HomeMy WebLinkAboutpcm_03142012 1 UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 March 14, 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 David Rapport, City Attorney
17 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
18
19 1. CALL TO ORDER
20 The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by
21 Chair Pruden at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue,
22 Ukiah, California.
23
24 2. ROLL CALL
25
26 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Everyone cited.
27
28 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — The minutes from the December 14, 2011, January 25, 2012,
29 February 8, 2012 meetings and February 22, 2012 are included for review and approval.
30 Commissioner Sanders made the following correction:
31 Page 8, line 31, sentence to read, `Apparently, the associate planner does not have the authority to make
32 that request.'
33
34 M/S Sanders/Doble to approve December 14, 2011 minutes, as amended. Motion carried (5-0).
35
36 M/S Doble/Sanders to approve January 25, 2012 minutes, as submitted. Motion carried (5-0).
37
38 Commissioner Sanders made the following corrections:
39 Page 35, line 44, sentence to read, `Would really like to hear about the roundabout, if that is really a
40 viable option.'
41
42 Page 35, line 49, sentence to read, "Inquired about the pedestrian issue and `how are semi's going to be
43 accommodated?'
44
45 M/S Sanders/Doble to approve February 8, 2012 minutes, as amended. Motion carried (4-0) with
46 Commissioner Brenner abstaining.
47
48 Commissioner Whetzel made the following correction:
49 Page 5, Line 20, sentence to read, 'If anyone has children and has used this technique/feature before this
50 type of design is more accommodating to customers.'
51
52 Commissioner Sanders requested the following:
53
54 Page 3, add `Smaller building footprinY and `Less parking' to Commissioner Sander's list of aspects she
55 likes about the design
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 14, 2012
Page 1
1 M/S Sanders/Whetzel to approve February 22, 2012 minutes, as amended. Motioned carried (4-0) with
2 Chair Pruden abstaining.
3
4 5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
5
6 6. APPEAL PROCESS
7
8 7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION
9
10 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE
11
12 9. PUBLIC HEARING
13 9A. Walmart Expansion Project Site Development Permit and Statement of Overriding
14 Considerations (File Nos.: 09-28-SDP-PC and 09-42-EIR-PC). Provide Planning Commission
15 comment and direction to staff on the Walmart Expansion Project 1) Major Site Development
16 Permit and associated modifications to landscaping requirements, and 2) Statement of Overriding
17 Considerations. Public Comment on this item was closed at the February 8, 2012 Planning
18 Commission meeting.
19
20 The Project is located at 1155 Airport Park Boulevard, APN 180-070-38, in the Airport Industrial
21 Park Planned Development (AIP PD). The Project proposes a 47,621 square foot expansion of
22 the existing 109,030 square foot store, for a total square footage of 156,651 to include expanded
23 general merchandise floor area and expanded grocery sales floor area, indoor and outdoor
24 garden centers, as well as the possibility of distilled alcohol sales, and a medical clinic and/or
25 vision center on a 13.44 acre site. Also included as part of the Project is a change in store hours
26 to 24 hours per day, seven days per week, modifications to the design of the exterior of the
27 building, the addition of a new parking spaces, modifications to the landscaping, and other
28 associated site improvements.
29 The proposed Project requires approval of a Major Site Development Permit, two modifications to
30 the AIP PD landscaping requirements, and adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
31 As part of the Major Site Development Permit, the Planning Commission will consider the
32 applicanYs request for approval of modifications to the AIP PD landscaping requirements for
33 landscaping lot coverage and shade coverage. Approval of the Project would also require a
34 Statement of Overriding Considerations for the significant and unavoidable Traffic Impacts
35 identified in the Walmart Expansion EIR.
36 This item was continued from the November 9, 2011, December 14, 2011, January 11, 2012,
37 and the January 25, 2012, and February 8, 2012 Planning Commission meetings.
38
39 Chair Pruden: Stated as of the February 8, 2012 meeting concerning the Walmart Expansion Project
40 Site Development Permit and Statement of Overriding Considerations public comment was closed.
41 TonighYs discussion regarding the Expansion Project will only be at the Planning Commission level.
42
43 Senior Planner Jordan provided information relative to how the Planning Commission can proceed with
44 Commission review of the Project using the staff report as a tool to guide the discussion.
45
46 Chair Pruden: The staff report written by Senior Planner Jordan is very well organized.
47
48 Chair Pruden:
49 • Is not clear and noted further discussion is likely necessary regarding the applicant's proposal to
50 remove the mature Plum trees that are closest to the store entrance on the west side of the
51 parking lot.
52 • Is of the opinion these trees should not be removed because they are aesthetically
53 complementary to the site.
54 • It is her understanding the reason for the removal is because of grade changes that are attributed
55 to the Project and questioned if there is a workable solution so that the trees can be retained.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 14, 2012
Page 2
1 • Would like see the curbing come up to grade so that the runoff from the parking lot would allow
2 this water to flow into the landscaping area where these trees are located.
3 • Flag this issue for further discussion.
4
5 SIGHT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
6 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND PROJECT REVISIONS
7 This section lists the requests made by the Commission of the applicant with regard to recommended
8 Project revisions, the applicant's response by way of modifications to the requests that were discussed at
9 the February 8 Commission meeting, and where applicable staff response and/or analysis thereof.
10
11 Elevations
12 The Commission asked the applicant to revise the western elevation to modify the upward sloping
13 canopies to more typical downward sloping canopies and provide more shade on the western elevation
14 and to revise the north elevation of the building in the vicinity of the roll-up doors to the indoor garden
15 center to provide more building articulation.
16
17 Commission:
18 • Fine with February 8 modifications made by applicant(letter dated February 1, 2012).
19 • No comments/concerns regarding the revised elevations and perspectives submitted by the
20 applicant at the February 8th Planning Commission meeting.
21
22 Desian Amenities
23 The Commission asked the applicant on the site plan to show an outside employee lounge area with
24 design amenities, i.e., benches.
25 Commission:
26 • Is fine with the design amenities pertinent to providing for an outside employee lounge area as
27 proposed by the applicant. This section indicates in a letter from the applicant the break area will
28 include a canopy supported by columns that will shade an area that covers three of the proposed
29 bike racks and two picnic tables with benches.
30 • Make certain the benches for the outside employee lounge area and the revisions submitted by
31 the applicant at the February 8 Planning Commission meeting relative to attachment 15, sheets 1
32 and 2, Elevation and Perspectives, are on the final site plan and include the location of benches
33 for customers on the plans as well.
34 • No other comments/concerns regarding the revised elevations submitted by the applicant at the
35 February 8th meeting.
36
37 Pedestrian Circulation
38 The Commission asked on the site plan to show the pedestrian access facilities and/or provide a
39 Pedestrian Access Plan, provide for/use standard and/or colored textured concrete for the pedestrian
40 areas in front of the access points to the building, consult with Public Works to consider adding a mid-
41 block crosswalk on Commerce drive whereby the intent is to provide for a new crosswalk linking the
42 stores north and south of Commerce Drive, and consider whether mid-block crosswalks are feasible,
43 particularly for one in the vicinity of the Commerce Drive bus stop and what would have to occur in this
44 regard.
45
46 Commission:
47 • Site Plan SP-1A adequately shows the pedestrian access facilities.
48
49 Commissioner poble:
50 • Referred to attachment 7 of the staff report regarding a letter from City Building Official
51 Willoughby dated January 24, 2012 that references driveways and the issue of ADA compliance
52 that states, `details are not included with these plans, but when a building permit is applied for all
53 accessibility requirements need to be met including an accessible path of travel from one side of
54 the public sidewalk through the driveway approach and to the other side' and questioned why this
55 aspect is not highlighted on the site plan.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 14, 2012
Page 3
1 • Normally, the driveway approach actually has a slope that exceeds what is required for ADA
2 compliance such that the pathway has to go behind the driveway apron. This aspect is not shown
3 on the site plan as part of the circulation facilities.
4 • Does not know if the Commission is okay with having it be part of the building plan process and
5 review.
6
7 Staff:
8 • The letter was in response to public comment indicating there was not adequate ADA access to
9 the site. The Building Official reviewed the site plans and is of the opinion the plan relative to ADA
10 access meets the general intentions of the 2010 California Building Code and the 2010 ADA
11 Standards for Accessible Design requirement for an accessible route from site arrival points.
12 • Added, at this level of project review, an applicant is not required to show this type of detail
13 unless otherwise requested by the building official.
14 • The Building Official is letting the Planning Commission and the public know when the building
15 permit comes in that the matter of ADA compliance and/or any other accessibility requirements
16 will be reviewed for the Project.
17 • No condition of approval is necessary because ADA compliance is a requirement.
18
19 Commission:
20 • No other comments/concerns.
21
22 Bus Stop
23 The Commission asked staff to consult with Public Works and the MTA regarding relocation of the bus
24 stop/shelter to the east side of the entry driveway on Commerce Drive.
25
26 Commission:
27 • Attachment 14 in the staff report shows the relocation of the bus stop from the west side of the
28 Commerce Drive access driveway to the east side of the access driveway.
29 • Acknowledged City staff and MTA have identified a preferred location on the east side of the
30 driveway for relocation of the bus stop that includes the coordination of a new mid-block
31 crosswalk and new bulb-outs as shown on the `mark-up' plan (attachment 14).
32 • The addition of the crosswalk sufficiently addresses the concern regarding safety issues.
33 • Is fine with the new location of the bus stop.
34 • No other comments/concerns.
35
36 Landscapina
37 The Commission asked the applicant:
38 • To change the type of shade trees at the front of the store.
39 • Use more tree planting strips in the parking lot rather than individual tree planning wells.
40 • Provide additional trees on the east side to screen the rear of the store.
41 • Provide information regarding tree location in regards to the detention area on the northeast
42 corner of the site.
43
44 Commission:
45 • Referred to sheet L4.0, Planting Plan to address landscaping.
46 • Is pleased the Crape Myrtle trees at the front of the store have been changed to Trident Maple.
47 • Chinese Pistache planted will be male in order to reduce debris from the trees.
48 • Would like all the Plum trees be retained along the eastern frontage of the parking lot and
49 increase the grade to allow runoff into the tree area. This is a way to irrigate the trees. The trees
50 are a nice amenity to the Project.
51 • Supports reducing the height of the curbing. High curbing is detrimental to vegetative plantings
52 because it prevents water from flowing into the area. Questioned if the drainage comes from the
53 west does the curbing have to be continued around the tree area or can the curb be depressed in
54 some way to allow the water to flow into the tree wells and still provide for curbing that functions
55 properly? There does not appear to be a lot of drainage coming from the face of the building.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 14, 2012
Page 4
1 Questioned if it is the construction of the curbing that is affecting the trees or is the purpose to
2 keep water out of the tree wells?
3 • Noted according to information from Dennis Slota the Plum trees would not be harmed if the
4 driveway is elevated to the height of curb. If this presents a problem would prefer to lower the
5 height of the curb rather than remove the Plum trees.
6 • The preference is to retain the Plum trees and figure out what type of drainage will work for this
7 area. Plum trees can absorb large amounts of water so `wet feeY is not a concern.
8 • Commented `flush curbing' is a standard Low Impact Development (LID) practice that allows
9 water to flow into landscaped areas. The intent regarding retention of the trees is to find a solution
10 that will work with the grading.
11 • A storm drain exists on the west side of the planter area so if there is an issue of having the
12 planter fill with water, the excess water could go in the storm drain system at this location. Has no
13 knowledge whether or not this is a feasible approach in terms of the drainage design.
14
15 Stanley Iverson, TAIT and Associates, Project Engineer consultant:
16 • Understands there is a desire to retain the Plum trees.
17 • Supports going with the zero curb from a trip hazard standpoint for entry into the building.
18 • Even if the grade is raised some, it may be that a planter drain could be installed that ties into the
19 adjacent storm drain system. In the event of having raised asphalt, it is possible to provide breaks
20 in the curb to allow the water to flow into the lower planter area and yet again, it is possible to
21 install an adjacent drain that ties to the storm drain system.
22
23 Commission:
24 • It appears feasible to retain the Plum trees.
25 • The desire is to use more tree planting strips in the parking lot as opposed to individual tree
26 planting wells.
27 • Indicated that staff requested the applicant review the plants proposed for the bioretention area to
28 make certain the plantings were appropriate and that `Berkeley Sedge' and `rush grass' were
29 identified as appropriate for the location.
30 • Referred to an email (attachment 5 in the staff report, dated February 23, 2012) from Miriam
31 Montesinos, attorney for applicant, that was based on Commission comments as to whether or
32 not existing/proposed plants/trees species are the appropriate species for the planned swales
33 and/or water treatment areas.
34 • The staff report indicates no trees are to be planted in the bioretention area and the location of
35 the bioretention area was revised to allow existing trees to remain.
36
37 Staff:
38 • The aforementioned email is in response to staff's request that the applicant provide additional
39 information about the concern related to the bioretention area and that whatever is being planted
40 is a suitable species for the area. Staff specifically asked the applicant to look at the plant species
41 to make certain they are appropriate for the bioretention area and that any trees in the area would
42 be able to handle the water that would be there.
43
44 Commission:
45 • In reference to the email, it appears the applicant has taken a responsible approach with regard
46 to the bioretention area.
47 • No other comments/concerns for this section.
48
49 Low Impact Development(LID)
50 The Commission asked the applicant to submit an exhibit that provides details about the proposed LID
51 improvements and provide information about the storm water treatment unit at the southeast corner of the
52 site.
53
54 Commission:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 14, 2012
Page 5
1 • Generally fine with the bioretention area shed map and the information provided as part of
2 attachment 1 (pages 1-13 to 1-20 and 1-46 of the February 8 staff report).
3
4 Commissioner poble:
5 • Has some concerns about the underground water treatment system, particularly about the use
6 of cartridges and their effectiveness.
7 • Not clear whether there is a process to not use a proprietary device and do more of the water
8 treatment on site with the landscaping. There is an extensive bioretention area given the sizing
9 calculations and information provided.
10 • Would like to make certain there is sufficient evaluation in using natural devices rather than a
11 proprietary device and if the last resort is a proprietary device such as a cartridge unit that it
12 meets the acceptable standards set forth. There is a significant amount of cost associated with
13 the application of a proprietary device.
14 • Has no knowledge where the City stands on requiring a maintenance plan for use of a
15 proprietary device for water treatment on site.
16 • It is apparent with above ground treatments whether or not they are being properly maintained,
17 but with an underground cartridge system and/or water treatment system it is not possible to
18 know whether it is being maintained and/or changed routinely.
19 • It is doubtful the City has the authority to require a maintenance program concerning filtering
20 units. The Regional Water Quality Control Board does have the authority to require a
21 maintenance program. The applicant will be required to provide a monitoring program for the
22 site with a construction permit as well as submit a maintenance plan.
23 • Other than his concern for a monitoring/maintenance plan, finds the proposal regarding LID
24 improvements acceptable.
25
26 Chair Pruden: Requested clarification if the LID improvements will be used in the new areas as opposed
27 to being used in the existing developed areas.
28
29 Commissioner poble: According to the calculations the Project Engineer has provided, all of the parking
30 lot is being treated. If this is true the applicant is actually treating more of the paved surface than would
31 technically be required. This aspect should be a consideration.
32
33 Commissioner Sanders:
34 Q1. Has the storm water mitigation plan been reviewed by the Regional Water Quality Board
35 since the design modifications were made and the EIR certified in reference to the
36 National Pollution Discharge Elimination System?
37 Q2. What agency has oversight responsibilities about proper maintenance of storm drain
38 filters and/or associated apparatuses and the disposal of cartridge filters in Mendocino
39 County?
40
41 Stanley Iverson:
42 A1. Acknowledged that significant changes have been made to the storm water treatment
43 plan and does not know if the permitting agencies have had the opportunity to review it.
44 When the grading/drainage plans and storm water management plan and/or water plan
45 are submitted typically a part of that pertains to maintenance that is required with the
46 plans. Often times maintenance agreements are required to be recorded that runs with
47 the property. A maintenance Agreement is a fairly standard procedure. A maintenance
48 agreement is typically on an annual basis and/or on the basis to what the manufacturer
49 recommends.
50
51 Staff: The revised plans and the relevant information included in the staff report for February 8 were
52 recently emailed to Mona Dougherty at the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. Staff has
53 not received any questions/comments from this agency.
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 14, 2012
Page 6
1 Stanley Iverson: Retaining the front planter areas would make it possible to get more planter treatment
2 areas that would reduce the size of the cartridge filters used to capture pollutants further downstream.
3 One of the constraints with regard to use of the cartridge filters is the underground storm drain pipe that is
4 difficult to access.
5
6 Commission:
7 • Okay with the proposed LID improvements.
8 • No other comments/concerns.
9
10 20% Landscapinq Modification
11 The Commission asked the applicant to provide a site plan showing how the 20% landscaping coverage
12 could be achieved possibly with reduced parking, reduced building footprint, etc. and show what
13 compliance would look like with 20% landscaping coverage with calculations taking into account the pad
14 for the bus shelter and assuming 6-foot wide sidewalks.
15
16 The applicant proposed `GrassPave' to provide grass turf surfaces at the rear of the store in the fire lane
17 and for the `head-in' parking stalls along Airport Park Boulevard. The locations where GrassPave will be
18 used are shown on attachment 15, sheets SP-1 and L4.0. Counting these areas as landscaping would
19 increase the percentage of landscape coverage to 20.1°/a. The GrassPave would be tied into the irrigation
20 system for adjacent landscape areas.
21
22 The City Fire Marshall has reviewed the specifications for GrassPave and finds them acceptable.
23
24 Staff concerns regarding the use of turf grass for parking spaces is that in order for this area to be
25 counted as parking, the spaces need to be clearly delineated and identified as parking spaces. If this is
26 not accomplished and adequately maintained, the areas would not be used as parking. This could result
27 in the Project being functionally under-parked.
28
29 If the Commission accepts all of the GrassPave as landscaping, the Project would comply with the 20%
30 landscaping coverage requirement and no modification would be required. If the Commission does not
31 accept all of the GrassPave as landscaping, the Project would not comply with the 20% landscaping
32 coverage requirement and modification would still be required.
33
34 The applicant did not submit a reduced building footprint alternative for meeting the 20% landscape
35 coverage requirement.
36
37 Commissioner poble:
38 • GrassPave is a good product, but not sure how applicable it is for this Project.
39 • Is unable to consider it landscaping.
40 • GrassPave as landscaping is not acceptable.
41 • Given the large size of the property, there should be more landscaping, not less.
42
43 Commissioner Whetzel:
44 • Does agree with Commissioner poble that GrassPave should not be counted as landscaping.
45 Can see, however, where it can be used at the rear of the store in the fire lane access area.
46 • Does not agree GrassPave can be used for parking.
47 • The material can be used for temporary parking, parking for special events. This is what the
48 product is made for.
49
50 Chair Pruden: According to information regarding GrassPave, this material does not take 'wear and tear'
51 well.
52
53 Commissioner Sanders:
54 • GrassPave is very unsuitable for landscaping.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 14, 2012
Page 7
1 • Questions how well GrassPave would hold up from the wear and tear of vehicles with the number
2 of customers Walmart has daily. Too much wear and tear without proper maintenance could
3 create an unsightly parking lot.
4 • Supports the concept that landscaping be functional and aesthetically pleasing.
5 • Is not supportive that GrassPave count as landscaping.
6
7 Commissioner Brenner:
8 • It appears other projects have struggled with this same issue where this material has not been
9 allowed for sites that are much more constrained.
10 • Fails to understand the reason to allow the use of GrassPave for a site that has so much space
11 and for a material that is unsuitable for the Project.
12 • Ukiah does not view GrassPave as landscaping. Ukiah requires 20% landscaping coverage for
13 visual appearance purposes.
14 • The Walmart Expansion Project does not meet the 20% landscaping coverage requirement.
15 • Is concerned about attachment 5 that talks about how the applicant plans to make the parking
16 spaces visible by cutting the grass and using brick to keep clear of growth to remain visible.
17 • There is no reason to compromise on the landscaping requirements because the site has plenty
18 of room.
19 • There has been no attempt to compromise on the landscaping for the Project.
20
21 Chair Pruden:
22 • Concurs with the other Commissioners that GrassPave as a mitigation for the 20% landscaping
23 does not work for the Project.
24 • GrassPave would be suitable and a nice amenity for the fire access lane.
25 • Has observed Walmart stores in Florida that use a very hardy grass in a climate that rains a lot
26 and found the material is not thriving.
27 • Has concern whether or not GrassPave would be suitable for Ukiah's climate.
28 • Does not view GrassPave as a suitable substitute for landscaping and does not comply with the
29 20% landscaping requirement.
30 • Is of the opinion the Project must comply with the 20% landscaping coverage requirement,
31 particularly with a Project of such large size.
32
33 Commissioner Whetzel: Could consider using GrassPave for the sidewalks and count this as
34 landscaping.
35
36 Commission:
37 • It may be 20°/a landscaping is not enough for the Airport Industrial Park and the corresponding
38 percentage needs to be changed. There has been discussion that when looking at large
39 developments in the AIP, most visually appear to be under landscaped.
40 • The purpose of landscaping is for aesthetics and to be visible. What is the purpose of providing
41 landscaping at the rear of buildings when it is not visible? No one will see and/or enjoy that
42 section of landscaping proposed for the rear of the Walmart building.
43 • It would be an interesting test case to see how GrassPave does in the fire lane even though it
44 should not count as landscaping. GrassPave is an interesting choice as an alternative for paving
45 and it will retain what water there is in that area. It would provide a good test case of how grass
46 turf would work in an area of low traffic volume.
47 • It is likely more of an experiment at this juncture.
48 • Referred to page 4, line 34 that reads, `Use more tree planting strips in the parking lot rather than
49 tree planting wells' and noted the importance of this concept as an option. Additional tree
50 planting strips have not been proposed by the applicant.
51 • The landscaping strip in front of Walmart looks good, but it does not provide for sidewalks, which
52 has been a major complaint. There is no way to get into the store without walking on side roads
53 or driveways. As such, Walmart is required to provide sidewalks and with doing so a fair amount
54 of landscaping is lost.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 14, 2012
Page 8
1 • Using GrassPave for the sidewalks would most likely not be a material that would meet ADA
2 requirements.
3 • The site consists of 13 acres so it has sufficient space for landscaping.
4 • Acknowledged that the applicant did not submit a reduced building footprint alternative for
5 meeting the 20% landscaping coverage requirement as requested by the Commission.
6
7 STAFF ANALYSIS
8
9 General Plan
10
11 Chair Pruden: Discussion for this section will occur after discussion of the `AIP Ordinance 1098
12 Consistency' section.
13
14 Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan & Mendocino Countv Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP)
15
16 Staff: The Planning Commission determined the Project is consistent with the Airport Compatibility
17 Criteria included in Table 3 of the staff report for the November 9�h Commission meeting. No further
18 review or discussion is required.
19
20 AIP Ordinance 1098
21
22 Table 4 in the November 9t"staff report provides the AIP Ordinance 1098 consistency analysis.
23
24 At the January 25th Planning Commission meeting, the Commission determined the Project is consistent
25 with the requirements for minimum lot size, Maximum lot coverage, minimum building setbacks, and
26 maximum building height.
27
28 Staff requests the Commission talk about the following items:
29
30 Sidewalks
31 Staff: AIP Ordinance 1098 requires projects to provide a 5-foot sidewalk along the primary street and the
32 mitigation measures included in the EIR require the sidewalks to be a minimum of 6 feet wide and 8 to 10
33 feet wide where possible. The Project provides the required sidewalks as shown on the site plan. No
34 further discussion is required.
35
36 Bike Lanes
37 Staff: AIP Ordinance requires the Project to provide for a Class III bike route on Airport Park Boulevard
38 and the mitigation measures for the EIR require the Class III bike route on both sides of Airport Park
39 Boulevard from Talmage Road to Commerce Drive. EIR Mitigation measure 4.10c requires the Project to
40 provide a proportional share payment to extend the westbound Class II bike lane on Hastings Road to a
41 point just east of the of the start of the westbound channelization for the new westbound left turn lane at
42 the Hastings Road And South State Street intersection. The Project provides for this. No further
43 discussion is required.
44
45 Bicvcle Parkinq
46 Staff:
47 • Page 8 of the staff report addresses bicycle parking. Bicycle parking is based on the number of
48 vehicle parking spaces and the number of employees. Based on a total of 325 employees (240
49 existing plus 85 new), 33 parking spaces are required. Based on 612 vehicle parking spaces, an
50 additional 12 parking spaces would be required for a total of 45 parking spaces. For most
51 projects, a condition of approval is included requiring the location and number of bike parking
52 spaces to be shown on the plans submitted for the building permit. Since compliance with AIP
53 Ordinance 1098 bicycle parking is required as a mitigation measure and a standard condition of
54 approval for projects, the Project if approved would be consistent with this requirement and no
55 further discussion is required.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 14, 2012
Page 9
1 If the Commission has a preferred location for the bike racks, this should be discussed and included as a
2 condition of approval for the Project.
3
4 Commissioner poble: Asked about where planning staff is concerning the solar array for Walmart. Is
5 this for the existing building? Is it part of the Project or not?What is the scale?What is the configuration?
6
7 Staff:
8 • The solar building permit application was circulated to the City departments for comment and
9 review.
10 • Comments have been returned to the applicant asking for revisions to the plans.
11 • The concerns from a planning perspective is there is not enough details in the permit to be clear
12 that it is not visible from any public place.
13 • Staff is waiting for more information.
14 • The permit only covers the existing building.
15 • Understands the cost evaluation of the solar permit is $400,000.
16 • The solar building permit is not part of the Site Development Permit for the Walmart Expansion
17 Project and this may be a question for the City Attorney as to how the permit should be dealt
18 with.
19 • The building permit for the solar array does not affect the Expansion Project in any way or the
20 existing building.
21
22 Commissioner Brenner:
23 • The solar array does affect the discussion concerning building elevations for the Site
24 Development Permit depending upon the impact so from this standpoint the Commission should
25 understand the details of the solar array permit. The Commission has no information about the
26 solar array permit to make an informed consideration. Depending upon the nature of the solar
27 array, this could affect the design of the elevations concerning the Site Development Permit for
28 the Expansion Project.
29 • It would be nice to have a complete picture of what the plan is.
30 • Would like to have more information about the solar panels so it can determined whether or not
31 they need to be factored into the evaluation for the Expansion Project.
32
33 Staff:
34 • Staff did not request that information because the solar panel permit is for the existing building
35 and staff did not know about the solar panels until the applicant mentioned them at a previous
36 meeting.
37 • If the Commission wants to approve the Project, it may want to condition the Project to ensure the
38 solar panels are consistent with the design for the proposed Expansion Project.
39 • The information submitted for the building permit for the solar panels because there are for solar
40 panels must be clear that the solar panels are not visible from the public way. To verify this,
41 building sections, roof plan, and/or site lines may be required as part of the building permit plans.
42 • If the Commission wants to approve the Project and is concerned how the elevations could be
43 affected by the solar panels and if the panels are visible, more information would be needed or a
44 condition of approval could be applied to the Project that requires the panels not to be visible from
45 the public way. Do not know the height of the building parapet.
46
47 Commissioner poble: Is the Commission excluded from evaluating the solar array as part of the
48 proposed Expansion Project?
49
50 Attorney Rapport:
51 • Is of the opinion the applicant does not need a Site Development Permit for the solar array as
52 long as it is not visible.
53 • The solar array building permit will be reviewed and could be approved regardless of how the
54 Commission evaluates the Expansion Project.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 14, 2012
Page 10
1 • In the event an aspect of the solar array creates an impact for the Site Development Permit, the
2 Commission can request more information or at least impose a condition as part of the Site
3 Development Permit that the solar array shall not be visible.
4
5 Commissioner poble: Is not sure whether or not the Commission suggested this, but there was a lot of
6 discussion about skylights, solar, and various energy efficiency improvements within the Project. Then all
7 of a sudden the solar array pops up. Who is not talking to each other on one end of the Project to the
8 other? It would appear a $400,000 solar array being added to a building that is going through a Site
9 Development Permit application should be included in the application. Is of the opinion whether or not the
10 Commission has the authority to evaluate the solar array is a question worth asking.
11
12 Staff:
13 • Staff was not aware of any plan for solar panels until the Walmart representative brought it up at
14 a previous Planning Commission meeting. So if the Commission has that question, the
15 Commission should ask the applicant.
16 • A site development permit may be required for the solar panels proposed for the existing building
17 if they were visible from the public way.
18
19 Commissioner Brenner: The applicant did talk about energy conservation, skylights and solar panels,
20 but were unsure at the time about these amenities.
21
22 Commissioner poble: The Commission's concern is whether or not these amenities will happen if the
23 Commission does not approve the Project.
24
25 Chair Pruden: It sounds like regardless of the outcome of the Expansion Project, the solar panels will
26 move forward unless the process is dropped.
27
28 The Commission agreed some type of language should be included in the Project conditions of approval
29 to the effect that the solar panels are not visible.
30
31 Commission Brenner: Approval of the elevation would have to be the one that is proposed for the Site
32 Development Permit and not one that was potentially modified to accompany the solar array.
33
34 Chair Pruden: Noted if no one would be able to see the solar panels, they would not actually affect the
35 visual.
36
37 Commissioner Brenner: Does not mind `seeing it,' but this would require the applicant to come forward
38 and show what the plan would be.
39
40 Chair Pruden: It would not be the first time an applicant had to come back for a revision of the Site
41 Development Permit. The matter is essentially left with the possibility of adding a condition of approval for
42 the Site Development Permit. Flag this as a possible area for a Project condition.
43
44 Bicvcle Parkinq
45 Commission:
46 • It looks as though the only location provided by the applicant for bicycle parking is the employee
47 outdoor area.
48 • According to sheet SP-1A, bicycle racks are shown on the south and west elevations including
49 the outdoor employee area.
50 • From the Commission's perspective, the bicycle racks should be distributed on at least three
51 sides of the building. Obviously, they should not be installed in places where they could impede
52 pedestrians.
53 • 45 bicycle parking spaces are required and it appears from the site plan the applicant complies
54 with the requirement.
55 • Is okay with the parking locations as shown on the site plan.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 14, 2012
Page 11
1 • No other comments/concerns.
2
3 Signs
4 Staff: Asked the Commission if it agreed with staff analysis regarding signage included in the November
5 9t" staff report or if additional revisions were needed. If the Commission agrees with the staff analysis this
6 should be stated for the record and if not, this should also be stated for the record and why.
7
8 Commission:
9 • Table 4, page 30, in the November 9th staff report talks about the signage and says the signs are
10 in proportion and scale to the building and that the Project is actually`under signed.'
11 • The sign program appears to be modest based on the square footage allowed.
12
13 Commissioner Sanders: Expressed concern about the possible use of spot lights for advertising
14 purposes.
15
16 Chair Pruden: The aforementioned matter likely is related to lighting.
17
18 Commission:
19 • Agrees with staff analysis for signage.
20 • No other comments/concerns.
21
22 Staff: Requests the Commission provide comment and direction on the following for the record.
23
24 Vehicle Parkinq
25 Staff: The minimum number of parking spaces required for the Project is 612. In an attempt to comply
26 with the landscaping coverage requirement the applicant is proposing to use grass turf for 62 of the new
27 parking spaces. Staff has concerns that if the GrassPave parking spaces will not be recognized and used
28 as parking. If this is the case, the Project would be functionally under parked.
29
30 Commission:
31 • Not interested in expanding parking for the Project.
32 • GrassPave does not suffice for landscaping.
33
34 Commissioner Whetzel:
35 • GrassPave may be acceptable for the fire lane access area and/or for pathways instead of
36 concrete.
37 • GrassPave is an attempt to get permeable surfacing.
38 • It would appear GrassPave would be acceptable to walk on, not drive.
39 • There is a GrassPave and a type of Gravel Pave surfacing, the latter of which would be more
40 acceptable.
41
42 Chair Pruden:
43 • Questioned whether the use of grass turf is ADA compliant in terms of hard surface?
44 • Has concern that GrassPave is not hardy enough to take rigorous abuse. GrassPave has a
45 delicate surface.
46 • Cannot recall an instance for a project where an alternative permeable sidewalk surface counted
47 as landscaping. Sometimes this approach has been used as an amenity within the landscaping
48 as an aesthetic statement that pavers are more attractive than concrete.
49
50 Planning Director Stump: To his knowledge the Commission has not used an alternative material for
51 sidewalks for reasons GrassPave or the ground pave material would not likely be ADA compliant.
52
53 Chair Pruden:
54 • There are alternative materials for pathways and the like, but they are very specified.
55 • Is familiar with the application of compacted crushed gravel, decomposed granite for pathways.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 14, 2012
Page 12
1 Commission:
2 • No other comments/concerns.
3
4 Design Amenities
5 Staff: Design amenities are encouraged by AIP Ordinance 1098, but are not required for the Project. At
6 the request of the Commission, the applicant revised the Project to include an outdoor area for
7 employees as referenced in attachment 15, sheets 1, 2, and SP-1.
8
9 Commission:
10 • No comments/questions/concerns.
11
12 Architectural Design and Building Exteriors
13 Staff: Requests the Commission review the revisions and determine if the Project is consistent with Table
14 4, Architectural; Design and Building Exteriors requirements in the November 9`" staff report. The
15 applicant revised the Project as requested by the Commission and provided raised elevations that the
16 Commission reviewed at the February 8t" meeting.
17
18 A letter from TAIT and Associates, dated February 1, 2012 lists the Pro�ect revisions in response to the
19 Commission's requests for Project modifications made at the January 25t meeting.
20
21 Commission:
22 • Fine with the revisions made concerning architectural design and building exterior that were
23 addressed at the February 8`" meeting.
24 • No other comments/questions/concerns for this section.
25
26 Buildinq Location and Buildinq Orientation
27 Staff: Requests the Commission review the Project and the staff consistency analysis in the November
28 9'h staff report, Table 4. Building Location and Building Orientation. Building Location and Orientation is a
29 recommendation and not a requirement since the ordinance uses the word `should' instead of`shall.' The
30 Project does include quite a few pedestrian facilities that do not currently exist as shown on sheet, SP-1A.
31 The Commission did ask about solar opportunities for the building.
32
33 Commission: Acknowledged the November 9th staff report, Table 4, pages 22 & 23 talks about building
34 location/orientation.
35
36 Chair Pruden: The EIR called for 8 to 10 feet wide sidewalks where feasible and yet 4 foot widths comply
37 with ADA requirements. Is an applicant required through the EIR document to go with the larger size
38 sidewalk? It appears 5-foot wide sidewalks are the standard according to AIP PD Ordinance 1098.
39
40 Staff: AIP PD Ordinance 1098 requires projects to provide 5-foot wide sidewalks along the primary street
41 and the mitigation measures included in the EIR require the sidewalks to be a minimum of 6-feet wide for
42 the Project and 8 to 10 feet wide where feasible. Accordingly, 6-foot wide sidewalks are the minimum for
43 the Project and where possible the sidewalks are required to be 8-10 feet wide based on the EIR
44 mitigation measure.
45
46 Commission:
47 • No comments/concerns for this section.
48
49 Pedestrian Circulation
50 Staff: There was Commission discussion at the January 25th meeting regarding pedestrian access and
51 circulation. The applicant provided a pedestrian circulation plan (attachment 15, sheet SP-1A, Pedestrian
52 Facilities). The Building Official reviewed the Project for compliance with accessible paths of travel as
53 noted in attachment 7 of the staff report. Also, EIR mitigation measure 4.10-3d (attachment 4 of the staff
54 report) identifies the pedestrian circulation requirements for the Project which that are listed on page 10 of
55 the staff report for this meeting.
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 14, 2012
Page 13
1 The mitigation measures included in the EIR do not include crosswalks at the intersection of Airport Park
2 Boulevard and Commerce Drive. The EIR mitigation measures only require high visibility crosswalk
3 markings across driveway entrances to the Project. Public Works has indicated crosswalks would be
4 installed at this intersection as part of the signalization project planned for this intersection. Public Works
5 would be fine with crosswalks being installed at this intersection as part of the Walmart Expansion
6 Project.
7
8 Commission:
9 • Pedestrian circulation is adequate for the Project based on the Pedestrian Circulation Plan
10 provided and the inclusion of the relocation of the bus stop and shelter and the midblock crossing
11 as shown on attachments 14 and 15.
12 • The biggest concern was the interface with Commerce Drive.
13 • No other comments/questions/concerns for this section.
14
15 Buildinq Orientation
16 Staff: The Commission did not discuss this item at the January 25`" meeting. Building orientation is a
17 recommendation rather than a requirement since the ordinance uses the word `should' rather than `shall.'
18
19 If the Commission agrees with the analysis included in the November 9�" staff report, page 23, this should
20 be stated for the record. If the Commission does not, it should state this for the record along with the
21 reasons why.
22
23 There are two different sections in AIP PD Ordinance related to `Building Orientation.' Page 22 of Table 4,
24 building orientation, states `Buildings should include design elements oriented to pedestrian usage, such
25 as linked walkways and sidewalks.' In the analysis what was looked at next in Table 4 was `Building
26 Location' on page 22 that states, `the location of buildings shall be coordinated with other buildings and
27 open space on adjacent lots.'
28
29 Page 23 of Table 4, Building Location and Orientation, states, `Buildings should be sited to preserve solar
30 access opportunity, and should include passive and active solar design elements. Buildings should be
31 oriented to minimize heating and cooling costs. Buildings should be creatively sited to provide open views
32 of the site and surrounding environment. Buildings shall not be sited in the middle of large parking lots.'
33
34 All of these were analyzed separately since this is how the requirements are addressed in AIP PD
35 Ordinance 1098.
36
37 Commission:
38 • Acknowledged if `Building Orientation' is made a requirement, the associated wording would be
39 'shall.'
40 • The Commission has worked on the articulation of the building, particularly on the north and west
41 sides in order to enhance the design and provide more character.
42 • Fine with staff analysis that 'Building Orientation' is in substantial conformance with the AIP PD
43 Ordinance 1098. The Commission is not proposing to change the AIP PD Ordinance but rather is
44 approving the site plan to make certain the sidewalk width is 6 feet.
45 • No other comments/concerns for this section.
46
47 Screeninq (Storaae Areas, Loadinq Docks, etc,)
48 Staff:
49 • At the January 25t`' meeting, the Commission did not determine if the Project was consistent with
50 the screening requirement. The Commission requested the applicant consider planting Redwood
51 trees on the east side of the site to provide additional screening. The applicant will plant
52 additional trees in this area. The planting plan submitted for the February 8�h meeting includes the
53 planting of 10 Redwood trees at the southeast side of the site as shown on the planting plan,
54 sheet L4.0. Due to the width of the landscaped area and location and width of the bioretention
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 14, 2012
Page 14
1 area, there may not be adequate space to plant more trees than are shown on the revised
2 planting plan or rows of trees as suggested by the Commission.
3
4 • Requests the Commission review the planting plan and determine if the revised landscaping plan
5 provides the screening requested and if the screening for the Project is consistent with the AIP
6 PD Ordinance screening requirements.
7
8 Commission: The Commission determined the Project was not consistent with the screening
9 requirements and discussed additional screening for the north and rear of the building.
10
11 Chair Pruden: How can more screening be accomplished for the north side of the building?
12
13 Commissioner Sanders: Reduce the footprint of the building. The purpose of adding more trees on the
14 north side of the building is for purpose of shading the parking lot.
15
16 Commission:
17 • The intent is to determine whether or not the changes made for screening conform to the AIP PD
18 1098 requirements.
19 • Additional trees were added to the southeast side of the building that includes 10 additional
20 Redwood trees.
21 • It would be beneficial to show the potential elevation and/or the spread of the trees for a 10-year
22 period.
23 • It is important regarding the landscaping that the trees not be allowed to be `limbed-up' so as to
24 retain their natural growth patterns.
25 • If feasible, add more trees to the north side of the building. This would be a way to mitigate the
26 mass of the building in addition to providing shade to the building and parking lot.
27 • It makes sense to screen the building from the freeway.
28 • Talked about sheet L4.2, Shade Calculation Exhibit where there was discussion about the
29 addition of landscaping and questioned whether or not one planter bulb-out is required for every
30 four spaces because this does not occur on the north side of the parking lot. No planter strips are
31 proposed, only tree wells.
32 • Sheet L4.2 shows four circles shading the area. The plan shows two bulb-outs and the applicant
33 is proposing trees on the grass side for the other parking spaces.
34
35 Staff: Clarified that the parking being referred to is existing and is not being changed. The applicant is not
36 required to make changes to the existing parking lot in order to comply with the current requirement for
37 one planter strip every four parking spaces or for shading. There are two additional trees proposed in this
38 location in an effort to provide more shade for the parking lot.
39
40 Commission:
41 • Reviewed sheet L4.0, planting plan, to address existing vegetation. It was pointed out the plan
42 identifies new and existing shrubs. Shrubs do not do much in the way of providing shade.
43 • The planting legend does not identify the height of the vegetation, which would be helpful to
44 better understand shade coverage.
45 • The Planting Plan does show a hedge that is included in the shrub list; do not know the height of
46 this shrub.
47 • Would like to refer to `Sunset — Western Garden Book' at the break to review the height of the
48 shrub species identified in the Planting Plan.
49 • It is more important to pay attention to the tree species as opposed to the shrubs because it is the
50 trees that are pruned too heavily and provide the shading and screening.
51
52 Chair Pruden: The aspect of screening for the north side of the property has not been fully resolved.
53
54 Commission:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 14, 2012
Page 15
1 • Screening is adequate for the Project, except for the northern portion of the site where the
2 screening is insufficient and a lack of shade is provided for the northern portion of the site. The
3 adequacy of screening for the northern portion of the site has not completely been resolved.
4 • No other comments/concerns in this section.
5
6 Li htin
7 Staff: At the January 25t" Commission meeting, the Commission discussed lighting but did not indicate if
8 it agreed with staff analysis included in the November 9th staff report, Table 4, page, 24, lighting. In order
9 to ensure the Project would be consistent with the AIP lighting requirement a condition of approval would
10 be applied to the Project. EIR mitigation 4.1-2 would also help make certain Project lighting is consistent
11 with this requirement. Attachment 4 of the staff report for this meeting regarding impact 4.1-2, states
12 'Implementation of the Project may create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
13 adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area.' The associated mitigation measure for this
14 impact reads, `All outdoor light fixtures shall be located, aimed or shielded so as to minimize stray light
15 trespassing across property boundaries. Fixtures shall be full cut-off and nighttime friendly, consistent
16 with LEED goals and Green Globes criteria for light pollution reduction. The Project applicant will be
17 required to prepare a photometric plan demonstrating that lighting will not spillover onto adjacent
18 properties. Furthermore, the Project will adhere to all City regulations relating to signage and the shielding
19 of light in order to reduce any potential negative effects from new light sources (see building code
20 sections 3225-7). These standards shall be included in the Project conditions of approval as well as the
21 mitigation monitoring and reporting program.'
22
23 Commission:
24 • The height of the light poles in the parking lot was the subject of discussion during public
25 comment on the Project.
26 • There was testimony given that the lights should be above the tree canopy, but there is absolutely
27 no reason they cannot be below the canopy.
28 • The trees will have to be `limbed up' high enough to provide clearance for trucks and other like
29 vehicles.
30
31 Commissioner Sanders: Referred to AIP PD Ordinance 1098 for lighting which states, `Tall lighting
32 fixtures that illuminate large areas shall be prohibited.' What does tall lighting mean?
33 Is a 39-foot pole considered a tall lighting fixture? Asked about the wattage per pole?
34
35 Staff: This lighting section referred to applies to projects with mixed-use/light industrial zoning. The
36 Project is zoned Retail Commercial so this lighting section does not apply.
37
38 Commission: Is the lighting proposed the post with the box lights?
39
40 Staff: The plan for lighting is to retain their existing light poles and change the number of fixtures on the
41 poles. If the height of the poles is reduced, more light poles and fixtures would need to be installed. The
42 higher the fixture, the more ground area that is covered. Staff recommends the Commission discuss the
43 proposed lighting with the applicant.
44
45 Commissioner Brenner: Does the applicant plan to use high pressure sodium or metal halide for
46 lighting?
47
48 Staff: Understands the lighting to be LED.
49
50 Stanley Iverson:
51 • With regard to the existing light fixtures and poles, the lighting heads on top of the poles will be
52 replaced with 1000-watt metal halide lighting compared to the 400-watt metal halide lighting that
53 is existing. The proposed lighting for the parking lot is just to increase the wattage.
54
55 Chair Pruden: Is of the opinion the proposed wattage is too high.
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 14, 2012
Page 16
1 Commissioner Brenner: Supports switching from metal halide to high pressure sodium for the lighting
2 and inquired whether or not this is feasible?
3
4 Stanley Iverson:
5 • High pressure sodium is not preferred.
6
7 Chair Pruden: According to the City Utility Director, within approximately three years there is only a 30%
8 reduction for the high pressure sodium lighting compared to a 60% reduction for the metal halide lighting
9 that only shines at 40°/o after about three years.
10
11 Commissioner Sanders: For the first three years, it will be very bright out there in the Walmart parking
12 lot.
13
14 Commissioner Brenner:
15 • Would like the Commission to consider changing from metal halide to high pressure sodium for
16 the lighting in order to better protect the night sky from light pollution. High pressure sodium is a
17 more efficient fixture that has a better filtration ability.
18 • Supports protecting the night sky from bright light impacts.
19
20 Chair Pruden: Believes the lighting specifications indicated the proposed lighting for the Project is
21 International Dark Sky Association compliant.
22
23 Commissioner Sanders: The EIR with regard to `aesthetics' identified Impact 4.1-2:Implementation of
24 the Project may create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect daytime or
25 nighttime views in the area. The impact is considered potentially significant.
26
27 Commissioner poble: Inquired about the mitigation measure for this lighting impact.
28
29 Staff: It is Mitigation measure 4.1-2, All outdoor light fixtures shall be located, aimed or shielded so as to
30 minimize stray light trespassing across property boundaries. Fixtures shall be full cut-off and nighttime
31 friendly, consistent with LEED goals and Green Gloves criteria for light pollution reduction. The Project
32 applicant will be required to prepare a photometric plan demonstrating that lighting will not spillover onto
33 adjacent properties. Furthermore, the Project will adhere to all City regulations relating to signage and the
34 shielding of light in order to reduce any potential negative effects from new light sources (per Building
35 Code Section 3225-3227). These standards shall be included in the Project conditions of approval as well
36 as the mitigation monitoring and reporting program.
37
38 Commissioner poble: Is reluctant to change the height of the lighting poles in the parking lot.
39
40 Commissioner Whetzel: Would like to see a wattage comparison relative to the lighting fixtures in terms
41 of electrical usage and conservation.
42
43 Stanley Iverson:
44 • Approves of LED lighting systems in terms of energy efficiency. The trend for Walmart stores is
45 to switch to LED lighting.
46 • LED lighting will work at 39 feet.
47
48 Commissioner poble:
49 • Is the concern more about the light casting outward or energy usage/efficiency?
50 • Requested clarification there is no conflict with the lighting proposed.
51 • Lighting for the Project should give thought to the standard in the mitigation measure.
52
53 Commissioner Whetzel:
54 • There are different light spectrums with regard to the LED, high pressure sodium, and metal
55 halide lighting systems.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 14, 2012
Page 17
1 • There is LED lighting available that provides the necessary light but does not cast the same glare.
2 • Potential impacts are about the magnitude of light wave lengths and the spectrum of light that are
3 produced.
4
5 Chair Pruden: Is more concerned about the glare. Walmart is responsible for the electrical bill so the
6 store would probably go with a lighting system that is affordable. However, glare is an issue.
7
8 Commissioner Brenner:
9 • Is also concerned about the issue of glare.
10 • The element of saving energy is always a good `mindset to be in' regardless of who is paying the
11 bill.
12 • Is open to a compromise to the lighting if this is necessary.
13
14 Commissioner Whetzel:
15 • Preference is LED lighting. There are blue and white LED lighting.
16 • If the right lighting were proposed, has no problem with the height of the pole.
17
18 Chair Pruden:
19 • The Project can be conditioned to this end if this is the consensus of the Commission.
20 • Is of the opinion should there be a canopy on the parking lot trees. Would like to see the pole
21 height reduced to provide lighting under the tree canopy as opposed to having lighting over the
22 top of the trees.
23
24 Commissioner poble: Does not have sufficient information about what the height of the poles should be
25 in terms of making an informed decision.
26
27 Chair Pruden: It will take time for the trees to produce an adequate canopy so it is not known what the
28 lighting technology will be at that time. It could be completely changed.
29
30 Staff: At the January 25'h meeting, the Commission indicated that the 39-foot poles were acceptable.
31
32 Commission:
33 • Made a note to possibly condition the Project for LED lighting.
34 • Pole height is acceptable.
35
36 Tree Removal
37 Staff: At the January 25th Commission meeting, the Commission requested clarification on the trees that
38 would be removed. An errata sheet was prepared for the Final EIR, attachment 8 of this staff report. The
39 landscaping plans for the Project are consistent with this erratum except:
40 1. Faxinus v. Raywood: 6 to be removed on the revised Planting Plan and 3 to be removed on the
41 EIR errata table.
42 2. 161 trees to be planted on the revised Planting Plan. 155 trees to be planted on the EIR errata
43 table.
44 This results in the removal of 111 trees and the retention of 110 trees. Of the 111 trees to be removed, 50
45 are Olive trees in the parking lot that would be replaced with a more appropriate species. Approximately
46 32 additional trees are being removed at the front of the building due to the grading required to provide an
47 at-grade entry in this area as provided for in attachment 15, sheet L3.0, Landscape Demolition Plan. Due
48 to the amount of the changes in grade in this area, it does not appear to be feasible to retain these trees.
49 Of the 20 Oak trees on the site, two would be removed.
50
51 Commission:
52 • Already discussed the fact that the Commission wants to retain the existing Flowering Plum trees
53 on the east side of the parking lot.
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 14, 2012
Page 18
1 Commissioner Sanders: Recommends creating a condition of approval that requires all trees being
2 retained be fenced in and that there is associated signage during construction.
3
4 Chair Pruden: Understands the aforementioned is a construction requirement so as to provide for root
5 safety for existing trees during construction.
6
7 Staff: The standard condition for tree protection which includes fencing and signage would be applied to
8 the Project.
9
10 Commission:
11 • No other comments, questions, concerns for this section.
12
13 Landscapinq
14 Staff: Requests the Commission review the Project and the staff consistency analysis for the AIP
15 landscaping requirement included in the November 9`h staff report, Table 4, pages 26-29 with the
16 exception of the requirement for 50% shade coverage at 10 years and 20% landscaping coverage of the
17 gross area of the parcel since the applicant has requested a modification to these requirements .
18
19 Commission:
20 • No comments.
21
22 Landscapinq Modifications
23 Staff: The applicant is requesting approval of a modification to the 50% shade coverage requirement at
24 10 years and the requirement to provide landscaping coverage of 20% of the gross area of the parcel.
25
26 50% Shade Coverage. At the January 25�h meeting, the Commission indicated it agreed with the
27 applicanYs request for a modification to the requirement to provide 50% shade coverage within 10 years
28 of planting. The findings associated with approving this modification are provided for on page 12 of the
29 staff report for this meeting. If the Commission agrees with the analysis for granting the modification, it
30 should state this for the record or if the Commission has different and/or additional basis for granting the
31 modification, it should state this for the record.
32
33 Chair Pruden: With regard to the 50% shade coverage requirement, cannot recall any commercial
34 project that was able to meet the City's current standard of providing for 50°/a shade coverage using the
35 10-year canopy calculation.
36
37 Staff: The City has been using the City of Davis standard model of using a 15 year tree canopy when
38 calculating shade coverage to grant relief to projects from the existing standard since the City of Davis
39 has a climate similar to Ukiah's. Accordingly, the tree canopy will typically double in size between 10
40 years and 15 years, making the 15 year stand a more reasonable standard for calculating shade
41 coverage. Past projects subject to the existing shade coverage requirement of being able to provide the
42 50% shade coverage within the 10 year time frame have not been able to comply with this standard.
43
44 Staff asked the applicant to use the City of Davis standard to demonstrate if they could provide 50°/a
45 shade coverage in 15 years. The Walmart plans demonstrate that they actually exceed the shade
46 coverage requirement using the 15 year calculation when essentially they are only required to meet this
47 requirement for the new parking lot, but because they are retrofitting the existing parking lot with more
48 trees the City of Davis standard applies.
49
50 Commission:
51 • With regard to the 50°/o shade coverage requirement, agrees with the analysis for granting the
52 proposed landscaping modification in this regard until which time this section of the City Code is
53 updated to a realistic standard.
54
55 20% Landscaping Coverage. At the January 25�h meeting, the Commission indicated it would like the
56 Project to comply with the requirement to provide 20% landscaping coverage of the gross area of the
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 14, 2012
Page 19
1 parcel. The Commission requested the applicant provide a site plan showing how the 20% landscaping
2 coverage could be achieved i.e., reduced parking, building footprint etc. and show what compliance would
3 look like with 20°/o landscaping coverage with calculations taking into account the pad for the bus shelter
4 and 6-foot wide side sidewalks. In order to meet the 20% coverage requirement, the applicant proposed
5 to install grass turf areas for the fire lane at the rear of the site and the 62 new parking spaces along the
6 Airport Park Boulevard frontage.
7
8 If the Commission accepts GrassPave as landscaping, the Project would meet the minimum 20%
9 landscaping coverage requirement and no modification would be required.
10
11 If the Commission does not accept all of the proposed GrassPave as landscaping the Project would not
12 be consistent with the landscape coverage requirement and a modification would be required.
13
14 Staff: Another alternative would be to reduce the square footage of the addition which would result in the
15 need for fewer parking spaces. The applicant has not provided a reduced footprint alternative. A reduced
16 building footprint alternative was included in the EIR, attachment 9 of the staff report for this meeting.
17
18 Commission:
19 • Has already determined the 20% landscaping coverage is a Project requirement.
20 • No other comments/concerns for this section.
21
22 Desiqn Guidelines for Proiects Outside the Downtown Desiqn District
23 Staff: Table 5 of the November 9 staff report includes staff analysis of the Project's consistency with the
24 Design Guidelines for Projects Outside the Downtown Design District. At the January 25t" Commission
25 meeting, the Commission did not discuss consistency with these guidelines. Staff requests the
26 Commission state for the record whether or not it agrees with the analysis and why if it disagrees.
27
28 Commission:
29 • Does not agree the Walmart building will stand the test of time. It is common for buildings in
30 shopping centers after 20 years to get refurbished to a more updated look.
31 • The design is acceptable with the revisions made by the applicant as shown on the revised
32 elevations provided at the February 8, 2012 and March 14, 2012 meetings.
33 • The Project meets the design standards for what is being asked for.
34 • The building and corresponding design is compatible with surrounding building in the area.
35 • There are design features that enhanced the building articulation with the revisions made by the
36 applicant as shown on the revised elevations provided at the February 8, 2012 and March 14,
37 2012 meetings.
38 • The Project is consistent with the Design Guidelines for Projects Outside the Downtown Design
39 District.
40
41 General Plan
42 Staff:
43 • In certifying the EIR, it was the decision of the Commission the Project is consistent with General
44 Plan goals and policies included in the EIR. Table 2 in the staff report for November 9 contains
45 all of the goals and policies provided for in the EIR with the exception of Goal ED-1: Support a
46 strong local economy.
47 • Table 2 was revised from the table included in the EIR to identify certain goals/policies as
48 'Program Level Goal/Policy.' Goals/policies identified in this manner are those that are intended
49 to be applied and/or implemented at a higher program level rather than on a project by project
50 basis.
51 • Since goals GP-1 and GP-2 are not related to potential physical impact that may result from the
52 Project, a consistency determination was not required or made a part of the EIR.
53 • Planning Commission may determine that these goals apply to the Project in which case the
54 Commission should discuss whether or not the Project is consistent.
55 • Requests Commission discussion and direction regarding consistency with the following:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 14, 2012
Page 20
1
2 o Goal ED-1: Support a strong local economy.
3 o Goal GP-1: Promote, attract or assist in developing businesses, particularly those that
4 add value to resources already found or processed in the Ukiah Valley.
5 o Goal-2: Promote business development, emphasizing local ownership of businesses in
6 order to keep capital growth within the community.
7
8 Break: 7:45 p.m.
9 Reconvene: 7:55 p.m.
10
11 Commissioner Sanders: Has questions regarding the issue of traffic.
12
13 Chair Pruden: The issue of traffic is not part of the Site Development Permit.
14
15 Chair Pruden:
16 • Spent four years working on the City's current General Plan.
17 • Was so active in formulating 3 goal elements in the General Plan document, of which she
18 produced. Economic Development was not one of those elements.
19 • Is familiar with the intent of the General Plan.
20 • What was interesting was revisiting the City's Vision Statement and could not find where the
21 community had changed its thought process in 20 plus years as to what we want to occur in the
22 Ukiah Valley as a community. The values, the quality of life issues are the same.
23 • The General Plan is a remarkable testimony to this particular governing document that we still
24 view our valley in the same way and have the same desires that had been identified for economic
25 development. Some of the community desires are high paying jobs, that manufacturing jobs pay
26 about 2.5 times more than service or retail jobs, provide for a wide variety of all different skill
27 levels, and allow for more, better paying jobs. Allowing for more better jobs was emphasized
28 through both the General Plan vision and through economic development.
29 • Part way through the General Plan process, Walmart came forward with its discretionary review
30 application for the existing the store. The Project was very controversial for the community.
31 • The community was almost split right down the middle whether or not the store should be
32 allowed.
33 • Since the last meeting regarding the Walmart Expansion Project did some statistics and found
34 that after more than 56 persons spoke at the public hearing more of the statements made were
35 3:1 not in favor of the Project. Most of the negative aspects dealt with the quality of life issues.
36 • After further review of the Project and the information provided, has concerns about the Project.
37 • The Project is not just about adding square footage to the existing store.
38 • Would not view the Project in the same way if the intent was to do more of the same, but Walmart
39 is actually proposing a food section. Expressed great concern that this Project is not consistent
40 with the General Plan in terms of local ownership and resources that are found and processed in
41 the Valley in that particular area.
42 • Is not convinced the proposed Site Development Permit is compatible to what the community had
43 envisioned for the General Plan with the three goals listed on page 7 of the staff report for this
44 meeting.
45
46 Commissioner Brenner:
47 • Most affected by the January 25th Commission meeting public testimony from two submittals
48 from stores that were in jeopardy of potential closing per the Final EIR and also the economic
49 fiscal report. One of the stores was Lucky Supermarket and the other the Grocery Outlet.
50 • Is of the opinion the Site Development Permit Walmart Expansion Project is not consistent with
51 the Ukiah General Plan with regard to Goal ED-1, Support a strong local economy.
52 • Listened to the points of view from the managers of Lucky Supermarket and Grocery Outlet.
53 • Per the Final EIR, `Ukiah could lose two local grocery stores, Lucky Supermarket and the
54 Grocery Outlet.' Lucky manager, Mark Poston said they were tremendously worried because the
55 store is currently operating on a break-even level and cannot afford to operate at a loss
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 14, 2012
Page 21
1 anticipated with the Walmart Expansion that would service groceries. Lucky currently has 62
2 employees where the average rate is $25 per hour and factor in the health benefits. Health
3 benefits include medical and dental/vision and the jobs are union supported. Tracking this would
4 show what the impacts of those employees potentially losing their jobs would be. Of the 62
5 employees, 17 that were talked to owned homes, 15 of those persons stated losing their jobs
6 would severely impact their ability to pay their mortgage.
7 • Cannot justify adding another grocery store and have `my neighbor lose his house' in the
8 process.
9 • The same was true for the Grocery Out that currently has 31 employees, 27 employees with an
10 average wage of $12 per hour with profit sharing. There is the possibility that these employees
11 would lose their jobs with the Walmart Expansion Project. Quite a few of the employees in
12 discussions with the store manager regarding housing and such indicated they would be able to
13 maintain their housing on government assistance and unemployment, but loss of job would put
14 tremendous ability on them to pay the rest of their responsibilities. When this is factored in and
15 two stores are lost and the possibility of anywhere between 65 and 90 jobs lost this beats
16 whatever Walmart is going to hire. Does not see the balance there and sees a net loss.
17 • Is it worth approving the Expansion Project when the report indicates Walmart will probably only
18 raise $27,000 in revenue annually?
19 • Is of the opinion approval of the Walmart Expansion Project would not be worth the potential
20 negative impacts to the local economy that would result.
21 • The grocery stores that go out of business will not be readily and/or easily re-tenanted.
22 • No new grocery store will come to town with Walmart having a grocery component. According to
23 Lucky and Grocery Outlet, Walmart operating as a grocery store would pretty much eliminate any
24 competition from entering into the market.
25 • This community has the potential of losing its diversity, which is very important to keeping a
26 thriving local economy.
27 • Does not support approval of the Major Site Development Permit because the Project is not
28 consistent with the Ukiah General Plan.
29
30 Commissioner Sanders:
31 • Does not support the expansion of Walmart and likes what we have now as far the current
32 building footprint.
33 • If the Site Development Permit is approved, employees from other stores that are currently
34 making good wages and have good benefits could lose their jobs, as well as their tenure. Many of
35 the employees in the grocery stores that potentially would go out of business have been there for
36 a long time.
37 • Approval of the Walmart Expansion Project would also take away attraction to the Downtown in
38 that people come off the highway go to Lucky and then head west to the Downtown area. If Lucky
39 goes out of business, the Downtown will lose some of this traffic having an economic impact on
40 the businesses in the Downtown area.
41 • The community has already lost the Post Office and this was a draw that brought people to the
42 historical Downtown area.
43 • People are now getting into their vehicles and heading south so if this community loses the Lucky
44 grocery store, people are going to take their trade to the Airport Business Park.
45 • It is important that we keep our powntown because it is the heart of our community.
46 • Does not see that the Walmart Expansion Project will increase employment opportunities for our
47 community.
48 • Is concerned about the issue of how Ukiah Police Department is going to effectively service the
49 area when they are `already maxed out.' According to a recent article in the Ukiah Daily Journal
50 an officer responds to 1,200 calls per year and to add to this number by having to respond to calls
51 for an expanded Walmart in an area that already has increased service calls would further hinder
52 the Ukiah Police Department ability to protect citizens. The money the Walmart Expansion would
53 contribute is so small compared to what would be asked of local law enforcement to take care of
54 in the Airport Industrial Park.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 14, 2012
Page 22
1 • The Expansion Project will not result in increased employment. It will affect services as to what
2 can realistically be provided.
3 • Is concerned how the Expansion Project would impact families such as those that reside in the
4 Wagonseller Neighborhood and on Orchard Avenue that are going to be affected should grocery
5 stores go out of business. There is a substantial amount of subsidized housing in these
6 neighborhoods. People rely on the Lucky grocery store because it is centrally located and
7 convenient, particularly for those persons in the surrounding neighborhood that may not have
8 vehicles and/or that have a disability and rely on wheelchairs to get around.
9 • Is of the opinion the Expansion Project is not going to meet the needs of the community.
10
11 Commissioner poble: Is not certain how to proceed with his comments. From what he has heard from
12 the other commissioners are we talking not only about consistency with the Ukiah General Plan, but
13 rather some reasons that touch on the issue of Statement of Overriding Considerations?
14
15 Chair Pruden: Commissioner Sanders commented on the potential for increased costs for call-out
16 services by the Ukiah Police Department for the Walmart Expansion Project in that it does not comply
17 with general plan Goal ED-1 in support of a strong local economy if the cost to the community is more
18 than the gain. In other words, the Walmart Expansion Project may not be the `strong contributor this
19 community is looking for.'
20
21 Commissioner poble:
22 • While adding jobs does support a strong local economy, it does not at the potential expense of
23 higher wage jobs.
24 • Cannot support that the Project conforms to general plan goal ED-1.
25 • If the population could support an additional grocery store without affecting the other stores or if
26 the wage disparity was not so great, as well as be able to point that the 85 new jobs to be
27 potentially created were a `real number' could change his opinion as to whether this Project
28 supports a strong local economy.
29
30 Commissioner Whetzel:
31 • With regard to whether or not the Site Development Permit supports a strong local economy, the
32 Project does propose an increase in new jobs.
33 • Most people are set in their ways when it comes to shopping. People are not going to change
34 their shopping habits just because Walmart sells groceries. People who shop at Lucky or
35 Safeway will continue to do so because that is what they do.
36 • Will not change his shopping habits just because Walmart is selling groceries.
37 • Is the concept of`support a strong local economy' solely based on the premise that a project must
38 make a financial contribution to the community or can it be an economy benefit in some other way
39 such as working with the community, making donations to community causes. In this way, the
40 Walmart Expansion Project does support a strong local economy.
41 • Still has some reservations about the proposed Project size since a site plan of what the Project
42 would look like with a reduced building footprint or parking lot in order to comply with the 20%
43 landscaping coverage requirement has not been provided and this information could make a
44 difference.
45
46 Chair Pruden: The establishment of General Plan goals, Goal ED-1 and Goals GP-1 & 2 are somewhat
47 reactionary. The intent was not to encourage/introduce the phenomena of big box retail stores into the
48 Ukiah Valley.
49
50 Commissioner poble:
51 • Whether or not a project is consistent with the economic goals/policies of the General Plan comes
52 down to the market area.
53 • Is of the opinion, if the existing marketing area is being expanded significantly, this carries a lot of
54 weight in drawing shoppers to the community that would not ordinarily be here. Is not seeing that
55 this will occur from the documents, reports, studies/analysis and public records for this Project.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 14, 2012
Page 23
1 • Also, does not see real evidence concerning public record to what Commissioner Whetzel has
2 said about the Project creating new jobs and providing for community benefits in other ways from
3 what he has read, listened to and sat through that supports the theory the Project is consistent
4 with General Plan Goal ED-1.
5
6 Chair Pruden: The majority of the Commissioners are going to have trouble finding that the Project
7 supports the Ukiah General Plan.
8
9 Commissioner Whetzel:
10 • When looking at Goals GP-1 &2, is of the opinion this is pertains more to City and/or County staff
11 to promote businesses.
12 • The matter of promoting, attracting or assisting in developing businesses is a function of
13 government. It is not the responsibility of individual projects or businesses.
14
15 Chair Pruden: The goals were written as a community responsibility. Goal ED-1 in context with the City's
16 Mission Statement all the supporting language is to try and adequately maintain our historical Downtown.
17 The corresponding implementation measures are designed just for this purpose out of concern Ukiah
18 would lose its historical Downtown to perimeter developments and big box stores.
19
20 Commissioner Whetzel: Having seen what goes on in the Downtown with the changes and turnover of
21 tenants for buildings that are vacant, is it Walmart's and/or the community's responsibility to see this does
22 not occur by not allowing development outside the Downtown core?
23
24 Commissioner poble:
25 • Is of the opinion nothing is being taken away from the applicant with this finding that the Project is
26 not consistent with General Plan goals.
27 • However, if the Commission moves forward there is the possibility we are taking away from other
28 significant businesses.
29 • The safest approach to take at this point is to look at the fact that Walmart can sell groceries
30 within their existing footprint. Walmart is doing very well at its current footprint. We are not taking
31 away what currently exists for Walmart.
32 • What is simply being said is that the potential benefits for addition of the square footage do not
33 outweigh the potential impacts. In all truthfulness, the original benefits keep getting smaller and
34 smaller.
35
36 Commissioner Whetzel: Regarding wages, not all grocery workers make high salaries. Grocery store
37 baggers probably make close to minimum wage.
38
39 Chair Pruden: What the Commission has heard from the community is Walmart as it currently exists
40 appears to be a good neighbor, function within the community, and even people that are not particularly
41 strong Walmart shoppers said they could live with Walmart the way it is now. We know, as it currently,
42 stands, Walmart functions fine within the community. Whether or not this Project is approved, no Walmart
43 jobs will be lost. Walmart's funding stream will stay the same and they will continue as they have been.
44 We know Walmart fits and how it works in our community. 'The question is, are we hitting a tipping point?'
45
46 Commissioner Brenner:
47 • There is a lot to be said about economic diversity. Is of the opinion this economic diversity would
48 be lost with the Project.
49 • The EIR indicated that between 65 and 90 jobs could be potentially lost with the Project. How
50 many homes could potentially be lost with these numbers? This is a big deal. Is it worth all of this
51 for a $20,000 monetary gain?
52 • So much time and energy has been given to try and create these `green' walkable communities
53 so it would be a big deal if the Lucky grocery store were to close because this is actually one of
54 the few signature walkable communities we have. Lucky exists in a shopping mall that is
55 accessible by foot. There is also a McDonald's restaurant close by. The potential loss of Lucky
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 14, 2012
Page 24
1 grocery store would be a huge impact. Again, we cannot re-tenant spaces readily like what was
2 suggested in the EIR using Oakland as an example. Is of the opinion it was ludicrous to suggest
3 that re-tenanting can occur. We do not have the urban numbers. Having to re-tenant Lucky
4 grocery store would be difficult. All of the aforementioned concerns are worthwhile considering.
5 The Commission must understand what the balance should be when it introduces projects to the
6 community and what the balance would be afterwards compared to where it was before. If the
7 Commission tips it to a negative, we start the process of providing for a `slippery slope.'
8 • The Project is not consistent with our General Plan goals/policies. It is just not possible to
9 compete with Walmart.
10 • The exiting Walmart exists has created a balance and this is fine. This balance should be
11 respected because if the store is upgraded there are only so many `pieces of the pie' to go
12 around in terms of business for grocery stores. If one store consumes most of pieces what is
13 everyone else going to do?
14
15 Chair Pruden:
16 • It appears the majority of the Commission is having trouble coming up with findings that the
17 Project supports the Ukiah General Plan.
18 • Commends the applicant for responding positively to the Commission's requests concerning the
19 physical aspects of the building that reflects what the Commission would like to see if the Project
20 were to move forward.
21 • However, the issue of Project consistency with the General Plan is a `stumbling block' at this
22 point.
23 • Recommends discussion of the Statement of Overriding Considerations that requires a look at
24 the Project as it relates to employment, tax base, public safety, traffic issues, diversion, and other
25 related Project issues.
26
27 Commission:
28 • No other comments/questions/concerns for this section.
29
30 Site Development Permit
31 Staff: Commission should continue its review of the Site Development Permit. The Planning Commission
32 has not had an opportunity to deliberate on the ProjecYs consistency with the findings required in order to
33 approve a Site Development Permit in Table 7: Site Development Permit Analysis of the November gt"
34 staff report beginning with the third box on page 36. If the Commission agrees with the analysis, it should
35 state this for the record and if not, state this for the record and why.
36
37 Findin : The location, size, and intensity of the proposed project will not create a hazardous or
38 inconvenient vehicular or pedestrian traffic pattern with the modified site plan.
39
40 Commission:
41 • Agrees with staff's analysis included in the November 9, 2011 and March 14, 2012 staff reports
42 with the revisions made to the Project for the relocation of the bus stop and the mid-block
43 crossing shown on attachment 14 and based on the Pedestrian Circulation Plan submitted by the
44 application and included in attachment 15.
45
46 Findin : The accessibility of off-street parking areas and the relation of parking areas with respect to
47 traffic on adjacent streets will not create a hazardous or inconvenient condition to adjacent or surrounding
48 uses.
49
50 Commission:
51 • Agrees with staff's analysis included in the November 9, 2011 staff report.
52
53 Findin : Sufficient landscaped areas have been reserved for purposes of separating or screening the
54 proposed structure(s) from the street and adjoining building sites, and breaking up and screening large
55 expanses of paved areas.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 14, 2012
Page 25
1
2 Commission:
3 • Staff analysis does address the lack of landscaping on the northern property line.
4 • The staff analysis does say the number and type of trees planted provide sufficient landscape
5 areas to separate and screen and screen the building from adjoining sites and the new parking lot
6 trees would provide larger tree canopies breaking up the large expanse of paved areas.
7 • If the Commission was looking at the whole Project by the current standards, it would have
8 required landscaping along the northern property line shared with the gas station, mini-mart, and
9 fast food restaurant, but at the time landscaping was put in for the original project, landscaping
10 was not required. Staff analysis indicates the lack of landscaping in this area was approved as
11 part of the existing development and would not change as a result of this Project.
12 • It was noted that Commissioner Sanders had pointed out in previous discussions the proposed
13 plant schedule does not provide adequate screening for the north side of the property.
14
15 Commissioner Sanders: Does not support this finding.
16
17 Commissioner Brenner:
18 • Could support this finding with the understanding the lack of landscaping was approved as part of
19 the existing development and cannot be changed.
20 • Highly supports the concept of being able to redo the existing landscaping by removing parking
21 and putting in planter tree wells in an effort to meet the landscaping requirements.
22 • Is of the opinion, the landscaping could be better.
23 • Does not agree that more cannot be done just because it is an existing condition. More
24 landscaping can be done and there are creative ways to do so.
25
26 Chair Pruden: Agrees with Commissioner Brenner regarding the landscaping. Currently as it exists,
27 there is no landscaping along the northern property line shared with the gas station/mini-mart, and fast
28 food restaurant for purposes of separating these adjoining properties. There is sufficient landscaping in
29 other areas. The reality is that no landscaping can be required on the north side of the property to the
30 degree that is necessary due to existing conditions. Is not sure the problem can be fixed and does
31 recognize that a less than desirable situation exists.
32
33 Commissioner Whetzel: Noted there is no space to put in landscaping on the northern portion of the
34 property because it abuts the highway.
35
36 Chair Pruden: We are talking about the area behind the gas station and Jack-in-the Box. These areas
37 are just not screened as well as they should be.
38
39 Commissioner poble:
40 • The gas station has a carwash that has a solid wall that separates this property.
41 • There is likely a shared easement for the driveway that extends from the mini-mart/car wash into
42 the Walmart parking lot.
43 • Given the circumstances how far can the Commission question consistency?
44
45 Commissioner Whetzel: It is possible to provide taller screening on the northeast corner along the
46 fence to the highway on-ramp. However, only so many trees can be planted in that little area that abuts
47 the highway.
48
49 Chair Pruden: The circumstances are probably consistent,just not ideal to the Commission's standards.
50 Unfortunately, the Commission is working with a developed lot.
51
52 Commissioner poble: There is insufficient room to put in more landscaping on the northern portion of
53 the property. Does this have to be said before the Commission can say the finding is consistent?
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 14, 2012
Page 26
1 Staff: The Project is not required to go back and retrofit the north side of property in order to provide
2 screening because this is an existing condition. However, if the Commission has a different opinion, it
3 should continue that discussion and speak with the applicant about what other options there might be for
4 landscaping. It is a different discussion related to does the Commission believe there is adequate
5 landscaping adjacent to the highway ramp.
6
7 Chair Pruden: When reviewing what landscaping is existing and what is proposed taking into
8 consideration the grass area and the trees other than this there is no landscaping between Jack-in-the-
9 Box and the gas station.
10
11 Commission Doble: That area is currently used as a driveway and for parking.
12
13 Chair Pruden: The way this area was developed with landscaping would not be the way it would be done
14 now as a new development.
15
16 Commissioner Whetzel: Questioned the intent of determining whether or not these findings are
17 consistent if the general consensus is not to approve the Site Development Permit as is. Are these
18 findings to go with another Site Development Permit that will be brought forward to the Commission?
19
20 Chair Pruden: Questioned whether Commissioner Whetzel's concern is that the Commission may be
21 getting into an area that it should not.
22
23 Commissioner Whetzel: Possibly, but questions why the Commission is going through these motions
24 for a Site Development Permit that sounds like it might not move forward.
25
26 Commissioner Sanders: Staff has asked the Commission to go through the process to establish a
27 record.
28
29 Staff: The intent is to establish a record if the decision by the Commission is a denial. We need on the
30 record for the appeal why the Project was denied. Was the Project consistent with the Ukiah General
31 Plan, the AIP PD Ordinance? Was there an issue with the landscaping modifications? What are the
32 issues with the findings for the Site Development Permit? Again, the intent is to provide a record of
33 Planning Commission's decision.
34
35 Commissioner Sanders: The applicant has not met the landscaping requirements so this is an
36 opportunity to provide shade on the northern portion of the property and add more trees.
37
38 Commissioner poble: Not sure he agrees, what the Commission is looking at for this finding is whether
39 or not there is appropriate screening from the public street. Land exists in the northern area to do more
40 landscaping. The area between the hardscape and/or parking/driveway area on the northwest corner of
41 the Walmart building and the fast food restaurant and gas station could be landscaped. It is a straight
42 shot to the Walmart store without much screening other than some parking lot trees. However, this is an
43 existing situation. Is the Commission going to include this aspect as part of the total 20% landscaping
44 coverage that is required or is the issue whether there is adequate screening for the northern portion to
45 be kept separate?
46
47 Chair Pruden: Does not know if this is separable. Even though the finding talks about screening, the
48 reality is that the 20% landscaping coverage is the screening landscaping for the building.
49
50 Commissioner Brenner: Has a hard time requiring the applicant to make changes on existing
51 conditions. This provides for a `bad' precedent. Wishes there was a more creative approach to a site
52 development permit.
53
54 Commissioner poble: The question to ask ourselves is the justification that the landscaping is an
55 existing condition acceptable or not acceptable to the Commission? If not, then the Commission must
56 move from that direction.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 14, 2012
Page 27
1
2 Chair Pruden: As the landscaping plan is presented, is okay with the species and the layout of the
3 plants. The issue is that more landscaping is needed. In this regard, the landscaping is sufficient provided
4 the 20% landscaping coverage requirement is met. Where the landscaping is placed works and is
5 probably sufficient for separation and screening. Again, the issue is the need for more landscaping.
6
7 Commissioner poble:
8 • Is certain that 20% landscaping coverage is required for a project of this size.
9 • Need more, not less landscaping.
10
11 Chair Pruden: In terms of the finding concerning whether or not the landscaping provides adequate
12 screening and separation of building, the Project does meet the standard. There has been no discussion
13 about moving or reconfiguring any of the planter beds except to increase the size of the beds. More
14 planter beds may have to be added.
15
16 Commissioner poble: Unless the proposed development footprint is reduced in that area and trees are
17 planted along the entire parking lot to screen it from the carwash wall, does not believe he could go that
18 far with a requirement. However, meeting the 20% landscaping coverage requirement is important. The
19 issue here is really about providing for sufficient screening between the adjoining properties to the north.
20
21 Chair Pruden: This is difficult to discuss because the Commission is of the opinion the landscaping
22 percentages are still not adequate although they appear to be in the right locations.
23
24 Commissioner Brenner:
25 • The matter is difficult because it depends upon where the 20% landscaping should be applied.
26 The applicant could come back with a plan to apply the 20%to the north side of the property.
27 • The applicant needs to figure it out and design accordingly.
28 • With regard to the north side to say it is existing condition and cannot be touched is essentially
29 creating a limitation. People create their own limitations so if this is going to be the limitation, then
30 there is no 20% landscaping.
31 • Was of the understanding the finding was about appropriate screening and separation not the
32 20% landscaping.
33
34 Chair Pruden: The finding deals with screening and separation.
35
36 Commissioner Brenner: Likes the suggestion of providing for more screening of the area where the
37 highway sign is located.
38
39 Chair Pruden: The question is whether or not the landscaped area is sufficient to provide adequate
40 separation and screening of proposed structure(s) from the street and adjoining building sites, and with
41 breaking up and screening large expanses of paved areas.
42
43 Commissioner Whetzel: Looking at the Project from the aspect of separation of structures, you have to
44 look across Airport Park Boulevard. In doing so would have to agree every structure to the west of the
45 Project is adequately screened. There is adequate screening to the south as well. The only area in
46 question is the area to the northeast corner where Jack-in-the-Box is located.
47
48 Commissioner poble: Is talking solely about the parking lot tree area from the northwest corner of the
49 building looking towards the gas station as the existing condition.
50
51 Commissioner Whetzel: Is looking at the overall northeast corner in terms of screening from the building
52 to the freeway. However, this is an existing condition that would not change as a result of this Project.
53 More trees could be planted to better screen this area.
54 Commissioner poble: It may be the Commission should come back to this issue. Is of the opinion staff's
55 justification in the analysis for the purpose of this finding is sufficient. The 20% landscaping is a
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 14, 2012
Page 28
1 completely different matter and is not associated with finding being discussed about adequate screening
2 and separate.
3
4 Commission:
5 • The majority of Commissioners agrees with staff's analysis and acknowledged that the
6 inadequate screening between the Project and the gas station carwash and Jack-in-the-Box is an
7 existing condition. However, it may be the new trees proposed for the parking lot may make a
8 difference with regard to providing adequate screen compared to what is existing.
9
10 Findinq: The proposed development will not restrict or cut out light and air on the property, or on the
11 property in the neighborhood, or impair the value thereof.
12
13 Commission:
14 • Agrees with staff's analysis included in the November 9, 2011 staff report.
15
16 Findin : The improvement of any commercial or industrial structure will not have substantial detrimental
17 impact on the character or value of an adjacent residential zoning district.
18
19 Staff: Since the Project site is not adjacent to a residential zoning district, this finding does not apply to
20 the Project.
21
22 Findinq: The proposed development will not excessively damage or destroy natural features, including
23 trees, shrubs, creeks, and the natural grade of the site.
24
25 Commission:
26 • Agrees with staff's analysis included in the November 9, 2011 staff report.
27
28 Findinq: There is sufficient variety, creativity, and articulation to the architecture and design of the
29 structure(s) and grounds to avoid monotony and/or a box-like appearance.
30
31 Commissioner Brenner: Cannot support this finding is consistent. The design could be better.
32
33 Chair Pruden: The Commission did agree that an effort was made to enhance the design of the building
34 to provide for a more aesthetically pleasing appearance. It is difficult to `dress-up' a big square box.
35
36 Commissioner poble: It is not the only big box in the Redwood Business Park.
37
38 Commission:
39 • The majority of the Commissioners agree with staff's analysis included in the November 9, 2011
40 and March 14, 2012 staff reports. The Project is consistent with this finding with the inclusion of
41 the revisions to the Project included in the elevations provided for the February 8, 2012 and
42 March 14, 2012 staff reports.
43
44 Staff: Modification to the 20% landscaping coverage requirement is the only issue with regard to the Site
45 Development Permit that is unresolved.
46
47 Commission:
48 • It is the consensus of the Commission that the 20% landscaping coverage requirement for the
49 Project must be met. There is no relief and/or modification for this standard. The 20%
50 landscaping standard is appropriate for a project of this size.
51
52 20% Landscapina Coveraae Modification
53 Staff: There was discussion by some Commissioners who might be willing to include GrassPave for the
54 fire lane for emergency vehicle access only to count as part of the 20% landscaping.
55 Commissioner poble:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 14, 2012
Page 29
1 • A fire lane is necessary so it is either going to be a paved or graveled driveway or entertain green
2 turf.
3 • Would support green turf as a creative use to improve or enhance the existing landscaping.
4 • Does not support the use of green turf for the parking lot because it is not durable enough and
5 would get torn up.
6 • GrassPave may be suitable for overflow parking accommodations and/or for a parking lot that is
7 used three or four times a year.
8
9 Commissioner Brenner:
10 • Emphasized the site is large with no physical constraints mandating that a compromise has to be
11 made to the landscaping.
12 • Currently turf is not considered landscaping. It has to be irrigated.
13 • Berkeley Sedge/rush grass is appropriate for the bioretention area.
14 • Why not use grass turf anyway even though it would not count as part of 20% landscaping and
15 figure out how to meet the 20% landscaping requirement. This would be a wonderful statement
16 and gift to the community.
17 • Walmart exists in an area that has plenty of opportunity for great landscaping, but instead wants
18 to expand and not play by the rules.
19 • Does not view GrassPave as landscaping.
20
21 Commissioner Sanders:
22 • GrassPave should not be used in the parking lot at all.
23 • GrassPave would be most suitable for the fire lane.
24 • Does not view GrassPave as landscaping.
25
26 Chair Pruden:
27 • Does not view GrassPave as landscaping. It is in the same category as permeable paving.
28 GrassPave is now proving to be problematic.
29 • GrassPave is just one option of many interesting ways to recapture water on pavement.
30 • Would not support GrassPave as landscaping.
31 • Would not have a problem with putting grass or vegetation in and around two concrete strips
32 called a Hollywood driveway.
33 • Views groundcover as landscaping that grows in and around the two strips of concrete. The
34 concrete strip area would not count as landscaping. This type of landscaping is used in some
35 places and is attractive.
36 • Is not sure the Fire Department would consider GrassPave as an acceptable approach for a fire
37 lane.
38 • Is of the opinion permeable paving in whatever style, such as the Hollywood Driveway would be
39 acceptable as landscaping for the fire lane.
40
41 Commission:
42 • GrassPave cannot be considered as landscaping.
43
44 Statement of Overridinq Consideration
45 Staff: Due to the significant and unavoidable traffic impacts identified in the certified Walmart Expansion
46 Project EIR, a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required to be made in order to approve the Site
47 Development Permit required for the Project.
48
49 The EIR identified three possible mitigation measures that would reduce or eliminate the traffic impact
50 associated with the Project and referred to attachment 4, mitigation measures 4.10-2, 4.10-4 and 4.10-5.
51 However, no funding for the improvements was identified. Due to the lack of funding CEQA requires the
52 impacts to be identified as significant and unavoidable.
53
54 When considering the Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Project, CEQA requires the
55 decision making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal social, technological, or other
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 14, 2012
Page 30
1 benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to
2 approve the project. If the Planning Commission determines the benefits of the proposed Project
3 outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects of the Project, the adverse environmental effects
4 may be considered acceptable.
5
6 The Commission and public have requested information on the cost of and funding and design for the
7 improvement that would be required in order to mitigate the traffic impacts identified in the EIR. Caltrans
8 has also commented on the record about the lack of detail provided regarding the three traffic mitigation
9 alternatives included in the EIR. The City has been working on preliminary design and cost estimates for
10 the improvements identified in the EIR where the purpose is identify the traffic improvements and
11 associated costs required for buildout of the Redwood Industrial Park.
12
13 At the regular March 7 City Council meeting, Council voted to amend the City's Capital Improvement Plan
14 to include improvements to the Highway 101 and Talmage Road intersection as provided for in
15 attachment 1. The engineer's estimated cost of the improvements for the analysis done is $2,890,000.
16 The funding for the improvements would come from bond proceeds acquire by the Ukiah Redevelopment
17 Agency.
18
19 Considerations for adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the proposed Project could
20 include:
21 • Additional jobs created by the Project.
22 • Additional revenue for the City generated by the Project in the form of sales tax, property tax, and
23 business license tax as addressed in the fiscal impact report for the Project.
24 • Landscaping improvements to the parking lot.
25 • Improvements to pedestrian facilities
26 • Other considerations identified by the Planning Commission.
27
28 The list of potential benefits of the Project submitted by the applicant is included in attachment 11 of this
29 staff report.
30
31 A Fiscal Impact Report was prepared for the Project to provide information on the fiscal effects of the
32 Project. The report was revised based on public comment to include additional information provided by
33 the preparer of the report and this is included as attachment 13 of this staff report.
34
35 Should the Commission determine the benefits of the Project outweigh the significant and unavoidable
36 environmental effects identified in the EIR as provided for in attachment 4 of this staff report (Table ES-1
37 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures) Planning Commission would be required to state in writing
38 the specific reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR and/or other information in the record.
39 The Statement of Overriding Considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record and
40 this is known as the Statement of Overriding Considerations.
41
42 Staff asks that the Commission discuss the potential benefits of the Project and provide direction to staff
43 as to whether or not a Statement of Overriding Considerations could be made for the Project.
44
45 Chair Pruden: With the Statement of Overriding Conditions everything is on the table. We have
46 significant environmental impacts identified in the EIR that could not be mitigated such that we must
47 determine whether or not the benefits of the Project outweigh the significant and unavoidable
48 environmental effects identified in the EIR.
49
50 Commissioner poble: With the recent City Council vote to amend the City's Capital Improvement Plan
51 to include improvements to the Highway 101 and Talmage Road intersection, is the Planning Commission
52 still required to make a Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the traffic impacts identified in
53 the Walmart EIR?
54
55 Staff: Since the certified EIR identifies the significant and unavoidable traffic impacts, this is what the
56 Commission is addressing this evening.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 14, 2012
Page 31
1
2 Commissioner poble: Would the information in attachment 11 of the staff report for this meeting be
3 considered a mitigation?
4
5 Staff: The new information cannot be considered a mitigation for the purpose of this Project. The new
6 information does appear to improve the situation from what it is currently.
7
8 Chair Pruden: Is the money for the City's Capital Improvement Plan proposed or secured?
9
10 City Attorney Rapport: The money is redevelopment funds until what is called the Recognized
11 Obligation Payment Schedule (R.O.P.S.) is approved by the State Department of Finance. It is not known
12 for certain at this point but the bond proceeds could be used to fund the Capital Improvement Projects
13 identified. They are on the City's proposed R.O.P.S. and required to be reviewed by an oversight
14 committee, which is a local group prior to final approval by the State. Until this occurs, it is not a certainty.
15
16 Chair Pruden: Has the Oversight Committee met yet?
17
18 City Attorney Rapport: Does not believe so.
19
20 Commissioner poble: Could this Project come back at a later date with a new EIR or Mitigated Negative
21 Declaration if the Commission cannot make the Findings for a Statement of Overriding Considerations?
22
23 City Attorney Rapport: Even though the EIR has been certified, if new information became available and
24 the applicant wanted to pursue a project, they could re-circulate an EIR and this new information could be
25 incorporated into it if at that point the funding was secure and the design had been approved by Caltrans.
26
27 Commissioner poble: Is this the only item that is triggering a finding for a Statement of Overriding
28 Consideration the significant and unavoidable traffic impacts? Is there anything else at this point?
29
30 Staff: Traffic is the only impact. The applicant's attorney is here if the Commission has questions about
31 Walmart's position about the potential re-opening of the EIR or the Statement of Overriding
32 Considerations.
33
34 Chair Pruden: The Commission needs to determine that this Project is beneficial and necessary to our
35 community that we are willing to live with the environmental impacts. We do not know if and when the
36 impacts will be mitigated or at least in the next 19 years in 2031 according to Mendocino County of
37 Government when the funding pot would be available.
38
39 Commissioner poble: There is the other alternative.
40
41 Chair Pruden: The alternative is uncertain at this point. It is just information.
42
43 Commissioner poble: The Commission did request information about the design aspects and cost
44 estimates for the road improvements and now we have it.
45
46 Chair Pruden:
47 • The Commission has touched on some aspects of the Statement of Overriding Considerations.
48 • We are aware that the economic decay element has been a moving target much to our
49 dissatisfaction.
50 • There have been so many number changes in supporting documents that one almost does not
51 know what to rely on as accurate figures.
52 • The document from the economic fiscal report consultant in attachment 13 seemed to indicate
53 that with Measure S there would be a tax gain of almost $45,000 a year and without Measure S,
54 the tax gain would be a little over$21,000 a year.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 14, 2012
Page 32
1 • Our documents indicate there will be a 25°/a increase in police callouts from 744 callouts to 930.
2 This is an indication that the Project will cost public safety almost $32,500 to service this public
3 service impact.
4 • There is the potential if that Measure S is not renewed that it will actually cost this community
5 money for public safety. This is my perception of reading the numbers. What are the thoughts of
6 the other Commissioners in this regard?
7
8 Commissioners Doble and Brenner agree with the numbers provided for in the document.
9
10 Chair Pruden: In looking at the figures provided by the consultant, in one scenario we actually have a
11 net loss to the public safety budget and in the other scenario we only have a gain of about$12,000.
12
13 Commissioner poble: Is seeing diminishing benefits as we go through this process and couple this with
14 the lack of expansion of market area and not drawing people to this community to spend their money.
15 This is what hurts and this is kind of my position at this point.
16
17 Chair Pruden:
18 • The tax figure information is not good.
19 • Is concerned about the fact there are so many figures out there.
20 • Will use the figure that is in the certified EIR that the Project will divert $13.2 million from existing
21 businesses.
22
23 Commissioner Brenner:
24 • One of the hard facts he found about the economic study was that it was removed from the actual
25 ripple effect of how the impacts trickle down and what this actually means to one's neighbor. We
26 got this information from the actual business owners.
27 • Not all the business owners said they would go out of business, but the ones the EIR said would
28 be affected their employees indicated they would lose their homes.
29 • This is a big deal. This would mean more vacant houses on streets.
30 • Has a real hard time with this knowing there is no gain in this regard.
31 • It seems like a `no-brainer' if there is no draw and 'I might lose in the end from a tax point of view.'
32
33 Chair Pruden: If the Project is going to divert over $13 million from existing businesses, someone is
34 going to fall under.
35
36 Commissioner poble: Again, it goes back to the expansion of the market area. It is really a draw from
37 what is already here. People that come here to shop for groceries are already here to shop for groceries
38 so it is diverting to another store.
39
40 Commissioner Brenner:
41 • Cannot kick someone out of their home for another grocery store by Walmart.
42 • Walmart is already here. Is glad the store is here.
43 • Do they need more for the sake of someone's home? Does not think so.
44 • Has a difficult time looking someone in the eye and saying, `we thought Walmart just needed a
45 little bit more.' This is a hard one.
46
47 Chair Pruden:
48 • Additionally, we do have the potential of losing up to three grocery stores in this community and
49 they are Food Maxx, Grocery Outlet and Lucky. We do not know if this is going to occur, but if it
50 does, that is a net loss of about 168 jobs. This is a risk that is disconcerting.
51 • One thing that has been said consistently as a benefit is that the expanded Walmart will allow for
52 one-shop.
53 • Cannot think of something more against what this community wants to see happen. This
54 community does not want one-stop shopping. This may be convenient for the customer but it is
55 disastrous for all the other businesses. Does not see this as a plus for this particular Project.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 14, 2012
Page 33
1 • Does not want to see other eye doctors, tax preparers, nail salons go out of business.
2 • Some of the Walmart stores offer medical walk-in centers. Does not want to see doctors go out of
3 business.
4 • Walmart stores also offer insurance. Does not want to lose other local vendors.
5 • There is some collateral damage with the ancillary businesses that can be put in these expanded
6 Walmarts.
7 • Is of the opinion we need to be aware that one-stop shopping does not behoove a small
8 community.
9
10 Commissioner Brenner:
11 • This goes back to Commissioner poble's concern about market draw. What market draw is
12 gained from a one-stop shop?
13 • We have spent a long time in this community embracing `smart growth' concepts and
14 promoting/encouraging a walkable community.
15 • A lot of money has been spent trying to generate a `smart growth' Downtown.
16 • Studies have shown over and over again that a one-stop shop approach is not conducive to a
17 healthy, positive and growing urban environment. This approach actually limits and destroys a
18 community over a period of time. We need economic diversity.
19 • Supports economic diversity.
20 • Is not saying Walmart should leave. They are already here. Walmart is part of the economic
21 diversity, but wants the other`guys' to be here too.
22 • Is not guessing that certain stores mentioned will go out of business, the EIR says so.
23 • Is not guessing 65 jobs may be lost, this is going to happen according to the EIR so this is not just
24 my conjecture.
25 • Does not want stores going out of business or jobs lost as a result of an expanded Walmart.
26
27 Chair Pruden: This community has other 24-hour grocery stores so even this niche already occurs.
28
29 Commissioner poble:
30 • If there were not significant and unavoidable impacts confronting this Project, we would not be
31 faced with having to decide whether or not the benefits of the Project outweigh the impacts. This
32 is what we need to focus on.
33 • Is of the opinion adding everything up does not equal out.
34
35 Commissioner Sanders:
36 • The benefits keep diminishing with each meeting.
37 • Regarding the economic benefits the Commission has been reviewing would like to read a
38 section of the County Board of Supervisors' letter dated December 6, 2011 regarding the
39 Statement of Overriding Considerations. `The discussion of the potential for the Project to
40 contribute to urban decay is superficial at best by insisting that past anchors close because of
41 internal conditions, not as a result of competition.'
42 • This letter further criticizes the urban decay analysis as speculative in that vacant buildings from
43 anchor closures will be reoccupied within a reasonable amount of time.
44 • The County Board of Supervisors' letter also points out that the analysis fails to mention the likely
45 migration of small and mid-sized retailers to the Airport Business Park once smaller retailers
46 close as a result of the loss of anchor stores. They further point out the expansion of Walmart
47 plus the discount-club scenario will negatively impact sales tax receipts for Willits, Fort Bragg and
48 the County.
49 • If the Commission approves the Expansion, this will result in job loss. The Expansion Project is
50 not going to be job creation.
51 • As one is aware, the unemployment rate in this community is already pretty high.
52 • Is of the opinion that approving this Project is not going to be healthy for our community.
53 • Also, one is aware this community does not have a tax-sharing agreement between the City and
54 County yet.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 14, 2012
Page 34
1 • We need to be looking at regional land use policies in our future, but this Project has been very
2 divisive for this community.
3 • If the Project were providing more jobs to improve the standard of living for our community then
4 this would be a consideration, but does not see the benefit here.
5
6 Chair Pruden:
7 • It appears the Commission is not able or willing to make a Statement of Overriding
8 Considerations that the benefits of this Project outweigh the environmental impacts. The Project
9 is in competition with other existing businesses in town, particularly the other grocery stores.
10 • The diversion of sales is going to be detrimental.
11 • The issue of public safety is of great concern. There are already 744 callouts a year in that
12 particular area.
13 • The Commission has literally heard several hundred testimonies with some people speaking up
14 to five times, but regardless they have spoken to `the subject at-hand.'
15 • Does anyone here believe that the majority of the audience has been in favor of the Walmart
16 Expansion Project?
17 • Her perception from keeping track at the last meeting of 79 comments, 28 were positive. This is
18 fairly representative of what we have been hearing from the community.
19 • There is not overwhelming or even 50% support for this Expansion Project.
20 • The Commission represents the community and we cannot ignore what were are seeing and
21 hearing as a Commission.
22 • The Walmart Expansion Project is not a popular project by the majority.
23 • If this was the other way around and the majority of the community wanted the Project, the
24 Commission would probably say that the desirability of the Project was great enough to live with
25 the environmental impacts, but we have not even heard it statistically by our audience comments
26 during the public hearings. In fact the public has been very outspoken about their concerns.
27 • Does appreciate that Walmart employees in their public testimonies have painted a picture of an
28 employer they enjoy working for and, as a result, a lot of mythology about Walmart employment
29 practices have been put to rest.
30 • Is surprised at how long some employees have worked for Walmart.
31 • It is good to hear Walmart has tried to be a good neighbor and a good employer locally. What
32 Walmart is doing does work in our community.
33 • The necessity to expand and compete with other businesses in this town does not appear will
34 work for our community in that we are not willing to live with potentially very serious impacts to
35 employment, local salaries and public safety issues, including the traffic impacts that are
36 substantial for the Expansion Project. If this funding does not come forward, this community will
37 be living with tremendous traffic impaction at that intersection.
38
39 Commissioner Whetzel: This community is going to be living with traffic impaction at that intersection
40 for a long time.
41
42 Chair Pruden: This is true, but we do not want to aggravate it.
43
44 Commissioner Whetzel: Is of the opinion we are penalizing a business for the lack of foresight from a
45 City or county that should have been improving that area from when they first turned the Airport Industrial
46 Park into retail/commercial zoning from industrial/light manufacturing. Originally, the Park was envisioned
47 for industrial purposes. When the area went from an industrial park to retail/commercial, the decision
48 makers should have known there was going to be more and more traffic and should have done something
49 about it years ago.
50
51 Chair Pruden: They should have done something about the traffic issue, but we do not need to
52 compound the error.
53
54 Chair Pruden: The reality is the Expansion Project will only increase the problems that already exist. It is
55 already an aggravating intersection.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 14, 2012
Page 35
1 Commissioner Whetzel: Is looking ahead. Knows we have further projects coming in that area. Are we
2 going to feel the same?
3
4 Chair Pruden: It is possible if the same environmental statements come up that cannot be mitigated.
5
6 Commissioner Whetzel: We are going to be in the same position.
7
8 Chair Pruden: We will have to deal with that issue when it comes. The reality is, how can we say we are
9 willing to live with the environmental damage and that the Expansion Project is so beneficial and
10 necessary to our community?
11
12 Commissioner Whetzel: Would say this is going to put a stamp on all the other projects in the area.
13
14 Commissioner poble: I do not believe so. Every project is different. The Commission must make a
15 decision that requires it to weigh the benefits of the project and we are going to have to do the same for
16 every project.
17
18 Chair Pruden: If the Commission sees another project a year from now and the funding is secured such
19 that traffic impacts will no longer be significant, we will not have to make a State of Overriding
20 Considerations. $3 million dollars will be expended on that intersection and proportionally a new applicant
21 will have to pay their proportional fair share of the road improvements. This is currently not available to
22 us.
23
24 Commissioner poble:
25 • This Project could come back.
26 • If the traffic situation is resolved and we are not forced to weigh the impacts versus the benefits
27 may be it is a different scenario but right now we have that decision to make, which in my opinion,
28 is not adding up.
29
30 Chair Pruden: At this point, we do not have enough tradeoff it sounds like with the at least four
31 Commissioners to say the Statement of Overriding Considerations can be made that this Project is
32 necessary and beneficial to our community to the degree that we are willing to live with the impacts.
33 Things could change in a year.
34
35 Commissioner Whetzel: From day one, was supportive of a smaller footprint so is of the opinion all the
36 Commissioners are on the same page.
37
38 Chair Pruden: This does not preclude Walmart from remodeling the building and taking out the Tire and
39 Lube Department and changing that over to a grocery section. If the store footprint stays the same,
40 Walmart can operate slightly differently.
41
42 Commissioner Sanders: But not operate 24 hours.
43
44 Chair Pruden: Interestingly, the 24 hours is not part of the Site Development Permit. Believes they are
45 not precluded from operating 24 hours a day.
46
47 Commissioner Brenner: It would be great if Walmart considered their expansion and the impacts their
48 expansion would make on the community before they go ahead and do it.
49
50 Chair Pruden: Walmart can remodel their interior and change their product line. They can do all the
51 environmental upgrades they would like to do with solar tubes and solar panels on the roof. They could
52 re-landscape the parking lot and redo their circulation to make it more pedestrian friendly. All of the above
53 can be done whether they get the expansion or not.
54
55 Commissioner Brenner:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 14, 2012
Page 36
1 • Is of the opinion that Walmart as a company is a real testimony to America's ability to create
2 something out of nothing.
3 • Supports the thought process of thinking about the application of Walmart as a community
4 member and about the many projects Walmart has contributed to monetarily and helped
5 communities all across the nation.
6 • Is hopeful Walmart will continue to make the necessary considerations for any growth with
7 regards to the impact the growth/expansion would have on the community so that it would not be
8 detrimental.
9
10 Commissioner poble:
11 • Is hopeful the Capital Improvement Plan gets put into place and the funding secured.
12 • Commends the City and staff for really working on the Capital Improvement Plan in a short period
13 of time. It was not on the fiscal year calendar and now it is. This is an important step. This may
14 not have occurred if the Commission was not discussing the Expansion Project.
15
16 Chair Pruden: It has been a very thought provoking process.
17
18 City Attorney Rapport: The City has to mitigate those traffic impacts if the Redwood Business Park is
19 going to be built-out. City Council and City staff have been working on trying to mitigate those traffic
20 impact before Walmart even applied for their Expansion Project.
21
22 Commissioner poble: Traffic improvements in that area were not on this fiscal year's Capital
23 Improvement Plan until just a week ago.
24
25 City Attorney Rapport: The City issued redevelopment bonds back in March for the purpose of raising
26 the funds needed to make the traffic improvements, among other things.
27
28 Planning Director Stump:
29 • Pointed out, there is a statement made there was not any foresight 20 years ago when Walmart
30 came in and buildout of the Park. When Walmart came here, millions of dollars were spent on
31 traffic improvements.Walmart and the City contributed heavily to that.
32 • There have been traffic studies as the Park has built out.
33 • There has been a concerted effort to try to stay on top of the traffic situation in the area of the
34 Talmage Road/Airport Park Boulevard intersection.
35 • What has occurred is we have gotten more and more draw from outside the area than was
36 anticipated. We have employees that work for the City of Ukiah that live in Sonoma County that
37 drive to Ukiah to shop.
38 • Pointed out the City has been working on the traffic improvements that are necessary, beyond
39 what was anticipated for over a year now mainly because of the funding source. It has been a
40 strong and long effort.
41 • In summary the Commission's thoughts on the Statement of Overriding Considerations are that
42 the majority of the Commissioners are unable to make that Statement of Overriding
43 Considerations for the Walmart Expansion Project.
44 • Also heard that the majority of the Commissioners find the Project inconsistent with the Ukiah
45 General Plan goal ED-1 and that the majority of the Commissioners are unwilling to grant a
46 modification for 20% landscaping coverage.
47 • To this end, what the Commission would end up doing tonight is directing staff to prepare findings
48 for denial of the Expansion Project, which staff would do and come to the Commission at a later
49 date when those findings have been prepared for the Commission's consideration and adoption.
50
51 Chair Pruden: What Planning Director Stump has stated has been summed up perfectly.
52
53 Planning Director Stump: Is this is this the direction the Commission is giving staff tonight?
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 14, 2012
Page 37
1 It was the consensus of the Commission that the direction given to staff concerning the Expansion Project
2 has been adequately conveyed.
3
4 Chair Pruden:
5 • No vote will be taken tonight.
6 • The Commission will vote on the Project at the next regular Commission meeting.
7
8 There was Commission discussion when it is feasible to again review the Walmart Expansion Project.
9
10 It was the consensus of the Commission to continue Walmart Expansion Project Site Development
11 Permit, Landscaping Modifications, and Statement of Overriding Considerations to a date certain of April
12 11, 2012.
13
14 10. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
15
16 Planning Director Stump: The Zoning Administrator will be reviewing two projects — a use permit for a
17 new community garden on South State Street at the back of the National 9 apartments site and a site
18 development permit for Aarons furniture rental on North State Street at the former site of World Gym
19 Fitness.
20
21 11. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
22 Chair Pruden:
23 • The Commission has had a long time to think about the Walmart Expansion Project.
24 • The Commission has been very respectful of each other's opinions.
25 • The Commission has listened carefully and given serious consideration to the concerns people
26 have with the Project.
27 • Applauds everyone for their participation and input. The deportment, respect and civility from the
28 public, staff, and the Commissioners is what makes a process like this able to flow and thanked
29 everyone for this.
30
31 Commissioner Whetzel: Thanked staff and the Commission for all of their difficult and hard work during
32 the process of reviewing the Walmart Expansion Project.
33
34 Commissioner Brenner: Wanted to definitely thank staff for an excellent job on the Walmart Expansion
35 Project and for being so incredibly helpful in navigating the `ins and outs' and everything else associated
36 with the Project.
37
38 Commissioner poble: Responsiveness from staff to questions/concerns throughout the process was
39 incredible.
40
41 12. ADJOURNMENT
42 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:36 p.m.
43
44
45 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
46
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 14, 2012
Page 38