 8, 2012 meeting.
5
6 Staff noted the Commission as part of the process will be required to undertake the task of developing the
7 specific site development permit findings.
8
9 10. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
10 None.
11
12 11. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
13 None.
14
15 12. ADJOURNMENT
16 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:16 p.m.
17
18
19 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
20
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 25, 2012
Page 28