HomeMy WebLinkAbout03142012 - packet CITY OF UKIAH
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
March 14, 2012
6:00 P.M.
1. CALL TO ORDER 6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
UKIAH CIVIC CENTER, 300 SEMINARY AVENUE
2. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS BRENNER, DOBLE, SANDERS,
WHETZEL, AND CHAIRPERSON PRUDEN
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes from the December 14, 2011, and January 25, February 8, and February
22, 2012 meetings are included for review and approval.
5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
The Planning Commission welcomes input from the audience. In order for everyone to
be heard, please limit your comments to three (3) minutes per person and not more
than ten (10) minutes per subject. The Brown Act regulations do not allow action to be
taken on audience comments.
6. APPEAL PROCESS
All determinations of the Planning Commission regarding major discretionary planning
permits and associated California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) determinations are
final unless a written appeal, stating the reasons for the appeal, is filed with the City
Clerk within ten (10) days of the date the decision was made. An interested party may
appeal only if he or she appeared and stated his or her position during the hearing on
the decision from which the appeal is taken.
7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION
8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE
9. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Walmart Expansion Project Site Development Permit and Statement of
Overriding Considerations (File Nos.: 09-28-SDP-PC and 09-42-EIR-
PC). Provide Planning Commission comment and direction to staff on the
Walmart Expansion Project 1) Major Site Development Permit and associated
modifications to landscaping requirements, and 2) Statement of Overriding
Considerations. Public Comment on this item was closed at the February
8, 2012 Planning Commission meeting.
Americans with Disabilities Act Accommodations. Please be advised that the City needs to be notified 72 hours
in advance of a meeting if any specific accommodations or interpreter services are needed in order for you to attend.
The City complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities
upon request. Please call (707)463-6752 or(707)463-6207 to arrange accommodations.
The Project is located at 1155 Airport Park Boulevard, APN 180-070-38, in the
Airport Industrial Park Planned Development (AIP PD). The project proposes a
47,621 square foot expansion of the existing 109,030 square foot store, for a
total square footage of 156,651 to include expanded general merchandise floor
area and expanded grocery sales floor area, indoor and outdoor garden centers,
as well as the possibility of distilled alcohol sales, and a medical clinic and/or
vision center on a 13.44 acre site. Also included as part of the project is a
change in store hours to 24 hours per day, seven days per week, modifications
to the design of the exterior of the building, the addition of new parking spaces,
modifications to the landscaping, and other associated site improvements.
The proposed Project requires approval of a Major Site Development Permit, two
modifications to the AIP PD landscaping requirements, and adoption of a
Statement of Overriding Considerations. As part of the Major Site Development
Permit, the Planning Commission will consider the applicant's request for
approval of modifications to the AIP PD landscaping requirements for
landscaping lot coverage and shade coverage. Approval of the project would also
require a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the significant and
unavoidable Traffic impacts identified in the Walmart Expansion EIR.
This item was continued from the November 9, 2011, December 14,
2011, 7anuary 11, 2012, 7anuary 25, 2012, and February 8, 2012
Planning Commission meetings.
10. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
11. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
12. AD70URNMENT
Americans with Disabilities Act Accommodations. Please be advised that the City needs to be notified 72 hours
in advance of a meeting if any specific accommodations or interpreter services are needed in order for you to attend.
The City complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities
upon request. Please call (707)463-6752 or(707)463-6207 to arrange accommodations.
1 UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 December 14, 2011
3 Minutes
4
5 COMMISSIC)NERS PRESENT COMMISSIQNERS ABSENT
6 Judy Pruden, Chair None
7 Jason Brenner �
8 Kevin Doble
9 l.inda Sanders �
10 Mike Whetzel '
11
12 STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
13 Charley Stump, Planning Director Listed below, Respectively
14 Kim Jordan, Senior Planner '
15 Jennifer Faso, Associate Planner
16 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
17
1$ 1. CA�L TO ORDER
19 The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by '
20 Chair Pruden at 6:04 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, !
21 Ukiah, California.
22
23 2. ROLL CALL
24
25 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Everyone cited.
26 '
2� 4. APPRQVAL OF MINUTES — November 9, 2011
2$ The Commission made the following ehanges to the minutes:
29
30 Page 15, �ine 50, correct the spelling of Tarzan's Pipeline projecfito Tar Sands Pipeline.
31 Page 25, Line 1, sentence corrected to read, `The City wants to move forward on getting those necessary
32 improvements done.' '
33 Page 26, Line 2Q, sentence corrected to read, `It would have made more sense to have another
34 consultant do the entire urban decay analysis and fiscal impact report.'
35
36 Mary Anne Milier made the following change to the minutes:
37 Page 16, Line 25, sentence corrected to read, `The Planning Commission has no obiigation to consider
38 cheap graceries as part of the environmental impacts.'
39
40 M1S Benner/Sanders to�pprove November 9, 2011 minutes, as amended. Motion carried (5-0).
41 '
42 5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
43
44 6. APPEAL PROGESS—Chair Pruden read the appeai process. For matters heard at this meeting,
45 the final date to appeal is November 21, 2011. '
46
47 7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION -Site visit for agenda item 9B was verified.
48
49 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE —Agenda items 9A & 96 were properly noticed in aceordance with
50 the provisions of the Ukiah Municipal Code.
51
52 9. PUBLIC HEARING ,
53 9A. Walmart Expansian Project Environmental Impact Report (File Nos.: 09-42-EIR-PC/09-28-
54 SDP-PC�. Conduct a public hearing, take public and provide Planning Cammission comment, and
55 possibly adopt a resolution to certify the Walmart Expansion Project Environmental Impact Repor� ;
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 14,2011
Page 1
1 (EIR). The praject proposes a 47,621 square foot expansion of the existing 109,030 square foot
2 store, for a total square footage of 156,651 to include expanded general merchandise floor area
3 and expanded grocery sales floor area, indoor and outdoor garden centers, as weil as the
4 possibility of distilled alcohot sales, and a medical clinic andlor visian center an the 13.44 acre
5 site located at 1155 Airport Park Boulevard, APN 180-070-38, in the Airport Industriai Park. Also,
6 included as part of the project is a ehange in store hours to 24 hours per day, seven days per
� week, modifications to the landscaping, and other associated site improvements. The EIR
8 analyzes an addition of 52,320 square feet for a total store size of 161,350 square feet (a 3% ,
9 increase of the proposed square footage).
10
11 This item was continued from the November 9, 2011 Planning Commission meeting. Public
12 eomment on this item is closed. '
13
14 Planning Director Stump:
15 • Thanked the public for being present and taking an interest in the Waimart Expansion Project.
16 • The consultants hired by the City to do the EIR are present ta participate in the discussion and to
17 answer questions.
18
19 Brian Grattidge of ESA:
20 • Tonight, the Planning Commission has the opportunity to comment on the adequacy of the '
21 Walmart Expansion EIR and decide whether or not ta adopt a City resolutian to certify the
22 Walmart Expansion Project EIR. !
23 • Planning Commission will have the opportunity to review and consider City Resolution for '
24 adoption to certify the Walma�t Expansion EIR (attachment 1 of the staff report) and the
25 Memorandum from ESA that provides comments to the written comments received at the
26 November 9, 2011 Planning Commission public hearing for the certification of the Ukiah Walmart
27 Expansion Project Finai EIR (Attachment 4 of the staff report}. In addition to numerous orai !
28 testimonies, the Commission received a letter dated November 9, 2011 at the Planning
29 Commission meeting fram William D. Kopper, attorney at Iaw. While CEQA does not require '
30 written responses to comments received after the Draft EIR public review period, which elosed on !
31 August 18, 2011, responses to the camments submitted by Mr. Kopper on November 9, 2011 are `
32 provided in order to give the Planning Commission and members af the public additional
33 information and to clarify the analysis and conclusions in the EIR. None of the comments or
34 responses to comments constitutes significant new information within the meaning of CEQA
35 Guidelines.
36 • The Commission also received copies of two reports from Steve Scalmanini entitled 'Walmart's '
3'7 Econamic Footprint: a literature review prepared by Hunter college Center for Community !
38 Planning & Development and New York City Public Advocate Biil de Blasio' and `Key Studies an
39 Walmart and Big-Box Retail.' The consultant team prepared a separate memorandum and -
40 referred ta ALH Urban & Regional Economics memorandum of December 7, 2011 in response to
41 these reports (attachment 5 of the stafF report.)
42 • Is available to answer questions.
43 '
44 Senior Planner Jordan: '
45 • AI letter from the County of Mendocino Board of Supervisors dated December 6, 2011 regarding
46 comments to the Walmart Expansion EIR, Site Development Permit and Statement of
47 Consideration and a letter from public member Steve Scalmanini, dated December 12, 2011 have
48 been provided to the Commission. Since pubiic comment is closed on this agenda item, these
49 letters are provided simply for information purposes. '
50 • The intent af tonight's meeting is for Planning Commission to comment on the EIR, ask questions '
51 of staff, and certify the EIR if the Commission determines the document is adequate.
S2 • A draft resolution certifying the EIR was provided for Commission review as an attachment to the
53 staff report.
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIQN December 14, 2011 '
Page 2
1 Commission preference for discussion about the adequacy of the EIR was to review pages ES-3 through
2 ES-15, Table ES-1, Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures for each of the environmental impacts _
3 addressed in the FEIR.
4
5 Commission:
6 Aestheties—No questions/comments. Section adequate.
7
8 Air Qualitv—No questions/eomments. Section adequate.
9
10 Urban Decav
11 Gommissioner Sanders:
12
13 • Referred to the Draft EIR, Chapter 4, Urban Decay and noted the document states `for purposes
14 of the analysis, urban decay is defined as physical deterioration that is so prevalent and ;
15 substantial it impairs the proper use of affected reai estate, o�the health, safety and welfare of
16 the surrounding community (CBRE Consulting, 2010).'
17
18 According to CEAQ, impacts to be analyzed in an EIR must be related to physical changes in the
19 environment. While the CEQA Guidelines do not directly require an analysis of a projecYs sacial '
20 or economic effects because such impacts are not in and of themselves considered significant '
21 effects on the environment, the guidelines do state: An EIR may trace a chain of cause and effect
22 from a proposed decision on a project through anticipated economic or social changes resulting
23 from the project of physical changes caused in turn by the economic or soeial changes. The
24 intermediate econamic or social changes eaused in turn by eeonomic or social changes need not
25 be analyzed in any detail greater than necessary to trace the chain of cause and effect whereby
26 the focus af the analysis shall be on the physical changes'. CEQA guidelines also provide that '
27 physical effects on the environment related to changes in land use, population, and growth rate
28 induced by a project may be indirect or secondary impacts of the project and should be analyzed
29 in an EIR if the physical effects would be significant. Physical deterioration can inciude
30 abnormally high business vacancies, abandoned buildings and industrial sites, boarded doors
31 and windows, long term unauthorized use af properties and parking lots, extensive gang or !
32 offensive graffiti painted on buildings, dumping of waste or overturned dumpsters on property,
33 dead trees or shrubbery, uncantrolled weed growth and homeless encampments.
34
35 Generally, the economic and sacial effects of a proposed project are not considered by CEQA. !
36 Where economic or social effects af a proposed project will directly or indirectly lead to an
37 adverse physical change in the environment, then CEQA requires disclosure of the resulting '
38 physical impacts. Ecanamic or sociai changes need not be analyzed in any detail greater than '
39 necessary to ascertain what physical changes may occur as a result of economic or social
40 changes.
41 • In the urban decay study four supermarkets were identified as being impacted should Walmart
42 expand its grocery sales floor area and for the store to operate 24 hours per day.
43 • There was a lot of public eomment about the selection of the EIR consuitant and preparatian
44 thereof with regard to the controversy about the conneetion between CBRE international real '
45 estate division and their economic and fiscal consulting division.
46 • As a Pianning Commissioner, we are required to report ta the California Fair Political Practices
47 Commission if there is any possible economic conflict of interest. '
48 '
49 Cammissianer Sanders:
50 Q1. Acknowledged the resumes for the consultants and corresponding subconsultants were '
51 impressive and asked when staff was interviewing the 10 potential consultants to do the EIR for
52 the City of Ukiah, afi what time did staff learn about CBRE International representing Walmart's '
S3 reai estate interests? Was the timeframe in and around when the City received a letter from
54 Jeffery Blankfort advising tha# a possible conflict of interest exists regarding CBRE's real estate '
55 involvement with Walmart and CBRE's economic division preparing the Urban Decay analysis? '
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING GOMMISSION December 14, 2411
Page 3
1 Q2. In the course af the selection of the consultant along with their subconsultants, did staff request
2 Fair Political Practices (FPP)forms be completed for the consultant and subcansultants?
3
4 Planning DirectorStump: .
5 A�i. Staff did not learn of a possible relationship between CRBE economic and fiscal division the
6 subconsultant hired to complete the urban deeay analysis and the international real estate
7 division until araund the time af the first Planning Commission public hearing for the DEIR. Staff
8 may have become aware of a potential conflict right before Mr. Biankfort's letter to the City of
9 Ukiah.
10 A2. FPP farms are not used as part of the selection process but rather staff typically drafts a standard
11 professional services contract which the City Attorney oversees. Accordingiy, if staff or the City
12 Attorney in reviewing the contract believes there may be some so�t of confiict of interest '
13 concerning the consulting firm this would raise a red flag where a filing of a FPP form may be
14 required ar follow some other measure.
15 '
16 City Attorney Rapport:
17 • The local conflict of interest codes address what disclosures apply to a consultant. '
18 • The Fair Political Practices Act requires the City to adopt a local code that meets State standards. '
19 * The confiict of interest provision of the FPP Act and definition thereof would appiy to a consultant
20 deemed to be the equivalent of a public afficial in which case this person would have an
21 obligation to disclose a potential conflict of interest. The EIR consultant and subconsuitants for
22 the Urban Decay and Transportation and Traffic portions of the EIR do not came under this
23 definition. A consultant in order to be subject to the disclosure and conflict of interest
24 requirements has to either be hired to make a decision on behalf of the agency which is not the '
25 case here or, they have to serve in the capacity of a staff person. The Fair Political Practices
26 Commission decisions of which there have many typically addresses situations where a
27 consultant serves in the capacity of a staff person. The Cammission has heid repeatedly that a
28 consultant is serving in the capacity of a staff person only if they perform all the regular functions
29 of a staff person. The consultant hired to do a specific short term project like an EIR is always not
30 considered performing in the capacity of a staff person so they are not considered a public official
31 and not subject to the disclosure requirements and, therefore are not subject to the conflict of
32 interest provisions of the Act.
33
34 Chaie Pruden:
35 • The urban decay sectian appears ta be the most controversial to the public.
36 • Is of the opinion while the urban decay section is probably adequate, it is not as good a document
3� as it couid have been. Compared to ather sections in the EIR, the Urban Decay section is not one '
38 of the stronger sections because it is the least quantifiable and most speculative of the all the
39 sections in the EIR.
40 • With regard to the urban decay section, it is speeulative whether or not the Walmart expansion
41 project wiil shut down three other grocery stores thus creating a blighted situation when such
42 commerciai retail establishments close and the buildings become vacant. The former Kmart
43 building became Home Deport and the former Mervyn's stare became Kohl's and represent
44 examples of buildings that did not succumb to blight because the former uses closed. '
45 • You cannot factually say that Lucky's grocery store is going to close because of the Walmart
46 Expansion Project.
47
48 Commissioner Brenner:
49 • Agreed, it is difficult to quantify urban decay. What he looked at was whether or not sufficient
50 information was provided about the issue in terms of being able to make an informed decision
51 about the project. Is of the opinion the urban decay section of the EIR provided the necessary
52 information to make an informed decision. '
53 • EIRs are written to define the parameters in which possible environmental impaets are
54 investigated. While the necessary infarmation was pravided about the environmentai impact, the
55 `�ararneters'c�f#he impacts fell shQrt c�f address�ng vuhat the ac#ual v�reight of impacts�ould be.'
MINUTES OF THE P�ANNING COMMISSION December 14, 2011
Page 4
1 • The Draft EIR did an adequate job of defining what the impacts would be within the parameters
2 of what was being looked at. It may be some of the impacts/issues looked at `went out too far'
3 such that they affected other things that are not necessarily evaluated under the current system
4 andlor methodology for EIRs. This is where the EIR fell short and questions what ean be done
5 about this.
6 • An EIR is given the task of addressing issues that are social in nature in which there may be no
7 answers. Decisian makers have the task of looking at the information presented in order to form
8 opinions and exercise good judgment. -
9 • Within the context of an EIR, you have to look at whether or not the document provides the
10 necessary information to make an informed decisian.
11 • The EIR definitely presented `unknowns', but `unknowns' aside, the document did show the
12 impacts that were listed. It is correct the impacts identified were evatuated, but again there was a
13 number of subject matter that was not looked at in the EIR. However, the Commission is being
14 asked to make a decision based on legai requirements as part of the EIR methodology rather '
15 than about some of the information provided or consideration about information that was not
16 inciuded. Overail, the document did adequately address the project impacts/issues the
17 community requested.
18 • Supports that EIRs go deeper with regard to information. '
19 • It was nat difficult to do further research to go beyond what the EIR evaluated in order to
20 formulate and draw effective conclusions about the environmental impacts identified.
21
22 Chair Pruden:
23 • Gited an exampie of identifying impacts that affect other things that are not necessarily evaluated.
24 For instance, Walmart wants ta expand its grocery space that includes a bakery. There are
25 bakeries in town. Whether or not the proposed bakery would impact other bakeries was not
26 ineluded in the document. This does not mean the document is inadequate, but it did not cover all
2� the bases.
2$ • Found the enviranmental document raised more questions than it answered. While the EIR raised
29 a lat of issues, the purpose is not to answer every question. There is probably no EIR that can
30 answer every question.
31 • The Commission only deals with the urban decay definition in the EIR and not blight. The urban
32 decay definition is quite different than that of blight.
33
34 Commissioner Brenner: Explained we are only allowed to evaluate the quality of the EIR and he had '
35 to do research in order to fill in the gaps as they relate to urban decay and corresponding blight issues of
36 which if issues related to blight were allowed in the EIR this would have painted a different picture for him.
37
38 Commission Whetzel:
39 • Is of the opinion the EIR provides the necessary information in order for#he Planning Commission ''
40 to make an informed decision. '
41 • It is doubtful the shopping habits of people would change should the Walmart Expansion Project
42 be approved. '
43 • It is a shame the Commission has to deal with a document that only has to be adequate. '
44 • The EIR covers the impacts to the point the document is adequate and the Commission has to
45 make a decision on the information presented. '
46
47 Chair Pruden: Some of the sections in the EIR are more adequate and some are less.
48
49 Gommissioner poble:
50 • With regard to Urban Decay, the document does address the possible closure of some grocery '
51 stares so this was forthright.
52 • It is possible some of the details contained in the document should be dealt with on a project-by- ',
53 project basis rather than in the EIR. '
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 14, 2011
Page 5 !
1 Commissioner Sanders: Referred to Volume I11 of the DEIR, page 7 and asked if the Commissioners
2 had cancems about the infarmation regarding the current market conditions that state, `the fieid research,
3 market research, and interviews that GBRE Cansuiting conducted indicated that many af the retail
4 centers in the market area and the surrounding environs are performing reasonably well. New retailers
5 have continued ta reloeate in the area despite the economic downturn either by taking over vacant store
6 spaces or by moving into new build-to-suit properties. Mareover, retail landlords appear to be making
7 necessary improvements to keep their properties competitive and/or prepare for longer term
8 redevelopment of their sites.'
9
10 Commissioner Brenner: Did not receive the same feedback from the different leasing agents he spoke
11 to. In fact, the information is just the opposite and found that it is difficult to lease vacant retail store
12 space.
13
14 Chair Pruden:
15 • Economic decay is directly tied to how a building presents itself. While Ukiah Valley �umber ;
16 Campany has gone out of business, the building, now vacant, is in very nice shape in terms of ,
17 paint and presentation. Despite the fact the building is vacant, as long as the building is
18 maintained in a presentable manner;this does not represent urban decay in our community.
19 • The decay is the actual physical deterioration of a building. As long as a building is well '
20 maintained, there is na decay. '
21
22 Gommissioner Brenner: When looking at the definitions and information, the EIR covers the basis. '
23 While he had different input, different input is allowed in an EIR.
24
25 Chair Pruden: After reading Amy Herman of ALH work on the FEIR in eontext with other doeuments
26 presented, there are opposite opinions as to what Walmart does to a community. It may well be that nane
27 of documents can be used as supporting dacuments because the information is `polar opposite.'
28
29 Commissioner Sanders: While not an expert, the characterization of the current market conditions is
30 not based on reality.
31
32 Commission consensus—urban decay
33 • Commissioner Sanders - Primary concern is why there was not full disclosure about CBRE
34 International Real Estate division that represents Walmart interests and CBRE economic and
35 fiscai consulting division that prepared the urban decay section of the DEIR.
36 • Commissioners Doble, Brenner, Whezel, Chair Pruden — EIR could be better, but is not
37 inadequate.
38 '
39 Geology and Soil
40 Chair Pruden: �nly concern in terms of safety is the stacking of inerchandise inside the store. This
41 appears to be a common practice in big box retail stores. This matter does not get addressed in the EIR.
42
43 Staff: This would be addressed by the Building Code.
44
45 No other questions/comments. Section adequate.
46
47 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
48 No questions/comments. Section adequate. '
49
SO H dy rolo-gy and Water Quality '
51 Commissioner Sanders: Impact 4.6-5 states, `the proposed expansion of the existing Walmart building
52 and the parking lot would result in an increase in impervious surfaces onsite. This would decrease storm '
53 water infiltration, increase storm water flows, causing downstream flooding. This is a potentially significant ,
54 impact to water quality.' Read that impervious surFaces wauld increase by 61,000 square feet. ',
55
MINUTES OF THE P�ANNING COMMISSION December 14, 2011
Page 6
1 Chair Pruden: The aforementioned occurs based on the removal of lawns to the north with the
2 expansion of the building and parking lot. The question is do the mitigation measures sufficiently address
3 the expansion in this particular area and if this section has adequately identified the problem and can be
4 can it be mitigated.
5
6 Commission: Mitigation measure 4.6-5 states the applicant shall design, implement, and maintain a
7 storm water retention and/or detention feature(s) such that there would be no net increase in project
8 condition peak flaws.'
9
10 Section adequate. ,
11
12 Land Use Planninq
13 Chair Pruden: The project represents an expansion of less than 50,000 sq. ft. where the tendency is to ' '
14 look at it as a new project. There is typically information and studies about new Walmart stores andlor the
15 relocation of stores within communities and their impacts, but not so much documentation/facts about
16 what expansions wauld do in communities. !
17 '
18 Cammissioner Dable: There is not a lot of information about what Walmart does within their existing '
19 footprints of buildings because Walmart stores often change what they selL
20
21 No other questions/comments. Section adequate.
22
23 Noise
24 Chair Pruden: This section deals with noise from construction that is regulated in this community. Noise
25 generated from a 24-hour operation is not part of the EIR pracess.
26
27 No other questionslcomments. Section adequate.
28
29 Commissioner poble: In a roundabout way the 24-hour operation is addressed with relation to traffic
30 noise i.e., Impact 4.8-3, Traffic associated with the Project in combination with other local development
31 would not result in cumulatively considerable noise increases.'
32
33 Staff: Additionally, Impact 4.8-2, Operational activities associated with the Project could increase ambient
34 noise levels at nearby noise-sensitive land uses. This impact would be potentially significant and 4.8-4,
35 Noise associated with the Praject in combination with other local development would not resuit in
36 cumulatively considerable noise increases' do address operational activities.
37
38 Chair Pruden: This section also deals basically with maintenance that is to be done during the day as
39 opposed to nighttime.
40
41 Brian Grattidge: Acknowledged that maintenance was looked at as a potential 24-hour activity which
42 was a concern and this is the reason for Mitigation Measure 4.8.2 that states, `All on-site maintenance
43 shall occur only during the daytime hours between 7:OQ a.m. and 7:00 p.m.' because the parking lot
44 extends so far north where maintenanee activities could at heard by residential properties to the north. !
45 ESA also looked at 24-hour operations at the loading docks that include forklifts and other noises !
46 associated with loading docks, which is always a concern for big box retail. Ambient noise generated from
47 the parking lot from car doors slamming and cars turning on and off as well as other noises one would
48 expeet from a 24-hour operation was taken into account. '
49
50 No other questions/comments. Section adequate. '
51 '
52 Public Services and Utilities
53 No questions/comments. Section adequate.
54
55 Transportation and Traffic '
S6
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 14, 2011 !
Page 7 '
1 Chair Pruden: The document has identified significant environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated.
2
3 Brian Grattidge: The document does identify why the impacts cannot be mitigated. If there was a
4 Capital improvement Program (CIP) in place and the corresponding funding mechanism attached to the
5 project fhe impacts would be considered mitigated.
6
7 Chair Pruden: Most of the impacts identified for Transportation and Traffic can be reduced to less than
8 significant with the incorporation of mitigatian measures, but impact 4.10-2{Implementation of the Praject
9 wauld substantially increase potential traffic safety hazards by increasing the degree to which an existing
10 queuing backup would exceed available storage length), impact 4.10-4 (Implementation of the Project
11 would increase traffic volumes on area roadways under cumulative conditions) and impact 4.10-5
12 (Impiementation of the Project wouid substantially increase potential traffic safety hazards by causing
13 queuing backups that exceed, or by increasing the degree to which queuing backups are projected to '
14 exceed, the available storage length unde� 2030 No Project conditions) would remain significant and
15 unavoidable since they cannot be mitigated because these mitigation measures are unfunded and are not
16 ineluded as part of the City's CIP.
17 '
18 Commissioner Brenner: Is of the understanding that having a design in place would facilitate the '
19 anticipated casts from which improvement fees can be determined. '
20 '
21 Brian Grattidge: Really not feasible to move forward with a design without the required funding
22 mechanism in place for the Project.
23
24 Chair Pruden: Having a design for the improvements does not take care of the traffic impacts since the
25 improvement required by the Mitigation Measure referenced above for each of the impacts identified is
26 unfunded and not a part of the City's CIP. When the measure cannot be considered legally feasible, the
27 impact remains significant and unavoidable.
28
29 Commissioner Sanders: It appears an associate planner for the State Department of Transportation
30 suggests the project be delayed until the mitigation measures for the impacts are formed and/or the fair
31 share of funds for the traffic improvements coilected. However, the associate planner does not have the
32 authority to make that request.
33
34 Chair Pruden: It may be at some point during the process the Commission will have to entertain and
35 approve a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines for a projeet with
36 signifieant and unavoidable impacts if the economic, legal, social, technological or ather benefits of the
37 proposed project outweigh the significant and unavoidable environmental effects of the project in which
38 case these environmental effeets may be considered acceptable provided the necessary Findings in '
39 support of the Statement of Qverriding Conditions can successfully be made. '
40
41 Gommissioner Sanders: It is possible the mitigation costs would be in the millions and likely not be
42 plausible until 2Q30 and/or 18 years. '
43
44 Commission: '
45 • Some of the impacts identified are unfunded and therefore significant and unavoidable.
46 • The transportation and traffic environmental impacts in this section have been adequately '
47 identified.
48
49 Global Gimate Chanqe
50 No questions/comments. Section is adequate.
51
52 Biologicai Resources
53 No questions/comments: Section is adequate.
54
55 Proiect Alternatives
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 14, 2011
Page 8
1 Commissioner poble: The EIR provides project alternatives selected for further consideration and they
2 include 1) No Project Alternative (Existing Conditions, No change; 2) Reduced Project Size; 3) Grocery _
3 Sales within Existing Store and Expanded Hours and found it difficult to understand the difference
4 between the na project and the no expansion footprint alternative and referenced Table 6-3, Praposed
5 Project and No Footprint Expansion Floor Plan on page 6-11 af the DEIR. The no footprint expansion
6 alternative results in a 25,000 sq. ft. of dedicated food sales area and questioned whether or not this
7 currently exists.
8
9 Brian Grattidge:
10 • What was looked at as part of a project alternative is an aiternative that significantly reduces or
l l avoids one or more potentially significant impact while achieving most of the project objectives.
12 Included in that array is the required 'No Project'alternative which is required by CEQA.
13
14 • Table 6-5, Summary of Aiternatives on page 6-44 compares the environmental effects of each
1 S alternative in eomparison to the proposed Project. The potentially significant (PS) and less than
16 significant (LTS) impacts are shown prior to mitigation with an indicator of whether the aiternative
1� impact is comparatively greater or lesser than that of the Projeet. The No Project Alternative
18 would avoid all potentially significant Project impacts to all resource areas, including aesthetics,
19 air quality, bialogical resources, hazards, hydrology, noise and traffic. Queues that extend beyond
20 available storage at the US 101 Southbound Off-Ramp at Talmage Road would remain under the
21 No Project Alternative.
22
23 • The No Project Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative, but does not meet
24 any of the objectives and goals of the project. When this oceurs, CEQA requires that a second
25 alternative be identified as the environmentally superior alternative.
Zs
2"7 • Alternative 3, No Footprint Expansion would avoid impacts in five significance categories
28 compared to the proposed Project, but the significant unavoidable impacts that would resuit from '
29 the proposed project related to traffic would not be reduced to a less than significant IeveL
30 Alternative 3 may not meet most of the project objectives provided for on page 6-2 af the DEIR.
31 '
32 • The difference between No Project and the No Footprint Expansion is the No Footprint Expansion
33 will add food sales to the existing Walmart store without expanding the building footprint.
34 Approximately 25,000 sq. ft: would be dedicated to foad sales and the general merchandise sales
35 floor area would be reduced in comparison to the proposed Project. The total square footage I
36 under this alternative would be identical to the existing store. Only interior modifications to the '
37 existing store would occur under the scenario in order to aliow for grocery sales. Additionally, the ,
38 store would extend its operating hours to 24 hours per day, seven days a week. Under the No
39 Project alternative, the proposed Project would not be undertaken and no development wouid
40 occur on the site. The existing store and its associated parking, landscaping, and other
41 infrastructure would remain in its current candition. Hours of operation would remain as 7:00 a.m. '
42 to 11:00 p.m., seven days a week and no grocery sales would occur. Consideration of a No
43 Project alternative is required under CEQA. The purpose of describing and analyzing a no project
44 alternative is to allow decision makers to compare the impacts af approving the proposed Project
45 with the impacts of not approving the proposed Project.
46
4'7 • It is possible within the parameters of existing approval to consider a project mix. ESA consulting
48 tried to look at the No Footprint Expansion aiternative as a more `radical makeover' of the store,
49 which was Eo displace a large area of the existing square footage to devote to grocery sales, 24
50 hours a day, seven days a week. This alternative gives Walmart the opportunity to reallocate
51 space within the existing building footprint for a grocery component.
52 • It is true Walmart could sell groceries today, but not operate 2417. This would constitute the '
53 primary difference between a No Project alternative and a No Footprint Expansion altemative.
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 14, 2011 '
Page 9 '
1 Commissioner Whetzel: Inquired with regard to the original Site Development Permit, Walmart was
2 approved for 3Q,000 additional square feet and why this was not ineluded in the EIR as an option.
3
4 Brian Grattidge: This space was partly used up in the original site plan. The project propased was not
5 analyzed in the 1992 EIR or SDP and therefore requires a Site Development Permit. Having to go
6 through the Site Development Permit process now, takes into account the existing conditions and not
7 what could have been the size of the building. Walmart does not have any entitlements that allow the
8 store to expand even though the original EIR might have ultimately envisioned a bigger store than what
9 was constructed. ,
10
11 5enior Planner Jordan: The original Site Develapment Permit did allow for an additionai 30,000 square
12 feet af which approximately one half of this square footage was used when the existing store was built.
13 '
14 Commissioner Whetzel inquired about the remaining 15,000 square feet. '
15
16 Senior Planner Jordan: A Site Development Permit expires after a certain periad of time, which is '
17 typically 24 manths.
18
19 Commission consensus: '
20
21 Commissioners Whetzel, Doble, Brenner and Ghair Pruden: The Walmart Expansion Project EIR is
22 adequate overall, does identify the environmental impacts and therefore, supports the City Resolution to
23 certify the Walmart Expansion Project EIR.
24
25 Commissioner Sanders: Supports the mitigation measures identified in the EIR document except those
26 for Transportation and Traffic and Urban Decay.
27
28 Commissioner Brenner: Referred to Attachment 1 of the staff report, City Resolution that certifies the
29 Walmart Expansion Project EIR and inquired regarding section `B' and whether the address reads
30 correctly, 'The City retained ESA of San Francisco, California, to prepare the Draft and Final EIR
31 documents for the praposed project.'
32
33 Brian Grattidge: Confirmed the address referred to in the Resolution is correct. San Francisco is ESA's
34 home office.
35
36 M/S WhetzellDoble pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15090 the Ukiah Planning Commission adopts
3'7 City Resolution certifying the Walmart Expansion Project EIR with the following roll call vote:
38
39 AYES: Commissioners Whetzel, Brenner, Doble, Chair Pruden
40 NOES: Commissioner Sanders
41
42 Break: 7:20 p.m.
43 Reconvene: 7:27 p.m.
44 '
45 9B. Walmart Expansion Project Site Development Permit (File Nos.: 09-28-SDP-PC). Conduct a
46 public hearing, take public comment and provide Planning Commission comment, and provide
47 direction to staff on the Walmart Expansion Project Major Site Development Permit, 1155 Airport '
48 Park Boulevard, APN 180-070-38, in the Airport Industrial Park. The project proposes a 47,621
49 square foot expansion of the existing 109,030 square foot store, for a total square footage of
50 156,651 to include expanded generai merchandise floor area and expanded grocery sales floor !
51 area, indoor and outdoor garden centers, as well as the possibility of distilled alcohol sales, and a
52 medicat clinic andJor vision center on a 13.44 acre site. Also included as part of the project is a
53 change in stor� hours to 24 hours per day, seven days per week, modifications to the design of
54 the exterior of the building, the addition of new parking spaces, modifications to the landscaping,
55 and other associated site improvements. '
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 14, 2011
Page 10 '
1 The proposed Project requires approval of a Major Site Development Permit, two modifications to
2 the AIP PD landscaping requirements, and adoption of a Statement of Overriding Cansiderations.
3 As part of the Major Site Development, the Planning Commission will consider the applicant's
4 request for approval of modifications to the AIP PD landscaping requirements for landscaping lot
5 coverage and shade coverage. Approval of the project would aiso require a Statement of
6 Overriding Considerations for the significant and unavoidable traffic impacts identified in the
7 Walmart Expansion EIR.
8
9 This item was continued from the November 9, 2011 Planning Commission meeting. Public ,
10 comment on this item is apen. ',
11
12 Senior Planner Jordan: The purpose of the public hearing for the Walmart Expansion Site Development
13 Permit and Modification to Landscape Standards is to receive public and Planning Commission
14 comments on the Waimart Expansion Project site development permit and associated modificatians to
15 the requirements of the AIP Ordinance 1098 and statement of overriding considerations, receive Planning
lb Commission direcfion on the adoption of a statement of overriding considerations and approval, '
17 conditional approval or denial of the site development permit and associated madifications to the !
18 requirements of AIP Ordinance 1098 that will aliow staff to prepare the required findings and retum to the
19 Commission. Staff further requests the Commission continue the matter to the January 11, 2012 Planning
20 Commission meeting so that staff can return with a resolution supporting the direction provided tonight by '
21 the Commission.
22 '
23 Chair Pruden: Addressed the publie and as alluded ta by staff noted no action will be taken on the
24 statement of overriding considerations or site development permit. Staff is requesting the Planning
25 Commission receive public comment and provide direction to staff. '
26
27 Senior Planner Jordan addressed the contents in the stafF report with regard to the attachments and
28 gave a PowerPoint presentation that provides information specific to the following topics:
29 • The Existing Store
30 • What is being proposed for the store
31 • The project modifications
32 • The proposed elevations
33 • The perspectives
34 • Site Development Permit Findings must be:
35 - Consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the City Generai Plan. I
36 - Consistent with the County Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan & Ukiah Munieipai Airport '
37 Master Plan.
38 - Consistent with the Airport Industrial PD Ordinance 1098 and Ukiah City Code.
39 - Location, size, and intensity of the proposed project will not create a hazardous ar - -
40 inconvenient vehicular or pedestrian traffic pattern. '
41 - Accessibility of aff-street parking areas and the relation of parking areas with respect to traffic '
42 on adjacent streets will not create a hazardous or incanvenient condition to adjacent or '
43 surrounding uses. '
44 - Sufficient landscaped areas have been reserved for purposes of separating or screening the
45 proposed structure(s) from the street and adjoining building sites, and breaking up and '
46 screening large expanses of paved areas.
47 - Development will not restrict or cut out light and air on the property, or on the property in the
48 neighborhood; nor will it hinder the development or use of buildings in the neighborhood, or
49 impair the value thereof. '
50 - Improvement af any commercial or industrial strueture will not have a substantial detrimental '
51 impact on the character or value of an adjacent residential zoning district.
52 - Will not excessively damage or destroy naturai features, including trees, shrubs, creeks, and
53 the naturai grade of the site.
54 - Sufficient variant, creativity, and articulation to the architecture and design of the structure(s)
55 and gro�ands tQ av�id monotany and/ar a b�x-like �ninter�sting �xternal appear�nc�.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 14, 2Q11
Page 11
1 • General Plan consistency
2 • Airport Compatibility Consistency
3 • Airport Industrial Park PD Ordinance 1098 Standards
4 • AIP PD Ordinance 1098 Consistency
5 • �andscaping Modification Request
6 • Existing Shade
7 • Project Shade Coverage— 10 Years
8 • Project Shade Coverage— 15 Years ;
9 • AIP Shade Requirement
10 • Reiterated the purpose of tonighYs meeting, which is to take public comment, provide Planning
11 Commission comments, and provide direction to staff regarding Generai Plan consistency, AIP
12 PD Ordinance consistency, request for the modifications to the AIP PD landscaping requirements
13 and site development permit.
14 ���
15 Planning Director Stump: Commented for the benefit of the public on the difference between a use
16 permit and a site development permit and noted a site development permit looks at architecture/elements
17 of design, site planning, parking/onsite circulation and landscaping. The focus for a site development
18 permit is not on the use associated with the project. '
19
24 Chair Pruden: The public can also discuss lighting and pedestrian circulation for a site development
21 permit. Asked the public to comment on how Walmart will present itself as a building in Ukiah and limit _
22 camments to the site development permit aspect of the project as opposed to whether or not people
23 should shop at the store.
24
25 PUB�IC HEARING OPENED: 7:38 p.m.
26
27 Stanley iverson,TAIT and Assaciates, appiicant and project civil engineer consultant: '
28 • Is pleased to be here ta discuss the site develapment project and to answer any site development
29 questions you may have.
30 • Staff in the initial discussions concerning the project expressed concern about the existing site '
31 and the shade performance of the Olive Trees in the parking lot and the building treatment along '
32 the frontage road.
33 • Worked with staff regarding the project to address project concerns by making site and building
34 modifications based upon staff's input and the DEIR review.
35 • The staff report is well written and effectively addresses the project issues.
36 • Commented on the site improvements that will be made to the north east portion of the property,
37 parking lot/site modifications that will provide for appropriate pedestrian access and safety. Based '
38 upon working with staff we developed a site plan with site features to improve site access for _
39 pedestrians, better shading for the parking areas, provide for better storm water treatrnent than
40 presently exists and incorporates runoff reduction features and other amenities that will be made
41 to improve the site and overall function. '
42 • Currently, there is anly one pedestrian path of travel coming from the gas station, Jack-In-The-
43 Box area. We will be improving those areas.
44 • The project parking areas will be mainly installed along the existing turf areas. The parking
45 provided meets the City minimum parking code requirements. The modifications provide the
46 pedestrian path among mid-part that kind of cuts midway through the project and provides great '
47 access to the main building entry.
48 • Site modifications include the instailation of bike paths and sidewalks along Airport Park ,
49 Boulevard for pedestrians. '
50 • Will work to increase the sidewalk width where the site design allows as staff has recommended.
51 • The plan is to relocate the existing bus stop and provide for additional sidewalks for the '
52 pedestrians.
53 • The intent is to review and address concerns as items come up in the DEIR '
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 14, 2011
Page 12
1 • The site landscaping will be modified to provide for a diversity of form and texture beyond what is
2 on the site today. Due to the perFormance of the front drive aisle, we will be aliowed to install new
3 landscaping with more appropriate trees and lower water usages in the turf areas that exist.
4 • The new areas of the parking lot are over 50 percent and greatly improve the existing areas of
5 landseaping.
6 • Is of the opinion the 15-year shade coverage calculatian that is a City of Davis standard is
7 appropriate.
8 • Will incorporate low impact development {LID) features where feasible, such as flow-through
9 planters if at aIl possible on the northerly side of the site.
10 • The existing catch basins in the parking lot can be retrofitted to include tree planter filters along
11 the front drive aisle that directly connect to the catch basin and onsite storm basins that would
12 incorporate runoff reductions as required by the California Green Building Code. There is the
13 opportunity for this behind the store and along the freeway frontage before the water goes into
14 the Caltrans right-of-way. ',
15 • The project will prepare a 'SWPPP' (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) that will comply with
16 the State Storm Water general permit during construction. ;
17 • Amenities will be installed ta improve the overall site appearance. ,
18 • Additional features will be added to the site entrance such as canopy shading to address staff
19 concerns of the westerly exposure. '
20 • Benches, seating areas and bike rakes for the public will be inciuded and will be further address
21 with the project architecture.
22 • Agrees with staff's analysis of the project and is of the opinion the project is cansistent with Ukiah
23 General Plan and other document requirements.
24 • Concerted efforts have been made to incorporate landscaping features as best possible '
25 considering the existing site and the area available to develop.
26 • Is available to answer questions concerning the Site Development Permit.
27
28 Charles Jordan, Represent the Architecture Firm Shane O'Brien for the Walmart Expansion:
29 • Referred to the site plans for the proposed expansian to demonstrate the building elevations and !
30 additional features to inciude variations and applicatian of vestibules, parapets, canopies '
31 intended to architecturally enhance and update the appearance of the building. '
32 • Demonstrated the application of color schemes that would compiement the existing building and
33 other buildings in the neighborhood:
34 • Underneath the canopy will be benches, bike racks to make the project more pedestrian friendly.
35 • Specifically addressed the design and introduced the materials proposed to demonstrate the
36 positive architectural effect they will have on the building. The design and building materials will '
37 aiso provide relief to the mass of the building with the increased size from the expansion. '
38 • Talked about the design for the garden center.
39 • Walmart is conscientious about the environment with regard to green buiiding applications and
40 concem for energy conservation and will install skylights where feasible, particularly for the
41 grocery expansion area that will act as a `Iight harvesting system. '
42 • Replacement of the heating/cooling system will allow for improved energy efficiency.
43 • The water heating for all the grocery area will be heated by recycled heat from the refrigeration.
44 • The roof will be white and non-pvc that reflects the heat and reduces the effect of heat from the
45 sun. !
46 • Signage will be LED lit which will result in less wattage used. '
47 • Recycled materials will be used and the expansion will use recycled steel and other recyclable !
48 materiais in the concrete, wall paneis, baseboards, etc, '
49 • Restroom facilities, lighting fixtures and features/systems will allow for energy conservation. ,
50 • The film on the glass for the refrigeration units wiil result in energy efficiency by keeping the glass
51 casings defrosted whieh otherwise has to be done with a heating source. '
52 • Walmart will incorporate an intensive recycling construction pragram where the contractor would
53 be required to recycle as mueh demolition material as possible.
54
MINUTES OF THE P�ANNING COMMISSION December 14, 2011
Page 13
1 Chuck Williams:
2 • Is eoncerned about the parking and landscaping for the Expansion Project.
3 • If the EIR was developed as projected, the contaminated runoff from the parking lots should be
4 no problem.
5 • One af the three ways of clearing the runoff stated in the EIR is to provide for bio-swales to
6 absorb the contaminated runoff from the parking lot. There are no bio-swales onsite or on the site
7 plans. The project engineer did reference adding some bio-swales at the back of the building.
8 Presently, runoff goes into a culvert and empties into the nearest stream. Is hopeful Walmart will
9 provide for bio-swales for onsite retentian of water runoff.
10 • The second method mentioned in the ElR calls for the use of existing grassy areas to help absorb
11 the eontaminants. These existing grassy areas are raised above the levei of the parking lat.
12 • The third method mentioned in the EIR calis for the installation of filters in the parking lot where
13 the water drains, which could work if properly maintained and the contaminants disposed of
14 properly.
15
16 Julia Wood:
17 • It is the responsibility of every merchant to provide a safe ingress and egress. Walmart does not
18 do this.
19 • Is a disabled senior citizen.
20 + Referred to the deciduous trees on the site that drop material onto the sidewalk creating a
21 hazard/danger for people walking. Recommends Walmart ehange the type of shade trees where
22 there are sidewalks and/or seating areas. I
23 • The complex where Walmart is located does not have any crosswalks. Recommends looking at
24 installing crosswalks in the Airport Industrial Park in areas where peopie have to cross streets to
25 get from ane section of a complex to another. Having retail establishments in one area and/or '
26 complex allows people to take advantage of`cluster shopping,' but such shopping must be made
27 safe for people walking from store to store.
28 • Preference for crasswalks is for them to have signal lights advising when people can cross a
29 street safely.
30
31 Brent Lorenr.
32 • Is of the opinion the Walmart Expansion Project is good and benefits the community.
33
34 Ernie Olsen:
35 • Referred to an issue of Forbes magazine about the tremendous wealth af the family who
36 established Walmart.
37 • There is a lot being said today about the 99 percent and the one percent. I want ta use Bili Gates
38 as a benchmark. Bill Gates is worth 59 billion dollars. He compared Bill Gates to the Walton
39 Family. This family is worth much more than Bill Gates.
40 • Do people really want to support the wealth of one family by ailowing Walmart to expand at the
41 expense of the community and the negative impacts the project will impose?
42 • The proposed project will not improve the hiring of people in this community. The number of jobs
43 lost as a result of the expansion will probably equal the number of jobs hired for the project. !
44 • Your vote will depend on whether you are supporting the one percent or the 99 percent.
45
46 Eric Wright:
47 • Supports the concept of social equality for all persons.
48 • The EIR is a waste of time and money.
49 • Walmart does not support`green' practices and does not recycle.
50 • The Walmart store does not have windows and resembles the look of a factory.
51 • An expansion would be a cost of jabs and a detriment to the enviranment. '
52 • Statistically speaking, for every one job Waimart created, two are lost.
53 • Walmart employees are paid minimum wage, provided minimal or no benefits and are not allowed
54 t�a j4in a union: '
MINUTES OF THE PLRNNING COMMISSIQN December 14, 2011
Page 14
1 • On a bigger issue, 'millions of Chinese in virtual siave labor are producing gaods for Walmart and
2 Walmart seems to have a clear conscious and is accepting of the concept that workers can be
3 treated as human cattle.'
4 • There are other supermarkets in this community that provide a living wage and good benefits.
5 Why would this eommunity risk putting grocery stores out af business in favor of the biggest retail
6 commercial establishment in the worid that does not seem to have respect for its own
7 employees?
8 • All this community is getting from Walmart is low morais, low wages, low quality products and
9 services, and low prices to keep up this capitalistic empire built on greed and corruption.
10 • Is hopeful the Commissioners understand the downside of the expansian project.
11 • Walmart cares only about wealth at the expense of others. ,
12 • Is of the opinion this great community overall believes in human value and respect to the working
13 men and women of our local area and this is something Walmart does not seem to have.
14
15 Ike Heinz:
16 • Is an artist and typically looks at things from an aesthetic perspective. The design perspective for '
17 the Walmart Expansion Project is ugly.
18 • Is of the opinion the design is the worst type for big box buildings.
19 • In terms of improving the architecture to complement/enhance the community and promoting
20 energy conservation, recommends implementing skylights and windows and a more aesthetically
21 pleasing design. The building resembles that of a jail. The material is concrete and the color
22 scheme is plain.
23 • Does not think Walmartneeds to expand since this community already has a Walmart.
24 • Supports improving the appearance of the existing Waimart store.
25
26 Fred Innerebrer:
27 • Would Iike to see more bike lanes in the area.
28 • The Walmart Expansion project may impact some grocery businesses, but not many.
29 • Select landscaping that are not a safety issue such that people could siip and fall because of '
30 droppings.
31 '��
32 Helen Faulkner:
33 • Appreciated having the opportunity to speak during the Pianning Commission public hearing for
34 the Walmart Expansion Project.
35 • Provided the Commission with a document entitled, `The Hidden Costs af Walmart Jobs' and
36 provided a summary of its contents:
37 ■ The document was written by UC Berkeley Labor Center.
38 ■ The study shows how Walmart's low wages forces employees to get public assistance to
39 supplement their income.
40 ■ In effect Walmart is being subsidized by taxpayer's money so their workers can survive. '
41 ■ This is only part of the story, if Walmart is allowed to expand Food Maxx and �ucky's
42 supermarket will likely clase. As a result, many higher paying jobs will be lost.
43 ■ The wages of whaever remains working in this tawn will be lowered to meet WalmarYs
44 unfair competition.
45 ■ More of us will become the working poor and forced to take public assistance.
46 • The tax base that supports public assistance programs will shrink because there are
47 fewer people who can pay taxes.
48 ■ Cuts in pay and cuts in assistance are not okay.
49 ■ If allowed, Walmart would take its money out of here. We do not have to allow it.
50 ■ Many peopie in the room tonight are opposed to the Walmart Expansion Project. '
51 '
52 A copy of the aforementioned document is incorporated herein and referenced as attachment 1. '
53 '
54 Sandra Wilhite:
55 • Is a Walmart employee of 11 years. '
MINUTES OF THE PLANNWG COMMISSION December 14, 2011 '
Page 15 '
1 • Is proud to work at Walmart.
2 • Many of her family members work or have worked for Walmart. -
3 • All of the numerous jobs her husband has had in this community have closed and not been
4 replaced. If it were not for Walmart and the insurance provided her husband would have not been
5 able to have bypass surgery and would be dead.
6 • Her husband is a Teamsters Union member and receives$87 per month for his retirement. When
7 her husband passes away, she will receive $35 per month to live on. As a resuit, she has no
8 respect for unions. Teamsters taok out $55 or more per month for dues and the amount kept
9 increasing out of her husband's paycheck over a period of 23 years. That is slave labor. That is
10 stealing money.
11 • Presently has five grandchiidren, some of whom are looking for jobs in this community: She
12 supports the expansion project because this will create more job opportunities.
13 • Is of the opinion that the big boxes of Safeway, Food Maxx and Lucky's supermarket will not
14 close as a result of the expansion project. Walmart wiil be their compiement. Just as her job in
15 Walmart is a complement to the cammunity.
16 • Works in fabrics and crafts and has a nice working relationship with the owner of Beveriy Fabrics
17 and they share the same customers. If Walmart does not have an item she will send them over to '
18 Beverly Fabrics and vice versa.
19 • Her family gives back charitably to the eommunity and so does Walmart. '
20 • The American dream is here at Waimart. '
21 • If she came up with a great idea like that of the family of Walmart and was able develop it into a ' _
22 mega dollar industry this is her right as an American.
23
24 Linda McClure:
25 • Represents the Mendocino Enviranmental Center.
2b • When Walmart was initialiy built, the EIR process was done through a Negative Declaration. ,
2� Accordingly, Mendocino Environmental Center filed a lawsuit against Walmart and the Gity
28 whereby an EIR was then required. '
29 • One of the issues at that time was the number of trees in the parking lot. Walmart has not met the '
30 mitigation measures relevant to the number of trees required for the parking lot for the initial '
31 project. '
32 • Elaborated on an incident she and other community members were involved with and ultimately '
33 arrested for simply exercising their civie rights by collecting signatures an a legitimate bailot
34 initiative in a shaded area in front of the Walmart store.
35 • A person is allowed to sit in the shaded area as long as he/she buys merchandise but if you are '
36 trying to exercise your civic rights by engaging in the palitical process and getting signatures for a '
37 legitimate ballof initiative/petition, Walmart does not like this. Persons that went back to collect '
38 more signatures were also arrested. _
39 • A lawsuit was filed against Walmart for interference with our civil rights and the corresponding
40 settlement required them to change their policy about collecting signatures.
41 • As reeentiy as our last election where Measure A (library tax initiative) was on the ballot, when '
42 community members approached Walmart about getting signatures to get the initiative on the
43 ballot were limited to a particular area and advised of a potential charge of$100 for this type of
44 activity. As a result, the Measure R persons chose not to collect signatures for the ballot initiative '
45 at Walmart and went somewhere eise.
46 • This type of behavior speaks to the kind of neighbors that Walmart represents as to haw people '
4"7 are treated in this community.
4$ • There are national lawsuits against Walmart by employees for sexuai harassment, gender and
49 discriminatory reasons.
50 • On the issue of traffic, the numbers in the EIR regarding the praposed traffic count are '
51 considerably lower than those disclosed for the Costco EIR project. This matter needs to be
52 reviewed.
53 • On the issue of the local economy, clearly money spent in local businesses stays local at a much
54 higher percent compared to large big bax eorporate stores that operate locally.
MINUTES OF THE P�ANNING COMMISSION December 14, 2011
Page 16 I
1 • From what we have heard tonight that money is leaving our community. Money spent at Walmart
2 is leaving our community and gaing into the pockets of the Waltan family --
3 • Thanked the community for coming and stating their positian.
4
5 Kate Ghopin:
6 • Appreciates that the City of Ukiah Planning Commission's major concern is for the safety and
7 welfare of its citizens.
8 • With regard to significant and unavoidable traffic impacts and the inability to really mitigate and ;
9 the likelihood the improvement costs are going to be in the millions of dollars, I do not hear
10 Walmart saying `yes'we are happy to invest in that.
11 • Right now traffic on the South Ramp coming off Talmage is already backed up. i cannot imagine
12 what is going to happen with a 2417 expansion.
13 • Being open 2417 is not going to mitigate the problem. '
14 • It is the responsibility of the Planning Commission to hire an independent study and analysis of '
1S the traffic concerns, not just on Airpart Park Boulevard or the Walmart parking lot, but the traffic
16 coming to and from the area off the Talmage exit.
17 • The cost of improvements would be in the millions.
18 • We are already overtaxed, people are very cash strapped.
19 • Does not want ta be paying for an expansion for the next 20 years. !
20
21 Cathy Finnigan: _
22 • Has concern about the proximity of this project ta the freeway.
23 • Unlike other communities Ukiah does not have sound barriers.
24 • Would be nice to designate our#reeway going through Ukiah as a wall-free highway. '
25 • Has concerns that if sound barriers are not in the current plan, they will be in the future.
26 • Qoes not want sound barriers constructed to block out noise impacts from retail establishments '
27 because especially nowadays, we need to be able to see the worid around us and this is too '
28 beautiful a valley to wall-up. '
29 • The negative impacts to this community far outweigh any benefits that will come from this project. '
30 The project will generate a nice sum of money for Walmart executives and very little benefit for !
31 this community.
32
33 Jeffery Blankfort: '
34 • It should be made clear that the overriding consideration of all elected officials, Ukiah and I
35 elsewhere should be for the heaith, welfare and safety af the people they present, which trumps
36 that of any corporation seeking to expand.
37 • When making a Statement af Overriding Consideration for the impacts that cannot be mitigated, it
38 cannot be allowed to trump the safety and welfare of the people of Ukiah. _
39 • Does not recall hearing mention of a letter with comments sent to the Planning Commission last
40 week by the County Board of Supervisors regarding the EIR, which was late in terms of EIR
41 public comment period that was closed, but did contain criticisms of the EIR that are applicable to
42 this Site Development Permit and Statement of Overriding Consideration with the primary issue '
43 being traffic.
44 • Nobody is disputing that traffic on Talmage Road, South Ramp on Highway 101 and Airport Park '
45 Boulevard interchange is bad: '
46 • if the number of visits increase dramaticatly as a result of the expansion project, lives could be
47 endangered for those persons exiting at the South Ramp at Talmage to enter Airport Park
48 Boulevard or actually driving along in the right-hand lane on Highway 101 going north or south.
49 • Quoted a comment from the County Board of Supervisors, `The additional queuing backup '
50 generated by the project will increase the frequency and severity of queuing backups anto the ',
51 freeway. Existing and effectual levels of service are understated for the westbound left turn lane ',
52 from Talmage Road onto Airport Park Boulevard, which currently experiences queuing problems '
53 that intertere with the operation of the freeway interchange.' ',
MINUTES OF THE P�ANNING COMMISSION December 14, 2011 '
Page 17 '
1 • Based on the understated, the existing intersection level of service and the mitigations identified
2 in the EIR are unlikely to address the additional impacts/cumulative impacts as a result of a
. 3 quote/unquote `discount club scenario.'
4 • The mitigations are unfunded. Whatever proposal might be made, whatever design might be
5 made, there is no money for it in the foreseeable future. Right now our schools are underfunded
6 and people are being laid off.
7 • To try and pretend that adding a 24/7 expansion of Waimart, which would require millions of
8 dollars spent on freeway construction, is a benefit to the people of Ukiah.
9 • According to CEQA Guidelines 1590(A), CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance
10 as appiicable the economic, legal, social, technological and other benefits if a propased project
11 has significant and unavoidable environmental risk when determining whether to approve praject.
12 The guidelines also say the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action
13 based on the final EIR and/or other information the record. The Statement of Overriding '
14 Considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.
15 • The decision makers have ta provide evidence the traffic congestion that is going to be increased '
16 dramatically and dangerously on Highway 101/Airport Park Boulevard interchange is outweighed '
17 by the benefits of a Walmart Expansion into a 24-hour, seven day-a-week grocery store, which
18 will provide absolutely nothing new or different that is not presently available to the citizens of '
19 Ukiah and this county. ',
20 • A previous speaker recommended the City at some point fund or find funds for an independent '
21 study to determine exactly what kind of interchange design could work in order to mitigate the
22 present problem there and expansion of other stares in the area
23 • It is really important to consider that it is virtually impassible to accept the EIR as adequate
24 because it does mention in the EIR document that some of traffic impacts identified cannot be
25 mitigated, given no funding. '
26 • The Planning Commission is under no obligation to come up with a Statement of Qverriding
27 Considerations with regard to 'unmitigatable' traffic impacts identified in the EIR in which you are '
28 essentially saying expanding Walmart into a 24-hour, seven-day-week grocery store that is
29 offering nothing new for the citizens of this town or county is more important than the safety and
30 welfare of the lives of the peopie of Ukiah out on that freeway.
31 '
32 Bill Durham:
33 • Lives in Potter Valley, but shops in Ukiah.
34 • In terms of the aesthetics of the Walmart building, the building is ugly like most big box stores.
35 • What is more important is that the Pianning Commission is charged with looking at what is good '
36 for Ukiah in the long term. !
37 • Why does Walmart want to get into the supermarket business when there are at least four '
38 supermarkets already in Ukiah in a town of 15,000 people, It is because Walmart believes they
39 can take business away fram the existing supermarkets. Their own EIR says or predicts that they
40 will take approximately $50,000 a year from the other grocery retailers. What this means we are
41 considering exchanging living wage jobs that actually have benefits for jobs that pay the absolute
42 minimum in the retail industry and have little or no benefits. Basically what I am saying is that we
43 are here to discuss whether or not Ukiah is going to `economically shoot itself in the foot' in order
44 to help aggrandize the richest family in the world. '
45 • Allowing Walmart to expand is going ta put at least one or maybe two existing grocery stores out
46 of business so we have to look at the real bottom line.
47 • Walmart has more af its employees on public assistance than any other retailer in America and
48 as taxpayers of Mendocino County, we are going to make up the difference between a living '
49 wage and what Walmart pays because we pay for the public assistance that many of WalmarYs ',
50 employees qualify for. ° I
51 • I want to remind falks that Americans fought and died for the 40-hour work week, vacation pay,
52 sick pay and child labor laws. These were not gifts from our benevolent employers and
53 Americans fought and died for these things and the unions stood with them.
54 '
55 Josh Leach: '
MINUTES OF THE PI.ANNING COMMISSION December 14, 2011
Page 18 '
1 • Is the `employee caordinator' of the Walmart here in Ukiah.
2 • It is easy to throw up statistics and numbers when you are speaking against the largest -
3 employer, one of the largest employers on the planet.
4 • Walmart hires more people than other company so there would be a higher percentage of
5 employees on assistance.
6 • There has been discussion about the speculative ciosure of other markets/other companies in
7 the area. I have done a lat of traveting and seen many Albertsons, Raley's, and other companies
8 still thriving in the midst of other Waimarts and Walmart supercenters and they are stili there.
R • Commissioner Whetzei made mention that a person will continue to shop where you shop
10 because these establishments provide the type of products a person wants and the customer
11 quality of service that persons is looking for regardless of price.
12 • Is wiiling ta pay more for a product or service.
13 • Once a person has establishad a shopping habit based on the services and products that are '
14 offered, one is not at-risk of losing this because somebody sells it cheaper. To do so would be to '
15 undermine a consumer's buying intelligence.
16 • No one is farced to shop at a Walmart store. People do this by their own choice and if they do so '
1"7 for economic reasons why is this a disservice? '
18 • Potentiai closure of other grocery markets is speculative. If we do not know we are going to lose '
19 jobs in other companies,why would we not guarantee jobs by expanding our store? '
20
21 Mike Rundon: '
22 • Is the grocery manager of Walmart and proudly so.
23 • Has been on public assistance so many times in this town because of layoffs.
24 • There are many people in this community looking for full-time employment.
25 • Has family members that have tried to get a job at Lucky's, Safeway, and other jobs with the
26 promise of 17-18 hours a week, pius paying for their union dues.
27 • We need to supply more jobs in the community.
2$ • Walmart has a chance to provide jobs.
24 • With the construction and expansion of the food department, we cannot afford to just stay
30 stagnant.
31
32 Mary Anne Miller:
33 • The instruetions from staff and from Chair Pruden made me feel that we are only talking about
34 this proposal, when the EIR has made us believe we are actually looking at various alternatives.
35 We are told we can only talk about the site plan and the landscape plan.
36 • Is of the opinion, we are still talking about all of the alternatives.
37 • Decision makers need to have the widest possible range of possibilities, especially since you may '
38 not be able to approve the Statement of Overriding Conditions for those environmental impacts
39 that are significant and unavoidable because they cannot be mitigated. '
40 • Will speak to the Statement of Overriding Conditions at another hearing.
41 • Would like to address the 'Alternatives' and why we do not have a site plan in front of us that '
42 shows the number of parking spaces needed for the existing footprint. After all, two of the project
43 alternatives show the existing footprint. '
44 • Questions what is wrang with remodeling the Walmart store, retaining as much as possible of the
45 really viable landscaping, improving the parking lot and keeping the plant sales outside. Plants
46 belong outdoors rather than indoors. Ukiah has more nice days than anyplace she has ever lived.
47 • Questions why there are no solar paneis on the roof? We couid have more solar gain and feed
48 into the grid with all the electricity gained.Why is this aspect not being shown?
49 • Walmart needs to think'green.'
50 • Why does Walmart not have more permeabie pavement? Chuck Wiiliams talked about bio- ,
51 swales. Walmart should be able to collect water runoff in an approvable way that does not run '
52 down into the creeks.
53 • It wauld be beneficial to have permeable paving so that the water goes down and recharges the ,
54 groundwater.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 14, 2011 !
Page 19 '
1 • The plan is to tear up the entire parking lot and put down new asphalt. Is concerned with having
2 to recycle the old asphalt.
3 • Supparts the building footprint remain the same. Walmart could still put groceries into the existing
4 footprint.
5 • Referred to page 6-14, section 6.5 of the Draft EIR that talks about the environmentally superior
6 alternative. Alternative 3, the no faatprint expansion alternative eliminates five of the majar
7 potentialiy and truly significant enviranmentai impacts.
$ • A Statement of Overriding Considerations will not have to be approved by choosing the
9 environmentally superior alternative.
10
11 Dennis Slota:
12 • Concurred with other commenters that the building is`pretty ugly.'
13 • Resembles a warehouse.
14 • Understands Walmart has a poor record of performance with their past site development permit.
15 It is important Walmart does what they say they are going to do unlike the past.
16 • The LiD features fossil filters. Stotm drain inlet filters are the least effective and most expensive
17 treatment mechanism there is. The use of tree wells is similarly not advocated because it is like
18 putting a tree in a pot. A tree can only provide cleaning services for so long before that soil is
19 basically not adequately able to produce the filtration and the necessary cleaning through the soiL ',
20 The much preferred system is natural vegetation. Natural trees are not contained within a tree
21 welL Bio-swales act as a flow-based system and is an acceptable mechanism to get water
22 somewhere where it will be treated, but the downside a bio-swale by itself does very little on
23 treatment. It does pretty good on filtration if there is turbid water, but in terms of a treatment
24 mechanism, bia-swales provide limited function.
25 • Bio-retention is the preferred mechanism to treat the parking lot. Porous pavement/asphalt wouid
26 be a great way ta proceed.
27 • Is of the apinion unmitigated traffic is enough to deny this project.
28 • Had the misfortune of being in Chico during the days when their development got ahead of their
29 infrastructure and it was very dangerous going down the highway at 65 miles-per-hour and all of a
30 sudden you come to a dead stop because there is a backup on the freeway. People do not
31 expect this.
32 • Ukiah is the major carridor of tourism throughout the entire north coast. People from all over the '
33 world use highway 101 and do not expect to abruptiy have to stap all of a sudden. This is very
34 dangerous. Locals will be clued in, but travelers will not. Then you get that mix of locais who know
35 that is going on and make unsafe lane changes and the tourists/visitors coming through are '
36 completely surprised to have to come to a screeching stop. '
3'7 • The project conflicts with the Ukiah General Plan.
38 • Does not see how there is any basis to approve the project. '
39 • Ukiah is not a� 24-hour town and once you tum that corner of selling 24-hour services there is no
40 going back.
41 • Asks to piease retain this beautifui community. it is not necessary for Walmart to expand. '
42
43 Debbie Vinson:
44 • Has lived in Ukiah all of her life.
45 • Has had a variety of jobs.
46 • Is disabled due to a construction aceident.
47 • Takes care of her disabled sister.
48 • Has seen a lot of changes occur in Ukiah. '
49 • Is of the opinion the proposed Walmart Expansion Project is good for Ukiah.
50 • The project has many pluses. '
51 • Supports Waimart should operate 24/7, particularly for those persons that need things when other '
52 stores are closed. '
53 • We already are aware of traffic probiems in the area and is of the opinion that Walmart should nat '
54 be bl�m�d for th� prablem.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 14, 2011
Page 20 '
1 � Traffic issues and congestion are a growing problem in this community, which means Ukiah is
2 expanding by leaps and bounds. Traffie is an issue that should be addressed by the City of --
3 Ukiah/county and not by Walmart.
4 • Walmart has indicated they would piteh in and help with the cost far repairs/improvements to the
5 roads/streets affected.
6 • If the Walmart Expansion Project is approved, it would be more of an asset than a problem.
7
8 Pascal Milan:
9 • Supports approval of the Walmart Expansion Project. '
10 • Likes the concept the store will open 24/7 for convenience purposes. ,
11
12 Craig Davis:
l3 • Is the Ukiah Waimart store manager.
14 • Qiscussed his career path with Walmart through its advancement programs.
15 • Explained Walmart has different levels of responsibility. Since his initial employment at age 23, he
16 has been promoted five times into different levels of greater responsibilities.
17 • As a store manager for four years, he is in a position to mentor many of my associates towards ,
18 the same career path he chose.
19 • Is proud of the assaciates. The associates love their jobs. '
20 • Walmart employees appreciate working far an employer that rewards hard work and dedication to '
21 our customers. The proposed expansion will add 85 new jobs to this community and a variety of
22 positions will have full benefits.
23 • Explained Walmart's commitment to the community. In this past year alone, Walmart helped fund '
24 renovations to the local pool, contributed to the food bank's holiday drive and donated to over 50 '
25 organizations within this loeal community. Additionaily, Walmart has launched a new partnership
26 with the Ukiah Main Street Program to help them and Walmart as a community bring more people
27 to the Downtown.
2$ • On behalf of Ukiah Walmart, we are looking forward to better serving our customers with their
29 needs with an expanded store
30 • In these economic tough times, strongly believes that our community needs more job
31 opportunities. By approving the Ukiah Walmart Store Expansion Project, you wili be creating
32 these jobs for our community from a company that takes good care of their employees.
33 '
34 Dorothea Dorman:
35 • There have been several requests for an additional EIR, an independent EIR about the traffic !
36 problems that the Walmart Expansion Project will be creating.
37 • Supports allowing for an independent EIR and not an EIR condueted by an employee of a firm !
38 through its international real estate division that has business affiliations with Walmart. Is of the '
39 opinion this is absolutely disgracefui on the part of the Commissioners with one exception to
40 accept this and permit this confiict of interest. This is characteristic of the corruption af our
41 government officials at every level of government from top to bottom and bottom to top.
42 • Supports providing for a truly independent analysis of the traffic problems.
43 • Having to abruptly stop on a freeway and noted it to be a very dangerous situation.
44 • Everything is wrong with this project.
45 • While Walmart may give some money to the food bank,employees of Walmart can go to the food
46 bank and supplement their incomes. Has no knowledge what type of food Walmart donates, but
47 knows of peopie who no longer go to the food bank because it primarily has refined '
48 carbahydrates. ;
49 • What do you get from refined carbohydrates?You get a great big, fat belly and poor nutrition.
50
51 Andrea Berene:
52 • Is a community member and a Walmart employee.
53 • Walmart has always been accommodating. '
54 • Her insurance benefits with Walma�t have been excellent and has covered 85% of her costs. '
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING GOMMISSION December 14, 2011 '
Page 21
1 • Her salary at Walmart started above minimum wage.
2 • Actually quit her job at Mervyn's because she was making minimum wage there and went to
3 Walmart to work.
4 • is of the opinion the expansion project will beautify the building campared to the present
5 building.
6 • The EIR will set standards for when Costco comes. Costco wili have to be comparabie ta us.
7 • There is no other stare in our cammunity that offers all the products the remadeled store will.
8 • Walmart has donated a lot to this community. As an employee she helped with a Community
9 Gardens Project in her apartment complex where tenants can grow fresh, organic fruits and
10 vegetables for their families. '
I 1 • Has knowledge that many Mom and Pop stores from the north end of Mendocino County come
12 to Walmart to purchase items as customers and state, 'thank goodness Walmart is here,
13 otherwise we would not be able to keep our stores running.
14 • Does not agree that Walmart will put other grocery stores aut of business.
15 • Walmart is a definite plus for our community. ,
16 • Walmart products are affordable.
17 • The new expansion is an improvement to what is existing and is of the apinion the projeet will ',
18 have a positive impact on our community. '
19 '
20 D.Jacques:
21 • Supports approval of the Site Development Permit.
22 • The Project meets the environmental, color, size and height requirements.
23 • The building is aesthetically pleasing.
24 • Allawing the store to operate 24/7 will benefit the hotels in the area, shouid there be a need far
25 someone to purchase an item when most retail establishments are closed while he/she is staying
26 in a motel in the area.
2'7 • The Expansion Project will bring more people to the community.
28 • Like Gommissioner Whetzei, he too will not purchase seafood anywhere but at the �ucky's
29 Grocery Store.
30 • Has observed after living in Ukiah since 1980 that people are very particular about food, what
31 types of food they buy and where it comes from. People will maintain their current shopping
32 habits. Walmart is not going to affect this behavior other than the increased revenue and the '
33 benefits that come from a new facility. '
34 • While he sympathizes with the homeless that frequent the area, the lighting, added security and '
35 the problems that presently exist with the homeless that use Walmart as a place to set up an
36 encampment would mostly disappear with the Expansion Project. !
37 • Others have addressed the#raffic problems in the area. The traffic problems on Talmage Road
3$ and the freeway are an issue for Caltrans. -
39
40 Linda Gray:
41 • Walmart is already big enough for our little town and making it bigger would just make it too big.
42 • Is of the opinion any af the benefits that might come from the Walmart Expansion Praject would
43 not outweigh the traffic problems on Taimage Road and the possible safety hazards that would
44 come with this:
45 • Is of the understanding there is no funding needed for road improvements if Walmart is not '
46 allowed to go ahead with the project and especially if Costco comes along too that is just going ta '
47 compound the problem. '
48 • A possible solution wauld be some kind of access road at the south end of Airport Road onto !
49 Highway 101. Again, there is no funding for this so until that situation is resolved does not see '
50 how the expansion can be approved. '
51 • Agrees with other commenters there should be some kind of independent analysis of the traffic '
52 problem, complete with the project actual costs.
53 • Encourages the Gity ta look atthe installation of more crosswalks in Ukiah.
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 14, 2011
Page 22
1 Penny Vinson —Inaudible.
2
3 April Schopenaur:
4 • Has worked for Walmart for seven years.
5 • Has beeame the sole provider of her household and makes a living wage at Walmart.
6 • Is able to supply her daughter with the things she needs and wants.
7 • is able to participate in school activities because Walmart offers employees the ability to take
8 time to be with her their chiidren at schooi with very little notice.
9 • it is not true when people say Waimart is an unfair place to work. Waimart is very willing to work
10 with their employees.
11 • Every time there are fund raisers at the local schoals, Walmat hands out gift certificates. ',
12 • Medicatian at Walmart is much lower than ather pharmacies and they provide the four dollar plan ,
13 and this is whether a person is an employee or not. ,
14 • Some af those four dallar plans save enough to make sure it is the difference between eating
15 and supplying needed medication. Everyone has the issue or need to cut back here and there. '
16 • Supports the concept of a one-stop shop even though most people frequent other stores for food
17 and other necessities, but for the basics it is easier to one-stop shop and be home in much less
18 time. Less time in stores means more time at home with family. '
19 • Walmart encaurages emplayees to spend time with loved ones and allows for a lot of `family
20 time.' '
21 • Walmart provides for vacation and sick time. We are aiso allowed leaves of absences. Walmart
22 employees have everything eise that every other company offers. We are in no way being
23 mistreated: It is not a slave workshop. '
24 • Probably everyone here tonight has thought about participating in a layaway plan at some point. '
25 It does not matter who you are. Walmart brought back layaway this year just so parents can buy
26 those things for their children that they cannot affc�rd at one time.
27 • Whether or not people work at Walmart or some other establishment, they have to watch every
28 dime they have so if you can buy it cheaper at Walmart that is where people will go to shop.
29 • Supports the Walmart Expansion Praject.
30 • While there may be issues and concerns about traffic, there are concerns about different things,
31 but the benefits do outweigh the slight things that need to be worked out sti1L Is of the opinion the !
32 issues and concerns can be worked out. '
33 '
34 Ray Gurbeon: '
35 • Supports the Walmart Expansion Project. '
36 • Is of the apinion that people will not lose their jobs as a result of the project, but rather help
37 people find a job.
38 • There are people in the community who really want a job and the Expansion Project will allow
39 that opportunity.
40 • Is appreciative of Walmart.
41 • Has worked at Walmart for 10 years. He would not work anywhere else.
42 • As an employee, eustomers frequently ask him when Waimart wiil expand.
43 • This community wants the expansion and they need it. '
44 • As far as the traffic problem, no matter where you go there is always safety prabiems with roads.
45
46 Terry Poplawski: ',
47 • Is an organizer with the Mendocino County Goalition of Union Members. '
48 • Approval of the project to include overriding consideratians will facilitate Walmart to develop a
49 groeery market that will be in direct competition with markets that presently exist and presently '
50 pay a union wage to their empioyees.
51 • There have been commenters who have talked about the fact the wage base for the grocery ,
52 industry will be diminished if Walmart is allowed to go into the grocery business. There has been
53 discussion about Walmart in terms of labor relations having problems with discrimination against
54 wamen and with areas of promotion. T�ere are many lawsuits internationally of rnanagemeni ,
MINUTES OF THE P�ANNING CQMMISSION December 14, 2011 '
Page 23 '
1 coercing employees to work off the clock. There is a lot of labor problems with Walmart so as a
2 union organizer I am here to speak to the fact that if employees who are presently working at
3 Walmart mauth the word `union' this sets in motion a major process in Walmart, including bringing
4 in huge teams in private jets ta quarantine that kind of thinking and this is of concern.
5 * As part of this project there should be stipulation that Walmart should have to have a card check
6 neutrality which would mean that if the employees wanted to unionize they would be abie to do
7 this with a card check process.
$ • The National Labor Relations Act requires Walmart allow elections and they have a history of
9 defeating and daing anything, including closing stares in order to avoid having an N.L.R.B. Union
10 electian.
11 • Walmart is not the kind of neighbor this community we would want to aid and abet their process.
12
13 Serena Stafford: '
14 * Has been employed by Walmart for seven years and likes her job very much. ',
15 • Walmart has been a very accommodating employer. '
16 • Started out as a part-time associate so she could care for her children.
17 • is working more and more now that her children have grown up and is pursuing full-time '
18 advancement opportunities that Walmart offers employees.
19 • Went on a leave of absence for a period of time due to a medical condition and still remained an '
20 employee. During this time was able to utilize her employee discount privileges and return to her !
21 same position without any probiem after her leave of absence. She was treated well during this
22 time and was well accommodated by Walmart.
23 • Daily hears from customers how happy they are to shop at Waimart. Customers indicate haw
24 Walmart saves them money and reduces their travel time.
25 • As someone who cares about the environment, believes that lessening the number of car trips
26 dramatically helps the environment. With an expanded grocery section, peopie will not have to go
27 all aver town in their cars to pick up various items for their food shopping.
28 • We are tald to shop locally, but this does not always happen because an item(s) is not always
29 available then people must travel out of the area to a larger store. If there were a larger Walmart
30 in Ukiah, money would be pumped into the local economy as well as provide more jobs that the
31 community desperately needs.
32 • The people who say they wili lose their jobs if Walmart expands are shopping at Walmart now so
33 what is the difference? '
34 • If Walmart becomes a super Walmart or whether it remains the current Walmart, it is not going to
35 change where people shop. People are going to shop at Walmart. '
36 • If people come to Walmart and an item is not available, we will send them to other stores in the '
37 community. '
38 • With the store being open 24/7 a week the community can shop at their convenience.
39 • Everyone has different work schedules. Smaller stores are not open Sundays or evenings. The
40 other stores will continue to stay open because of the specialty items, as well as the personal
41 service to the community. A larger Walmart would only enhance the other businesses not take
42 away. Overall, is of the opinion competition is h�althy and there is nothing wrong with making
43 sure all businesses are conseious af their customer service and prices. Waimart goes to great
44 efforts to offer low prices and that is the primary reasons people come to the store. '
45 • It makes sense in this economy to shop at a convenient and affordable store where peopie can
46 get the most for their money. '
47 • The founder of Walmart said `we must be a servant to become a leader.'
48 • Is of the opinion Walmart is only here to serve and by expanding, it will be in a position to serve
49 the community better. '
50 • Supports appravai of the Waimart Expansion Project. '
51 '
52 Charley Vaughn: '
53 • In 2009 US taxpayers paid 2.8 billion dollars for public suppork for Walmart employees and
54 �Jllalmart is the only company in the wc�rld daing this y�# they are providing low prices, wond�rFul '
55 low prices with a smiley face and some decent jobs. Some people are happy with their jobs,but
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 14, 2011
Page 24
1 they are not getting these wonderful low prices by magic. We are subsidizing that. Every single
2 one of use in this room is paying through our taxes for pubiic support for those employees that -
3 are not being paid a living wage.
4 • Walmart is too big to expand: It is time for us to draw the line. Every community in this country is
5 being faced with Walmart expansions.
6 • Walmart is too large. It is a model that cannot be sustained.
'7 • Look at what is happening to our economy. The largest retail corporation in the eountry is
8 dragging our empioyment level down with the lowest wages. It is time for us to say no mare.
9 Living wages must be paid and we are not going to supplement this anymore.
10 • Please make the right decision and say `no' on the expansion.
11
12 Steve Frankel: �'�
13 • Is a business owner in Ukiah. Has observed the traffic problems on Talmage Road and the '
14 freeway ramps north and south bound.
15 • Is very concerned about any increase in traffic resulting from the Expansion Project. The area is ;
16 already heavily congested and dangerous.
1'7 • Worries about his child driving to and from in this area, noting one of his daughters was rear-
1$ ended on Taimage Road.
19 • Is of the apinion there is no way to mitigate the traffic impacts in the area. Does not know what
20 the solution would be just using common sense. Does not understand how you can deal with '
21 further increases in traffic exiting or entering Talmage Road.
22 • Suggests hiring a good independent study consultant, another one from a non-biased source '
23 because the current study was biased based on what has been discussed here today.
24 • It is not necessary to have a larger Walmart store.
25 • Does not support allowing Walmart to be open 2417 days a week.
26 • Everything that would be put into an expanded Walmart we already have availabie in Ukiah. The
27 Grocery Outlet, for example, provides for lower prices. If you want other quality goods you can go
28 to some other supermarket. It is all available in our community. It is not necessary to cause an '
29 exchange of jobs from higher paying jobs to lower paying jobs. ,
30
31 Martin Berenborn:
32 • Is the meat manager at Lucky's grocery stare.
33 • Does not shop at Walmart.
34 • If you expand the grocery stores in this town, there are only so many people in this town and you
35 are going to be taking that business from samewhere. So to say we should not worry about losing '
36 jobs is ridiculous. ' '
37 • Appreciates the comments and thoughts on the EIR. '
38 • Does not agree with all of the confents of the EIR, but is of the opinion the consultants do a very ''
39 good job of really looking at the issues/potential impacts and about analyzing what the
40 ramifications can be and whether or not the project is good for the community.
41
42 Milas Mascheck:
43 • Is a Walmart associate.
44 • Today in the name of all present and future associates, as well as countless thousands of Ukiah '
45 Walmart customers, please be so kind and let our beautiful Ukiah have a good and prosperous
46 future with the expanded Ukiah Walmart.
47
48 Recess: 9:27 p.m. '
49 '
SQ Reconvene: 9:37 p.m. � '
51 '
52 Tom Reyes: '
53 • A concern that has not been covered at all in any of the discussions is that of security for the
54 in�iyidu�al �h�appers in the middle of the night. If the store operates 24-hours a day and the
55 landscape plan includes many trees this is not good security. Walmart does not have security in
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 14, 2011 '
Page 25 !
1 the parking lot. Adding a lot of trees is dangerous. Recommends revisiting the landscaping plan
2 as a security precaution for Walmart shoppers.
3 • tnquired whether or not Walmart will have security guards or cameras?
4
5 Martha:
6 • Has worked for Walmart for 18 years.
� • Came from a foreign country and thanks to Walmart is able to build her home.
8 • I get paid; I have vacation time; I work 4Q hours.
9 • Waimart is a good company to work for. ',
10 • Was able to take time for her son in schooL '
11 • Waimart customers tell her they are hopeful Waimart wiil become a supercenter soon. '
12
13 Merrill Gertz:
14 • Has worked for Walmart stares for 12 years.
15 • �ikes the improvement plans for the building.
16 • It is not true that Walmart only pays minimum wage.
l� • With any job a person starts at the bottom and works up. She has worked her way up the
18 employment opportunity IeveL '
19 • Walmart provides for every advancement opportunity there. '
20 • After lasing his job of 18 yea�s at age 50 tried to find a full-time job for three years. Even though
21 there is a federal lawagainst discrimination of age, there is still discrimination.
22 • Does not make minimum wage.
23 • Husband had to retire.
24 • Has been able to purchase a home and has done everything everyone else has done.
25 • Does not understand why people who have never worked for Walmart make negative statements
26 about the matter of minimum wage and welfare.
27 • Walmart is a big corporation and they hire many people.
28 • With regard to the potential of Lucky's or Safeway closing, these are national corporations too
29 and go by different names in different states. At least Walmart is called Walmart in every state. I
30 Walmart does not change its name. '
31 • Is nervous abaut union membership.
32 • Husband worked in construction for 19 year and was a union member. Whenever there was a '
33 strike, union dues had to be paid and he did not get paid a wage. There were aiso no benefits.
34 The unian still got their money.
35 • I am anti-union.
36 • Supports the Walmart Expansion Project.
37 • There will be 85 new jobs created with the project.
38 • On the subject that the Walton family is making all this money and taking money away from the
39 community. Employees live in this community and spend their money here. Employees of
40 Walmart pay taxes toa
41 • If there is no money to make road improvements, maybe there would be if more people paid
42 taxes.
43
44 Robin Sunbeam:
45 • It may be Walmart is a good corporate citizen with ali the comments made tonight about how '
46 happy and how goad their jobs are at Walmart. '
47 • It appears we have a sustainable balance between the grocery stores that we have. L.et us not '
4$ forget this community has some smaller stores like the Calpella Superette. ',
49 • Questions why Walmart needs to expand to get into another area of retail of food service when
50 we already have ampie food service stores in Ukiah. ',
51 • One issue that has not been addressed is that of water and water use. !
52 • Is cognizant that her wastewater fees have increased significantly and that the City's sewage ;
53 treatment plant was designed ta serve oniy so many customers. Has the EIR addressed the
54 water and wastewater issues?
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 14, 2011
Page 26
1 • The reasons people pay lower prices is because they cannot get jobs since many jobs have been
2 off-shored to piaces where they have sweat shops and very low pay. In such places, there are no
3 environmental protections. These are why the products that are so cheap and can be found in
4 Walmart.
5 • `In the long run, paying to get rid of our local jobs is a race to the bottom.
6 • Supports leaving Walmart the way it is and not expand.
7
8 John McCowen: Provided the Commission with his letter which is incorporated herein and referenced as
9 Attachment 2.
10 '
11 • As referenced, the County of Mendocino has submitted a comment letter. In that letter the County
12 took the position the project did not make comments to some of the impacts.
13 • is of the opinion the letter speaks for itself and will make no other comments in this regard.
14 • As an individual, I submitted a letter to the Notice of Preparation and do not think that ali of those
15 comments were reflected in the discussion of the impacts and mitigations. One that I mentioned
16 was actually eliminating the grassy landscaping and even with the grassy swale. This is not the '
17 most effective way to deal with the storm water runoff. Bio-swales from the rather skimpy '
18 depiction that i saw would do more to filter out the pollution from the runoff and promote greater '
19 infiltration to the groundwater. Once you have eliminated at least the majority of the grassy '
20 landscaping, you have created a better environment to plant native species along the freeway '
21 and the street frontages, such as Valley Oaks, Live Qaks, and Black Oaks. While they grow
22 slowly they will not grow more slowly than the Olive trees and in the long term will make a greater
23 statement about the City of Ukiah. These comments are assuming the project is approved.
24 • On another issue is the potential the project will attract an increased transient population, both
25 pedestrian and vehicle based that will be prone to illegai camping, panhandling, littering, loitering
26 and other associated negative behaviors that require the applicant appropriately post and enforce '
27 the City of Ukiah camping and panhandling ordinances on their property and propose an
28 enforcement plan for the approval of the Ukiah Police Department. '
29 • If you really want to be a visionary you would help deal with the increased housing impacts of any ',
30 major development such as this where there is a proposed euphemistically labeled discount
31 store, diseount club and require onsite housing. This would be an excellent use for a second stary '
32 addition to many of these projects.
33 '
34 Mike Levy: '
35 • Managed Albertson's and Lucky's for the past 22 years and is now retired. '
36 • �ucky's Save Mart is a great company to work for.
37 • Lucky's pays union wages and has union benefits. '
38 • Over the past 22 years every time a competitor has expanded or moved into town a piece of the
39 pie has gotten smaller and smalier. '
40 • This community does not need any more grocery stores. This would certainly impact the
41 employees of other stores. '
42 • If this expansion was not approved, it would not impact the Walmart employees. They wouid still '
43 be employed. !
44
45 Dan Steely:
46 • Has a history of working over 20 years in the grocery industry locally for two of our major
47 supermarkets in town.
48 • Has lived in Ukiah most af his life.
49 • Has seen Ukiah change over the years. Nas seen many retail stores come and go. Sometimes it '
50 was because the chain itself that went under and not because the store was IocaL '
51 • Likes to walk around Ukiah. One of the biggest project issues is there are no sidewaiks in front of '
52 the Walmart store. Does not understand how the original stare was approved without the '
53 sidewalks.
54 • Other concerns include the lack of bicycie lanes and crosswalks in the area.
55 • Is aware MTA had a difficult time trying to get the bus stop located near Walmart. '
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIDN December 14, 2011 '
Page 27
1 • Noticed in the new plan with Walmart that the aforementioned issues have all been addressed.
2 • Views the expansion project as a chance to fix some wrongs or things that were not done
3 carrectly. You just have to make certain these wrongs are corrected.
4 • Primary concern has been with the parking area of Walmart, which will be a plus with the
5 expansion.
6 • Walmart does serve a segment af the community through employees and customers that the '
7 other stores do not. It is like Lucky's has an excellent reputation in town for its fish market. They
8 serve a segment of the community that other stores do not.Walmart is able to serve a segment of ,
9 our community through a variety of inerchandise that no other store in Ukian can serve. Many
10 times Walmart carries merchandise that he cannot get at other stores.
11 • My point is Walmart is here. The expansion is a chance to fix some issues that were not properiy
12 addressed when the stare was initially approved.
13
14 Chair Pruden: Advised Mr. Gurbeon that he had already cammented and did not want to entertain '
15 rebuttals to comments at this public hearing. '
16 '
17 Steve Scalmanini: '
1$ • Is hopeful whatever trees are planted they are maintained such that 15 years from now they are '
19 not the same lollipop look we have today. Apparently, these trees were not taken care of and
20 daes not know if they will be taken care of in the next round either if this project is approved.
21 • There has been discussion about the tax sharing agreement. City Council is clearly on record
22 through the last several years on the tax sharing agreement.
23 • Is not aware of any direction given to staff or the Commission to include whatever happens with
24 the Walmart project relative to a retroactive inclusion in the eventual tax sharing agreement.
25 • The stage is set for the City to double-cross the County if they do not do that because it was the
26 City asking the County two years ago to not approve the zoning change at the Masonite Plant site
27 for sake of maintaining retail growth in the City and the County"s benefit of that wouid be through
28 the tax sharing agreement. This agreement does not exist yet nor has he heard there is any
29 direction to inciude it retroactively.
30
31 Chair Pruden: The tax sharing agreement issue may come up and staff can provide a status report.
32
33 Steve Scalmanini:
34 • Has concern about the issue of local economics.
35 • Referred to his letter dated December 12, 2011 with attachments that talks about the economic
36 situation.
37
38 This aforementioned letter is incorporated herein and referenced as Attachment 3.
39
40 Steve Scalmanini: � '
41 • In this letter is a report that was done and not part of the EIR but created around the same
42 timeframe about the alleged economic benefits to the general fund of the City from the project.
43 The document is erroneaus: The document says that up to 75% of the tax benefits from the '
44 project are already coming to the City because of the 75% of the business that the project would '
45 bring in is business already in the Gity. So thase tax benefits are not new tax benefits because
46 they already exist. It is the 25% left over that will be taken from the County. it may be a short bit
47 of that would come from outside the County. Believes it was a 15% figure that was quoted as
48 revenues from travelers and perhaps people coming from Lake County, maybe Cloverdale.
49 Nonetheless, when you use that 25% figure which would be the new revenue, the numbers for
50 the revenue left over to pay forthe police and such is drastically lower. in the document using the
51 figures that was quoted the doilar value left is a benefit to the City on annual basis is$54.
52 • The concern is the revenue supposedly generated nowhere offsets the cost of police services
53 and the tax assessments that fail on residential properties that are near the stores that are going
54 to close. �
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 14, 2011
Page 28 ,
1 • There is documentation in the historical record of tax revenues and assessed values of properties
2 near shopping centers that shrink or close that have vacant space that cannot be fiiled as those -
3 values drop. This factor has not been considered for the project.
4 • The Jast coneern is traffic. It is the fundamental duty of the Planning Commission, staff and the
5 City Council to provide for public safety as one of the top priorities here. Right now the stage is
6 set if the project goes through that public safety will be worsened at the intersection of 101 and
7 Talmage Road and at Talmage and Airport Park Boulevard. The potential for backup on the
8 freeway is the worst concern. Questions how a project can be approved in this situation. The
9 decision makers have a duty af responsibility to require an in-depth look at what an appropriate
10 solutian would be to this identified and unmitiageable problem and to estimate the costs, look at
11 possible salutions and select one if it is in fact a solution agreeable to Caltrans and require the ,
12 applicant pay their fair share of that. Until that time, the praject should not be approved.
13 '
14 Diane Durham:
15 • Feeis compelled to give some perspective on the numbers that were provided this evening. ,
16 • In 2010, Waimart garnered 408 billion dollars in sales. This may be the reason people are '
17 opposed to the project. Figures like that are not easily comprehensible. ',
18 • Has done the math, if you were to count seconds, one, two, three, four, it would take you 11 days '
19 to count to one miliion. It would take 32 years to count to one billion and would say that any
20 corporation that grosses 408 billion dollars in one year ought to be abie to pay all of its workers, !
21 not just some, but everyone of its employees a very good living wage and provide excellent
22 benefits and pay for whatever it wouid take to do whatever its employees wanted.
23 • No Walmart employee should ever have to ask the County for assistance.
24 • No Walmart employee should not be able to pay for their health care with the kind of money that
25 this carporation makes. It is unconscionable that such a corporation does not provide exceilent
26 pay and excellent benefits for its workers and is sorry Waimart wants to expand in our
27 community. '
28 '
29 PUB�IC HEARING CLOSED: 10:Q9 p.m. '
30
31 Chair Pruden: Advised again the Gommissian wili not be taking action on the Site Development Permit !
32 or the Statement of Overriding Considerations, but we will be giving direction to staff. '
33 !
34 Commission Whetzel: Is disappainted in a coupie af speakers in their personal attacks on individuals
35 and wanted to make this known. '
36
37 Planning Director Stump:
38 • There have been some comments about wanting an independent study or traffic study done. The
39 traffic study done is in the EIR. It was an independent study as is the entire EIR.
40 • The consultants were contracted with the City. They are not City staff. They were not paid by
41 Walmart. They are completely independent. The whole purpose of getting a good EIR is to get an
42 independent third party to come in and do an analysis. '
43 • The Traffic study is completely an independent study. It does identify as many speakers alluded '
44 to that there is going to be some significant#raffic impacts if this project and full buildout of the '
45 Airport Industrial Park occurs. However, it does indicate there is mitigation and tells us a solution,
46 i.e., a full solution and a second solution. !
47 • The City is currently developing engineered estimates for the cost of two potential mitigations. We
4$ are determining what it is going to cost so that if the project were to move forward or any project
49 in the industrial park, the City would knaw what the cost wauld be and what the potential fair
50 share of all development that wouid occur would be and what the City might be able to contribute.
51 • The City is alsa exploring funding options for the City's end of things and there very likely may be
52 Redevelopment Agency money available to contribute to solving the traffic probiem. Of course,
53 everyone is awaiting the outcome of the fate of the redevelopment agencies in California, but
S4 there is patential funding, along with development contributions to fund the traffic mitigations for
55 buildouYof the Airport Industrial �'ark. ',
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Deeember 14, 2011 '
Page 29 '
l • There is a potential salution there. It is not there right now. The City does not have funding for the
2 project and does not know exactly what it is going to cost and it is not included in the City's
3 Capital Improvement Program.
4 • if we get detailed cost estimates, in which we would receive the cost estimates and if we are able
5 to identify funding sources, the City likely wili eonsider adding the projects to its Capital
6 Improvement Program, identify that funding and be able to facilitate and work with the developer's
7 contributions and have those mitigations in place when the developments occur.
8
9 Chair Pruden:
1Q • Commissioner Sanders voted `no' on the certification of the EIR because of the urban decay
11 chapter. She did not take issue with any of the other chapters nor did she identify or ask any
12 issues about eonflict af interest with any other sections that were prepared or the consultant that
13 prepared them. She had very specific concerns about one section that needs clarification.
14 • Commented on the issue of traffic and is of the opinion the traffic study was very much an
15 independent study.
16 • Asked staff to provide direction as to what staff needs from the Commission. ;
1�
18 Senior Planner Jordan: Recommended if the Commission has further questions, ask these questions of ,
19 the EIR, Traffic, and Urban Deeay consuitants since they are present to answer questions. '
20
21 Chair Pruden: Questioned who contracted to produce the General Fund Fiscal Impact Analysis put out
22 by CBRE Consulting?Was this part of the ESA contract or was this done separately?
23 �
24 Planning Director Stump: This was a subcontract with ESA. '
25
26 Commissioner Sanders: How long will it take to get an engineering estimate? What about the
27 redevelopment possibility of assistance with road improvements?
28 '
29 Planning Director S�tump:
30 • Is working an getting the information about the engineering estimate. !
31 • The State Supreme Court has indicated they will make a decision about Redevelopment
32 Agencies by January 15, 2012. '
33 '
34 Commissioner poble: Asked Traffic Consultant Steve Weinberger about safety with respect to the '
35 queuing of traffic relevant to the southbound traffic and the aff-ramp and whether it is based on full
36 buildout of the Park in addition to the expansion of the project? '
37
38 Steve Weinberger: It is based on all those things. We did several scenarios from existing with this '
39 expansian, existing with other approved projects in the area, that with expansion, future traffic projectians
40 25 years out, that with and without the expansion and then those with and without the discount club
41 Costco use as well. It was the full range:
42
43 Commissioner poble: Requested clarification there was a model that represented today's conditions
44 with just the expansion of Waimart and possibly the addition of Costca? !
4S '
46 Steve Weinberger: We did eonsider a short-term condition with just expansion.
47 '
48 Commissioner poble: In any of those scenarios do you feel it poses a significant safety issue?We have '
49 heard several comments about cars coming down 101 and having to stop and accidents occurring.
50 '
51 Steve Weinberger: in our analysis of the queuing on that ramp, we identified a threshold of significance '
52 and that threshold was not the point at which it starts spilling out onto the freeway. From Talmage to the '
53 point at which the two ramps split is 600 feet. So if cars are backed up at Talmage 600 feet and then start ',
54 going beyond that, vehicies that split off and use the loop ramp would start to be blocked. Beyond that
55 600 feet there is another 57G feet ��for� you r�ach th� point th�t now you are interfacir�g with the '
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 14,2011
Page 30 ,
z
�
;
� 1 freeway. We set 600 feet as the threshold of significance for the off-ramp, because once it starts spilling
i 2 over that it would start blocking the other ramp. So in terms of safety, the conditions spiliing aut onto the
3 freeway is a much more significant safety issue than blocking traffic that is coming off the off-ramp and
4 slowing already versus#raffic on the freeway. ;
� 5
6 Gommissioner poble: Beyond that levet of significance at what point through your study did it get
7 beyond that?
8
9 Steve Weinberger: ,
10 • At what point does the traffic projection show traffic backing onto the freeway as the more '
11 significant safety issue. It is actually not conditions now with the expansion by itself. It is
12 essentially everything after that and there is obviousiy a transition point. It is the queuing
13 conditions that are based on the worst five-minute period of that worst p.m. peak hour of the day. ,
14 • We took a conservative but appropriate look at the queuing issue in terms of safety.
15 • The impacts onto the freeway during that worst five minutes would not necessarily occur 'now' '
16 with the expansion, but starts by adding any other development at the Airport Business Park. ,
17 Anything else, any other development that is going to generate trips on that ramp, less than the ',
1$ size of the expansion project, will start getting onto the issue of now you are approaching spilling '
19 onto the freeway. ,
20
21 Commissioner poble: With regard to the factor of trip generation, is it more related ta the square
22 faotage in the expansion or is there and/or what gives mare weight, the 24-hours or the expansion and is
23 there a difference?
24
25 Steve Weinberger: The trip generation estimates are based on the square footage of the use. That is
26 not to say that 24-hour versus non 24-hour use is going to affect the trip generation because it may. We
27 can only go by published data that is available and for this type of use it does not specify whether that it is
28 24 hours ar not. Given two uses that offer the same amount of products are located in the same location
29 and one is open 24 hours a day and one is nat, in his mind the one that is open 24 hours a day the traffic
30 gets spread off the peak slightly.
31
32 Commissioner poble: Is the peak hour actuaily within its current operating hours of the business?
33
34 Steve Weinberger: In any case, the peak hour is going, the peak hour out on the street which is that
35 4:00, 5:00, 4:30 to 5:30 period. '
36
37 Gommissianer Sanders: Asked for information concerning roundabouts and signaling relative to the
38 traffic analysis and comments made from ESA in Attachment 4.
39
40 Steve Weinberger: We developed three alternatives that were seen as ones that potentiaily mitigate the
41 impacts. Two of them involve roundabouts and ane of them as a signalized intersection at the ramp. And
42 that alternative, the one with signals at the ramp was gaing to create additional queuing impacts on
43 Talmage that it could not serve in addition to then creating queuing on the ramps itself. We actually
44 evaluated and determined that mitigation plan would not fully mitigate ail the traffic impacts we were
45 looking at. The two roundabout optians did and the reason why in some cases, like this case the
46 raundabouts generally are able to create shorter queues than traffic signals is traffic signals have to stop
47 one direction of travel to serve the other. You have ta stop and go up whereas the roundabouts are able
48 to serve muiti-approaches simultaneously and then it is a moving queue. We found not in all cases but in
49 certain eases and this is a good example, where the roundabouts can work with less queuing storage
50 space than the traffic signal does, especially in a closely spaced situation. We found problems with the
51 signaf aiternative.
52
53 Gity Attorney Rapport: Requested clarification if the aforementioned discussion concerned the
54 expansion.
55 '
56 5teve Weinberger. Confirmed he was referring to the expansion of Walmart. '
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 14, 2011 '
Page 31 '
�
i
,
� 1
2 Chair Pruden: Asked about Costco taking exception to the traffic modei and used some different figures.
3
4 Steve Weinberger: At the time we completed the report, we received a letter like you did from Costca
5 and their traffic engineer saying the scenarios in which we evaluated the discount club or the Costco use
' 6 that we underestimated the traffic. The approach was to not call it a Costco, but rafher a generic name, a
7 diseount club use such that in the Trip General Manual, which is data we use to determine the amount of
8 traffie, they have a discount club use and there are rates and this is what was used to estimate the traffic.
9 Gostco and their traffic engineers are apparently seeing at Costcos all over California in the terms of how
10 much traffic they generate. We were not privy to that information. We did nat have that information so the
11 only thing published that we had was the Trip Generation Manuai, which apparently has trip rates less
12 than what Costco is seeing at its own stores. But the projections that were done did not discount those in
13 terms of discounting trips that are already on the street. Any retail use that is being evaluated is '
14 generating new traffic to the area as well as attracting traffic that is already traveiing on the street, such '
15 as Talmage Raad and Airport Park Boulevard. What is typically done with regard to retail uses is to
16 determine how much total traffic is going to be at its driveways and then determine how much of this is '
17 new to the area, which is what we call subtracting out pass-by trips. When we did ourscenario in this EIR
1$ for the discount club use, we used the standard rate, the only thing that was available to use and we did '
19 not take any discounts from that. When Costco came forward with a letter, we understood we needed '
20 more information. Within the last month, we have gotten a hold of their surveys and we are using those
21 surveys for the current Costco EIR we are working on. We have found they are correct that the amount of
22 traffic they generate on the driveways is more than what the manual says. But Costco has also surveyed
23 how much traffic in their stores is pass-by. So we have used their estimates for that as well and have
24 taken that discount. We have found the projections we used, which were undiscounted, standard rate
25 trips were very similar to Costco's higher rate trips, minus the discount. If you want ta know the number
26 exactly, we estimated in and around 630 peak hour trips for the Draft EIR for the discounted use. Using
27 Costco's numbers that we have now it is 660 peak hour trips. It is less than 5% higher and is going to
28 produce very similar results.
29 '
30 Chair Pruden: Do the numbers for the Costco traffic analysis appear to be higher?
31 '
32 Steve Weinberger: l.ess than 5%. We were dealing also with different square footages of the store we
33 assumed in this Walmart Expansion Draft EIR. Is of the opinion some of the details were lost in the types
34 of comments. They did not look at the fact that we did not discount their numbers. The bottom line was '
35 looked at compared to Costco's trip rate, but if you actualiy look at the bottom line we were very close
36 without having the necessary data.
37
38 Chair Pruden: Found the Memorandum that ESA provided regarding comments to the Draft EIR
39 (Attachment 4) to be very helpful and noted the attachment also has a lot of supporting documentation
40 and information that will be helpful for the Site Development Permit, particularly the landscaping
41 information. '
42 '
43 Commissioner Sanders: Is it possible to get an update on the tax-sharing agreement and would that '
44 even be involved with this project in any way? '
45
46 Planning Director Stump: The only thing I am aware of is the City and the County are continuing to
47 meet regularly and have met recently.
48
49 It was noted the tax-sharing agreement issue has been ongoing for a very lang time. '
50 '
51 Chair Pruden: Referred to Steve Scalmanini's letter dated December 12, 2011 and assumes the other '
52 Gommissioners feel the same as she in that he uses some different figures regard the fiscal economic '
53 impact report from what is stated. In this letter he stated the CBRE Economic Impact Report was not
54 properly calculated. Inquired if there is a way to find out whether CBRE miscalculated or that Mr.
55 Scalmanini's figures are correct? Noted there is quite a differential, but does not know how the fi�ures are
Sb calculated. '
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 14, 2011 '
Page 32 '
1
2 Senior Planner Jordan: Advised Amy Herman has not seen that letter. It was received at the time the
3 packet went out so there is really no way to answer this questian at this time.
4
5 Commissioner Brenner: Regarding the projections for the possible gain, did that account for the loss of
6 possible stares, or was that just feasible gain with the expansion that would happen?
7
8 Amy Herman: Noted there is a sectian in the report where we look at the gross sales tax revenues from
9 the expansion and then we looked at the net. So we have made the assumption about what percentage '
10 of the diverted sales that were estimated in the Economic Impact Study would come from Ukiah stores
11 because the focus is on Ukiah revenue. We did take a look at what the net would be. With that said, in the '
12 course of doing these studies there is several iterations of studies and is not sure if she currently has !
13 them in her possession. There may be some slight discrepancies in them in terms of dollars diverted, but '
14 they are minor and as different iterations of the report came through in terms of economic impact, is not '
15 100 percent sure we always track those changes in the fiscal study. There might be some minor variation
16 in the numbers cited in the fiscal study relative to the economic impact, but they are minor and they would '
17 not substantially change that bottom line estimate in the study about the net sales tax revenues in the
18 City. There is an area in the document where we looked at the net. For property tax no net was taken out, '
19 for other revenues we did. It was purely sales tax revenues. '
20 '
21 Chair Pruden: Regarding Attachment 5 (letter to ESA fram ALH Urban & Regional Economics dated
22 December 7, 2011) inquired as to the meaning of the term `agglomeration economics that is used several
23 time in the document.
24
25 Amy Herman: Was citing the sources so will give her best interpretation. It has to do with agglomeration
26 economies. Rs more and more companies band together, it is about how they impact the economy. It is a
27 generalized economic term. The intent was not to lose in translation what those resources said so their
28 language was used in the document. There are economic websites that have this information.
29
30 Commissioner poble: Requested clarification, one of the commenters addressed the praject
31 alternatives not the alternative that is no project but one of the alternatives that does not require a '
32 statement of overriding conditions and is this correct?
33
34 Brian Grattidge: No, that is not correct. Because as was properly pointed out, it reduces several
35 potentially significant impacts. It does not completely eliminate the cumulative traffic impact, which would '
36 be the subject of one of the significant and unavoidable impacts.
37.
38 Commissioner poble: Asked staff to talk to the sngineering staff to get an idea for the Commission as to '
39 what percentage/proportionate share would be fair for this expansion. �et us say there is a project and a '
40 propartionate share is on the table; what percentage are we talking about? Not dollar figures, but just in
41 percentage.
42
43 Planning Director Stump: We will do our best to get that information. '
44 '
45 Chair Pruden: Currently Walmart is assigned about $17,000. We are probably looking at the larger
46 picture.
47 '
48 Commissioner poble: Based upon the percentage of expansion a percentage of fair share will be '
49 derived.
50 '
51 There was discussion about continuing the Planning Commission comments on the Site Development '
52 Permit, the landscaping modifications and the Statement of Overriding Considerations. It may be the ',
53 Commission should delay the meeting until more is heard abaut possible redevelopment funds.
54 '
55 City Attorney Rapport addressed the redevelopment agency issue as to whether or not the State will '
56 allow California cities to have a Redevelopment Agency.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIQN December 14, 2011 '
Page 33 '
1 • There are two different bills, AB 1x26 and AB 1x27 one of which eliminates redevelopment and
2 the other one allows cities to continue, but they have to make a payment to the State. The Court -
3 could strike down or uphold one or both bilis. With any of those options either redevelopment wilf
4 go away or it couid survive at some point. If it survives including receiving continuing share af tax
5 increment it would be not as much as if AB 1x26 were upheld, but AB 1x27 would allow the
6 Redevelopment Agency ta eontinue even though it would n�t have as much tax increment money
7 available to it in the future as it would have had if those bilis had nat passed.
8
9 Commissioner poble: Given this project's EIR is deemed certified. Is there a permit streamlining issue '
LO with that? Is there a timeframe we have to have an idea about?
11
12 City Attorney Rapport: Has no knowledge about the Permit Streamlining Act (PSA) nor where the City '
13 is in planning for this. The Supreme Court issued a stay and they stayed the implementation of both bilis ',
14 or substantial portions of those bills and they indicated they would set new time deadlines, depending on
15 how they looked and depending on how the time deadiines worked in the legislation. '
16
1'7 Chair Pruden: Is of the opinion the Commission should move forward regardless.
18 '
19 There was discussion how much redevelopment might be available for traffic improvements. '
20
21 City Attorney Rapport:
22 • The Redevelopment Agency issued four million dollars worth af bonds in March. That money is '
23 currently sitting in the bank. The Redevelopment Agency owns the praperty it's proposing to sell !
24 to Costca. There could be substantial money to redevelopment if it survives.
25 • If it does not survive, then you have to look at other ways to fund the improvements. There may
26 be some, but it would not be thraugh redevelopment.
27
28 It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to continue the Waimart Expansion Site Development
29 Permit & Modification to �andscape Standards File no. 09-28-SPD-PC to the regular January 11, 2012
30 Planning Commission meeting.
31 '
32 10. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT '
33 None.
34
35 11. P�ANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
36 '
37 12. ADJOURNMENT !
38 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:48 p.m. '
39 -
40
41 Cathy Elawadly, Recarding Secretary
42
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 14, 2011
Page 34 '
��tts��9�m�nt # 1
� -
Use of �afety Net Programs by
Wal-1��lart U1V'orkers in California
_ __ _ -- _ ---- _ _-- _ _ __ .
_ __
� ��rir�►a.�� :
_ _
,,�Gt..�or�.e'r�'t Y'. ��'t-��l�' t� � � c�
Arindrajit Dube,Ph.D. !
UcBen�etey rnstr'rute forrndussrial Aetarinrrs
Keu Jacobs '
UCBerkeley CenterforZ�rbnr l�e.cearcb and Education '
August 2,2004
- ( �U,�,,(1,f�,� ��-cX(`C�dY1,4��s'U�Y'�-� ��� `�+ '
������ �� �� ���4 �
F-IIDDEN COST OF WAL-MART�OBS:USE OF SAN�fY NEP PRC]GRAMS BY WAL-MART WORKERS IN Ct1I.IFC3RNI,A
X@CUt11�e $Ut'Yltl1at'�/
Wal.-Mart is the largest etnplope�in the and benefits on public safetp net progxams in
United States,with over one m�llion workers. California. It alsa explores the potential
It is the largest faod retaler and the third impact an public ptograms of Wal Mart's ,
largest phatmacp iu the nation.The companp compe#iriv+e effect on industry sta�darc3s, ,
emplops approsimatelp 44,000 workexs in
California, aud has plans to eapand signifi- '
cantlp in the state over the next four gears. Main Find'zngs: '
WaI-Mart warkers receive lower wages than '
other retail workers and are less]lcelp to have • Reliaxtce bp Wal-Mart workers on public
health benefits. Other major retailers ha.ve assistaxice programs in Califarnia comes
begun to scale back wages and benefits in the at a cost to the tagpaqers of an estimat- '
state,citing their conc�rns about competition ed $86 million annualip; this is cam- '
fram Wal-Mart. prised of $32 miIIion in health related
e$penses and$54 miIlion in other assis-
We estimate tha.t Wal-Mart warkers in tance.
California earn on average 31 percent less thas�
workers emploped in Iarge reta� as a whol� • The famities of Wal Mart emplopees in ',
receiving an acerage wage of $9.70 per hour California ui�ize an esrimated 44 per-
compared to the ��4.01 average hourly earn- cent mare in taapayer-funded health
ings for �emplopees in large retail (firms with care tban the average for families of all ''
1,000 or more emplopees).In addition,23 per- laxge retail employees.
cent fewer Wa1-Mart workers are covered by
exnployer-spansored health insurance than • The fam�ies af Wat-Mart employees use
large reta�.work,ers as a whole.The diffe=ences an. estimated 38 percent more in other
are even greater when Wa7-Mart workers are (non-health ca�e} public assisrance pro- '
compared to unionized grocery warkers. In grams (such as food stamps, Eazned
the Sau Fxaucisco Pay Area, non-managerial Income Tas Credit, subsidized schoal
V�1al-Mart anployees eam on average$9.44 an lunches, and subsidized housing) ttian ,
hou� coniparecl to $15.31 for uni�nized gro- the ave.tage for families of all la�ge rehil '!
cerq wori�ers-39 pexceat less---and are half emplopees. '
as.likely to have health benefits.
• If other large Califomia reta�lers adopt- '
At these law wag�s, many i�al-Mart ed Wal-Mart's wa,ge anc� benefits stan-
tiuorkers relp on public safety net pro- dattds, it would cost tagpapers an addi-
grams---such as food stamps, Medi-Cal, and tionat$41Q million a pear in public assis-
suhsidized ho"��to make ends ineet The tance to emplopees.
presence of Wa1-Mart stores in Califomia thus
creates a hidden cost to the state's tagpayers.
This study is the fitst to quautify the
fiscal costs of Wal-Mart's substandard wages
Ax�mxnjrr Dva�atvn K.nv jACOSS 1
, , y , ,,.,
_ARMEL J.ANGELO ONTACT INFORMATIC3N
; Chief Executive�fficer '' 501 Low Gap IZaad •Room 1010
Clerk of the Board `� Ukiah,California 95482
:�
� TELEPHONE:(70�463-4221
A�'€���tf�i°�i$ �' � �, .
FAx:(70�463-7237
Email:bosQco.mendocino.ca.us
cOj:�N�OF MEN��.lC�O Web:www:co.mendocino.ca.us/bos
SOARD OF SUPERVISORS '
��������
December 6,2011 ��� � � ��1�
City of Ukiah
Planning and Communiry Development Department �m`'�'��
PlAR�Rl�?6 L��Fi:
300 Semi.nary Avenue �
Ukiah,CA 95482 '
RE: Comments to the Walmart Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Site Development Permit and '
___ Statement of Overriding Considerations___ '
I'hank you for the opportunity to comment on the Walmart EIR, Site Development Permit and Statement of !
Overriding Considerati.ons. I'he need for a Statem.ent of Overriding Considerations, results, in part, from the '
historic i.nabiliry of the City and County to work mare collaboratively on land use planning issues far the Ukiah
Valley. ;
The current lack of an agreed upon formula for tax sharing continues to impede the ability of the City and '
Counry to work collaboratively on land use planning and a range of other public policy initiatives, including
economic development,housing policy,water policy and more.
Whatever the decision regarding the current Project, the future "Discount Club° scenario, or any other
individual project, it is imperative that the City and County reach agreement on an equitable tax sharing
proposal so that today's planning decisions do not result in tom.orrow's"significant but unavaidable"impacts.
Please see the attached sheet for the specific comments of the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors.
Thank you agai:n.for the opportunity to comm.ent.
Sit2cerely, -
������ � w�t� � �
�
Kendall Smith,
Chair _- -- _— _.__.
Attachment
Q « • •
tv �� L '� , w �t,. C�t���r�
�tc�� •
�����������������
CARRE BROWN JOHN MCCOWEN JOHN PINQ-iE5 KENDALL SMITH DAN HAMBI.TRG
First District Second District Z'hird District Fourth District FifEh DistricE
� `` * '
1 1 c ��
�"�?..# �-. ..'�.:�^ g� -".y� � . ,
s
x � i `� � � `Y '
:e
The Mendocino County Board of Supervisors offers.the following specific comments as an
attachment to their letter to the City of Ukiah, dated December 6, 2011:
LAND USE PLANNING:
• Upon review of the EIR, it appears that the Ukiah Valley Area Plan (UVAP), adopted
August 2011 by the Board of Supervisors was nat adequately addressed or considered
' as it relates ta land use consistency. The UVAP represents a cornmitment to a
comprehensive and long range inter jurisdictional planning document that represents the
vision and foresight of the peaple who live and work in the Ukiah Valley. As noted in the '
UVAP itself, the WAP process began in 1990 when the City of Ukiah began an
extensive process to formulate a "Ukiah Valley general Plan and Growth management '
program." Yet,with this noted, it appears that the Environmental Impact Report has only '
addressed land use consistency with the City's own planning documents, but failed to
look beyand its immediate bounda�ies and consider the UVAP.
TRAFFIG:
• Existing levels of service are unde�stated for the U.S. 101 southbound Talmage Road
off-ramp which cuITently results in queuing backups that extend onto the travel lane af
the freeway.' Based an the understated existing level of service, the project impacts and
mitigations seem to assume that the anticipated additianal queuing backup wil!decrease
the amount af the southbound off-ramp that is safely available for deceleration. In fact,
the additional queuing backup generated by the Project will increase the frequency and
severity of queuing backups onto the freeway.
• Existing intersection levels of service are understated for the west bound left tum lane
from Talmage Road onto Airpo�t Park Boulevard which currently experiences queuing
problems that interfere with the operation of the freeway interchange.2 Based on the
understated existing intersection level of service, the identified mitigations are unlikely to
address the additional impacts fram the Project or the cumulative impacts associated
with the"Discount Club"scenaria
• Mitigation Measure 4.10-2 requires the project applicant to uprovide proportional share
payments...for the planned improvements and reconfiguration of the interchange; which
would improve queuing to acceptable conditions." Haweve�, this statement appears to
be c�n#rac�icted �y the Fut�rp Year 203Q analysis, with or without the Project, which
states that area intersections will experience queues that extend beyond the maximum
storage. Neither Option A(signal), �ption A(roundabout}, nor 4ption B{roundabout)will
reduce queuing to acceptable levels. '
• The interchange impravements called for in Mitigation Measure 4.10-2 are currently
unfuntled. The�efore, the proportional payment will do nothing for the foreseeable future
1 Page 4.10-7 of fhe DEIR states the data was coIlected in February,azguably the opposite of peak usage. '
z Table 4.10-2 Existing Intersectian Levels of Service,page 4.10-9 represents"conditions for fihe overall
intersecfion,"however,on page 4.10-33,in describing multiple Future Year 2030 turning movements at
the Talmage Road/Air�grt Pazk Bou,�evard intersectia�that result in qy�eu s�that exte�beyon�i the
. '� s•° �! Y°�t ,a�., � � ����� �i.�_ ���'
,�.� ,�: �,V , isie sta�a ��a:t�stai� O�l�rt���f�vn� �.�,eue�con,sz`�l.eFe,d s�g-�fic�nt as�w�o�rld a�'fc�ct�i�I�g ��.�
l
3 � � �= f � ; � � .a �$ � �
'� ���y���`�`1� iii�te+�chain��'Ia�E�it'd2d or not,descnbing exishng an�`ersec�.on�evels of service as d`on theAveral� �
�uunc�ioning rrf th�i��tersec�c�n has the effeet of ma�kki��g a�ignifacan�exisEi�.*�g im.paet. ' � `�r��°�;��
<
t� .� �.� � � F y��, � R R "'�ii' �wx,� q� � � ��,� "1'w
.,v�` as�r :4 �'�b �y,, �',[s �� � �.,� y �q �
r � �� � � � *��F I � dj, =� 4 � # tl . 8>�_^, 'y,
, � >.��& :E `� �•'� R.,�.�� Q '".� 4 �'���� t, *� F� i � rpi-
mt
(, �
Page 2
to mitigate the impact. Further, the mitigation does not identify a pro-rata share that the
project applicant would be respansible for.
• The cost of the mitigation has been identified as ranging between $5,136,000 and $10,
576,000 in 2005 dollars.3 In the absence of an identi�ed funding source, it is likely the '
City of Ukiah would seek State Transportation Improvement Funds (STIP) throu�h the
Mendocina Council of Governments which would reduce the amount af funding available
for other projects thraughout the County.
• The discussion under Mitigation Measure 4.10-2 states that improvements by the City to
the Talmage RoadlAirport Park Boulevard inte�section described in "Future
Transportatian Improvements "need to be implemented in.additian to Mitigation Measure
4.10-2."The discussion furthe�states"this improvement is currently unfunded.°
• Even if funding were available for Mitigation 4.10-2 and the City of Ukiah Future
Transportation Improvements, the proposed "mitigations" are insufficient to coRect '
problems that are inherent in the existing improvements because the "existing and
proposed ramp intersectians and Ioca1 raad intersection separations do not meei '
minimum design standard.i4 '
___ _ •_ ommen e er , raises e concem a e ins a a ion o a roun a ou caur
exacerbate, rather than mitigate, existing problems, and recommends supplemental
analysis via computer modeling to determine the best lang te�rn solution.5 The response
to comments (page 3-37 FEIR)fails to address the merits of this reasonable and prudent
recommendation.
• The project has the potential to affect areas autside of the City of Ukiah and thus should
be reviewed far consistency with the UVAP. The follawing gaals and policies contained
in the UVAP would be applicable and are outlined below:
Goal CT1 (page 5-14 af UVAP) states "provide for efficient and safe circulation �
nefinrarks throughaut the Ukiah Valley."
Policy CT1.2 (page 5-14) states "Maintain an acceptable level of service
conditions on exiting roadways."
Policy CT1.2b (page 5-15) states "Roadway and Intersection Improvements -
when possible, imprave existing roadways and intersections in favor of building
new transpo�tation facilities."
URBA,tV DECAV '
• The discussion of the potential far the Project ta contribute ta urC�an decay is superficial
at best. The discussion notes that past anchars closed in response to intemal conditions,
not as a �esult of economic competition. Therefore, the assumptian that closures related
to the Project, or the Project plus the "Qiscaunt Club" Scenario, will be reoccupied in a
reasonable amount of time are speculative.
• The analysis also seems to ignare the likely migration of mid and small size retailers to
the Airport Business Park once anchor stores in other locations close. Many of the mid
and small size retailers rely on the presence of the faod retailers to generate customer
traffic. Therefore, when one or more major foad retailers close as a result af the Project
3 Raute 101 Corridor Interchange Sfudy irt Mendocino County,by TJKM Transportation Consultants for
Mendocin�o Council of Governments,August 30,20Q5,Page 46,Table 16:Preliminary Cost Estimates.
4 Ibid,note 7.
5 Comment Letter O,"Talmage Road Corridor Mitigafions;'pag�ca�e,�n�bullet caa�e,gage t�o.
Page 3
or the Project plus "Discount Club" scenario, mid and small size retailers wili close as
well, resulting in a negative impact to sales tax receipts for Willits, Forfi Bragg and the
County.6
• We disagree strongly with the finding that there is no significant urban decay impact
assaciated with the Project. These impacts are likely ta be felt primarily within the City of
Ukiah, but retail areas in the Cities of Willits and Fort Bragg, as well as retail areas in the
unincorporated area of the County are also likely to be impactad. These impacts will be
exacerbated under#he"Discaunt Club° scenaria.
STCIRMWATER RUNOFF
• The EIR deals only with the volume of stormwater runoff, while ignoring the content.
Un(ess mitigatian measures are taken to filter runoff from impervious parking and
driveway surfaces the amaunt of pollution flowing from the project to neighbaring
agricultural lands to the east (and subsequently into the Russian River) will increasa.
The increase in palluted runoff is likelv to neqatively impact the neic�hboring agricultural
- --------lands-and-the-waters-o�the-Russian-River-which-is--a-sour-c�for-d�inking-water-and -
irrigation for numerous downstream users and habitat to federally listed anadromous fish
species.
6 We believe the"Project Market Area" as depicted on Figure 4.3-1,which includes Ehe 101 corridor from !
the south�ounty Iine Eo just nor�li of Wiilii�is lik�l�r,tc�be unders�ted. ,
��t����trn�r�# # —�
907 N Oak St.
� LJkiah, CA 95482
December 12, 2011
tlkiah Planning Commission
Ukiah Civic Center
300 Seminary Avenue
LTkiah,CA 95482 � ,
Re: Walmart Expansion Application
Dear Planning Cornmission Members, _ _
At the Planning Commission meeting on Decernber 14, 2011 you will be asked to
consider a Statement af Overriding Cansiderations for Walmart's application for a site-
development permit for an expansion. In effect,you will decide whether the beuefits of
an expansion outweigh the detriments such as traffic impacts and job losses. The
California Environmental Quality Act requires "the decision-making agency to balance—
as applicable—the economic,legal, social,technological,or other benefits of a proposed
project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve
a project. If the specific economic, legal,social,technological,or other benefits of a
proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects,the adverse
environmental effects may be considered acceptable."
Attached to tliis letter is an evaluation of the alleged benefits of the Project,particularly
in terms af job growth and additional t�revenues ta the City. The analysis shows that
when the impacts upan other retailers are considered,the presumed benefits wauld either
be insignificant or even detrimental to the City and the community. Also attached is an '
analysis of the projecf objectives,which shows how the Project will not produce the
benefits identified in the�roject Objectives identified in the EIR. '
i ,
This project will further degrade tr�c conditions at the Hwyi 101/Talmage Rd/Airport
Park Blvd intersections and increase the potential to cause collisions and serious injury.
The City has an obligation to protect public safety,and any reasonable cost/benefit �
analysis would show that the Project does not have ecanomic benefits sufficient to '
support a Statement of.Overriding Considerations. '
With sincere regaxds, ��������
� ��G � � 20��
��'���`�u''�'':��,'`'"-y"
�r�
CITV OF UKI�;H ------
pt e,,h'hi!�J��fG?i,
Stephen Scalmanini '
For Citizens for Sustainable Cammerce _ '
Evaluation af A(leged Econa►mic Benef�ts
of Walmart, Ukiah, Application to expand into a Supercenter
December 12, 2011
�'����£F�S-�6r—�uS#i�it1�i�
Ukiah, California
These are some of the important issues ta be considered when considering the Site Development '
Permit and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the application by Walmart to expand to a '
Supercenter:
Proiect Obiectives
Several Project Objectives claim economic benefits for L7kiah. As described below,the alleged
benefits in terms of new jobs and t�benefits are illusory.
Net loss in New Jobs
The applicant says the expansion will add 85 new jobs and"most"will be full time. There is no
definition of full-time employment,however it is certainly less than a 40-hour week,and
probably below 3Q hours. Wal-Mart's web site reports,"the average wage for regular, full-time
hourly associates in Califarnia is$12.61 per hour." '
�
The CBRE urban decay analysis indicates 1-2 grocery stores will close if Wal-lYlart opens, and -
if Costco also opens possibly 3 e�sting grocery stores will close. The likely candidates and
their employee caunts are: Lucky(67), Grocery Outlet(31) and Food Ma.xx(71). The closin�
of anv combination af twa af these stores will exceed the employment�ains of the Wal-Mart
expansion.
The quality af these jobs also needs to be considered. As mentioned above,Wal-Mart pays fu11
time employees$12.61 per hour. Sy comparison, data from the retail clerks union indicate the '
hourly wage of unionized full time employees(40 hours per week) at Lucky is$25.08, and at
Food Maxx$21.61. The annualized wage would be: :
��������
Wa1-Mart $26,229
Lucky $52,166 �EL � ? 20 i� '
Food Maxx $44,949
�tt1�OF i1tQd�t'!
I'L4��!!s���_�'t
Page 1 of 3
It can be assumed that similar discrepancies exist for part time employees and that benefits are
equally lopsided—a11 union workers receive full medical and dental after two months, and after
one year vision is included. Groeery Outlet reports that 87%of its employees are full time (4Q
hours/week) and average$30,000/year plus profit sharing. Without fizll disclosure from Wa1-
Mart on the total estimated annual wages paid to its 85 new emplovees,a precise comUariSan
between total com�ensation gains at Wa1-Mart versus lasses at existin�stores is difficuit,
however the above data su��est it will be appra�mately$2.0 million in lost wa�,es. This is
mone�that does not go back into tbe LTkiah econom�as spending but rather improves Wal-
Mart's anci pe ormance. s spen m og ss impacts e City's sales t�revenues, and anv
decline in familX wages increases the need for social services.
Fiscal Imnact to the Citv of Ukiah '
CBRE estimates Wal-Mart's sales increases will provide the City of Ukiah with annual General
Fund tax revenue gains of$79,798 to$116,728,versus an increase in City costs(police)of '
$32,488. CBRE has miscalculated these benefits. '
In Table 2 of CBRE's 1 l/l2/2010 fiscal impact letter,the estimated t�able sales increase '
(excluding non-t�able groceries),is estimated at$12.1 million. CBRE estimates that 75%of '
these:sales will come mainly from LTkiah retailers. We agree,since most of these"new"sales
will include locally available taxable groceries and garden products. However,with no further
explanation, CBRE estimates just 39%af these ta�able sales will come from ITkiah retailers.
Assuming�pacts of 75%on I7kiah retailers,the net General Fund�ain to the Citv(includin�
Triple-Fl�Property Tax in Lieu and Franchise T�)wiil be$36160. However $3 618 was
due to a Franchise Taa��ain from 85 new employees that is more than ofFset bv emplo ent
losses So after removing this, and after removin�$32,488 of new Cit�palice costs,only$54
rema.ins in the Cit.y's General Fund to pay for anY unexpected or underestimated costs. If the
Measure S sales tax is not extended bevond 2015 this proiect could have a negative im act on
the City's General Fund.
CBRE estimates an annual property tax gain of$58,103,of which$45,890 will go to the LJkiah _
redevelopment Agency,an.d$12,213 will go to the County of Mendacino. This analvsis fails to
include the reduction in property tax values due to store clasures. And, as mentioned above,
there has been no ad,�ustment far increases in.social services due to a decline in livin�standards
or the lost tax revenues from falling,purchasin�power. '
The overall benefits to the Citv's finances appear to be mar�inal at best, and possiblv ne ative.
Moreover thev come at a big cost to those workers who will loose iobs pavin�a standard af '
livin�well above toda�s defined U. S.poveriv level for a family of four of$24,343.
Page 2 of 3
Reasans for NOT adontin�a Statement of Overridin�Considerations
The EIR acknowledges the obvious;that the existing traffic LQS at the intersections of US 101,
Talmage Road,and Airport Park Blvd,is unacceptable and will became worse with the added
square footage of the Wal-Mart and other proposed projects along Airport Park Blvd. As stated
in the 8115/2011 cornment letter from Smith Engineering&Management(attached to
information provided by Mr. Wiiliam Kopper); "because the nature of the impact constitutes a
severe and evident compromise to public safety,not just a matter of driver inconvenience, and
since the City has the obligation to act reasonably to protect public safety in any action,no '
responsible government cauld approve a Project under overriding considerations that adds to a
clear public safety impact."
The EIR suggest several optians to improve tr�c flow through the impacted intersections.
However,the Smith report indicates that all of these options have flaws, and that any effective
mitigation will require the widening of the Talmage overcrossing of US 101.
Since no solutions have been accepted by CalTrans,there is no ability of the City to set up a
funding mechanism�whereby future projects contribute to the costs of these necessary projeets.
Because the cost of the ultimate upgrade of these intersections will likely be in the tens of
millians of dollars, a solution should be found such that pro�ects like the Wa1-Mart ex ansion
can contribute their fair share to the costs of these upgrades. Wa1-Mart has indicated a
willingness to do this,but knows full well that thev will pull their�ermit long before such a
plan is put in place. Ta prevent this,the City should NOT adapt a Statement of t?verridin�
Considerations until an acceptable plan to mitigate traffic impacts is in place and cost estimates '
are known. '
Page 3 of 3
Analysis of Projecfi rJbjecfiives of Application by Walmart in
Ukiah, CA, to expand into a Supercenter _ : _
Stephen Sca(manini
Alan Nichoisan
Jeffrey Blankfort
(Citizens for Sustainable Cammerce)
Deeember 11, 2011
Ukiah, CA ,
l. Provide a commercial development that results in a net fiscal benefit to the
City by providing new sales taz revenue and increasing property taz
revenues.
The a.nalysis of sales tax revenues is overstated,and when weighed against
increased city costs,produces no net gain. Praperty taac gains benefit the
redevelapment agency and the County of Mendocino and do nat account for
reduction in other property values. There has been no analysis about the costs of
store closures and the layoff of employees wha will need social services.
(Ref report that assessed values drop for residential property near supermarkets
that close due to Walmart apening elsewhere in the region.)
For further information about Walmart and properiy tax assessments,please see
the report"Ralling Back Praperty Tax Payments-How Wal-Mart Short-
Changes Schoals and other Public Services by Challenging Its Property Tax
Assessments"by Mattera, Walter,Blain,&Ruddick,availabie at
httn://www.�odjobsfirst.or�/publicatians/rollin -back-property-tax-payments- '
how-wal-mart-shart-chan�es-schools-and-other-public-.
2. Provide a cammercial development that can be adequately served by ezisting
public services and utilities. "
The existing tr�e infrastructure is inadequate for the proposed expansion,which '
would exacerbate the significant traffic problems that already e�st an nearby !
Talmage Road and Hwy 101. These problems are identified in the Environmental '
Impact Report as significant unavoidable irnpacts{p. 6-3.)
��������
. �;�1, � � 2a9�
Page 1 of 5 '
CtN OF UKIAH
P�.�n�i��r G!'i.
The cost of public services for Walmart employees is excluded in any docuzalents
prepared for consideration by the City regarding the proposed project. The costs
born by the taxpayers af the State of California to support Walmart empioyees in
public assistance programs—such as food stamps,Medicare,and subsidized
housing—is documented in the report"Hidden Cast of Wal-Mart Jobs- Use of
Safety Net Programs by Wal-Mart Warkers in California"-by Dube&Jacobs
[16 pp],published August 2,2004 [available at '
http•//laborcenter.berkele�edu/retaiUwalmart.�df�. (Some of Walmart's reply to '
this report is contained in the article"Wa1-Marts cost state,study says/
Retailer refutes UC research that claims taaes subsidize wages",available at
http�l/articles sf�ate corn/2004-08-03/business/17441302 1 berkelev-labor-
center-commercial-workers-unian-workers. A respanse(to Walmart's reply),
titled"Hidden Cost of Wal-Mart Jobs-Response to Wal-Mart's Statements",
by the same authors,is available at
http•//laborcenter berlcele�edu/retail/walmart response.pdf.)
This finding is substantially corroborated by text from Wal-Mart's own internal
memo to its Board of Directors in October of 2005 [available at '
http�/lwww n,ytimes corn/�ackages/pdf/business/26walrnart.pdf.] An excerpt from
the memo states:
"We also hczve a significant number of Associates and thei�child�en who
receive heatth insuNance thYOUgh public-asszstance pr�o,grams. Five percent of '
ou�Associates are on Medicaid compared to an aveYage,for natinnal
employers of 4 pe�cent. Twenty-seven pe�cent of Associates'child�en a�^e on
such pYOgt�ams, compared to a national average of 22 percent(Exhibit 5). In
total, 46 peYCent of Associates'childYen are eithe�on Medicaid or^are
uninsu�ed."
Note that the number of Walmart employees in the Sta.te at the time of this report
was 44,000{per p. 1,paragraph 1.) The nurnber in October 31,2011 was 73,733 !
(per http�/iwalmartstores comi�ressroom/statebvstate/state.aspx?st=ca.) There is
no reason to believe that the cost to the state's taxpayers for public assistance for '
Walmart employees is not comrnensurately greater.
Additional information on the cost to state taxpayers of Walmart employees, '
please see the report"Disclosures of Employers Whose Workers and Their '
Dependents are Using State Health Insurance Pragrams",available at !
htt�•1/www�oodjobsfirst org/cor�orate-subsidy-watch/hidden-t�paver-casts. '
A1so see the report"Shifting the Burden for Vital Public Services: Walmart's Ta.x '
Avoidance Schemes",available at
http•//www�oodiobsfirst or�/publicatians/shifting-burden-vital-public-services- '
walmarts-t�-avoidance-schemes.
Anather report on the cost to taxpayers of Walmart employees is called '
"Everyday Law Wages-The Hidden Price We Aii Pay Far Wa1-Mart"and is
Page 2 of 5
available at http://www.mindfull �.�or�/Industrv/2004/Wa1-Mart-Labor-
Recordl6feb04.htm. It documents that the average Wal-Mart emplayee requires
$2,100 per year in public assistance; and that was in 2003 dollars!
3. Provide commercial development that creates new jobs for the city residents.
The EIR states that the project"would add appraximately 85 new positions"(p. 3-
16.) The EIR also states that one to two�rocery stores cauld close following the
opening of the new Wa1-Mart(p.4.3-16), and two or more stores with the
additional opening of the propased Costco(p.4.3-20.) The likely stores that
could close and their employee cou.nts are as foliows,Lucky(67}, Grocery Outlet
(31)and Food Ma� (71). If any combination of two af these stores cioses,it will
more than offset the employment gains at Wal-Mart.
, Regardless of which stores cut jabs or even close,the overa.11 number of jabs that '
will be lost due ta the SS estimated new jabs at an expanded Walmart will be
roughly 119. This ratio of 1.4 jobs lost for every new job added at a Walmart is !
dacumented in the report"The Effects of Wal-Mart on Local Labor Markets",
available at http://www.socsci.uci.edu/�dneumark/walmart.pdf. '
The foregoing does not talce into consideration quality of jobs lost versus those '
gained at Wal-Mart. The jobs lost are significantiy better than Wa1-Mart's in '
terms of pay,benefits and total haurs worked(full time versus part time). '
4. Develop a fiscally beneficial project that provides sufficient revenues to '
maintain municipal services.
See respanse ta#1 above. Also,the cost to provide additional palice services to
the proposed expansion is l.ikely underestimated by the EIlZ. Consider the
experience of ather municipalities,documented as"Wal-Mart's Impact an Local
Police Costs", available at
www.newrules.or�/sites/newrules.org/filesiimages/policefactsheet.pdf.
5. Ezpand and provide new retail ogtions in close prozimity to local consumers
by providing daytime and night-time shopping oppartunities in a safe and
secure enviranment.
The prirnary new retail aptions from this expansion are groceries and a garden '
center,both of which are already offered by nearby stores. A CBRE analysis !
indicates that by canverting to a 24-hour operation police calls will increase by '
25%,ar from 744 per year to 930 annually. This suggests the praject will become '
less safe and add to the City of Ukiah's police expense.
Page 3 of 5 '
6. Enhance the commercial retail offerings in Ukiah.
The Project would not add products that are not already available in Ukiah stares.
7. Develap a state-of-the-art retail facility that serves local r�esidents and visitors
with essential goods and services in a safe and secure 24-hours,seven days a
week,shopping environment. '
Upgrading the facility can be accamplished without expanding, and the issue of
safety is covered under#5 above. Essential goods and services are already '
provided in a safe and secure 24-hours,seven days a week, shopping environment
in two locations in the City of LTkiah, one of which is only a few hundred feet
from the Project locatian.
8. Improve the building sustainability through implementing more efficient
energy practices,designs and equipment. !
As stated above,these modifications can be implemented without expanding.
� 9. Minimize travei lengths and utilize earisting infrastructure to the mazimum
eztent possible by developing within an ezisiing commercial area.
CBRE estimates this expanded project will pull from a very large trade area,to
include Wiilits and Clearlake. This will not minimi�e travel lengths. Also, since
the travel infxastructure at this location already operates at unacceptable levels of
service,this will put added demands on the existing infrastructure,which will
culminate in the five significant unavoidable impacts documented in the EIR on p. '
6-3. Cumulative traffic impacts tagether with the Costco project were not studied '
and will surely add even more significantly to travel lengths in the City and ';
region.
10.Design a project that is cansistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance. '
This should not be considered an objective,but an expected requirernent.
Nanetheless,the praject is not consistent with the City General Plan Policy OG '
31.1, Policy EG-l.l, PR-13.3, CT-1.1. The EIR does not include reference to the '
tTVAP,which represents the develapment and planning objectives for the affected '
citizens and County interests in the region.The traffic mitigation measures
proposed are entirely insufficient under CEQA, and therefor do not meet the
General Plan or City Planning Code.
Page 4 of 5 '
11. Provide suf�cient aff-street garking to minimize impacts to the surrounding
residential neighborhood,and ensure that adequate on-site parking is
provided for store customers and employees.
Again,this is not an objective but a building requirement. There is no
surrounding residential neighborhaod at this location. Also note that the original
Wa1-Mart did nat,and stiil does not,comply with its original approvals in terms
of landscaping and traffic signalizatian.
12.Develop an architectural design that enhances the character of the store.
The enhancement of tivs store can be done without resorting to an expansion. In '
fact,a larger building mass equals a larger big box store.
Page 5 of 5 '
1 UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 January 25, 2012
3 Minutes
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
6 Judy Pruden, Chair None
7 Jason Brenner
8 Kevin Doble
9 Linda Sanders
10 Mike Whetzel
11
12 STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
13 Charley Stump, Planning Director Listed below, Respectively
14 Kim Jordan, Senior Planner
15 Jennifer Faso, Associate Planner
16 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
17
18 1. CALL TO ORDER
19 The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by
20 Chair Pruden at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue,
21 Ukiah, California.
22
23 2. ROLL CALL
24
25 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Everyone cited.
26
27 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — The minutes from the December 14, 2011, December 20, 2011
28 and January 11, 2012 meetings will be available for review and approval the February 8, 2012 meeting.
29
30 5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
31
32 6. APPEAL PROCESS—Chair Pruden read the appeal process. For matters heard at this meeting,
33 the final date to appeal is February 6, 2012 at 5:00 p.m.
34
35 7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION - Site visit for agenda item 9B was verified.
36
37 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE — Agenda item 9A was properly noticed in accordance with the
38 provisions of the Ukiah Municipal Code.
39
40 9. PUBLIC HEARING
41 9A. Walmart Expansion Project Site Development Permit and Statement of Overriding
42 Considerations (File Nos.: 09-28-SDP-PC and 09-42-EIR-PC)). Conduct a public hearing,
43 receive public comment, provide Planning Commission comment, and provide direction to staff on
44 the Walmart Expansion Project 1) Major Site Development Permit and associated modifications
45 to landscaping requirements, and 2) Statement of Overriding Considerations. The Project is
46 located at 1155 Airport Park Boulevard, APN 180-070-38, in the Airport Industrial Park Planned
47 Development (AIP PD). The project proposes a 47,621 square foot expansion of the existing
48 109,030 square foot store, for a total square footage of 156,651 to include expanded general
49 merchandise floor area and expanded grocery sales floor area, indoor and outdoor garden
50 centers, as well as the possibility of distilled alcohol sales, and a medical clinic and/or vision
51 center on a 13.44 acre site. Also included as part of the project is a change in store hours to 24
52 hours per day, seven days per week, modifications to the design of the exterior of the building,
53 the addition of new parking spaces, modifications to the landscaping, and other associated site
54 improvements.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 25, 2012
Page 1
1 The proposed Project requires approval of a Major Site Development Permit, two modifications to
2 the AIP PD landscaping requirements, and adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
3 As part of the Major Site Development Permit, the Planning Commission will consider the
4 applicant's request for approval of modifications to the AIP PD landscaping requirements for
5 landscaping lot coverage and shade coverage. Approval of the project would also require a
6 Statement of Overriding Consideration for the significant and unavoidable Traffic Impacts
7 identified in the Walmart Expansion EIR. This item was continued from the November 9, 2011,
8 December 14, 2011, and January 11, 2012 Planning Commission meetings.
9
10 Chair Pruden:
11 • The Planning Commission will not take action on the Site Development Permit and/or Statement
12 of Overriding Conditions at tonight's public hearing regarding the Walmart Expansion Project.
13 Since no action will be taken this evening, this is the opportunity to receive public input and for
14 the Commission to provide direction to staff regarding the Site Development Permit, request for
15 modification to the AIP PD landscaping requirements and Statement of Overriding Considerations
16 so staff can proceed with developing the necessary findings for review by the Commission at
17 another meeting.
18 • Explained how the Planning Commission will proceed at tonighYs meeting with regard to public
19 testimony and discussions about the Site Development Permit and Statement of Overriding
20 Conditions.
21 • Staff will be using the staff report (Agenda Item 9B) from the November 9, 2011 Planning
22 Commission meeting for tonighYs meeting relative to the Walmart Expansion Site Development
23 Permit& Modification to Landscape Standards.
24 • To this point in the process, the Planning Commission has not expressed their opinions about the
25 Site Development & Modification to landscape standards and Statement of Overriding
26 Considerations and will have the opportunity to do so tonight so staff can prepare the necessary
27 findings in this regard.
28
29 Senior Planner Jordan:
30 • Provided background information and actions taken by the Planning Commission and City
31 Council thus far regarding the Walmart Expansion Project.
32 • Further elaborated as to how tonighYs Planning Commission will proceed:
33 - Conduct a public hearing
34 - Take public comment and provide Planning Commission comments
35 - Provide direction to staff on General Plan consistency
36 - Provide direction to staff on AIP PD ordinance consistency
37 - Provide direction to staff on the request for the modifications to the AIP PD landscaping
38 requirements.
39 - Provide direction to staff on the Site Development Permit(SDP)
40 - Provide direction to staff on the Statement of Overriding Considerations
41 • Project approvals required:
42 - Site Development Permit
43 - Two modifications to the Airport Industrial Park Planned Development (AIP PD) Ordinance
44 1098 landscaping standards to be reviewed through the Site Development Permit process
45 and these include a deviation from the 20°/a landscaping coverage requirement that all new
46 developments shall include a landscaping coverage of 20°/o of the gross area of the parcel,
47 unless because of the small size of a parcel, such coverage would be unreasonable, and
48 deviation from the landscaping standard for the new area of the parking lot requiring that 50%
49 of the new pavement provide a tree canopy of 50% over all paved areas within 10 years of
50 planting. The project does not meet either of these standards.
51 - Statement of Overriding Conditions to override the significant and unavoidable traffic impacts
52 that were identified in the EIR.
53 - No use permit required.
54 • Specifically, there are several project Findings that have to be made in order approve the Site
55 Development Permit and they include that the proposed project:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 25, 2012
Page 2
1 - Is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the City's General Plan
2 - Is consistent with the County Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Ukiah Municipal
3 Airport Master Plan and associated Airport Compatibility criteria.
4 - Is consistent with the zoning for the property which in this case is primarily the Airport
5 Industrial Park Planned Development Ordinance 1098, and consistent with the Ukiah City
6 Code.
7 - The location, size, and intensity of the proposed project will not create a hazardous or
8 inconvenient vehicular or pedestrian traffic pattern.
9 - The accessibility of off-street parking areas and the relation of parking areas with respect to
10 traffic on adjacent streets will not create a hazardous or inconvenient condition to adjacent or
11 surrounding uses.
12 - Sufficient landscaped areas have been reserved for purposes of separating or screening the
13 proposed structure(s) from the street and adjoining building sites, and breaking up and
14 screening large expanses of paved areas.
15 - Development will not restrict or cut out light and air on the property, or on the property in the
16 neighborhood; nor will it hinder the development or use of buildings in the neighborhood, or
17 impair the value thereof.
18 - Improvement of any commercial or industrial structure will not have substantial detrimental
19 impact on the character or value of an adjacent residential zoning district. This requirement
20 does not apply to this project since it is not adjacent to a residential zoning district.
21 - Will not excessively damage or destroy natural features, including trees, shrubs, creeks, and
22 the natural grade of the site.
23 - There is sufficient variety, creativity, and articulation to the architecture and design of the
24 structure(s) and grounds to avoid monotony and/or a box-like uninteresting external
25 appearance.
26
27 Staff requests the Planning Commission determine if the Project is consistent with all the above-
28 referenced findings as part of tonighYs discussion.
29
30 Lastly, the Statement of Overriding Considerations will be addressed once the Site Development
31 Permit is discussed.
32
33 • Recommends the Commission discuss the Site Development Permit portion of the project first in
34 order to better understand the project itself. Then discuss the Statement of Overriding
35 Considerations and merits of the project.
36
37 • The aforementioned aspects of the project are discussed/analyzed in the staff report, dated
38 November 9, 2011.
39
40 Craig Davis, Ukiah Walmart store manager:
41 • Requests when discussing the Site Development Permit aspect of the Project, the Commission
42 look at 1) the historic expansion will support a strong local economy by creating essential sales
43 revenue for the City 2) The final Expansion Project will promote/enhance the appearance of the
44 surrounding area with improvements related to the building's exterior, proposed new landscaping,
45 and other amenities and/or site/interior improvements.
46 • The proposed Expansion Project will provide significant upgrades to the existing building and site
47 and is hopeful the Planning Commission will view the project as a `positive'for the community.
48
49 Deborah Herron, Spokesperson for Walmart:
50 • Is the Senior Manager of Public Affairs and Public Relations for Walmart with her responsibilities
51 directed toward Northern California.
52 • Has the pleasure of working with government agencies at all levels and their corresponding
53 boards/commissions for business matters that involve Walmart.
54 • Is here to answer questions about the project, as well as to provide additional information as
55 necessary about Walmart's Expansion Project application.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 25, 2012
Page 3
1 • Thanked the citizens of Ukiah and members of the Ukiah Walmart store for going through the EIR
2 and Site Development Permit process, noting the importance of participating in the public
3 process.
4 • Several members of the design and engineering team are present this evening to answer
5 technical questions.
6 • It is important to look at the project with regard to architecture, the natural features of the site, the
7 accessibility of off-street parking, and consistency with Ukiah's General Plan. Is of the opinion the
8 Walmart Expansion Project fits a number of these components, particularly the fit with the Ukiah
9 General Plan in that the project supports a strong local economy (GP goal/policy ED-1) by
10 contributing and significantly increasing sales tax revenue.
11 • Walmart has been in Ukiah nearly 18 years when the City Code was very different compared to
12 what the project has to work with today.
13 • The expansion will create hundreds of new construction jobs as well as 85 new permanent jobs in
14 the store.
15 • The Ukiah Walmart currently employees 240 people called `associates.' These jobs are highly
16 valued by these individuals and to their families.
17 • Ukiah Walmart has more than 300 applications on file for persons desiring to work at Walmart.
18 • This means there are more work applications than there are work positions available.
19 • The proposed project complies with GP-28, `Make Ukiah a leader in the development of
20 responsibility resource-conserving ways of living and doing business, giving the fullest
21 consideration to the impacts of our actions on future generations' and enumerated on ways
22 Walmart is doing this, such as incorporating many types of sustainable technologies into the
23 project to include LED signage, refrigeration illumination, key reclamation, daylight harvesting for
24 energy conservation purposes and other like systems.
25 • Walmart participates in a pilot program where it only has reusable shopping bags available as a
26 way to protect the environment by eliminating plastic bags.
27 • Project complies with GP-1, `Promote, attract or assist in developing businesses, particularly
28 those that add value to resources already found or processed in the Ukiah Valley,' with the
29 addition of the grocery component and increase in food sales that Walmart customers have been
30 asking for. Walmart will be able to offer a large selection of food and the opportunity to get this
31 food from local food producers.
32 • Walmart has a very extensive food/merchandise supplier base in California and spends several
33 hundred million dollars a year with California producers of products ranging from services to
34 agriculture. Having a full service grocery means that Walmart can have more suppliers to grow
35 more food and create those necessary economic jobs that help their own communities as well as
36 here in Ukiah.
37 • Several of the policies that are outlined in Ukiah's General Plan focus on bicycle and pedestrian
38 amenities and this is something Walmart takes very seriously. There are several new features
39 that have been added in this regard based on the General Plan now that were not visionary in
40 1993 when the original store was constructed, such as pedestrian access and bicycle circulation,
41 new sidewalks and walkways as well as Class III bicycle lanes and bicycle parking. Also, Walmart
42 will be contributing a proportional share of payment to extend the Class II bicycle lane on
43 Hastings Road.
44 • Spoke to the General Plan goal about development resulting in potential traffic impacts. Walmart
45 will pay its proportional fair share contribution for traffic improvements in the area recognizing the
46 development will contribute to the need for infrastructure improvements.
47 • Walmart would like to be a proportional paying partner with the City as a Transportation Plan is
48 developed for the area.
49 • Addressed the request for modification to the 20% landscaping coverage standard and noted this
50 standard was adopted in 2007. By this time the Ukiah Walmart had already been in operation for
51 13 years. While Walmart wants to make every effort to meet City requirements, it is asking for
52 this modification because what there is to work with is a site that is already developed and
53 already mapped out in a very particular way based on the Site Development Permit approvals in
54 1993. As it presently stands, the landscaping meets 15.9% coverage. While this landscaping
55 coverage difference is small, it represents an expansive difference because Walmart is doing
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 25, 2012
Page 4
1 everything it possibly can with the site, including replacement of the trees that are to be removed
2 and replace with more trees than exist today.
3 • Welcomes questions from the Commissioners.
4
5 Commission:
6 Q1. If the project is approved will Walmart bring in its own construction crew?
7 Q2. What is the average pay scale for a Walmart employee?
8 Q3. What does the term `eligible' mean?
9 Q4. Do employees pay for their own healthcare benefits?
10 Q5. Does Walmart provide healthcare for part-time employees and how many of the 240 associates
11 are full-time?
12 Q6. How many hours a week does an associate have to work per week to be eligible for healthcare
13 benefits?
14 Q7. How many employees are there in the Tire and Lube Express section of Walmart?
15 Q8. Do you know how many associates work in a particular department?
16 Q9. Do the individuals that install tires, which is a specialized skill, paid at a different rate than other
17 associates? Do you know what that rate is?
18 Q10. Are there architects available to answer landscaping and design questions?
19 Q11. Requested clarification there are more applicants waiting for employment than there are
20 associates working in the store. Is this the result of a notice of hiring because of the potential
21 expansion or were the applications already existing?
22 Q12. If it is not the will of the community to have this expansion and the project is denied, is there any
23 particular reason that Walmart cannot offer the amenities that Walmart is talking about with the
24 Expansion Project, such as energy efficiency systems, between access for handicapped persons,
25 and better landscaping in the parking lot?
26 Q13. Regardless of the outcome of the Expansion Project, will the skylights be implemented?
27 Q14. It sounds as though the implementation of skylights is depending the outcome of the project?
28 Q15. Is Walmart presently fully staffed?
29
30 Deborah Herron:
31 A1. Every project is put out to bid and can be done online. Many times local construction is awarded.
32 Every project is treated independently. The proposed project has not gone out to bid.
33 A2. Typically do not release salary figures, but can provide more information in this regard following
34 this meeting. The average full-time hourly employee makes about $12.59 an hour in California.
35 Walmart's associates are eligible for stock re-purchase so an employee can participate in a stock
36 purchase plan. The associates as part of their wage and benefit package are eligible for
37 healthcare as soon as they begin employment. There is no waiting period regardless of whether
38 or not a person is full-time.
39 A3. Eligible means a person can sign up for benefits if he/she wishes.
40 A4. There is a small portion the employee pays, but Walmart picks up the bulk of the benefit cost.
41 There are a number of healthcare plans that employees can choose from depending upon a
42 person's circumstance. A person, for instance, could choose to have just a dental plan.
43 A5. Healthcare benefits are made available to part-time employees.
44 A6. Would be happy to get additional information regarding healthcare eligibility from Walmart's
45 Human Resources Managers to better answer the questions being asked.
46
47 Craig Davis:
48 A5. To address the part-time/full-time ratio, 59% are full-time, 21% part-time.
49 A6. Does not think there is an eligibility in terms of number of hours worked. The employee has the
50 option of deciding whether or not he/she wants healthcare benefits and what kind. If a person
51 worked only 15 hours a week, he/she could apply for healthcare benefits.
52 A7. Will have to research this information. There have been questions raised whether or not
53 employees/associates working in the Tire and Lube Express will continue to have a job with
54 Walmart. This would not be the case. Every Walmart associate in those areas will be offered a
55 job elsewhere within the store.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 25, 2012
Page 5
1 A8. Does not have the exact information readily at hand, but likely there are from 20 to 25 persons in
2 each department.
3 A9. Acknowledged pay scales differ, particularly for those jobs that require special skills. Every job in
4 the store has a different pay scale depending on the skill set of that particular job. Even if an
5 associate comes to the store with past experience, they can get `credits' toward his/her wages
6 that are added to base wages. Every individual can have a different starting rate. Deborah Herron
7 can follow-up with exact numbers so the Commission has the correct information.
8 A10. Noted project architects are available to answer design/landscaping questions pertinent to the
9 Site Development Permit.
10 A11. The applications are what already exists and not the result of a potential store expansion.
11
12 Deborah Herron:
13 A11. There is a greater number of potential employment candidates than are employed in the store.
14 The notice of hiring following an expansion generally happens within 12 weeks of what is called a
15 grand opening for that expansion. This would occur after construction has been completed.
16
17 Craig Davis:
18 Al2. Walmart is currently scoping out the potential for skylights on the building, for instance, so
19 Walmart is already working toward improvement amenities regardless of whether or not the
20 Expansion Project is approved.
21
22 Deborah Herron:
23 Al2. Part of the challenge is that you are dealing with a 17+ year old building. When looking at scoping
24 for energy efficient amenities, the question is whether or not the amenity can be done. With
25 regard to incorporation of skylights/solar panels and/or photovoltaic systems the structure of the
26 existing roof would have to be looked at as to whether the amenity is possible and/or feasible.
27 The opportunities for amenities have to be explored in terms of feasibility, cost factors and
28 customer convenience. It is the customers that drive Walmart. It is the Walmart customers that
29 have been asking about adding a grocery element to the store making it more of a one stop
30 shopping experience. Customers indicate what types of products/merchandise they want to see
31 in the store. Walmart then looks at the feasibility and makes a determination about the possibility.
32
33 Cannot speak to what would be possible by way of providing for certain amenities if the project
34 were to be denied because feasibility as to structural aspects and/or the like would have to be
35 looked at.
36
37 A13. An application for a store expansion is being considered and the amenities are part of the
38 proposed expansion. In terms of incorporation skylights, with the Expansion Project comes the
39 opportunity to add approximately 50,000 sf of new roofline and this would be the time to look at
40 the existing roof and determine if skylights are possible. Part of the scoping process is if Walmart
41 is going to build a roof on a portion of the building that is new, what would it take to bring an
42 energy efficient system throughout the entire roof and how can this be done and is it possible.
43
44 A14. Does not like to answer questions with an, `I don't know.' Would be happy to follow-up about the
45 feasibility of implementing skylights and provide that detail to you.
46
47 Craig Davis:
48 A15. The Ukiah Walmart store is currently fully staffed. Walmart is not hiring at this point in time, but
49 this situation can change from one week to the next.
50
51 Senior Planner Jordan provided an overview of the Expansion Project.
52
53 The existing store:
54 - 104,152 sf building plus 4,878 sf outdoor garden center on the south side of the building on a
55 13.44 acre site
56 - 567 parking spaces plus 20 cart corrals
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 25, 2012
Page 6
1 - Sales of general merchandise, food, garden supplies, beer and wine
2 - Tire and Lube Express
3 - Food tenant space—Subway
4 - Open 6 a.m. to midnight
5
6 The proposed expansion store:
7 - 151,615 sf building plus 5,036 sf outdoor garden center that will be located on the north side of
8 the store for a total of 156,651 sf store
9 - 612 parking spaces plus 20 cart corrals that are parking spaces that function as a cart corral
10 The parking spaces are the exact number required based on 151,615 sf
11 - Increase in food sales area and general merchandise sales area, indoor garden center
12 - May also include medical clinic, vision care center, and/or sale of distilled spirits
13 - Tire and Lube Express to be removed
14 - Open 24 hours a day, seven days a week
15
16 Proposed project modifications include:
17 - Building exterior
18 - Removal of landscaping to provide required parking
19 - Removal of`Swan Hill' Olive parking lot trees and replacement with more suitable species
20 - Tree removal and tree planting along Airport Park Boulevard, Commerce Drive and Highway 101
21 - Pedestrian walkway through the parking lot from Airport Park Boulevard sidewalk to the front of
22 the store and from the Commerce Drive sidewalk to the front of the store.
23
24 Commission: Asked staff to explain the parking.
25
26 Senior Planner Jordan:
27 • The expansion based on 151,615 sf requires 612 parking spaces.
28 • The EIR evaluated 3% more square footage than what is being requested for the project in the
29 Site Development Permit. Parking is not an environmental consideration anymore. Some parking
30 studies were conducted.
31 • When the parking calculations were done, they were based on the project itself, which is 151,615
32 sf. There are exactly enough parking spaces on the site to meet the parking requirement for the
33 zoning of the property. If the project were larger like the square footage evaluated in the EIR,
34 there is not sufficient parking onsite to provide for the 3% increase in square footage analyzed in
35 the EIR.
36 • The building cannot be larger because the project would not comply with the parking
37 requirements and the project would be out of compliance with the zoning regulations.
38 • Staff is looking for direction from the Planning Commission as to whether or not the Commission
39 can support approval of the Site Development Permit and the associated landscaping
40 modifications and if not, why.
41
42 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:45 p.m.
43
44 Chair Pruden: Public comments are limited to the merits or demerits of Site Development Permit
45 pertinent to comments about physical aspects of the project as they relate to landscaping, circulation,
46 sidewalks, bicycle paths, design considerations, signage, lighting, overall appearance of this particular
47 project and how the projects functions on the site and/or other physical attributes that concern the project.
48 This is not a discussion about whether or not one shops at Walmart.
49
50 First Public Speaker: Inaudible
51
52 Laura Leigh:
53 • Walmart should be able to expand the store and offer more employment.
54 • The community needs an expanded Walmart store and supports approval of the Site
55 Development Permit.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 25, 2012
Page 7
1 • Walmart presents itself very clearly and very well.
2
3 Sandra Wilhite:
4 • Likes the project and site plans laid out for pedestrians, bicyclists.
5 • Project is beautiful.
6
7 Alan Nicholson: Has comments about off-site traffic that is not relevant to the discussion concerning the
8 Site Development Permit. Will comment on the next section of discussion as to whether or not the project
9 is consistent with the Ukiah General Plan goals, policies and objectives.
10
11 Julia Wood:
12 • Is concerned about pedestrian safety and how this can best be accomplished on and off site in
13 the vicinity of project.
14 • Has experienced hazardous walking conditions with the type of landscaping Walmart has on the
15 site. The debris from trees produces a slippery condition when the sidewalks are wet.
16 • Has no knowledge of tree species and what would be appropriate in terms of safety.
17 • Noted the Chinese Pistache tends to be dangerous because of the droppings.
18
19 Chair Pruden:
20 • The female Pistache produces seed-like droppings unlike the male Chinese Pistache. And would
21 not present a hazard.
22 • Asked Ms. Wood if she has identified portions of the Walmart parking lot that are particularly
23 dangerous to pedestrians and bicyclists and/or areas of the parking lot that have circulation
24 concerns. How should crosswalks be marked? Should this be done by paint or pavers or some
25 other technique?
26 • Are there other ways to make the site safer for people?
27
28 Julia Wood:
29 • All the entrances to the site are dangerous because where the driveways are located walking
30 facilities are not clearly designated and there are no sidewalks. There should be designated
31 crosswalks available to direct pedestrians safely from one area to another.
32 • Painted crosswalks are not really effective. Walmart has painted crosswalks in front of the store
33 that drivers pretty much ignore.
34 • Recommends having crosswalks that are clearly posted as such and high enough for drivers to
35 read. Drivers are typically not looking at the ground where many of the crosswalks are painted in
36 one type of design or another.
37 • Noted it to be a long way from Airport Park Boulevard to the store main entrance. A shorter route
38 is from Commerce Drive to the front door of Walmart.
39 • Traffic at the front doors to Walmart needs to be separated from pedestrian access areas. Right
40 now pedestrians and vehicles comingle at the entrances to Walmart. It may be that a 'safety
41 zone' should be created.
42 • Stepping off the curb into traffic at the Walmart entrances presents a safety hazard.
43
44 Peter Good:
45 • Objects with some goals/objectives of the Ukiah General Plan. There is no handicap or
46 pedestrian access to the Redwood Business Park from State Street.
47 • Unlike Washington Avenue if one views Walmart from this location he/she will notice Hastings
48 Road is narrow and so are the sidewalks that exist only on the northern side of road. So if a
49 person wants to take that route on foot, it is not safe.
50 • In 1993 when the original Walmart was approved one of the project conditions provides that
51 `sidewalks shall be put in place along the northern side of Hastings Road/Airport Road with
52 pedestrian access to Commerce Drive.' This condition makes it so there is pedestrian
53 access/handicap access to Walmart. This was not done. So, if it is not safe to travel to Walmart
54 from this area, one can travel Talmage Road to Airport Park Boulevard and this route is not
55 possible or safe either for pedestrians. The entire area including Waugh Lane does not provide
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 25, 2012
Page 8
1 for adequate pedestrian access such that sidewalks are only on one side of the street, do not
2 connect, are too narrow, do not provide for handicap access or do not exist.
3 • Walmart is a large project and there are other possible large projects in the foresight in a huge
4 business park where adequate pedestrian access/handicap access from State Street does not
5 exist.
6 • To market Ukiah as a Walkable community is not being truthful. Ukiah is only walkable on the
7 Westside.
8 • Walmart has no sidewalks in front of the building. Pedestrian access on the north and south ends
9 of Walmart is non-existent. There are crosswalks in the access driveways to safely guide
10 pedestrians to the store entrance. Walmart has not complied with the project conditions for the
11 original project.
12 • Is not sure how one can trust Walmart to actually do what they say they are going to do.
13
14 Commission: Noted while off-site issues are linked/integrated to the project, the public must stay on the
15 topic of the Site Development Permit. Opportunities to address off-site issues will occur during the
16 discussion of the Statement of Overriding Considerations.
17
18 Mary Anne Miller:
19 • No more than the code required parking should be provided.
20 • Supports consideration of the Site Development Permit at the square footage being proposed and
21 the corresponding parking for this square foot of 612 parking spaces since this is already a large
22 project as opposed to consideration of the 3°/o additional floor area that was discussed in the EIR.
23 • Any new parking accommodations should be permeable paving and this would allow water to
24 percolate down to the water table in an effort to recharge the water table.
25 • With the parking lot being such a great size, at least two major safety islands and two pathways
26 should be provided through the parking lot.
27 • Supports the concept of raising the curbs having tire stops in the parking lot to prevent vehicles
28 from invading the pedestrian planted pathways.
29 • Supports the planting of three rows of Redwood Trees to provide screening between the building
30 and Highway 101.
31 • The General Plan says major mature street trees should not be removed. The trees along the
32 mound on Airport Park Boulevard are beautiful and should be retained. Also, it is possible to
33 provide a pedestrian pathway with connecting sidewalks through the interior of the property that
34 can be linked to the area where these beautiful street trees are located.
35 • Provide landscaping near the building for aesthetic purposes. The parking lot trees should be of a
36 species that will provide for a nice shade canopy and planted/maintained properly so the trees
37 are allowed to mature and thrive.
38 • The garden center should primarily be outdoor. Plants live outdoors.
39 • The new 50,000 sf roof should have solar panels.
40
41 Mike Peterson:
42 • Has concern that there be sufficient sidewalks for pedestrians and that the design of the building
43 will be aesthetically pleasing and complementary to the other buildings in the neighborhood.
44 • Supports the project providing for pedestrian and bicycle paths.
45 • Allow for a sufficient number of trees, particularly in the parking lot.
46
47 Virginia Reynolds:
48 • Commented on the original project and project conditions that would pertain to the trees planted
49 on the site and noted many of the trees planted in the parking lot were not properly maintained,
50 have died and were not replaced.
51 • Emphasized the importance of landscaping for projects and the need for proper
52 care/maintenance and irrigation systems, particularly for parking lot trees.
53 • Cited the Windsor Walmart parking lot as a disgrace. The trees were not properly cared for and
54 have died.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 25, 2012
Page 9
1 • Questions the reasoning for moving the garden center to the north side of the building when
2 logically it should be located on the south side of the building. Having the garden center on the
3 north side would not be a way to conserve energy because of the need for grow lights and/or
4 other systems necessary for plants to grow and thrive.
5
6 Susan Knopf:
7 • Supports that Walmart should comply with the 20% landscaping coverage standard.
8 • Favors retaining as many trees as possible on the site because replacement trees will not be able
9 to provide sufficient shade for years to come.
10 • Project should comply with the number of trees required in the parking lot. Other trees and plants
11 should be planted in the ground as opposed to above ground in pots.
12 • Supports having the garden center indoors to prevent rain water from seeping through the soil in
13 potted plants that contain fertilizers/pesticides and/or other chemicals whereby the pollutant water
14 is discharged into streams and rivers.
15 • Supports the addition of sidewalks that are 6 to 10 feet wide with no obstructions.
16 • Is concerned about the proposed lighting features and supports that lighting on the building and
17 for the parking lot not be `spot lights' that are typical of lighting systems for commercial
18 establishments but rather subdued and placed such that the light is non-polluting.
19 • Asked if the sales tax revenue was an appropriate topic for the Site Development Permit
20 discussion.
21
22 It was noted the matter of sales tax revenue would likely be addressed in the Statement of Overriding
23 Considerations.
24
25 Pinky Kushner
26 • Many of her concerns have been addressed.
27 • There should be a small vegetative buffer zone between the building and Highway 101.
28 • Is concerned the access area for truck delivery is being increased such that there will be too
29 much pavement behind the building itself.
30 • Objects to lights that project outward and pollute.
31 • Inquired what is meant by Walmart having LED lit signs.
32 • It is not clear where the MTA bus will be located and how will it access the building. Is concerned
33 that the shelter for the MTA bus will open to the south and that the orientation of the shelter be
34 inappropriate. The sun is very fierce in the summer and this would be a problem.
35 • Is concerned about pedestrian access for the front of the building. Is of the opinion striped
36 walkways are not sufficient at all in terms of safety. These striped walkways are ignored over and
37 over again by drivers.
38 • Supports possibly having a raised walkway that would also be striped that acts like a very low
39 speed bump or a sidewalk.
40 • City code provides that developments have sidewalks with ADA access and be connected by a
41 accessible route of travel. This means there would be two pathways to the building from Airport
42 Park Boulevard not one. This same requirement is also addressed in California Building Code
43 section 114(b).1.2 that talks about having an accessible route of travel. This issue deserves
44 attention.
45 • The City of Ukiah also has very strong language about pedestrian access.
46 • Understands this is not a new project, but rather an expansion of an existing project whereby the
47 focus right now is on the site. However, wanted to add there is a major residential area to the
48 north of this project. Attention should be given to providing sidewalks so that people feel
49 comfortable walking south from this residential area to Walmart.
50 • There must be some kind of mistake in the original design because the AIP PD Ordinance
51 requires there be a vegetative buffer between two parcels. There is no existing vegetative buffer
52 separating the Walmart property and the gas station/Jack-in-Box property. Is of the opinion this
53 buffer should be required and recommends requiring approval of a variance if this issue continues
54 to be ignored.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 25, 2012
Page 10
1 • Is in favor of permeable paving and should not be allowed to make up the 20% of landscaping
2 coverage with permeable paving. Permeable paving is not the equivalent to landscaping and has
3 nothing to do with landscaping. Landscaping is an aesthetic wildlife issue. Permeable paving is
4 for automobiles in an effort to help cleanse the water of parking lot contaminants before it goes
5 into our water system below ground.
6 • Supports 20% landscaping be required and that the applicant should be held to this standard.
7 • Sidewalks should be 8 to 10 feet wide with no allowance given for tree wells. The tree wells
8 should be connected and the AIP PD Ordinance standards require that tree wells be connected in
9 some kind of path of vegetation. Is of the opinion, the applicant should also be held to this
10 standard.
11 • The Project should not be allowed to trim the Redwood trees adjacent to the freeway so that they
12 are not able to provide a visual buffer to the project, noting what has occurred to the Redwood
13 trees that were to act as a buffer between the freeway and the CVS building have been trimmed
14 too much so they do not provide the necessary screening.
15 • Maintain/plant trees to the south and to the west because this is where the sun is the most vicious
16 and make certain the entire building has shade.
17 • If Walmart was to incorporate `green' technologies and materials, there is no better way than to
18 have passive solar.
19 • Supports having solar panels on the original building.
20
21 Daphine McNeal:
22 • The Project is required to be consistent with the Ukiah General Plan.
23 • Has a concern that the building presents itself as box-like and is not aesthetically pleasing.
24 • Has a concern that the number of trees could be reduced and there would not be sufficient
25 shade. The entire area is blazing during the summer months with an extensive amount of
26 pavement and trees in the parking lot that provide no shade because they have died or have
27 been trimmed too much. Supports having shade for the Project in any way it can be done.
28 • Addressed the comment made by the spokesperson for Walmart that the 17-year old building
29 may be difficult to modify and this raises an alarm about the original plan and materials.
30 • Has a concern about increasing the light pollution in Ukiah Valley and supports the concept of
31 providing for downcast subdued lighting systems. Is hopeful LED lighting for the signs does not
32 produce too much illumination and create added light pollution.
33 • Suggests pedestrian crosswalks be provided for the Project and recommends they have safety
34 features other than just paint such as bumps or flashing mechanisms for increased pedestrian
35 safety.
36 • Suspects that Walmart has more traffic than Sonoma County Airport. Sonoma County Airport
37 uses flashing features for their crosswalks.
38
39 Don Larson:
40 • Four or five years ago the County held a special presentation on how to successfully mitigate the
41 water sheeting down large parking lots.
42 • The intent is to be able to capture runoff and redirect it for retention onsite and/or properly offsite.
43 There are systems/techniques/procedures that properly address runoff from pavements, one of
44 which redirects water under the pavement using French drains.
45 • It is important that water sheeting on pavement be appropriately addressed for developments.
46
47 Sandra Wilhite:
48 • Is of the opinion that skylights would be more beneficial than solar panels.
49
50 Serena Stafford:
51 • Addressed sidewalks and pedestrian access in terms of providing safety mechanisms and
52 recommends implementing a 'pebble' sidewalk at the store entrance that would prevent people
53 from slipping and possibly falling.
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 25, 2012
Page 11
1 Chair Pruden: Such techniques (bumps) are used on handicap ramps that provides for a `pebbly' surface
2 that is made of plastic material.
3
4 Ken Steely:
5 • Spoke about crosswalks and acknowledged there are lights that flash in crosswalks for safety
6 purposes.
7 • Addressed the 40-foot height of the pole lights and noted if the height is reduced more poles
8 would be necessary in the parking lot. The taller the pole the more light that is cast whereas if the
9 pole heights were reduced more poles would be needed to cover the dark areas. Also, lowering
10 the poles would interfere with the trees that would essentially create other problems.
11 • With regard to LED signs, Applebee's recently upgraded the monument sign in front of the
12 restaurant and this is an example of a LED sign. In terms of brightness, the sign has a plastic
13 overlay over the LED lights.
14
15 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 7:36 p.m.
16
17 Break: 7:36 p.m.
18
19 Reconvene: 7:47 p.m.
20
21 Chair Pruden: Commended the Planning Commissioners for their highly diligent commitment to serving
22 on the Commission and the tremendous amount of work and dedication it takes to do this job.
23
24 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 7:51 p.m.
25
26 Table 2: General Plan Consistencv Analvsis (Site Development Permit)
27
28 Pinky Kushner: Referred to the staff report regarding General Plan consistency and disagrees with
29 staff's analysis on most of the goal/policy items listed are consistent with the General Plan. Would be
30 happy to submit this in writing to the Commissioners and cited some of those goals/policies that in her
31 opinion are inconsistent:
32 • ED-1, Support a strong local economy
33 • GP-1, Promote, attract or assist in developing business, particularly those that add value to
34 resources already found or process in the Ukiah Valley
35 • GP-2, Promote business development, emphasizing local ownership of businesses in order to
36 keep capital growth within the community
37 • GP-20.2, Protect water supplies from adverse impacts. (Project does not have permeable
38 paving).
39 • GP-20.3, Maintain and enhance air quality
40 • GP-24, Conserve and enhance natural beauty of the Ukiah Valley (Special compensation would
41 have to be done in the parking lot to enhance the beauty of the Ukiah Valley).
42 • GP-26, Require that landscaping be a significant component of development and redevelopment
43 (Instead, Walmart wants a reduction to the 20% landscape standard. The reason for the
44 requested reduction is because Walmart could not accommodate the parking adequately if they
45 had the 20% landscaping. Recommends Walmart accommodate the General Plan requirements
46 and obtain a variance on the parking aspect. Why favor cars?)
47 • GP-28, Make Ukiah a leader in the development of responsible resource-conserving ways of
48 living and doing business, giving the fullest consideration to the impacts of our actions on future
49 generations. (This is inconceivable that this would be consistent).
50 • GP-29.3, Promote public transportation, services with walking distance in neighborhoods, and
51 any other feasible means of preventing needless vehicle use and pollution (This is no ride-sharing
52 promise, only minimal consideration in this regard).
53 • OC-13.1, Maintain long-term sustained yield of the Valley's groundwater system shall be the
54 standard for evaluation for groundwater protection programs (Without having a groundwater
55 system or permeable paving the groundwater system is negatively impacted).
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 25, 2012
Page 12
1 • OC-15.1, Protect water quality from adverse impacts of urban and agricultural runoff (To be fully
2 compliant you need permeable paving).
3 • It would take too much time to list all of the inconsistencies.
4
5 April Herriton:
6 • Likes the project.
7 • Has a concern about the Walmart parking lot. People have a tendency to park their cars too close
8 to others. This is very dangerous.
9 • People should have more respect for the Walmart store and refrain from littering.
10
11 Alan Nicholson: The Project is inconsistent with the following:
12 • GP-25.2, In areas to be developed or redeveloped, ensure usuable open space and common
13 space (With regard to the parking and loss of turf area will add to the urban heat island effect).
14 • CT-1.1, Land use entitlements shall be based on the classification and capacity of the street or
15 road providing primary access (EIR was not consistent in this regard).
16 • CD-17.1, Require commercial and industrial parking lots to be designed subservient to the
17 structure it serves.
18 • OC-25.1, Protect existing healthy mature trees to maintain shade and area attractiveness (This
19 project would remove trees and the newly planted trees may not survive based on the applicanYs
20 historical record concerning tree care and maintenance).
21 • OC-28.1, Upgrade the visual appearance of the corridor along Highway 101.
22 • OC-29.1, The development review process shall incorporate measures to maintain and enhance
23 the urban tree canopy. (With this comes the sense of urban space).
24 • GP-25.2, Open space would be lost to the Project's expansion.
25 • GP-26, The applicant is asking for a reduction in landscaping requirements.
26
27 Miriam Montesinos, Attorney for Applicant:
28 • Did not want to go through each goal/policy and give an opinion as to consistency.
29 • Planning staff has done a very thorough job of analyzing each relevant goal/policy for project
30 consistency with the General Plan.
31 • The law does not require a project to have an exact match for each and every policy of the
32 general plan.
33 • The law does recognize the General Plan is a moving document that has to address many
34 competing interests. It grows and changes as the community changes and for this reason the law
35 does not require that a project has consistency for each and every goal/policy. In fact, it is not
36 possible for a particular project to have consistency with each and every general plan policy
37 because the goals and policies are internally inconsistent. All that is required is to find that a
38 project conforms with the vision of the general plan for a particular project site. This is the case
39 with Walmart. It is a retail project on property that has a general plan retail/commercial zoning
40 designation.
41 • Planning staff has the expertise from a planning perspective to determine whether or not certain
42 goals/policies are consistent with the General Plan for a particular project.
43 • What is of importance with regard to project consistency with the General Plan is whether or not
44 the project is in harmony with the intent of the General Plan.
45
46 Mary Anne Miller:
47 • It may not be possible for the project to have all the goals/policies consistent with the General
48 Plan.
49 • The AIP has a master plan that would require a General Plan amendment. Does not think an
50 amendment was done. What should occur is to determine whether or not the project is consistent
51 with the AIP Ordinance 1098 that is the master plan for the AIP.
52 • There are some Project General Plan inconsistencies and they include:
53 CT-8, Encourage increased use of public transportation. (The intent is to get people out of their
54 cars, employees too).
55 CT-8.1, Make it easier to utilize bus service.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 25, 2012
Page 13
1 CT-9, Maximize the use of public transportation through efficient land use patterns and supporting
2 incentive programs.
3 CT-9.1, Include design features in new commercial and residential areas that make public
4 transportation convenient.
5 CT-9.2, Support a strategy to provide funding and incentives to increase ridership opportunities.
6 CT-11, Encourage increased use of car-or van-pooling.
7
8 Disagrees with staff that the aforementioned policies CT-8 through CT-11 do not necessarily
9 apply on a project-by-project basis. Is of the opinion these policies should be encouraged so as to
10 improve transportation. It is necessary to encourage people to get out of their cars and carpool.
11 Providing for shuttles is a good idea. A shuttle could transport handicapped persons across the
12 parking lot.
13
14 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 8:05 p.m.
15
16 Chair Pruden: The Commission will have to determine whether or not the project is consistent with the
17 Ukiah General Plan.
18
19 ED-1, Support a strong local economy
20 There is a staff request the Planning Commission determine whether or not the project is consistent with
21 this goal, which is to support a strong local economy.
22
23 Senior Planner Jordan: The entire table (Table 2) was generated from the EIR so the Planning
24 Commission has already discussed all of the General Plan goals and policies included in this table with
25 the exception of ED-1. All of these goals and policies and consistency determinations have previously
26 been reviewed by the Commission. The note `Program Level Goal/Policy' added to the relevant to
27 General Plan consistency table was done to clarify some confusion with the EIR process. As part of the
28 EIR process all goals and policies that might be relevant to the project were included for consideration in
29 order to provide information were included in the table. The `Program Level Goal/Policy' was added to let
30 people know that a particular policy was not intended to be applied on a project-by-project basis, but
31 rather how the Project might actually address a particular policy anyway even though it is not a project
32 level policy or goal. The only policy/goal that is new that the Commission and public has not discussed is
33 ED-1.
34
35 It was pointed out the first three policies/goals in the table have not been discussed.
36
37 Senior Planner Jordan: Acknowledged GP-1 and GP-2 were included in the table in the EIR, but since
38 they are not environmentally related they were not discussed.
39
40 Commission:
41
42 Project is compatible with Table 3: Airport Compatibility Criteria Analysis.
43
44 Commissioner Brenner: Has questions and asked how this should be addressed.
45
46 Chair Pruden: It may be more appropriate to ask the questions later.
47
48 Commission:
49
50 Table 4: AIP Ordinance 1098 Consistencv Analvsis discussion:
51
52 Retail Commercial Store: Consistent
53 Minimum Lot Size: Consistent
54 Maximum Lot Coverage: Consistent
55 Building Setbacks (minimum): Consistent
56 Building Height(maximum): Consistent
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 25, 2012
Page 14
1 Screening/Screening Materials (This is in reference to the areas in the back of the store).
2 The public favors that more Redwood trees be planted in this area.
3 The public would like to see some kind of designated vegetative buffer between the gas station
4 property and Walmart property.
5
6 Chair Pruden:
7 • Noted the section regarding `screening' states screening is required and pertains to screening
8 of a loading dock, recycling areas and rooftop equipment wherein examples of screening
9 types, i.e., masonry walls, landscaping or decorative fencing are provided.
10 • Flag this section because it may be an issue as to how it presents itself in terms of the
11 community's interpretation of screening.
12 • Should come back and discuss this issue as it relates to the landscaping plan and the storm
13 water treatment plan.
14 •
15 Bike Lanes/Access Driveways and Deceleration Lanes
16
17 Staff clarified Class III bike route is on-street with signage and does not include striping. Class II
18 bike lane is on-street with striping. Class III bike lane is the requirement in the AIP Ordinance
19 1098. The Project includes Class III bike route on Airport Park Boulevard. Transportation and
20 Traffic mitigation measure 4.104c requires the installation of Class III bike routes on both sides of
21 Airport Park Boulevard. Signage will be provided as part of the project.
22
23 Chair Pruden: Can a bike lane be designated for the interior of the Walmart lot? In other words,
24 once someone enters Walmart, a bike path would be designated in the parking lot that would lead
25 to bike rack.
26
27 Staff: This would be considered a Class I path and must be at least 10 feet wide. The concern
28 would be how bikes would interact with pedestrians. The question is how to accommodate bikes
29 and pedestrians and make it work. A Class I is usually an off-street path that is typically 10 feet
30 wide in order to accommodate bikes and pedestrians but is intended to accommodate bikes.
31 Class II is on the street striped pathway and Class III is simply a route that is signed.
32 Acknowledged the site plan does say Class III 'bike lane' as opposed to Class III `bike route' that
33 is signed not striped.
34
35 Staff: The site plan does not show off-site bike paths, but it is discussed in the EIR.
36
37 Commissioner Whetzel: Is there any provision for crosswalks to be implemented along
38 Commerce Drive and Airport Park Boulevard coming from Branches restaurant over to Walmart?
39 There are no crosswalks for that entire intersection.
40
41 Staff: This issue was included in the EIR as one of the mitigation measures.
42
43 Commissioner Brenner: What is the location of the bus stop?Will the facility be sheltered?
44
45 Staff:
46 • The exact location of the bus stop location will be determined by MTA, but the preferred
47 location would be on the north side of Commerce Drive to the west of the westernmost
48 driveway.
49 • The intent is for the facility to be sheltered. There will be crosswalks for safe pedestrian
50 travel to the bus stop.
51 • The bus stop will not be located on the Walmart property but rather on the street and the
52 pad for the shelter would be relocated to the landscape area that is currently lawn.
53 • Is not sure whether or not the pad is counted as part of the landscaping coverage.
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 25, 2012
Page 15
1 Commissioner Brenner: Is the pedestrian access from the north along the gas station area
2 existing? Is this pathway intended to be changed and/or improved?
3
4 Staff: Conformed the pathway is existing. There are no plans for changes or improvements.
5
6 Building Orientation: No discussion
7
8 Sidewalk Requirements:
9
10 Commission: Is 5 feet the ADA requirement for path widths?
11
12 Staff: It is the AIP Ordinance requirement.
13
14 Chair Pruden: One of discussion items is whether or not sidewalks for the Project can be
15 widened and if there are any suggestions thereof.
16
17 Staff:
18 • The EIR requires the sidewalks to be wider. Transportation and Traffic mitigation
19 measure 4.10-3d requires the sidewalks on Airport Park Boulevard and Commerce Drive
20 to be a minimum of 6 feet wide and 8 to 10 feet wide where possible. This mitigation
21 measure would be included as a condition of approval for the Project.
22
23 • With regard to sidewalk requirements, AIP Ordinance 1098 requires that lots with
24 frontage along the primary street shall provide a 5-foot curvilinear sidewalk located within
25 the required front setback. Every effort shall be made to link development with attractive
26 and accessible pedestrian facilities. Since the approval of the existing development, the
27 AIP PD Ordinance has been amended to include this requirement. The Project includes
28 5-foot wide curvilinear sidewalks along the Airport Park Boulevard and Commerce Drive
29 frontages, a pedestrian walkway from the Airport Park Boulevard sidewalk through the
30 parking lot to the front of the store, and a walkway from the Commerce Drive sidewalk to
31 the south side of the store. In some areas the sidewalk would be straighter in order to
32 accommodate existing trees and new tree plantings. The intent in this regard is to not
33 impact trees or the sidewalk.
34
35 Commissioner Brenner: Would increasing the width of the sidewalk diminish the landscaping?
36
37 Staff: Does not know how substantially the landscaping would be diminished because it is not
38 known where the sidewalks can accommodate a 6 to 10 foot width.
39
40 Commissioner poble: Are the sidewalks included or excluded in the landscape calculations?
41
42 Staff: They should have been excluded and to recommend asking this of the applicant to be sure.
43 There has not been a discussion whether or not to count the sidewalk as part of landscaping.
44
45 Building Location, Building Location and Orientation:
46 • Commission will ask about solar opportunities
47
48 Architectural Design
49
50 Chair Pruden has questions about the architectural design with regard to a porch approach to
51 the front of the store where the awning roof points upward direction rather than downward. This
52 arcade look is not feasible in terms of providing adequate shelter from the sun or rain. This is an
53 issue that needs to be discussed. Is of the opinion the trees in front of the building will provide
54 adequate shade from the sun.
55
56 Building Exteriors
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 25, 2012
Page 16
1 • Discussion about the reason for the protective bollards in front of the building.
2
3 Chair Pruden does not have a particular problem with the color scheme. The color scheme is
4 certainly not out of compliance. The color palate is a corporate branding and would like to see the
5 palate changed for Walmart stores at some point and this is in response to our community.
6
7 Commissioner Brenner:
8 • Has seen more urban Walmart stores that provide for more contextual solutions. It is
9 possible to change/vary color the context specific to palates and architectural designs
10 that cater to the desires of communities/regions.
11 • Would have liked the applicant to have voluntarily through the Design Review Board
12 process so as to address/discuss some of the design aspects of the Project. As a result
13 environmentally speaking, it may be the design for the arcade would have been
14 differently articulated.
15 • Has a concern about the north elevation with the giant roll-up doors. There is no
16 covering.
17
18 Chair Pruden:
19 • The community can recognize the color palate/corporate branding but it does not mean
20 we, as a community, have to accept it or approve it.
21 • With regard to the north elevation, the Commission can request some screening if this is
22 possible since the element of `screening' for loading docks is being addressed for
23 consistency purposes with the AIP Ordinance. This can be made a requirement.
24 Lighting
25 The issue has been raised that the lighting for the Project be lowered. The Project would like to reuse the
26 existing 39-foot poles. A determination will have to be made whether or not this is acceptable.
27
28 Chair Pruden noted Attachment 4 addresses the lighting features and inquired whether this what
29 the applicant is proposing for the `box over-head.'
30
31 Staff: As shown on attachment 4, confirmed this is what is being proposed. Referred to staff's
32 analysis regarding lighting on page 24 of the staff report and stated Aesthetics mitigation
33 measure 4.1-2 included in the EIR also addresses exterior lighting.
34
35 Chair Pruden: The outdoor lighting features are in compliance, but would like to see some of the
36 fixtures more decorative. The pole lights resemble that of a `box.'
37
38 Commission: Okay with the 39-foot height for the pole lights. However, it could be problematic in
39 the event the landscaping is done correctly and the trees in the parking lot reach a height of 39 or
40 more.
41
42 Design Amenities
43
44 Chair Pruden:
45 • Staff requests Planning Commission determine the appropriate number and location of
46 benches at the front of the store.
47 • The project does not include an outdoor area for employees. It appears there may be an
48 opportunity for an outdoor area for employees i.e., in the landscaped area to the east of
49 the outdoor garden center and/or in the triangular landscaped area to the north of the
50 parking area adjacent to the garden center. Staff acknowledges homeless people often
51 congregate in these areas and providing outdoor seating areas could create an attractive
52 nuisance.
53 • Staff is requesting the Commission determine if outdoor areas for employees should be
54 provided as part of the project. Should the Planning Commission decide to require this for
55 the project, a condition of approval would need to be included for the project.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 25, 2012
Page 17
1
2 Commission: Would like to see an employee lounge area and/or outdoor break area with design
3 amenities.
4
5 AIP Parking Requirements
6
7 Chair Pruden: According to the staff report, a minimum of 577 parking spaces are required for
8 the retail space (144,180 sf, 30 parking spaces for the indoor garden center (7,435 sf) and 5
9 parking spaces for the outdoor garden center for a total of 612 parking spaces. The project
10 includes 632 parking spaces of which 20 would be used for cart corrals providing 612 net vehicle
11 parking spaces which is consistent with the minimum number of parking spaces required for the
12 project.
13
14 Commissioner Sanders: Looking at the staff report and comments regarding the AIP Ordinance,
15 surplus parking was identified. Is of the opinion requiring a minimum of 612 parking spaces is
16 excessive. However, given the City code requirements asked about the calculations.
17
18 Staff: Clarified the number of parking spaces is based on how the building is used and the total
19 calculates to 612. The number of parking spaces provided on the site is 632, of which 20 of these
20 spaces are used for cart corrals. The absolute minimum number of parking spaces required for
21 the Project is 612 and the Project is not over-parked by a single space.
22
23 Chair Pruden:
24 • Would like the applicant to clarify where employees park their vehicles.
25 • According to the staff report, the Project provides the minimum number of parking spaces
26 required by the UCC. AIP PD Ordinance 1098 allows the Commission to deviate from the
27 parking requirements included in the UCC. Staff requests the Commission determine if
28 the Project should be required to provide additional onsite parking to meet the holiday
29 peak parking demand, enter into an agreement to use excess parking on a different site
30 to accommodate peak parking demand, implement a Transportation Demand
31 Management (TDM) program in order to ensure there is onsite parking available to serve
32 the project during the holiday season, or to approve the parking as proposed.
33
34 Staff: The Project complies with the parking requirements. It may be that during the holiday
35 season onsite parking may not be adequate to serve the holiday peak. Staff wanted to disclose
36 this to the Commission and let the Commission decide whether or not the holiday peak parking is
37 an issue.
38
39 Chair Pruden:
40 • Does not want to over-park and/or add more parking just because the Christmas sales
41 may be large.
42 • Would there a problem if Walmart went to an adjoining neighbor and entered into an
43 agreement for additional parking spaces.
44
45 Commissioner Whetzel: It may be that more information is necessary. Has there been a holiday
46 peak in past years and was this a problem.
47
48 Chair Pruden:
49 • The applicant can answer this question.
50 • Walmart has been a sponsor of the holiday trolley which does a pick up every hour or
51 two.
52 • There may be other parking options as opposed to adding more parking, such as a rental
53 agreement with a contiguous parking lot.
54
55 Commission: Is not in favor of adding more parking to the parking lot.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 25, 2012
Page 18
1 Commissioner poble:
2 • As a project condition, should how the applicant deals with overflow parking be optional
3 and be required to work with staff in this regard?
4 • People typically park where they can and walk to whatever store they want to.
5
6 Commissioner Whetzel:
7 • The Airport Industrial Park is not pedestrian friendly. There are no sidewalks and/or
8 area(s) designating a pedestrian walkway. As it is now, a person could get hit by a
9 vehicle when crossing the street.
10
11 Commissioner Brenner:
12 • Recommends asking the applicant if there is a problem accommodating peak parking
13 demand and if so provide a plan that would facilitate resolution. It may be a TDM program
14 is necessary to ensure there is onsite parking available to serve the project during the
15 holiday season that includes providing for a pedestrian pathway for the program so that
16 people can get from one parking lot to another or across a parking lot safely. It has been
17 brought to the attention of the Commission by the public that the entire Walmart site and
18 adjacent sites are not accessible. Implementation of a pathway would be a way to
19 improve the infrastructure in the area.
20 • Supports the Commission see a drawing/plan that includes a pedestrian pathway if some
21 agreement is made and is necessary to use excess parking on a different site to
22 accommodate peak parking demand particularly since this matter has been called out as
23 a mitigation issue. The agreement would address how the plan would work not only in
24 writing but in a formal rendering.
25
26 Staff: Staff is not calling the holiday peak parking demand and corresponding pathway(s) an
27 issue but rather is pointing this out because these are things the Planning Commission is
28 typically concerned about i.e., what is holiday parking, how does it differ, is it necessary
29 to address. The intent is to provide the Commission with information. There are
30 limitations on what we can require the applicant to do as part of the Site Development
31 Permit. The text in the staff report on page 25 regarding additional parking considerations
32 that addresses a TDM program and possible solutions is brought up for informational
33 purposes. We cannot require another property owner(s) to share parking
34 accommodations via an agreement to allow Walmart customers to park on their site.
35 Walmart does have a carpooling program so if there are concerns about how to manage
36 the parking and Walmart is amenable because of Planning Commission concern, the
37 existing program could include measures/options that address holiday peak parking
38 demand such as incorporating/adding the holiday trolley to the carpooling program. While
39 there are options, there are limitations as to what we can require Walmart to do.
40
41 Chair Pruden: The Planning Commission is clear on the issue of not providing for more parking
42 spaces other than what is the minimum requirement.
43
44 Commissioner Brenner: Inquired about the matter of parking in the EIR and corrected his
45 inquiry to ask about traveling across Commerce Drive that was addressed as a mitigation issue in
46 the EIR.
47
48 Staff: Parking was not addressed in the EIR. As a mitigation measure ADA access must be
49 provided across Commerce Drive.
50
51 Commissioner Brenner: If ADA access is necessary this would facilitate parking across the
52 street. Is it appropriate to ask for some sort of plan in this regard?
53
54 Staff: Since Walmart does not control the property across the street they could of their own
55 volition if the adjacent property owner(s) is amenable enter into a parking agreement to allow
56 Walmart employees and customers to park in a neighboring parking lot across the street.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 25, 2012
Page 19
1 Commissioner poble: Has reservations about forcing one property owner to go to another
2 property owner for the purpose of using parking to meet the holiday peak parking demand
3 problem on another site.
4
5 Chair Pruden: The Commission cannot require a property owner to go to another property
6 owner to use a site for excess parking accommodations. What can be done is to make safe
7 crosswalks leaving the property so that if people are crossing to another parking lot by choice
8 they can do so in a safe fashion. The Planning Commission can make sure this happens. Added,
9 in the past it is not uncommon where the Commission has had projects especially in the older
10 sections of town that did not have sufficient parking accommodations onsite and were not
11 required to meet all of the parking requirements for the project. To this end, the applicant would
12 come in with a parking lease with a neighboring property owner so that the parking
13 needs/overflow parking for the applicant can be accommodated.
14
15 Commissioner Brenner: Referred to the mitigation measure in the EIR that requires a
16 pedestrian pathway or access across Commerce Drive and would this be Walmart's responsibility
17 to deal with a point of entry?
18
19 Chair Pruden: Asked if the question pertains to crossing from the south side of Walmart property
20 over to the Furniture Center parking lot?
21
22 Commissioner Brenner: Clarified, crossing from the south side of Commerce Drive and inquired
23 whether an exact location has been identified.
24
25 Staff: Confirmed this is a mitigation measure. The pathway has to be at the intersection of
26 Commerce Drive and Airport Park Boulevard and not mid-block and/or across from where the
27 Walmart driveways are located.
28
29 There was Commission discussion about considering adding a crosswalk mid-block on
30 Commerce Drive and/or in the vicinity where the Commerce Drive bus stop would be located.
31
32 Chair Pruden: Having the bus stop to be on the opposite of the street which is so frequently used
33 by Walmart customers allows them to jaywalk on Commerce Drive and walk in unsafe conditions.
34 The interface between the two driveways without crosswalks that link the stores north and south
35 is really a dangerous situation.
36
37 Commissioner Whetzel: If the bus stop is to be moved to the north side of Commerce Drive,
38 then there should be some kind of pedestrian walkway from the south side of Commerce Drive to
39 the bus stop instead of jaywalking or taking some other access route.
40
41 Commissioner Brenner: Understands the constraints of the site and when doing a site design
42 like this often times an entry from one store does not correspond with the front entry of the other
43 store in terms of pedestrian access. However, looking at the southern side of the site, there is a
44 pedestrian path at east side of Walmart's entry off of Commerce Drive. It is possible to link the
45 two sides of Commerce Drive for general safety purposes and facilitate a pedestrian pathway
46 between those two lots. While it is mid-block at the same time it links the two sites on either side
47 at the entryways. Accordingly then, it would be feasible to put an access point that would allow
48 pedestrians to also go to the bus stop. In the event there is holiday peak parking demand and the
49 concern that someone would park on the opposite lot, this person could get across Commerce
50 Drive without jaywalking or having to walk all the way to the end of the block to Airport Park
51 Boulevard to cross the street and/or even access the bus stop without having to walk to Airport
52 Park Boulevard and back down Commerce Drive provided this is viable.
53
54 Commissioner Sanders: It would be helpful to have a pedestrian circulation plan.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 25, 2012
Page 20
1 Commissioner Whetzel: Knowing where the bus stop is to be located would assist with planning
2 for pedestrian access and providing crosswalks and sidewalks.
3
4 There was Commission discussion about sidewalks.
5
6 Commissioner poble:
7 • Often times you see the pedestrian path of travel done in a more of a textured manner
8 not just stripes and it looks nice. It has a different surface so if a person is impaired,
9 he/she understands it is for use by pedestrians. The colorful dotted ADA ramp warns
10 handicapped persons they are approaching a traffic area/intersection. For a person to
11 know he/she is in that path/crosswalk is important. Likes the look of stamped concrete
12 and other type of textured surfacing that identifies pedestrian pathways/crosswalks. Such
13 materials have a function and/or purpose in that pathways provide for properly identified
14 pedestrian pathways and they are aesthetically pleasing. This amenity should be
15 incorporated into the landscape plan so the Commission can see how what this looks
16 like.
17 • Would like to see alternative approaches with how to deal with crosswalks other than
18 striping.
19
20 Chair Pruden: The site plan indicates for three exterior doors different materials for crosswalks
21 which will require clarification as to what the materials represent.
22
23 Commissioner Brenner: A crosswalk could have a `raised bump.'
24
25 Chair Pruden: There are many types of textured possibilities for crosswalks, such as pavers. The
26 opportunity exists to do something nice in front of the building.
27
28 Loading Space: No discussion
29
30 Bicycle Parking:
31
32 Chair Pruden: Does this apply to employees on duty or total number of employees of which
33 there are 240.
34
35 Staff:
36 • The number of spaces provided is based on the total number of employees and parking
37 spaces. Based on the total number of employees, 24 bike spaces would be required. The
38 standard for determining the number of bicycle racks is 1 for every 10 employees,
39 normally on the maximum shift, but UCC does not contain this language.
40 • Referred to staff's analysis that indicates 12 parking spaces are required for the 612
41 vehicle parking spaces plus 29 based on the number of employees. The project site plan
42 indicates bike racks on the south and west sides of the building, However, the exact
43 number of parking spaces is unknown. Based on the number of employees and parking
44 spaces, it appears that 41 bicycle parking spaces would be required. Transportation and
45 Traffic Mitigation Measure 4.10-3bA requires the project to comply with this requirement
46 and this mitigation measure would be carried forward as a condition of approval for the
47 project. A condition of approval would be included requiring the location, number and
48 style of bike rack to be included as part of the building permit plans and subject to staff
49 review and approval. The project description from the applicant (attachment 1) indicates
50 bike parking would be provided as required by the UCC.
51 • Typically for bicycle parking, there is a condition of approval for bike parking that requires
52 the applicant to submit the number of employees with the building permit plans. This
53 allows staff to verify the numbers so that staff can determine how many bike spaces are
54 required for the project. The City Zoning Ordinance requirements for bicycle parking differ
55 from those of the AIP Ordinance standards because the number of bicycle spaces in the
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 25, 2012
Page 21
1 Zoning Ordinance is based on the number of parking spaces rather than number of
2 employees and number of parking spaces.
3
4 Chair Pruden: Clarification is necessary regarding the number of bicycle racks. Flag this section.
5
6 Mary Anne Miller: Stated the public would like to discuss the Statement of Overriding
7 Considerations and asked if were possible to continue the discussion on the Site Development
8 Permit.
9
10 Chair Pruden: It is important the Planning Commission continue its review of the Site
11 Development Permit so that staff has the necessary direction to formulate the findings for Project
12 approval.
13
14 Commission: Determined they would not be able to get to discussion concerning the Statement
15 of Overriding Considerations at this meeting.
16
17 The Commission has questions of the applicant regarding bicycle parking.
18
19 AIP Ordinance 1098 Landscaping Requirements
20
21 Chair Pruden:
22 • The Commission recognizes requiring a minimum of 50% landscaping coverage in 10 years is not
23 working for the community and corresponding projects. To the greater shame of Walmart, it has
24 not met the 50% landscaping coverage in 17 years and they should have.
25 • The intent is to remove the Olive trees in the parking lot that have been excessively over-pruned.
26 • Would like to know who does the landscaping for Walmart. What practices are used to maintain
27 the landscaping.
28 • There is considerable knowledge and expertise regarding landscaping maintenance/care and
29 practices in this community.
30 • The shading in front of the building needs to be addressed. Accordingly, the Crape Myrtles will
31 not grow tall enough to adequately shade the building.
32 • This community has no experience with Cherry Laurels. This species needs to be looked at.
33 • If Chinese Pistache is chosen, it needs to be the male species and not the female species.
34 • The Red Plum trees that are currently in the front of the building do not need to be removed and
35 are proposed for removal. They have a nice canopy on them now and are aesthetically beautiful
36 in the spring.
37 • Is of the opinion the number of trees to be removed is basically to give the building more
38 exposure from the street.
39 • There is a nice grouping of trees along the outside curb on the northern side of the property,
40 which serves basically as a homeless encampment at certain times of the day.
41 • There is a nice growth of trees in the front of the site along Airport Park Boulevard. If she had the
42 choice of taking out the trees in favor of a sidewalk, she would rather have the trees stay in.
43 • Would put the sidewalk on the inside of the parking lot.
44 • The landscaping plan needs work. Is offended how the project with regard to landscaping for the
45 last 17 years has been handled on the site.
46 • Would like assurance that the landscaping will not be like it has been for the past 17 years at the
47 Walmart site.
48
49 Commissioner Sanders: Would like to know the number of trees planned for removal on the site. The
50 draft EIR indicates 65 existing trees will be removed. After going through the various documents, it
51 appears the number of trees for removal is 108 and would like clarification in this regard.
52
53 Staff: The number of trees for removal has been revised. Staff requested the landscape architect be
54 conservative as to the number of the trees that will or have to be removed due to their location in
55 expansion areas and those trees that would be negatively affected by construction impacts.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 25, 2012
Page 22
1 Commissioner Sanders: How many Valley Oaks will be retained?
2
3 Staff: Does not have this information readily at hand.
4
5 Chair Pruden:
6 • Does not see effective LID treatment for the parking lot. Tree wells are not particularly successful
7 in Ukiah's climate. The parking lot sustains a brutality of heat during the summer months, which
8 makes it very difficult with the isolation of trees in tree wells to thrive.
9 • Would like to see a continuous landscaping strip to get a more viable tree canopy in the parking
10 lot.
11
12 Commissioner poble: Asked about the Olive trees and whether they are salvageable.
13
14 Chair Pruden: These trees have been over zealously pruned. If a tree dies, it must be replaced. Proper
15 care/maintenance of trees is absolutely crucial as to whether or not the parking lot trees thrive.
16
17 Commissioner poble:
18 • Inquired if there is an alternative plan the applicant has prepared that addresses the 20%
19 landscaping requirement or has this aspect been ignored?
20 • Would like to see a landscaping plan incorporating 20°/o landscaping.
21 • It is important for the applicant to make a statement in this regard about the landscaping.
22
23 Planning Director Stump:
24 • Addressed the 20°/o landscaping requirement and noted the Planning Commission has granted
25 two modifications from the 20% landscaping requirement in the AIP and provided an explanation
26 of the circumstances where these occurred.
27
28 Commission:
29 • Would like to see the 20% landscaping requirement met for the Walmart Expansion Project.
30 • Agrees with the applicant's request to grant relief from the 50% shade coverage standard.
31
32 Chair Pruden asked if the Commission supports requiring a LID component built into the parking lot.
33
34 The applicant in Attachment 1 noted the following modifications to grading, drainage:
35 1. The existing sewer, water and storm drain service to the site will remain the same.
36 2. The modified areas of the parking lot and building expansion area will be directed to existing
37 storm drain facilities.
38 3. A portion of the existing onsite water line associated fire hydrant will be relocated on the north
39 side of the existing building.
40 4. A new grease interceptor will be installed for the grocery use in the building.
41 5. An existing sand oil interceptor will be removed with the automobile Tire & Lube Express.
42 6. The front drive aisle will be replaced and regraded to provide an at-grade entry at the entry
43 vestibules.
44 7. The areas adjacent to the building and within the expansion are will be graded to meet the
45 finish floor elevation.
46 8. Adjacent areas in the parking lot will be modified to provide proper transition for exiting.
47
48 Commissioner poble:
49 • Does not support going with the drainage plan for the site specific to the methodology for the
50 treatment of water runoff and requests some clarification from the project engineer.
51 • The treatment process/system must treat all of the parking lot not just a portion.
52 • The treatment area is located on the farthest southeast corner of the property as shown on GP-1
53 (Grading & Drainage Plan).
54 • The LID swale runs along the eastern portion of the property adjacent to a roadway that appears
55 to be treating or taking in some runoff from the building and parking lot.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 25, 2012
Page 23
1 • Assumes the water retention and storage calculation was prepared by the project engineer but
2 there is no reference.
3 • Does not see in the narrative where there is any indication that the proposed water treatment
4 devices actually have been look at.
5 • Is of the opinion water treatment devices should be looked at upfront for projects because a
6 significant difference can be made.
7 • Does the proposed drainage meet the Water Quality Treatment Standards set by the State
8 Regional Water Control Board.
9
10 Looking at SP-1 (Site Plan) that shows the pervious and impervious data and GP-1 (Drainage Plan) there
11 was Commission discussion concerning the drainage and location of where the water quality treatment
12 units that will be installed for the project:.
13 • Questions regarding how the treatment system appears to be only treating one side of the site
14 that is connected to the existing storm drain system that runs along the frontage of the building.
15 • The treatment is sub-surface.
16 • Questioned how effective drainage is to occur in the parking lot with just the use of inlets in front
17 of the building that are picking up water runoff from the entire parking lot.
18 • Is the proposed drainage plan adequate to handle water runoff from the building and parking lot
19 in terms of appropriately handling retention and discharge?
20 • Where is the discharge?
21
22 There was discussion concerning drainage on the site in conjunction with the existing/proposed contour
23 line, ridge/swale line, existing/proposed storm drain line, existing improvements that will remain and new
24 improvements to be installed and how this would all function.
25
26 Commissioner poble: The discharge is located in the swale adjacent to the freeway. There is a swale
27 located on the freeway right-of-way and parallel to the area to be used for Low Impact Development (LID)
28 and/or runoff reduction (detention) improvements as shown on GP-1. This swale is existing. The LID area
29 is not existing.
30
31 There was Commission discussion whether or not the applicant should be held to the 20% landscape
32 requirement. There were some concerns that other projects have been granted relief and/or exemptions
33 from the 20% landscaping requirement. However, it was noted such relief in other cases cannot be
34 compared and/or used against this project. It has been made clear that relief from the standard would be
35 considered case-by-case according to site conditions and/or other types of issues. There may be
36 alternative landscaping options that can be considered for the Walmart Site Development Permit.
37
38 Commissioner Whetzel would like clarification regarding the Grading and Drainage Plan as he is unable
39 to locate the proposed storm drain line.
40
41 Commissioner Sanders asked how the Commission views permeable paving for the Project. The
42 California Regional Quality Control Board will be recommending best management practices be applied
43 to the Project.
44
45 Chair Pruden: Permeable surfacing/paving is not codified. City Public Works Department does not
46 require it for projects. It is a good idea, but is unsure whether it can be required. As an alternative, what
47 typically occurs is the Planning Commission typically asks applicants if they would be willing to consider
48 doing permeable paving for their parking lots.
49
50 Commissioner poble: In terms of site layout and what we are looking at to evaluate, permeable
51 pavement does not have much potential to change where the parking is, how much landscaping there will
52 be and those kinds of things. While he supports the application of permeable paving approach for parking
53 lots, is more concerned about making sure the bio-swale is large enough/long enough or the bio-retention
54 area works or the storm water quality unit is not the size of a truck. These are the things that can affect
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 25, 2012
Page 24
1 the site layout. The Planning Commission needs to know upfront what is going to affect the site and what
2 will not. Recommends getting feedback from the applicant in this regard.
3
4 Staff: Even though permeable paving is not a City requirement, it is not prohibited so long as it meets
5 Public Works standards including the needs of emergency vehicles and other relevant applicable
6 factors/criteria.
7
8 Commissioner poble: How would the Commission deal with a change to the site plan, even a small
9 change that affected the landscaping or the location of certain key features if the applicant got into the
10 detail design and discovered the Project cannot meet certain standards such as the Water Quality
11 Treatment standards and the site plan has to be changed. Does this mean the project has to come back
12 to the Planning Commission?
13
14 Staff: The plans have to be in substantial conformance with the original approval. It would, however,
15 depend upon the degree of the change so every small change does not have to come back to the
16 Commission.
17
18 Chair Pruden: What if the applicant offered to do permeable surfacing would this change the LID
19 approach?Would there be no necessity then for water treatment? There would still be the runoff from the
20 building.
21
22 Commissioner poble: Would like to be assured the Project site plans have been looked at in enough
23 detail it is not going to change and would like the applicant to address this.
24
25 Sign Requirements
26 - Signage
27 - Freeway Facing Signs
28 - Sign Illumination
29 - Sign Area
30
31 Commission: Is the applicant asking for a freeway facing sign?
32
33 Staff: Noted the applicant already has a freeway facing sign and the section addressing this matter is
34 included in the staff report. What it essentially says is if there is a freeway facing sign, the Planning
35 Commission needs to approve it as part of the Site Development Permit. A project should not have a
36 freeway facing sign unless it is part of the Site Development Permit. Staff is just acknowledging that
37 Walmart has a freeway facing sign and the project includes a freeway facing sign. Other businesses
38 in the AIP also have freeway facing signs.
39
40 Commissioner Whetzel: Will the freeway facing sign remain the same or will there be some
41 modification?
42
43 Staff: The design looks similar, but recommended the applicant more specifically address signage.
44 Page 7 of Attachment 1 does talk about the signage modifications. The Walmart signs at the front and
45 rear elevation will be internally lit by LED.
46
47 The Commission made no other comments pertinent to the section on signage.
48
49 Table 5: Desiqn Guidelines for Proiect Outside the Downtown Desiqn District Consistencv
50 - Site Features
51 - Coordination
52 - Pedestrian Access
53 - Parking Lots
54 - Landscaping
55 - Signs
56 - Lighting
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 25, 2012
Page 25
1 - Visual Appearance
2 - Walkable and Bikeable Communities
3 - Energy Conservation
4 - Green Building
5 - Visitability and Universal Design
6 - Maintenance
7
8 Chair Pruden:
9 • Addressed `pedestrian access' and in her travels to Florida has noticed that parking lots virtually
10 have a sidewalk down the middle and this is very convenient. This approach is effective with
11 stopping the interface between pedestrians and vehicles.
12 • For the Walmart site, there could be a sidewalk in the middle of the site. Why is the
13 sidewalk/pathway so far from the door?
14 • There appears to be plans for a sidewalk at the south end of the site.
15 • Does not see what point it serves to have a sidewalk at the south end of the site. Sidewalks
16 should be close to and/or connect with a doorway.
17
18 There was Commission discussion about the best and most feasible location for sidewalks in terms of
19 adequately accommodating customers and customers that are handicapped. The sidewalk/pathway down
20 the middle of the site was identified as the pedestrian walkway for handicapped persons.
21
22 There was no further Commission discussion of Table 5. The Commission requested the applicant
23 answer questions regarding Tables 4 and 5.
24
25 Stanley Iverson, TAIT and Associates, Applicant and Project Civil Engineer Consultant referred to
26 the site plans and addressed site access, location of sidewalks and planter strip areas, different textures
27 for pathways, lighting fixtures and lighting on poles in the parking lot, parking, plans for grading drainage
28 and corresponding water treatment facilities to address incremental runoff and location of storm drain line.
29
30 There was a lengthy Commission discussion with staff, Project Civil Engineer Stanley Iverson and Project
31 Architect Charles Jordan representing the Architecture Firm Shane O'Brien, Project Attorney Miriam
32 Montesinos, and Walmart stores representative Deborah Herron regarding the Project:
33
34 Deborah Herron, Walmart:
35 • Employees are encouraged to park on the north side of the site. There was discussion relative to
36 attachment 3 of the staff report and the `Employer Trip Reduction Strategies Implementation Plan'
37 and whether or not this program is in effect. The applicant acknowledged the program is in effect
38 and that there are different trip reduction strategies options available. The Program Support
39 Strategy outlines the specifics about how rideshare works and is maintained.
40
41 Commission:
42 • Not supportive of any more on-site parking other than what has been allocated.
43 • Past practices regarding care/maintenance of the landscaping has been a failure.
44 • Asked about the building overhangs and questioned why the site plans indicate the canopy tilts
45 upward with regard to providing adequate shade coverage and what possible measures can be
46 taken to better provide for more shade to the front of the store.
47 • Provide for employee area, preferably on south side of building.
48 • Can the building accommodate solar if the community decided this was important?
49 • Widening of sidewalks to 6 feet and ways to get more sidewalks on site.
50 • Supports granting the applicanYs request for relief from the tree shade coverage standard of
51 being allowed to meet the 50% shade coverage requirement within 15 years of planting as
52 opposed to 10 years as part of the approval for the Site Development Permit.
53 • Need a replacement species for Crape Myrtle. Use male Chinese Pistache trees rather than
54 female.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 25, 2012
Page 26
1 • Architectural articulation regarding roll-up doors for the garden center, possibly provide for
2 canopy on the north elevation; Other possible architectural articulation to enhance the
3 appearance.
4 • Applicant revise the renderings to depict architectural modifications.
5 • Consideration for stamped and/or colored concrete at the pedestrian crossing areas in front of the
6 store and show the pedestrian access facilities on the site plan.
7 • Revise the landscaping plan to show how the site and/or what the building footprint would look
8 with a 20% landscaping coverage and how an increase in the landscaping for the site can be
9 accomplished.
10 • Revise the site plan to also include alternative locations for the bus stop.
11 • Staff consulting with the City Engineer regarding a possible new mid-block crosswalk linking the
12 stores north and south of Commerce Drive and determine if there is a rationale for a crosswalk
13 mid-block in the vicinity of the Commerce Drive bus stop.
14 • Provide more information about the storm water treatment unit, site drainage and how applicant is
15 to effectively address runoff from the building/parking in terms of retention and discharge and the
16 capturing of pollutants.
17 • Provide for tees on the east side to screen the rear of the building.
18
19 The following additional information was specifically requested of the applicant by the Planning
20 Commission specific to attachment 1 in order to more fully understand the project:
21
22 1. Revise the western elevation to modify the upward sloping canopies to more typical downward
23 sloping canopies/awnings. Provide more shade on the western elevation particularly at store
24 entrances, and change the type of shade trees at the front of the store.
25 2. Revise the north elevation of the building in the vicinity of the roll-up doors to the indoor garden
26 center on the north elevation to provide more building articulation
27 3. Regarding the site plan, show an outside employee lounge area with design amenities (benches,
28 etc.)
29 4. Regarding the site plan, show/highlight the pedestrian access facilities and/or Pedestrian Access
30 Plan.
31 5. Provide for/use stamped and/or colored textured concrete for the pedestrian areas in front of the
32 access points to the building
33 6. Consult with Public Works and consider adding a mid-block crosswalk on Commerce Drive. The
34 intent is to provide for a new crosswalk linking the stores north and south of Commerce Drive.
35 Consider whether mid-block crosswalks are feasible, particularly for one in the vicinity of the
36 Commerce Drive bus stop and what would have to occur in this regard.
37 7. Use more tree planting strips in the parking lot rather than individual tree planting wells.
38 8. Provide information regarding tree location in regards to the detention area on the northeast
39 corner of the site.
40 9. Provide a site plan schematic showing how the 20% landscaping coverage could be achieved
41 (reduced parking, reduced building footprint, etc.) and show what compliance would look like with
42 20% landscaping coverage with calculations taking into account the bus stop pad and 6-foot wide
43 sidewalks.
44 It was noted the applicant is requesting relief from the tree shade coverage standard.
45 10. Consult with Public Works and the MTA retarding relocation of the bus stop shelter to the east
46 side of the entry driveway on Commerce Drive.
47 11. Submit an exhibit that provides details about the proposed LID improvements. Provide
48 information regarding the storm water treatment unit at the southeast corner of the site.
49 12. Regarding the Landscape Plan, add trees to the east side of the building to screen it more from
50 the highway.
51
52 The applicant agreed to provide the information to the best of its ability to the Commission including
53 submitting revised renderings depicting the architectural modifications requested by the Commission.
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 25, 2012
Page 27
1 Due to the time limitation, the Planning Commission did not have an opportunity to discuss and deliberate
2 on the Statement of Overriding Considerations and by consensus continued discussion of the Site
3 Development Permit, landscaping modifications, and Statement of Overriding Considerations to the
4 regular February 8, 2012 meeting.
5
6 Staff noted the Commission as part of the process will be required to undertake the task of developing the
7 specific site development permit findings.
8
9 10. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
10 None.
11
12 11. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
13 None.
14
15 12. ADJOURNMENT
16 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:16 p.m.
17
18
19 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
20
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 25, 2012
Page 28
1 UKIAH PL.ANNING COMMISSION
2 February 8, 2012
3 Minutes
4
5 CQMMISSIONERS PRESENT GOMMISSIONERS ABSENT
6 Judy Pruden, Chair None
7 Jason Brenner
8 Kevin Dobie
9 Linda Sanders
10 Mike Whetzel
11
12 STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
13 Charley Stump, Planning Director Listed below, Respectively
14 Jennifer Faso, Associate Planner
15 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
16
1? 1. CALL TO QRDER '
18 The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was calied to order by
19 Chair Pruden at 6:00 p.m. in the Councii Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue,
20 Ukiah, California, '
21
22 2. RO�L CALL
23
24 3. P�EDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Everyone cited.
25
26 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — The minutes from the December 14, 2Q11, December 20, 2011,
27 January 11, 2012 and January 25, 2012 meetings will be available for review and approval at the
28 February 22, 2012 meeting. '
29
30 5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
31 !
32 6. APPEAL PROCESS—Chair Pruden read the appeal process. For matters heard at this meeting, '
33 the final date to appeal is Monday, February 21, 2012 at 5:00 p.m.
34
35 7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION -Site visit for agenda item 9B was verified. '
36
37 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE — Agenda item 9A was properly noticed in accordance with the
38 provisions of the Ukiah Municipal Code.
39 '
40 9. PUBLIC HEARING
41 9A. Walmart Expansion Project Environmental Impact Report (File Nos.: 09-28-SDP-PC and 09-
42 42-EIR-PC)). Conduct a public hearing, receive public comment, provide Planning Commission '
43 comment, and provide direction to staff on the Walmart Expansion Project 1) Major Site
44 Development Permit and associated modifications to landscaping requirements, and 2}
45 Statement of Overriding Consideratians. The Project is located at 1155 Airport Park Boulevard, '
46 APN 180-070-38, in the Airport Industrial Park Planned Development {AIP PD). The project
47 proposes a 47,621 square foot expansion of the existing 109,030 square foot store, for a total
48 square footage of 156,651 to include expanded general merehandise floor area and expanded
49 grocery sales floor area, indoor and outdoor garden centers, as well as the possibility of distilled
50 alcohol sales, and a medical clinic and/or vision center on a 13.44 acre site. Also included as part
51 of the project is a change in store hours to 24 hours per day, seven days per week, modifications
52 to the design of the exteriar of the building, the addition of a new parking spaces, modifications to
53 the landscaping, and other associated site improvements. , i
54 The praposed Project requires approval of a Major Site Development Permit, finro modifications to '
55 the AIP PD landscaping requirements, and adaptian af a Statement af Overriding Considerations.
MINUTES OF THE P�ANNING COMMISSION February 8, 2012 '
Page 1 '
1 As part of the Major Site Development Permit, the Planning Commission will consider the
2 applicant's request for approval of modifications to the AIP PD landscaping requirements far
3 landscaping lot coverage and shade coverage. Approval of the project would aiso require a .
4 Statement of Overriding Consideration for the significant and unavoidable Traffic Impacts
5 identified in the Walmart Expansion EIR. This item was continued from the November 9, 2011,
6 December 14, 2011, January 11, 2012, and the January 25, 2012 Planning Commission
7 meetings.
8
9 Planning Director Stump:
10 • The purpose of tonight's meeting is to pick up where we left off at the January 25, 2012 regular
11 meeting. Rccordingly, at the January 25 meeting, the Commission opened the public hearing for
12 the Walmart Site Development Permit and associated landscaping modifieations, received public
13 comment, received a presentation from the applicants and began deliberations on the Site '
14 Development Permit.
15 • Due to time constraints,the Commission did not have an opportunity to discuss and deliberate on
16 the Statement of Overriding Considerations.
17 • After considerabie discussion on the Site Develapment Permit, the Commission developed a list
18 of additional information it needs to fuily understand the project. The appiicant agreed to provide
19 the information to the best of its ability.
20 • The Commission requested the applicant provide the following information in response to the
21 information in Attachment No. 1 of the staff report:
22 1. Revise the western elevation to modify the upward sloping canopies to a more typical ',
23 downwa�d sloping canopies/awnings. This was deemed important for shading on the western
24 side af the building. ,
25 2. Revise the north elevation of the building in the vicinity of the roil-up doors to provide more
26 building articulation.
27 3. With regard to the site plan, show an outside employee lounge area with design amenities to '
28 include benches, etc. ',
29 4. With regard to the site plan, show/highiight the pedestrian access facilities and/or a
30 Pedestrian Access Plan.
31 5. Use textured concrete for the pedestrian areas in front of the access points to the building.
32 6. Discuss with Public Works and the MRA about relocating the bus shelter further east.
33 7. Discuss with Public Works about considering the adding a mid-block crosswalk on
34 Cammerce Drive. '
35 8. Use more tree planting strips in the parking lot rather than individual tree planting wells:
36 9. Recalculate the landscaping coverage taking into account the bus shelter and 6-foot wide
37 walkways. !
38 10. Provide a site plan representation showing how the 20% landscaping coverage could be !
39 achieved with a reduced parking and building fobtprint, etc., that would indicate what
40 compliance with the 20% landscaping coverage would look like.
41 11. Submit an exhibit that provides details about the proposed LID impravements. !
42 12. With regard to the Landscape Plan, add trees to the east side of the building to screen it
43 more from the highway.
44 • The applicant has cammitted to providing this informatian for tonight's meeting and will provide a
45 presentation on the information submitted and the changes made to the project in response to the '
46 Commission's January 25`h requests.
47 « The Commission will open the public hearing and focus on the information provided that was
4$ requested at the January 25 meeting. After review of the Site Development Permit and the
49 applicant's new approach to landscaping/landscaping modificatians staff requests the '
50 Commission discuss the Statement of Overriding Consideratians and provide direction to staff.
51 The Commission will take public statements concerning the Statement of Overriding Conditions
52 • The Ukiah Municipal Code requires that findings be made in order to apprave the Site
53 Development Permit and these are includes on pages 3 and 4 of the staff report.
54 • There have been considerable requests about traffic mitigations that involve California
55 Department of Transportation and City staff and referred to a letter from the Department of
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 8,2012
Page 2 '
1 Transportation dated January 25, 2012 in which concerns were expressed with the adequacy of
2 the EIR and City's findings for making a determination of Overriding Considerations for the
3 praject's significant impacts. Caltrans requested the following comments be made known to the
4 Planning Commission:
5 1. Caltrans has permit authority over the design of traffic mitigation measures within Caltrans
6 right-of-way.
7 2. Previous comments regarding the DEIR for this project attempted to identify where the traffic
$ analysis did not conform to Caltrans standards and where the results of the analysis will not
9 support the design of praposed traffic mitigafiian measures.
10 3. The deficiencies in the analysis may be critical in identifying the project's impacts as well as
11 the appropriate mitigation.
12 4. Based on the identified deficiencies, Caltrans does not have confidence that the project's
13 impacts have been adequately defined as well as significant remaining concerns that the
14 appropriate traffic mitigation has not been identified.
15 5. As presented, the project will likely result in significant impacts, inciuding congestian and/or '
16 traffic safety impacts that require a Statement of Overriding Considerations:
17 6. Recommends the City withhold approval of the project or issuance of a building permit until
18 feasibie mitigation measures with cost estimates are determined for both direct and
19 cumulative impacts. '
20 7. Offers to assist the City to ensure that the interest of the traveling public is served.
21 • City staff has been in contact with Caltrans about their letter and corresponding concems and
22 indicated to them that staff is developing more detailed information about alternatives that may
23 solve the traffic impact problems in the event the AIP builds out. As part of the process, staff is
24 trying to identify funding sources to make necessary improvements to infrastructure in the area. !
25 The lack af funding sources is the reason why the impacts were significant and unavoidable. In
26 the near future there should be some more detailed information about the mitigatian program and
27 potential funding sources for the program.
28 • No action will be taken tonight on the Site Development Permit and associated landscaping
29 modifications and Statement on Overriding Considerations.
30
31 Standley iverson, TAIT and Associates addressed the requests made by the Commissian at the
32 previous meeting and addressed corresponding madifications:
33 1. Provide more shade on the western elevation, particularly at the entrances, and change the type
34 of shade trees at the front of the store.
35 Modification
36 All vestibule canopies will slope down away from the building instead of sloping up, which results
37 in lowering the front edge of the canopy by 31/2 feet, bring the overhand down closer to the
38 pedestrians and providing them with better shade coverage.
39
40 Crape Myrtle trees have been changed and wiil instali Trident Maple trees instead.
41 The new Chinese Pistache trees wili be all male.
42 Noted Cherry Laurel is actually Flowering Plum.
43
44 2. Provide articulate at the roll-up doors to the indoor garden center on the North elevation.
45 Modification
46 A standing seam canopy supported by columns with cultured stone wrapped bases will be
47 provided.
48 The canopy will be similar in design ta the canopy that will be provided on the south elevation at
49 the outside employee break area.
50 3. Provide an outside area for employees with design amenities, i.e., benches
51 Modifieation
52 An outside employee break area will be provided on the south side of the building. It will include a
53 standing seam canopy supported by columns with cultured stone wrapped bases similar in design
54 to the canopy that will be provided on the north elevation. This canopy will shade an area that
55 covers 3 of the proposed bicycle racks and 2 picnic tables with benches.
56 4. Show the p�d��tri�n acc���faciliti��on th��ite plan
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 8, 2012
Page 3
1 Modification
2 Pedestrian access facilities were shown on the attached updated site plan. The sidewalks have
3 been widened to 6 feet
4 5. Provide stamped and/or colored concrete at the pedestrian crossing areas in front of the store.
5 Modification
6 New decarative concrete with MUTCD striping will be provided at the pedestrian crossing areas in
7 front of the 3 building entry points.
8 6. Relocate the bus stop to the east side of the entry driveway on Gommerce Drive.
9 Modification
10 The bus stop with MRA provided bus shelter will be relocated to the east side of the Commerce '
11 Drive entrance. A sidewalk connection has been provided for pedestrian access to the bus stop.
12 An alternative location for this bus stop is an the west side of Commerce Drive.
13 7. Provide a crosswalk mid-block on Commerce Drive
14 Modification
15 A new mid-block crosswalk on Commerce Drive, near the proposed bus stop will be provided.
16 This location is beyond the Walmart driveway and provides for easier connection to existing
17 sidewaik on the south side of Commerce Drive.
18 8. Considered different ways to meet the 20% landscape requirement with calculations taking into
19 account the bus stop pad and 6-foot wide sidewalks. Warked with the City Fire Department and '
20 Gity Planning staff to reduce the width of the fire lane.
21 Modification '
22 Grass turf surtaces will be provided at the rear store fire lane and the head-in parking stails along
23 Airpart Park Boulevard. The inciusion of these grass turf surFace areas allows the project to meet '
24 the 20% landscaping requirement. The project will provide 2Q.1% landscaping. Grasspave is a !
25 porous pavement product that allows parking, riding, driving, and walking on a live grass surface.
26 This product would be used on the 20-foot wide fire access lane behind the building and along
27 the parking stalls fronting Airport Park Boulevard. If the Commission accepts this product as
28 landscaping, the percentage of landscaping on the site wouid increase to 10.1%
29 9. Provide information regarding the storm water treatment unit atthe sautheast corner of the site.
30 Modification
31 The project will install a 8' x 16' Storm Fiiter treatment vault whereby drainage shed map, sizing
32 calculations and project details are provided.
33 10. Provide information regarding tree location in regards to the detention area on the northeast '
34 corner of the site. I
35 Modification
36 The project will install all new trees outside the proposed bioretention area. This area
3"7 configuration has been modified to avaid existing trees that are to be retained. Bioretention area '
38 shed map, sizing calculations, and other informational details are provided.
39 11. Provide additional trees on the east side to screen the rear of the stare.
40 Modification
41 Additianal trees will be added to screen the rear of the store with an emphasis on screening the
42 loading dock area.
43 '
44 Additional information: '
45 • Information is being provided regarding the adequacy of the tree wells in the parking lot since
46 concern was expressed by the Commission.
47 • Walmart will provide information to Sonoma Sweepers about carelmaintenance of the parking lot
48 trees and other landscaping related duties. '
49 '
50 There was discussion what landscaping features were included as part of the 20.1% and whether the
51 landscaping ealculations have been updated in this regard.
52
53 Chair Pruden: '
54 Q1. Requested clarification regarding the meandering sidewalk an the west side and whether a '
55 porous material has been selected for this. '
MINUTES OF THE PL.ANNING COMMISSION February 8, 2012
Page 4 '
1 Q2. In terms af landscaping, sod is shown to be removed in different areas for parking lot expansion.
2 Will some of older sod that is not affected by parking going to be removed and if so, will
3 GrassPave be used?
4 Q3. Requested clarification that sod will not be removed unless it is necessary for parking.
5 Q4. Requested clarification the frontage lane between the parking lot and the building will remain the
6 same width.
7 Q5. Is there any particular reason the Plum Trees located at the terminus of the property line on the
8 east side of the site ean remain?
9 ,
10 Standiey Iverson:
11 A1. The meandering sidewalk will not be of porous material. The sidewaik width will be 6 feet
12 consisting of normai concrete per City standards.
13 A2. The sod areas being removed are located behind the store and demonstrated the specific
14 locations on the site plan.
15 A3. Confirmed sod will not be removed unnecessarily and will only be removed for parking and the
16 transition to grade. ;
17 A4. There is no change to the width. ,
18 A5. The trees will not be retained due to changes made to the site in this area that will result in a new '
19 drive aisle. The changes that will be made to the elevation cannot suppart retention of the trees '
20 as they currently exist. With the changes the tree welis would be below the grade surface. !
21
22 Commissioner Whetzel: Asked why his request for a site plan showing how the 20% landscaping
23 coverage could be achieved with reduced parking, reduced building footprint, etc., and what a 20°l0
24 landscaping coverage would look like was not provided? !
25
26 Chair Pruden; The applicant was obviously not willing to reduce the building footprint and proposed the
27 use of grasspave in the fire access lane behind the building and along the parking stalis fronting Airport
28 Park Boulevard to achieve the 20% landscaping.
29
30 Chair Pruden: Asked that commenters speak only about the changes the applicant has proposed for the
31 project.
32
33 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED; 6:20 p.m.
34
35 Dennis Slota:
36 • Is a storm water specialist for the County.
3� • Has discussed the Walmart Expansion Project with the State Regional Water Quality Contral ' -
38 Board and the comments made on behalf af this agency is that the Project does not meet their
39 standards.
40 • The State Regional Water Control Baard is interested in commenting on this project and would
41 like ta be advised of the outcome. I
42 • Has presented the agency with the revised plans.
43 • Would like to comment on the Grassturf surface and storm water treatment.
44 • Does not support the use of the GrassPave. The technique and materiais used involve
45 formulating a compact subgrade which is essentially 'soil concrete' in which sand and gravel is ',
46 compacted with the application of a piastie grid on top, more sand and fertilizer followed by a thin
47 turf.
48 • What will occur is water will permeate 2 inches down into the ground, hit the subgrade and
49 essentially run harizontally aut carrying with it the fertilizer that will then go to the storm drain
50 filters. '
51 • Storm drain filters are cansidered the most expensive and the least effective storm water
52 treatment mechanism. '
53 • This is a lose, lose situation. There wouid be approximately 30 cartridges to change using the
54 storm drain filter system. ',
MINUTES OF THE P�ANNING COMMISSION February 8, 2012 '
Page 5 '
1 • Will Walmart effectively manage this storm water filter system and actually change the filters
2 when necessary. We have aiready seen how paorly Walmart maintained/cared for the
3 landscaping on the site, particularly the parking lot trees. What assurance will we have that
4 Waimart will properiy maintain their filters and change them routinely. We do not know whether or
5 not the filters will be disposed of properly. Filters may be considered hazardous waste, which af
6 course, adds to the cost.
7 • With regard to site changes and the tree wells being belaw the grade surface, this is exactly what
8 should occur. We want the curbs to be removed and allow the parking to infiltrate into vegetation
9 and/ortrees. The subgrade would have to broken up because all this has been compacted, which
10 is part of the reason no vegetation grows.
11 • There are many ways to perform �ow Impact Development {�ID) on this site, some of which is
12 being done on the back portion of the property with the bio-swale. There is still much more that
13 can be done that is not being discussed. For example, there is no reason the meandering
14 sidewalk cannat be porous instead of concrete/asphalt. We do not want black surtaces. There is
15 enough heat generated from parking lots. Walmart could reduce the amount of heat impacts ta '
16 the community generated from their parking lot by using a lighter material and/or the application '
17 of porous paving and/or other options.
18 • Has concern about the proposed lighting system with regard to eompliance with the International
19 Dark Sky Association standards.
20 • D`oes not support the store would be open 24-hours daily. Is of the opinion this disrupts family life I
21 and the character of the community.
22
23 Commissioner poble: '
24 • Appreciates Mr. Slota's comments regarding storm water treatment.
25 • Regarding discussions with the State Regianal Water Quality Control Board, since the project is
26 disturbing more than an acre it would follow that the project would be required to go through this
27 Board for permit purposes. Would this then be the opportunity for the State Water Board to
28 review the project?
29 • Requested clarification that the State Water Board requires water balance on the site for all new
30 impervious surfaces for the expansion and cannot move forward with the praject without '
31 compliance with the regulation?
32
33 Dennis Slota:
34 • Is of the opinion we are getting pretty far along in the process for the State to make camments. It
35 would seem the Board would be involved at this stage. '
36 • Agrees there should be discussions now. !
37 • Is not familiar with all Board regulations relevant to the water balance issue. The Board's
38 comments were directed toward storm water treatment:
39
40 Susan Knopf:
41 • Asked about the City Code landscaping coverage percentage and whether turf surface would be '
42 counted as part of the landscaping percentage.
43 • How many trees are required for the project and how many are proposed?
44 • Supports retention of the Plum trees. '
45 '
46 Chair Pruden: The landscaping coverage requirement is 20%. A determination will have to be made '
47 whether or not the turf surface is acceptable as a landscaping component. At this point the 20.1°lo does
48 include the turf surfaces.
49
50 One tree is required for every 4 parking spaces for this project as well as with campliance with the 20%
51 landseaping coverage requirement. The number of trees is related to the size of the project and
52 associated percentages of landscaping that includes grass, shrubs, bushes, plants and trees. The '
53 applicant is planting more trees than what currently exists on the site. '
54 '
55 Sandra Wilhite: '
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 8, 2012
Page 6 '
1 • Would like to see more trees in the parking lot.
2 • Supports changes to the trees species for the parking lot.
3 • Regarding tighting, the parking lot lighting should be bright enough for safety purposes. Is not so
4 much concerned with the height of the light as she is about safety precautions taken in the
5 parking lot.
6
7 Terry Silky:
8 • Commented on some of the visionary objectives for Ukiah that includes the respansible use of
9 natural resources and freedom from unnecessary traffic and noise.
10 • Removal of the Pium trees counteracts a visionary objective.
11
12 Alan Nicholson:
13 • Allowing Walmart the ability to plant the parking lot with grass surfacing virtually eliminates all the
14 rest of the landscaping required not oniy at Walmart but for any commercial/retail establishment
15 in town.
16 • GrassPave will not likely stand up to car parking.
17 • Gontacted a business that manufactures turf surfacing and noted the representative does nofi
1$ recommend this type of product for a retail parking lot. Too many cars driving over the surfacing '
19 will eventually kill the grass. Walmart has a lot of traffic so it is doubtful the turf surfacing will hold
20 up.
21 • The use of turF surface is a really drastic measure to take to comply with City landscaping
22 standards. !
23 • Reviewed the landscaping requirements for the Project and noted AIP Ordinance 1098 items a-q '
24 talks about those requirements. Speeifically, item g states, `Landscape plantings shall be those
25 which grow well in Ukiah's climate without extensive irrigation. Native species are strongly
26 encouraged.'ltem h, states `All landscape plantings shall be of sufficient size, health and intensity
27 so that a viable and mature appearance can be attained in three years.' Is of the opinion the turF
28 surface would be dead within three years. Walmart is notoriaus for not maintaining their
29 landscaping.
30 • it is not appropriate for Ukiah ta recognize GrassPave as a proper landscaping product and that it
31 complies with Ukiah's landscaping objectives.
32
33 James Hageman:
34 • Is the manager of Food Maxx.
35 • Daes not agree that Walmartallows loitering on the northeast portion of the site because this has
36 an effect on his store.
37 • Specifically recalls Commissioner Whetzel requesting the applicant provide a sehematic site plan
38 showing how the building footprint would look having to comply with the City's 20% landscaping '
39 standard.
40 • Does not support relocating the bus stop to the side where Walmart is located. Food Maxx '
41 customers would then have to cross the street to access the bus stop. The current location of the '
42 bus stop is appropriate and works fine for his customers that he sees on a daily basis. '
43 • Addressed the Commission's discussion about how Walmart should handle overflow parking, '
44 particularly during peak shopping periods.
45 • Does not agree with the shared parking coneept with other tenants to meet peak shopping
46 periods wherein such a solution is grossly unfair. Food Maxx and the ather tenants pay their
47 property taxes and the cost of maintaining the parking lot. There is no just cause to ask the other
48 tenants/property owners in our shopping center to subsidize the parking needs for Walmart
49 customers should Walmart have insufficient parking to accommodate its customers during peak
50 shopping periods even thaugh Waimart meets their parking requirements. To this end, it is '
51 Walmart's responsibility to modify the site plans by possibiy making the building footprint smaller '
52 to be able to effectively address their parking needs, particularly during peak shapping periods.
53 • Is concerned that Walmart would be ailowed to expand to include a grocery department that is
54 likely to have a negative impact on Food Maxx. His employees make a gaod living wage. '
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 8, 2012
Page 7 !
1 Debbie Vinsan:
2 • Supports retention of the Plum Trees and if this is not possible would, as a member of the Ukiah
3 Garden Club, be willing to take them for planting in another location.
4
5 Julia Wood:
6 • Noticed Walmart has made same positive changes for the project and cited some of these
7 changes that include crosswalk provisions and the addition of trees that do not present a safety
8 hazard to pedestrians.
9 • The only solution far relocating the bus stop is to put it in another bus stop. There is really no
10 need to relocate the existing bus stop if an appropriately marked crosswalk is installed at the
11 present location. Relocation of the bus stop ta the Walmart side creates a problem for people in
12 the adjacent shopping center.
13
14 Alan Nicholson: If City code requires 1 tree for every 4 parking spaces, questioned why Walmart
15 landscaping plans indicate 1 tree for every 8 spaces. '
16
17 Chair Pruden: Wiil check on this aspect.
18
19 Derek: Allowing for a Walmart Supercenter would take away from the smali town character Ukiah has.
20
21 PUBLIC HEARING C�CISED: 6:52 p.m.
22 '
23 Chair Pruden: Asked staff if MTA initiated the change in the location of the bus stop or did Walmart '
24 approach MTA about a change. It may be moving the bus stop over to the Walmart side of the street may
25 be for safety reasons.
26
27 Planning Director Stump: Is almost certain MTA proposed the change. There was correspondence from
28 MTA dated September 7, 2011 talking about the existing bus stop relative to safety and other factors.
29
30 Commissioner poble:
31 • Asked about the solar array project.
32 • This is an architecturai feature to look at. '
33 • The solar array project did not come up in the presentation from the applicant and is of the
34 opinion the Commission should be made aware of this project.
35 • Desires some information about this project.
36
37 Planning Director Stump:
38 • Advised the solar array is a separate project.
39 • Does not know the details of the design.
40 • The Building Permit application just came in for the solar array project.
41
42 Deborah Herron,Walmart Public Affairs !
43 • The solar application that was submitted to the City Building Department last week is from a
44 company that Walmart works with for solar roofs. This matter is separate from the Walmart '
45 Expansion Project. I
46 • The appiicant was not asked to address the aspects of #he solar array application for today's
47 meeting.
48 • The intent was to show that Walmart is making a good faith effort so that the Commission could
49 see what a solar application wouid look like on the existing roof. '
50 • Wanted to make certain that the application as it was submitted is not finalized. Whether or not '
51 the solar project is finalized depends upon the outcome of the Expansion Project:
52
53 Commissianer Whetzel: Is of the opinion the solar project is cannected ta the Walmart Expansion
54 Project or it is now that the Commission has been made aware. Is assuming the building will be expanded '
55 and the solar array installed at the same time to save costs.
MINUTES OF THE P�ANNING COMMISSION February 8, 2012 '
Page 8
1 Deborah Herron: if the Expansion Project is approved, the solar array project will follow.
2
3 Commissioner Whetzel: It would be nice to see some kind of site plan that includes this feature. If there
4 is to be an expansion containing a solar panel, the Commission would want to review the plans.
5
6 Deborah Herron:
7 • If the Expansion Project is approved the applicant would come back to the City with the solar plan
8 that wouid include the expanded raof and the expanded building.
9 • Clarified what is filed right now is the solar plan for the existing building.
10
11 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
12
13 Deborah Herron provided a presentation:
14 • Is present to talk abouf how the benefits of the Walmart project outweigh the `unmitigateable'
15 traffic impacts. '
16 • Wants to make it clear Walmart wiil partner with the City in solving the traffic issues.
17 • Walmart is absolutely committed ta putting forth#heir proportional share for the necessary traffie
1$ improvements when this is determined. '
19 • 4,500 people come through the Walmart doors every day so it is important/imperative that '
20 Walmart provide for an aesthetically pleasing project that offers convenience, a pleasant
21 shopping experience and a wide-variety af products and services 24-hours a day.
22 • Elaborated on the benefits of the project:
23 1. Remadel and update the existing older building to make it more operable and efficient.
24 2. Provide for local sourcing from businesses and farms, ranches.
25 3. Enhanced community giving with an expanded store anywhere from Ukiah Food Bank, parks,
26 libraries and mare.
27 4. Reduction to unemployment with 85 new jobs created and currently filled positians.
28 5. Expanded products and services to customers
29 6. One-stop shopping. '
30 7. Advanced sustainability technologies to include the Grasspave product, LED signage,
31 illumination refrigeration, building daylight harvesting, new paint on the buiiding that is
32 sustainable, reusabie bag program, and other sustainable technologies. '
33 8. Gity infrastructure investment through tax revenues.
34 9. Extended hours of customers being open 24 hours daily for convenience purposes.
35 10. Volunteer corps that employees take very seriousiy whereby they volunteer in all types of
36 organizations acrass the City. !
37 11. Proportional share ta solving Talmage interchange. Walmart recognizes how serious this
38 issue is.
39 • Provided a list of organizations in Ukiah that Waimart has contributed ta '
40 • Thanked the Commission far their thoughtful eonsideration these past months going through the
41 EtR, Sight Development Permit and corresponding landscaping modifications and Statement of
42 Overriding Considerations approvai process.
43 '
44 It was noted by Director Stump with regard to the Statement of Overriding Considerations '
45 '
46 1. If the Commission determines the project is consistent with the required findings for a Site
47 Development Permit and grants the landscaping modifications, a Statement of Overriding
48 Consideration would be required in order to approve the Site Development Permit.
49 2. A Statement of Overriding Considerations is required when the EIR identified significant and
50 unavoidable environmental impacts associated with the project.
51 3. In the case of the Walmart Expansion Praject EIR, significant and unavoidable traffic impacts '
52 have been identified.
53 4. CEQA Guidelines section 15093(a) states CEQA requires the decision-making agency to
54 balance, as applicable, the ecanomic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the a '
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 8, 2012
Page 9
1 proposed project against its unavoidabie environmental risks when determining whether to
2 approve the project.
3 5. if the Commission determines the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the unavoidable
4 adverse environmental effects of the project, the adverse environmental effects may be
5 eonsidered acceptable. Some considerations thereof include:
6 • Additianal jobs created by project.
7 • Additional revenue for the City that is generated by the project by way of sales, tax,
8 property tax, and business license tax as addressed in the Fiscal impact Report
9 completed for the project.
10 • �andscaping improvements to the parking lot.
11 • Improvements to pedestrian facilities.
12 • Other considerations identified by the Commission.
13 6. If the Commission determines the benefits of the project autweigh the significant and unavoidable
14 environmentai effects identified in the EIR as addressed in attachment 3 relative to the Traffic and
15 Circulation, CEQR Guidetines section 15093(b) states the agency shall state in writing the '
16 specific reasons to support its actian based on the fina!EIR and/or ofher information I the record. '
17 The Statement of Overriding Considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the
18 record. This formaity known as the Statement of Overriding Considerations. In the event the '
19 Commission determines the benefits of the project do not outweigh the significant and
20 unavoidable environmental impacts of the project, the Commission cannat approve the site
21 development or associated landscaping modifications.
22
23 Break: 7:18 p.m.
24 Reconvene: 7:31 p.m. !
25 '
26 Planning Director Stump further elaborated on the Statement of Overriding Conditions in connection
27 with the significant and unavoidable impacts identified for Transportation and Traffic in the EIR:
28 • Most of the impacts identified for Transportation and Traffic in the EIR can be reduced to less
29 than significant with the incorporation of mitigation measures.
30 • Although mitigation measures have been identified for the following impacts, there are impacts '
31 that remain significant and avoidabie:
32 ■ Existing Plus Project Queuing Analysis, Impact 4.10-2, Implementatian of the Project
33 would substantially increase potential traffic safety hazards by increasing the degree to
34 which an existing queuing backup would exceed availabie starage length.
35
36 Mitigation Measure 4.10-2 has been identified and would improve queuing conditions to
37 acceptable conditions. However, since the improvement required by Mitigation Measure -
38 4.10-2 is unfunded and is not included as part of the City af Ukiah's Capitai Improvement
39 Program it cannot be considered a legally feasible mitigation measure. Without the '
40 required funding meehanism, impact 4.10-2 remains significant and unavoidable.
41
42 ■ Cumulative Analysis-Future 2030 Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service
43 Impact 4.10-4, Implementation of the Project would inerease traffie volumes on area
44 roadways under cumulative conditions. '
45
46 Mitigation Measure 4.10-4 has been identified and would result in acceptable conditions.
47 However, since the improvement required by Mitigation Measure 4.10-4 is unfunded and
48 is not inciuded as part of the Gity of Ukiah's Capital Improvement Program it cannot be
49 considered a legaily feasible mitigation measure. Without the required funding
SO mechanisms, impact 4.10-4 remains significant and unavoidable. '
51
52 ■ Cumulative Analysis-Future 2030 Plus Project Queuing Rnalysis, Impact 4.10-5, '
53 Implementation of the Project would substantially increase potentiai traffic safety hazards
54 by causing queuing backups that exceed, or by increasing the degree to which queuing
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 8, 2012 '
Page 10
1 backs are projected to exceed, the available storage length under 2030 No Project
2 conditions.
3
4 Mitigation Measure 4.10-5 required the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.10-2.
5 However, since the improvement required by Mitigation Measure 4.10-2 is unfunded and
6 is not included as part of the City of Ukiah's Capital Improvement Program it cannot be ,
7 considered a legally feasible mitigation measure. Without the required funding
8 mechanism, impact 4.10-5 remains significant and unavoidable.
9 ,
10 • The Caltrans January 25`h letter expressed cancern about the adequacy of the EIR and the City's
11 findings for making a determination of Overriding Considerations for the project's significant
12 impacts. '
13 • A Statement of Overriding Consideration is required when the EIR identifies significant and
14 unavaidable environmental impacts associated with the project where the Commission must '
15 determine whether ar not the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse '
16 environmental effects of the project such that the adverse enviranmental efFects may be
17 considered acceptable. To this end, the Commission is required to make findings (Statement of
18 Overriding Considerations} stating that the benefits of the project outweigh the significant and
19 unavoidable transportation and traffic impacts identified in the EIR.
20 • While Caltrans has expressed concerns about traffic mitigations and is not convinced that the
21 mitigations provided in the EIR were feasible/warkable, they would like more information: Staff
22 has informed Caltrans they are working on more detailed design information and engineering
23 casts estimates for the project alternatives to determine 1) if the construction of the alternatives is
24 feasible and 2) if the alternatives are financially feasible. Caltrans is awaiting information from
25 staff.
26 • The other component to traffic/infrastructure impravements is funding. The Ukiah Redevelopment
27 Agency did sell bonds for projects that include the Redwood Business Park improvements,
28 Downtown Streetscape improvements, and Railroad Property cleanup.
29 • If the redevelopment agency was still in existence, the bond proceeds would be spent for the
30 project improvements, but since the agency was recently eliminated, it is uncertain whether or not
31 those bond proceeds can be spent on those projects. This issue of whether or not redevelopment
32 agency bond proeeeds can be spent is evolving Statewide for those projects identified. There will
33 likely be some change/decision made in this regard.
34 • Staff has been in contact with the City's traffic cansuitant far the Waimart Expansion Project and
35 page 40 of the traffic circulation study that was done for the project and corresponding
36 Appendices of the EIR shows information about the number of trips attributable to existing traffic,
37 Walmart expansion traffic, the discount club/Costco traffic and for buildout ofthe AIP. Doing the -
38 math, the City Engineer indicates the Walmart Expansion Project constitutes about 8.6% of the -
39 overall traffic for the fuil buildout of the business park.
40
41 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 7:35 p.m.
42
43 Chuck Williams: !
44 • �ives in the area and expressed concern about the amount of litter generated from Waimart '
45 shoppers.
46 • it takes many phone calis to get Walmart to pick up abandoned shopping carts. -
4"7 • Traffic in the area is a big problem. ts concerned about an increase in traffic that would result with
48 the Expansion Project.
49 • Has issue with the pollutants that come from vehicles in the Walmart parking lot and how Walmart
50 is to effectively capture runoff mixed with pollutants on site such that this water does not reach '
51 culverts, streams and rivers.
52 • Supports that runoff fram the parking lot be diverted into tree wells. In order to effectively ',
53 accompiish this tree wells would have to be planted in areas having a lower grade.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 8,2012
Page 11
1 • Suggests using riparian trees that can absorb larger amounts of water such as Willaws,
2 Cottonwoods, Alders. Excess water that is not absorbed by the tree weils and/or vegetation would
3 go into filters and then out into the culverts.
4 • Recommends using a hardy groundcover such as Santa Barbara Sedge that is drought tolerant
5 and would be effective in cleaning up parking lot vehicle pollutants by way of its root system.
6
7 Second speaker(inaudible)
8
9 Susan Knopf addressed three issues concerning Statement of Overriding Considerations
10 • The EIR addressed the increasing number of police calis to the Airpart Industrial Park (AIP) since
ll Walmart was built. It is anticipated with an expanded store and expanded hours of operation that
12 there will be more police calls. The EIR does not address why Walmart is such a magnet for '
13 criminal activity and indicates no mitigation is necessary in this regard. Ukiah is �xperiencing
14 cutbacks in public safety and is of the opinion the potential for increased number of police calis
15 with the Expansion Project is an issue that needs to be looked at.
16 • In terms of economic considerations, a large percentage of Walmart profits leave the community. '
17 Research in communities that have Walmart stores indicate that they have suffered economic
18 losses as a result. Has noted there is more retail/commercial space available since Walmart has '
19 been in Ukiah. With the Expansian Project does anticipate that other business in the eommunity I
20 will faiL
21 • The proposed Project adds so much more pollution as a result of noise and light impacts that '
22 have not been adequately addressed. There will be polluted runoff and heat generated into the
23 atmosphere from the parking lot.
24
25 ike Heinz:
26 • To expand Walmart would not be favorable for Ukiah. A Walmart store already exists. '
27 • Allowing for an Expanded Project would divide rather than unite the community. '
28 • It would be nice if Walmart were serious about putting sidewalks in.
29 • The landscaping could be really improved. There is so much land that is compacted and is not
30 usefuL This can be changed by beautifying the area with landscaping.
31 • Does not support the Waimart Expansion Project. It is fine that certain people like to shop at
32 Walmart. '
33 • Addressed traffic probiems in the area and supports exploring alternative methods as possible '
34 solutions.
35 • Is opposed to having Waimart open 24-hours a day, seven days a week. There is not so much
36 business activity during late night hours. '
37 • As opposed to tearing down what already exists to provide for an even larger false ecanomy, '
38 improve the existing building and site. '
39
40 Mary McClanahan-Calvert
41 • Questioned project consistency with the Ukiah General Plan and cited examples: GP-1,
42 Promote, attract or assist in developing businesses, particularly those that add value to
43 resources already found or processed in the Ukiah Valley, GP-24, Conserve and enhance the
44 natural beauty of the Ukiah Valley, GP-28, Make Ukiah a leader in the development of
45 responsibie resource-conserving ways of living and doing business, giving the fuliest
46 consideration to the impacts of our actions on future generations, and those General Plan '
47 goalslpolicies that pertain to responsible use of water and other natural resources that Ukiah
48 has. Does not see how further development of Walmart is going to demonstrate consistency with
49 any of the goal/policies/objectives provided for in the Ukiah General Plan. '
SQ • The major streets in the vicinity where Walmart is located are already congested and heavily
51 impacted. The Expansion Project wouid oniy add to tfie traffic problems.
52 • Referred to literature about Waimart stores in other areas that caused businesses to close and
53 further contributed to a deciining/deteriorating local economy. ',
54 • Is of the opinian that many of the issues/environmental impacts identified in the EIR were not
55 �d�q�aately address�d o�succe�sfully mi#igated.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 8, 2012 '
Page 12 '
1 • The project appears to generate more negative aspects for the community than positive.
2
3 Dougias Volr.
4 • Thanked the Cammission for their service to the community.
5 • We live in a time where there is great progress. Every time one turns around there is something
6 new and different and Walmart provides a lot of this.
7 • Does not support Walmart praetices and will not shop there.
8 • Is expansion really progress? Is going with progress the right thing to do? .
9 • It may be we, as a community, shouid stop and reconsider what the community is giving up in the
10 process of taking on a project that in the long run would not be of value to the community. Our
11 quality of life is what will be affected with the Expansion Project.
12 • The concern is how much the Expansion Project is going to provide to the community really of
13 value in terms of what the community already has. Ukiah already has 24-hour shopping centers.
14 • Is concerned with approving the Expansian Project and risking other stores going out of business.
15 • This community has a Walmart; which satisfies the shopping needs for many people. ,
16 • There appears to be so many adverse reasons for not allowing the Walmart Expansion Project to '
17 occur.
18
19 Che Guevara:
20 • Elaborated on the practices of Walmart of purchasing goods from sources that use cheap labor ta
21 manufacture products in very poor working conditions and standards.
22 • Askad the Commission to consider what Walmart really stands for and if the negative
23 repercussions are really worth allowing for an expanded superstore.
24 • Shopping at Walmart is a personal choice and he has no probiem with people shopping at
25 Walmart.
26 • When Walmart proposes to expand, it implements harsh economic conditions upon the
27 community.
28 + Do you think the Waltons really care about Ukiah? No, they want maximum profits by any means
29 necessary regardless of how they strip people of a making a decent wage.
30 * Approval of the Expansion Project will resuit in thousands of dollars lost for the buiiding of roads. '
31 • Approval will impact our local economy and contribute to a subsequent loss af leadership
32 because Waimart will take their profits out of the community and do what they essentially want to
33 at the expense of the community.
34 • Does nat agree that private corporations can take local tax money to build and/or make
35 improvements to roads for them. '
36 • When is Walmart going to have enough? Will this corporation ever stop growing?Will Walmart's
37 hunger for money ever be satisfied? Is Waimart so hungry for money that it needs to expand in I -
3$ Ukiah? '
39 • Walmart wants to take over Ukiah.
40 • Walmart should operate in the real world and offer living wages and benefits for its employees. !
41 • An expanded Walmart is not realistic and/or good for Ukiah.
42 • Asked the decision makers nat to give Walmart the chance to impose monopoly capitalism or
43 proposed cyclical cansumerism on `our home' because Walmart culture is not Ukiah culture. The '
44 people of Ukiah deserve something better than a big box store ruining our businesses and lives.
45
46 Vicki Kitterman: '
47 • Is not against the Walmart store. Is against the Expansion. '
4$ • Expressed concern regarding the Expansion Project with regard ta traffic impacts and possibie
49 job loss resulting from other store ciosures.
50 • Is a Lucky's store empioyee and is concerned she will lose her job of 24 years if Walmart is '
51 ailowed to expand.
52 • Makes a great living wage and is able to support her daughter and home by herseif.
53 • Has good medical benefits. '
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING CQMMISSION February $, 2012
Page 13
1 • Was disconcerting to hear the Ukiah Walmart Manager could not be able to address or answer
2 questions about his empioyees.
3 • The Manager af Lucky's store knows his employees and is willing to help in any way he can.
4 • Cannot afford to lose her living wage job. Does not want to be on public assistance.
5
6 Bill Durham:
7 • Is a member of The Direct Action Committee—Oecupy Ukiah.
8 • Apologizes ta speaking with his back to the community. Does not approve of the protacol for
9 speaking during public hearings in the Council Chambers.
10 • Thanked City staff for doing a lot of hard work on a very complex issue.
11 • Wanted to respectfully remind the Commission and City staff that fundamentally your job is to '
12 protect the lives, health, safety, property, and economic prosperity of the citizens of Ukiah. Based
13 only on this, you shouid reject the project.
14 • Walmart pays some of the lowest wages in the retail industry and that is a concrete verifiable fact '
15 and not conjuncture on anyone's part.
16 • To put this in perspective, if Walmart's profits were equally distributed among their employees '
1"7 each employee would receive abaut$400,000 a year and/or$200 an hour. '
1$ • Regarding minimum wage and Walmart wages, minimum wage in 1968 peaked to $1.60, which
19 by today's standards is worth $10.43 an hour. '
20 • Has a friend who is a fourth year apprentice in the sheet metal union and is paid $34 an hour plus
21 benefits. A Jaurneyman in this same profession makes $37 an hour plus benefits. These are
22 realistic wages, a living wage.
23 • Reminded City staff and Commission that in 13 years Walmart could not come through with a
24 sidewalk. With this being said, are we gaing to trust this corporation an ali of the other things '
25 being requested of them or what they are proposing to do. Does not think this is wise?
26 • One of the members of The Direct Action Committee asked a Welmart employee at the last i
27 meeting if heJshe were getting paid to attend. The response was he/she is finishing off one's shift.
28 • Wanted to add that the `99% movement stands in solidarity with Walmart workers.' The
29 Organization has no probiem with Waimart workers. People do what they have to do to take care
30 of themselves and their families.
31 • Wants to implore members of the Commission to do their own research about Walmart. Study
32 after study has shown Walmart is bad for our community or bad for communities.
33 • Is against Walmart as a corpnration and other predatory corporations like them.
34
35 Robert Werra: '
36 • Is a semi-retired local family physician.
37 • His comments regarding the Statement of Overriding Consideration are social in nature and
38 pertain to healthcare.
39 • Objects to the inclusion of space for future optical services and space for a medical office.
40 • Professionals in the optical industry and medical physicians are opposed to this component of the '
41 Expansion Project for the reasons that these proposals are 1) detrimental competition to existing
42 and potentiai future healthcare professionals in our town. This type of business scenaria may !
43 wark in metropolitan areas, but not in a rural low-income area like Ukiah where it is really difficult '
44 to attract primary care physicians. To have another competitor that exists to take `all the easy
45 stuff' is the kind of thing that makes it very difficult for a family physician to continue to work here '
46 ar come here. 2) Pertains to quality. The America Family Physicians organization that represents '
47 about 90,000 family physicians in the US opposes this type office in a Walmart store or in other '
48 similar type of business or service because this is poor quality healthcare. Such office visits are
49 fragmented and is basically not good healthcare. This is a time when physicians want to '
50 combine/uniform their medical specialties under one primary care rnedical group. Allawing far a '
51 medical office in a Walmart fragments that cancept.
52 • Presently warks at the night clinic for Urgent Care. This healthcare group incorporates many
53 physicians and nurse practitioners that are accompanied/supervised by physicians and in a
54 position to better meet the public's healthcare needs as opposed to receiving healthcare in a
55 fragm�nted approach in a Walmar#�tar�or th� lik�:The latter represer�ts poor healthcare.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 8, 2012
Page 14
1 • Is cognizant that other people desire to speak so he will provide written materials on receiving
2 healthcare in Walmart stores and the like.
3 • Is very dismayed/bothered that physicians like himself receive emails in the form of
4 proposais/bids for service from corporations like Walmart asking if they/he wouid be interested in
5 providing this kind of healthcare service in their retail establishments. The email went on to list all '
6 the types of healthcare this company wouid like to provide/deliver in the future with the underlying
7 statement that the establishment really wants to be the primary healthcare provider of primary
8 heaithcare in the United States. This is very frightening.
9 • It is time to say `no' to Walmart. Walmart should stick to selling products and stay out of the
10 healthcare business.
11 • Does anyone want to go to Walmart for their heaithcare needs? This represents `crummy'
12 medicine. '
13 • It is time to speak up and teli Walmart unconditionally, `no medical office and no optical office in
14 the Ukiah Walmart store.' '
15
16 Derek Estep:
17 • Observes that Walmart customers also shop at Food Maxx.
18 • Is of the opinion that if a Waimart supercenter is approved, people wili not shop at Food Maxx ,
19 and will stay at Walmart. This could put Foad Maxx, Lucky's, Grocery Outlet and other grocery
20 stores in jeopardy of gaing out of business.
21 • Ailowing for optical care and medicai offices in Walmart could be detrimental to the Downtown. '
22 Unlike larger communities where having optical care and medical offices in retail establishments
23 may be acceptable this would not be acceptable to a rural and unique area like Ukiah. Ukiah
24 wouid then be na longer unique. '
25 • Recognizes that small businesses are important to communities.
26 • Keep Ukiah unique. '
27 '
28 Greg Simsik:
29 • Recently moved to Ukiah. '
30 • Travels a lot for his job. When in the Tracy California area observed that Food Maxx was closed
31 and then realized Walmart was creating a supercenter in Tracy.
32 • What are the consequenees of allowing Walmart to expand? How many grocery stores in Ukiah '
33 will go out of business? How many good paying jobs will be lost as a result? How many homes
34 will likely be foreclosed upon because of businesses closing? This is a very big concem.
35 • Emphasized the importance of looking at the project and whether or not it is good for Ukiah. It
36 was not for Tracy.
37
38 Wes Canby:
39 • One of best crime deterrents is lighting. The more lighting the less crime a community has. -
40 • The height of light poles is significant. '
41 • The traffic problems in and around the Redwood Business Park have been in existence for a long '
42 time. A solution may be to make a southbound exit further dawn from Walmart: Is af the opinion '
43 the southbound exit creates the most problems and presents the most danger: '
44 • History tells us that if we do not grow and progress, we, as a community, go backwards.
45
46 Miroslav Masek:
47 • Is a Walmart associate.
48 • Allowing Walmart to expand would benefit the community.
49 • Walmart treats their employees well and listed many of the benefits offered to employees,
50 provided information about career/advancement apportunities and other informationitypes of ,
51 benefits that employees have or can choose from, such as scholarships, children discounts, '
52 discounts that are offered to employees for hotels, car rentals, phane service, and information
53 about job transfers, retirement and retirement accounts, and more. '
54 o Supports the Expansion Project.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 8, 2012
Page 15 '
1 Linda Gray:
2 • It is obvious Walmart is aware of the traffic problems that will be created with the Expansion
3 Project.
4 • Instead of suppiying the funding to successfuily mitigate the traffic impacts before the Expansian
5 Project, City staff is asking the Commissian to adopt a Statement of Overriding Conditions far
6 those environmental impacts that are significant and unavoidable and cannot be mitigated. If this
7 is allowed, the citizens of this community will have to pay for the traffic improvements.
8 • There will likely be an increase in traffic accidents as a result of the Expansion Project.
9 • it appears the goal of Walmart is to reap the financial benefits af the community and externalize
10 the costs when possibie.
11 • Asked the Commission not to adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
12 Expansion Project.
13
14 Terry Silky: ,
15 • Directed all comments to the Ukiah General Plan goals/policies and Vision Statement objectives
16 far the City of Ukiah relative to economic and social benefits. The Waimart Expansion Project
17 contradiets the economic benefit in the areas of being able to provide for a strong and stable '
18 community in an economy that uses resourees and natural resources wisely and responsibly. In '
19 terms of social benefits, `provide for a development that complements rather than compromises
20 the beauty af the Valley.' There is nothing beautiful about the Walmart Project and therefore, '
21 cantradicts this benefit. '
22 • The Vision/Mission Statement says a project should:
23 - `Promote a high quality of life.' Is of the opinion Walmart does not do this.
24 - 'A community living intelligently within our limits and harmany with natural processes.'
25 There is nothing harmonious about a 24 haur store operation. '
26 - `We believe in an ecological and sustainable community rather than needless !
2� consumption and waste.' Commented, `cheap companies in China, need I say more.' '
28 • The issues of increased noise and traffic impacts resulting from the project have been addressed.
29 • it is her understanding the grocery store component was denied far the originai project and
30 recommended this be reviewed. History should be served in this regard.
31 • The General Plan says Ukiah's vision is to:
32 - Promote, attract or assist in develaping businesses particularly those that add value to !
33 resources already found.
34 - Support local goods and services not imports. Commented, bnce again cheap crap
35 made in China.'
36 - Promote local ownership of businesses in order to keep capital growth within the
37 community. Commented, `Wouid like to see how Walmart can really address that !
38 condition.'
39 • We are the County of non-GMOs. What about when Walmart endorses the labeling of GMO
40 foods? Daes not believe Walmart wants to be a part of the Mendocino Food Policy Council.
41
42 Madelin Hoitkamp: '
43 • Aiso thought Walmart was denied a groeery store for the initial project For that project, there
44 were three conditions: 1) No grocery store 2) Comply with building, design standards 3) Provide
45 for tree shade coverage to a certain ratio in the parking lot.Wauld Iike clarification. '
46 • Supports what other people have said about the long-term costs of this problem being transferred ,
47 to citizens. '
48 • Recommended a good web site for the Commission to review at their leisure, Wider Opportunities '
49 for Women.' They have a very good program ta actually determine what is a living wage in yaur
50 community. One can actually find out what it actually costs people to live here by looking at rents, '
51 healthcare costs, grocery costs for a normal-sized family and otherassociated living costs. '
52 • It is important that taxpayers do not absorb any costs of wages below living wage. If people eam '
53 below a living wage, they are eligible for public services, i.e., food stamps, HUD subsidies, school
54 lunches, Medi-Cal and those sorts of things.
55 '
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 8, 2012
Page 16
1 Dr.Jeanine Pfeiffer:
2 • Is a prafessor at San Jose State University. Also, an instructor far a coliege core course at the
3 City of Ten Thousand Buddha's.
4 • Is a consultant to the County and has participated in different conflicting policies where
5 canstituents had varying views.
6 • Is sympathetic with the range and diversity of issues that are presented here.
7 • We are asking our Planning Commission to look beyond the short-term gains and look at what a
8 long-term expansion of Walmart or of any export-oriented business would do to our cammunity.
9 • Questians what our community is going to look like in five, 10 or 15 years.
10 • Supports formulating a plan that harmonizes/eoincides/complements Ukiah's Vision Statement.
11 • Reviewed Ukiah's Mission Statement on the City's website as to what constitutes our Vision -
12 Statement. Apparently, a number of community groups assembied and spent a long time figuring '
13 out what that is.
14 • Given the goal/objectives of the Ukiah General Plan, the Planning Commission's `charge' is to
15 ensure that that Vision Statement and the codes within the General Plan are adhered ta '
16 • As a researcher, finds it very diffieult to see how a Walmart Expansian Project fits into that '
17 General Pian and trusts the Commission will make a really good decision for its citizens and not
18 just for the short-term, but rather for the long-term.
19 • �eft a very high paying position on the east coast to move to Mendocino County and is doing
20 everything she ean to stay in Mendocino County when it wouid make sense ta take a position '
21 somewhere else.
22 • Is paying back student loans so she is on a limited income. She would never shop at Walmart
23 because it is nat cost efFective for her. Cost effectiveness is purchasing items of need at a thrift
24 store.
25 • Happened to speak to a former Walmart employee who had to quit because of the way the cash
26 register was set/situated. It was so uncomfortable ergonomically that her body could not do the
27 work anymore. Compared to other businesses, especiaily local businesses, we have an employer '
28 that does nat offer the same decent suite of not just benefits, but basic working conditions that
24 enable our citizens to work comfortably and healthfully. Why in the worid would we want to
30 support that type of thing?
31
32 Peter Good: '
33 • Thanked staff and the Commission far doing all the work on the Expansion Project.
34 • Is not a supporter of the Walmart Expansion Project.
35 • is not against Walmart empioyees. Does not think anyone is against people who work at
36 Walmart.
37 • Commented on the draft findings for the Statement af Overriding Gonsiderations of which there '
38 were severai mentioned in the'lawyer's' letter to this effect that says:
39 - The praject will create diverse employment opportunities within the City, that it will create
40 85 new jobs. it will not create diverse employment by expanding the store. It will perhaps !
41 create 85 new full or part-time jobs, but it alsa might have the effect of other stores -
42 closing so the net effeet may not be 85 jobs at aIL '
43 - The project wili generate tax revenue for the City. First of all, it appears that the '
44 information in the EIR is wrong. What is stated is Walmart will generate general fund
45 revenue of $44,000 annually. What the thinking was is that Walmart will generate !
46 $45,000 worth of costs in the City by way of services for police and fire so the net the City '
47 will receive is $44,OQ0. This is a very small amount in a 16 million dollar budget and this
48 is only their projections. Projections are projections. Waimart may not earn that much. It
49 may be the costs will be mare than what is anticipated. $44,000 does not get you far.
50 - The project will eantribute to and fund needed infrastructure. Walmart's proportional fair '
51 share for the transportation-impact fee is $17,800. This is a small amount of money for
52 Walmart and for the City. The project does not provide any money to speak of in this
53 regard. It is really not a benefit. ',
54 - The project will provide a high quality of development design that will be pedestrian '
55 friendly. It cert�inly will be more friendly than what is#here with what is being preposed.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 8,2012 '
Page 17 ;
1 - Walmart has some sidewalks, but the fact remains there is no access from State Street
2 and no wheelchair access from State Street to the Airpart Business Park. There is no
3 access an Hastings Road or Airport Road. Walmart, 18 years ago promised to pravide for
4 access for pedestrians and disabled persons and did not do it. The pedestrian and the
5 disabled have suffered all these years because of this. Is sure there are many able-
6 bodied persons that can easily walk through the no-sidewalk area whereas if one is in a
7 wheelchair, has a baby in a stroiler, is an older person or a person walking with children,
8 he/she cannot safely access Walmart from Washington Avenue, Nastings Road andlor
9 Airport Road. One cannot access Walmart safely from Talmage Road either. It may be '
10 pedestrian friendly once a person gets to Walmart, but not getting there.
11 - The project will be energy-conservation consciaus. Even though this approach might help
12 giobal warming, the question is will this help the bottom line of the Walmart Corporation
13 so it is good for them.
l4 - The project will provide attractive landscaping: Madelin Haltkamp was right when she
15 indicated that was agreed to by way of landscaping for the original project was changed.
16 All one has to do is look at the landscaping at Home Depot that came much later and see
17 that the trees are bigger and the landscaping is so much better. Is hopeful sidewalks will '
18 be implemented as was initially agreed ta
19 - As for bicycle circulation, what will occur is to put some stripes on the existing road.
20 There wiil be no extra room for a bicycle. The area where Walmart is located is not a
21 good place to ride a bicycle. '
22 - Will make no comment on the topic of storm water treatment.
23 - With regard to 24-hour shopping, this will increase costs for the Ukiah Police Department.
24 - `The project will be a stabilizing influence in fhe City's retail market section.' This may be !
25 true. The stabilizing influence is that other retail establishments will be gone and Walmart '
26 will be there.
2� - `The project will be a good member af the community.' That is a completely subjective
28 statement. According to the letter from the attorney, the whole project could be approved
29 just by saying Walmart is a good member of the community.
30 - The Statement of Overriding Considerations are very weak, especially given the
31 seriousness of the traffic situation that the Walmart Expansion would create. '
32
33 Thomas Ray:
34 • Provided written comments that are herein incorporated inta the minutes and referred to as
35 attachment 1.
36 • Stated his concern that the costs to the City of Ukiah for the expansion of Walmart will greatly
37 exceed what the City will get back from Walmart. !
38 • Supposedly Ukiah would get extra tax money because of the Expansion Project.
39 • It has been independently caiculated that the City of Ukiah will only get$12,000 to $15,000 a year
40 in extra #ax money. Is of the opinion the City should really check into this and that the wrong
41 formula was used relative to what they get back from sales tax from the State.
42 • The recently completed Fort Bragg roundabout cost$4.4 million to complete. Ukiah's roundabaut
43 may cost the same or more. Walmart stated they will only pay a proportional cost of this and
44 questioned why this is. '
45 • Where is the City of Ukiah going ta get the maney to pay for the roundabout?
46 • If Walmart did not expand, the City of Ukiah would not have to build a roundabout in the first
47 place. '
48 • Walmart's own EIR predicts that a new Walmart supermarket will take away $50 million a year
49 from existing Ukiah retailers. We will be trading good jobs for bad.
50 • The EIR predicts the possible closure of two gracery stores as a resuit of the expansion. Majar
51 store clasure will result in more people unemployed, home foreclosures and deereased property
52 values for hames and commercial properties located nearby those major stores. ',
53 • Waimart stated their health insurance is available for all empioyees. One should ask Ukiah
54 Walmart how many of their low-wage, full-time and part-time emplayees actually have health
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 8, 2012
Page 18
1 insurance with Walmart. One will find out that many of them cannot afford it because of their low
2 wages.
3 • The hiring of new employees for the Expansion Project will only campound the problem. The City
4 of Ukiah has been subsidizing the healthcare costs of Waimart for years.
5 • C?ther California cities, inciuding Antioch, Garlsbad, Chico, Glovis, Concord, Eureka, Folsom,
6 Hercules, Ingiewood, North Auburn, Salinas, San Marcos, Turlock, Ventura and Woodland and
7 many other cities across the United States have stopped the building or expansion af Walmart
8 stores in their cities for the same reasons.
9 • The building or expansion of Walmart in their cities did not really benefit them or locai businesses.
10 It only increased Walmarfs share and profit thus taking away from already established local
11 businesses and jobs. The City of Ukiah should stop Walmart as well: It cannot afford the
12 expansion of Waimart.
13
14 Ernie Cllson:
15 • We have heard several people tell us about the good working for Waimart at $12 per hour.
16 According to a recent issue af Consumer Report that surveyed their readers on big chain stores,
17 the best big box stores in the United States are ranked as follows: Cosco, Kohl's, JC Penney,
18 ...... and the bottom three include Sam's Club, Kmart, and Walmart. 26,000 people were '
19 surveyed.
20 • Waimart was the oniy big box stare earning below average scores on the quality af the men's,
21 women's and children's clothing. In other words, people are buying cheap clothes so one gets
22 what he/she pays for. According to the article, Walmart had three times as many returns of
23 unsatisfactory merchandise as Costco had. The article aiso mentioned the $12 per hour wage.
24 This is a long way from a living wage. A living wage buys people a home, a new car about every '
25 10 years, sends children to school, allows people to purchase insurance and have vacations. This
26 is not going to happen with a$12 per haur wage. '
27 • Shops at Lucky's occasionaliy. Buys all of his meat at Lucky's. They probably have the best meat
28 market in tawn and is going to miss them when they are gone.
29 • Owns real estate in the neighborhood to the north of Lucky's. It is low income housing. Many of
30 the persons living in this neighborhood walk to �ucky's. These people will be out of luck when '
31 �ucky's is forced to close. Gaod living wage jobs are going to be last. '
32
33 Dannett Hiatt:
34 • Has attended twa of the Waimart Expansion Project meetings and listened to endless criticisms !
35 abaut Waimart. Most of the information has been acquired via the internet. I
36 • Is curious if any of these people actually tried to talk to a Waimart associate and find how`we' feel
37 about working for the company?
3$ • Has always taught not to believe everything you hear or read. Most of the sites are also anti-
39 Walmart so, of course, all a persan is going to get is negative or derogatory information. '
40 • Suggests these people step away from their computers and get their information the old-fashion
41 way, person-by-person.
42 • Has heard over and over how a high percentage of Walmart assaciates have to rely on
43 govemment assistance because they do not make a sufficient wage. '
44 • Guarantees they are not the only employer whose employees are on the system. In the 15-plus '
45 years she has been employed with Walmart, has never used nor required government
46 assistance.
47 * Walmart offers various affordable insurance benefits. Has to take three medications that only cost
48 her $4 a month. Has been told by local dentists that she has one of the better dental coverages
49 around. '
50 • Has four weeks paid vacation per year, pius sick time, which accumulates each pay period as '
51 well as personai time. Walmart associates are eligible for quarterly bonuses, which we qualify for
52 almost every time.
53 • Over the past few years, as the economy has deteriorated, businesses, as weli as County and
54 City governments have laid people off, cut wages, and/or terminated job positions altogether. My
SS j�b�s�r�ll as th�s��f c�-�vorkers has remained int�ct.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 8,2012 '
Page 19 '
1 • In the 15-plus years she has been employed with Ukiah Walmart, there have been a lot of people
2 who sought employment. Believes Walmart has had well over 5,000 people employed at one time
3 or another and for different reasons such as the need ta suppiement income while furthering their
4 education, going to school so that people can pursue their careers, wanting a temporary job
5 through the holiday season for extra money or for people, like herself, wha had no idea where
6 they wanted to go with their lives.
7 • Started working at Wamart at age 18 and found stability by working hard to aehieve promotions
8 and now has made her career with Walmart. Is very proud to work at Walmart.
9 • Keeps hearing we do not need another grocery store. Do we really need three Starbucks and
10 open one right after another?
11 • Having another grocery store is an actual benefit. It will bring competition, which will drive the
12 current outrageous food prices down that will save families money particularly during these
13 economic hard times. '
14 • Supports the Walmart Expansion Project, not only because she is an associate, but because she '
15 is a consumer. As a single mother, she has to make every cent stretch. '
16 • Purchases her basic household needs at Walmart because the prices are lower. What dry food,
17 frozen and dairy products that are available are much cheaper at Walmart.
18 • Presently, it is ali about saving maney and is of the opinion the Walmart Expansion Praject will
19 definitely do that.
20 • Someone made the camment about Walmart associates being paid to be at the Planning '
21 Commission public hearings and acknowledged this is true because this is a Walmart-related '
22 function. Walmart associates are paid for everything like that.
23 • Regarding parking and the sharing of a parking lot, she goes to work five days a week and
24 observes the parking lot where Staples is lacated is always empty. What is the `big deaP about
25 sharing a parking lot? !
26 • Regarding having another store open 24 hours a day, noted Safeway and other fasfi food '
27 estabiishments are open 24/7.
28
29 Sandra Whilhite:
30 • Mendocino County is growing and will continue to grow as long as there are children and
31 grandchildren and these people need jobs. '
32 • Does not see that Mendocino County has enough jobs for peopie who want to live here. Does '
33 not see industry coming in. This Gaunty has lost Masonite and other significant and important
34 �usinesses that are not being replaced.
35 • The Walmart Expansion Project will provide jobs and help meet some of the needs for peaple in
36 this community. '
37 • Recalis what it was like to live on weifare where she had to go on the Indian Reservation to get
38 food from the government and the experience was terrible. The system has changed since then
39 and is better. Wouid rather work than be on welfare.
40 • Takes pride in her pasition at Walmart. if she had to leave her job and do the same job
41 somewhere else, she would lose a lot of pay. She makes $12.50 per hour working at Walmart
42 and is proud of that wage. She pays for family health insurance.
43 • Many of her family members got their start at Walmart and have gone on to do better. Her son is '
44 graduating from college this summer and he got hisstart in the Ukiah Walmart store.
45 • We need jobs to help people ta move up and onto better things.
46 '
47 Dorothea Dorman:
48 • Provided written comments that are herein incorporated into the minutes and referred to as '
49 attachment 2.
SO • Brings up the issue about how damaging Walmart stores are in the long run to any city, to any
51 city they take ovec '
52 • Spoke to the matter that 50 to 75 years ago the Ukiah Valley was a beautiful place that had a '
53 valley floar covered with deep blue lupines and golden pappies. Today, one cannot find wildflower '
54 seeds to collect and replant.
MINUTES OF THE P�ANNING COMMISSION February 8, 2012
Page 20 '
1 • Every city in this county has been bulldozed, paved and so much af the natural areas are dead.
2 We have very little wildlife in our cities. Sangbirds are gone and dying. Poilution is destroying the
3 quality of life. The process is badly skewed and backwards. The process should begin with the
4 community asking whether or not we need another grocery store. Do we need apples from China
5 that are supposed ta be organic? Noted a local appie grower could not sell his apples on this side
6 of the mountain because Walmart brought in apples that were supposed to be organic, from
7 China?
8 • Was informed that Walmart sells wood stoves right at the beginning of the cold season and as '
9 soon as the season is over they are pulled from the store. Some of these stoves needed
10 maintenance and were not well constructed. Walmart provided no maintenance whatsoever so
11 people were stuek with stoves that no one could fix.
12 • Walmart has a terrible record and this has been made known by other peopie speaking about the
13 project,
14 • Supports a more visionary type of planning, not this incredibly boring, nitpicking over all the
15 environmental impacts and mitigations, many of which wouid be enormously costly to the '
16 taxpaysr ta mitigate. Some af the impacts cannofi be mitigated according to the EIR. '
17 • Has issue with the EIR from the standpoint that the economic and fiscal portion of EIR document '
1$ was compieted by a subeonsultant whose real estate division of the company has business
19 affiliations with Walmart. Is of the opinion ethicai standards should be applied to planning.
20 • Supports that Walmart improve the existing store. Walmart says they are going to put in energy-
21 eonscious changes, skylights and other sustainable (green thinking) systems that would be good
22 for the community and environment.
23 • This community does not need an expanded Walmart to put other stores out of business.
24 • Other project features she supports include: planting and properiy maintainingJcaring for trees in
25 the parking lot, provide an adequate storm water treatment and draining program to address '
26 runoff from the parking lot and building such as bio-swales and landscaping features for treatment '
27 of storm water, provide for adequate pedestrian access and a `reaP bicycle trail. Improvements '
28 should be done and done right with what is existing.
29 • Walmart is an obscenely wealthy international corporation that gives very little back to the cities
30 that are eventually destroyed as a resuit.
31 • Supports asking Walmart to donate a million to 10 million dollars towards our community to offset
32 how much they take from here to ga towards the building of a river park, a walking park with
33 bicycle trails, far restoration of our native wildflowers and in other ways that wauld improve our
34 community.
35
36 William Kopper:
37 • Is an attorney and represents Citizens for Sustainable Commeree, Steve Scalmanini, Alan
3$ Nichalson, and Jeffrey Blankfort.
39 • Did provide some written comments at the January, 25th Planning Commission meeting and
40 submitted these same comments because they were not inciuded in the staff report for this
41 meeting and would like to share the comments with the Commission. This doeument is herein '
42 incorporated into the minutes and referred to as attachment 3. '
43 • Submitted a letter from Dr. Philip King, dated February 7 to be distributed and placed as a matter
44 of record. This document is herein incorporated in the minutes and referred to as attachment 4.
45 • The Issue being considered is whether or not the Commission should adapt the Statement of
46 Overriding Cansiderations. '
47 • In the January 25�" submittal there is a letter from Dan Smith, who is a traffic engineer and very '
48 well respected. He founded DKS Traffic Engineers, a nationwide company. in this report he '
49 explains why the roundabout solutions will not work at the Talmage Road — U S 101 Southbound ;
50 Off-ramp Interchange and Caltrans agrees with that. There is just not the space to make them
51 work. At the January 18 regular City Council meeting, he presented a Powerpoint presentation
52 that showed exactly why the roundabouts cauld not work. The City has to accept this as the
53 reality of the situation. Moving forward, there is no mitigation at the U S 101 Off-ramps. The EIR, '
54 which has now been approved by the City Council, found that there is no feasible mitigation. So
55 when the Cammissian makes a c4nsidera#ion c�n th��tat�m�nt�f Qverri�ina �c�nsid�rati�n�, yc�u
MINUTES OF THE P�ANNING COMMISSION February 8, 2012
Page 21 '
1 cannot speculate about whether or not there might be some mitigations. There are no mitigations
2 so the Commission has to assume there are nane. What the EIR found was that the situation is
3 serious enough. The EIR indieated that with the addition of the Walmart traffic and not other
4 traffic, the Southbound Off-ramp would back up to the very point where it intersects with the
5 freeway. There was substantiat evidence presented by Mr. Smith and actually other
6 knowledgeable commenters that the traffic report completed for the project understated the
7 problem. The reason being was that the traffic counts were taken in February, which is historically
$ tha lowest traffic month of the year for retail traffic and the fact the counts on U S 101 were much
9 lower in February than in other months and that if the traffic votumes had been reasonably
10 adjusted, then the traffie would in fact back up onto the freeway with such an adjustment.
11 • The County of Mendocino in a letter stated that under existing conditions the traffic on the
12 Southbound Off-ramps already backs up onto the freeway.
13 • In light of the problem, the Walmart Expansion Project is g�ing to add 200 PM peak-hour trips to
14 what is already a very bad situation. '
15 • At the January 18 Councii meeting, there was a person who testified that her son had been killed
16 an an off-ramp in this area in such a backup. '
1� • When considering a Statement of Overriding Considerations the Commission cannot just think
18 about some generic environmental impact whereby a close look at the seriousness of the impact, '
19 as well as the benefits is necessary. The more serious the impact, the greater the benefits must '
20 be befare you can find that the weight of the benefits outweigh the impact. The impact in this
21 situation is very serious. The more traffic that goes through that particular off-ramp and
22 interchange, the greater the chance of a high-speed collision that could resuit in serious injury or !
23 death. As Dan Smith stated in a letter that is attached to this January�5'" submittal letter, is that it
24 is his experience cities that do add traffic and do not mitigate to situations where there are known
25 impacts can beeome liable.
26 • Has asked this questian before whether the City could be liable and clearly, if Caltrans approves
2'7 a design and there is an accident, `then they own it,' but if they da not and the City is adding
28 traffic then there is a possibility the City could be liable for the type of injuries that might occur.
29 • Again, it is very important the Commission consider the impact, the specific impact, not
30 something that is generaL
31 • In terms of the benefits, and the January 13 communication from Amy Herman of A�H, she '
32 indicated she made a mistake in her previaus study and she was preparing a corrected study. In '
33 this corrected study she found approximately that the economic benefit wouid be $42,000. In this
34 regard, her study ineluded the January 13t" study that provided for mathematieal error. The
35 assumption she made is Walmart will divert 75 percent of its sales from other businesses in the
36 City of Ukiah, or in that area. So review of`General Merchandise' Ms. Herman multipiied that by '
37 75 percent to get the potential taxable-sales diversions and did the same thing for food and motor -
38 vehicles, but with other retail she did not use 75 percent and used a lower figure. When you use i
39 75 percent, it increases the potential taxable-sales diversions and when you do that and you '
40 correct the values for the sales tax, instead of having $42,000 as a potential benefit or$440,000, '
41 the figure is actually $10,000. This does not, of course, include Measure S. which is another
42 $20,000 or the like. So for$10,000 mare in revenue, you are taking the risk of samebody having '
43 a serious, a very serious injury at this intersection because you are adding traffic to what is
44 already an unsafe situation.
45 • You have to think about this type of tradeoffs when you weigh the benefits of the project versus
46 the environmentai impact.
4'7 • There has been a lot of testimony whether or not Walmart is good or bad. On one hand, you hear
48 about there being 85 new jobs created. There is no concrete evidence there are going to be 85
49 new net jobs because Ms. Nerman's study concluded there was a reasonably good possibility
50 one or two grocery stores wouid be closed and so jabs would essentially be lost. Studies of '
51 Walmart stores coming to communities generally show net jobs go down not up.
52 • There is no benefit in the landscaping because what is proposed does not meet City standards.
53 • There is improvement in bicycle circulation off-site.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIQN February 8, 2012
Page 22
1 • Is of the opinion the Commission has to very carefully consider what the community is really
2 getting by cansidering the very very severe environmental problems and health and safety
3 probiems associated with the project.
4
5 Serena Stanford
6 • Has been a Ukiah resident for 20 years.
7 • Appreciates the Planning Commission process and that the community is able to get involved
8 with projects and have a voice.
9 • Walmart is generaus and very supportive of its employees.
10 • Did apply at several local grocery stores and basically would have had to begin as a cart pusher
11 or a bagger. She is not physically abie to push carts. Walmart hires disabled peopie, retired
12 people and a persan does nat have to start at one of those positions to be an empioyee.
13 • Did not get a job at any of the grocery stores. Has worked at Walmart for seven years.
14 * Has been well taken care of. '
15 • Was able to raise her sons and now they are in college. '
16 • Is in a position now to do more and is ready to promote within the company. '
17 • Walmart has integrity. For instance Walmart does not sell R-rated movies.
18 • About the 24-hour operation, many associates request different shifts so it works better for their '
19 personallives. '
20 • Does not have any problem with the Waiton family. People should not `put down' anyone who is
21 successfuL Sees nothing wrong in being successfuL There is nothing wrong with Walmart being a
22 thriving company.
23 • Walmart offers opportunity and appreciates what this company stands for and does in the way of
24 customer service.
25
26 Debby Vinson:
27 • Thanked staff and the Commission for all of their hard wark.
28 • There was a slide projection of Walmart showing some of the different associations this company
29 has helped. Two associatians that were not mentioned inciude People First of Ukiah and ABC No '
30 Barrier.
31 • Walmart has helped her disabied sister who belongs to People First of Ukiah.
32 • Walmart is really great about helping the community.
33 • if the bus stop was moved over to the east side of the AIP, it would be closer to the Regional
34 Center where many disabied persons go making it closer to get on the MTA bus, particularly for
35 those persans in wheelchairs.
36 • Is part of the civic beautification project for the Ukiah Garden Club. This club has been planting
37 wildflowers and other plants on Highway 101 and is in the pracess of starting to plant flowers and
38 such on Talmage Road. A plan will be initiated in this regard. '
39 • Walmart participates in the picking up of Talmage Road by donating her time.
40 • A possible solution to the traffic problem is if Waimart is open 24 hours, it will relieve some of that
41 traffic because there are many people who will do their shopping at night.
42 • Is of the opinion should take the 8%, which is the praportional fair share percentage Walmart is !
43 responsibie for to help pay for road improvements. '
44
45 Jeffrey Blankfort: '
46 • Qne would think from ali the public hearings I have attended on the Walmart Expansion Project it '
47 would be about closing the store.
48 • Nobody has suggested closing the store.
49 • What it is about is whether or not the City is going to approve another full-serviee supermarket, '
50 open 24 hours in a City awash with supermarkets, two af which already sell discount groceries.
51 • Solid arguments detailing the negative effects that approval of this project will have on the City '
52 and residents of Ukiah have apparently not impacted your decision-making thus far in the
53 process. Staff and the Commission have acknowledged that as a Final EIR was obliged ta admit, '
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 8, 2Q12
Page 23
1 there is no practical way to mitigate the horrendous and dangerous traffic conditions that will
2 ensue should the Commission approve the project.
3 • On behalf of the Committee for Sustainable Cammerce, Dan Smith who Mr. Kopper mentioned, a
4 traffic engineer with 30 years experience and a graduate of UC Berkeley and Yale, did an
5 independent peer review analysis of the EIR traffic study, of which he assumes the Comrnission
6 has a copy.
7 • In addition to some of the technical issues that have previously been discussed, Mr. Smith
8 expressed concern about other aspects of this analysis, which is the potential liability that could
9 be assumed by the City.
14 • Mr. Smith pointed out that in the EIR the Commission found to be adequate has an obligation to '
11 define feasibie mitigation measures for the projecYs impacts. Since Mr. Smith, Caltrans and
12 Mendocino County all submitted their concems about using raundabouts to soive the problem,
13 the EIR needs to either provide adequate information showing how these roundabouts would
14 operate or come up with another alternative.
15 • instead, the EIR traffic consultant suggests that the design details of the roundabouts would be
16 worked out between Galtrans and the City at a later date.
17 • As Mr. Smith stated in his January 17t" letter, in which staff and the Commission should have a
18 copy states, `The effort to postpone defining mitigation details until later constitute a deferral of
l9 mitigation that is improper under CEQA.'
20 • In another letter, dated January 24th, Mr. Smith also suggested the City of Ukiah will likely take on '
21 liability issues if the Planning Commission adapts a Statement of Overriding Considerations and
22 approves the project under these circumstances. Mr. Smith wrote in his letter, "The safety issues
23 of the project's unmitigated traffic impacts are so adversely severe that no responsible
24 government could reasonably approve a project adding traffic to the impacted location.' He further '
25 wrate, `Even though the impacted location, the Southbaund Off-ramp from US 101 ta Talmage !
26 Road is under the jurisdiction of Caltrans. By knowingly under findings of Overriding '
27 Considerations approving a project that would add traffic that increases accident exposure and '
28 severity at the impacted location, the City would and should incur liability for the consequences of
29 that increased aecident exposure and hazard.'
30 • Any decision the Planning Commission makes on the issue has to take into consideration the
31 potential liability to the City if a serious accident occurs.
32 • Rather than expose the City to the risk, the Planning Commission should direct the applicant to '
33 come up with a mitigation measure that actually works, if one actually exists, and the funding '
34 mechanism that wili enable these improvements to be completed prior to the completion of the
35 expansion.
36 • At the moment, as we are all aware, no such funding mechanism exists, nor is there likely to be
37 one in the near future.
38 • Given the economic needs of the people of Ukiah, opening an expansion there, improving the '
39 traffic situation to benefit Waimart is not a priority for the citizens of Ukiah.
40 • Mr. Stump referred ta a letter from Caltrans. A couple paragraphs read, Based on the identified
41 deficiencies, we do not have confidence that the project's impacts have been adequately defined, '
42 and we have significant remaining concerns that the apprapriate traffic mitigation has not been '
43 identified. As presented, the project will likely resuit in significant traffic impacts.' This means I
44 accidents. `Including congestion andior traffic safety impacts requiring a Statement of Overriding
45 Consideratians. We (Caltrans) recommend that the City withhold approval af the project or
46 issuance of a building permit until feasible mitigation measures, with cost estimates to be
47 determined for both direct and cumulative impacts. We offer to assist the City to ensure that the '
48 interests of the traveling public is served.' !
49 • The letter is signed by Jesse Robinson, who is the Associate Transportation Planner of Caltrans
50 District 1.
51 • What we need to keep in mind is that with regard to the Statement of Overriding Considerations '
52 every pubiic official of Ukiah is responsible for the health and safety and welfare of that '
53 community, not the battom line of predatory corporations.
54
55 Dennis Slota:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 8, 2012
Page 24
1 • My personal experience in Chico in the early 1990s when their development got ahead of their
2 infrastructure was that he needed to come to a full stop at full speed on the highway due to ramps
3 overflowing on the highway. Was told in this regard that according to the EIR, there was adequate
4 storage in the ramps and that it will not extend into the highway. Now we are hearing the same
5 thing.
6 • The traffic count was condueted in February. For all intensive purpases, everyone knows what
7 the tourist season is like here. There is a huge difference in traffic on highway 101.
8 • The point with regard to the Chico example is that this is how it started out too. There are about
9 four ramps that routinely backed up and the whole ramp would be backed up. Is not sure of the
10 reason, but there must have been just one project that all of a sudden caused overflowing onto
11 the highway.
12 • It does not take much to reach that `critical mass' where a person suddenly has to come to a
13 dead stop. Does not recall the name of that highway, but it was not a major highway like U S '
14 Highway 101 going from Mexico to Canada and it was not a major tourist area. It was local traffic
15 on that highway. '
16 • A lot of peopie travel up and down the highway #or different reasons and are not prepared to
17 come to a fuli stap on the highway because of a traffic ramp.
18 • Would like to reiterate one of`your' highest duties is towards public health and safety. The matter
19 of maintaining public safety trumps everything. Pubiic safety should be very very high on your list
20 of concerns. '
21 • Personaliy experienced what it is like to come to a stop on a highway. It is a very unsafe and
22 unpieasant experience and that is without fog or rain or bad weather. This was in Chico in the
23 summer. So there is the strong likelihood af accidents if this project is approved.
24 • Thanked the Commission for their community service. '
25
26 Geaig Davis: '
27 • is the Ukiah Walmart store manager. '
28 • Has been with Walmart for 17 years.
29 • Has had opportunities given to him so with his hard work and dedication this led to some '
3Q promotions and finally store manager.
31 • It has been difficult to hear some of the comments and statements made during review of the '
32 Walmart Expansion Project.
33 • Cares for each of his associates. He cares what they think and who they are. ,
34 • Many of his associates have warked for Walmart for 10, 15 years and even since the store
35 opened in 1994. Many have gone through the same career path he has and become supervisors.
36 Some of them have gone on to other communities and are store managers themseives. '
37 • Well over 50% of the associates at the Ukiah Walmart store are fuil-time.
38 • The store expansion will bring many added jobs to this community. Controversy or not, they are
39 jobs. The expansion wiil also add construction revenue to this economy as well as the essential -
40 sales tax, which we all know we need.
41 • The project will bring about a one-stop shopping opportunity for our local residents. -
42 • Every day customers ask when Walmart is going to expand.
43 • Many of the customers are limited in that they have limited incomes and/or have mobility '
44 difficulties. The one-stop shop will make it a good experience for them. It would pravide for
45 access to affordable produce and food items. With the Commission's support, the Expansion
46 Project will give customers what they are looking for.
47 • At the Ukiah Walmart, we believe in aur tawn. We have been here for a long time. We have given
48 back to the community a lot and in many different ways throughout the years.
49 • As you have heard earlier, Walmart has done many things in the past year to give back including
50 giving funding, help revenue, renovate the swimming pool, contribute to the funding of the food
51 bank's holiday drive and has donated to well over 50 organizatians this past year alone.
52 • Walmart has aiso partnered with the Ukiah Main Street Program in an effort to make sure that we
53 are working together to bring people to the Downtown area. '
54 @ The Expansion Project will allow us to contribute even more to the community and affer more to
55 the eor�imun'ity.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 8, 2012 '
Page 25 '
1 • Encourages any one with questions to call him at Walmart and he would be happy to answer any
2 of those questions.
3 • Appreciates City staff and the Planning Commission for the work being done on this praject.
4 • Asks the Commission to consider the benefits that we have talked about and support the project.
5
6 Break: 9:32 p.m.
7 Recanvene: 9:43 p.m.
8
9 Lou Tustin:
10 • Thanked the Commission for the opportunity to speak in support of the Waimart Expansion
11 Project. _
12 • Is a Walmart associate. Has been a resident and a homeowner in Ukiah for 35 years.
13 • Recalled some former employers that no longer exist in the community and they include
14 McGehee Equipment, Masonite, Motion Development Industries, Remco, Microphor and others.
15 • Worked everywhere to keep his family supported and after much downsizing, selling off, layoffs,
16 found himself unemployed at 60 years old: He went to work at Walmart and has had a good
17 experience working there. in 1995, he became ill, required three surgeries and was gone from
1$ work for nine months. When he was well enough to come back, his job was waiting for him.
19 • Walmart has provided longevity and has been there for him. At 71 years of age, Walmart has not
20 asked him to leave. Walmart is trying to offer this opportunity to another 50 associates and is of '
21 the opinion it wauid be a shame nat to let them try.
22
23 Josh �ietz:
24 • Is employed at Walmart.
25 * Recentiy moved to Ukiah from severai years of schooling in the IT fieid to be closer to his family. '
26 • Because ofthe recent economic strain, was unable to find work in his related field.
27 • If it were not for a local Walmart, would likely have found himself in the unemployment line, like a
28 lot of Americans at this time.
29 • Despite his career change, Walmart has provided him with an opportunity and a competitive
30 wage that has allowed him to continue pursuing his desire to raise a family in this community.
31 With this being said, is taking an active interest in matters that affect our community. !
32 • The most concerning issue related to the proposed Walmart Expansion is the traffic mitigation
33 problem on Talmage and U S Highway 101.
34 • It is his understanding the traffic is already a problem in that area regardless of what development
35 comes into that part of town. '
36 • Also understands from previous meetings that continued growth and expansion are already
37 expected for this area and agrees with that desire the City has. '
38 + lJkiah needs the growth and revenue to survive and to flourish. However, the current traffic
39 problem does not have adequate funding at this time. '
40 • As with the original addition of Walmart to this community, Waimart once again is prepared to !
41 contribute substantialiy to the necessary funding needed to praperly address the traffic concems -
42 at the Talmage Road and 101 intersection, of which, Waimart is responsible for oniy about 8.6 %
43 of that. 91% of that eould be delegated to other businesses and traffic that already exist in the '
44 community. '
45 • As a husband and father, is concerned as another member in the community about the safety of
46 those having to use these roadways. The proposed Expansion Project is a positive solutian to the
47 current traffic mitigation concerns.
4$ • Walmart was founded on three basic beliefs,beliefs that he believes by their nature transcend our '
49 business and should be carried by every individuai regardiess of where one stands on the issue
50 of the Expansion: Respect for the individual, strive for excellence, and service to our customers. '
51 A gentleman spoke about a Walmart employee being paid to attend the Planning Cammission for '
52 the Walmart Expansion Project and that employee was he. He was finishing aut his shift. In order
53 to attend the meeting, he had to take time away from duties and responsibilities of Walmart to
54 accommodate the meeting in the interest of what he felt was the greater need for our company '
55 and cornmunity. '
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 8, 2012
Page 26 '
1 • Believes in respect far the individual unlike the disrespect that he was given by the individual who
2 presented secondhand information as facts referring to the individuai who spoke about a Walmart
3 empioyee being paid to attend the Planning Commission. Striving for excellence, which he
4 believes to go personally above and beyond his duty as an employee. He is not, was not hired to
5 represent Walmart in a public setting. He believes in striving for service to the customer as other
6 Walmart associates picked up the slack in his absence to continue service to customers when he
7 was not able to perform his normal duties.
8 • Understands that emotions run high about the Expansion Project and is personally growing
9 exceedingly weary af the passionate and gross misrepresentation of the facts and intentions that
10 are surraunding the Project. He gives people respect until they gi�e him a reason not to. is asking
11 for the same and pure ethical professional treatment from those who may have a difference of
12 opinion than he does.
13 • ts hopeful peopie can get past the anger, the ignorance, and the arrogance and that the
14 Commission weighs the facts in making the decision to support this Expansion.
15
16 Ed Nieves
17 • Provided written comments that are herein incorporated into the minutes and referred to as
1$ attachment 5.
19 • Is the coardinator for the Mendocino Environmental Center. '
20 • Addressed the Planning Gommission and stated#he Mendocino Environmental Center wishes on
21 behalf of its members to once again state its opposition to the propased expansion of the Ukiah
22 Walmart store. !
23 • The Mendocino Environmental Center was started as a direct result of Waimart's proposal to '
24 build its store and the City of Ukiah's approval of a Negative Declaration on the original plan. The
25 founding members filed a lawsuit that led to the development of an EIR on that original plan.
26 • The Mendocino Environment Center opposed approvai of the current EIR for this plan to expand
27 on the grounds that it is inadequate, not having addressed Galtrans' concerns regarding the
28 appropriateness of the proposed traffic mitigations. Caltrans' letter, dated January 25, 2012 states
29 specificaliy that the Department of Transportation reeommends the City withhoid approval of the '
30 project. '
31 • The inability of Walmart or the City to successfully mitigate the traffic hazards should be enough '
32 reason for this body to not approve a Statement of Overriding Gonsiderations. '
33 • The Mendocina Environmentai Center members are aiso concerned with the State Water Quality
34 Contral Board's exception to this plan. We continue to be concerned with the issues of safety,
35 noise air and water poliution, as well as further economic blight ta our community.
36 • The members ask the Planning Commission not approve the Statement of Overriding '
37 Consideration on this project and that the Commission instead approve the statement of '
38 overriding concerns being those af the citizens of Ukiah and hold those concerns to be greater !
39 than any economic consideration for a multinational corporation.
40 • Has been at the intersection southbound and was involved in an accident when there was very '
41 little traffic and where the person behind him was nat traveling very fast. This person happened to !
42 be on a cell phone. Had this persan been traveling faster, he might have been pushed out onto '
43 Talmage Road because he was stopped at that intersection. '
44 • When traveling to Talmage especially when one leaves Gobbi Street, there are times when it is
45 not a hazard, but then there are times when there is traffic, trucks and otherwise that are coming
46 at a fast clip/pace and one has to pick up speed to get out onto the freeway and then get back ,
47 onto the off-ramp. '
48 • If one has ever dane this, one knows that he/she is moving pretty quickiy coming off that ramp. '
49 That ramp is a danger now. Approval of this project will make it more so. Wants the Commission
50 to consider that.
51
52 Penny Vinson: '
53 • Likes Walmart and supports the Expansion Project. ',
54 '
55 Pascai Milon:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 8, 2012 ,
Page 27
1 • Shops at Walmart three or four times a week by riding his bicycle and never experiences any
2 traffic problems.
3 • Supports approval of the Expansion Project.
4
5 Terry Poplawski:
6 • Is a resident of Ukiah and an organizer of the Mendocino County Coalition of union members.
7 • is of the opinion the generai Statement of Overriding Consideration is that Walmart, as a
8 corporation, has denied the right of ail of its employees to belong to a union.
9 • Speeifically, for an overriding consideration on this project, the approval will allow Walmart to
10 expand to a super store, which will put it in direet competition in groceries. The EIR that has
11 already been approved has statements to the effect that this community could lose one or two
12 grocery stores, which more than likely the employees of which are members of unions. These
13 union members make living wages. Already tonight, the Walmart representative taiked to us
14 about$12-an-hour jobs. .
15 • As a representative on the Workforce Investment Board, was in a meeting where we were talking
16 about job training that this Board is tasked with for jobs which are sustainable living wage. `We '
17 were doing the math and talking $18 an hour.' That is not the kind af jobs that Walmart is
18 supporting. '
19 • The Planning Commission has the ability to make a statement of overriding considerations for the
20 project and in doing so should consider the value of jobs employees of our present grocery stores
21 have and that replacing them with lower paying jobs is not what needs to be done in our '
22 community.
23
24 Anne VanderHorck:
25 • Resides in Willits. Mother lives here in Ukiah. Husband works here in Ukiah. Is of the opinion we
26 are all a very large community.
27 • Thinks it is interesting to look at who is here supporting the Walmart Expansion Project. Almost
28 everybody was or is an employee. The people who are opposing the project are a cross section !
29 of the community. There are people who care about the community, business owners, employees
30 of the stores that may or may not be put out of business.
31 • Is of the opinion that there is not a vested interest in such a cross section as there is in peopie
32 who work there. I
33 • No one is asking Walmart to lose their employees, we are just asking that they not expand and
34 possibly put other people's jobs in jeopardy.
35 • Is not so worried about her husband's jab because he is of an age that he can retire. It is the
36 people who are still there that is of concern.
37 • Supports having a blackboard with one column representing the `negative' aspects of the project
38 and one column for the 'positi�e' aspects so that at the end everyone couid actually see how
39 many each column outweighs. '
40
41 Danny Jacques:
42 • Supports the Walmart Expansion project and desires the Commission speedily approves the '
43 Statement of Overriding Considerations.
44 • Does not work for Walmart although he has applied.
45 • Talked about prevailing wages in Ukiah and noted some businesses pay only as much as $8.50 '
46 an hour. '
47 • Wauld like to have a union job aithough most union jobs are not#ull-time. '
48 • It may take a while for the Expansion Project to occur and if Lucky's or Food-Maxx is still
49 struggling then there is something more to cansider than just Waimart taking away their business. '
50 • As far as the traffic problem, if the Talmage exist is dangerous, do not use it. A person can
51 change his/her driving habits.
52 • Wouid like to think that our society is intelligent. People need education not legislation. Peopie
53 need to be aware of what the situation is and make a logical, rational decision to help one '
54 another.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 8, 2012
Page 28 '
1 • The apposition is just those persons against Walmart personally. There is not anything in this
2 room or any automobile that is made in the United Stated of America that is not connected to
3 Chinese products.
4 • The ecanomy of the United States is in trouble and supports stepping farward and be visionaries
5 and speedily approve the Expansion Project.
6
7 Raul Ruir.
8 • Regarding the Talmage intersection, was recently driving with a friend ta attend a class at
9 Mendoeino College when it became apparent the exit was already backed up. The traffic was
10 almost out to where it was pretty dangerous for anyone.
11 • Is a Walmart employee and enjoys his job.
12 • Was unemployed and is grateful Walmart gave him a job opportunity.
13 • Nitpicking at everything creates a lot of bad things and there is no gain.
14 • People shop at Walmart to get what they need. Has customers state it benefits them '
15 economically to shop at Walmart.
16 • Thanked the Cammission for listening to the public and all the 'ranting and raving' about the
17 Walmart Expansion. ',
1$ '
19 Aurba Lord: '
2Q • Has been a Walmart associate for eight years. '
21 • Is present to support the Expansion Project.
22 • Has attended all the Planning Commission meetings so far and would like to say `we did nat '
23 come here to talk about our wages, our benefits, ar thatwe are ail receiving aid.' '
24 • Can almost bet that most of the people here had someone in their family receive some type of '
25 aid.
26 • Family taught her to have respect for the individual. Walmark does this. Has not seen much of this
27 at the Planning Gommission meetings for the Walmart Expansion Project from some persons. '
28 People shouid practice having respect for individuals. '
29 • Is an American and as such, can choose where she works. '
30 • Is of the opinion the issue of Walmart wages or insurance has anything to do with the Expansian
31 Project.
32 • Has worked in grocery/retail for close to 35 years. Worked at Safeway and paid union dues. Did '
33 not get paid when there was a strike, but still had to pay the union dues.
34 • As a single parent there were times when she had to work more than two jobs.
35 • When in the union was not allowed to shop at other stores that were not union, not to mention
36 having a second job. At Walmart is free to shop wherever she wants.
37 • Was asked by a person at the last meeting whether or not she has benefits, if she worked full-
38 time, if part-time people had benefits and if she awned a home. Answered `yes' to these !
39 questions. In fact, she owns two hames.
40 • Is not receiving aid, but did while she worked at Safeway.
41 • The point is, the project has nothing to do with where a person works. There are many reasons
42 people are on some type of aid.
43 • Does not reside in Ukiah, but spends her maney here. '
44 • Shops at different stores in Ukiah.
45 • Formerly worked at a Walmart super store in Reno Nevada and was able to transfer to the Ukiah
46 Walmart store. Had a job when she moved here. How many companies do that?
47 • It comes up that stores like Safeway, �ucky's, Raley's will go out of business if Walmart expands. '
48 These stores are also large carporations. The supercenter where she worked in Reno had a
49 Safeway store in frant of it, an Albertson's next to it and a Raley's nat far from it and all of these
50 stores are still in business. '
51 • Approval of the Expansion will open jobs for 85 people. These are jobs people need. Some of '
52 these people might even be receiving aid.
MINUTES OF THE PLANMNG GOMMISSION February 8, 2012 '
Page 29
1 • Most jobs right now that a person finds are part-time. How many of those jobs have benefits? If a
2 store goes out of business beeause Walmart expands, it is because they were an their way out
3 anyway. _
4 • The fact is Walmart is not asking ta put in a whole new store. This is an existing store and has
5 been in the community for 18 years.
6 • Walmart has made a lot of contributions to this area and like myself, if it is aliowed to expand, she
7 wouid be spending more money in this area.
8 • If Walmart does not have a certain product a customer is looking for, she will send them to other
9 stores that might carry it. There are many people that come from out of the area to shop at
10 Walmart and then shop at other stores while they are in Ukiah bringing their money into the area.
11 • There are 48 businesses besides Walmart in the center that contributes to the traffic. Food Maxx
12 and Lucky's are also owned by the same company.
13 • There are many of us that live out of the Ukiah area that carpool to work.
14 + Supports the Expansion Project and helping some less fortunate that are out of work to have a
15 chance to have a job.
16
17 April Harrington:
18 • Thanked the Planning Commission for their consideration regarding the proposed project.
19 • Does approve of Walmart because it represents progress.
20 • Likes to shop at Waimart.
21 • Supports the project provide for bike parking and an improved parking lot.
22
23 Cathy Finigan:
24 • Opposes the project. This community does not need an expanded Walmart store. !
25 • Does agree with the negative comments made about this Expansion.
26 • The only thing Walmart cares about in this community is how much money it can suck out of it.
27 This is pathetic and has seen it happen:
28 • Referred ta a smail town in Arkansas that when she was there in 1988 was a thriving little town '
29 and about 14 years later she visited the town again only to find the `square dead.' There was
30 nothing going on and then discovered a big Walmart store had been built. She talked with some
31 of the residents in the community and they were extremely sad and unhappy about what W '
32 happened to their town. I
33 • Visited other smali tawns in Arkansas and found the same pattern. The heart of each town was
34 gone, but there were huge big box stores outside. This is something to cansider.
35 !
36 Mark Poston:
37 • Has been a resident of Ukiah for 22 years.
38 • Is the current store manager of the Ukiah �ucky's supermarket.
39 • Is concerned about the Walmart Expansion.
40 • After attending previaus Planning Commission meetings, the unresolved traffic issue seems to
41 present a very serious safety hazard. With neither a plan in place nor approved funding available
42 is of the opinion it would be irrespansible to the community to approve the project on this point '
43 alone.
44 • Is also of the opinion our eommunity cannot absorb another large retailer without negatively '
45 affecting numerous other businesses and jobs.
46 • Has not noticed any significant growth in population in our area for some time so adding another
47 large grocery retailer does not seem to make sense. A new gracery choice in Ukiah wiii nat attract '
48 shoppers from the outside areas that do not already come to Ukiah far their grocery needs.
49 • The potential loss of the Lucky's store would also severely impaet the traffic gaing through the
50 Pear Tree Shopping Center. This would have a negative effect on numerous other businesses in '
51 the center. '
52 • Is of the opinian the convenience of a super Walmart would not be a good tradeoff for the
53 community as a whole. The loss of jobs, the closures af businesses and the lower working wage
54 would not seem to be taking this community in the right direction.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 8, 2012
Page 30
1 • As the manager of �ucky's, can say that he has 63 employees. Of these 63 persons, 15 have at
2 least 20 years of service. An additianal 18 have at least 10 years of service. 23 of the employees
3 are full-time with a guaranteed 40 hours per week.
4 + The average wage at his store for the week ending February 4t" is$18.65 an hour.
5 • The company contributes $6.20 per hour that goes toward benefits for all of its employees. This
6 equates to an average total compensation of$24.85 per hour.
7 • His store is a 49,000 sq.ft. full-service supermarket. Lucky's is the lower volume store of the other
8 majar supermarkets in town.
9 • If the Walmart Expansion Project goes through, he anticipates it to take a significant portion of
10 Lucky's business as it will with the other stores in town.
11 • Is concerned the reduction in sales wili drop Lucky's below the level of keeping a facility our size
12 open.
13 • The closure of Lucky's will put 63 peaple out of work and while some may find employment at a
14 new super Walmart their standard of living would eertainly deerease as the hourly wage and
15 benefits available to them would be significantly lowec
16 • Is of the opinion the proposed Walmart Projeet is not the right direction far our community.
17
18 Mike Olave: '
19 • Was a former manager of Lucky's grocery store. '
20 • Concern that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
21 • Is of the opinion the Expansion will not bring any mare business ta town and it will just take from
22 the existing retailers. '
23 • Is also concemed about the local ecanomy. If 63 persons are dispiaced from the Lucky's store, '
24 these persons will not all get jobs. The average rate of journeyman clerk is $21.13 an hour and to '
25 bring them down to$1250 an hour, if helshe could get that much is not a good thing.
26 • The project is not good for the community.
27
28 Alan Nicholson: '
29 • Provided written comments regarding the issue of traffic and traffic impacts and project benefits
30 that are herein incorporated in the minutes and referred to as attachment 6. '
31 • Would like to address the Statement of Overriding Considerations
32 Traffic
33 - Planning Director Stump mentioned there have been two letters fram Jesse Robertson at '
34 the Caitrans District 1 offiee in Eureka regarding the traffic mitigations proposed by the
35 applicant.
36 - In both of these letters, the Director of Transportation stated he highly recommended
37 deferring this project and not giving approval until plans could be approved by their office.
38 - No funding mechanisms are in place. There are no plans. Mr. Stump has indicated he is '
39 working on plans.
40 - However, he spoke with Mr. Robertson last week and today, and he is concerned that
41 nobody has contacted him. He is only required by law to be involved in one scoping
42 session. Their office is very interested in finding solutions to traffic problems. '
43 - It is going to be very difficult to find solutions to the traffic problems when the foundation '
44 traffic-count numbers are understated, undefined. Mr. Robinson indicated if there is no
45 feasible pian and no feasible mechanism, it is going to be very difficult to come up with a
46 plan that works for the community.
47 - On this basis, it would seem very strange to approve a project based on a building '
48 permit. '
49 - Walmart has said they would fund their fair share if that share cauld be arrived at before
50 they were issued a building permit. If Walmart is issued a building permit prior to this '
51 becoming a capital improvement project then Walmart wauld not take any responsibility '
52 for it. '
53 - Walmart is offering $17,000 cash up front now just to forget the whale thing and give
54 them a building permit. This does not seem very community-minded to him, and cannot
55 imagine it sounds very community-mind�d ta any�n�.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 8, 2012
Page 31 !
1 - Caltrans has said the plan is not feasible and physically it is not feasible by funding so the
2 community is left with a horrendous traffic condition.
3 - Frequently drives by the Talmage Off-ramp because he lives in Taimage and pravided a
4 picture of traffic backed up onto the freeway this morning at 7:50 a.m. Traffie is backed
5 up onto the freeway five days a week, every morning at 6:50 a.m. and the traffic is
6 frequently baeked up at about 4:45 p.m. with people trying to get into the Airport Business
7 Park.
$ - The critical condition is aiready existing and samehow we have got to come up with a
9 solution for this problem.
10 - Is of the opinion the Statement of Overriding Cansiderations are not going to benefit the
11 community.
12 Conditions:
13 - On January 25th Walmart's legal counsel submitted a letter to the Planning Commission
14 that listed 12 benefits ta the City they believe outweigh the three significant and
15 unavoidable traffic impacts.
16 - We already know these traffic impacts include vehicles backed up onto the Southbound
17 101 Off-ramp as far as the freeway with a potential for serious rear-end collisions.
18 - We also know from a 2005 traffic study done by the Mendocina Council of Governments '
19 (MCOG) that a new diamond interchange and freeway overcrossing could solve those '
20 traffic issues.
21 - The probiem from Walmart's point of view is that such a solution wouid be expensive and
22 time-consuming and they want to move forward no matter what the traffic consequences '
23 will be. Walmart has the gall to ask the Planning Commission to side with them by way of
24 a Statement of Qverriding Consideration for justifying the project's benefits over the '
25 traffio-safety considerations. '
26 - What are the sa-cailed benefits and ramifications:
27 1. The project will add 85 new jobs, but could easily eliminate an equal or greater
28 number of jabs. Some numbers have been 150 jobs of twice the pay.
29 2. Excluding Measure S, the project may generate $1Q,000 in net General Fund tax
30 revenues plus some City property tax revenues unless other stores go out of
31 business and are not re-tenanted. This physical gain is a mere pittance compared to
32 the City's future obligation to upgrade nearby intersections.
33 3. Walmart will contribute $17,836 in fair-share transportation infrastructure '
34 improvements, consisting largely of bike lanes and sidewalks. Walmart will only '
35 contribute to necessary upgrades to the Talmage-Airpart Park-Highway 101
36 intersection, shown as a roundabout provided a Gapital Improvement Plan (CIP) is in '
37 place prior to Walmart picking up its building permit. Because other traffic experts '
38 consider the roundabout solution infeasible and without a CIP in place and with the
39 contribution by Walmart in daubt and/or the amount of that contribution unclear is an
40 issue to consider. '- -
41 4. Waimart will provide a high quality design that will be pedestrian friendly. This will be '
42 a generic Walmart store and the pedestrian access will virtuaily stop af the Walmart
43 property line.
44 5. The stare will feature energy-saving features. As mentioned by the Walmart store '
45 manager, several of these energy features will be installed even if the Expansion
46 Project does not move forward. '
47 6. There will be attractive landscaping. The amount of total landscaping will be reduced
48 and the prajeet needs a variance because it does not meet the City's landscape
49 requirements. '
50 7. The Project will improve pedestrian access ta the site. There are two main entry
51 doors, but only ane pedestrian access path to the site. The relocated bus stop may
52 help Walmart, but will make it harder far bus riders to access the stores on the other '
53 side of Commerce Drive. '
54 8. The project will provide for improved bike circulation. This will only apply to the '
55 perimeter of the site. '
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 8, 2012
Page 32
1 9. The project will provide for better storm water treatment and detention. More of the
2 site will be paved, and as we have heard, the sediment fiiters may or may nofi be
3 changed and may be toxie. We do not know if the impacts of those, where they wiil
4 be deposited, how much it wiil cost to replace them, at what point in time, and how
5 frequently.
6 10. The project wili provide 24-hour shopping convenience. These extended hours will
7 aiso add to crime and related police costs.
8 11. The prajeet will stabilize the retail market. The Expansion Projeet will lead to store
9 closures. This is hardly stability.
10 12. Walmart will be a goad member af the eammunity. Any additional eontributions from
11 Walmart could come at the expense of other retailers.
12
13 • The question before the Planning Commission is whether these benefits outweigh the EIR as it
14 describes patential safety hazards, increasing the degree to which an existing queuing back-up '
15 would exceed the available storage length.
16 • The EIR is correct that these queuing hazards eould lead to serious or fatal injury, even death.
17 The benefits described by Walmart are not justified.
18 • Please do not let Walmart off the hook for fixing their traffic problems.
19 • Please deny the Statement of Overriding Considerations.
20
21 Steve Scalamini:
22 • Is equally cancerned about the fundamental safety risks that we face versus what seems like a '
23 pittance of financial benefit to the City, let alone the other benefits.
24 • The mitigations that are presented to us and we have heard testimony at previous meetings and
25 tonight that these cannot be shown. in fact, Caltrans does not believe them to be mitigations.
26 What has been said clearly is that there is not enough information given ta show they wiil, in fact, '
27 be mitigations. !
28 • is not sure if it has been mentioned very much although Alan Nicholson touched on it, but the '
29 MCOG report completed in 2005 entitled `The Route 101 Corridor Interchange Study' shows a
30 couple of mitigatian ideas which look like full mitigations. The document talks about providing for
31 a wider overpass and multiple lanes in each direction, which MCOG thinks would be a '
32 reasonable and/or full mitigation/true solution. Somehow, those options were amitted or ignored ',
33 in the EIR because they were not mentioned. !
34 • It is his understanding the fact these options exist is one of the many reasons that can be used to
35 turn down the project, seeing that the mitigations that have been presented da not have proven
36 validity.
37 • Regarding the 85 jobs Walmart elaims they are going to add include no information to aetually
38 substantiate that there will not be roughiy 85 jobs lost elsewhere. And, in fact, in the recard of
39 studies that have been done over the years, there is nothing to substantiate there will be 85 net
40 new jobs. '
41 • Furthermore, there is literature that says the benefits of the employment and such are roughly a
42 wash. There may be a few more, there may be a few less. It is not clear. The worst case
43 scenario that has been quoted and done in the past was a study that shows the ratio of jobs lost
44 is three to two ar 1,4 jobs lost for every one job gained. That is the worst case. To counter this, '
45 one of the items sent in by the economic consultant for the applicant cited some literature, but '
46 none of that literature says anything `significant to the other direction.' The best it shows is that it
47 is gaing to be a wash, i.e., a few more or a few less jobs. Is of the opinion that is not going to be '
48 85 needed new jobs. There is going to be roughly zero net new jobs, but if the 85 jobs move from '
49 living wage-paying aver to Walmart's scale, then the difference in scale is going to be in the '
50 ballpark of$10 an hour. Multiply this by 40 hours a week, 52 hours a year and 85 employees the
51 amount is $1.7 million. So part of the Commission's decision is whether you want $1.7 million to
52 escape the local economy and no longer circulate thraugh with sales tax paid.
53 • With regard to the discussion about full-time employment, it is his understanding that full-time is '
54 not a 40-hour week, but rather 32 hours per week. Does not know if this is the case in Ukiah, but '
55 would like to know.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 8, 2012
Page 33
1 • Is concerned as previo.us speakers indicated about the price that Walmart will pay for mitigations.
2 The current mitigations, being roundabouts are in the ballpark of a few million doliars. Heard
3 today that the roundabout put in for Fort Bragg just a few months ago cost$4.4 million. Perhaps
4 we could get some kind of a confirmation at some point from staff in this regard.
5 • Regarding the $17,000 figure as Walmart's proportional fair share for traffic improvement costs,
6 there is some further work that needs to be done to consider what the benefits for the project are
7 going to be and how that is going to be paid for.
8 • In terms of MCQGs report and the cost for what is recommended by them is probably in the
9 bailpark of 10 times that and/or perhaps in the 30 to 40 million dollar range.
10 • Assumes there will be some costs coming from staff about traffic improvements.
11 • Heard mention of `pedestrian friendiy' as one af the alleged benefits. It is his understanding the
12 pedestrian access through the site is not settled. There are two doors to the site and pedestrian
13 access is only to one of them
14 * More importantly, has not seen `pedestrian' mentioned in any discussian regarding the
15 roundabout. So how does somebody in a wheelchair get through the roundabout? There is no '
16 stop sign. If that is the mitigation, he is confused. ',
17 • Walmart's own traffic consultant refutes and referred to the roundabout sketches as cartoons.
18 Does not want to overplay that particular term but those sketches do not say anything about
19 pedestrians. At least today there are stop signs, but with a roundabout thare will not be.
20 • Is unable to report on ADR compatibility but is having someone look at this issue. '
21 • There is mention of 24-hour shopping convenience. Only a few hundred feet away from the !
22 current location of Walmart is a 24-hour grocery store. Does not see any particular need for
23 Walmart to sell groceries too. '
24 • One of the aileged project benefits is the stabilization of the retail market. it does not figure that
25 other store ciosures represent stabilization.
26 • Regarding being a good member of the community, is still waiting to hear a commitment from
27 Walmart that they are going to use their medical office there to treat their own employees.
28 Brought this subject up in the scoping session. Is of the belief that if Waimart had a medical
29 office in their building, they use it far their empioyees. '
30 • Another concern that relates to the topic of being a good member of the community is the !
31 additional police services that are going to be required. This is documented in the financial
32 and/or economic benefits to the City analysis that was done. '
33 • The EIR states clearly the additional police services that will be required at Walmart as a result of
34 the Expansion Project means less police available for the rest of the City. So where is the benefit -
35 if the police seroices are going to be at Walmart and not availabie for the rest of the City?
36 • The draft document that has been created says the benefits somehow outweigh the concems of
37 safety and traffic spilling onto the freeway and such just baffies him. Cannot see how the benefits
38 possibly outweigh the safety risks and the risks to life and limb in collisions from traffic backing
39 up onto the freeway.
40 • Has heard a few times tonight how the traffic already backs up to the freeway. What is the point?
41 ifthe traffic is already bad, why approve a project and make it worse? '
42 '
43 Chair Pruden:
44 • The Commission has had four hearings, approximately 30 hours of hearings. When the public
45 hearing is closed for this meeting, this will be the end of the public hearing process for the Site
46 Develapment and for the Statement of Overriding Cunsiderations.
47 • Polled the Cammission to make certain they have sufficient information to be able to go to !
48 deliberations the next time they meet.
49
SQ There was discussion reading the next meeting date for the Walmart Expansion Project and determined
51 the meeting will likely be March 14.
52 '
53 Commissioner Sanders: Wauld like to see the draft minutes for the last three or four hearing that were '
54 held.
55 '
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 8, 2012 '
Page 34
1 There was Commission discussion whether or not they have sufficient information to deliberate on the
2 Expansion Project.
3
4 Gity Attorney Rapport: The Gommission's job is to base your decision on all of the evidence that has
5 been part of the record for all those meetings that you have already had. All the Findings regarding the
6 Statement of Overriding Considerations have to be based on substantiai evidence in the record. So, if you
7 do not know what will happen at the next Walmart project hearing, you will have to make a decision and
8 then ask staff to come back with findings ta support whichever decision that turns out to be. It may be the
9 meeting may earry over to the next meeting after that. The Commission may want to give some
10 instruction tonight to start the process of reviewing the record to see what evidence supports whatever
11 findings the Commission wants to make. '
12
13 Chair Pruden:
14 • Acknowledged the late hour.
15 • Directed dialogue to Planning Director Stump and stated the Commission essentially has two
16 directions it can go. The Commission can make a voting decision on March 14 and then instruct '
17 staff to bring back findings that support or the Commission can basically instruct staff to come up '
18 with findings representing our point of view.
19 • Is of the opinian this is samething staff needs to discuss among themselves and then bring that
20 conversation fonnrard to the Planning Commission. '
21 '
22 City Attorney Rapport: '
23 • Agreed this is a practical approach because the Commission has to deliberate in an open '
24 session.
25 • Wouid like to start reviewing the record just to see what evidence there is before March 14.
26 '
27 Commissioner Sanders: Expressed concern about comments from Caltrans and the lack of contact
28 with Jesse Robertson from staff excepf for the very recent contact.
29
30 Planning Director Stump: '
31 • It is his understanding Public Works staff has not had an ongoing dialogue with Caltrans. '
32 • Caltrans did comment on the EIR and after the EIR was certified. Caltrans submitted the January
33 25'" Jetter after the January 18 City Council certification. It was at that paint the City contacted
34 them.
35 • Another reason City staff contacted them was because we have made some progress on looking
36 at more detailed design work and with getting some engineered cost estimates. We are not there
37 yet, but we wanted to report that to CalTrans in response to Caltrans' January 25`h letter, in which
38 they were basically saying they did not have enaugh detail to be convinced anything would work '
39 there. ' _
40 • The conversation is now opening up and we are getting mare information.
41 • Is hopeful in the next month or so there will be a lot more infarmation for Caltrans, for the public, '
42 and for the Commission. '
43
44 Commissioner Sanders: Would really like to hear the roundabout, if that is really a viable option. '
45
46 Planning Director Stump: This is part of the information we are trying to determine. There are two
47 different roundabout possibilities and there is the signalized loop. All of these things are being looked at.
48
49 Commissioner Sanders: Inquired about the pedestrian issue as to `how are semi's going ta be '
50 accommodated?'
51
S2 Planning Director Stump: That is a big part of the engineering. Consideration for the trucks that have to '
53 come into the Redwood Business Park is a standard part of the modeling that is being done. '
54
55 Commissioner poble:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 8, 2012
Page 35 '
1 • Asked about procedure and in the next hearing will the Commission be talking more about the
2 Site Development Permit and getting thoughts on that or are is the Gommission going straight
3 into the Statement of Overriding Considerations? There were some changes made to the project
4 that the Commission should talk about.
5 • Asked if the application for the solar permit being processed as a ministerial permit is under
6 Commission purview? Is still unclear as to whether it is going to be part of the project package.
7
8 Planning Director Stump:
9 • Staff just received the building permit. We are looking at it to determine whether or not it breaks
10 the threshold for a site development permit. If it does, it will come before the Planning
11 Commissian and packaged accordingly such that it would be meaningful for the Commission to
12 understand that it is part of the project.
13 • Part of the review Planning staff does when a buiiding permit comes in is to determine whether or
14 not it complies with the zoning and whether or not a discretionary permit is required. We are in
15 the pracess of doing this.
16
17 Commissioner poble: Requested ciarification if there is an ongoing discretianary permit and an
1$ application is made for a ministerial permit, i.e., building permit it would come under that discretionary '
19 permit application. It appears this buiiding permit application is being treated as if it is ministerial and not '
20 discretionary because if it was discretionary, it would be within this package.
21
22 City Attorney Rapport: '
23 • Is of the opinion, if Walmart can do the solar panel project with just a building permit, they do not '
24 need a site development permit and should be able to do this.
25 • It would not automatically become part of the pending site development permit applicatian unless
26 they were going to make that part of the design for the expanded project.
27 '
28 Chair Pruden: The way it has been explained is that the building permit submittal is for the existing
29 building and is not related to the Expansion Project.
30 �
31 City Attorney Rapport: If the applicant is planning on putting the solar panels on the expanded portion '
32 of the project this would depend on what the site development permit encompasses and could be a part '
33 of the site development permit.
34
35 Commissioner poble: We talked about architecture quite a bit at the last meeting. There are some
36 changes to the fa�ade that were requested and they were provided to us, but as far as the solar array, we '
37 do not know if it is flat, visible, a sawtoath pattern and such. This is a question that requires clarification.
38
39 Chair Pruden: The applicants listening to this discussion may want to further refine their thought process
40 so there may be some additianal input to us. '
41
42 Commissioner Whetzel: Would still like to see the original site plan with the 20 percent landscaping in
43 order to see what the footprint of the building would be like.
44
45 Chair Pruden: '
46 • We will see if the applicant wili provide this information.
47 • For the audience, the public hearing is ciosed.
48 • We will address the Walmart issue on March 14tn
49 • There will be Planning Commission deliberations about two items, the Site Development Permit '
50 and the Statement af Overriding Considerations. '
51 • We are not entirely sure whether we will go to a vote or not. If we go to vote, we will then have to
52 instruct staff to come up with findings to support that vote, depending on how it goes. '
53 • The Commission requests that the Walmart Expansion Project be the only item on the March 14tn
54 agenda.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 8, 2012
Page 36
;
�
�
i
1 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 10:47 p.m.
2
3 It was the consensus of the Commission that Walmart Expansion Project Site Development Permit and
4 Statement of Overriding Conditians be continued to the March 14t"regular Planning Commission meeting.
5
6 10. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
"7 Planning Director Stump reported there will likely be a preliminary review application for the February
8 22nd Planning Commission meeting.
9
10 11. P�ANNING GQMMISSIONERS' REPORT
11 Commissioner Sanders advised TAG is ready to present the tree list to Council and this should oceur at
12 the regular March 7th City Council meeting.
13
14 12. ADJOURNMENT
15 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:13 p.m.
16 '
17 '
18 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary '
19 '
MINUTES OF THE P�ANNING COMMISSION February 8, 2012 '
Page 37
����°:��r���t � �v__.._._..._.�_ ,.. :��:� ��.:
_ ����� ����.��
� j �,�
February 8, 2Q12 FEB 0 � �ui2
Dear Commissioners af the Ukiah Planning Gommission, c��a���-�
��!��Q���:
Nly name is Thomas Ray, a resident of the city of Ukiah, California
- -- -__ _.—.__ _--_----_ _-- - ----- .
1 am here tonight to state my cancerns that the costs to the city of Ukiah for the
expansion of Walmart will greatly exceed what the city of Ukiah wili get back from ;
Walmart.� � r���T�
Supposedl Ukiah would get extra tax money because of the expansion of Walmart. '
It has bee caiculated that the city of Ukiah will only get $12,OOQ - $15,q00 a year in
extra tax money.
The recently completed Fort Bragg Roundabout cost 4.4 million dollars to cornplete.
Ukiah's Roundabout may cost the same. Walmart stated that they will only pay a
proportional cost of this. Why is that?Where is the city of Ukiah going to get the '
money to pay for this Roundabout? If Walmart did not expand, the city of Ukiah
would not have to build fihe Roundabaut in the first place.
Walmart's own Environmental Irnpact Report predicts that a new Walrnart
supermarket will take $50 Million/year away from existing Ukiah retailers. We will be
trading good jobs for bad! The EIR predicts the possibte closure of two grocery
stores as a result of an expansion. Major store closures will result in more people
unemployed, home foreclosures, and decreased property values for homes and
commercial properties located nearby those major stores.
Walmart stated that their health insurance is available for all employees. You should
ask Ukiah Walmart how many of their law wage full time and part time employees
actually have health insurance with Walmart. You will find aut that many of them can
not afford it because of their low wa�es. The hiring of new emplayees for the
expansion of Walmart will only compound the problern. The city of Ukiah has been
subsidizing the health care costs of Walmart for years!
Other California cities (including: Antioch, Garlsbad, Chica, Clovis, Concord,
Eureka, Folsom, Hercules, Inglewood, North Auburn, Salinas, San Marcos, Turlock,
Ventura, and Woodland) and many other cities around the United States have
stopped the building or expansion af Walmart stores in their ci#ies far the same
reasons: the building or expansion of Walmart in their city did not really benefit
their city and local businesses. It only increased Walrnart's market share & profit,
taking away from already established lacal businesses &jobs. The city of Ukiah
should stop Walmart as well, it can not afford the expansion af Walmart! '
Thomas Ray
PC) Box 607
Ukiah, �A 95482
�,�.a,..��..,?.�,�r.'i$�§L '�f' �
Green Belt - Less Wal-mart
Fi�to seventy fiVe Years aga the Ukiah Vallev was still a
beautiful place. The valley flaor would be covered with deep blue
lupines and golden poppies. Today yau have fio search far lupines
and poppies for seed saving. Have we lost our appreciation for '
nature's paintbrush? So much so that we bulldoze, pave, build and
destroy all of the natural world which provides a quality af life beyond
the business practices of shopping and earning maney? What's ;
wrong with Wal-Mart's plan to expand its store? Looks lik� ;
everything to me.
Why should taxpayers be asked to subsidize the obscenely
wealthy Wal-Mart/Waltan family thru food stamps and the food bank '
programs to feed poorly paid Wal-Mart employees? The Ukiah Co-op
and the other stores pay living wages. Why doesn't the greedy Wal- '
MarE corporation pay equally fair wages to all its employees?
Wal-Mart wants to expand its paved areas with more asphalt in a
fload plain, dumping more automobile pollution into the Russian
River— more traffic - more air pollution in a valley which suffers from
summer air inversians trapping �ollution close to the valley floor—
more water usage when climate change challenges us with many
unknowns such as alternating drought and flooding.
, �G�`� All of us joined together can create a powerful coalition for
.�
change. Why should c�tizens have to beg a panel of unelected,
. `
unaccauntable bureaucrats to rule in the best interests of aur
��T�,community? Progressive communities have begun to discharge their
-z�„���� planning commissions in favor of citizen's coalitions and liaisons. �
�
�'.��,�. Perhaps this will be necessary to accomplish the long-term
revitalization of our city.
If Wal-Mart were to demonstrate goodwill towards our community,
Wal-Mart would donate anywhere from a million dollars to ten million
towards the construction of a green belt along the Russian River, a
walking park with bicycle paths to include riparian habitat restoration,
wildlife protection and wildflower and native plantings. Such a green
bett would truly benefit Ukiah/Haiku as parks like this have revitalized
and restored downtowns and abandoned city areas all over this
�o�n�ry. llkiah c�uld be an example of a progr���iv� comm�anit}/
instead af a regressive one choosing predatory capitalism. We need
to green our city. The Open Space Council, Audubon Society, Ukiah --
Trails. Mendocino Land Trust, Galifornia Native Plant Society need to
join together, organize for local sovereignty, instead of corporate
predation of our wealth. Think of Wal-Mart as an invasive species.
--
- L�of�at-h�w�the�vrl�dly spreacting t�horn covere� gorse as ove a en
our coastal grasslands, pampas grass too. Inland, observe the
spreading of toxic star thistle which is sa difficult to remove.
Occupy!
� �
Darothe Dorman
Y
Redwood Valley
January 25, 2012 '
�2� , �' -� a � �- m '
������ '
� '
.�b1a°��4;�f��i`l� �'-L �
�ill�a,m D. ���p��r
A.itorney at Lavr
• 4i7�Street
T3avis,CA 4SG16
' (53t}}'758�0757
Fax(53b}758-28A�
January 25, 20�2
Planning�c�mmissianers
City af Ukial�.
Flanning 8c Cammunity Develapment l�e�rt
3U0 Semi�ary Ave, '
LJkiah, CA 95�82
RE; �'i�y o,f LTJciah T�atrr�art Expa�z�ac�ra,�'rQject
I�ear It�eml�rs �f�he Planning Cc�r�unission: '
Z represent Ci�izens foz Sustainable�ornmerce,a Cal'rfornia Associatic�n,Steve Scalr�aninz,
Allen ltiticholsc�n, �d Jeffrey Bl�:nlcfo�t, As I am sure you l�n.ow, on Tanuary 18, 2012, the City
CounGil4f tlle City t�f Ui:iah deniec�my clients° a�peal of t�ae Pianning Commissia�'s c�rtificatit�n
of the Ei�viroxamen�al�npa�t Report ft�r the City�f Ul�iah Walmart E�pansian PrQjecc. .Befc�re�ae
�ornrnissicrn now is Walmart's r�quest to appr�ve the T'raje�fi on a Statement a�' C3verridin.g
Cc�nsiderations. T�,x� Califq�qia l�gislature allows as� a�ency tc� appra�Te a Presject wi�h $ignif'icant
enviz�az�z�aentai �ffe�t�if, "�he public agency finds that specific overriding econc�n�ic, Iega1, social, '
te�hnolo�gica.l,ar Qth�r benefits af the Projee�o�utweig�t�e significant effects c�n the enviz�onment."
�Pubiic Reso�rc�s�oc[e �21481(b), emphasis added.}
When a Praject has a si�nifi�ant en�virc�nxnental effect;ihe agency must set farth the reasrr�s _
for its acction l�as�d on the�inal EIIZ, t�r other it�farma�ian in the Recard. This requiren�en�reflects
t�he statutary �salic�' that �ubli� agencies rn�ust weigh a propo�e� Preject's benefits �.gainst its
unavoidabl�envirc�n�nental�ris�CS,and may c�nly findthe advers�impaets"accep�b��"i�t�ie benefit�
outvv��gh thase effects. (GEQA C`iuideliz�es§15093{a);Sferrtz�Zub v. G`ont�a Costa�`ou�ty(1�92} '
1�Cat.App,4�h 1212, 1222.) The Califc,rnia Suprerne Cc�urt h�s sta.�ed,an agency's determination '
tha�a project's bene�ts c�utw�igh significant effect,�that canno�be mitigated"lzes at the caxe ofthe
le�d agency's discr�tianar�r�sponsibility und�r CEQA."(�'ztv o��Ia�zna v,Br�ard o f Tr�ustees r�f tlae
Catr.fo��tia St�tte �Ir�ive�^sity{20(}6}39�al.�th 3��,368.} A Statement�f Ov�rriding Consideratit�ns
mus�: be sup�orted by sul�stan#�a.� evidence i_ti the recc�rd c�f the Agency's praceed�ngs, (CEQ.A '
Guidelines §15a�3{b};S`i��A�a Glub v. �`c�ntr�a�`astcz C�runt,y(1992) 10 Cal,A.pp.4t�. 1212, IZ23.} .
Th�weighr`n�;pr4cess requires the Flar�nirtg Commission to bc�th consider the sev�rrit�Qf�he
unmitigated e�vixc�nrnerz�al impact, :and the patential benefits 4f the Praject. In the casa c�f ihe
�a.�art�xpansion Froject,the se��rity t�f the ur�mitigated axzvironmental impacts a�e gra�re, and
the benefits of the Prc�ject are slight,i.f any. '
Pla.r��ing Cammiss�aners
City a�Ukia:h
P�a.t�u�g &Commu.nit�I�e��elc�pm�nt De�t
January Z�,�012
Page 2 � '
InMr.Uani.el�mith's letter dated January �7,2012(Exhibit A), h�states: "A eentral issua
here is��hethex a�n�t t�.e quauir�g on the 101 Sc�uthbaunc�c�ff-ramp tc�Tal.image�oes ar would stacic
bacl�into the high��peed dece3eratit�n area affihe ramp or eve�c�ntt�the freeway mainline lanes under '
exisf'rng traf�"tc_t��i#'just Pro,�ect traf�ic were added.." As shown c�n pages 2-7 of the aYta.�hed letter,
�h.e queues �n the �cruthbound rarnp are Iikel� to be m�tch lo�.ger than disclosed in tl�e DEII�, In
respc�nse to Comm�nt Q-86,the FEIIZ takes the position th�t it does nat really rnat�er xf the c�ueues
are langert becaus��the EIl� considers any queue ovex 504�eet as a signi�catat irzlpact. Mr. Smith
shc�ws f��t it is liteel�.that the queues will extend to the end€��`the aff-ram�,and sometirnes anta the
freev�ray, At the�ity C4uncil hearing c�n Januar� 1$,2012,several pec�ple pravic�ed t�stimo�ly that
th�y had seen the qu�ues on the off-r�.mp s�aill anto the freeway, and in a letter dated December 6, '
�41�,the County t�f I�Iendc�cino also stated that the�raffic on�tl�.e sauthbaund aff-ra�p sarnetimes .
backs ont� the freeway. Ivlr. �mith �tat�s: "�� is �. matter o�' fundt�nental 1.raffic engineering
�rinciples tl�at if th� �ueues e�t�nd into t�e high�speed traffzG r�peratin� area, the fr�c�uency and !
severzty of collisit�€as wiZl in�rease."
Tn a let�er d�ted Tanuary 25, 20�12 (Exhibit I��,Mr. Smzth further ela.borates on the dangers
assc�ciated vaith t11� unmitigafied �raffic queta�ing at tlae Sauthb�und US 1�2 �xit to Talrnage Rgad,
He states that adding additivna.l#raffic to thi� already da�n.geroi.zs aff-raz�:ap rrm�.y e�pas�tll�e�ity to
lia�ility, Caltrans has na cc�ntrc�i over the Praject and,�he�ef4r�,rna�nat be liable, Th�City,which
has�.p�rc�ved a Pr�jeet�dding tt�a dangera�zs traf.�ic conditit�n,bay be liable for in;juries, The City
must�'�ansider t�e Feverity ofthe danger in acl.optin:g a Sta�ement of Overriding�onsiderations. In
the case afthe Wa�mart Ex�s�ian Prajeefi,the environmental impact af addin�adtlitic�na.l vehicles
ta tkae U� 1 O1 Sc�ut�bau�d o�f-ram�is very great. It pases a da.nger tc�human health tkrbd safety and
is cansider�d a mandatory environmental impact within the mea�.ing of CEQA Guidelir�es
§1506��a}(4). � .
_ In c�nt�asi:��tlle severity of the enviranmental impact, the only zdenti�able benefits ta t�e
Ci1,y.oft�ie Pxc�ject�.re ecanamrc i�enefits. r�s shov�n in the atta.ch.�d rep�rt(.��hibrt��.pxepar�d�y
��. Phili�I�ing, ��a:�:ecb�Qinic l�enefits are likely no�.existent. As skavm in Table 1 Qf Dz�, I�.ing's
mema, CT�I�E �sti.�ated �able sales at$�2,Q88,848, and.al�� stated t�iat anl� $4,7E�2,8�I w�xe
� diverted fr�rn other stores in LTkiah, T�is calculates ta a 39°!o diver�ic�n�ate. Havae�er,the text of
the CBRE m�zna sfi�a�es that�BRE applied a'�5°Jo�diversic�n ra�e,i�dicating fi�.at 75°lo c�f-ta:xable sales '
�u€�uld came froz��c��thex LTI�i.ah stores. These �c�ncerns were previously rais�d by �itiz�ns and. '
answered lay Ms: H�rman in a letter dated January I3, 2t�12. IvIs, Herman ansvJ�rs this ��aim � '
�ollows: � '
"���r apPears thak they[Cztzz�ns far Stzstainable Cgmmerce] divi��d
t�ie�.tnount c�f estimafied �iver�ed taxable sales intc�the tcrtal faxable '
s��s.est�imafi.e tt� derive 3�°l0. In the c�nt��t of th�.t analysis, this . '
figt�re is c�rrect, ar�d explained in a series exhibits in f.he CBRE : '
. cansulting fiscal�npa.ct analysis. Hc��w�ver, twc� intern�ediar�steps •
missed b�r�iti�ens leading to fi1i�39%figure include 1} the e�timate
Fiai�ing C�mmzs�ianers
City��Uki�h
P1a�ning& Cr�rni�utnity I}e��]opnz��zt Dept :.
r�,�zs, zo�z � � ..
�a�� � :
af patential�ales diversians.{which is less than the tata.l Proj ect sa.les} .
and= the. e�timate af" the taxable share of these pgte�tial sales .
div�rsic�ns, and then 2}t.he 7�% share of these diversions estimated
to c�me froni existing U.1�.ah retailers." .
Ms, �exman's e�.planatic�n �f the discr�p�ncy daes nc�t mak�. an� sense. Firstly, the F
diversions must be less flian�he tatal sales, t�r all sales frc�m the Praject wou�d ac�zne fram ather
Ukiah s�c�r�s. �ecc�ndly,the calculations prepared by Dr.Kan�aszd Citi��ns inciude t�nl�th�taxable
shar� af poten�ial ��les diversions cc�mpared to tc�tal t�xa�le sales. F`inally, the 75% �igure is a
reasanable fi.gur�f�ir div�rsi�ns fram ITkiah retailers,�ut it is n�t the figure that was us�d by CBRE
or Ms. H�rman,�I�Q no�t�v�vorks fc�r ELH in preparing the4r estimate of Praject benefifis. . !
- Ms. H�rman has now�arrected her analyszs zn h�r 3anua�y I��h m��rno, and has redu��d the
ne�ixnpact, excluc��zag M�asure S, frcrm $47,310 to $2I,1�,7. Ms, Herma�i's.estimate is-in.ct�rreet
because sha has not�aken intt�account tha�the Gity retains�only.'�5%of sales tax recerpts,with the
r��.�i�g,�5°l0��xnarked to the Caunty for transportat�an prajects. Ms, Herman's t�n�.i�sis tlaes
nc�t c�nsider the fa�t fi�aat if ane ar two grocer�j stores b�come ernp�,�hat t��pmperty ta�frc�m�l�ase
stc�r��will dacrease. �'urth�r,as sha�m in Table 3 of I�r,I�rn�'s�epart,th��rValmart$�€�ansic�n u��ill I
�ve._a n�gative ����t an wages in �he City �vhich wil� lead to a loss of revenue ii� �he City,
Ther�:E`ore, the. be�.efi�s of,t�ie Pro�eet are eghemeral at best. The.r� i�rxc� substantaal evidence
su�pc�rting the ec�z�ort�ic bene�ts of the Projec�. �ven i�the Cit�v�rere ta receive$21,Ot74 in net sales
ta� rcvcz�ue, or $4-�,000 in net revenue incl�ding 11�easure S revenu�, this ��c�nc�m�c benefit is
insigni�canf r��lie�z. ;�vei�Iied against an� single hi.gh-sp�ed traf�c a�cident on th.e off-ramp.
Th�refore,the Plar�ning C4mmissi�r� sht�uld not adc�px a Statement e�f averridin�Cat��aderati�ns.
- Sineereiy, . .
• � �
���� �
William 1�..�apper - _
Attcrrney at La�
�JDKlwrr� . �
�nclos�res .
�
i
i
`'t
b 0 -
, ��.��.�l� �.
o e
�
I
i
S � ITfN EI`� GII�IGERI � G �r MANAGEMEI� T
Jar�uary `17, 2012
IVfr. William Q. K�pper '
at�t�rne�r at Law
��7 E Str�et
Davis, CA��616
���jec�: Uki�� �ia[-Nlar� Exparrsic�n Prc���ct FEIR
P1'�Qt�S '
[�ear iVlr. Kapper:
Per your request, in su�port of the appeaf t� the �ity Cc�uneil of the P{anning
Commiss�an approva(, I have reviewed th�t�affic and transpc��fiation aspec�s of
the Firtal Enviranmert��l �mpac� Rep4rt (the "FE�R") for�h� pro�osed �kial� 1Nal-
�arfi �.�cpar�sian (the "Praj�ct"} ar�d su�sequent disclosur�s su�h as orai and
writ��n �esfimany ar later wrift�n respons�s related to the Planr�ir�g Commission
h�arings c�n fhe FEIR d�t�d �lovember �, 20�� and December 'f4, 20�9.
Previou�ly, I r�viewe� and commenfied �r� the I]raf� EnvEranmer�fal Impact Repart
{the "DEI�")far tl�e Praject in a letter dated Augt�st �5, 2(3�'i. My �uaiifrcati�ns
to perform th�s� reviews were thorough�y��c�ment�d in my [etter of Augu�t 15,
201�. Those credentials, a� we�l �s the enfirety of su�stantive camment in that
le�ter are �ncar�orated herein by r�fer�nce.
My cc�mm�nts on fihe FEIR and subs�quent disclo�ures fa(low.
The ��ii�'s �p�rc�ach to Res�a�s�s Ta ComEn�ni�s E�a� �evera6 Critical
F1a�ts Thai Rer�c�er �h� R�s�anses [nad�qt�a��
Critical fEaws in t�� r�s��rrse �� camment inclu�e the fc�l�owing:
m The FElR does nat res��nd d�rectl�ta th� commenfis. lnst�ad, it ar�fy
�espands to its ov�r� selec�iv�, usually very bri��, su�nm�ri�ati�n of the
camments. This enables it to superficially appear respc�nsive while
ac�uafly evading adc�ressit�g substan�ive issues in fh� actual co�mment.
� in severai instances, the F�iR a#tempts ta c�aract�rize difFerence
between tl�e �ubstance afthe ct�mment and ti�e conclus9ons af fh� bE�R '
as a difference of o�inia�t between exper��. Where reasonak�le �iff�rences
of c�pinion exist, ihe FEIR's �biigatic�r� i�fo simply nat� of the differer�ce of
opinion with�ut abiigatian fio deal with it further. Hc�wever, r�rher� analysts
preparEn� the ���R traffic study rr�ake ass►�mptions or data interpret�ti�ns '
highly �Favorab�e to the PrQject rath�r than e�ually plausib�� assumpfiior�s
SMITH Eiigii�eerin�&Managezl7e�t • 5311 Law�y Road, a Unioi�Ci�y, C� 94587 � '
M�. '+Ni�li�r� D. Kapper
J�nuary �7, �U�2
Pag� 2
and dat� ir�terpret�tians less f�vara�le to th� Project, �his is nat a
diff�rence c�f opinion amnng experts. it is a failure an th� pa�t of fh� f3EIR
ar�afysts to mafc��he gaod f�i�h effc�r� ta �iscl�se impa�t t�at the California
�r�vir�nmental ��aality�ict {G�QA} dem�n�s, Mc�rec�ver, in scvera�
instances art trafFc m�tt�rs in this FElR, we oursei�es, tne traf�ic experts
from fhe St�t� �f Gali�ornia Dep�r�m�nf c�f Transportation, the �lenc��cin�
�aunty C�ep�r�ment c�f Transpo�tafi�n and tl�e traffic �xperts for CQST�O
hav�, thou�h �I�rased di�#erert�ly� m�de essentiall�r�he sarns comments. '
V`/hen mulfiipl� �xperts indepent�er��ly raise essen�ia[ly tf�e same commer�t,
��is is an issue �f substanc�th�t must be responded-fo irt �epth an�
cannot be nofed and disrnissed as the �EIR res�anse has c�ane as if
. these were s�parafie one-c�n-ane differences b�tweer� th� FE�R's traffiG
ar�aiyst and t�te indi�idual cammenters. '
� A number of comments by mul�i�le �ndependen# cc�mmenters invaive fih�
n�ed far mor�d�tailed d�finifii�n o�the desi�n of fhe�ra�ia mifiigation
m�asur��. Ther� is substanfial douk��tf�at the vaguely described
mifiigation rne�sures wo�i� be functionally #e�sibl� (f��t is, actualfy
m€figate the tr�f�c impaefis} arrd dc�u�t that fihe �r�pc�s�d mitigations, if
developed af � scai� ar�d wi�h re�uired design fe�fiures fihaf wa�ld actually
r�sult in funcfic�na[ mitigafian, v�t�uid b� �hysic�lly feasible�with[n �he !
constrair�fis c�fi ric�ht-af-�ray and existing stru�tures, Th� �E1R's response
tc� tY��se cQmments is fo fhe eff�c�thaf these are design detai(s fhat wi11 be
wc�rked ou� b��tv�ie�n the Gify �r�d �aitr�ns I�#er or�. ln this DEIR an�
F�lR, the �i�y has r��t fi�l�ff�d its abli�at�on �c� define feasible mitfgatian
maasures for the Project's t�aff�� im�acts {since th�r� is subst�ntial dc�ubt
as �o wl�ether�he inadequately d�scrik�ed mitigafit�n pro�osals wouid '
actu�ally be fur�cti�nally mifigafiive andfc�r physically fieasible}, Mor�ov�r,
the effort t� pastpQr�e de�ining the mitiga�ion defiails until la#er constitutes a
def�rral of mit�gati�n that is impr�op�r under GEQA, '
Wifh this overvie�� r�;gard��tg g�neralized inadequate r�spc�r�ses t� commen�s on
firaffic impact matt�rs, we now�urn �o the �nadequacies af specific responses ta '
individual cnmments,
The C}EtF2 Undersfate�s �xi�fi�n�, Cc�r�sequer��ly Fu�ure Traffic Valc�rnes. This
Le�d� Tc� Under�fa��ement of Se�reri�jr caf Traf�c Im�aac�s and Unr�l�abl�
�xp��fafians Regard�ng Perfort�anc� of Purported Mitigations. Tl�e F��� '
G4es i�c��Pravicte Reasonab[e IRespnns� tc� Thes�lssue�.
(n a cammertt the FEIR lab�ls Camment W 2, Caltrans repres�ntatives �oint c�ut '
that th� t�E{R artalysis is based c�r� tr�fFic cot�nfs taken in Fe�ruary, a man�h '
which fends �o have below aver�ge fraffic, and sugges�s�hat the stu�y shc�uld
h�ve been ba��d on monfhs exhiE�i�ing mrrre #ypical peak trafFic�r thaf the '
�M�`1`�I Ez�.gi�eerir�g&Mar��geme�lt • 5311 Lowry Raad, • Union City, CA �4587 •
Mr. Wiliiam D. �C�pper
January '17, 2��2
Pac�� 3
Fe�ruaty c�un�s should have been adjusted based or� seasonal factors. We
conc�r in fihis Caitrans �Qmment.
.
Th� FEIR resp�nse an this issue is nons�nse. We explc�re it in detail as fo��o�vs
with secfians �f fhe r�sp�nse highli�ht�d in indented i�alic:
7'1�e r�otrr��J��s�tirre for purposes �f�n EIR anal�,�rs rs �he exisfing
eondttr'c�rrs af t�ae time of�h� iVC?P �r wherr fhe �nvir�r�rraenf�l anaf�rsis rs
�egun.
T�is s�at�menf is fr�e, bu#there is n� mandate un�er CEC��t that �as�line traffic
caur►ts �e t��ter� in the �xacfi m�n�h fhat th� {�otice of Pr�p�r�fion ��Sf�P) is fifed i
or �n�lysis �r�ifi�ted as implied in #t�e response. Pnyway, the �1�P in �his matter
was issued �n March 11, 20'I 4, nat in �e�ruary.
SeasQr�a!ad1ustm�nf fa�tors rrta�infr��duce urtcer�arn�,�arrd�,vould req�rrr�
�cfditionai jusfr�icati�ra �rnder GE�A. '
The pr�parers �f th� DEIR/F�iR ar� or s�ould be w�1f aware �hat am�le
justificat�Qn for seas�nal adjustmenf�� F��ru�ry �ounfs is s�r�pfied in th�
auff��ritative trip �eneration st��rc� d�cume�t they have relied �pon in t}�is
maf�er, Trip Generafion, 8�h Edrtion. Ta�fe 4 �n page ��499� �f 7"rrp Ger�eration,
8�h �ditio�r it��icates fhat Febru�ry shc�pping cer�ter traffie fafals ar�fy 7'�.� perc�n� '
af�nnuai monthly average shopp�ng traf�fc, art� is�he a4�saiut��� ►��v�st manti� �f '
tY�e year, Caftrans mair�tains perm�nent trafFi� cQUnt st�tic�ns at I�cations
thro�gi�c�ut n�rth�rn California. The p�eparers �f�h� DEIRIFEiR knaw ar shou�d
know fihat d�ta from t�e most relev�nt stafions can be re�dily accessed and us�d
tc� seasor��ily adjus� co�nts of c�verall traffic�ram t�� clearly�aw m�nth af
�e�ruary�o b� repres�nfiative c�f an avera�e month or a ��ak month, In fa.ct, the '
c�ata frc�m � nearby Caltrans perm�ner�t caunf s�a�i�n on US �01 sh�ws tha� '
�en�ra�traffic �n fhe fr�eway in February is 7 percent lawer than the average _
ann�al mc�nth, 12.4 p�rcenfi lower th�n fihe �v�rage �f th�e busiest 6 mo�ths �f
the year and �8 percenf Ic�wer than the busies�month of th� y�ar.
The DE1R ir� this mat�er was no� relc�sed unfiil June of 2�'3�f, mare than 'i 6
manths afte�th� �'ebruary, 2��0 caunfs were taken. Th� p�r�parers coufd easily
h�ve taken caunfs in �ny of seve�al mor� represenfiafive mont�s when n�
ad�usfiment would have beer� n�cessary and stil� had ampla time fo compl�te the
work by June, 2���.
�The kabie is repmdueed as Attacl�tnent A to this let�er.
SMITH�ngi�leei�r�g&M�.nag�z2zent • 5311 Low�'y Road, R Union City, CA °�587 � '
�Ir, 1lVi�fiam D, Kapper
January �7, �0�2 _
Page 4
!n adc�itiQn, concerns were r�ised at �he t��lR p�rblic laearinr�regarc�ir�g
���k hacrr trafrr� when sehc�ol ts tn session which would make August-
early Sepferrrb�r pra�fematrc,
As na�fed above, there was pl�nty of time bet►�een wf�en th� Nt�P�n►as iss�ted in
March, �0�0 and ,lune 20�� wf�en fhe DEIR was circula#�d fi4 l�ave pe�c�rm��
fraffic c��nts in a m�ri�h wh�n sch�al �ras in sc�s�iQn that is mare repres�nta�ive
af an averac�e ar peak traffc mon�h ti�an ��bruary. Appar�nt�y the comments
abaufi `schoal in s�ss�or�' v�ere m��e at the pubfic h�arir�g on fhe €3EiE�, �bau� the
same time as Caltrar�s comments �f August 18, 201'f w�re fil�d. The FEIR was
nafi circulafed until very Ia�e C}Gtober, �01�. Vtife have revie�nted the calendar of
the Ukiah Ur��fed School I�istrict. Eiementary, mid�le and I�igh sch�a�s s�arted
session in Ukia� on August 2�, �0��, Th�re was am�fe time in late Augus.t,
S���emb�r ar early Octaber�f 2�Z� for the FE�R preparers tc� hav� performed
repres�nta�ive veri�ca�ian co�€nfs to substantively prov�or disprove �rhefiher th�
F�bruary 20�0 c�un�s are adequ�te or nat. Tt�e City �nd i�s Gansultanfis made
no st�ch at�empf.
7"here is n� sc�b��ara�ia!eviclerrce thaf an tncrease in tkre �aseftn� leve!
would alter fhe findi�gs �f sigrt�ftGance or�he feasit�ility of�he propased
rr�r`tigatic�rr measu�es.
� This statement is sirnply untrue. As w� doc�ment fur�her ir� subseq�aent secfiians,
�he feasi�ility of d�velc�ping ti�e prQpos�d mitigafi�rt measures at� scale
s�ffic��r��#a functionaliy mitig�t� traffi� impacts has been cal�ed fia question k�y '
multipl� competent parkies, including Galtrans, CC�STG� and ot�rselves. �� is '
abvioUS that incr�ases in bas�(ine traffic wesuld re�uire great�r sc�le f�cilities
(�articularly mar� �hroughput capacity andlor greater queue s�torag� c�paci�[y on
fhe 10� south�c�und �-Ta1ma�� ramps, the ramp intersectian with T�lmage, a�
the Talmar�e --Airport Park intersection, and between th� Ta[mage-10� ramps
intersectiion and the Talrnage .�-Airport F'ark intersection�, The n�ed for great�r
scal� faci�ities increas�s the d�ubt that such facilifies �f the n�tur� pr���sed can
be d�veloped wifhin the c�nstraints aT the subject I�ca�ion,
A central issu� here i� �v(��ther ar nat�he queui�g or� �I�e �01 sauth�ound c��f�
ram� �o Talmaqe does �r wauld stack back krific�fhe l�igh s�eed deczferatiot� ar�a
of th� ramp �r�ven or►tc�the freevtrav mainline lanes tander�xisting traffic or if
just Prc�ject tr�ffic were added. In testimony at th� D�cember ��, 20�� Planning '
Commission hearing (11�r. Steve Weinb�r�er, �he principal analy�t of th� DEl(� '
tr�ffic analysis, stat�d t�at in the existing condition and �rifh Proj�ct tra�'fic added,
trafFic on �he s�uthb��nd t��west�ourtd traffic wau{d qu�u� past the point where
i� shares fihe e�eEt rarnp wit�t southbaund to eastbound traf€ic but that th� '
cc�mbi�ed firaffic tnrauld n�t queue sa far as �n�a �he freeway m�tnlir��. Ne also
s��ted��at a[! �f the other sc�rta�`ic�s stt�die�fGr the Baselir►e {short ra��� fu��rej
SMITH Engineering&Nlanage�nent a 5311 Lowzy Raad, = Uz�it�n City, CA 9^�58'7 g
�ir. V�Ii�liam D. Kop�er
January '�7, 2t1�S2
(�age 5
and Fut�re {lan� range future) conditions would ��us� queues onto �he fr�eway
mainiine. ln a I�ec�mber 7 mem�� r�sponding t� issues raised in yaur oti�rn letter
af Navember 9, 201� , Brian Gratfidge ofi ESA sfafies in Gomm�nt R�sponse 48-
49 as fiollows: "Base�on our further review of fhe quecring analysis, fhe
c�mbined t��r�ue� t�vt�crld�� contained within �he freet�ay/�-amp g�are por'nt for onfy
the Existir�� and�'xis�it�g�lus ProJ�ct condi�i�rt. !r� at!other c�ses, �he com�ir�ed
qr�ecre waulc�ex�end c�n�o the fr�e�w�y.,,
T(�ese stafiemer�ts�eem ta r�ffecf an �dditianal q�ae�ing an�lysis v�hicl�, we nate,
has n�ver been document�d �n r�cc�rd for�ublic r��ri�w. Th�y alsc� tend t�
c�nrrey �n errant impression �h�t it msght sc�m�hc�w �e C?K to a�prove th� Praj�et
now and �r�rk on mi�ig�tion of fufiur� ��ndifians later, But the�ri�ical prnbi�m �s
fhat the �bove canclusions c�nly rela#e to I�w F�br�ary fra�Fic. If the �nalysis '
c�nsi�ered an average rnanth, fhere�rould b� 7 p�rcent more�raffic fihan
anafyzed; if it considered th� av�rage of the busi�st�m�n�hs �f the year, there
v��uld be �2.4 percent more traffi�; �f it c�nsidered tn� busj�s# month of#he year,
�here would b� almos� 19 percent more traffic. And if it car��i��red tY�e peak
shapping seas�n, ane c�mpan�nt of peak traf�ic, sh�p�in� �r�ffEC, would be abou�
63 percent h6gher than in �'ebruary, If traffic corresp�nding t� th�se 4ther time
period scenaric�s v�er� c��sidered, the qu�ues wauld �e much, much l�ng�r th�n
�h� DE1R estimated and th� Existing p�us Project que�te wa�l� �xkend onto the
freew�y mainlirte. Traffic ba�lting onto #(��freevuay is, as�le�r�berger himself
stated in �is D�cember 1�#� �01� fi�5tIt7701�y�0 fhe Pl�rltll�lt,� Ct�111t1't1SSIC)11� "t�e
mo�-e significanf safety is�u�". So, contrary to the FE�R response, there is
substantial evidence tl�afi an increase in the existing traffic ca�tnts wc�uld �1ter th�
findings of signi�ic�nce c�r the f�asibilit��f the �ro�osed mifigatian m�asures.
Fur�her to the point abouf th� firafFic vofumes on v�rhich the �ntire traff�G analysis is
based, when the City's traffic �onsultants ar�alyzed existir�g fir��ic at Redwao�
�u��ness P�rk, th�� faund t�at the Business Park as a �rh�le was generat�ng
traffic af anCy abouf 7�.6 percer�t of fTE 7"rr'p G�ner�a�lorr 8 �Edr`t�ort rat�s in the
P� ��ak, They chose fio �ssume that th� tNalmar� campanenfi was �enerating
traffic afi fufi [TE rates and th�f the rest af the Busin�ss Park was ger�erafiing
frafFic at anfy 59.� percent of 1TE r�tes�. �arrying thr�ugh appli�ation �f the
r�t�s, fhis imp�ies that tt�e BusEness Park is gen�rat�ng 8�b trips less fihar� '
ardinary nQrms, e�idenfiiy du� to va�ancy and decrea�ed trip attrac�ic�n as a
consequ�nce c�i the depressed ect�nomy. �owever, pe�the Gourt's rulin� in
Su�tnyvale Neighbors vs. Surtnyvale Cify Cauncit, th� �nal�si� shc�uld 1�ave '
adjusted the e�isting k�aseline t� accc�unt f�r such trips nof observed due fio � '
t�m��rarily depr�ssed economy. Adjustment to account for tf�e f�mp4rarily '
z Memo fi�om$rian Grattige, ESA,to�Cim Jardan,D�cembar 7,20t 1,h�reina�er"the DecembeT•7,20]1
- ESA mern�,
3 See bETR l�ppendix B, Traf�c and Czrczrlatran Repat•�,pagc 37,
S1vIITH En�ineerirzg&2vlanagein�nt + 5�11 Lowa•y l�.aad, a Unit�n Cit;�,CA 54587 �
�Vfr. lNilliam C7. K�pp�r
�anuary 17, 20�2 �
Pag� 6
missir�g 8�10 exist�ng �rips wQUld make an er�armaus �ifference in t�� er�tire traff'ic
�nalysis fir�din�s,
Factot-s describ�d�y�he cc�mm�r�fer cauld be used fn the design pracess
far mitiga�ion op�ians. Rs describet�belot�v, ff�r"s I�v�I of design is not
requirecl unc�er C�QA, The �eacl a�en�y t���l c�orc�Ena�e any suGh desrgr�
�vark wit�r Ca/�rans.
Tl�is �ar� c�f ihe respon��, whiGh d�f�rs d�finEfi�on a�f feasib�e mi�iga�ian and
a�t�m�fs fo shift responsi�ility�For de�ning f�asible mitigation from tf�� Praject
ap�iica�t fio the p�blic,via C�altrar�s, is im�r�per under CEQA and inar�equ��e.
in summary, �h�s is arre of s�vera( situa�ions where the �'��R respons� denies th�
o�ivio�s, �nd con�ir�ues to refy t�n data or assumptions favara�le to the Projecfi '
v�Y►en ofhec data is mor� r�prasentative. Hence, th� FElR fails t� malte the good !
faith �ffa�t tc� disclo�e impacf t�at is demar�ded by CEQA,
F�t�Adm�fis Traf�F`[c Gtue�aing t�n �c�u�hk�ound l�� 1�� E�ifi�c� Ta�mac�e R.�ad
tt�ill Be Signi�icat�tly Lar�ger�han �is�lo��c� In �E�1� But C9�irrx�, ��thc,u�
Fc�undafit��t or La��c, �ha�E L�n��r�uec��s �Io i�ore G�nsequer��ial Th�� '
Tf�v�� C�isc{�s�d
Our comment, no� labei�d Comment Q-8� �ocumented how the DEIR Traffic
Studv faifi�d fio prap�erly disclose th� e�fien� ar�d significance af tra�fic qUeues on
tf�e US �Q� �oufihbound e�it�o Talmag� Rc�ad. W� point at�f that the 11aw in the
analysis is tf�at it faii�d fa consider�hat c�nce �he gu�ue on the sa�rhbound to
w��tb�ur�d r�mp rc�ach�s a length of�a0 feet {which th�DEIR �rajecfis it dc�es},
the queu� length bECC�mes sign�cantly greater instartfily because traffic �n the !
s�ufhbaund to e�stbc�und movement'�s abstructed at�hat ��int and that tr�ffi�
becomes additive ta fi�� ���ue. This additive queue l�ng�h, wl�ich is no� '
arr�Iyzec� in fih� DE(R, cr�af�s a situ�fi�n signi��antiy mc�re haz��dous t1��n the
queue ►engtl�s that are pre�icter� in ti�e €�EiR.
The FE1R r�sponse a�mits that the que��s an t�e �Q�thbaund to wesfbound exit '
movement °`cauld irrterFere with th� sauthbaurrd �o eas�b�und traffic", but claims, '
without foundatian t�at this is n�t a new �r substanfia�ly greafer impact fhan i�
�is�ussed in the DElR,
This c�nci�rsory clairn Qf t�e response daes rtot wifhstand tk�e test c�f
reasonableness �ecause it at�empts fio isc�[at��he fact fhat the DEIR undersfiates
queue lengths fr�m t�e cc�ns�au�nces of thos� signifcant�y longer queue lengfihs '
tha��re di�cu�sac� irt v�h�f is t��� (ab�i.�d Cc�mmer�t �-8�. And in f�ct, the '
SM�TH Er1g��neei�ing &Manageni�nt g 5311 La��y Road, � U�uon City; CA 945�7 a
1�r, W€16iam D. Ko��er
January �7, 24��
Page 7
su�sequent orai testimony c�f Wein�erg�r�t the Decer�b�r �4 �lannir�g
CQmmissit�n meeting a�d the D�c�mber 7 ESA M�ma bofh suk�seque�t#y ac�mit
t(��t t��ir analysis fior all sc�n�rit�s 4th�r fhan th� E�eisting �nd Existing plus
Pr�ject �onditiaris, �he su�ject c�ff-ramp trafF«wa�ld queue onfo the fr�eway
rrn�iniine,
The FEI� �mprc,}aerl�r Di�misses Q�ar �c�mrn�r���ha� �h� I�u�h Langer
t�uet�es �han fih� [�E1R Dis�loses 'V�i[i Si�nifican��y 6r�cr�ase Traffic Safe�y '
Ha�arc� on �he Southbo�nd �fQ� E�cit�o T��r�age
Those tr��ic safefy cons�quences ���he q�eues significantly �onger th�n
disclosed 'sn the C�lR are e�plained irt det�il in t�hat the FE�F� nQV� Sabe;s our '
c�mment C�-86. The FEIR's resp�nse to Gc�mment Q�86 is �ssentialf�, `�� what ''
if th� qu�ue is really in �xces� of �2�0 feefi; we said it�aul�d be a lit�le aver 600
fe�� and anyfhir�g over 6{�U feet is a problem.' Irt fact, t�te cor�se�uence of DEiR's
und�restimafe of q�e�e le�t�ths, as reve�led in �ur comment Q-86 is that the '
charaet�r of cc�!(ision haxard inherent in the ��nsiderably longer qu�ue lengtl�� � '
changes from the character��cc�llisic�ns witf� shar��er queu�s. �h�rter undesirabl� '
�u�ues tnat the REfR disclosed eng�nder minar lo�-sp�ed rear-er�ders. The
longer qu�ues that actually wt�uld r�sult e��en�er rn�ch mare seric�us hi�(�-
speed-difFere�tial and campaund cha[n�re�c�ion and av�id�nce�a�tempt colli�ians
tl�at �n�alve greaf�r personal irtJury and �rc�per�y damage. The f�ilure to disclase
and ma4ce this disfi�ctian cle�r ia th� pub{�c rer��ers �he FE�R rasponse
inac�equa�e. The subs�quent Decerrr��� 1� t�stimar�y c�f Weinberger and ti�e
Decem��r 7, 2�'f 1 �SA memo R�spanse�o Comment��-�9 now admit tha�the
aueu�s would extend onto the fre�way mainline in mast sc�naric�s and the
testim�ny of Weinber�er �gre�s that�his is a mc�re signifcant s�fety issue.
Now�ver, fihe E�A m�mo ine�cplic�biy ��ntinu�s tc� incarrec�ly maintain fhat '
`:tf�es� canditi�ns have alreac�y been i�entified as significanfi imp�cts in the
DEl R". 4 '
rhe FEIR r�s�ons� opines ti�at "ff�e fncrease in �he rate r�f tra�c co1lisrar�s
cartnot be adeqctafely foreca�t�d." While it is correct that�raffic colfision rates
are not tYp�cally f�recast wifih precisi�n, this respar�se is an evasion. lt is a
ma�ter of fundamental fraff�c �eng�in��ring principfes tha� if the �ueues e�c�ter�d int�
tl�e f�igh traffi� spe�d operating area, the freq�eri�y and sever�ty at coljisi�ns�vill
increase, Hence, the r�s��nse is an irnproper denial of the abvious
cQnse�uen�es of qu�ues sic�nific�ntly {�nger than fhc�se estimafed in the DE1R,
4n hi� subsequent December �4, �0�1 testim�ny tc� the Pl�nnin� Comm9ssior� '
e�ridently agrees wifih a�r commen� th�t e�ct�nsiar� of the ��teues intc�the high '
sp�ed fraffie operating ar�a is, En his t�ords "fil�e more significant saf�ty issue". '
¢R.sspa�tse to���ntn�xlt 5b in the I�ece�a�l�er 7,2{?l 1 ESA ar�ema is a circul�r i�e�eremce t�i�s' Ii:esponse 48-
49�nd adds no eiilightennlez�t to these issues,
�MIT�-I�ng?ne�rirrg&M�zab�ment a 5311 La�y R�ac�, e Uzlion City, CI-� �4587 & '
Nir. 1��lliarn D. Kopp�r
Jan�ary �7, �0�2
Par�� 8
The Propc�s�d �Ii�����i�n I�easure� ta th� �cae�€ir�g �rcrbl�t� at��e U� '10�i —
`�a�rrt.age Ir�fi�r��ar�g��tic�uld �e �3�f�r�cti�r�a� I�u� T� t�et��n��ri�
Cc�ns�rairtt�
C�ur comm�nt now labeled Q-87 dacurnented �rr c�etail ti�e phy�icai �nd
aperaf�an�I and cc�nstraints that �mpaired the ability af t�e mitig�ti�n maasur�s
�r�pc�sed at and n�ar the interch�nge ram�s t�� llS �09 and Talmage R��� fio k�e
feasi�le ar�d mitigate the €mpacf� c�f�f�e Praject. The �Elft res�anse simply '
��serts �hat "�l�a prep�rers �f fhe �IR�tave deferrr�itted�hat crptioras descrlbed in
ff�e DElR�ar�e ��fenfiatly feast'�Fe"(�mphasis �d��d�, Th� us� �f the term
"pofientEaliy f�asibl�" m�ans that fihe pre�arers are nofi cert�in the mitigati�n
aptions are feasibtie and th�t ther� is a reasan�ble passibilit� fihat fihey rnay not
�e feasible. This is simply nc�t g��d ertc�ugh. GEQA demar�ds t�tat �easi�le
mitigatic�n be d�fined. Specula�iv� measur�s do n�t quali�y as mitigati�n.
f��s�onse C��B� cor�tinUes: "The �pttons �t�ve ye�to gr� thrc�ugh �4ncepfua!
c�esign (a sfep whi�h �s b�yor�d the sc�pe af this prajecf levef Eft�)." ?his '
statet�ent is nonserrse. Unfe�s a rnr�dicum of c�nceptuaf�esigr� �t a I�vel
suffiG�ent to demonstrate the facifities n�eded tc� �r�vide a �unetional op�rafior�al
mi�ic�ation will fit within the physical cons�raints c�f the sit�, f�asibte m�tigafian has
n�t beer� defit�e� an� the FEIR is deficier�f,
R�s��nse Q�87 contir�u�s: "Af such fime, �he gsometr�ic rssues raised hy th�
commenter, ar�d c�fh�r design �r�d corrstr�refi�n rssu�s, w1fl be fur�her ex�mine�,
rn cc�ns�f�atir�n with �altran�, and if wlt!b� defermir�ed which mrfigafian aption wiN
be carried t'otwa�d." This pa�t of the r�sp�r�se has s�v�ra1 flaws, Beeaus� the
mitig�tion remains ir�d�fii�3fie, this canstitutes a deferr�l af mitigation that is
im�rop�r under CEQ{�. Beca�se fihe rnifigatic�n remains indefinite, it is
. imprac�ical �or the City to Gc�nditian th� �raject app{icanfi�o p�y � f�ir share c��an
unlcnov�+�n cost c�f an u�t�r�o�n mitigati�n. And the n�fiian �h�t fihe City wi11 w�rk it
aut lafier in cansuEtafian +�rith Cal#rans is be�i�d by t�e fact�hat Caltrans
cammenfis, nc�w 1��eled VV-3 fhrc��gh VV-��, echo our�wn �oubts a�ouf th�
f�as��ility af the mi#iga�ion o�tions and th� insufFiciency af fhe conceptua{
engin�ering definition af�he mitig�tion measures. '
UYe alsa nofe that th� cnmrner�t c�f CgSTGa, now lab�le� �?-3 in the FEIR, !
reinforces aur awn c�mmenfis a� we(1 �s fih�se af Galtr�ns r�gar�ing t�e
insuf�iciency af�emonsfiratir►g fh� �'�asibili�y of mitigafiion in th� US �0�
ir�terchar��e a�-ea and the inte«�etion �f Talmage with Airp�rt F'arl�. `f�e FE[F� '
respanse ev�des an}� subs�anfiiv� res�c�rtse�c� this commer�f by simp(y ref�rring '
the cammenter fia�I�� traffic impa�t sfiu�y that cansfiitutes Appendi�€ B to the DEIC�
as if ther� w�re s�mething in �here, ��rh[ch th�re is not, �hafi d�monstrates t��
���metrd�f�asibiiity �f fh� purp�r��d rni�ic�ati�r� �pti�ns�
SIt�T�-I Ez�gineering &Ivlanag�znent � 53]1 Lowr�Raad, 4 Union City, CA 945�7 Q
�Ir. tNii�iarn D. }�opper
�fanuary 17, �a12
r ag e 9
A strikin� aspect of fih� F�IR res��r�ses #o o�€r comme��s, fhase of Caitrans ar�d '
tha�� of CC}STCQ �n this sam� �u�ject is tl��t�he res�c�nse dismisse� each as if
it were th� orrly �ommer�t c�n tl�is particular matter. Th� res�ans�e does n�t even
�ckn��rledg� th�t three very camp�fent �ar�ies, reviewi�g th� �EfR frc�m
independ�nt persp��tiv�s, h�ve r�acne� �h� same conciusion and cor�GUr thaf
there is insu�ic�ent��f6niti�n o��h�mitigatie�n r��asur�s to demans#rat�t�at wfz��
is neede� to r�iti��t��he �raffic im�acts can feasib�y be ft v�ri�l�in �he physical '
c�r�strair�ts. The dismissitr� nafure of t�a res�onse is shoGkir�gly arr4gant and '
impraper und�r �EQA.
Now��er, in response t� yc��r fett�r of[�ovemb�r 9, 2���, �}�e ESA rnerrrQ of
f��cember 7, ��1� be{at�diy prav'rdes Iimited significant new informat9�n — it '
disclas�s fihe inscrib�ed circufar diam�t�r {ECD) c�f�rop�sed r�und�k�o�at mitiga�ic�n '
Ait�rnativ�s A ar�d B5, Althaugh the E5A mifig�tio� claims t��t fhis is na�
s�gnifcant new infarmation, �t undeniak�ly is signifi�ant and new because it
enabSes the pub(ic, for the first fimA, to s�e af scale how��r�e fhe raundabouts '
and their ret�uired r�eomef�ic featur�s w�1( k�e, ta determine �hether ar no�th�y
�ifl fi�wifihir� the site's constraints ar�d to det�rrnTr�e w�t�ther th�y v,ri�l int�rfere
�rith th� �erformance of o�her purpc�rEed Pr�jec�trafFic miti�afic�ns. The�new
'tnfarmation �r�abies corroborafion �f t�e camr��nts on fih� i�EER by Cal�rar�s,
Gosfc� and fhis camm�nt�r that the prc��osed roundabout mitigations don'#�it
and won'f w�rk. The fiacf fnat the inf�rmatian abc�u�the dimens�ons of fil�� circ�es
is significanfi an� �ew me�ns ti�at�he er�tire#r�f�c cc�m�onenf and any r�lafed
cc�mpc�nent c�f the anvironmental docume�tt should be re-circulated in "�raft"
status.
What t�� new disclosure about the dimer�sions of the prflpased mitiga�ion
rc�undabouts reveais when considered afi scale is dfscussed in d�tail in fhis
writer's oraC and �owerPoint �resen�afion �o fhe Ukiah �i�y Gouneil on Ja�uary
�8, 20�2. The narr�tiive script �fthat presentation and its' PowerPoir�t slides are ;
appended hereto as Rf�achmer�ts B and C and incor�arated h�r�in by r�f�rer�ce.
In brief, when considered �t scale, fhe newfy disclos�d dim�nsions af th� '
roundabaut alt�rnafiives-reveals#h� fail�v�ring: '
For E�ot�n�about Mi�iqatic�n Af��rnative A�
� The raundabout, with an !CD of ��0 feet, wi[f be considerabiy Iarger than
depicf�d in th� not-t�4scale DE[R Apper�di� A,.Figur� 3-B and �rith
additional spa�� required fiar replacement of sidewafks an� slopes or
retainir�c� wa11s, wil( r�q�rire ta�ing of properiy and building �emaiition ar '
re4ocafion to the narEhw�st af fhe raundabou�. '
S 4p.Cit,,Respat�se to Comment 52 '
�I�IZTH Er�gineez�ing&Marx�.genze�t � 5311 Lowry Road, • Unian Cify, Ct� 9458? g '
Mr, V1tii{iam Q. �f��per
.larru�ry 17, 2�}12
Pag� 10
� iNith pr�perly dimensiorted splitters (raised ��Ian�s r�quired to de�ine and
cha�inelize �he entries �nd exits on �ac� twa-dir�ctian {eg} and bay tap�rs
(�he fransizions between through lan�s and ieft or rigf�t turn ianes,
Ro�ndabt�ut A will consfra�� t�e lefit turn Ean�s frc�m Talmage threstbc�und
t� Air�art P�rk southbot�r�d trrell beiaw the lengths assumed in fih� �nalyss� '
f4r the praposed firaffic mitigation c�f�he TaSma�e—Airpar� r ark
int�rs�ctian. As a canse��er�ee, av�rf(ows fr�m the left turn lanes �i1[
k�ack-up fhe v�restk�our�d through E�nes on Talm�g� it��� Raundabouf A �r�d
neif���inters��tion, grid}ockir�� it. Th� attach�d tab�e{also dupiicat�d in '
�he refer��nced P�w�rPoinf pres�nta�iart, �ocuments the ext�nfi of tl�e '
serious �efk #�rn lane�verfi�ws tha#w��ld a�cur in all scenarios analyzed,�
� When requir�d ��r�c�ths of lane trans�fiQns {�}�� c�i��artce required to merg� '
�tv+rt� or mt�re lan�s ir�to �ne} �r� considered, the ea�tbound lanes
emer�ing fr�m Roun�about A wauld r�quire fra�sitions af 6D0 to 8�0 f�et
to merge dc��rn to a sir�gi� lane7. This puts th� r�er�e paint well east of
the U� '1�1 fre�way. Since�he Talmage�reeway gvercrossing �rtly has '
uvic�th �For �n� 3ane in e�c� dir�cti�n, t1�is means that I��t�nda�aut A wc�uld
nec�ssitate vtrid�r�ing of��e�rEeway�vercras�ing, a �ignificanf�Facf nat
disclosed #n the DEIR c�r FECR or subsequent discic�sures.
Tf��se c�nsideratic�ns rend�r the design �f Roundabout Aiternative A infeasibl�.
In addifion fa t1�e ft�reg�in�, fh�inscrib�� circle di�meter af Roundabout A, ��0
�eef, is considerably less t�an rec�mmended far 2-ian� ro�ndabouts w�ere
�v�r(appir�g heavy truck mav�ments ar� likely {18a f�et}. �"he �arg�r
recamm�nded ICD would ce�rnpaur�d all c�f tf�e pr�bl�ms r�c�ted ab�ve.
6 We aIso nate far thc record that the i�ecember 7;20l 1 BSA}nemo Response to Comment 50
misrepresents the siivatian, The rsspanse states; °The stzrdy intersectiat�s�n tTze ar•ea of t�te Tc�lmczge I�o�zr�
inferchange c�r�d tl2e tI irport Park Baufevard(sic)were evaia�ated using-Synchro ancl Simtra�c whicJz
a�atyzes the �nteYSectzans as a system, nnc�r�ot inr�zpendently, The Syrzchro rra.adel hcrs bee�a set arp to '
inclttde crdl af thes•e in�ersections, sa�h�rt tlae im�aets of ea:cessive gueuit�g ota one inter�sect�or�mcry�tr�pact -
t1�e ,ai�euing and opeNations at crn adjacer�t intersectto�r," The problem with ti�is respai�se is tliat,«�hen the
siz�of RaUnda6aut A and its requireci splitters and turn bay tapers are plotled at scale,this reveais thaf th�
lengths af the westl�aund lef�turn pockets�ssttmed in the I��IR's Syneftro and Simfrafnc ealcuiatiot�s are '
far greater than the lengths that achiatiy wc�uld be possib�e. �-Ienc�,what the ottt}�ut of the aEIR's Sync.hro
and Simtra�c reveals is extensi�e�uaue overflows from these left turn lanes and blacking of�lye thraugh
lanes baek into the rounc�abaut rather than sufficiency. The same is true nfthe SIDRA analysis refsreneed
in becember 7,�t�11 ESA memo Response to Camment�1, The resgonse discusses only the satisfactory '
i•esults for effects of buncl�ing aftraffic platoons on the eastbau;td approacl�to the 3•oundabaut and the
adequacy�f east�aund qt�eue stoxage between Airpoz�t Paxk and the roundabouts. �Towev�r,beca�►se tt��
anatysis assum�s vastl�mare queue storage length in tl}e westbaund Taimage left turn lane approaches to
Airpart Park than what could actuaIiy t�e developed with Ronndabout�:and its r�uired related geametric
features,the S7DRA a�alysis daes not�roperly refkect tlie queues that wou�d exteud back into the !
i•oundabQut due ta tl�e inadeqttac�c�f tt�ese left tut�sforaga lanes.
7 T�e Decen�ber?,2011 ESA memc discloses that desig�i speeds at the round�t�out were asstrn�ed ta be 15 '
to 20 miles�per-l�au��at the roundabouG. Hawever,far mavements away fram the raundaba�.7t,a design '
speed minimum of 25 mph musf be assunae�and on at the�xisting 35 nzph speed limit siiouid be assunie�,
The tane tr�tc�sition disfiance requil•ements cita�reflect t��ese iatter respac�ive design speeds,
SI��IITII E13gineering&Ma�lage��7eni , 5311 Lowly I��a��, = Uivan City, CA 94587 • '
l�r, i�f61(iam D. K�pp�r .
J�r�u�r� �7, 2(}�2
Page 11
Lef� Turn Queues A� P,i�port Park CJve�r"ic��v Their Starage
Scenario DEIF�Lt,Turn Actua!Lt.Turn Est.95th°fo�e 45'�%ile �st.,4vg. Qverfla��•
«� Stora�ei2� Storage��7 Quauata� Qverflow�5� Queue«� (7�
. B+P 450 192 38Q 188 26D 6g
B-i-DC 45� 142 4p3 211 293 101
B-rDC-F 45Q 192 45T 265 343 l5i
P+P 45Q I42 3$7 I95 286 g�
Fi-T7C A50 192 379 187 2B7
95
P�-13C-tP 45(} 142 4S1 259 334 lA2
���A!I scensrios acs for pM pe�k hour for westpaund IeH ium ianes on Taimage at AErpod Park urrdar propossd miSgation for this Intersacllon atxi
with RoundaboutA mFtigation at 7aimags wtth aoutttbouryd US ifli ramps, B=Baseilne,F=Future,+PC p(us pra)ect,+pq=plus pyscount Clu�
� n�Comb{ned qaeue e[orngs length of both wesfbound lefit tum lar�es with propcsed Talmage-Airport Park InlersacUon mRigation es assumed in
�E}ft trafric study calcu�ations, RII storaga and queue vsiues In feat
131 Acfuai availebie storage ln both Westbound IeR tum Ianas with proposad Talmaga-Alrport Park Intersection mit}gatlon and Roundabout Optian A,
�4�Psr bEIR Appendix B,Appended Quauing&Blo:.iclqg Repotts. The 96�%I!e quaua ordlnarily defines the qus�e iengih to 6e accommopatad for
deslgn purposes and(s nHen reFemad-fo ss the°clesign qusue°.
��Lengih ot 85�%ile queua in exoess of aetual quaue storage wtfh Roundabput A.
�°�Rveraga iength oC a!I queues lhat 6u1ld ln the su6Jecf left tum lanas,cansTdering each signal cyde orcurring In tha peak hour per D��R Appendix
B,,Sppancfed t�ueuing&elocking Reports,
��Lsngih af Avertt�a quaue in excess of acEuai queua storage wlih P,ouncfabaut A
For RQUndabout i�itigation Afterna�ive B�
� Roundak�out 8, vrifin an ICD �f 142 fe��, would be �onsid�ra�ly larger t�ar� '
d��ict�d in t}�e notYto-sc�le DEIR Appendix A, �igure 3-G.
e The R�1R's Ra�andabo�t � design assumes ���re v�ri[I be right turn "k�Ypass
fanes an fhe s�u�hbound and eastbour�d a�prQ�ches to it. Caftrans
� cc�mm�nt on �i�e �3EiR �Let��r'Vit, �r�mment 9 in th� �`E[R response) stat�s
thaf thsse byp�ss I�r�e� �re "nan-standard f�atures not typically permitted
k��r Caffrans". The F'�f3� response on t�is item �tafes; "lssues with '
cons�ructabifity and �esign ��u�d be a��ressed in fTn�iizing the d�s�gn tar
this n�itigatic�n p�an if the Cify and G�Itrar�s agree an fl�at conce�t". Th�s '
respc�nse is merely an evasian. The� tru� imp�icatiQr� af G�mrt�enf W-9 i� '
that the design o��.�undab�ut B simply is inf�asi�l�. Th� DE1R A�pendix
B Tra�fiic and Gircul�ti�n Report's S1DRA �a(culations showing purpnr�e�dly '
s��isfactary overall o�erations ar� Raunc�about B are dependent �n tl�e
assumptic�n of bypass l�nes c�� �he sc�uthbourtd and easfbourtd '
appr��ches to this ��iane roundab���. {f th� b�pass ��nes are n�t th�re, '
Caftrans simpli�ied capacifiy ealculatian procedures dacument�d in
Rour�dabau�Geom�tt�rc Qesigrt Guidanca$ shvw that Ro�tndabot�f B wi[1 '
$Roar»dabout Geo�taetr�c Design C`'rz<tdance, Califarnia Departmet7t of Transportation,J�ne,2(}07
SM�TH Engineeri��g&Managenxent g 53I� La�y R�aci; � Unia��Cit-y, �A R4S87 �
�,�r, UVi�liam D. �Cc��per
J�nu�ry �7, �D12
Page I2 .
have gr�ssfy ir�sufFici�nf capacEty a� a �i�gle lan� rounda�oufi. H�nce, fo
provide sufi�ci�nt c�pacify, Ra�r���bc�ut B wouid have t� b� en�arged �r� a
�a-lane raur�dabc�ut. If fhis were d�ne, it w�uld h�v� fvt+o �anes�xifin�
easf�6und, En fh�t case, it wouid suffer fr�m �he sarne �rifical �roblem as
RoundabQUt A-�fhe n�cessary ta-stan�ard l�ne �r�nsiti�r� io a single
�astb��nd ��ne cc�u�d nat be c�mpfe�ed �tnti� easf c�f the�re��ay
��er�r�ssing. S�nGe fihe exis�ing freev��� �ve�crc�ss�ng �^sas r�am fi�r ar�ly
ans �asfibound lar�e, t1�is rend�rs Raur����ou� B �nf�asibi�.g
��r�r�ar� �i�r�►�sat e�f�t�gges��c� �m��r�a�iv� �i��iga�ion �� Ir�adequ�t�
In c�ur corr�m�nt tha��he F�IR res�ons� now �a�els Q-88, v�e suggest alternative
mitigatian measures f�r th� US '109 —�'alma�e interchan�e. Alfl�augl� ��e FEfR
pre��rers ar� unwillir�� ta provide an ade�uafe demflnstration of fhe f�asibility of
th� D�ER's pr�pased mitiga�ion opt�ans, �hey ar� quick to cfaim our sc�gg�s�ions
lack demc�nstratit�n af feasibilit}r. lt is �bviou�, co�sidering o�r camm�nts, th�se
Qf�altr�r�s �r�d of C�?STCO, t�afi in regard �o the �0� —Talmag� /Airport Park
area, fihe C�fiy is, in me�aphor, t�ying �o jam 4 pound� af cfay into a 2 p�und bax
and it just doesn't fit. The �uggestion th�� tne City look�o bro���r sal�rtian to the
issue is weil founc�ed �nd ifis' summ�ry dismissal in fihE �Ei{� is inadequate.
�V(�afi the Crty really ne�ds to mitigate both �he near �erm situ�tion and �he
cumula�ive lang term situation properly �s ta widen fi�e Talm�ge free��ay
av�rcrassir�g tc� at I�asfi 4lanes, Gar�figure�the sauthbound pn and off ramps in �
fight diamond, an� de�elop as mar�y throuc�h and tur�ing lanes �t ti�e interse�fic�n
of Ta(m�ge and tl�e soutF�b�un�i ramps �s necessary to s�lve level-of-senrice
�r�d queue stc�r�ge prc�b�ems,
Tl�� ��1� Fa��s to ���pr�nd �o �he De�nvn��t�ation �i�at the I��1� 'ir��fic
S��t���r's Gar�pufafEC�r� �e�ul� Are EfBc��i��f
Our comt�t�ni, now la�e(ed Q-89 �n �ne �EIR documenfied in d��ail that irt �he
futur�fraffic scenari�s, differing increm�nts in fraff'sc.resulted Pr� wildiy
dispr���r�i�nat�chan�es, and �rr�n in wrong�directi�n changes in queue lengths
�rt the US 101 sauthbound ramp ta Talmage. The FEf� re�pQnse a�temp�s to
evade this c�iscl�sur� of the laci� Qf cr�dible lo�ic in fihe ft�r�cast� by resc�rt�ng tc� a '
srna�escreen af fechnic�l jarg�n. `fh� response states as follows:
"Queuirag results wet�e obr`ained using the Simtra�`ic sofh�rare as e�iscussed
in �he rsp�r��r�pag� �9 of tf�e D�IR secfion. An aver�ge c�f random r�tns '
�a� crsed to obtarn the qU�u1r�� re�ult, .fherefore queuing cot�cli�iorrs dQr�'t '
nec�ssarity foll�w a 1�gica!liraear cnmpcttafr�n,
9 Raunaabaut I� �vauld also l�Z�t�e sign:ficant prablems with grading�n�sight c]istanc� as disc�ss�d in�tr�
appended CoUncil presenfiation.
Si��T`�-�Engi�-�eez�ing�Managemex�� Q 5311 LawnW,�Ft.oad, e Ur��au City, C� 94587 � '
Mr. U�fil{iam I�. 'rC��per
Januan,r �7, ��12
i age 13
This comrn�n#er is well awar� #{�at the S4m�raffi�sofitr�vare used ta �roject queues
relies t�n � probability d'€sfrEbutior� in estimating Endividual vehicle �rrivals and fh�t
the projecte� quet�e lengrhs are th� avera�e �f scverai runs �f fihe simulafic�n �nd
tnat, consequ�rttly, the r�sultant queue I�n�th pr�dicti�r�s are noi:�bsc�lut�fv
linearly pr�porEic�nate ta �he acfival ��rec�st changes in tra#fsc v�lume. Howev�r,
the queue lengf}� �red3c#ions are ulfimately based �n v�(ume of ap�roac�Eng
traffic, the results should show a r�asonable ;c�ugf� pr�partionaf ce�rrespQnd�nce
t�the char�ges in traffi�ualum�. Such a raugh prapar�iona� corr�sponden�e
bef�veen qu�ue length and traffc v�lume is �verwhe(mingiy la�king in th� r�st�lts
disclr�se� in th� DEIR an� described �r� the corr�m�nt. A large ir�cr�eas� irr traffic
g�n��ate� in the area subject to �nalysis sho�ld rrever r�sult irt � �ecreased
que�ae length. Nov�re�t�r, in f�� D�IR analysis the huge incr�ase in tr�ffic that
wauld r�sulfi when trips frc�m the 4C4,872 sqt�ar�foot �ro�s flaor�r�a Red�ro�d
Business Park res�alfs ir� a p�trpc�rfed decrease in queue l�ngth. Sucn a result is '
simply not credibl�, an� since the ft�ndamenf�! tra�#ic mitigati�n issues rel�t� to
queues on fhe s�uthb�und �01- T�lmage ramps and queues between the ramp
ir�t�rsecfiions an� Talrnage Air�art Park, this credibility is fundamental to ihe
ad�quacy af fih� traffic analysis suppc�rting th� bEfR an� F�IR.
Th� December 12, 20�� ESA memn r�sponse to �omment 57 re�ea�� �he FEIR '
respc�n�e smo�escreer� of t�chr�icaf jargan and ad�s a s�i�-righteous assertia�
that the mefihodolagy.is a� accepf�d tnetho�ology, thaf this cc�mment�r di� nr�t
suggesi an alf�rna�ive rnefih�dalogy ar�d that�n� answers in t#�e DE(R ar� ri�ht. '
Th�s response agair� evac�es the fiundamental point c�f c�ur ari�inal comment,
v�r�ich is: if�he at�alysis applies �he ac��pt�d methvdol�gY, but �he resuifs �re
cle�rly r�onserrsical, ft�en tl�ere must b� s�me�hrng �urong wr�h th� inputs �o fhe
methodvlogy�r th� w�y ff w�s app�ied. What�he pre�ar�rs af the DEIR traffic
study shoufid k�e dain� is r�Ghe�king t��ir wor€c and correcting f�� il6agica( and
�rran� result, ir�st�ad of tr�ing to �vade fihe ur���mfar�able Cack of credi�i{ifiy in that
r�sul� �y raisirig a srnoke scre�n of t�chnical jargon and self-righteous assertion.
The �ec�mb�r 'f�, 2�11 ESA memo res��nse t� Commenz 57 continues, '
asser�ir�c� th�t�he PM peak h�ur an�lysis c�f q�t�uing Qn fhe sa�fih�at�nd �ff ram�
is a(ways fhe v�orst case cor�diti�r� �ar all the scenari�s analyzed in the D�IR� '
U�/e concur in tnat sta��ment, k�uf if complet�ly mis�es and fails to respond to our
poini. That point is that coen�aarisr�n €�f the A�I �nd Pt�9 traffic �rolut�r+�� �€�r �;�� '
varic��� �cer�a�i€�� �ar�s�n��d in fh� C}E�R i�ads �r� the t�easc��able d�du���or� '
�ha��he A� qu�uinc� impac�s c�r� t�e southE�oianct c�fF rarnp v�rottl� !�e � '
simil�rly s���rifi��nt�s �hose �t� the cot�res�otidi�g P�i on�s, �hc�t,rgh '
�Q���rha� tess severe, �nd �l�afi��kne�w��dgit�c� �Ehase �igrr`rfcar�t queuing
im�ac�s tnrc�uld nc�t�us� �ae �imi�ed �o ��r� Ptt� �e�k ho�r�ould be� a usef�ar
disclasut�� to fhe �u�Iic. The Gity ha� r�ot�dequately r�s�onde� to fihis i�sue.
SMITH Enginee�•ilzg&I��I�u�agement a 5311 Lowty Ra�cI, a Ur�ion City, CA 9458'7 p
�I�. VUilliam C�. ��pper
��r►�ary 17, 20'12
Pag� 14
V�le afso nnte here, �t�r�he recc3rd, ti�at b�cause, as dis�ussed previously h�rein,
the initial counts unders�ate tra�fiic, and b�cause the I�EIR tra�Fic analysis
�onsiders n� scenarios that ap�ly seasanal adjc�stments to �raffic or adjusfinents
for tem�orariiy low traf�ic due t� �e�ressed econ�mic canditions, all of the frafiic
�naiysis procedures th�t were per��rmed in ihe DEIR �nderstate the sev�rity of '
traffic impacts and overst��e fhe li�Cely mi�ig�tive perf�rmance af�r�po�ed
mitigation m�a�ur�s.
�i��c���fi Cl�b �n�.ly�i�
In r�tar original �nafysis, we beiiev�d �h�t ti�e basic l�EER traffic anafysis, as
documen�e� abcv�, w�s sc� s�ver�ly fila�,red tk�af fihe C7isco�nt Cfub analysis
merely cans�it�tted an `over�the-t�p' scet�ario th�t compa�nd�� and ��d�d '
in�ensify to the initial �lav�rs. We commented #c� thaf effect. '
We naw have the �er�efif �f s�eing CC35TC0 and C{�STGt�'s �raffic G�nsulfiants' '
Gommenfs �n the DEiR and th� �EIR's response and are �com�ell�d �c� au�tnent
�ur carr�ments. Thrc��gh fih�ir tra�fi�cor�sultan�s, GOSTC�7 has pravide�
comp�l(ir�� �vidence thafi the �ESR traffEC analysis cc�r�siderably underestfma�es
�I�e pr�pc�sed C�STC� store's trip gener��ion �ot�r�tia(— COSTC�7's data shows
fhat their prap�s�d stare's trip �enerati�n �uauld be ne�riy �0 percent �reater '
�h�n cor��idered in �he DE[R ana[ysis. Th�Emplicafir�n of fhis added firafFi� is �hat
th� rniti�atior� c�ptions identi�ied in tne ��1R are s�iil more iil�ely ta �e insu�ficient
or infeasik�le #o b� d�vel�ped at#he scale needed within the g�amefric '
COI1SZt'�1 CltS,
W�find daeply disfurbing the fact tl�at the Cify and its` car�suft�r�t�, ir�ste�d af '
�mb�acing t�e higher trip gener�tion data volun�eer�d by �UST�� (v�hich ��auld
have the efFect of ir�creasing �OSTCO'� fair share of whatever mi�igation
measur� is ulfimately det�rmir�� necessary}, F�ave chosen to pasit con�riv��
hypot�efiical re�sor�s why fl�is par�icu(�r Ct�STGO site might have 1�ss�r tri�
generafic�n than th� �c�m�osifie of COSTCO's experience, ar�d th�reby, to �vaid
revising the traffi� anaiysis t� r�fGect th� COSTCC� data.
Cer�tral fo the FEIR r�s�anse's.deni�f ofthe su��riQri�y �fth� CC}S`�C� da�a is '
tne unsubstar�tiated presumptiot� th�t because thfs prop�sed CC7STCa sit� is
inter�al to a busin�ss p�rk, if woufd sc�mehow nave di�f�renf�rip generatir�n
char�cteristics than mosfi COSTC�s in Narthern Calift�rnia. fn s�ecific, fhe
respons� claims that it�wou�d attract mare fh�n a n�rmal perc�ntage af i�s' ''
customers from �eaple already in the f��dwcrod Business P�rk and th�t, b�c�use '
it is nat r�ght next�c� �he fr�eway, the CC75TC0 gas �tati�r� wc�u�d not attract i
trauelers from fhe freeway �as th�ugh it�ere true that most GO�TCC� gas
stations derive a substantia! share of fiheir business k�y at�racting significar�fi � '
r�ur����s �i I��g range ir�evva��r�v�l�rs to �fc�p f�r g�� as if t��ey �perafie� like
�iv�TH Engineering &Mazxagement m 5311 Lawr}�Road, a Union Cii3�, C.A. 9�587 =
��r. U�i((iar� �. �o�per
J�nu�r�� �7, 2�12
Page IS
�ust a�other fr�eway interchange area g�s stafiian). No�rr��er, th�se
pr�sumption� ar� cantrary to t3�e n�tur� o�a 'disco�nt clu�' st�re, par#icui�rly
�hen set in a smal�, r��atively re�t�te �rban area fhat ser�es as xi�� "market t�wn'
for a f�rae rur�i hir�f�ri�nd, W�en a discount c{�ab sfic�r� o�en�, particularly in '
such �n area, fh� rnem�ers will came �nd st�op regardl�ss af wheth�r�he store
loca�i4� is nexfi f� a fre��ua� interchang�, in��rna�fo a bus[ness park, next to tl�e '
d�mp c�r afongsi�e tl�e sewage �i��asal pEant. �'here is �imply r�� �asis fio�
claimirtg fihi� Ct��TCQ�rill afi�ract rnore th�n � n�rmal per��r�#a�e af its pafir�ns
fr�m nearby estak�lishments.
Similariy, there is no ��sis for assuming the GC�STCO g�s stati�n �uilf afitr�ct a
iess-thar�Mnarmai num�er of freeway�r�vel�rs. Becau�e of highly�omp��itive
pricirrg, Cfl�TCQ �as stafi�r�s invol�e �o�g lin�s at�1�� �urr�ps and rel�tiv��y
inconveni�nt waits. Hence,ev�n when �lac�d ciase �a fir�eway ir�fier�har�ges,
th�y are ur�►ikely to be t��ry �ftrac��ve to lang r�ng� fr�eway travel�rs, whc� may
nat be mem�ers any��ray, �nd �h�se priarity is ge�ing gas �uickly and g�tting
back c�n the ro�d.
In disrnissing the CUSTGC� data and ��irr�ai�in� the �r�alysis based on typicaf
rat�s d�ri�r�d from Tr�p �ene�ation, � Er�r�ior�, fihe �ifiy and the FEIR�reparers
contraver�e �fiun��menta! pr�r�c'sp�fe ar�ic�fat�d in Trl� Ger�eration, 8 �'d�tion �
itse[f. T��t principf�, articulat�d in rrip �erterafion, 8f�'Edition, l�olume �, page Z '
states that: nVl/t�en prac�ical, t(�e user rs �rtcaur'��ec��c� suppletr�ent�he data r�r
�his c�accrt�tenf With Eac�l�{��a fhaf hav� been coflecf�cf at simr'lar sites." Clearly, '
�his is fihe op�t�sifie afwhafi tf�e F�ER responders have darte;
Quite evidently, the FEfR r�spans� is nonsense, pu���r�v�rd in th� preter��e �f
reasoned argumen� so th�t fhe F'E(R can b� e�rEified without fur�l�er analysis,
v�itl� f}�e C05TCb data dismissed under pretexf�f disa�r��m�nfi among e�perts.
fr� �hQC�sing f� �c�ntinue tt� bas� th� analy�is t�n data f�vorable �a tf�e I�rojec�, '
raiher than r�lying �n fhe af le�st equally credible if nofi rnc�r� cr�dik�l� data less
favc�rable tn the Prc�je�k, fhe Gity and �ts consultants fail tc� make the goad faifih
��fart to discic�se irr�pact �emanded by CE�A.
B�latedly, in f��s [��cemk�er ��, 20`I'i testim�ny fio the P��nn't�tg Cammissic�n,
Sterre V�l�iriberger takes a �i�f�rent approach. H� sfates fihat if ane considers the
pass�rY�y attr�ctican rate at �QSTGt� stares, �he differ�nce between the '
�CISTCC� data i�t the comm�nt, as adjusted fc�r ai�racted passers-by, and what '
was a�sum�d in t�e DE1R �n�lysis is less thart 5 percent. But tt�is facile
explanation ignor�s the particular circumsfianee� of fhe prc�pc�sed G(�STC� site.
it Gs an a loo� street, fiirpor� Par(� F3aule�rard, thaf just ref�rns driv�rs to th� same '
ir�tersecting street they carne in from — there is no thraugh trafiEic. So al( �he '
assurned passers-k�y w�uld have fifl be atfracted fram tha existing traffic an
Airporf Park B�ul�v�rd.
S��T�I�ngin�ex•i�g �I�anagezzient a 53I l.Lo�vr�T Roacl, a Union City, CA ?45�'� �
�r. Wi{liam D. �opper
Jar�uary �7, ����
pa�e 16
GC�STCC� s�a�ed its' PM p�ak generati�n 5hould b� 92�frips, the'�/Ua(mart DEIR
es�imate� them at�34 and Wein��rger in his �estimot�y s�ys fh� differ�nc� fram
�h� C?ElR nurni�er i� c�nty 5 °lo due ta ac�fl�trting for �t�ract�d pa�sers�by. This
works out fa as�uming 263 a�tr�cted passersk�y in �he pI� peak h�ur, f�niy 176�
v�hicles enter c�r 1�ave�irporf �'ark E3au(ev�rd in �he PM peak l�c�ur�ccording tc�
the I�EiR. But of�hc�se, 7�4 �la�ld b�Walm�rt trips. Sin�e fe�sh��pers vi�it
t1V�imarf and Costco �n the same firip �xcep� in th� ThanKsgiv�n�-to-New Y`ear
haEid�y shoppir�g seasan wl�ich isn't anai�r�ed af �li in tl�e DE�R, if the 253 fri�s
are really aftracted p�ss�rs-�y, t�iey wa�(d be firc�m �h� remaining �a43 PM peak
hour tri�s fln A�rp�rf Park �3ou{evard. Thaf is to say, sfightly �ver 25 perc��fi �f '
the non VValm�r�trav�f�rs �ould ha�re to �� �t�racted. �irtce many of�h� nan-
UValmar�trave��rs �re daily user�, this is (ifc� saying fhese �ther us�rs v�ruufd stc�p
at Cos�co in the P� �eak once every four c�r five days, an en�i�eiy un�ealistic '
presumption. Th� �raffic on Airpart Par1� �aulevard is not suffici�nt to sustain th�
�urp�rt�d attracted passer�y rate th�Weinb�rger fiestir��ny �ssumes �or Gostco.
Pr�sumably, Weinberger was using ��e t�rm "passers-�y" loosely, r�al(y meaninc�
trip� c#r`vertea�frarn tn�broad�r�p�of �ffrips an T'almag� �r�d th� 1�� fre�w�y, n�t
jus��irecfly from exis�ing traffc on Airporf Park. But such div�r��d trips vst�uld
add criti�cal �urning m�vem�nts afi fhe Talr�age-Airport Fark ir�tersecti�n and #o '
critical queu�s on fi}�e '101- T�Im�ge r�mps and E�et�r�en �n T�Image Y�etweer� '
fh�Air��rt Park and �0� ramp inf�r��ct�ons tha� is nat proper(y account�d for in
th� C�EIR anal�sis, Hence, tY��1N�inberger P�ar�ning Gommissi�n tes�imon�fails
to reasonably expla�n the discrepan�p betweer� �h� DEIR trip estim�fie far the '
Discount C(�b and fihe G�STGO c�ata,
fn enc� r�sult, �he failure ta prr�perly accaunfi f�r CdSTC� traffic comperunds i��
DE6R's ur�dersta�emen# of initi�l traffic in sc�narios involving the Discaunt �lub,
fihereb��ompaunding #h� f�El(�'s und�rs�atement af ihe severity of traffc impacts
and its' o�rerstafiem��fi of mE�igativ� �ffects af�urpc�r��d mitigation measur�s,
Gat��lt�s9c�s�
The foregain� demonstrates t�at in its' traffic companent, th� F�lR rep�atedly � '
s��newalls resp�nsible comment, �ails tc� mak� the.gaod faitCi e�fi�rt f� disclos�
impact demanded by CEQ,A anc� def�rs ���nitivn of feasi�le mitigation, Critical
flaws in the DEIR analysis remain uncc�rrected despize oral and written r�sponses
a�fh� DE)Ftl�E1R prepar�tic�n cor�sulfiants during the Planning Commissior�
reviet� pracess, Nence, �he �EIR is inadec�uate �nd cann�t be certified,
Reme�y c�f fhe deficierrcies c�f the FEIR ar�d DEI� �r4uld involve substantial n��r '
fnfo�mati�r► aboufi impa�ts ar�d miti�ation. Nence, �he re�ris�d dacument sh�uld '
b� recircu�at�d.in �EIR s#a�us.
Si��1T�I Enginee��uig c�I���nagemeni: � 5311 Lo�ny Road, e Ur�ian City, CA 94587 �
�r. V�fili���n �. Kc�p�er
J�nuary �7, 2���
F'�ge 17
Sinc�rely,
�mit� Engin�eting & Cvlarta�em�nt
A GaGfarnia Carp�ra�ian -
,5;t,�5y(f�)�iillffpt}�ff .
tt-" ��.'��"���1t��'r1r
l���'�",�� .�t+ r}; `'��4+'r f,�}+��r-".,
�4�Y � .�i 1 �c i,�'��,+ .p,ftpp' N �.
� k Lr. f. 1��..
```��t,f.�,`�, �' .
�� �, ,��
� k
K , �4� b
. C� ;�] �C� C��3� ,,
. � ,.
e�. � �°'y ..�,rj� ,
•�� ��R L.h�� [� y ��'�4 �.
� � �
O
�,,¢rrd�,�'�s����������a`��•,4y1�,
rfr�r���,r'�`,,�Tfi��{t
Qanie! T, Smifh Jr., P.E,
Pres�der�f
S�,�ITI��ngi��eering&Ma.nagement � 53 I 1 Lowry Ro�d, 8 Unioll City, CA g4S 87 a � '
�1r. Wii[i�m C7. �Cc�pp�r � �
Ja�tu�ry 17, 2��2
�a�e 18
������r�t���� _
T�bE$�
T�o�fhfy VarI�E3on in Shapping Centsr Trafffc
Aercanta e of Aver�a a N+onth
�Aanth i'srcenta e Manth Fercenfa e
Janua 85.3 Jul 'I DD.B
Februe 78.1 A� ust �02.4
hAarch S2.a Seqf$mber 64.8
rll �3.2 C�cto�ar 98.9
Me 1d5,d November qQt.g ,
June 108.Q Deaembar 9d�.8 •
sa+nPle sh.et 2 .
Av�rage grass laasabla erea;998,00o squers fasi
Ths siles were sutv�yed belween ti�e 196C1s�rtd'zfi�e 2QQds iYirou�h€�ut th�UnEted States and
Canada. '
Sa�rrc��laml�ers
1,2;3,4,5,6,'i3,'E4,18,'t9,22,26,40,42,48,+59,.r,4,58,6�,61,84,$5,72,73,?5,76,77,78, '
75,67,89�9U,�JB,99,'tQO�405,13�1,i24, 156,i�9�172,i�6,193,'194,i95,`BB,19i�'l98.189�
2�2,2�fi,2`l'f�2i3,26t1�263,269,2A5,2�9�300,301,30�1,3b5,3U7,,iD$,309�394.31 i�$12,
373,314,315�3'�6�317�318,3't9,858,36�.�7&,385,39Q,406.404<41��424,423,42$�437, '
440�442�A�$,��#6,5t}T�562,563,&8D,59$�623,a56
Trtp GeneraJon,8th�dltkon �Vd99 � insfiFute of i ransporta4ion EnginaErs
�1�IIT�-Z Erigineering & Ma��ag�i��ent o 5311 Low�y Road, Q Unian City, CA 34587 Q '
� ��
B �
aC�.. � ��
S I� .I T �--1 E 1`� � I �1 � E P�. I I�I � �:r �tI A l� A G E i�� E �II T'
Jan�ary 24, 20�2
�lr. William D. K�pp�r
A�tom�y at La�r
4�7 E Stre�t
Davis, GA �5�1�
�S�a�a��c�: 1.��6�h ���-6'��rfi E�sp������ Pr����� '
P'i'V 0{�5
D��r �lr. I�apper: '
This fetter is �ritten at your requesf, fc� provide ir���et fio t�� Ukiah Fianning '
Gc�mmisseon"s January 25, 2�12 he�ring �n appr�v�l of th�Wal-it�art Expansi�n
Prc�j�ct{ h�r�ir�after the "�r�je��"}. Previot�sly, f revi�wed �nd �omm�rtted �n the '
Draft�r�virc�nmentai lmp�ct F�ep�rt {th� �QE�R"7 fc�r fh� Proj�ct in � letter dated
Au�[�st 15, 20�1 attd ! pro�ided oral �nd �rit�en f�stimc�ny �t the �ity Ct��tncil's '
Jan�ary ��, �Q12 hearin� e�n �he a�p��l c�f the P'f�nning C�mmi�sion's
c��i�cation af fhe Final Environm�nta� Imp�ct R�port �the "FEIR"} on the Prc�ject.
�y qua[i�ic�ti�n� to perform �h�se r��r»vu��era thoro�gktly ��cumented in s��
le�ter�f�ugust 15, �01'�. Th4se cr�d�nfii�ls, as wrell as th� entirefiy af
�ubstant�v� cc�rr�m�nt ir� �h�t I�ft�r�s �r�N �s rriy oral ar�d �r,rr�i�n testQrn�ny t�the
City Gouncil are in��r�c�ra�ed here�n by refere�t�e.
Ire ord�r f�r the Pl�nning �c�mmission ta approve the Project despite the findings
� of fhe QEERfFEI��hafi fhere v�c�u{� be tr��c impacfs �r�ich are signi�icant ar�d ,
�na�c�idak�fe, th�P(a�nrrir�g Cc�mmission mu�t mal�� fndir�gs c�f r�verriding
ct�n�id�rations fihafi��atw�igh fl�as� sic�ni�cant, unmitigated trafFic impa�fs. The
princip�l pc�int we wish to cc�nvey in �his fe�fier is th�t the safety cc�nsequ�nc�s �f '
�he Prajec#'s unmitigated traffic impacts are s� adverseiy sever� th�t no '
re�pansibfe gt�vernmertt cc�uld r�asonabiy���rc�ve a Prc�ject adr�ing tra#fic to fihe !
impacted Ic�cation. �'�rthermt�r�, even th�ugh �he impacfi�d la�ati�n, the
s�uthbc��r�d �ff ramp frc�m US 1 Q� tc� Ta6mag� Aver�ue, is und�r �he jurisdictic�n of '
Cal�rans, by kn�wir��ly, under findings of c�verriding consideratiar�s, approting a '
P�oject that �v�uld a�d tr�ffic that increases �ccid�nt expos�re and severity at the
�IvII'I�I Engin�eri��g&I��Ianagernent = 5311 �,owry R.��d, e Ur�ion City, CA g4587 � '
�r. V�i9li�m D. �4�p���
J�n��ry�4, 2�12
�a�� �
ir�p��f�d loca�ian, th� �iiy wc�u{d �r�d sh��ld ir��ur fi�bili�y��r�he ��nsequ�r�ces
of�h��.increas�d accici�n���p�sur� and haz�rd.
!n �h� s��tivns th�t follow, �re r�vi�w fhe c�rc�mst�nces a�v+rhy�he f�{anning
�t�mmis�ion sht�uid no� ado�t finc�in�� t�f c�verri�ing c�nsider�fic�ns�o �he
Pro}e�t's signifcant traffic irr�pacts.
I�t ��r Aug�rst, 2�1� Gommen[s c�n fne a�iR, w� painted o�t that, k�ec��se f�e
G��IR traffic study's anal�sis sha�ted th�t queue� an the sau�h�ound �o
�res��ound rn��r�mer�f ���he s�abj�t �fF�amp e�€tended past th� pa�ir�t Srvh�re the
s�uthbaur�d ta east�ound mc��emer�t s�lits frc�m the sout�bour�d t��est��und
ma�ement, fihe queues �n fhe s�uthb�und off-ramp w�u(d k�e Ic�nger than �he
DEII� diseE�sed ���ause the soutE�E�ound to �astk�ound tra:f�ic�vould be additive tQ '
tF�e queue c�f�h� sou�hbc�und �c�westbaund traff�c. '
�t the F'lanning Cammissic�n's h�aring of C�ecember ��, 2a�1, and again at the
C�fiy ��uncil's he�ring �f�anuar�r �8, 2[l� 1, �ir. S�eve �einberger o�F W�Tr��s,
the �rincipaf �r�parer of�he DEIR's App�r�dix B �'ra�c 8� Circcrlafi�rr f��por�,
sta�e� fhat, a��arently in light of o�ar�ommen�, that�hey had r�visi��d their
calcufations and �etermined th�t, v�rher� the �queue �n the sauthbound tc�
e�stb�und m�vemenfi Es�dded to that c�n the southb�und to �vestbc�und '
- mor�emen�, the queue v�auid r��t extend c�nt�the freev�ay for the "existir�g" c�r the
"�xisting � I�raj�ct" cc�r�ditian, but v,�ou[d �� sa far alf Qt��r sc��ariQS anafyze�
unl�ss mitigatic�n w�re 'rm�lemented. N��nrever, he did not�res�nfi e�pfici�
cafcufa�ions su�porting th�is cE�im.
We �ur�elv�s have revisited the "queuing and blQCking ��p�r��� for the suk�j�ct
sauth�ar�und off-ramp to T�lmage purportedl� reli�d an by i�r V�l�inb�rger, which
are fc�und at p�g�s 28� and �88�f the .pdf c��Appendices A and B ta the C�EIR
(the a�penc#ed p�g�s �re urtnumbered in the aetual iraf�tc& Circulatit�� Rep�rt}, '
i F�e su��ect pag�s �re aftacl�ed her�to. '
The re�c�rd shov�s that ther� is 117t} f�efi �f di�tance�n tf�� sc�u�h�c�und af#-ram�
b�i�vve�n the freeway exit nc��e �nd the �top poinfi af Ta�m��e. In the queuing
and bCc�c�ing repc�r#ft�r th� Exis�ing Cc�nditi�ns I��fl (page 28� �f the .�df of '
Ap��ndice�A S�B) for lntersectios� &: T�fmage Rs�ad � U,S. 14�� SB �amps (the
�er�tral s�ctir�n e�n fhe page�, when the proje�Eed queue #ength on ��re sat�thb�und
�o e��fiba�nd moiremer�t {d�noted NB R c�n the suk�ject pag�� is added ta the
s�uthb��r�d fia westbaund movement as �uggest�d by Mr, t(tleinberger (denoted
SB R) tf�e fc+llotrving results are obtained. The �verage queue length wc��ld be '
�43 fe�t {sum c�f 1��feet plus 688 �eet} and the 9�{" percenttE�que�e—�Iso
caElsd fhe d�si�n queue since it is c�rdir�aei(}r the v�lu� c�►��ider�d for purpases of
desigr� --�tirv�uld k�e �4�6 f�et �sum �f 345 �r�d �151 �e�t}. Since the q�ae�e
stor�g� c�pa�ity+�r� �he ramp is oniy 197���et, �haf t�t� DE[F�'s �ueuing r�p�r� '
SIvIITH Engineerir�g c�IVIax�agement m 5311 Lowry Road, � Union Cit;T, CA ��587 e '
�r. '�'if�i�m C�. ���pnr
�l�naa�r�r 2�� 2D12
��g� �
��tu�lly shc�ws is t�at f�r tl�� ��isting ��nditi�n �nly�i�� ���rage que�� wa�ld �e
��r��airt�d �ithin �he ar�-ram�, and fih�f fhe��t� ��rce�ttile de�ig�n qu�ue�rousd
�xt�nd bac� on�c� fhe freer�ay ma�rscin� �s t+�ould qu�u�� �p ta 3�6 f��� ��arker
��'1.8 p�rcent shc�rt�r) th�r��h� ��E�' perc�ntile desa�n qt���te.. ;
In tE�e c�se �f��e que�tir�g � blc�ckir�g r�port��r�fi�� �xistir�� + Project C�c�ndifi�ons
P�I (page 2�� af fih� .�}C�fi C�fi A�}�Et3C�lG�S A �cB�, c��ly �l�e av�rage qu��� of��6
f�� {st�m of 1�2 ar�d 7�� fe�t) �v��ld r�m�in ct�nf�ined on the �ff�rarnp short t�f
th� rarr�p nose; �Ehe ���' p�rcer�fiiie d�sign aue�e t�ou(d �xtend to 1�82 f��t {sum �
�f 2�7 and 12�5 feef) wt�ufd e�end f�r anto fi1�e �reev,ray rrta�n�in�, a�rr�ou�d
queues up �c� 21 �a�rcent sh4rfer fih�n �he �5fh �ercenfil� d�sign qu�ue.
Cbviously, �r It�einb�rger has based his t�s�imony r�gar�ing traf€ic in �he
Exis�in� and ��is�ing �- Proj�ct conditi�ns nc�t��ckinc� u� o�ta tf�e freev�ay
m�ir�lines an the averac�e quet�� ter��fl�s in the PM peak I�a�r ratl�er than
consid�ring fhe �35�h perce�itil� queue �rd�r��rily �sed �or d�sign pur��ses�rhich
tF�e DEIR data �l�aws d� b�ck-c�p ont� the freet�ay m�ir�(in� as well �s quec�es up
tc� 2�1 perc�r�t�h+arter than fhe 9��{h perc�r�fiile queues. VV'I�at this means is �hat, '
during the P�1 peak haur th�re wvuld �e a {arge ��rcenta�e �f time v�{�en fihere
�rc�uld be queu� ca�rditir�ns that engender hi�h�s��ed-�iff�ren�ial ct�llisions and �
avc�id�nee-maneuver ��Ilisiarss that c�f�en inv�lve sever� p�rsonal injuri�s.
i�c�rec�ver, th� a�erag� queue {en�ths indic�ted in the �n�l�sis ar� nt�t exernpt
from these s�ver� typ�s c�f caliisio�n h�zards, Gadtrans t/rgh�a�r F�esi�r� �3anual
Ta�ic 504 �nd Figur� 504.ZB indi�ates that th�fiirsf 2�� fio 57�feet of��ifi r�m� '
b���nd fhe exit nose (I�ngth v,r�EhEr� this r�n�e d�pendin� �r� gr�d� and r�dius of
su�set�u�nt curv�ture of t�� ram�} is �high sp�:�d d�c�I�ratEOn �eng�h ar�d th�t
fihe design speed�t t�te nose �nfiering this �r�a shc�uld �e 50 miies-per-h��r ar
gr��t�r. H�nce, �v�n af th� sh4r���f v�lue of d�c�leration length inr�ic�fiecf
�B��v�, 274 f�et, t�e s�skrj�ct r�mp t�ou�d haue �nly �3�Q �ee#��r qu�ue star�ge
befe�re the que�e ��tenc�s inta the hig� s�e�d deceleration �rea, �he d�ta from ;
tl�e ��6R's 7"rafffc � ��rcutafian F���r�r�sl�ows th�t e�en the av�rage P�f peak
qu�ue in fihe Existing + Praject can�Eti�r� w�u(d ���r�d intc�the high s�pe�d
c��ce�er�tic�n �rea ��F the ramp, t�h�re�s in the Existing car��itic�n �he q�eu� does '
r��t qui�e dc� s�. This m��ns �hat the a�d'rfiic�n of Pr�ject traffic cre�tes, not just ''
occ��ion�l cand'[tions, buf aver'ag� conc�if�ons during tf�e F�It� peak h�ur�haf
eng�nd�r high speed collisi�ns wit� seri�us publEC safety cans�qu�nces.
Ifi�l�e Gity, knauvin� the a��ve p�ablfc safiety�ansequ�nces, �pprcaves the Prc�ject !
�nrithc�ut tr�ffic m'ttigati�r� under firte4ir�gs af overriding considerat��n�, in �ssence ifi � '
�ccepts tF�e adverse car�diti�ns �nd conse�u�nces c�f tl�em, Even thaugh the '
f��ilitjr i� �and�r the j�arisdicfiion c�f��kfran�, the �i� rr�ay be fc�und liable far�he '
can��qu�nces c�f Itr�owfngl� act6n� �c� �xac�rbate the sa�efy �rr�bl��r. '
SI�ZIT`�3 Engineering&��anagernent s 5�11 Lc���ry�:oad, � �lnian Cit�, CA �4557 $
Mr. t�'ifdiat�r D. Ko�aper
.���u��r�4, 2��2
Page 5
,�tfi�chr��nt�
Q�a���r�g � B1c�cking Rep�rrts Far
Exo��ing� ar�d �x6s�ing + �rQ�ect Ca�t�d��icaa�s
F�om .
DEfIR APPEh9RE?� �
Trafific & Ci�+�utation 1��pvt�
SMSTH�nglneering�&Management • 5311 L4wry RQad, e Unic�n City, CA 4458'7 � '
(rlilr. �'lfiliiar� D. Kc��p�r
J�nu�ty 24, 20�2
Page 6
�r�at:€ing€�d�r�kEn��sprert
F�d�#hm-�at�fkot�P`It� a����
!€tt�fs�cti�:6;1'�I�a k�l�,�t�t�rt P�'���I
� - =�.E$'T'=-��--�� `--'�-�_-W��.'.=�:4�{-=Y�9"�"=':HB�=-N6===�[�II�-��S���:S8:-0i�tl
amcli�sa2tt�ti �V.:• �. X 71� L T '€� E L R !. �'R �'
�iu.m _� �.�-�__�=el'.`"'"�B�'�_�... �:a��S�-=�O�-�-�:.=-w.'�6T:�'"�14_:=��3
• �ege u0ne�� --1& yi3 4'k �3d 53 2b �+b 45 �i � 1d l
�_��� =._w�_.-.'28f';�.,..._,w271�"-�.=1��_�__5�=�1�"'"".�i����=��=..�'E�—.,��
(3�€Dts�ItcR� �35 +E58 - 27� 6B3 S�3 �j dl �r9
� � - --- ---- •--.
��^��'�---.��.� .._ �"-• .�.,.__---=�_.=_Y=_ --:�
--���_ .�V..._.__._..__._.__ .��=.,=--
�It �j� _,__� � ... .�...__:-..,_ _.. ...�
; _.....+_�tf0=`��c=�v:.:��Hl�.=-;,�"',M=�--�1H�—�:89.�=�-_.._..-�-- -��.�-- -- ---
� ----�-----� . _...__...__.
_-..- - -....___..__-,•. -.- _
���a
N k_I'�i � _ ._.. � __._- 9,_.__ 4 _.._�___ .--�_�
_;�-�.------.�. - -�� - --
_ ��...�;e�=��....���"".-'�.;�=-�_=_-=:-�=8=:�:��-=f.�;�."'—;"='.. _-�_=
E€1E£�#���i�t�.p;��tHti5�8�sO�Y��t��,�.�Q'����BE��3
..:.- .,- - :..c - _.•-__.�_._._. . - -- �
�Y3�- �__...�r.a�...-_�— -�..___.,.._ - _^'--.:.......�.,��^^•__ "'_ _
........_. _.r�r:.:�.::'-_�.���..,_.. ....... -_'a::..'c''_
,._....�crr_c� :_`''ccc�._." �_�_:.`...;..._�_...__e_..-.
Q�f9CkMt5�YBf� � �i ���.
---�-' ----;.`-.... ,,,.,_._._..._.____._.__.___.... .
_._._ __,_ �-__�_.=r=.•�._=-=..-�...�__._.�_ �_...
���:-".�=-�-=,�.__.�'^ . .-�--r-�:_:____��=� . .... .. ..,�..� �
.. —�'-y'.�_...��„`.•�;..�._'==.
d,1Era�QI�UE U i�.T__ .'65f 689 � - --
— ----.._ _..
��..�-ti�- -------�LAS'�17fi1��._.._�_�__...� =— ---•�'_-�_--- �
Li�k Q�ae�Gi� 9d@9 �:'�'-. �---� �'�-'
���.r- ,�.>L
. --- --�
---^-----.__...
- _.---..�-��_...----- _
_
�
���� � _._��
� .=�-----� �-
__..��.�
SY�ra�SkT�nei�al � -------
�-�f� ,���`;'��_'___=_=_.__�___�.._.,�:_.._ . ....– -.__�_._�_-._._.�.._._—�.
t����Cl�+r�:8;Telttta���a�l���.5,'f�'1[d�#���t�s
_.�..�..�..;�:._:���;--::_-_=.___.._�._�--___ - --- --- ------- - - -----
_ __.._. .....__ _ . . -:.::....._ .
_....._...._. ���.. _......_ _.�..
-----._.._.._-t�:.-�._HB=�:_-.=�__"_=�:.::-:_..:�_=��__..-. ..__--�._-__:_.--.____
�Ire�ns� � L R~ - '- � -= - _---_---- --_--
_ �. � __ .,_,,.___T._�.. _.___._.....__. .—.�_-----
�im� .� '.�=�,�..-=--�j:,.=°=`��@E:a=.-�~�'`�=:-=_-=`=��==--�=;;.-y=:='�:�=___:>-��_-`_
: ..Qn��`:::-j'::as�.. �¢ �-- -- - -- �- =� ---
--- _._ ..._... .__..�_�.._._.:_._ -_
` ��. - -- _ ---
__ _,-:_ _.._
�.:=��_��__-�:----_��..._�...
_. __�_
�_=-'�___�=__.�::::._�:-�':-��-.-=__:-:.:-:::°-��=�=`:���:��:=.��_=-:=�-�--;;
Li€kd���(� �ea
-_ .._._.�_�,=....
�������=-»�:�--_.--�.= -- � ___._- -:� -=:V-_ -_..- - .-_-
Q�����tshl _ _ ----_---- - - - - -- -__..� -
I�r. Williarn D. i�apper
Jan��r�r 2�, 2012
Page 7
�����d�=ae�k�g�epc�
�tsti�����t��n�3f�i��a�#�v1 an��oai
k���Ei��:�C T�9�R�st3����r€���i�� �^
,�:^�._�_...__�=,:__�w_.._ —.._. _
'..`:":_:"_-_'=:�—EB—Y�.�_�w 4P6=��=_''W�=^1t�'-�='�=N�=_�N�=.��-�-���=-�=�B=B980
_,..._..._---- �'
9imclian€x�+ed ____- i--T_. 1tt �. -}�T TR L_.. L R °L T� T
' � Y�.+.'.��•.� .�� �.� �� i.�- --• . .
�elolflu��.....�.�'--�"W�_: .__..__„�=�-. _� -
T..--==�,��--t'�._.1#.=.-93-._�TG�l�..�wd@=�-�=1�_�;BR=:�flE�:�:^�
Qtt9v0(lt�_,__:.::�..�_�: 176 135 "[E.5 66 27 79 56_. 93 _ $ 5A S
` �'�-�:�._:�Sx;`::3;�$,--.-»��1-:"�8���•���='_.1��>:9t}S�`=_�w;;:Zl`-��L.fG'���=�
,,, � .__
133�i Fa5f31Ce t183 13.3 �72 fi63 683 tl df 271
_._.. _ •,.--_.._�_.�.._..._..__._�T..--- -
-�-��`___���-_.���.-,:.-_—..--.—:•::.>�_2-`::"•.=�-;.._����z�=_.==::==�--w"=,-s�:="��___ - _--_
..
-..._-�..�.�-�--==M- -
..�, _
. . _��`_:-��.�:.-,�-_:-_�=_:_=::::_•-_;
�n�P�t�7kjt t1�t�... p � �;.=.�?`��'�;:
� � ��� ._.._.,._.__ �___ .. ___
�u�Bk�Tiee�" '-=�• _.�.�-�--.�-_-si�``�-1at;���'�='_-- ___=._.._�°.--===�a
_ -�--- -�.... 9
�,g4�=_-,��������_._�
�'����—. �.10;=__:_.-_=-�'.�=_=_:�.�.—._ __..='3�-���=a=�'�_�=�:W=,�=?::_
N�te�¢�H�r;'�a Ta�m���R�sd��.5. "t€���B R�rr�
�-.:--=-==_..=�=�1��5�=�"_ _" -- -- _' - _ --_ = - -_—__ '
H�e¢i�s S�red R R ---- - - --- ----
�°-' '�a��='-�.,t�_==�="'�'�.., - --- _
�t���_- _ �s� �r� _ .Y_._,y. .^._... _ - _ _ '
-�----_`-��i�5�=���==Y�
�akgiskance� �'IOI� � iflF� _ __. —..- --.._. .__._ __... . .,
M-�==...��zu'� -- _ - - _ —--_---=
��� ��� � _. ._.. _�.._...._....._ —.__._,.�------
�� �� �--��----- --.. ..=-._-._.__..--_.�..-...�_.:. "- - --- ' �
-. � �=. ,_��: .— -�______�._.._.._�_
. .__ ..�-...._ �..,�...� _.._._.�_�,�... ______.._ _._..�
5brd 8k:i'��I. . ._._w__._._...._._M_�_-- -- -.._
���_�����=-_—--�—�- - -- ----- ..�—'=_--=- .�...._�.--_-=.= '
t�e�c��r€r�:T��nage��a���.a,'ft1���aarr�
= � ---._��._._..._.�._..�.�.____....
�__' =N. -t�_`-=-=--- �_.._...___.._....-----�—_--- _-_=-
— , ---�-=___—_� ._.__—___...,...._
� ..— - B� ___� —._..._.__�.._......__ -:.�.=�;.=:..�
eirec�.ns�red L R - - .— - _---- ---_-_ --- - - -
�._..__. ___.:.y..__:;�. - --
waem�� ---?��__...�9H:=-=_.�__� '--- _�-.�;_W�_ --- _ _
�ttucn€�----=�- � ^= - --- -- ..-_..__.
- " - _..-=-��" ..��:�—���:���� _-- - '
I:�k Di�e�i�..��--- �6� — ` — - � - T--==
�.9m=�ima.��„-._.�..- _="_ - _._.__ =� .
� .i���_�..��"J"""_' - _—
� ...�.�... �ti •--..--•-.-�----
fit3tegt Bk Time l'�} .._._._.__.__- _. ...----.._._.�_ . .._•--�.�-_.._�
���.��.�=.=^`4�-._.-=�=_=-.=�` __:�.... _ "_ _ -_
�Jktsk�atr�t F�p�ns'��IR 5(�Trai(c i�pnrt
�'-T� i�ge�
�I��IIT.�-I Cngir�ee��ing&Mana.gemeizt ► 5311 Lc�v�y Roads • Union Cit�, CA 94�57 •
o ♦
� �
• �
��.h�.�1t �
January�.8, 201.2
1vlemc�
Ta: Vi+''iIliam Kapper,Attorne�at l.,aw
Frarn; Philip I�ing, Ph,A, �
�te:Analysis of proposed'Wal�Mart Supercenter in Ukiah
I have examin�d the C�RE Urban Decay Analysi�cantained in the DEIR/FEIR f4r the '
pr�posed'tjV"aI-Mart Supercen�ar e�pansion in Ukiah and the General�und Fiscal
ImpactAnalysis,prepar�d by CBRE farthe City�Nov, 1.�, 2��,0�. I also evaluated the
eFficacy ofthis prc�ject to�chieve three.�f�he Praject tJbjectives can�ained in the
D�IR(3,3.1,p.3-5)and 14ste� belaw.
• Pravida a cammercia]development that resnits in a n�t fisca]banefit to the City by providing
new sales tax revenue and increasing praper#ytax revenues.
• Provide commeraial develogment fhat creates new jabs for City reside.nts. !
• I7eveiop a fiscatty beneficial project that provides suffici�nt revenues ta rnaintain rnunicipal
services,
. In bri�f:
In my�rofessional opinion,the�al-l�lart e��nsit�n will not result in a n�t
'increas�in g�ner�I�nd ta�gazns or an increas�in jobs. In addiCion,�he '
L'Va�-Mart��p��siom,esp�cialty in conjun�ctic�n wi�h the pl�nned Costca,wiIl '
lead to urban d��ay, �[ere is a stymmary 4f m�findings.
• GBR� erred in its calcuIatian of sales Cax b�ne�ts; '
a CBRE sta�es that sales diversians will b�"up ta"75%but, in faet, the
anatysis employed in th��IR assum�s onIy a 39%o sales diversic�n
c�v�ra11,which is far too low. �
o Sinc�there�will be na in:crease in the employment laase[see b�l�w}
there will lae no gain in franchise taxes.
a The City's general C-und share o�sales ta�c receipts is not 1%,but.75°la.
• When�axeg are properly evaluated,the project will result in a net general
fiznd tax lass of$9,821 ance one nets out the(CBRE esti7na�ed) incrementai
service cosCs to-�he�ity�f$32,488.1
• CBRE alsa ss�irnates t�his praject will generate$��,89{l i�z praperty ta�es for '
the U1�iah Redevelapment Agericy,how�ver,the State past legislation last '
year which mave th�se funds back��Sa�ramento and the�aliFcsrnia Supreme '
Caurtupheld rhis legislatian in I�ecember 20�.1, I�1 acldi�ion�C�RE failed to
I L�xcluding Measure S�nlhich will sunsel. Even with Measure S the project tvill an�y genet�ate a fev,�
thausand dollars in net sales taxes—see discussian be{ow.
accQUr��Far decreases in market values az�d hence prt�perty taxes at other
retail proper�es in the City�s a result ot`s�ore closinga,
• 'I'he employment gains touted b�CBRE fail�o account far employrnent lasses
at at�er stares du�to sales diversions Jclosings, in£aet,i�fs Iike�y t�ere
�rvill be a net Tc�ss in jabs foilowxng th�expansion. Nloreaver,Wa1�Mart's
wages and ben�fits are sign9fica�tly lQwer�han many other re�ailers, '
especiallygr�cery s�flres,and rhese Ir�v�rer u,rage ar�d �enefit levels wiil p��t a
grea�er strain an social services ir�Ukiah an�l Mend�eina County,
° The EIt�dismisses the potential far urban decay due to st�re�lastzres and a
significa���ecline in the vitality of d�v�n�own t3kiah. However,the '
cumula�ive irnpacts af the Wal-Mart, Costco and�th�r srnaller prolects will
lead to a sales diversion �acearding to the DETR) e�uivalent to 20%of Ultiah's
tatal curre�t sales, It shouId be abvious that the impacts c�n c�trrent Uitiah's '
re�aiI businesses will be s�rious, '
• It is als�a mista�e to view dowi�town Ultiah retail as sarnehow catering to a '
different clientele than a#�er retail nodes,as many of the downt�wn sta�res '
have averla�ping merchandise with t,�ie neva c�mpetitian, Rur�h�rrnare,the
downtc�wn has now Iost the dravu of the rnain post�ffic��which cl4sed
Daeen�ber 2011�,and will Iilcely loc�se the caunty courthc�use(which is
scheduled to ret�cate irt a few years), Th,e dou,mtavJ�vacancy rate currently
stands a�14.9°l0,and vaould jump ta �3.5°lo v,rhen County caurth�use r�lated
services relacate. Also,as menti4ned ab�ve,the recen�cc�urt ruling an
redevelapment�v�ill greatly ret�uce th�City's abilit�tfl maintain the
downtav,rn with beauti�ication projects and lcaans far building renQVations. '
• Given�he seriaus issues cited above,it iS rny apinior�that the City o�Ulciah
wouid b�b��ter af�simply allowang Wal-Mar�to aperate an a 24-hc�ur basis
with the poeential far e�anded gr�c�ries. Vv'hil�there might be some
dis}�lac�i��nt in the food indus�iy,the irnpacts would be signi�cantly]ow�r.
Indee� Che EIR itself refers to this altern�tiv�e as"env4raz�rnentally superiar '
alterna�ive,"while providin�no speci�ic reasons why it shoul�t�e re}ected as '
infaasible, --
`�he remainder af this memo will discuss these issues in more detail, '
Fiscal impact
Sat es�ax
The N�vernb�r 2010 CBRE mama concludes�Tal�ie 4,p,4�that the�xpansion could
ge�erat��73,680 in regular sales�ax rev�nue and an ad�iti�nai$36,9�0 in Meas�re
S sales tax rev�nue,which will suns�t in 2015 if the measure is nat re-appraved by
�oters. T�e memo states (p.4)tha�;
"The analysis adju�ts for the nan�abte cflmponents of this arnoun�
and assumes that up Co 75 percent o�'thcs��aten�ial tiiversi�r�s ca�xld
came frotn retailers within Che Ci�y aF Ulciah boundaries,.,"
Since�CJltiah has by far the largest assortment vf retail stares in Niendocino caunty, a
75°�a impact is ac�ally quite o��imistic-especially as fihe Wal-Mart expansi�n will
focus�n groceries and garden suppiies. Exhibit 5 (uniabeled bu�after Exhibit 4��n
CBRE Appendix D to DEIR�and �xhibit b,present the rnajor retail ou�Iets that w�uld
campete t��ith the VtTal„Mart expansion, Al7 of t�e��mpetitive stares in Mendacino '
County,includ4ng every major grocery store plus JC Penney, Rass, Sears, Kohl's,
Hame I��pflt and Friedrr�an's are in Ulcialz, The map lisfis a few c�rnpeti�ive stores in '
��r�Bragg and Lakepart, but these are duplicative of Ukiah stares, And while 5a�ta
Rosa offers a larger variety o�star�s,these stores are far away--�ver an haur drive
for most pec�pte in�he�rade area. It is unlikely tl�at the addi�inn�f 47,61�sq.f�,wili
make much di�ference in terrns af drawing�aepple tia Ukiah�vh�are already gaing to
San�a Rosa. ConsequenCly a more realistic�s�imate for sales diversian in Ukiah is
�robal�ly 8Q�90�/0. '
Furth�rnaore, carefuI exam�na�it�n c�f CSRE�ab�es in th�ir fBSCa�impact memo '
shows that the ac�ual estimate far sales div+�rsic�n a�plied is far ivwer th�an '
75°�o--i�deed Che avexage Qverall is 39°/4. Table�.belaw indica�es�hat�BR�'s
estirna�es imply�hat onl�abcrut one-�1�ird of the Supercenter's Gen�eral Merchandise
and other retail will come from existing stores�in Ukiah, implying that tvJa-thirds of
their�ales wiI]b�"new"to CTkiah, This is simply absurd and as essentially
contradicted by the text of the CBRE memo,which irnplies that the 75a/o eseirnate
has generaf�y been applied. '
Ta1�Ie �; rmplied Sales Diversit�n from Ukiah Stores in CBRE's�iscal Analysis
G$FZE CB1�� CBR� °l� '
E�etail Cat�gary E�t�trtated ��'�`tmatsd I�iver�ed fr�m
� T�xabl� Safes 7axatale 5�i�s ��isting
I�fversir�r� �Jkiah S�ores
G�nera! Merchandise $ 4,578,�77 $ �,532,278 33°/fl �
_. ...----�- _
Fot�d Stores _. ..__. .... .._ �.. .___._._.—__- -.-- ---- .- ,
� .----- .... . __ _
, $.. 3,872,326 � �,038,$$3 �3�/'0
Eating and arinkin� $ 7G,�55 $ _. .. _ .�j�j� -- .
.
afih�i� Ret�i[ $ ��5��;�-�D : � � �T�3�,67� 3�°l� '
�°ofat : � ��,�as,��� ; � a�,7o�,�s� ; s�°i� �
As�onishingly, even in foad stores,the effec�ive arnount is only 53°!a, despite the fact
that mr�st people shop locally for groceries.
The text in CBRE`s Fiscal Impact report is n�t consisten�v�ith the tables presented
far s�les diversions. (The estima��s far�he percentage af sales subject�.a sales tax,
though a little high,are reasonable,� 7 re-estimated the�et taxable sales using the
sarne me�hod�iogy and assumptions applied by CBRE,�xcept assu�ning that in fact
75%oF�he Wal-Mart expac�siar�sales represent sales diversian fr�m Ukiah SCores.
The resulfis are presented 'm Table 2 belaw. ,
Ta�le 2: Tmplied Sales Di�ersign f7rotn�kiah Stares i�.GBRE�s�iscai Ana�ysis
�BRE Net'Caxabfe Sa�es Tax Mea�ure S
Esfiima�ed �ale�witi� �,t��� 75°!a Tax with
T�xable �5°�a Diversion 7��'�0
Sa�es Divers�o� Diversian
$41�78,577 �1,��4,644 �1,446 5,�'2�.22
$3,872,326 $9�8,082 9,G81 4,8�0.4�
�76,455 $19,114 19� 95.57
$3,56�,490 $89Q,373 8,94� 4,4�51.86
�'12,088,848 $�,0�2,2'l2 $34,222 �15,�1�1
l�s indica�ed in Tabl�� above,ass�x�n.ing a 75p/�sales diversion yields onl�
$3�1,2�2 it�regu�ar sales t�es and�15,211 i�Measure S taxes, far Zower th�n
t�e figures tctutet� in the�BRE�'iscai�mpaet Analysis memo. .
Ho�v'ever,the $3t},2Z�in sales tax b�er�efiCs s�ctwn above should b�fur��ier
reduced,I�ecause �at�nty c�fficials revealed that ti�e Cit-y(Gen�ral Fun�� does '
r�ot�retain a°la afsales tax receipCS, but.75%,with the remaining,25°l0
�armarl�ed to the Cc��z�ty fcar transp�rta�i��prc�jects, This reduces the ann�a� '
ta�a�le l�en�fit ta the City�c� $2�,667,
�'�iple-Fli�1�raper~�y Tax It�t Lieu and F��nchise �'ax
CSRE also assumes the�aroje�t will provide additiona] �eneral Fund ber�efits in th�
form of anr�ual increas�s�f$2,3�0 and$3,618�or Tripl�-Flip praperty Tax in lieu
and Fr�nchise taxes,r�spectively, Th�se estimates assume this project qualifies for
redevelapment funding ('Iriple-Flip� an�l wi�l add 85 n�w employees (Franchise '
Tax), I-�owever,both of these assurnp�ions�are flav�ed, As detailed below,�he
project will lead ta j�b re�uctions at other stores,v�hich o�fsets the 85 jai�s CBRE
claiins as new jabs. Redevelo�rnent funding is slated to disappear and a rec�nt '
California Supreme Caurt�ecisian, Cati�'c�rnia Redeve�opmentAssoc, u Matc>santas,
u�held the State of Calif�rnia's ability to end t�e current methad Eor fi.tndfng '
redevel�pment,which uses increm�nts in property taxes vah•ich wauicl other4vise go
ta the State.z
Cansid�ring the recent courC case�ffecting redevel�pment agencies,and the net l�ss
in jr�bs if Wa]-Mart expands �see belaw�,thesa so-called benefi�,s �re zjtusory,
�umuta�rve Generad RevenueBet�ef-fts
Based on th�f�rre�ofn�, it zs much�no�e r�asonable to assume t�at the an�ual
General Fund benefits���he City�11 b�ap�ro�im�tely$2�,6�7. �owev�r,
CBP.E has esCimated that fi.�:e pc�lice b�d�et will inerease by$3Z,488 primarily
duc�o�rVValtiMarC c�parating an a��-hour basis. Thereforer the ne�a�nual
isnpact ta�he City's Ge�t�ra1 Fund as a resu�t r�f�his expansion wil�be a
nega�iv�$9,821 [$32,4�8 gninus$�2,667},��ven if one assumes that the�z�y of
Ukiah received 1�14�f�he saies tax,as��1�does,the costs�o t�te C��y stili
exceed the sale��a�z gains.
� Property Tax
CBRE alsa es�ima�es Chat the project wi11 genera�Ce$58,103 in�r�perty taxes, ��
which $�5,890 vaill go�o the Iocal Rec�evelopment Agency(RDA) and$12,213 to
Mendqcino Coun�y, However,the State of�aliE�rnia has changed current legislatian
on redevelopmen�areas, efFec�ively ending the current rnechanism. A recent '
decisian l�y the California Supreme Cour�(California Redeve]aprnent Assoc.v,
Matbsant�s3) upheld these new latrvs. Consequently, fizture prn�ects like the Vval. '
[vlart expansi�n will no longer qualify for redevelo�ment. It is theref�re reasonable
to assurne that�he City will receive lirnited property tax benefits fr�m�his project,
In addition.,the an�lvsis i�nores negative ii�np���s on propertv vaIues at other
cornmercial�rap�rties in Cll�iah, As indicated in the EIR and diseussed bela�va�,the
�ucky and Grocer�Outlet stores cauld clos�and although the awners are still lial�l�
for prap�rty tax�s,it is likety tha�as th�prr�perl,y�ralues oFfihes�stores and�th�r
stores n�earl�y�all, praperty tax va�ues will l�e adjusted dc�wnward. C}ne cann�t -
simply add an the proje�cted property taxes far�ie e�pansion without accaunt-ing for
r�duc�i�ns eisewhere. '
E�nplr�yrrt�iit 7m.�act
CBRE�stirnates�hat the�rr�p�sed'�+Va�yMart expansion will add 85 ez�npItrye�s.
Howe�er,tl�e�faii to a�count fc�r a reduc�zan in empi�ym�nt at ath�r stores. '
Elsewhere in the sarne t�eporC�hey ment�an sales diversions fronl other stores and '
the EI�menti�ned poteneial closings of the LuclZy and Grocery tvlax sCores as wel] as '
reductions in sal�s at the Food Maxx stare, Table 3�aela�sum.marizes data an
2 See IZttp;J/medi�.�resnol�ee,com jsmedia/2011/12/29/�0 j37/KwsOn.So.8.pdf,
31bid,
Gvages at Wa1-Mart and Che eompeting s�ores that,a�carding�o the EI�.,are rnost
likely to be irr�pac�ed bythe Wat-Mart expansion,
Tai�le 3; Employm�nt/Wages f Benefits at�aod Stores in Ukiah4
Store � �sf.°la Fuil Fu1E Time Annualized
�mplayees tirrte tNagethr. VNage ��nef�ts
Wai,Mart ex�ansir�n 85. . _ _$.. 12,6i � 26 229 �Parti�l Medicai
�.uGky... �7 �3% $ 25.t�B' . _$ 52,�l66 FuIE fvS��ic�I Dental
��rocery Uuf►et 31 87% � 30,40Q Medical
�QVd I�taxx 7� 35% � $ 21.6� $ 44,��9 �Futl Mediosl C7et�ta!
1�s shown in'I`able 3 a}�ove,ifthe Wal-Mart expansion resu�ts zn�he closing af both
the i,ucky and the�rflcery Qutl�t, 98 jobs wlll b�los�versus the 85 j�k�s added at
Wal-Mart, �ven if just the Lu�l�y closes,as was suggested b�r CBRE ar�d has been
afftrmed by��Luclry stc�re manag�r, and there are s�af�reductions at other grocery
stares to accpunt for sales declines,the result could also be a r�et emplayrn�nt l�ss.
Mareover,sin�e Wal-Mart's wages are significantiy law�r than other grctcery '
c�m�etitors in Ukiah�here�u-ill be a decline crf alrr�ost 50%in the wa�e le�eis of Vtral- ' '
Mart employees versus those jc�bs that vvill be replaeed, '
Rec�nt data�n medical benefits are harder to come by. A 20�4 study cancluded
"the average Wal-Mar�worker required $730 in taxpayer-funded healthcare and
$1,��2 in ather forms of assistance, such as f�ad s�amps and suhsidized housing,tfl '
get by.s" Af�er the study was cample�ed Wal-Ivlart did imprave it�beneFi�s - '
somevahat,}autthis fall tNal-Mar�has again begun to reduce benefits back to earlier
levels,b
Cflnserauentiv,the to�al change in emplo�ent follovving the Wa� t�iart ex�a�sion
wil]ltkelv be a n�t loss and there will certainlv be an�veralt decline in wage scales '
a�1d �m lo ee benefits cantributi to lawer lacal s endin and ' her social
services costs. Nctn�af these affsetting impacts we e estimated in the re ort. '
'�5aurces: For locat stores data was abtained Frc��n store rnanagers, Wal-Mart data was obtained '
www.walmart�cotn,aiso see"LtYING WAGE POLICIES ANDBIG-BOX RETAIL:HOW A HIGHER WAGE
STANDATtD WOULD tiViPACT V4rALMART WORK�RS AND SI3�PPERS,"�iy Ken Jacobs,Stephanie Luce,
UC Berkeley Center For LaUor Research�r�d �ducatian,April 2Q11.
5""T•Cidden C�st of Wa]-Mart jabs,"UC Berkeley Cer�ter For I�abar Research and Education,August, '
20a�. '
�See Wai-Ma�-C Cuts Same Flealth Care senefits By STBVEN GREEI�HOUSG ancl REED AB�LSOht,�tew '
York Times,October 2p,2011 '
��«������� � r�
-----_�
February 7, 2012
Memo
To: William Kopper,Attarney at Law
From: Philip King, Ph.D.
Re: Propased Wal-Mart Expansion in Ukiah-Reply to ALH January 13 Memo
You asked me ta comment on ALH Economics' (formerly CBRE) January 13 memo
cancerning the fiscal impacts of the proposed Wal-Mart Expansion in Ukiah. The
memo does not specifically refer to my analysis butrefers to the opposition group
Citizens for Sustainable Development,which incorporated same af my analysis in '
their arguments. I offer the following comments/carrections to the ALH memo:
1. Exhibit 3 contains a basic arithmetical error that significantly aiters ALH's
final calculatian. Table 1 below reproduces Exhibit 3 with the arithmetical
correction:
Table 1: ALH Exhibit 3 with arithmetical correctian
Patential Percent Potential
Retail Category Sales Taxabies ' Taxable Sales `
� Diversions ? Sales ' . Diversions �
General Merchandise $ 4,818,054 ° 90% 3,252,186.45
�.:_.._�__w__.__� _ ____..____,. � . _.�,.�_..__..__. .___.
Food �___ __ .--_ $�12,186,752 30% , 2,742,0'19.2Q
------- -----.._... __. ----_ . .__�_ --.___.._ __v ----o__ ,_._ ._.��__. __._ _._.
Eating/Drinking ; $ 10010 -
---._ .,.�. _____ . __ _ _ ___..��.____ __ _ _________. __._
Motor Vehicles $ (2,340,876}; 100°l0 (1,755,657.00)
, . ..� ___ .. .
Other retail ; $ 3,372,993 ; 100°l0 2,529,744.75
Total ; $ 18,036,923 ; : $ 6,768,293 :
Table 2: Corrected Values for Sales Tax
;ALH Estimate Walmart Taxable Sales $ 11,030,026 ;
,w_.� ...____._.__�.__.__�__�_
_.._.. ..____ .___._.. ..� . �_ _.._.__� .--�.__.�..�.
Potential Sales Tax Diversions ; $ 6,768,293
,_._ .--.__. _______� _----__ _._.__ _
;Net Taxable Sales ---- --___ . :
_$ 4,261,733 '
Incremental Ukiah Sales Tax $ 42,617 '
,__ ._..._.� ____... .__ p.__ _ _ _� _ _32,4... _
General Fund Ex enses 88
`Net Revenues $ 10,129
As shown in Table 2 above, this arithmetical errar implies that the net sales
tax revenues are only just over$10,000 after netting out expenses to the
Ciry—hardly a major increase. The Measure S taxes add another$21,309 if
the Measure is retained.
2. The CBRE/ALH study assumes aver and over a 75% sales tax diversion.
However a clase examination of their awn analysis indicates that Ukiah is
already a major draw for the entire county and indeed the entire trade area. '
It's not clear at all that 75%sales diversion is appropriate. At a rninimum,
CBRE/ALH should have performed a sensitivity analysis to estimate the
impact of other estimates give that this assumption is based on no real '
empirical evidence. For example,if one instead chaoses an 80% figure for
sales diversion,which is more reasonable, '
Table 3: Taxable Sales Diversions assuming 80% Sales Diversion
Potential Percent Potential Potential
Retail Category Sales Taxables Taxable Sales Taxable Sales
Diversions Sales Diversions ! ��versions @
80%
Generai Merchandise : $ 4,818,054 ` 90% 3,252,186.45 ' 3,468,998.88
—------------ -
Food --- --- - ! $ 12,186,752 _ 3010__ . ---- -- --_ ------
° 2,742,019.20 : 2,924,820.48
____ . ,_M___.._._��_---. , __._._.___ __:__._---- ._ _.___--- __._..
Eating/Drinking $ - 100% - -
.--__-�—.,_.____.__.. _ . _�_�� .�_._.__.__-_._. ._--�-._.._.___ ___,__ __,__ - ------ ___
Motor Vehicles $ (2,340,876 100% 1,755,657.00 1,872,700.80
__� __.__. _._ :. _... _._____.� .__ _.. .�__._ . .. �.____. .__J_..._.__._�.__ � __..--._ �_.,..__)
Other retail $ 3,372,993 100% ' 2,529,744.75 ' 2,698,394.40
Total $ 18,036,923 ! ! $ 6,768,293 ; $ 7,219,513
Table 4: Estimated Sales Tax with 80%Sales Diversion
'ALH Estimate Walmart Taxable Sales ; $ 11,03Q,026 $11,430,026
._,_..w____. .._._____ _.__._______ .___--- - -: __. _.___.._ _._..__..___ . _.�_---. .----- -
Potential SalesTax Qiversions $ 6,768,293 $ 7,219,5�3 '
,..__._.�.._�.� __�_�____ _ _._.._.. __.____._ _�.�__.. _ _ .. ,.. ��_.._.r_ _....�._._ _. __ .._ ___.._. _.... _
Net Taxable Sales $ 4,261,733 ; $ 3,8�0,513 '
`Incremental Ukiah Safes Tax $ 42,617 $ 38,105
_..�. _..___... _._ .�.��_._:. ...__�.___ . ___ __ ._ _ . �__ _ __._.___._.
General Fund Expenses $ 32,488 ' $ 32,488
!Net Revenues ; $ 10,129 ; $ 5,617 '
Tabies 3 and 4 above re-estimate the sales tax with an 80%sales diversion
instead af 75%. At this point the net sales tax to the City is only$5617 or
about 30 cents per resident. If the sales tax diversion is higher than$0%,
which is very possible,the sales tax revenues diminish further. At about 86%
they become negative for the City.
3. Franchise Tax: My earlier memo stated that the franchise tax estimates
assumed$5 new jobs. However CBRE/ALH's analysis completely fails to '
account for the job losses due fia stare closure (e.g., Lucky) or reduction in
store sales. Again this is completely bogus. In addition wages/benefits at the
Wal-Mart will be substantially lawer as indicated in my memo. The new ALH
memo omits any discussion of this issue. '
4. Property Tax. While some new praperty taxes will go to Ciry general funds
the net resuit of RDA funding will be a loss to the City and limit its ability to '
urban decay. That was the central thrust of the analysis in my earlier mema '
ALH continues to claim a very small increase in property taxes and ignore '
negative impacts ta closed jdiminished properties as a result of Wal-Mart
sales diversions.
Conclusion
ALH's January 13 mema estimates that the net tax benefits of the proposed Wal-
Mart expansion wiil be approximately$1.30 per resident if Measure S sunsets and
less than $3 per resident even if Measure S cantinues.
However a careful examination of their analysis indicates that it is based on a
number of erroneous assumptions and a significant arithmetical error. Once the '
arithmetical error is corrected (Table 2 abave) the net sales tax benefit amounts to
about 65 cents per resident if Measure S sunsets. As indicated in my earlier memo,
the franchise tax benefits omit any analysis af lost jobs at other stores,which
CBRE JALH admits will lose sales and possibly close; nor does it aecount for the '
lower wages at the Wal-Mart store. Similarly the analysis only accounts for the
increase in property tax revenue while omitting losses at other shopping venues die '
to the expansian.
Finally,the assumption of 75%sales tax diversion is questionable and some sort of
sensitivity analysis should have been incorporated. As shown above, even slightly
increasing this assumption—to 80a/o,whieh I believe is a more reasonable estimate,
further erodes the tax benefit. At around 86%the benefit erodes compietely.
A more honest analysis would have concluded that given the uncertainties
here the proposed expansion will have no net tax impact if Measure S sunsets
and could have a neutral to very slightly positive net impact (on the order of '
$1 per resident) if Measure S continues. '
If the project had no negative characteristics, a neutral fiscal impact might be ',
sufficient. However i�is my understanding that a Statement af Overriding
Consideration is necessary give some of the negative impacts faund in the EIR.
Further there are other negative impacts to the City,in the form of urban --
decay and lower wages,that I believe the City should also consider given the
paucity of fiscal benefits provided by this project. It is clear that CBRE/ALH
has gone out of their way to find as many bene�ts as possible,yet has come up
with estimates that are small given Ukiah's overall population and budget.
The uncertainties here are significant as well,yet go unrecagnized in the EIR.
In my professional opinion,given the uncertainty here abaut whether any net
�scal benefits will be derived, the City shauld be cautfous in overriding a '
negative environmental issue.
�';g�%"C°�';`e:'�;�::3`�a �t `-~' --
Mendocino Environmental Center
106 West Standley St. >
Ukiah, CA 95482
{7Q7) 468-1660
mecgrassroots.org
February 8,2012
Ta The City of Ukiah Planning Commission,
The Mendocina Environmental Center wishes, an behalf of its members,to once
again state its opposition to the proposed expansion of Wa1-Mart's store at 1155 Airport
Park Blvd in Ukia.h. The Mendoeino Environmental Center was started as a direct result
of Wa1-Marts propasal to build its �tore and the City of Ukiah's approval of a negative
declaration on the original plan. The founding members filed a lawsuit that led to the '
development of an EIlZ on thaf original plan.
We opposed approval c�f the cuirent IIR,for this plan to expand, on the grounds
that it is inadequate,not having addressed Caltra.ns coneerns regarding the '
appropriateness of the proposed trai�'ic mitigatians. Caltrans letter dated January 2S�' '
2012 states specifically that The Department of Transporta.tion recommends that fihe City
withhold appraval of the project. The inability of Wa1-Mart or the City of ITkiah to
successfully mitigate the traffic hazards should be enough reason for this body to not
approve a Sta,tement of Overriding Considerations. We a.re also concerned with the State
Water Quality Control Boards exception to this plan_ We continue to be concerned with '
the issues of safety,noise, air aud water pollution as well as further economicblight to '
our community.
We ask that yau not apprave a Statement af Overriding Considerations on this '
proj ect and that you instead approve a Statement of Overriding Cancerns,those of the
citizens af Ukiah and hold those concerns to be greater than any economic cansiderations '
for a maj or multinational corpc�ration_ Thank you.
Sincere ,
. '
Edwin Nieves '
Mendocino Environmental Center Coordinator
�i�ty��F��,i�,1� � >�y�, � �� ;-�E �� � � ��s�����r� 5, ���2
I;�' F. ��
Pianr�i�g �e�mmis�ic�r�, ��d �.—.__._....�....�..�,
Planning � Community �evelopm�nt C7ep�rtment
300 Seminary
Ave. Ukiah, CA
95482
RE: City o�Ukiah Wal-Mart Expansion FEIR Appeaf
From Rlan Nicholson, representing Citizens for Sustainable Corr�merce, a Califor�ia Assca�iati�na
Foilowing is an inquiry into the trafFic issues identified in the EIR as Substantial and Unavoidable.
There may be a solution to the traffic impacts, but it is not any that Walmart has proposed. Becaus� '
there are no mitigations to the well documented,and under-estimated by Walmart-traffic impacts, and
there is no funding availabie or traffic plan ta base "fair share" at the current time it would be
irr�sponsible and negligent ta let any aspect ofi the project proceed. A Statement c�f bverriding '
Considerations cannot be f�und if you don't even know what the real impacts are going to be.
From the Planning Cornmission Hearing af November 9, 2011 Planning Director Charlie Stump noted
that: '
"It(the traffic studyJ daes identify, as many speakers alluded to, that there's going to '
be some significant traffic impacts if this ,aroject, and fuli build out of the Airport '
Industria!Park occurs. Nowever it daes indieate that ti�ere's mitigatior�;it does tel!us a '
sotution, a f�rlP sadut�on and a second solution that almost gets there ail the �ay. �ncl
with that, the City is currently develop�np enpineeri�p estitnates for the cost �f those
two potential t�itigations, would determine what it's go�ng to cost."
Wher� is the Ci#y 'plan engineerir�g estimate', and what plan woaald it be based on? What �s a Fair
Share and what is the �ity Share?What a�e the total fair shares of the Airport Park�s a whole?These
are und�fined concepts. These questicrns, hawever obvious are only rnrnor notes in a more amportant
dialog.
Assuming you have read the Letter from Mr.3esse Robertsan of Caltra�as dated January 25, 2012, you
will be asking yourself houu vou can proceed whe� the State Departr�nent of Trar�sport�tion, for the
second time,strongly advises}rou not ta approve this project.
I spoke with Mr. Robertson on Friday, Febr�aary 3 to ask if the �ity or Walmart Traffic Er�gineers have
been in contact with �altrans as Mr. St�amp alludes to in his IVovember 9th testimony. Mr. Robertson '
told me th�t his office had not spoken with either one since before he subrnitted cornrroents on the '
DE1R o� August 18, 2011; probably �resund May or June. �altra�as is ��q�ired to approve �ny traffic '
mitigation plans prior to esti�nating costs so that "fiair share" may be allocated. It appears that
Walmart and Staff a�e hoping to circumvent California law and obtain approvaB of the projeet and a
�uilding Permit before cc�mpliance�vfth applicabie procedure and Californ�a law.
Page � 1
� "� �.�:n��':. fi ���r,�xF aS t��,1s �r�.Jt. � .—. .
.i
��/_Ll b ��) �i�1��11�{��3 .
At the January 18,2fl 12 �ity council hearing, lVlr. Dan Smith, a r�grstered traffic
�ngine�r, gave a 20-rninut�power point presentation�oncerning issues he found with the
EIR traffic analysis of the Wa1-1VIart expansion, Mr. Smith's reasoning was also fully
documented an 1� page Ietter also submitted that evening, and cantained in the public
record. Mr. Smith is a graduate of both�'ale University and UC Berkeley with more than
30 years of traffic consulting experience. IIe is considered a�eading authority in his ,
f eld.
Throughout the EII�process Mr. Smith raised a number of concerns about the adequa�y
af the EIIt traffic analysis. In his 1�-page letter he explains why these concems were not
adequately addressed. �everal of these issues are quite technical,and won't be '
ment�oned here, However, ther�is one issue that should be of special concern. Nam�1y, '
the EIR consultantgathered base line traffic counts in February 2010. Since February is '
the lowest month far traffic in the year,these counts should have been adjusted far '
seasanal factors. For example, if these counts had been adjusted to reflect the six busiest '
months af the year, the counts would have inereased by 12.4%. This adjustment would
have made a significant difference ir�ferms of the potential backup on the south bound
off ramp of I�wy 101 at Talmage, Since the EIR traffic consultant has acknowledged that '
traffic on this south bound aff ramp uri11 o�casionally back up to the freeway�n th�pm.
peak hour when the Wa1�Mart expands, a seasonal adjustment would have extended these
backups onto the fr�eway. '
In this day and age, when all sorts of available technology distract drivers, there should '
be real concern about the possibilrty of traffic backing up to#he freeway, let alone onto
the freeway. These ar�not matters af'rnconvenience, like sitt�ng in traffic for an extra 10 '
secands, this is a sitt�at�on ihat could'nav�life threat�ning consequences—b�cause
drivers will not hav�adequate�ime to decelerate, resulting in serious r�ar-end collisions.
In fact, rn a very emof�onal presentat�on, a Uk1ah citizen�vho 1�st her son in such an
accident came before the council and asked them to serfously consider whether they
should make a decisron that could r�sult in the loss c�f life.
So the issu�before you rs whether the benefits of the proj�ct autweigh the prospects af
sameane berng ki�Ied or seriously injured. The answer to that trade off should be
obviaus, I urge yau I�TC�T to adopt the statement of overriding consideratxons.
`T1�A.�'I'I� IlVIP t�.�TS
Here are some numbers for you to thrnk about. According to th�EIR traffic consultant,
the existzng Wal-Mart store generates abaut 5,900 daily trips during weekdays. After the
expa�sion,the�Ial-Ttlart will generate about �,304 trips, or an increase of over 2,300 cars
each day. And, on the weekends this traffic will increase by 2,600 cars. The report states
that during the pm. peak hour there wi11 be 200 mare cars coming and going fr�m the
Wa1mNlart park�ng lot. That's over 3 �ars per minute clogging up the main access routes
ta the store. That's on a typical day, which means the situation will be even worse on
weekends and during halidays.
Now all af yau on the Commissian, and presumably all of yau In the audience,know that
at busy times th�existing traffic at Hwy 101, Talmage and Airport Park is terrible. �t�it
daesn't take much imaginatian to realize how much worse the traffic wi11 be if Wal-Mart
is allowed ta expand. In fact,the traffic consultant admits there will be times when the
southbound traffic exiting Highway 1QI will hack out almost to the freeway. As a '
consequence,this is considered a significant environmental impact. A better definitian
would be a significant traffic safety concern. '
Wa1�1V1art certainly realizes the obvious traffic safety issues that will flo-UV from this '
expansion,but instead of confronting the problem by proposing a traffic solution that
works, Wal-Mart is requesting the City adopt a statement of overriding consideratrons, '
This means that�Ial-Mart�s asking you,the�ity's Plannrng Commission,to approve the '
expansion because the perce�ved benefits outweigh the serious traffic consideratrons.
This may be good far Wal-Mart, because it would relieve them of any obligations to fund
the improvements to the interchange, but it leav�s the Cit�and taxpayers p�cking up th� '
tab far the in�vitable improve�n�nt that will be necessary.
�ou are the Planning�ommissran,NOT the Develapment �orrrammission. It is your '
responsibili�y to enforc� goc�d planning, and not to defer necessary improvements to
another day. It is t�me to address the issue of what improvements need to be made to the
�-Iwy 1 O1/Talmage/Airport Park rntersections. A plan needs to be put forward shdwing
how th�se intersections can be upgraded,the cost to complete the work, and a realistic
timeline on when these improvements will be completed. �nce this is accomplished, and
the publac has had an opportunity tr�p�rtiripat��n the process,then the Wa�-�,�ar� '
expansion with proper cost shar�ng obligations should be brought back for consideration.
If you adopt a statement of overriding considerations you are essentially giving Wa�-Mart
a free pass on solving the traffic problems that largely der�ve from the 8,�00 daily vrsits
to their store. Please require that a�1an be prepared showrng how these intersections wi�l '
be improved to adequate levels of service b�fore considering th�s project further. '
'�`�.��T'�'��' ����:�.�,'�'�
You may recall that the EII�in�lud�d two dra�vings sho�ving potential roundabout
madifi�atians tc�th�Talrrlage/I-�wy 1 Q 1 interchange. The EIR traffic consultant�,vas
suggesting that one of these roundabouts might be a solution to improving access at this
interchange as w�ll as a Talmag� and Airport Park intersectian. However, at the City
Council hearing on January 1�, Mr, I}an Smith, a professional traffic consultant,
expla�n�d why these roundabouts would na�wark: Baslca�ly there is simply not enough
room to have a proper roundabout at this location. According to Mr. Smith, any final
solution w�11 requrre wld�ning th�Talmage ov�rcrossing, In Mr. Smith's opinion, this
widening and the other n�cessary upgrades could push th�costs of the final design to
over$30.0 million.
At the end of the Planning �omznisslon meeting on]�ecember 14,we were told that staff
would be reviewing the roundabout concept and reporting back to the Planning
Commission and City Council w�th a recommendation and cost estimate ta camplete
these improvements. There was also discussion about possible funding for this
interchange, with specific refer�nce t�the use af redevelopment funding. Although not
specifically said,there was some inference that it the project was acceptable that Wal- '
Mart m�ght be required ta pay its proportional share. '
F-Io�vever,as I have just stated, it does not appear that the roundabout idea will work,and
an 8/18/11 letter from Mr, J�sse Robertson,the District 1 transportation planner for
�altrans, indicates that�altrans has serious concerns abQUt the feasibility of using
roundabauts to solve the problem, In fact, in this same letter, Mr, Robertson states;"we
{�altrans)recomm�nd delaying pro�ect approvai until mitigation can be constructed or
fair share funds collected,"
As matters pr�sently stand,�Ial-IVIart's traffic improvements cansist primarily of adding
b�ke lanes, a relocated bus stop and side�ralks along the perimeter of their store at an
estimated c�st of about�17yUUll. d ilE1iSP�TTI�ITOVPIT�P.IIISy and Wa1�Mart's contribution are '
will have no impact on s4lvrng the fundamental traffic problems. '
Yes, m�tigation measur�4.10-2 does ca11 for Wal-Mart to mak� a proportional share
payment to improving the starage capacrty on the U.S, 101 Southbound Off-Ramp. Iiut
there are strings attached to this contribution. Frrst, it is only payable priar to the '
issuanc�of a building permit. Theref�re, if�solution is not found, or a�IP set up unti!
after�Tal-Mart has pulled its building permzt, �Tal-Mart would havz not oblrgatian to
participate. Second,the mitigat�on wording suggests that Wal-Nlart's participation is
limited to the southbound starage lane;not the complete upgrade af the interchange and
related improve�nents at Talmage and Airport Park. Third, without an approved plan '
showing how these improvements wi11 be com�leted and a funding source that insures '
these improvements can be completed in a timely manner,there is no certainty that this '
work will be completed. S��rhy are we rushin�this pa°oject? I ux°g�yau to delay ',
any appraaal untii you l�ti�w h��v the nec�s�ary traff'ic impr°�v�ments will be ',
�ea����tedR
T1[���`�+'�+� I1�YIP�'��;'T�`
As mention�d by others, Mr: L�an�mith dzd an�ndependent peer review analysis of the
EIR traffic study, In addition to sc�me of the technrcal issues already dlscussed,Mr.
Smith also expressed concern about ather aspects of this analysis and the potentxal
liability that cauld be assumed by th�city.
Mr. Smith pornts out that the EIR has an obligation to define feasxble mitigation measures
for the Project's impacts. And, since Mr.Smith,Caltrans and Mendocino County all
submitted infarmation expressing cancerns about using roundabouts to solve the
problem;the EIlZ needed to either provide adequate information showing how these
roundabouts would operate, or came up with another alternative. Instead, the EIR traffic
consultant suggested that the deslgn details of the roundabouts would be worked out
between Caltrans and the City at a later date: However,as Mr. Smith stated in his
January 17,20121etter; "the effort to postpone defining mitigation details until lat�r
constitutes a deferral of mitigation that is improper under CEQA."
In his January 24; 20121etter, IVIr. �mith also suggests that the City of Ukiah will likely
take on liab�lrty issues if they decide to adopt a statement of overriding considerations.
Here �s how Mr.. �mith puts it.
"the safety issues af the Project's unmitigated traffic impacts are so adversely severe that '
no responsible government could reasanable apprave a Project adding traffic to the
impacted location. Furthermare, even though the impacted location, the southbound off '
ramp from US 101 to Talmage Avenue, is under the jurisdiction of�altrans,by
knowingly,under find�ngs �f overr�ding considerations,apprQVing a Project that would '
add traffi�that incr�ases accldent exposur� and severzty at the impaci�d 1o�at�on,the �i#�j !
would and should incur liab�lity for the consequences af that incr�as�d accident exposure
and hazarcl."
So any decision you make tonight has to take into consideration the poter�tia�liability to
the City if an ac�ident�ccurs. Rather than expose the City to this risk9 the Planning
Cammissron should direct the applicant to come up wrth a mitigation measure that works
and a funding mechanism that will enable these improvements to be completed prior ta
the completion of the expansion.
7 .:;
�
� , ��"`�'I�ti'i������
��� ���< r
�,:.
� �,
a ����� °" �� ��� � ?
� t= �",�� .�� . �x ��
�,���`��i'��{,, t�;�`
� "��� ' €t�
,
� ����;` s'�:
���� ,; �,.,
����1 � �����, �
�` .t�$ �`� �Ea�. ,�;.� ` :
,
,. �
� -� .g, a � .....
� �
x ��� � �
§
� t
�.::
t`5 �` ?. y.¢ro. �.
.,,: . �� �y,F .
.' ' ;: "�... �.
a, �
r
3"x �" ` '. ' �. �
��
Y `
..
'�
�`� ; ��3s�
�
� �. ... �„
��. �:� �� � , „� � _..:_, a � � � ��
�
. �,.
, �
, , „ �
3. � , e � '
_w
. � =�,�„.
��;� � » ,.m�s`�'� '� °�rp��sr ��
J� ��� "*�a �� �' F x�,�,�`�� �.= t�
�.;'' �i t . �: ""'� �¢t � �� �.«.
� �
� .s- � � �a��$+��`��^ �
,�* � �x� ��a "� �
,, � ' ,�"" . � ��'x �''�s�`C���
�'^�"� � s� ���` t„� '-,,; :Y � � i �t^�¢e# �
., ��.. . . s .
�U�L� 1�� � � � � � ° �"� ��� °,��°'�.�Y���, � LQ,
� � �
� ��� ��� �� � �� �� ��� �
�
��� � �,
a
'
4
��.�� ��� ��� � ��.�.��� �a �.�,.�,��~� ��, ��. �� �; ���.��
; �
� � �� �� b �'��.... �-��� � � d
��,.�� �..��� � �� �� ��-��� ���- �-� �..�
� � �
�.�-��� � ��'���,, ��� � �� ��- �� ��.���,..��
� ����
�
���,�. ���-����� � s �, , � �
�
�'�r�a����S4�s���3=3�`a
Qn 1anu���%5,2(i1�,31�i�1-(�r1�i�t's leg�i�ca�nei!sti�brnitted a (ette�°tc�the Flanning�flr�rr�issic�n that list�c�
12 benefits to the city that they believe o�atv�f�igh the thr��signifieant and z�r�avoidable traffic impacts.
k�1e�Iread}t Icnow that these trafFic impacts inelude cars backir�g up on the s�ufihbo�snd US 1C�1 c�ff-ramp as
far as the f�eeway,with the potential for seriflus rear-end collisions, W�aiso know from a 2{i�t5 traffic
study dc�r�e for Mendc�cinc��c�ta;�ei4 of 6caver�ments that a�ew diamflnd intes-chang�and fr�ewa�
overcrossing could solve the traffic iss�a�s. The prflblem,from Wal-Mart's point of viev�r,is that such a
solution wc�uld be expensive and tim�consuming,and they want t€�move forward r��w no matter�hai
the traffic cbnsequences uvill be, Sc�they have the gall to ask yQU to side uvith them by way of a
Statement c�f t�verriding Considerati�n justifying the Project's benefits over traffic safet�consid�rations.
And�nfhat are these sc�-callecl benefits and their ramificatic�ns..
They include;
1) Wal-Nlart wiil add 85 newjobs, but could easily�liminate an equal number of jobs paying
significantly betfier}tvages and be�efits.
2) Excluding Measure S,the project may generate$10,OOCl in net general fund tax revenues plus
same City property tax revenues—unless other stores go dark and a re not re-tenanted. This
fisca!galn is a mere pittance compased to the City's future o�4igation to upgrade nearby
intersectic�ns.
3j llilal-Mart will contribute$17,836 in"fair share"transportation infrastructure improvemer�ts,
cbnsisting largely of bike lanes and sidev�alks. U�lal-Mart will ONLY c�ntrib�te to necessar�,r '
�apgrades to the TalmageJ,4irpor�ParkJH�ry 101 intersection,shown as a roundabo�st,�rot+idec�a '
Capital lmprovement Plan(GIP)is in place priorto V11a1-Mart picking up its building permit.
Because other trafFic exp�rts consider the roundabout solution infeasible,and without a CIP in '
place,and cc�ntribution by Wal-Mart's is in doubt,and the amount of that contribution is unclear. '
4.) iNaf-Mart vvili prr�uide a high q�ality design that will be�edestrian friendly. This will be a generic
Wal-Mart store and the pedestrian acc�ss uvili virtually stcap at the 1Nal-Mart property bflundary,
5} The store vvill feature�nergy saving features. As rrfentioned by th�Wai-IVlart stflre manager,
several af these energy features�ou[ci be irrstall�d even if the expansion does not gc�fors,vard. '
6} There uvill be attractive landscapir�g. The amc�ur�t of totai lar�dscaping vvill be reduce�,and the
projeci needs a variance because it does r�ot meet the City's(andscaping req�irem�nts.
7) The project vUill improve pedestrian access tcs the site; Ther�are tvvo main�ntry doc�rs b�t only
�ne pedestrian access path to the site. T'he relocated bus stop may help U1Ial-Mart, b�at vvill mafce
it harder fear bus riders to acc�ss the stores on the t�ther side of Commerce. '
Sf Imprc�ved bike circulati�n, This vuiil crniy apply tc�the perimeter c�f site.
9} Better stormwater treatmer�t�r�d detention. More of the site v�iill be paved.
2t}} Fr�vide 24 h�r�ar shopping, Thes�ext�nded h��rrs wili aiso add to crirne ar�d related police c�sts.
11) Stabilize the retaii market. l"he expansion will lead ta store closures.
12) V�}i44 be a good rnemlaer of the cc�mmu�ity. Any additiorial contribr�ticans from Uifal-Mas�cflu4� '
cc�rne at the expense of other rntailers. '
5�,th�q�aesti�n befor�you is�n�heth�r thes�ben�fits oL�tuveigh r�Jhat the EIR d�scribes as"poteniial '
safety hazards increasing the degree tn v�rhich an existing queuing backup would exceed the available
storage length." The EIR is correct,thes�are queuing"hazards"that could lead to seric��s injury crr even
cieat�;. Th�ben�fits d�sLri��d by�'Va(-v�a;t d�r�'t justify 2u�n one pr�t2ntial injury. t�r�n't let UVa;-{L"a�t�ff
t�se 4�€�a�k fi�t`fixirrg fil�ieir�rai�fic���'�F�i�rrts', F��ase c��ny tl�e�t�'terr�erjt�r t�v�rri�iin�Ci�ns;tieratioris,
�� �i��,�� � � � � �� ��
1 UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 February 22, 2012
3 Minutes
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
6 Mike Whetzel, Vice Chair Judy Pruden, Chair
7 Jason Brenner
8 Kevin Doble
9 Linda Sanders
10
11 STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
12 Kim Jordan, Senior Planner Listed below, Respectively
13 Jennifer Faso, Associate Planner
14 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
15
16 1. CALL TO ORDER
17 The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by
18 Vice Chair Whetzel at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary
19 Avenue, Ukiah, California.
20
21 2. ROLL CALL
22
23 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Everyone cited.
24
25 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — The minutes from the December 20, 2011 and January 11, 2012
26 meetings are included for review and approval.
27
28 The Commission made the following change:
29 December 20, 2011 meeting minutes, page 5, correct Commissioner pobler to Commissioner poble.
30
31 M/S Sanders/Doble to approve December 20, 2011 minutes and January 11, 2012 meeting minutes, as
32 corrected. Motion carried (4-0).
33
34 ABSENT: Chair Pruden
35
36 5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
37 Mary Ann Miller:
38 • Expressed concern that the City no longer has a Design Review Board (DRB) and further
39 expressed disappointment the Planning Commission will not receive comments from the DRB
40 concerning the design aspects for projects.
41 • Holds high regard for the DRB and noted the Board is comprised of professional persons
42 qualified to make sound recommendations to the Planning Commission.
43 • Questioned whether or not it is possible to reinstate the DRB and how this can be accomplished
44 and again emphasized the importance of this body as a valuable City function.
45 • Would it be possible to provide for a design review fee that would accompany project applications
46 because this does involve people's time as well as staff time. Staff is not able to function without
47 funding. It would appear that some methodology can be formulated to again allow for design
48 review of projects. Do we consult with City Council and how can this be done?
49 • The public should be made aware the DRB no longer exists because only a few people know and
50 allow the public the opportunity to provide input whether or not a DRB provides a
51 necessary/valuable service and should be restored.
52 • There are many projects in the pipeline and it would be beneficial to have a DRB to help assist in
53 the process of making certain development and new development is architecturally a good fit for
54 Ukiah.
55 • Supports the DRB being restored.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 22, 2012
Page 1
1 Commissioner poble thanked Ms. Miller for her comments and asked if she will also be making this
2 request of City Council as public comment at a future City Council meeting.
3
4 Mary Ann Miller would be amenable to addressing City Council about what can be done to restore the
5 DRB.
6
7 The Planning Commission agrees the DRB provides a very valuable service to them.
8
9 6. APPEAL PROCESS—There are no appealable items on this agenda.
10
11 7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION - N/A
12
13 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE— N/A
14
15 9. PRELIMINARY REVIEW
16 9A. Preliminary Review for Demolition and Reconstruction of the Orchard Avenue McDonald's
17 Site & Building (File No.: 12-02-PRE-PC). Planning Commission review and comment on
18 preliminary plans for the demolition and reconstruction of the McDonald's located at 115 North
19 Orchard Avenue. The preliminary plans include the demolition of the existing building and all site
20 improvements and the rebuilding of the McDonald's building with drive-thru and construction of
21 new parking areas and access and installation of landscaping.
22
23 Senior Planner Jordan provided a staff report:
24 • Explained the project involves the complete redevelopment of the site, including the demolition of
25 all existing site improvements and the building. Page 1 of the staff report identifies what the
26 reconstruction of the site and building include.
27 • The intent of tonighYs meeting is for the Commission to ask questions, review the project and
28 provide direction to the applicant and/or applicanYs representatives about the proposed project
29 related to site planning and architecture, such as on-site drainage/storm water treatment
30 methodologies, building orientation, landscaping, pedestrian access and circulation, site and
31 building design articulations/treatments/color scheme, materials and/or other relative aspects.
32 • Since this is a preliminary review of the project, there are no specific submittal requirements. The
33 applicant is provided with the submittal requirements for a formal application and is encouraged
34 to provide as much information as possible in order to make the process productive.
35 • For preliminary applications, staff does not provide analysis. Instead, as part of the memo for the
36 project, staff provides general information that is applicable to the project such as the General
37 Plan land use designation, zoning district, airport compatibility zone, location within the Downtown
38 Design District, etc.
39 • The project is not subject to review by the DRB. The DRB was established by the Ukiah
40 Redevelopment Agency. With the elimination of RDAs by the State, the DRB is no longer an
41 active board since it was established under the authority of the RDA.
42 • The subject property is located within the boundaries of the Draft Downtown Zoning Code (DZC).
43 The draft document includes limitations on fast food restaurants and has yet to be adopted by the
44 City Council.
45 • The project would require Planning Commission approval of a Major Site Development Permit.
46 • Since this is not a formal application, staff did not analyze the project for consistency with the
47 minimum parking required. The parking requirement was provided as part of the staff inemo.
48 However, this was informational only and there was no expectation that Planning Commission
49 would review the project for consistency with parking or any other City requirements identified in
50 the memo for the project.
51
52 Commissioner Sanders: Is surprised that because the RDA has been eliminated the DRB has been
53 eliminated. General Plan goal CD-3, `establish design review guidelines tailored to neighborhood
54 character' and refers to a design review board. Is it the decision of City Council or staff whether or not the
55 DRB can be activated or eliminated?
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 22, 2012
Page 2
1 Staff: When the State eliminated RDAs in California, this action eliminated the DRB. The RDA
2 established the DRB and this is where authority for this Board existed. When the RDA was eliminated the
3 Board ceased to exist. Even though City Council created a successor agency, the successor agency only
4 deals with the disposition of the assets and obligations of the Agency. It does not have the authority to
5 continue those boards/commissions established by the Agency. Planning Director Stump reviewed the
6 resolutions that established and modified the DRB. It was clear that the Board only had authority under
7 the RDA. Accordingly, when the RDA ended so did the DRB. There has been some decision about what
8 happens next. If the Council chooses, it could reappoint and establish the DRB under its authority. Since
9 the City Council is a separate entity from the RDA, the DRB does not continue to exist because the same
10 five members of the RDA were the same members as Council.
11
12 Commissioner Sanders: Saw the bid announcement in the newspaper for the Perkins Street/Orchard
13 Avenue improvement project that the City put out and inquired when this work is expected to start and
14 whether or not this will impact the applicant's plans for redevelopment of the site and building?
15
16 Staff: The applicant has been advised that the improvement project is occurring. The applicant did meet
17 with the City Planning and Public Works to talk about what is proposed for that particular intersection.
18 There will be an effort to effectively coordinate both projects.
19
20 Efrain Corona of McDonald's USA, LLC, applicant representative:
21 • Provided the Commission with color and material samples.
22 • The existing building is nearly 40 years old. It is architecturally, functionally, and operationally
23 outdated. The site and building is no longer able to function well operationally by today's
24 standards as a fast food restaurant.
25 • Referred to the proposed site plans and generally addressed the scope of the work.
26 • Engaged a local landscaper as a consultant for the project.
27 • Addressed vehicle and pedestrian circulation on the site.
28 • Explained the purpose of the building orientation in conjunction with how the drive-thru wraps
29 back around the front of the building.
30
31 Commissioner Sanders:
32 • Likes many aspects about the design:
33 o Interested in using vegetative swales
34 o LED interior lighting
35 o Pervious paving that is being considered
36 o The larger/higher windows
37 o Use of solar tubes
38 o Allowing for electrical vehicle charging stations
39 • Noted the project design is contemporary and does not have problem in this regard.
40 • Informed applicant that Perkins Street is a gateway location.
41 • Asked about the necessity of having the driveway/drive-thru at the front of the building.
42 • Recommends the project be integrated with the Pear Tree Center by providing good pedestrian
43 connections and access.
44 • Recommends providing better pedestrian access and circulation on-site.
45 • Supports encouraging pedestrian access to the building from Perkins Street and strongly
46 supports providing for pedestrian access to the building from the public sidewalk. This
47 component is currently not part of the site design. As it is now pedestrian circulation does not
48 provide for a good flow.
49 • Would like to have public access from Perkins Street that does not have to cross the parking
50 IoUdrive-thru.
51 • Okay with the proposed landscaping and noted it to be a significant improvement over what is
52 existing.
53 • With regard to the building design, does not have a problem with the yellow accent other than
54 they where they close to the roof/roofline, looks like visual clutter.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 22, 2012
Page 3
1 • Addressed storm water treatment on the site and asked the applicant to consider planting areas
2 that are `below grade'to allow water to enter these areas.
3 • As part of the formal application, provide information about the exterior lighting. The community
4 has expressed concern about lighting in that it should create light pollution and recommends
5 lighting be downcast.
6 • Would like to see some outdoor seating.
7 • Would like to see a designated pedestrian access from Orchard Avenue.
8
9 Commissioner Brenner:
10 • Is pleased McDonald's is upgrading the design of the building and site. Is of the opinion the site
11 plan as designed is not appropriate for that location. Project site has two fronts, Orchard Avenue
12 and Perkins Street. The site is located on one of the City's primary gateways.
13 • The design does not correspond to the intent of the draft Downtown Zoning Code (DZC).
14 • Recommends the applicant review the design and siting standards included in the draft (DZC)
15 since the document was developed with a lot of community input and reflects the desire of the
16 community for building and site design. Since the DZC has not been formally adopted, it is up to
17 the applicant how much of the development standards should be carried into the project.
18 • As designed, the project is not consistent with some of the design standards included in the DZC.
19 Recommends the project be built to the design standards of the DZC as much as possible in
20 which there will likely be compromises that have to happen not only on the part of the applicant,
21 but for everyone. In addition to the many tables in the DZC that address development and as to
22 what is an acceptable standard, the DZC has development and architectural standards regarding
23 window glazing, buildings on corner lots, frontages, drive-thru facilities, fencing, site screening,
24 outdoor lighting, landscaping, maintenance, fa�ade orientation, awnings, galleries and arcades,
25 materials, roofs, windows, doors, accessibility to name some of the development topics and
26 corresponding requirements.
27 • Project has the parking fronting Perkins Street which is a City gateway. Consider moving the
28 building to the south in order to anchor the corner of the site and provide for an entry. This would
29 also facilitate pedestrian access from Perkins Street.
30 • Recommends reviewing the draft DZC for design standards concerning corner buildings.
31 • Understands the reason for having the drive-thru in front of the building.
32 • Could be okay with the wrap around the drive-thru if the building were 'flipped' and moved closer
33 to Perkins Street.
34 • The location of the trash enclosures makes them very visible on a City gateway and at a
35 prominent intersection.
36 • Should provide frontage on at least one street. It may be this has to be Orchard Avenue.
37 Consideration also needs to be given to Perkins Street since it is a City gateway.
38 • Recommends a different color scheme. The draft DZC recommends a darker color at the base of
39 the building and a lighter color above. The color shown on the plans is too dark, especially for this
40 area. Consider a different, light color palette.
41 • Appears the project may not provide the required number of parking spaces. If this is the case,
42 the landscaping shown on the plans would be reduced to less than what is being shown which
43 changes the look of the project.
44 • Expressed concern about the north and east elevations. All of the elevations will be very visible
45 and need to be designed in a manner that reflects this.
46 • Would like to see a site layout plan/rendering that is most feasible for site access and circulation,
47 building orientation, pedestrian orientation, and compliance with City parking and landscaping
48 requirements that also shows landscape screening for the driveway frontage, how the trees would
49 look at maturity to better understand how the development would look and how it would
50 effectively function.
51
52 Commissioner poble:
53 • Relative to the formal Site Development Permit application:
54 o Include the planned improvement on the plans in order to understand how the project
55 and improvements planned for the intersection are coordinated.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 22, 2012
Page 4
1 o Provide rendering to show how the drive-thru in front of the building would be screened
2 from Orchard Avenue and how the site would look from Perkins Street.
3 • No pervious pavement is shown on the plans, but it is discussed in the McDonald's Rebuild
4 project description.
5 • Recommends using more landscaping for water treatment.
6 • Ensure appropriate plants are selected for water treatment areas.
7 • Recommends incorporating curb cuts on the west side and use landscaping for water treatment.
8 • Recommends providing for bio-retention areas.
9 • It appears the project would raise the grade of the site. This provides flexibility and an opportunity
10 for drainage solutions.
11 • Would like to see outdoor seating. This would be good for the project since this feature `invites
12 people in.'
13 • Based on the explanation from the applicant, okay with the driveway in front of the building if it
14 avoids putting cars back out onto Orchard Avenue in order to enter the parking lot.
15 • There is no curb, gutter, and sidewalk on the north side. Will Public Works require sidewalk
16 improvements here?
17
18 Vice Chair Whetzel:
19 • Based on the explanation from the applicant, is okay with the drive-thru wrapping the building and
20 the reason why this must occur. Has children and has used this technique/feature before because
21 this type of design is more accommodating to customers.
22 • Consider moving the building closer to Perkins Street to provide a better presence on the City's
23 gateway.
24 • Asked whether the location of the trash enclosure works. It is located at the end of a parking row
25 next to the drive aisles.
26 • The Planning Commission chairperson does not consider Crape myrtle a tree. May need to
27 consider a substitute.
28
29 There was Commission discuss whether an opportunity exists to provide access the site from the JC
30 Penney parking lot located to the north of the site.
31
32 The applicant indicated this was not an option since Penney's has said they would not allow access
33 through their site from the McDonald's site.
34
35 Staff:
36 • Addressed the site plan with regards to access and circulation and noted the City requested the
37 applicant move the driveways as far away from Perkins Street as possible in order to improve the
38 circulation at Perkins StreeUOrchard Avenue intersection so this may be what is driving the site
39 plan. Is not sure how this affects or not the ability for the applicant to move the building closer to
40 Perkins Street. It is not the responsibility of staff or the Commission to design the project.
41 • Emphasized again the need to have the access driveways as far from Perkins Street as possible.
42 • Would like to know if the Commission is okay with 1) the design of the building which has been
43 described by the Commission as "contemporary" since this is not a design that we often see 2)
44 the drive-thru wrapping around the front of the building since this pushed the building further
45 away from Orchard Avenue which is contrary to pedestrian orientation which tries to located
46 building closer to the street and 3)the colors of the building.
47
48 There was Commission discussion about realistically how much pedestrian access is on Perkins Street in
49 terms of changing the site plans and possibly `flipping' the building with regard to building presentation on
50 a corner lot that is a city gateway and if this would work. It was noted Orchard Avenue is an important and
51 well-traveled thoroughfare so in terms of building orientation and site constraints, appropriate site access
52 and circulation, how the drive-thru facility would work and other development considerations, it is likely
53 more feasible the building front faces Orchard Avenue.
54
55 Applicant:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 22, 2012
Page 5
1 • The purpose of the driveway in front of the building is to allow users of the drive-thru to enter the
2 parking lot eat their food. Many customers purchase food from the drive-thru and then eat on the
3 site in their car. Approximately 25% of the customers do this.
4 • Is unsure how much pedestrian activity exists on Perkins Street.
5 • It is McDonald's practice to use permeable paving. It will not be known until the soils report has
6 been completed if permeable pavement is feasible for this site.
7 • Will review the DZC and do what is possible for compliance with the standards thereof.
8 • Will consider the above-referenced comments to help shape and provide for an aesthetically
9 pleasing project.
10
11 Commission:
12 • Recommends a lighter color palette. The building color shown on the plans is too dark for this
13 area.
14 • As part of the formal application may want to propose more than one color palette.
15 • Is okay with the contemporary design of the building.
16 • Okay with the location of the drive-thru at the front of the building based on the reason for this
17 design provided by the applicant.
18
19 10. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
20 Senior Planner Jordan reported the Commission will begin deliberations for the Walmart Expansion
21 Project concerning the Site Development Permit, corresponding landscaping modifications and Statement
22 of Overriding Conditions at the March 14`" meeting.
23
24 11. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
25 Commissioner poble would like an update on the progress of reestablishing the DRB.
26
27 Commissioner Sanders would like to see all the Walmart Expansion Project minutes prior to the March
28 14'h meeting if possible.
29
30 12. ADJOURNMENT
31 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:14 p.m.
32
33
34 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
35
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 22, 2012
Page 6
1 ITEM NO. 9A
Community Development and Planning Department
L�ity of Zikah 300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482
planninq c(�.cityofukiah.com
(707)463-6203
2
3 DATE: March 14, 2012
4
5 TO: Planning Commission
6
7 FROM: Kim Jordan, Senior Planner
8
9 SUBJECT: Walmart Expansion Project Site Development Permit, Landscaping
10 Modifications, and Statement of Overriding Considerations
11 1155 Airport Park Boulevard, APN 180-070-38, Airport Industrial Park
12 File Nos. 09-28-SDP-PC/09-28-EIR-PC
13 This item was continued from the November 9, 2011, December 14, 2011
14 January 11, 2012, January 25, 2012, and February 8, 2012 Planning
15 Commission meetings
16
17 RECOMMENDATION
18
19 Staff recommends Planning Commission continue its review of the Site Development Permit
20 (SDP) and associated landscaping modifications and provide direction to staff regarding
21 approval, conditional approval, or denial of the SDP and landscaping modifications. Should
22 time allow, staff also recommends the Planning Commission provide direction on the Statement
23 of Overriding Considerations for the Project.
24
25 BACKGROUND
26
27 Planning Commission held public hearings on the Walmart Expansion Project Site Development
28 Permit, Landscaping Modifications, and Statement of Overriding Considerations on December
29 14, 2011, January 25, 2012, and February 8, 2012. Below is a summary of each hearing.
30
31 December 14, 2011. After certifying the Walmart Expansion Project Environmental Impact
32 Report (EIR), the Planning Commission began the public hearing on the Walmart Expansion
33 Project Site Development Permit (SDP) (see attachment 1, Planning Commission minutes).
34 Planning Commission received a presentation from staff on the SDP, received a
35 presentation from the applicant, asked questions of staff and the applicant, and opened
36 public comment. The Commission continued the item to a date certain of January 11, 2012.
37
38 January 11, 2012. In order to allow City Council to act on the appeal of the Walmart
39 Expansion Project EIR at its January 18, 2012, the item was continued to the January 25,
40 2012 Planning Commission meeting.
41
Walmart Expansion Project Site Development Permit&Statement of Overriding Considerations
1155 Airport Park Boulevard,APN 180-070-38
File Nos.:09-28-SDP-PC/09-42-EIR-PC
1
1 January 25, 2012. The Planning Commission received a presentation from staff and the
2 applicant, asked questions of staff and the applicant, received public comment on the Site
3 Development Permit, and began its review of the Site Development Permit and associated
4 landscaping modifications. The Commission also requested additional information and
5 revisions to the Project from the applicant (see attachment 2). The Commission continued
6 the item to the February 8, 2012 Planning Commission meeting.
7
8 February 8, 2012. The Planning Commission received a presentation from staff, received a
9 presentation from the applicant on the additional information provided and revisions made to
10 the Project, asked questions of the applicant and staff, and received public comment (see
11 attachment 3). Due to time limitations, the Commission did not have time to review and
12 discuss the revisions made to the Project and the additional information provided by the
13 applicant. The Planning Commission closed public comment and continued the item to the
14 March 14, 2012 Planning Commission meeting.
15
16 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND PROJECT REVISIONS
17
18 At the January 25, 2012 meeting, the Commission requested additional information from the
19 applicant in order to better understand the Project and recommended revisions to the Project
20 related to compliance with AIP Ordinance 1098 zoning requirements. The applicant responded
21 to this request and provided additional information and revised plans for the February 8, 2012
22 meeting. Below is the list of requests made by the Commission, the applicant's response, and
23 where applicable staff response and/or analysis. The applicant provided a written response and
24 additional information which was included as attachment 1(pages 1-1 to 1-3) of the February 8,
25 2012 staff report.
26
27 Elevations
28
29 Planning Commission. Revise the western elevation to modify the upward sloping canopies to
30 more typical downward sloping canopies. Provide more shade on the western elevation
31 particularly at store entrances.
32
33 Applicant. The canopies on the west elevation have been revised to slope downwards
34 (away from the building). The result is a lowering of the front edge of 3.5 feet which brings
35 the overhang closer to the pedestrian and provides better shade coverage. This
36 modification is shown on the revised elevations and perspectives submitted by the applicant
37 for the February 8th meeting (see attachment 15, sheets 1 and 2, Elevations and
38 Perspectives).
39
40 Planning Commission. Revise the north elevation of the building in the vicinity of the roll-up
41 doors to the indoor garden center to provide more building articulation.
42
43 Applicant. A standing seam metal canopy is shown on the revised north elevation
44 submitted by the applicant for the February 8t" meeting (see attachment 15, sheet 1,
45 Elevations). This canopy would match the canopy proposed for the employee break area
46 (see Design Amenities below).
47
48
Walmart Expansion Project Site Development Permit&Statement of Overriding Considerations
1155 Airport Park Boulevard,APN 180-070-38
File Nos.:09-28-SDP-PC/09-42-EIR-PC
2
1 Desiqn Amenities
2
3 Planning Commission. On the site plan, show an outside employee lounge area with design
4 amenities (benches, etc.)
5
6 Applicant. An outside break area is identified on the site plan on the south side of the
7 building (see attachment 15, sheets 1, 2, and SP-1, Elevations, Perspectives and Site Plan).
8 The letter from the applicant states that the break area will include a canopy supported by
9 columns that will shade an area that covers three of the proposed bike racks and two picnic
10 tables with benches. The canopy is shown on the revised elevations submitted by the
11 applicant for the February 8th meeting (see attachment 15, sheets 1 and 2, Elevations and
12 Perspectives).
13
14 Pedestrian Circulation
15
16 Planning Commission. On the site plan, show/highlight the pedestrian access facilities and/or
17 provide a Pedestrian Access Plan.
18
19 Applicant. The pedestrian facilities have been highlighted on the site plan (see attachment
20 15, sheet SP-1A, Pedestrian Facilities). The facilities include the existing access from the
21 north of the site to the front of the building, new sidewalks along the Airport Park Boulevard
22 frontage and the westernmost part of the Commerce Drive frontage, new access through the
23 parking lot from Airport Park Boulevard, and access to the south side of the building from
24 the sidewalk on Commerce Drive.
25
26 Planning Commission. Provide for/use stamped and/or colored textured concrete for the
27 pedestrian areas in front of the access points to the building
28
29 Applicant. Stamped concrete with MUTCD striping will be provided at pedestrian crossing
3o areas located at the front of the store. The locations of the striping are shown on the revised
31 site plan (see attachment 15, sheet SP-1A, Pedestrian Facilities).
32
33 Planning Commission. Consult with Public Works and consider adding a mid-block crosswalk
34 on Commerce Drive. The intent is to provide for a new crosswalk linking the stores north and
35 south of Commerce Drive. Consider whether mid-block crosswalks are feasible, particularly for
36 one in the vicinity of the Commerce Drive bus stop and what would have to occur in this regard.
37
38 Applicant. The applicant has indicated that they will provide a new mid-block crosswalk on
39 Commerce Drive near the bus stop.
40
41 Staff. Public Works, Planning, and Mendocino Transit Authority staff reviewed the
42 Commission's recommendation for a mid-block crossing. In order to provide a safe mid-
43 block crossing, bulb-outs are recommended in order to reduce the distance that pedestrians
44 need to travel. Staff has "marked up" a copy of the site plan to show the preferred location
45 of the mid-block crossing and bulb-outs (see attachment 14). There are likely drainage and
46 maintenance considerations related to these improvements that would need to be resolved.
47
48
Walmart Expansion Project Site Development Permit&Statement of Overriding Considerations
1155 Airport Park Boulevard,APN 180-070-38
File Nos.:09-28-SDP-PC/09-42-EIR-PC
3
1 BUS StOp
2
3 Planning Commission. Consult with Public Works and the MTA regarding relocation of the
4 bus stop stop/shelter to the east side of the entry driveway on Commerce Drive.
5
6 Applicant. The bus stop will be relocated to the east side of the Commerce Drive entrance
7 to the parking lot. The revised site plan shows the original location on the west side of the
8 Commerce Drive access driveway to the parking lot as well as an alternate location on the
9 east side of the Commerce Drive entrance to the parking lot (see attachment 15, sheets
10 SP-1 and L4.0, Site Plan and Landscaping Plan).
11
12 Staff. The bus stop was located on the west side of the Commerce Drive entrance to the
13 parking lot at the request of MTA. After Planning Commission recommended that the bus
14 stop be relocated to the east side of the entrance driveway, Planning, Public Works, and
15 MTA staff met to discuss the recommendation to move the bus stop to this location. MTA
16 and City staff have identified a preferred location on the east side of the entrance driveway
17 on a "marked up" site plan. This location has been coordinated with the mid-block crossing
18 and bulb-outs also recommended by staff(see attachment 14).
19
20 EIR Mitigation measure 4.10-3a requires the Project to provide a concrete pad for the
21 relocation of the existing bus stop (see attachment 4). MTA has indicated that it will relocate
22 the existing shelter or provide a new shelter.
23
24 Landscapinq
25
26 Planning Commission. Change the type of shade trees at the front of the store.
27
28 Applicant. The Crape Myrtle trees at the front of the store have been changed to Trident
29 Maple. The Chinese Pistache planted will be male in order to reduce debris from the trees.
30 The Cherry Laurel was noted in error and has been corrected to Flowering Plum. These
31 changes are shown on the revised planting plan submitted for the February 8th meeting (see
32 attachment 15, sheet L4.0, Planting Plan).
33
34 Planning Commission. Use more tree planting strips in the parking lot rather than individual
35 tree planting wells.
36
37 Applicant. A memo dated November 23, 2011 from HLA Group, the landscape architecture
38 firm for the Project, providing information on the proper size for tree wells, soil treatments,
39 soil amendments, proper irrigation and maintenance was submitted (see February 8, 2012
4o staff report, attachment 1, page 44).
41
42 Staff. In response to public and Commission comment on the viability of trees proposed to
43 be planted in the existing tree wells after removal of the olive trees, staff requested
44 additional information from the applicant in November 2011. Based on the information
45 provided, it appears that the existing tree wells could accommodate new tree planting and
46 allow for healthy trees to grow if the recommendations from the landscape architect were
47 applied to the Project as conditions of approval.
48
Walmart Expansion Project Site Development Permit&Statement of Overriding Considerations
1155 Airport Park Boulevard,APN 180-070-38
File Nos.:09-28-SDP-PC/09-42-EIR-PC
4
1 Planning Commission. Provide additional trees on the east side to screen the rear of the
2 store.
3
4 Applicant. The applicant indicated that they would plant additional trees in this area to
5 screen the rear of the store with an emphasis on screening the loading area.
6 The location of the trees planted on the east side of the site was revised (see attachment
7 15, sheet L4.0, Planting Plan).
8
9 Planning Commission. Provide information regarding tree location in regards to the detention
10 area on the northeast corner of the site.
11
12 Applicant. Trees will be planted outside of the bioretention area, and the location of the
13 biorentention area has been relocated to avoid existing trees that would remain (see
14 attachment 15, sheet L4.0, Planting Plan).
15
16 Staff. Staff requested the applicant review the plants proposed for the bioretention area to
17 ensure the plantings were appropriate for the location. The applicant indicates that the
18 plants selected for the bioretention area, Berkeley Sedge and rush grass, are appropriate for
19 this setting. No trees are planted in the bioretention area and the location of the bioretention
20 area has been revised to avoid existing trees to remain.
21
22 Low Impact Development (LID)
23
24 Planning Commission. Submit an exhibit that provides details about the proposed low impact
25 development (LID) improvements. Provide information about the storm water treatment unit at
26 the southwest corner of the site.
27
28 Applicant. Bioretention area shed map, sizing calculations, and CASQ BMP Handbook
29 cutsheets have been provided and were included as part of attachment 1 (pages 1-13 to 1-
30 20 and 1-46 to 1-48) of the February 8, 2012 staff report.
31
32 Twentv-Percent Landscapinq Modification
33
34 Planning Commission. Provide a site plan schematic showing how the 20% landscaping
35 coverage could be achieved (reduced parking, reduced building footprint, etc.) and show what
36 compliance would look like with 20% landscaping coverage with calculations taking into account
37 the bus stop pad and 6-foot wide sidewalks.
38
39 Applicant. "Grass Pave" would be used to provide grass turf surfaces at the rear of the
4o store in the fire lane and for the "head-in" parking stalls along Airport Park Boulevard. The
41 locations where the "Grass Pave" would be used are shown on the revised site plan and
42 landscaping plan (see attachment 15, sheets SP-1 and L4.0). Information on Grass Pave
43 was included as part of attachment 1 (pages 1-21 to 1-43) of the November 9t" staff report.
44 Counting these areas as landscaping would increase the percentage of landscape coverage
45 to 20.1%. The Grass Pave would be tied into the irrigation system for adjacent landscape
46 areas.
47
Walmart Expansion Project Site Development Permit&Statement of Overriding Considerations
1155 Airport Park Boulevard,APN 180-070-38
File Nos.:09-28-SDP-PC/09-42-EIR-PC
5
1 Staff. The Fire Marshal has reviewed the specifications for"Grass Pave" and finds them
2 acceptable. The Fire Marshal is concerned that the fire lane be adequately maintained and
3 delineated from the rest of the landscaped area. Due to this concern, staff asked the
4 applicant how this might be accomplished (see attachment 5). The applicant indicated that
5 shrubs would be used to delineate the fire lane as shown on the revised landscaping plan
6 submitted for the February 8`" meeting (see attachment 15, sheet L4.0, Planting Plan).
7
8 Staff has concerns regarding the use of turf grass for parking spaces. In order for this area
9 to be counted as parking, the spaces need to be clearly delineated and identified as parking
10 spaces. If this is not accomplished and adequately maintained, the areas would not be used
11 as parking. This could result in the Project being functionally under parked. This would
12 occur if the parking spaces shown on the site plan and counted as meeting the parking are
13 not recognized and used as parking spaces. In order to address this concern, the applicant
14 provided information on how the parking spaces could be delineated (see above and
15 attachment 5). In order to identify and delineate the parking spaces, a curb would be
16 installed to separate the landscape area from the parking space. Each individual parking
17 space would be delineated with bricks rather than striping in order to identify it as a separate
18 space to be used for parking.
19
20 If the Commission accepts all of the "Grass Pave" as landscaping, the Project would comply
21 with the 20% landscaping coverage requirement and no modification would be required. If
22 the Planning Commission does not accept all of the "Grass Pave" as landscaping, the
23 Project would not comply with the 20% landscaping coverage requirement and a
24 modification would still be required. See Landscaping Modifications, Page 12
25
26 The applicant did not submit a reduced building footprint alternative for meeting the 20%
27 landscape coverage requirement.
28
29 The project applicant and engineer, project architect, and project attorney will be present at the
3o meeting and available to answer questions. Deborah Herron, Walmart's Government Affairs
31 and Public Relations representative, will not be present at the meeting (see attachment 6).
32
33 STAFF ANALYSIS
34
35 At the January 25, 2012 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission began its review of the
36 Site Development Permit and associated request for two modifications to the AIP Ordinance
37 1098 landscaping requirements. The Planning Commission used the staff analysis included in
38 the November 9, 2011 staff report as the basis for its review and discussion of the SDP and
39 landscaping modifications. Staff recommends Planning Commission continue its review of the
40 Site Development Permit and associated landscaping modifications using the November gt"
41 staff report. The items that remain to be discussed/resolved by the Commission are identified.
42
43 As part of the Commission's continued review of the Project, the Commission should indicate for
44 the record if it agrees with the staff analysis. If the Commission does not agree with the staff
45 analysis, the Commission needs to state this for the record and provide the reason(s) for the
46 disagreement.
47
48
Walmart Expansion Project Site Development Permit&Statement of Overriding Considerations
1155 Airport Park Boulevard,APN 180-070-38
File Nos.:09-28-SDP-PC/09-42-EIR-PC
6
1 General Plan
2
3 In certifying the EIR, it was the decision of the Commission that the Project is consistent with the
4 General Plan goals and policies included in the EIR. All of the goals and policies included in the
5 EIR are also included on Table 2 of the November 9th staff report with the exception of Goal ED-
6 1. Staff requests the Commission discuss the three general plan goals identified below since
7 Project consistency with the other goals and policies was determined as part of the EIR
8 process.
9
10 Goal ED-1: Support a strong local economy.
11
12 Since this goal was not related to the environment it was not included in the General Plan
13 table for the EIR. For past projects, Planning Commission has considered revenue
14 generation such as an increase in property tax and/or sales tax revenue, job creation
15 (including the number, type, and benefits and income associated with the jobs), and/or
16 whether the applicant was a local resident or business owner when making this consistency
17 finding. Planning Commission may also consider other information as provided as part of
18 the record. Planning Commission review and discussion required.
19
20 Goal GP-1: Promote, attract or assist in developing businesses, particularly those that add
21 value to resources already found or processed in the Ukiah Valley.
22
23 GP-2: Promote business development, emphasizing local ownership of businesses in order to
24 keep capital growth within the community.
25
26 Since goals GP-1 and GP-2 are not related to potential physical impacts that may result
27 from the Project a consistency determination was not required or made as part of the EIR.
28 Planning Commission may determine that these goals apply to the Project in which case the
29 Commission should discuss whether or not the Project is consistent. Planning Commission
3o review and discussion required.
31
32 Table 2 was revised from the Table included in the EIR to identify certain goals and policies
33 as "Program Level Goal/Policy." Goals and policies identified in this manner are those that
34 are intended to be applied and/or implemented at a higher program level rather than on a
35 project by project basis. These goals and policies were included in the EIR analysis of the
36 Project in order to provide as much information as possible and the EIR included a
37 discussion of how the Project is consistent with the goal or policy even when the goal or
38 policy was not applicable at the project level.
39
40 Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan & Mendocino County Airport Comprehensive Land Use
41 Plan (CLUP)
42
43 The Planning Commission determined the Project is consistent with the Airport Compatibility
44 Criteria included in Table 3 of the staff report. No further review or discussion required.
45
46
47
48
Walmart Expansion Project Site Development Permit&Statement of Overriding Considerations
1155 Airport Park Boulevard,APN 180-070-38
File Nos.:09-28-SDP-PC/09-42-EIR-PC
7
1 AIP Ordinance 1098 Consistencv
2
3 Table 3 includes staff analysis of the Project's consistency with the requirements of AIP
4 Ordinance 1098. At the January 25th meeting, the Commission determined that the Project is
5 consistent with the requirements for Minimum Lot Size, Maximum Lot Coverage, Minimum
6 Building Setbacks, and Maximum Building Height (see attachment 2, pages 14 and 17).
7
8 The following items are consistent with the requirements of AIP Ordinance 1098 and no
9 additional deliberation is required. Since the items below were discussed at the January 25tn
10 meeting, staff is providing a description of the requirement and the consistency determination
11 for information only.
12
13 Sidewalks. AIP Ordinance 1098 requires projects to provide a 5-foot wide sidewalk along
14 the primary street and the mitigation measures included in the EIR require the sidewalks to
15 be a minimum of six feet wide and eight to ten feet wide where possible (see attachment 4,
16 mitigation measure 4.10-3d). The City's Building Official indicated that the minimum
17 sidewalk width for ADA is 4 feet.
18 The Project provides the required sidewalks as shown on the site plan and is therefore
19 consistent with this requirement (see attachment 15, sheet SP-1, Site Plan). No further
20 discussion is required.
21
22 Bike Lanes. AIP Ordinance 1098 requires the project to provide a Class III bike route on
23 Airport Park Boulevard and the mitigation measures for the EIR require the Class III bike
24 route on both sides of Airport Park Boulevard from Talmage Road to Commence Drive (see
25 attachment 4, mitigation measure 4.10-3c). EIR Mitigation measure 4.10-3c also requires
26 the Project to provide a proportional share payment to extend the westbound Class II bike
27 lane on Hastings Road to a point just east of the start of the westbound channelization for
28 the new westbound left turn lane at the Hastings Road and South State Street intersection.
29 The project provides the required bike route as shown on the site plan and is therefore
3o consistent with this requirement. No further discussion is required.
31
32 Bicycle Parking. Bicycle parking is based on the number of vehicle parking spaces and the
33 number of employees. Based on a total of 325 employees (240 existing plus 85 new), 33
34 bicycle parking spaces are required. Based on 612 vehicle parking spaces, an additional 12
35 parking spaces would be required for a total of 45 bicycle parking spaces. EIR Mitigation
36 measure 4.10-3b requires the Project install the number of bike racks required by AIP
37 Ordinance 1098 (see attachment 4). There is room on the site to provide the number of bike
38 parking spaces required. For most projects, a condition of approval is included requiring the
39 location and number of bike parking spaces to be shown on plans submitted for building
40 permit. Since compliance with AIP Ordinance 1098 bicycle parking is required as a
41 mitigation measure and is a standard condition of approval for projects, the Project if
42 approved would be consistent with this requirement through the implementation of the
43 mitigation measure and condition of approval and no further discussion is required. Should
44 the Planning Commission be in a position to approve the Project and have a preferred
45 location of bike parking spaces, the preferred location should be identified at the meeting
46 and would be included as a condition of approval for the Project.
47
Walmart Expansion Project Site Development Permit&Statement of Overriding Considerations
1155 Airport Park Boulevard,APN 180-070-38
File Nos.:09-28-SDP-PC/09-42-EIR-PC
8
1 Signs. At the January 25t" meeting, the Commission asked questions of staff regarding
2 signs but did not indicate if it agreed with the staff analysis included in the November 9t" staff
3 report (Table 4, page 30) or if additional information or revisions were needed. The
4 information submitted for the project includes the signs proposed for the site. The sign area
5 proposed is less than the maximum sign area allowed for the site. The signs have no
6 exposed bulbs, lamps, or other illumination devices which is consistent with the sign
7 illumination requirements. The building has an existing freeway facing sign and the signs
8 proposed for the Project include a new freeway facing sign. The proposed new freeway
9 facing sign is similar in color and design to the existing freeway facing sign and has been
10 included as part of the SDP application as required by the Sign Ordinance. If the
11 Commission agrees with the staff analysis this should be stated for the record. If the
12 Commission does not agree with the staff analysis, this should be stated for the record
13 along with the reasons why.
14
15 The following items were the focus of Planning Commission discussion at the January 25tn
16 meeting. For some of the items below, the applicant provided additional information and/or
17 revised Project plans (see page 2, Additional Information and Project Revisions). Additional staff
18 analysis and discussion of these items is provided below based on the information and revisions
19 from the applicant and the comments made by the Commission. Staff requests the Commission
20 deliberate on the items below and provide comments and direction for the record.
21
22 Vehicle Parking. The minimum number of parking spaces required for the Project is 612.
23 The Project provides 632 parking stalls, of which 20 would be used as cart corrals. In an
24 attempt to comply with the landscaping coverage requirement the applicant is proposing to
25 use grass turf for 62 of the new parking spaces (see Additional Information and Project
26 Revisions above and attachment 15, sheet SP-1 and L4.0). As discussed above, staff has
27 concerns that if the grass pave parking spaces are not recognized and used as parking, the
28 Project would be functionally under parked. See also Landscaping Modifications below.
29
30 Design Amenities. Design amenities are encouraged by AIP Ordinance 1098, but are not
31 required for this project. At the request of the Commission, the applicant revised the Project
32 to include an outdoor area for employees (see discussion above and attachment 15, sheets
33 1, 2, and SP-1).
34
35 Architectural Design and Building Exteriors. The Commission expressed concerns
36 related to the design of the Project and requested that specific revisions be made to the
37 Project (see elevations discussion above). The applicant revised the Project as requested
38 by the Commission and provided revised elevations for the Commission's review at the
39 February 8t" meeting.
4o Staff requests the Commission review the revisions and determine if the Project is
41 consistent with the Architectural Design and Building Exteriors requirements (see November
42 9th staff report, Table 4, page 23).
43
44 Building Location and Building Orientation. Staff requests the Commission review the
45 Project and the staff consistency analysis included in the November 9t" staff report, Table 4,
46 page 22, Building Location and page 23, Building Location and Orientation). Please Note:
47 The building orientation and location measures are recommendations rather than
48 requirements based on the use of the word "should" rather than "shall."
Walmart Expansion Project Site Development Permit&Statement of Overriding Considerations
1155 Airport Park Boulevard,APN 180-070-38
File Nos.:09-28-SDP-PC/09-42-EIR-PC
9
1
2 The Commission asked the applicant about solar opportunities for the building. Prior to the
3 February 8t" meeting, a building permit for the installation of solar panels on the existing
4 building was submitted to the City. The building permit has been revised by staff and
5 additional information requested of the applicant.
6
7 Pedestrian Circulation. Much of the discussion at the January 25t" meeting focused on
8 pedestrian access and circulation. The applicant has provided a pedestrian circulation plan
9 that highlights the sidewalks and pedestrian pathways provided by the Project (see
10 attachment 15, sheet SP-1A, Pedestrian Facilities). In response to public comment related
11 to accessibility, the Building Official reviewed the Project for compliance with accessible
12 paths of travel. The Building Official determined the Project is consistent with requirements
13 for accessible paths of travel (see attachment 7).
14
15 The EIR mitigation measure 4.10-3d requires the following related to pedestrian circulation
16 (see attachment 4):
17
18 ■ Install sidewalks (a minimum of six feet wide, eight to ten feet wide when possible)
19 along the Project frontage on Airport Park Boulevard and Commerce Dive as
20 identified in the Project site plan.
21 ■ Install high-visibility crosswalk markings across driveway entrances to the Project.
22 ■ Install ADA-compliant curb ramps at driveway crossings and transition points along
23 the Project frontage.
24 ■ Provide adequate pedestrian connections from the modified or expanded parking
25 areas to the building entrances.
26
27 The mitigation measures included in the EIR do not include crosswalks at the intersection of
28 Airport Park Boulevard and Commerce Drive. As noted above in bullet 2, high-visibility
29 crosswalk markings are only required across driveway entrances to the Project. Public
3o Works staff has indicated that crosswalks would be installed at this intersection as part of
31 the signalization project planned for this intersection. Public Works staff has also indicated
32 that they would have no objection to crosswalks being installed at this intersection as part of
33 the Walmart Expansion Project.
34
35 Building Orientation. The Commission did not discuss this item at the January 25t"
36 meeting. Building orientation is a recommendation rather than a requirement based on the
37 use of the word "should" rather than "shall" (see November 9t" staff report, page 22). Staff
38 requests the Commission discuss and provide direction on this item. If this Commission
39 agrees with the analysis included in the staff report, this should be stated for the record. If
40 not, the Commission should state its disagreement on the record along with the reasons.
41
42 Screening (Storage Areas, Loading Docks, etc.). At the January 25t" meeting, the
43 Planning Commission did not determine if the Project was consistent with the screening
44 requirement (see attachment 2, page 15, lines 1-13). The Commission requested that the
45 applicant consider planting redwood trees on the east side of the site to provide additional
46 screening. The applicant has indicated that they will plant additional trees in this area. The
47 planting plan submitted for the February 8th meeting includes the planting of 10 redwood
48 trees at the southeast side of the site (see attachment 15, sheet L4.0). Due to the width of
Walmart Expansion Project Site Development Permit&Statement of Overriding Considerations
1155 Airport Park Boulevard,APN 180-070-38
File Nos.:09-28-SDP-PC/09-42-EIR-PC
10
1 the landscaped area and the location and width of the bioretention area, there may not be
2 adequate space to plant more trees than are shown on the revised planting plan or or rows
3 of trees as suggested by the Commission.
4 Staff requests the Commission review the planting plan and determine if the revised
5 landscaping plan provides the screening requested and if the screening for the Project is
6 consistent with the AIP screening requirement.
7
8 Lighting. At the January 25t" meeting, the Commission discussed lighting but did not
9 indicate if it agreed with the staff analysis included in the November 9t" staff report (page
10 24). In order to ensure the Project would be consistent with the AIP lighting requirement a
11 condition of approval would be applied to the Project. In addition, EIR mitigation 4.1-2 would
12 also help to ensure Project lighting is consistent with this requirement (see attachment 4).
13
14 Tree Removal. At the January 25`" meeting, the Commission requested information on tree
15 removal (see attachment 2, page 22, lines 49-51).An errata sheet was prepared for the
16 Final EIR (see attachment 8). The landscaping plans for the Project are consistent with this
17 erratum with the following exception:
18
19 ■ Fraxinus v. `Raywood': 6 to be removed on the revised planting plan; 3 to be
20 removed on the EIR errata table
21 ■ 161 trees to be planted on the revised planting plan; 155 trees to be planted on
22 the EIR errata table
23
24 This results in the removal of 111 trees and the retention of 110 trees.
25
26 Of the 111 trees to be removed, 50 of these are the olive trees in the parking lot that would
27 be replaced with a more appropriate tree species, approximately 32 additional trees (Crape
28 Myrtle, Chinese Pistache, and Flowering Plum) are being removed at the front of the
29 building due to the grading required to provide an at grade entry in this area (see attachment
30 15, sheet L3.0, Landscape Demolition Plan). Due to the amount of the change grade that
31 would occur in this area, it does not appear to be feasible to retain these trees. There are
32 20 oak trees on the site. Of these, two quercus coccinea would be removed.
33
34 Landscaping. Staff requests the Commission review the Project and the staff consistency
35 analysis for the AIP landscaping requirements included in the November 9th staff report (see
36 Table 4, pages 26-29), with the exception of the requirement for 50% shade coverage at 10
37 years and 20% landscaping coverage of the gross area of the parcel since the applicant has
38 requested a modification to these requirements (see Landscaping Modifications below).
39
4o Landscapinq Modifications
41
42 The applicant is requesting approval of a modification to the 50% shade coverage requirement
43 at 10 years and the requirement to provide landscaping coverage of 20% of the gross area of
44 the parcel. Both modifications are discussed below. Both modifications are discussed below.
45
46 50% Shade Coverage. At the January 25t" meeting, the Commission indicated it agreed
47 with the applicant's request for a modification to the requirement to provide 50% shade
48 coverage within 10 years of planting (see attachment 2, page 23, line 30). The Commission
Walmart Expansion Project Site Development Permit&Statement of Overriding Considerations
1155 Airport Park Boulevard,APN 180-070-38
File Nos.:09-28-SDP-PC/09-42-EIR-PC
11
1 has approved two modifications to the shade requirement (511 Orchard Avenue and 1230
2 Airport Park Boulevard). Below are the findings adopted by the Commission in approving
3 these modifications.
4
5 ■ Based on staff research, communities that have a shade ordinance most commonly
6 use a 15 year tree canopy when calculating shade coverage. Staff was unable to
7 find another community that used a 10 year canopy for the purpose of calculating
8 shade coverage.
9 ■ The City of Davis standard is an appropriate standard to use since the City of Davis
10 has a climate similar to Ukiah's.
11 ■ The tree canopy will typically double in size between 10 years and 15 years, making
12 the 15 year standard a more reasonable standard for calculating shade coverage.
13 ■ Past projects subject to this shade requirement have not been able to provide the
14 50% shade coverage within the 10 year time frame, but have been able to provide
15 the 50% shade coverage within 15 years of planting or at maturity.
16 ■ The project would provide more than 50% shade coverage of paved areas within 15
17 years using the City of Davis method.
18
19 If the Commission agrees with the analysis for granting the modification, it should state this
20 for the record. If the Commission has different and/or additional basis for granting the
21 modification, it should state this for the record.
22
23 20% Landscaping Coverage. At the January 25th meeting, the Commission indicated that
24 it would like the Project to comply with the requirement to provide 20% landscaping
25 coverage of the gross area of the parcel (see attachment 2, page 23, line 29). At the
26 meeting, the Commission requested the applicant provide a site plan showing how the 20%
27 landscaping coverage could be achieved (reduced parking, reduced building footprint, etc.)
28 and show what compliance would look like with 20% landscaping coverage with calculations
29 taking into account the bus stop pad and 6-foot wide sidewalks. In response to this request,
3o the applicant proposed to install grass turf areas for the fire lane at the rear of the site and
31 for the new parking spaces along the Airport Park Boulevard frontage (see discussion
32 above).
33
34 If the Planning Commission accepts the Grass Pave as landscaping, the Project would meet
35 the minimum 20% landscaping coverage requirement and no modification would be
36 required. If the Planning Commission does not accept all of the proposed Grass Pave as
37 landscaping, the Project would not be consistent with the landscape coverage requirement
38 and a modification would be required.
39
4o Another alternative to the modification would be a reduction in the square footage of the
41 addition which would also result in the need for fewer parking spaces. The Commission
42 requested the applicant provide a reduced building footprint alternative; however one has
43 not been provided. In order to meet the 20% coverage requirement, staff estimates
44 approximately 24,000 square feet of landscaping would be required. If the building were
45 reduced in size by 13,500 square feet, 54 fewer parking spaces would be required.
46 Assuming that each parking space is 162 square feet (9' x 18'), this would result in 8,748
47 square feet of parking that could be used for landscaping. A reduced building footprint
48 alternative was included in the EIR (see attachment 9).
Walmart Expansion Project Site Development Permit&Statement of Overriding Considerations
1155 Airport Park Boulevard,APN 180-070-38
File Nos.:09-28-SDP-PC/09-42-EIR-PC
12
1
2 The AIP Ordinance 1098 requirement for landscaping coverage reads: All new
3 developments shall include a landscaping coverage of 20% of the gross area of the parcel,
4 unless because of the small size of the parcel, such coverage would be unreasonable.
5 Given the size of the parcel (13.4 acres), small size does not appear to be a basis for
6 approving the modification. The AIP grants the Commission the authority to approve a
7 modification to any AIP landscaping requirement depending upon the size, scale, intensity,
8 and location of the development project.
9
10 Only two modifications to the landscaping coverage requirement have been approved in the
11 past-for Park Falls Plaza (1252 Airport Park Boulevard) and Guillon Phase 2 (1230 Airport
12 Park Boulevard). In the case of Park Falls Plaza, the project provided a design amenity
13 (fountains) in lieu of some of the landscaping. The fountain area was not counted as part of
14 landscaping coverage since it was considered hardscape. If it had been included, Park
15 Falls Plaza would have complied with the 20% coverage requirement. In the case of Guillon
16 Phase 2, the project was required to remove existing parking on the site to better distribute
17 landscaping and the Commission noted that the purpose of the landscaping coverage
18 requirement was aesthetics not water treatment. In both cases the parcels were
19 substantially smaller in size than 13 acres.
20
21 If the purpose of the landscaping coverage requirement is aesthetics, installation of turf may
22 be inconsistent with this purpose. When reviewing projects, the Planning Commission and
23 Design Review Board typically do not allow the installation of turf and require the use of
24 ground cover, shrubs, and trees to provide more visual interest and a more attractive
25 setting. If the purpose of the landscaping is aesthetics, when vehicles are parked on the
26 grass pave, any aesthetic provided by the turf would be lost.
27
28 Desiqn Guidelines for Proiects Outside the Downtown Desiqn District
29
3o Table 5 of the November 9t" staff report includes staff analysis of the Project's consistency with
31 the Design Guidelines for Projects Outside the Downtown Design District. At the January 25t"
32 meeting, the Commission did not discuss consistency with these guidelines. If the Commission
33 agrees with the staff analysis, it should state this for the record. If the Commission does not
34 agree, it should state this for the record and why it disagrees with the staff analysis.
35
36 Site Development Permit
37
38 Due to time limitations, Planning Commission has not had an opportunity to deliberate on the
39 Project's consistency with the findings required in order to approve a Site Development Permit.
4o Staff analysis of the Project's consistency with the required SDP findings is included in Table 7
41 of the November 9t" staff report. If the Commission agrees with the analysis, it should state this
42 for the record. If the Commission does not agree with the analysis, it should state this for the
43 record and indicate why it disagrees with the staff analysis.
44
45 Additionallnformation
46
47 The Planning Commission has asked what the applicants fair share percentage of traffic
48 improvements would be. The applicant's estimated fair share percentage is 8.6%. This was
Walmart Expansion Project Site Development Permit&Statement of Overriding Considerations
1155 Airport Park Boulevard,APN 180-070-38
File Nos.:09-28-SDP-PC/09-42-EIR-PC
13
1 calculated using the information included in the PM Peak Hour Volumes at Talmage
2 Road/Airport Park Blvd. exhibit included on page 40 of the Walmart Expansion DEIR Traffic and
3 Circulation Report (Appendix B of the DEIR) (see attachment 10).
4
5 In addition to the fair share percentage, the applicant would be required to pay the Redwood
6 Business Park CIP fee which is estimated to be $17,835.99 based on a development area of
7 2.52 acres.
8
9 Statement of Overriding Considerations
10
11 Due to the significant and unavoidable traffic impacts identified in the certified Walmart
12 Expansion Project EIR (EIR), a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required to be made
13 in order to approve the Site Development Permit required for the Project. The EIR identified
14 three possible mitigation measures that would reduce or eliminate the traffic impacts associated
15 with the Project (see attachment 4, mitigation measures 4.10-2, 4.10-4 and 4.10-5); however, no
16 funding for the improvements was identified. Due to a lack of funding, CEQA requires the
17 impacts to be identified as significant and unavoidable.
18
19 The Commission and public have requested information on the cost of and funding and design
20 for the improvements that would be required in order to mitigate the traffic impacts identified in
21 the EIR. CalTrans has also commented on the record about the lack of detail provided
22 regarding the three traffic mitigation alternatives included in the EIR. As previously stated by
23 staff at the public hearings for the Project, the City has been working on preliminary design and
24 cost estimates for the improvements identified in the EIR. The purpose of this was to identify
25 the traffic improvements and associated costs required to accommodate build-out of the
26 Redwood Business Park (RBP).
27
28 At the March 7, 2012 City Council meeting, the City Council voted to amend the City's Capital
29 Improvement Plan to include improvements to the Highway 101and Talmage Road intersection
30 (see attachment 11). The improvement to this intersection is similar to the loop and signal
31 mitigation measure included in the Walmart Expansion Project EIR. The design and cost
32 estimate was prepared by GHD Engineering (formerly Winzler and Kelly). The analysis done by
33 GHD Engineering indicates that the design would address the traffic issues resulting from build-
34 out of the RBP. The engineer's estimated cost of the improvements is $2,890,000. The funding
35 for the improvements would come from bond proceeds acquired by the Ukiah Redevelopment
36 Agency. The City Attorney will be attending the March 14, 2012 meeting and will provide
37 guidance and legal advice to the Commission.
38
39 When considering the Statement of Overriding for the Project CEQA requires the decision-
4o making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other
41 benefits of a proposed project againsf its unavoidable environmental risks when determining
42 whether to approve the project. If Planning Commission determines the benefits of the
43 proposed Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects of the Project, the
44 adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable."
45
46 Considerations for adoption of a statement of overriding considerations for the proposed Project
47 could include: additional jobs created by the Project; additional revenue for the City generated
48 by the Project in the form of sales tax, property tax, and business license tax (see fiscal impact
Walmart Expansion Project Site Development Permit&Statement of Overriding Considerations
1155 Airport Park Boulevard,APN 180-070-38
File Nos.:09-28-SDP-PC/09-42-EIR-PC
14
1 report for the Project); landscaping improvements to the parking lot; improvements to pedestrian
2 facilities; and/or other considerations identified by the Planning Commission. The applicant
3 submitted a letter identifying the potential benefits of the Project (see attachment 12).
4
5 In order to provide information on the fiscal effects of the Project, a Fiscal Impact Report was
6 prepared. Based on public comment, the report was revised and additional information
7 provided by the preparer of the report (see attachment 13).
8
9 Should Planning Commission determine that the benefits of the Project outweigh the significant
10 and unavoidable environmental effects identified in the EIR (see attachment 4), Planning
11 Commission would be required to state in writing the specific reasons to support its action
12 based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding
13 considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. This is formally known
14 as a "Statement of Overriding Considerations."
15
16 Staff requests that the Commission discuss the potential benefits of the Project and provide
17 direction to staff as to whether or not a Statement of Overriding Considerations could be made
18 for the Project.
19
20 PUBLIC COMMENT
21
22 At the February 8, 2012 meeting, this item was continued to a date certain of March 14, 2012;
23 therefore, no public notice is required. However, due to the public interest in this Project, notice
24 was provided in the following manner:
25
26 ■ mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject parcel on March 1, 2012;
27 ■ mailed to all property owners within the Airport Industrial Park Planned Development on
28 March 1, 2012;
29 ■ mailed to all tenants on parcels contiguous to the subject parcel on March 1, 2012;
30 ■ mailed and/or emailed to all persons on the Walmart Expansion Project interested
31 parties list on March 1, 2012; and
32 ■ published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on March 4, 2012.
33
34 CONCLUSION
35
36 As part of the Commission's review of the SDP, landscaping modifications, and Statement of
37 Overriding Considerations, staff requests the Commission articulate the reasons why it supports
38 or does not support each action (Site Development Permit, landscaping modifications,
39 Statement of Overriding Considerations) so that the record reflects the Commission's reasoning
4o and basis for each decision.
41
42 Based on the direction articulated by the Commission, staff will prepare the required findings
43 and/or conditions of approval as applicable for the following:
44
45 1. Approval or denial of the Site Development Permit;
46 2. Approval or denial of the landscaping modifications; and
47 3. Approval or denial of the Statement of Overriding Considerations.
48
Walmart Expansion Project Site Development Permit&Statement of Overriding Considerations
1155 Airport Park Boulevard,APN 180-070-38
File Nos.:09-28-SDP-PC/09-42-EIR-PC
15
1 ATTACHMENTS
2
3 1. Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 2011(see Approval of Minutes on this agenda)
4 2. Planning Commission Minutes January 25, 2012 (see Approval of Minutes on this agenda)
5 3. Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2012 (see Approval of Minutes on this agenda)
6 4. Walmart Expansion Project EIR Mitigation Measures
7 5. Email from Applicant dated February 23, 2012
8 6. Email from Deborah Herron, Walmart Representative, dated March 6, 2012
9 7. Email from David Willoughby for Accessibility dated January 24, 2012
10 8. Final EIR Existing Tree Resources Table Errata
11 9. Walmart Expansion Project EIR Reduced Project Alternative
12 10. Memo from the City Engineer and Exhibit: Walmart Expansion Project Pm Peak Hour
13 Volumes at Talmage Road/Airport Park Boulevard (Walmart Expansion DEIR Traffic and
14 Circulation Report)
15 11. City Council ASR March 7, 2012
16 12. Applicant's Project Benefits Letter dated January 25, 2012
17 13. Fiscal Impact Report, Errata, and Additional Information
18 14. Staff"Marked Up" Site Plan for Bus Stop, Mid-block Crossing, and Bulb-out
19 15. Revised Plans 11" x 17" from February 8, 2012 meeting
Walmart Expansion Project Site Development Permit&Statement of Overriding Considerations
1155 Airport Park Boulevard,APN 180-070-38
File Nos.:09-28-SDP-PC/09-42-EIR-PC
16
,��� ���c������� �f ` i
� � s�
e ; : ; ; � N
(: i �'vy 4 ' . '. . 0
� `t t, .� ,1�1 '. i ' � I � I N `N
y . !I i � � I a � .
N , �.��4 I � I I W O
� � i I
0
R �
rn
«
�
..
m
Q
m
�
c
A
e�
�
'c
a�
�
w
0
i �n cn tn <n cn cn tn u� tn
J J J J J J J J J J
y
L � � C
O � � m C � Q ` �..
�p Q O (� � N N N � N N '0
N ., N � _ N fl. � f0
� aT = d � � � .. � _ NNN f6 'OQ
'fp � p. C '� O O O C V C 3 � m N y N f0
llJ � y 4`- � N y � .. 7 y N N � 7 N tn N C
� � � N � � � L OI N y � � O L � � � O .
= p N � ..�. � C N V-. L � � � x p_ C � fl. .
Q � mt � � m •_°-' I- $ orw,�. v Q' c m �
W a •N .°-' N � 3 '� c 3 • a « ,,,, a; m u�
� Lmvo - c � � � NO � � � � � a� � m
O N u� m � � rn ° N ocMO� c � � °� � � � U m
Nr-� � C f6 ... � � .F 0 O y � � y O y@
�
~ � t Q N UL L w .N-� N -p �. C ' U C C •-• Ln .
a 'krn � � ar.+ r.+ � N � � c@2 o � � y
(9 `'_ _ � � @ rnaSc � cMmc°� � 'N .c � a QE ` ch
r l_ m � w? c i � � � a� ui io � N °� � •� � � �
- w- a� �a a� � E rn °� c� a> o- a> fn
W � `o � a y 'o n � � w N 'o � W o c� o aai � o w
O o N — m aor � mc�'�mp .o � 'C'' .o a � ° �
-� Z ° EN °> .�cE � `� cc � � Ac � u� � � �
ma � o � y0l- � � O — o � � KpO aNit � c
Q � � — . � N W C C � p� w �j C ,C LLJ V C 'O y p� p
F- y Q o � � o my� ,� �1� a� .a o � o w. >. c �
.. � tn � � a —
U L y/ Y � Y O L
a � � � � u- 3 � ao � ao � o m � m � � � N � y � Nm �
� e '3 'ay � .. � � n � cU � � �' '� '� '� '� '3 � mc :. . c �
LL y � � a '� a�ic � c ° f0rn o a�i a°�i a�i a°�i a�i a°�i � c � cE > > '
� � � a� ayoo � � � � � :r � � � � � � � . c �oo
� o� a� y a c �n � ° ° :o — rn a� a� a� a� a� a� ur � � � E �' Q
� c �o u� � m � � - - ._ c c c c c c � —
Q � z � uLi �° c°� amm � � mtiE Z Z Z Z Z Z � m � •
� p c � �
m o
� y C � Y C Y L
.'C.�. � �, � N O ,�'V--" C O C � C .6 ?i
p� 'a 3 N N C p, C � N � y � y@y � �
C C C � 'a f6 O � f� �X N � � C a N N .
(p 7 fV 'N V � � N � C 7 � 7 '�
L O I6 �, C !'_ � � +r O V1 N N C � �
.. 7 ..�. N U p� -�p E � � V O f0 O � � � .
O Vl (6 � y 'N � C ..�. N N p N � � O ,
.� � U > v m �-' � � n o o .° o °' '� c
� v >. m Q ° a '' o c �` � � m y o � o
.. � � 'c '�n
3@ EaE m °� o cc°� •m a�i o- "' o- � o �n_
� •- � �a a � � � � r '�
i � � ov_i a 'c� uti � '° � � a> � a� -,• o
N N +% N � L .-�'. O ..+ O 7 � +-' p 'D � QI N
O N N O L I- C Nl C ?� O '� C � p. 7 O. 0 C C .
a � ,�? a " �d c°� � c`� � � a� � n uxi3 axim16 �
:c � ,r y � � m -a � o .. .� � a? �
.'� >, °rn .L.�. 3m °c 4: rn ° Ym ° fl- °cc °c '� � � wt—'
° mc ° i° � �o y 'm dc -a�a� � O .om .oa � .—° �
c � m c rn " � c� �? a� m o � � � � � y �
o Q .t ° o � 3 � � w ? � c��ua 3 m � 3 m � 3 � o
�° oN � .- �' �i � c ° O � � � � c � � � � � ar
.. c � � � � � � � �� � � °. c a � a� Em a� E ,c_ mL o °o.
� � � � � — > �, o a ? °� •°- .� o .. � o :°. � o :°. �, o � � �
o. a� � a a� ma� c d � n � � m -a a°i := � o ° aoc �- m `° �
E fl. = �o a � � � _ ' o �o ui Q- � o ° :°. � � .'Y� � � c� � @ W E
� £ c� o � N � � hy Uo � O � � 0. � I— 'm � H 'm � I— >, `° m
� C � f0 3 �j � . m M '� a- � ... N y-- C M 7 V Y in V 07 10 t�`A m �
d � N �j � 7 C 'y � � � 3 i p N � M � �X X 'y �
� v '> a ao ° � d ? va"iQ, � c � ao, v � '� a � o v -�'o � o
o +. rn « � ._ « @ « 'o « o m « � « o ,� « o c .. � � y
� � c E c� � � w u c� �. m c> 'N � � w, c� N@ c> c> > �
• ta ::. �a � •- c � � �p d 'L ca y m �o � �p — � R m � to v o w
> av� �+ a � 'S, w? a � -� a a? a •- c a � aa� � aa� � n � ,�
w � axiH £ u°� � a � � £ w �� � � � E � E � c E � 3 £ c°� � i�
�
?� `i
� � �'��i: i N �
e
I w o
0
«
�
rn
r
�
�
�
Q
m
�
e
A
�
w
•�
rn
�
w
0
J J J J J ~
N Ln N �. N
C �= N C O O � p� � N L 0 L �
3 a� ai
..
T - rn -��o ca � o -° °cw d � � � m m a �° .-
nQ � � ° � �° a� N � a� w °� 'i � a°�io °/ �� U .�Oc
� a�
� Qo � � a�i � � m � ,;� � ° � ay � � ° a`�i c �
� � c�i � � `..r° op � � ° � o .o � '° � � � avN
� f04= o n � � � c�i � ma .c aa yv � �a � @p�pa�i
� a�°i � " � � � � Q o a� y �O .. a� m � � y � a � � o
a = °- aai °- o � °� E = @ N � Y oo. L � � °�' � •�
W '„a v� � � c ao- m � mt � v o •y � � a rn � � ow
� � � '� R `°� N � � � � u��i � � t o •g � � � � m � � �
Z � � a� p. -�gL � m c � y � � v) :C � o rnQ � •�n 'vV �
O � w � o � � `� � � � � > � e� � T � °� � m � ~ � wE
�Z �n .. � rn
� � @ � a`� v uNi w � � � f6 c � � (y � � c �°' •`-' w '� a�i o �' �.
� H � � Y o � � � � U � aEi ° a `' � ° � '_ � �, o > �° '� U cn
fn � a� ,� � o N � o � � c � � � y '� = � � mQ y � m � a� w
W p Q �3 .c � c m £ a� <6 � io y E , � >. � 'w m � > .fl
� o o c� m ui N m � 5 a o >. � .. m
JQ •ac � .a yoc � � N = UN � Na m � � � c � � L � �
N � N L +. f6 C N U = O . +. �, O.
� �"' 7 O � L 0 W '� �. � � .� �- O` p 1a+6 Iv -p y � � fl' y � �p � p � y m
(� f6 U U t// 'p Q tC 7 � N y � �- +-' Cf 16 � � L _ C C "" N p � E O C
Q N � f6 C p 10 L � y .L.. E N C O 'O � 'p 'O r' a O "" j d ,�O_ � � ,� L � E 'a
� � C C � V N � ,� C O N � N � � � N N d' w C � � fl. � E U d N "" N U
O 'O d N �l' � t0 O ,0 m N E t � � 7 7 a O a = C O � d C 'in E � .,L. �
� U N '- a N O � U N C� C f 6 +-' Q' � Q Q y N N � 07 � t� 7
LL {r+p - j O' Q 7 t...J � � @ � Q � 0 N � d N 3 C U > � � > V
� C� Q .. a� a � ,� ° c E � `na`� o c n, c c R � °� lA �o �o � � id a
Q � • � c� wc°� c°� � a�imm Z � Z Z � ya �
� � �
N y � �
(n C � 7 � V � C f6
'O l3 y w � 7 � � N 3
> > >, m E m ny o r `o
o - a = o � o � :_.
� r
3 °. af6i � � � > �c c � �E �
� _ � w � E � cf6i c°> > 3 w°
O ._+ N 7 � .0 � > T�p ,C C .O
d V p � m .. w m U � Y 7 .
.�.+� � .L.+ V � N t 'p � p, '�-' O C
w. tA O C � w' = C O � � f0
o a� �3 .. }, t, •� � m � m v �
c @ c u? � o � .o o, � «>, !=
• p � 0 7 tA C O <O 7 N a � p)
f` U fp � � j '� •` -p O i � .N
N C C C � Y O C � N �- - V T .
0- N '� O C � � E � � � �� � �
. � .0 � CJ 'O � p � � .p C y :.
C � V � � O V V C 7 w � N �
@ N C � � `� C O 0 N +-' d
� '_ O 3 � '_ � ,C U Q O 'o
� � i 3 � .�c � a`> .. � � c N a` r
y. �j p NrN„ N �-' N "' � N O 'Y • o �
w �
V � V O � �O � �O C N � � L V . •c �
. C. y >' �- C 0�.. N d � ... d 07 � Q a �
E C j N � N tn N C � N � C E W �- .
U m H :° t °' w L w, � L E 7 '- C e
'.g � � E- c o E- � �o HD o w `° y
� `p� s E
C Ih � OO V r V i? N � p r O f- m � .
d N � N � M �p � M � 3 'd' ""' � � E
m � a � � v 'm v > o voa� •r � o � � o
E � �+ C O a+ V � �+ � U �+ C '� - a+ � .. V �e ">
j O 16 `—� y l6 X � l6 �p (Tp tE � N 10 �j N N 7 W �
� p, 3 •_ p. O p. , O. = U O. 7 � C 7 = � `o
N w E � aEi EoE Ea � E3 .r EN � m � �
z � �
�
E rn N
E j N a�
iq Q o
(V J
W O
C
O
�
16
C1
i=�
�
d
Q
V
C
v
4=
�C
C1
�
O
N
d .
J
p� � fA N .� - C y �p � � � �.
� Y � V � V � � � � C O C U :� � p) � ., T
U � r_ 4= C p, O_ N y '- � @ N ` � C C T � U � = y C f6
f0 N O � N � .L.. O t 'O C U w N C � @
O- �' y N N � f0 m � � L .L.+ = � w 'a V N � � C '� � � 7 N !V .fJ
N � . N T � .L-. y p� � in � �.+ N N E w , O � � p � � O V N C O O C C �
W C � � 'p '� C � +-' N 'a O f0 �" ` �p N f6 `�-O N � � C ,o,� « � � � � Q � ,N j
� 0 3 � .a? m � N � � <�o a Q- c°. QC � �o mo a� E '� � a°> cF � u�i v�i � � °�
y @ � m � o a� Z' o � a� �o � � r E@ c � ,� � x a� = m '� .: E ? a�°i `° �
Q L o o � � :. r m a .. .c � � v � � • ta am o u� io � r
� y � O p) � N `p 7 � .t.+ l6 C ..�. 7 N N � , � � m L > N y U N � � N '�'
. W U � N C ,C = N U C y � O C � �N N � � y Q�. � L 'O p � N � -p Q .N-� 'p� N .% � �.
� @ � ,-, C f6 � N C 'O � C N U � � @ � � � � '�O 1C � N � C N N � t � � � � .
Z 'O � 7 � N = � � C .L.. l6 N � y f6 0. y N � L O N -Q p N m "' T O � �
O O �. � 7 � O N � w C � � C m C '$ +L-� C �. O .�L' � � O y � � C y � � � � O �
a � 01 C � N f/1 - C O � N C ' �+ � d U L w+ '++
m �n � m m � 'a a� :r ... E � @ a� •- - � @ � �a c � a� !� � � m E mfl. � a.
� C w 'y C � C y N N £ � j � V 'L-' V C �p � ,.N, � �p U V � C � N � O (0 C "r V N � fn � �
r F� y � � � � 0 � C T N rJ .: 7 � N L � f0 U � �. @ � 0- lV0 N N y � 0I U U � @ V � O �
�m C ' N tn Q'
� W Q w N � � C � �- N � 6 > N � N y w � � ..�r 2 l0 N O' � d N w ,..�-• w 'O OQ. � i/i O T .... N � W .
W Z C U d w0 V) N � U p � � N N@ a N p � U > C O 3 V O "�" Q ..��. "�-' f6 � � � 0. ��/1 � � Y m �
Q � � N � � 03 � ° L °' � °' UE � �' � c � Qr@ � � � � � �o � � V � � «s � :? a 6rn � � �
v .... y m o a� a � N m t
� y � � ' i:+ � N M M N y N � � fn •_ V � N N "" C UJ - � C �L" •� N S (A 4= - M +-' �
U N C C 4- C 'O � «. p, `- C C f6 C C � C f6 T +. N 'a tlJ Vl 'O
Q d "' �G � '@O y O N C � U O 'O V7 N '� N � V) 'O ' p O t ' � O � a �. +L' � >. p. C .� 7 � O f�j f0
V N � � O C � w C � � C -� ,i- U �p = p :.. i I O "" � � � O' V L 7L
� C O v � O� w0 O E � � � Q y m � N � � � N � @ C � U 7 ._. N ef C ,�,,, - � O U � d O fn E � N '_
LL i+ �O � N � � � � 'O � � m U � C � N N ` � > 7 � C 7 > U L O'
O l0 � � Q � C � - C 7 �' C (6 � O � � t C
m U d Q tq I- . E E f6 U Q N N � U m � I- N Q ._ N d O (n C O tq � @ �
�" _ y t'+ r .
� rL fV M � � rL f�l! Q. `_
�
�
�
U
N
Q
a r
a+ o �
16 � �
� n �0
' w a
— r E
C E c
d �
� c
C � �
O 'c
� 7 c
•' o W
C y� �
W v �
� �
� s
O N
N N
� n
a o
0
W O
C
O
�
l0
�
i+
�
V
�
Q
C,1
C
l6
V
�i-
,C
�
N
O
d
d
J
� m ui �p (q — N c a� a 3
V- o .c � amow? -om cotc ° � o .ow � � c
o -. .. ,� 'E � 3 � � w °�' � o � y •m cLa � � c � � � ,u? � c o c v
@ o � c� w � R � o '� `o m m � c :°_ m ;� a� o a n � �n 'F m L � ° c �c
N �oU' 'a� '- � cw- r rnE o � c °- '� °' ""' o- c E �rn � a� rn .. a� m o �
� c � U (A � `n ^ o ' c " •.-' c :a � o � y `� � m rn .«. � .cw ••=' � w '� � a�
� @ o u� �- m rn uS � :r aS 'm c E o 10 >, � °- o- a: w. — 'N � u� a� E ° o > > o vi
LLI p � m m .�C-, � Y p U � y f� N N � p w � N y E@ 'O O � 'C O f0 � — � y � G
�. � `�- m O � '� N !� �+ C N t/1 m � � N f� w � w _ � a � V � f0 m �
(� l6 � y � � � � 'p0 � '6 � +y�' .�„ � � � Q � � ""' Np7N '� N � L � � CUQd
Q l0 � � � � O N 'O � � C 3 N � � '"' fn � Y w N N p 7 � .'S (6 C � y � @ � V Q
� `� o mm � c� � � o � o ? m � c� aU � � � � � cy � ° c � � �' � � � a �
� y .0 � � � � Q N 30 p- fw/1 @ > .� � �, L C � C '- N C N U � —°' � 2 ° � � -0
Z 'O U M C 7 C 7 7 � � � V � N N "'�' w � O (0 /4 C ._�, (6 N � y t0 G. y Vl � t O
O C aL+ C '.�-��- � @ n' V O N N '�O fp N (6 Q- .0 L fn � N N � � C n +-' � N > L L w � .L�-. L U
I� 61 O U � � lp '�L U w L 'a L 'O I-� � !_' N f6 C C y .-. ..+ N �
T C +� U C m � +r C � � � C �� C fl. O
� � a�io � > > o � fl. c � Q' � � o � oa�i � � � �a`�i � c � � @ � � � wcfOi � � � � �6 � �
� H �n � m °' rn .�' a°� w`o � � � o3w � � m � ana� ct c � � �nu v .�c �a�itf0c-�o � � nm � o�'- �
a
fn � m � � w E o � •� � c � .. ov� c � ;=, a� T'iEw .,oa „= a� @a. m = � � � na � � y m
W � N p_ � �. U O C C f6 N V C N N � � p .a ; N Q � p � 0 �p � d C .. N 0 � O O N t�/1 Q' f6 7 � N w
-J Z 7 7, � _ U @ 7 � i C a U m � � 'O �i N C tn p. � C � f0 � � N N t p N � p1 U > C O y U V +'�-'
ma N � N � rn m °� ° rn ° n �`a � � a`6iECON mE °� �' � ° � � ° o � " U °� .o � :� � O � > ,�'., a� °
Q f� � ` c — �o c E °� :? � � � °> :-° '« o o m .� �? a� '� � y o @ .�.3. Q" U E � °� �' c � � a� ° ? � `n � c
� V H N � v°� a �o c°� � E U C 7 = a�i � `o rnrnw �3 L .L � � o y a � � c � ,k � a � � a � � � � � � c �
a a�i � �` o �i o m o ° a�i .° `° c °' m � � �n c :o ° c°� N .- o °
0- � . . . o c � � .«. a � � 'o � 5 0 � � :? � w? <o a� .. �, mw- m
� y > � � •� .� � � cm � o � a�'i � a�'im � -�'o � �' rn � ° c �° a�i aUi � � ayi
Q Ip . L C � � � L L C L C � C 7 � C f0 � O � � .0 ..�. N �
Cl h f6 v- � a N ._ F . � � f0 U Q N N � U al � 1'- v� Q �
� "'
Q � N M d' � tp
�
�
�
U
N
Q
a` r
++ oa
�
�
�p c
a � �
E W n
r �
c E �
Z, d � E
m C � o
E � � '�
� ` w
o j o _
� � L' c
c�i W U ii
z � �
�
E ' l .. o N
� �-. ,
� � j � 1''„t.'-�r�?r� ' c� n
N � � �
W O
C
O I
. a'+
10
C1
i+
�
d
Q
N
v
C
10
C1
w
�C
C1
N
w
O
J J J I J J J
�. ^`
� � � � � H � y � y O � C � � � � W .
�° `mmYU3c � `� .f0c � ya3E � a�icN � � � `o
c .. L � CJ c a ., m � m °� o - m � �
� 7 � V � � w O "�-' y � N 'O O C N Q � � ""' L � `!- C N '
'N U .G •- Q. � _ @ C � N O N N y p � •' U � U1 � � �p O
)
W 'O N L � U N y C � j w � � � N � '6 N � p, � �p r-�, N �
� � o -�g y � � p � o a`�i c � � c�.i cL a£i � � a°�i `� � -° °' �
� � 'E 'a 3 o m c w � U :o O u`�i a O m a� � !_n � t •`...-° � a� o'
� � :° CUSmrn _ U cw � asa � � yyo � a? o. `m � c
Q �
W v �omp � 'a� c � .ty_° a� o � O � �° co � � �' w � Nm � �'
d: � .... > E a� o � a� o .fl "- N � �_' � a� :.. m .. U - � .� � �
� .o ,� c '�-� ,@ � •�n ow, a � � « .o m .� � � .. ctL .a c � � t
r-. y
O �4 � o a�i o a�i ° ° `° °' � m � � o � � fl. c � � ° � 'm � E aTi .fl
H � � � � wto- U � E � � � 3 � ' Eo cmZ` � cu�ni °� � �
a v �', 2w- "' .o � � L a? '� c -o >: a� � v o. � o � o � � 'a
(9 d: 'o �n ... o a m I— o@ •-' m a� o � a � . � � � ,�, a � a� a
y m � c � cw � " oai3y@ � c — m � � d � � o9 � m �
fn �L � � ° c4 � ° � ooL `n � � � � � ° y � m y £ � i° �° �n � c° f�
WD � y .� c � � QU � vyo � @ � � @a oom � � oo � � W
m c '— Q � � r rn � � � 'o
JZ � mc � `° o ' � aEi � � o > U � c °: c v '� Ua � Ly@m �
m a fq C 3 � O � � @ �. Q _ V ... � O p '+J 11p� !� � N � >' m � `J
� � O I � $ � V = y 'C O ..: 'p N f0 N :+ w, C N -0 C C 7 L C
� �- H 7 � = C � N ._.+ (� � 0 O- � y "0 rt.+ w C � U � � � y N � � 'O
V R rn � °� � � �� � c a m f0 �° �' m ui '� a�°i � '° � � ,`�� = m a� o `o
� Q d 'a :C 'O 'O N � � 'O � N �. �i � •- .0 tll N aI C f6 U L C U
d � � � � � � � � @c°�.� o � m � c � o3 � � � � � � � axi -o � 3 � �
� e '3 -� '9 '9 sf m �? @ v c � ' � a� � o � � v . .- >. � m '� � c
o a � a� a- a� �0 ° f6v � Z' m, � � EcErc� mo d9cc� � � ,� •
LL «� N � N N �- 3 d � � m p fl. c p� m ._ w N �•- U � a N C .. �o � �o
0 01 N N N N N C � � U U N O E '- C E tlJ � V) V 7 N C �. � 7 > >. � U
._. O O f0 .-
} 'a+ � O. � � � � C .�L.., lC � p� > � '\O V C r�.+ Z Q N C d 7 7 � C� � � f6 U
Q � z � Z z � rna � � � � n � m °cc°� c"o = .� mc°� � � a°�ia�im � oE �
� � � � � N o
�
. � � j � � y O p N � �
� p� N O '� -p � f3 :a .. .
C � d = f6 tn .�+ � N y = C N
� '0 � N �N, U c$ w � � � U 3
�p N (6 (6 T 'O � L r ... +. y
N C "�" f0 � � � � `p C O. N N p
O N `� � m 'O y `� V U V � V V E '"' . .
> O l6 N N N t � y � 4= (.«+�0 'a f6 N f0
C U '� H y dl C 7 (p V .
'O � � 4= f6 N � l0 G7 � � V p t !� �.
O y m � C Y a � � p � � �J N 0 m �.
� N N N N V1 '
3 •0 `� a v� f6 a� .. ° •on - �'
V N � .,�„ N .�' O Y � j f6 � � 7 � T
� N L � E O V � tA � L a t N f6
'oo n oc°� `o ° E � °a wc t � f6c
n. °- e' a� °� � c o m x o rn " o E °3
� � � � v o ° � � � c ° � w � a
way �-° � c � � E � � ��`, �? ° � � ti
o � c� o � =. w o c�i m - o -. � � a� � :. �
� c°� a o ,,, > > 3oy 3c � � � ioo 0
ot � � @ � a � " � � � � '� cma ar
�, � c� . a� « L = a� o � a� � � o ° ,� E oa
� `�- � L •O 0 T V « O = � O O y V C p 'N .0 � .
a y � d � c c d .n y d '> > � a� a� ;c t0 �i
� or = ra a�ia c� r c o t � �o � r 1° ~ � o.
te V N N ~ "' � � C ~ U ~ L N � �- N C m E .
,is � G. N fl. 7 p> O . . ... f0 O L N E � �
yN O � M j -p y 'Vl � � O. � �p L N U N � � �
ef ... ,� �t c eF a p N �- �ff ' � c , � E
E � � O � �` f0 � T a N .-� a U � � � O t a .
C a+ � VJ �+ @ `� C � t~.1 'O C V �j N fy.i � � C � c �
O . V � Vl (� +_� () 'O i.+ � .
16 y O lp C N N� C l0 •y • lp 0. p lp N >
� W
c c' o m °' o �a o. o °' o o Q- a� u°'i °' £ i � °, �
w � E .r � aa �nn � oa� � w �o Eoc � � �
� . t .-.:.r-. -. , , N �
I 0 N
� �' � '� �� i � � n
� i a o
I � o
I W O
O I I i
m � I
«
�
�
�
Q I
c�i I
c
�a
�
w
'c
rn
N
.-
0
> cn tn rn u� u� cn v�
J J J J J J J J
N 'O W � I fn � p .
- � � d > O j I 0 ..�.
O «. �
� w j � � � I V L a 3 N
N � E C N al 'n � C ? C O
O N N O w • p O 7 .L..
� f6 � U .� �' � fA •+ 4.. p 7
� C �
VJ r w C � � _ �.�+ �� O '�-�. � � N
� l0 C � _ � (n Cp � fp n. L �
N ' � +.
U� � � O � O •-� N O `~ L
C U � � f0 C C Q € a � U
a � C N C h V � � N N Q y N
E a O
� '� �a� N � g oa? °o � m c � a�
O� v � a� U i m �° � � t m „-. .r
Z o � n a a� _ � "' yo V-.
O � Em �' Q `..�° � `
c 3 �3 E � rn >. o
� � � � c w 6 .. u� y � �o w-
Q � " � o `" � v.-.�i � � no s � •a°'i
� "' i.+ " "' N V) U � :f. y N U
� � o v > � � u�i � 'o- '�n w? 0 ;�` � o0
� F- o £ ... o � � m � °- � E a� a � fn
� � U � L C >, N .0 @ f0 :_. . . . .. O
W p o >. '� � � a a� � '� � � �� @ � � oo W
WZ y � .... Cam � � � � � � � � T �
ma H aowa � o � � � o n`. � � � o = o �
.. :r a� ._ .�,
� � � Q ° � � � mTQ o� � aira a � oo �' m
tn '_ = a� c a _ :_• �o .- ca rn U o w
�
d � u�'� _ � � � � � ° a�°i a�°i I � ai a�°i m � �0 r m -° � rn o a�°i
om � a� a� fOE � � � � tH m � � _
� c d' :� c d N N w a� '� '� I � '� '� v o� � =' -= � m '� '�
o m �oom � � y � 6 � ° a v dcN � � � d ty Q
ll' � 7 'O = - � U N � N N I :a N � � ` � � _ � Y y � N
0 °� � £ � V m m c@ � � � � � � � � '� � c� n. ° � � �
� � C d G� N A T � O O O O O d O N y � �
Q � � � -oaa � E ° Z Z Z Z Z � � av • • Z
� a
� c � -a �
� � @ � m
� 7 O O O y � � O U � � 'O
� � C C � Y �
C 0 f6 �p (� y V1 C � � � L .-' � �.
f6 � C � U (p N � L 0 t6 � +-� @ C O �.
r � � !� .a � a �? u� a� � •� 3
o � @N c � o N � crnw Y �
•@a a�i °o. ��' � � a � ,° 3 ULg' 3 �
� � E � o = .o � �° rna a�i !L' i. av�i
y
Cp. N � ..+ � � U ._ � m O � = N L
L � � C 7 f0 3 'O L N 'O n' C C � I-�
yq+ -0 I .� N .G � N m � N pO m � y � t/j
S f4 m ."' L '+.�_+ f0 M C � C 7 � � �
'O N Q N 0 L •� C � p ++ 7 tq fl- 'p � .
w t �� � V O :✓ � � +_� � � � � 7 `
f6 ... N ... N C) � � V C T y O �
V �' � 'O � 'O @ T 3 C w � f6 N V � .:
tn N 'a n 'O N O N C w E m > � 'C O '30 U
,.�-_. f6 O 'a O t ` � �N j N � X U ~ ` 7 C . oy�i .
� v� � 3 � � 3 o w. o- � o� �n �n � � �` .r o m o
� � �u � cm � .a � p � � 'o � m � rnw ac
� � � c a� � � f° c� o> > oV- = o
C1 O y@ O ..�.� C O (�p U w y �6 � � N C Q U � � y N �
G d � V �. � 'w�- 0- N � .0 C � � C � r. V C " � � �
... N �p � N U � 'V1 N f0 � '�. N . �- m
� r � o r � U � � ° LOU ° 7 7 � 3 0 � � WE
f6 w o v� .-' 3 r
�- .oa �- 'tm �-- a a3 � � � � � ao � ,� �
�R � � � . . c .. a 3 a� _ E
c Nio � � � a� i� E � oc � e� � Fim � m � � � � d
d 1n 1A •- �. �p � .t0 in � ;,, 10 O t0 '� @ � tO .. � E
m � ef 3 c sr ?' c ev ? ef ° E c t? " �r a ?' � el' � � � `
� � t+ C Ol �+ f0 N t+ @ ++ N 'O V r � o,' d N � r � N y Q
� � �, O � C tl U p7 O — .C1 � d C1 � C1 � .. O � O 7 � c
� . 10 j� lE 'y � lC � 10 y y �'= 10 y f6 "a � � R T a o W .
� > a � � a >, � aE a � -o � ac Q > > 3 a
c.i w � a � l � aa�i � c'� Ec�6im 'u�i £ c°� £ c°� m ° � E � � ;�
;
� i � �
E , - J rn �°v
� ' � i i�1�4 .i� j i N O
a U
N W O
C
O
'w
l0
�
++
�
�
�
Q
C��1
C
l0
V
w
•C
m
N
O
d
d H H H H H H H H
J J J J J J J J J
N �' N �
� � - � t �' C
@ L m N (� CO w V f6 f0
� N E � � i O C � L
� L W O Z T � .-� � � � .�: � � y .
. � � � 'C O a 0' t0 O � �A f6 � ?) � � � .
W � � � � � E E � � a� � � � � o �
� Ey � N a � c Q � c am @o m � U o
'oo E U � o �
N 'a� ,� E � c � w. a � f6sr � a� o �ow m � vi
W � O �° � � � �° � °' � � ?� a�ic%� c° ° '-' O �
� .c �j f6 � c � � a: �om E � C7N mya �` � .
� � Y � � V � O � C � � p (n 'p � � � 3 M ��
Q u�i .° Q .a? o o �"i o, 'w ° Qm � Q �o « 3 � <°
� � � � Q � a � � U c o v� m � •3 y � a
> � � V7 L 'O C 'O C E U •N N N j N
r I� � O � O C � N � — N N O ..�. � N C � > � �
� � C �' � '\O N O = y„-O L E k U T � 'a � f0 C H W
W Q 3 � N � @ Y � � �--� N '0 N � . O U N � l6
JZ --°o � �° o � af6i � o � �' m � 3 - y 'ia�'ia�'i �
Q N ,�- N � :_� C Q O p. U '� .-. O N � C � `' � C
. m CI N C L C .. C '�O O N tll tq W N N a � ... O
� � � � � .`,�.' � c ° � `o. am � � E �- E � m � «
V N � c � o .o , _ mmaop � o � °� � °� o a�
Q a�i � o � a`� � cc � � 3 „ a% v� a� °' Y � V -o � i=' v �o -o a
a � �o N a � � c°� � � w � � � � � o � o � m m � � � � �
� c d' � o. 3 � � � � � � m C9 w. � � o .� .� ., .� .� .� .�
o m f6E �-° m � m �' O � a� m � � rnZ a Q � a a� v Q
� m � 0� r ° pOO � � c � .'�.°. ' � � oo = a� d � � � � � �
� o� y � � N3a .- u, mmau� v, � a -oEw m m m �, �, �, �,
t, A _ c c a c c c c
Q � � � • • Z Z � Z Z Z Z
� o
(A � 'L� r � O cf0i �0
�I m � � �' a�i � a� a� a� �= -�o � � �
� a �° r a� � � o � ;� m '> m L m °�
L .� >. O �p • =p L .. L ��-' '..�-.
I �p � O ~ "" .r�� tq U t � y !s" � .,: !S-' � C .
� C N C � 9 w' � �' T 7 � � 7 'C � �
� S
C y � 'O C 'O (�6 = s � w U U � � U � � p. .
l4 O 7 C '.' C U C �N � .�-� � � � C
:� � C p � N ,� p C � � O
y � � � N O Q O :..� ._ a,�, �. C Q � C .-�
�X V � N � p U «. O Lp. U 'O C U � � � .
� C ..�.0. E U m � C f0 O O@ � O f6 C �
ri N �C V Q � � C � C � C � `
� +'C+ l6 � w .�' 7 N V 'fp p � N O C j � +-� .
`� C �, �p • VJ � � `�- U -� ' 'D 'O :_. O 'O @ � C
C ,.. � � j � y@ � (0 C 7 N 7 7 (6 . � C V O
> ql � Q 0 � 3 :.. p L O O 7 C � � C ..
° y � .o � c Y � o � �- 3 3 � � 3 0 0
o .r .r � � � - c
m � � c m a � � a @ � � a�i m o m a� m � -o
U
X � � � 3 E � '° � c � o. �o o >; c .� Q- �� �° �
m3 � � o •� .N o � � � � d d � � ao n. 3
� .. � � w .. 3 E � c -o a 'o � v :«• �o ,'n�,' s
o -° � � o, c c° '�'i ° Q- c 'm o o a =' o � I o .c °o � � o
� o. mO o E �� v � N E a> > a a@ � aN nc� a s �
0 ._ 3 � • ,� � oa � v o �' o - o � o > E � �
a a � � � � � o a °o o a�i o a� °- �� n aai o, o. � a a� � o, �
£ L �. h m U �- 3 N N � m m u, C N «. N ._. � �j a
r � 3 •` � � �' � o � a` > 3 r £ � � � t �° � rs � rE
� .ca3 � c � m o a� � o � vo ~ :oo. �e�' ' a � �
C N � f� � •� 10 � V 1� y C 00 � C � V N N N M L C 7 C � f0 N
C� � C O N >. Ip a N {p � N <O .G � P N h N O h � � 1� N N �i E ..
�' N w N d' � � d' N � a N OTI � t d' � d' � N V' � � � o �.
� v C U f6 � v � a V N Y O N 0 U V 9 V U p V U N tl O � � c �.
•� a �p f6 N � . lC Q � l0 � (6 N tn � f0 l0 <6 _ Q 16 _ VJ l0 � 7 W �
't .. O. .,,, O, i. J Q N -p d O. � C. 0. � Q. Q C C. > E � m
w � av�ic $, EQC Ec � EoLE Ea`�i � mo. £ mc°� £ ac'i � i�
� �
i � N
�
�,�`itit I N N
n
z,�. � Q o
U
W �
C
O
R
�
�+
�
�
d
�
Q
d
C�
C
lC
V
6=
�C
�
N
O
> (n
J J
m � N � �
-a � o � o o Y T 'o a� m y
� tA U ..+ — �
fp m L � � � p � � ... � C � O C � L
.. .Q C ' t9 'a � O f0 (6 7 .-�
a�i � �' ui �' ° o m �° ° � � o � N L o y ° _ `°�c � � •`-' �� ° � � � ai
.L+ � p 'O N 'O � � � � — � V y p � j C C y 7 � j m � y C � N � N � W �
`�- O L � N N N C t� O 0. L O ..�L' � � �N C •- � O' � .�-, y y � �- @ �- 7 r� Q tp
� O a- � Z C d O >` d � N U y O � C U N � � p N � N .. d C N T � 3 L 7 m y
y � N C :. f6 > �p C U d N C � N '. N C y Y ::. � L N X 'O w-
� � L � N � L � � j >. C O f6 V ..�+ N y L C 7 N �O � L E U 6 C � f6 .a C a C � O � .
' � L .+ f6 -� O Vl O Nf/� � (6 � 'O � � .L.. �" +r fp C a� C N U . � � � _ a T � � ..+
� N 3 '� �.. N ,p �i C C N. t/1 N � N U O 7 VJ �, N p « C Cc � L � � d � p � O �
a ..'�_"-' 7. L � f6 N y C7 � f6 C C � � 7 f6 � U �t/1 'O ..�+ � 'O � U S O N U) � C N � `� � � � N
W y O. .. (n .� y N O C `� U 7 a � 'O U �- C �C � d ._ 0 d .-, � >, � C p fp � y p tn
� � O O � � C 6 � � �. � �'n � � � L C � � � � V C � � Q 0 � 0 � � O Y � � ' � �
Z N U 'a � t6 � � y ' � C p m y O � f6 :«, N � N (p �-• y w, C U N � N p N Q �
� � �py C � ��� — � 'a+ YOUtl1 � 'd' pjf6 C ... fn � N OC � y > 2 � . C > � � �
� . N = ;... Q_ C l6 C � C � O V � O. f0 � N t � O 'O � t/1 �O L .L-� Q- U N � Q y y Q C _ T _
�— 1 'C y E � N �i � O L O G. M ""' d � C � "' O C .O f6 � O � "' ""' � � d U Cp p. E N ti '� .
Q ' .r U N fl' � N � U O !ir m �
� � a� � m � 3 a"i a�i ti ° `� c � ac°� .f°c o � o c ai � N � . a� � � ., �
C9 o a -oa� � L a � o no � � m = o � Ea� � o °cc � . E �' > : �' � s a`�'i
o _ E rm m � .. = ui u� w- � `s, o � m o
r � > �7 C rJ � !L� � •� V � C � � w f0 � T C LT f6 �' �. � � � @ N E 'O � 7 O L N � �
W � ° c y � C > 'o � w v�i ° a� � � � � '�° � °D '�° �° � c � °� a�°i � � .`-_° � � � Y a � x w � � � W
W Z � � � oa a� c � a�i °c a� .� � � � � o � � y � ow `�° `�,u � ° N cxi � a�i m '� � u�i a�oi � E 'm E �
afn � � � v � � � � a� � a�°i : o o � a £ w a�i n oi a � �° E io 'a o a � '`' N N c > o> 0 3� 'o c v°�i n o
� ~ w � c ` o � % " o 'i -o ~ � � � c°� � � � @ � c .fl � E E ~ � @ c � � � � v fl' p_ N °- � � o
C) � id N T >, o � a � o � $ � o � o 0 o i,iw c@ � � c °� �n ,o >. � o o. � t
�- N O LL' O- l6 C � � � � r- N — C t/J N — V �.. U U a- w O ..+ L £ . � � ..+
G' �L � U � T C � V N -� tl) N � � w t O. G. N .0 O t N .,�_, a ."�-" U OO C C N y N N y � N '� E � U �O p
� C a ,� f0 f6 w- '� > � T f6 � d w, y 7 � T f6 :.. W � U O tn f6 tF O O E 7 > '� •' 3 �j O � C tn
1L � 3c oc ° a� Q3 -oE � u°�i � � � m °' Q- � rnEca�i ° v ` > > ' �on � � a = �a�i � °� w � Y
� � m c o E �` S't a ° �o m E °rn '_ L E o. •'-' a� o � � c � .� : v t � � .c E •c � = c � c�
� rn � � U � o. 0 a� m mt m � o a t� � .. � m � <4 a � m Q m � c c W w ._ v �n a o 3 � o o �
Q � � m • � a � • • • � c°� c°> • •
�
� L
= L fA
� +� T C
�S� � O
C "'
� .��, U
N •� �
'V �
O
. N ..�+ "y � ..
N C �
� � U
� C �
+.+ � N
'`! >. >
w� �F �� Y
f6 L C �
'O � � C
(`0 e�. � m
m � C y �
T
f0 3 � � a�i
N " S
� � C w a o
c
� �' /O� @ � N �
ay.�n LL (/� � �
N � � � n �
� C L > 'p 'j a .
Y U o � o E �
c - � •. N3 �
z, d ooa�i � v . � �
E e +'d'+ o- a� °' `-° Q
N �c '
E � V � lC � 7 c
' '> o. > � N o W
� �
N W £ 'O C H U iLL �.
z � �
� . ;
e : ' :, '' o N
� � �� ' � � ' I � N $
i i
I a
N W O
C
O
::�
<0
01
i=i
�
d
a �
�
�
�
w
'�
m
�
w
0
> cn cn tn tn tn tn tn cn u�
J J J J J J J J J J
N � _ �
N
� � � N C N t «
N N .i� `� O � tn 07
� i:. � C
V � f0 � � � i/1 7
(n N j N � t� O X C 'O
N r-� _ C C O p T
� L N V � ..�, y '� U C
7 L � L fp �p E � �
� � 3 � `�' o -o o : �
� v .n � ay � c c°i
W Q °�,' � w � � pg oE
�
� � � N � � � � � � a
Z a� a mf0ui � � a? � °o
� 3 f6 � N � N y � N f�
F � y � :� .0 N � �" C '0
a � � N N 'L-' ..�i N C � .
m N y N
�` 'a O N 0. l�0 � y O C � � � c-
r r O � •O � a � � (� O .� � f �.
Wp oa ooa��i@a �°nrn m •° W
.. ... c •= �
JZ t� E � � � � a � .� ,� �
ma N � � w � YLc �'= � oa�i
Qy ;? � .L c � .'3 � o °. a�
~ V t3n m � � � � o � mN an
a�
a � � w � oo = � o Ny -� � � � � � � �
� � � � V � C .� .� 00 j N � � � d d d N
� C f6 N C � C � O j N tF O 'j 'j 'j 'j 'j 'j 'j '� �
O 'O .0 O N N U V1 N L Q Q O' O' Q' 6 Q' O"
� 1L �+ 7 � ..N. O C f6 ±" O � 7 N N N � N d N N N - �.
� a� c� o � .� m a 3 Z a H � m a� a� d a� a� a� a�
;,,, � �, c c c c c c c �
Q r2 • • L� � Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z
� � y
� 7 � •L-' N N .+ � C T ,., � .
= V N O ?i L L 3 • p +-� C �
.-� .-� ...
� � 3 3 0 � � .°�� ui o m � ° U � � :�
� -o i � :a � = c� o o c a� c � w. m -
° m °' � c 'w o', 'Z aO �' Oy3 '� °_�p' o> `' c�o
N N O.. C � � � .-. N O y '0 d .L.. � f0 U «. .-�. N �..
r 'n ta� c°iw � � c � � � m � cc' axi .c � 33
'- c „= � c f6 a �o y o, � = � L o a� � Q �° a? y
�� m o �n w. > > N � rn x > > � � :roo � � �nN
� �? � o � E o � om w .. � c � mac �n o � @
a� a� ofl- � � 3 = 3 m � ' o0 0 � 3 3 ;
� o .r m axi ° � � �� F'i m @ c � w o a� « � v � a�°i 3
'o � @ � y a � a� w a� -o E a� -O � m a> a .��. � � a� a�
ai .Q ,4-_�- o �� t � ° � ° m �6 � � � � .o � CC �o � c
� .... N n. • a � � oo � m � oom a` >, axio
,n `° rn � c w �' � o. � ` � `c3 o °' a3aa� a� a oc
a� c •�n '3 'y •; o � .o w � w � rn � � �>, o °� m � � c .°_ ,
im >. �ow -ac o � om oc � �ootcw � oy a �
i w m � a� w �-° � � � � � � o °� � a � _ � a� o '`' �n �
co a� � � i� f6 o a`�i ° m ° m ° w � 3 � `�,-° °� '� °' ° m 3 c �' Q
ma_�i °3 N � o3m :°. i� « 2� :°. v' � cm ` � � :°. 3 � � _ ao
�i N �. �. U ❑
C1 'w�- N a � � (0 N U � V � V � fp G 'o a a U O +_-� � V- p � w w � ..
c- � 'oa ° w a� E � a�i i. a�i i+ a�i � m a °o o'i m � � � c a v� c X �
£ nc '� � � ooN °- a °- a �- c � L � m � �= E? �- � ,� � u wE
� O � � I- ' Z a� o � � � � E •- .- oLa ._ - .-: E E � • � _
� o in � � o o T c � .fl .. � o '� � a� E" o � m m
� N � 3 �? � � a � � 3 e� 3 e? � � LL ° ww � -o o E
�' rn � .. '� � �? w '� � �
� � � f0 � .. N � l4 f6 � C � C Of � N O� N y V C C p W t W - N C r c
C � N �. et > >, �d' U � d' � a � �j a C L � C y V O O = d' N e� � O m_ o .
a+ y a+ �p �+ O N a+ O o+ O a+ ._ .,,, w m O :�+ « � ++ y ++ y �c 'j
o c� E c� y 3 c� - ;g c� 4- u �- � v v c � m m c c� cf � � c
•` m � '- <C � ta � N io v ta �o =' t6 �° $ tE :a = �° a� a� u> �v y co •`- � w
> a � N a .r � a � c aa� am •� a � ,,., ati - � � � a � o, � �
W Ec � E � o Eoc°� . Ec Ec ,�a � 3 °c Eaxi ',�° 3 � a��i � Ec Ea��iaXi � i�
�
� o
. r .�il '� . . '
O N
� . r�-,....< ;
� �
. a�'w"..':}:j ', � n
� -. _� � a V
' «. W O
C
O
::�
10
C1
i=�
�
d
a
�
�
�
�
w
'�
�
�
0
J J J J � J CA . J
C 'O N O � .+ _ �
C 'O � N C
++ v- � f6 7 �p C .t,. � N 4� f0 L � +L" U . �.
O �' � '� f6 C O � O y y � w m y � . � � Q +-' y
�. V w CD p •- � �p C N C C }, � C �p N N C
N
W = `_' o � °' � f6 m � � p� c a � ? � @ � � o � � � a �
R' vi ° :. m � w E 'C � -o Q ° c o o ncLi � a � � w >, � a�
� •`-' w � �- � a�i f6 ° »- � a 16 '� a� � °� � a � 0 3 �- m �
a m � �' " ~ � m m � E a�°i a�i � v � mw rna� ° �«°� 9 °' o 00 v
o- E c m m o � � � � a � � c � �- - Qw � �° :o
� °c' mc°� ° a m ;° Y ~ �- � � ,-n5 ° � oca � ayoc m � o
:.
Z °' � m � °' Q � ' � cQrnm � Lawo yrno- n -o v�i <° �
O � � � � o � � o � a� ' 4af6i axi � Ha � `° c .,�� y a14i °o � aa
� L � y N o � a �, e� w. . w; � •- c m ,v_, � m � �
~ p y w p- N L � � � � C � @ N a � @ O .� V � j � C V � C
� � cm � m ~ � U �° a�°i � '� � yf0 � � �Sm a � a�ic� Q a@ �
r H � O � ` '� 0' O � � C U � � � L j O S .-. Q .'C.. L � � Q .r � cN-
� `C a� a > E � �, '� yU :° � " ° .: -o m � o ~ � � � N Q '
Wp `� on � °� � m -6 °' oc�i cto � � E � .,''-�--_, � oo .` p� T 'o � � W
c .. •� a v �
�o � v ,L � .a � -o � a> m c� � o"_ � c c n. � � �° d .�c
J a N p � .� O C � 3 C '� � � y � � � � 'L � -�p 'V) N U � U C N O =
� �.N., � a` oc .3c � � � a > o � ° o � ` � o � � � � � aE � � ~ Qv��i
N � c � iuoQ c � '° � Q- �' co. .o "r - mE id � N � w. �c a c
V � N n. � L 'O � � � @ Vl � f0 p y � y M � C O -�p = M 00
Ga. � m m � � ° .mc � 3 � 'o ° � m � °' :ctcNU��i � � � a ° w � w@ ° ° a n
vv� w � a > � a> � .. .. a� � c .roy � 'd' a� o ° L` � c
� o Q a� a � ` coc $ � � ° aEo � cEa� >, �. '� m � � w � v �° U yc� °�
0 Of N N N N fp V L U � O w � p � � N N � m � � � N N "�O '00 L N w N C �
�' = O O O O d n Y d dj fn N L fl- Q _ p Q �- N � L � ,C Q- d � N 'Cp p C � 'O O'
Q � Z Z Z Z � m � � � � � I- Q � � 2m � 00. !� u� � w � � a � ca0m � O �
� �
' U O
� � "' j, `
(/� -p @ � � � f`6 � �' � L U O
O V V C V �.` y C � m N � � f�j . .
w N � X � p. C (�p U C N � � a+ = C
w � y V T � ,V � 4" y 'D (6 V � f6
� U � O � � '_ > ... C � � �(p � C �p E
� ;N C C > N «. V � 7 «. > p .. O .
'� � N 'a ' .�+ N U C N W p� � U V 't .
�' +-' ' f6 =� N . .p C 'O C N -p ' N
N n- ..@. � ,� �7 :«. O � f0 � f� .,�_, � j O'
� L � 3 � � � d Ow O � -p O �, L �,
T " mai �'im � ca� 3 �n 3La� 3m .-
am � N a� 3 m � � � a`�i � c °�' � EN
am � 3 'oc a� w � a� — a� • x o� `° m
Z o � . @ � :. o � o � � o � �
dE � :� c � EZa�i p � o- � � a � a"i
aNio3v°i y � � ou�ia .L�. � .L�. N3 .L°�. `� m
� U T � C � � C U O w- • r- V- � N
'O f60 E ,0 .X �` N '� .� > C V1 � ,C Y O � �
= U � LL Q w 0 �. � � I— � � � . � � L � a°i
� U � � � @ N � U O > C T C N O7 C a ° a r .
..' a� Q 'oN E � ° a� o � a� � a� � � ° ` = O
� o � �o « n o :. 3 � � �+ � ° �
� � m3o � � > > � -o � � � � cui � '� �
c� 3 E a � � � � a_� � u� _ m �
a � w
� � � � m � � y � � � no n .. Q ao. :=. - °- �
.c � m � r c .cc � E � Eiorn � y •� � � E
h � . rn H '� 0 1- o t . . � :r c m ,� m
� � � jp � � U U .-. - � � N � N ._.
eo °� '� �
c i� a� o .a 6oNZ, oim3 0 0 .,, • � � � c � � _
x o = m �
z, d m no. � � m m o» � r- o � Q � c � o .� N 3 E
m � v -- y@ vmy v � :: �t �! c � ef °- v •�- _ �
E C �+ C 'O N w m N �+ N f6 �+ y �+ � N Q
'a O
� � tl � � w�„ V C U tl 'O 'V C1 � C1 � L p� fy.1 � '�O j c �.
� . lE U .+ 7 10 :.+ N R �N O R � � N U f0 t6 Q N � w W �
� > . O. � N .. C. m c C C y O. 7 O. � '_ � � � O. O �- N ° —
N W � N �i ��/1 � N 3 � U f6 � > £ � 3 N E f0 O N U LL.
z � �
�
E rn N
E ' N d
� n
� a U
N W O
C
O
'w
16
�
a+
. �L
d
Q
d
V
C
V
w
�C
�
N .
O
d
d
J
�"' y
N N .D ..N. f0 -p � � p C M � �N, � �
p f0 N � y 'C C ,� 'a '_' N :p N � N p +r � .
� n. C � a � T � tn � � 7 . O N 'L" U v� � V '� N � N
(,�j U N � '0 t N O � �- � 7 N f6 � �p L C 0. C C N p, � ..�.� � f0 y 'O
� � C C «� N i. O � p N N y .. C r. . � � y a+ � O tp �-' 3 C p
fn o. o c � m � m °' � "�' °' � 3 y m � m � .c «. • a> oQ o. c � a� E
W ya � Z' c a� m ¢ m °? -° � a> > 3 : c a� !-° � �' � .«. c a� rn .o .? vi a�
� 6I f� � p� •+ y,,, U y � U t '� Y . L t Y
� Y p � E � N f6 � N V N U -� C N � � � � � y C '� N C � O (q V � U
N � � � aa NEa� o :a cocc� .o o, on. ,,, m rn • 33 N >, E �
`Q aNaN � E .� NoQ � = ,� � � � � E �, m � c ac � ao � 3 ww
I� 'O _ .+ N l6 O N N N - (� C O N 3 O •- N N N N . y C
� N f0 U � 'C (6 U L �") N `_ t� � � 'ri" �p N � V � C "" N ,> 01 C N
� N � O. L � +� 'O L t6 O ,FO 7 � t � .. � f6 +-' ,�,,, L � � � O
Z �J C .O y O y O C "" � a-' 'O O '- N L O N N U � p� f0 � 'O C +' C
� f0 .- L "" � � � O C U +N-' O O (n U .. w �. L N w N '0 � "r Y � O� N �p
O V �p O .�.+ � V f0 Q N .� C L ,� � y f�0 C .L,,, U �S � � � C N fl. � � � l6 N «+ C 7
O '- ++ £ N f6 ' ' y � ' u' Q- U 9
. � N � t�/1 O N C Q �CN, � Q' � � dl N >' C N -p O C QQ. p � C w -� O L > C L � � p U � -
� N N C O N N � � .�-. � � :«+ C (0 ++ O 'O O .+ .. fd � C L
e� F Y C V N � :- Q Q � m E O.. � N �' N C � N U a N � � C � � � � N � � d � � . r
, m � � w- � m a� co m � � mv � � 3 a � o ,
� � � E N ^ � � N U � E C a �. � R{ = V N O N N Q T � � N � � V � � � «7 � L t�/1 y V)
W � � a� � � o � 'o � � m � wyE � o -oc � °? ° °o3a? �° N cm � � � � a�i wrn -�o � W
WZ >, � a� � � aa � >, c � 3 � a ma� � �noc a � � � � o � a� E � a"i ° mo a �
mQ y V « "i '�-.�- N � t O. V N .0 Q ;C - O l6 � 2 f0 L L '.C-_• 0 0 Vj L � � O � ;=� � fl. �Q. fp N �1 � .
d � r f0 Y p. � .fl N � 3 f6 ++ ..+ f- L C f0 N N N U t - � N ""' C
� F� 7 �n � L O f6 N y - � � O C O � N � N O N .� f6 N tq Y O '0 � @ ip .t. O C 7 Y
(� N N N u) � � Cf � - N N pj O U ., .. 'O � .. N � Q. C � `�- ui V •- O'
a � fl- N t6 � T N � � N � � � 7 'O '�O Q d L � w +r C f6 9 'O C N ;� N � C C � m N � C N 'a
� f� O C U N O U �p N O � . ..+ N V U � N 7 � Y .6 t� L f6 O N p) .0 U Q p N �
p� O £ � T O �^ F�.+ d C N ..�. 7 �� N � �. �O N 'C C N C � C L ,C Q' � � � 7 C l4 N � � .@-• C O O. �.
� m � o " ��'^, � v�i •3w � m° � Hina o`. U �v�iw � c°� H �3 � rna�i � 5 3m o. E axi � a�i � `��° a` axi
� � ° m � m ° p � o `� . • � o `� 0 � � • • • •
Q c � a� � a � � w � � w 3 ma c
�
�
�
U
. N
O
a` �
++ o a
IV6 � �
a a �
E W a
_ � E
� E �°
d � d
� � �
C 10 °
O " �
`' � w
C Z' c
W ULL
.., '_�
� �
� °
t N
I �8}:t;i 'i'ir� N N
� n
Q �
w O
C
O
«�
�0
C1
i=�
�
d
Q
V
C
v
4=
�C
�
N
O
J !n (n J J
p� w.
� (6 N �p ,� N C N
V � N 'C p� L d �, .0 .Y C «. N � w � C (0
a� B � � v .. � -o � � � a> °- Em � ° o �-° � �_' c �n
�O � ,C .@. �" � � N y C � �"�- E � � L N O O y C � � N N N
aV � QN- QOQ c � mwc .c ° > Q m � <° .cn � � N3 c � �° o ''
N N O U � C � N � E N � � C�.. � O t 0. Y O � � N N � '-' � N 4-�-_. �- y�-_, -
{�J ��.+ " p f0 N O Q �p pc�) p O 'O C�p N � O' � p> E O C tn N '` r. N �. N `� � (6 ff3
� w y 'd O � t Q 'O C «. .r � U � � � Q C y � V .L.. � 0 O f6 E �' C O' O O
� E � � � a� � a� m �' rna�i � � aoa�°iy a'i � V cN � � � � �w � '� m � m
Q � � '°� •°- m t� w a�°i a=i a�i -�a •°-' � m c w v a� a> � � >. m � � � a '� � Z �
W °' mc°� cmoc c � m ' occ u�ia�ia � i � � > mm �' QnE m c3iwu�iL
� � �. d V H `' � w � � �- N f6 � E N N O 3p •` O m � � � . C y N O 7 p ..
O � `m c � m (� a � e � N � � � a � � E = a�i E � ww c � .f6c � -�'o ° � � �
� � Nm@ci � ? .� � � :c °c �o p � � a� a � a �a� N (pC � °a � � - � awo
o _ y � � � � � � m .� � � « � rn � � � m m � n � �+ a m � �na
� C7 U G N � � � N . � °� � w0 t � � L +' �p O O O O E � w � � � N � C N O V T
� o • � 4 3 � y E = 3 c u� a � or � .a E _
� F- coEov � � � � � � �i � @y � .�: a� � v� � oo � " •- m rn � > � � � �
� o � a a� y V � co � c a� op '- a� u� � `- � a� �° �° c � �. a �
� �L N a O E .Q � N ..+ y C 7 L L]' "' p �' C ryl � 0 � m �. E C y 7 'p V � f6 M �
. W � � p Q '- l9 f0 f0 m C L O � tn E N � � � � @ � � � C f6 � � � f�6 O O � +' C W
p �. 'a I-� � � C N l6 U � � � p N ;:, N I- 'O .,•-_• . Q f6 �p f0 C 'O Z' U
Ja � °� £ � cro � ° EYa� m � � � o ° .r4Ec � aEa'io � v5 � �° � 'a' � a' �
m � ov � � c � o0 o ,F � S � "" aQno � L �c �a � � Q : s � = � ra � � o �
� � � d o � t o c � ` o- � c c � � � rn ° p � "= o � a� � °� m ~ ` Y -u � � � � c� ..
y � cc� r �u � o �' c(p ,� � !n c w, >, o ,� cE � cc� � � � � •- o .. = :°
U � Y �' � � � 'O :=' .-: � U U „"' � f0 � � � @ C C y w �c� ,d N Q. N O 'O U � f0 «+ C t .fl -
a � O L = Qj ..�.. > N O L L C � f6 V � O � 3 � 7 N � 7 C f0 � fp � C y� C � � � � @ N �
. � �- ti' U1 +. p� y N .O +-� .-� N U N � V' n. y 4- � .. N T G- '6 y � > N w. � '> 'd' r.. N N . m
� {l, N � C w N CO p � '�O y C N@ ,L,,, � -O � C N � � N C C £ � N �L,,, � E � 'y Q d p_ C 'NO p �V
Q � y U ,C ` �c"�-p m �. 7 N N � � > C > N �3 0 � � N 7�-� � w ;o N � � O � C � N � V = � N
'O 7 M � � C f6 N � Q C
} :,+ d af0 � c � � ° 3 c. o. a� o �° m � aoa � o. c � Qcv � ��n na� c 10 �
n, .x .. omm � oQ .c � � c da •� co o � ovc � E o m -o
Q � � m � � � a � o = m � l- m .� � Emnmb � � �+ U � m � .r � � � z � � •-
� ° � n Z �0
� N �' VYM �
... f6 f0 U O L@ �
� C � NN w T �
NN � C � N Cw = f0 'O
(n •� C 'O O 3 E 7
U N 1] � = C 'y +-' � ""' O
c o y � � ' u, � a� y 3
a �- �o °� 6 w �E c � 'o �
3 U 3 y U N � V � d G.
� ;C = O O
9 �
i i f0 3 rn C� --' " N .�?
N '�.�_+ . N TO � � N N Q �
.O � .O � � O � � Q O
Q. � d N � N N O 'O Q' N
a� E a� � md c � @ a� •�
wc�i � f0a� a � '> � � �
� ,� N -om rnco ,� o,
o � oL � @ �o � w, oN
� c C � � � L f0 C � u
O > O � � f0 V w, 7 O �, �
. � N � � C L U O � � N o
C �` C N N .+ C � �- C
V � � � � � N � � T � U . C K
a N@ N f6 V N �- Q' U N N +-% �p
� �. O C. e�+ � V N � = � O. �- � �- m .
E £ �a � � a °� � H c °. E .�.i ,4�-. � E
a y �- � o o . . � � . . � �o
. � o@ ow � �° a r •� m � °' p� E � �
o' N E � E
Z` � � O � O_ N U p � OI N V1 � �, T ,� c
� C « N Y N � � U � t� � p � � � � y L
0 f.1 � V N x � U C1 � � ' C1 N ::• 7 c
� � a � a � °� a � � � • N � � � o W
u� a � a •- a > .,.,, �
�i w E � Ec ,L,f6, ma � rma�i � ma � i�
� � �
� 0�1 N
� � N �N
fn Q O
N �
W O
L
O
::�
l6
�
ir
�
�
d
Q
N
t>
C
v
'w.
C
C1
N
O
J J J J
'O .o O C f6 '0 .-: � � ` O � .
� j M � � N C L�L w 7 a � � C C � +�-� � . .
N 0 C � �'= C � � � � � � � � � � N � N .N.
� p� L � � f0 � TN �' C N C C N ..>-. •°ca E .. U
� w .. U E a� .- a� ' E o -o � a� a� -c a� m
° - � a> > a� � � � � a�`im "= c�'oN cQ' m � '� E
N � � o '° o w .°o y r C7 a� � a � f0 �a� o = c� o :.
� C > ONN ,O@ Oy � �00C � > y ` � � ,� >
� o � w � a� �n � a�'itU ` y � Nyw � � �
� � � � .� m � v ; � u� tL °' c m �6C� a� c � .. o a
W .�c °- ca� Naa c � 'u. � c ° � cp wc°� = .cEo
� � 7 fl. "' T y C U N � "S' � C d N C .L-. L y � � U
� „�_, N N � ::. � � C > m p y C '"' '0 O � LL'
Z O � N N Z � y fl- N N wN, C V L � ..@. N C N � a � �
. O 0 O �. Z , y � C N@ E f6 � .-�_• � ,L., y � '� � � f6 �
Q @ "_ -o y N y " rna� a .° o ,o � ° ° �° -° � �' E �
(7 N ° �, om � � c � mOEC � rn ��°- � � �" � y �
..
� F- � a�i f0 '� w .r m � .a O c°� � Y '_ .o a�'i 'o. -o a� a� � �
N � Eo -�o ..L'. � � -a �° � c �� � � 3 'c •'= � c�i � c�i > � fn
W � � iOmo � cm .c � � ° v� �°- o. o ° � c °c � o � c°� W
JZ •g � N � � mLm ° w �m 'rn °> �' c � Q o � cm � ,
a y O .L. N � �- `p tn �C N 0o U O f0 N N � N v !� N � � T �
Q � � �i 3 �� �- L � .� w N � L � N � � L �+ .�-� .,�„ 0 .0 � � � .
F" U y � C �j L I- £ O � C � T .� C � C � 9 C � N O � � C � ,
Q G1 � � � � f0 � � � N � w e�+ +.�+ � n "�" U ,C � � y� N (p 'O 'O 'O '�.
a � � N � � T � � U �? � -o ' m mt v� � a� - E co > a� a� a�
� e am � � m 'c � a� v � > > a `o_ �' � a a «-°. � o � m � � �
w
0 7 :� � y ? � Q « � y o o� o o � To y � L � � � � a. o. o-
u. « .- >. a� -o a a� a a .. o. r .. .. .- :� a� m a�
� �o m � � m � � � c ,� o ar aa �n m a _ o � a� r �+ � � � �
rn " m �o �o � io 0 m _ 3 �o H m �o a> -o m a ,� v .. �o m a� a� a>
} «�
Q � N M z° z° z°
� N
� � C O C j
� '� C 'O O ���
j O j �
3 m 3 a�i 3 ��p
� .'C�, U 0 � U U -
N y N p. V N p� �
.O N O � � O O
Q, � p, L C p. �
... � �
N e" N � N � �
C
f0
O 0- O U w O Q
. fl. � fl. � N �. �
N N N C N N '-
� O ~ O � y O N . .
�
C N C O (d C 7
O � O y p. O � � �..
. � � @ N � � 7 0 .
.-�
a` r
a�i � a�io ;= a�ic o $
� Ea� Efl- H E � � �
a� a� — a� —
� nm ao y ac ,�°ca
E E E — � E rn "' s
_ O _ T � _ y .0 - .
C ' N p �i N y � � E � �.
N N
. N � O � � � � r � . � c ,
c m � m v � � o
o � E � � � � � .n Y >
� �
'> p, ` c p, C ° p, C o � �.
W � rt-� �� E U � � U �j iy
.�o���'. ����r��::��t ��
Kim Jordan
From : Miriam Montesinos [mmontesinos@sheppardmullin . com ]
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 11 :43 AM
To: Kim Jordan
Cc: Stanley P. Iverson PE (siverson@tait. com ) ; Jon Romaguera (jromaguera@tait. com )
Subject: RE : Information
Follow Up Flag : Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hi Kim
Responses below. Let us know if you have follow up questions or need additional information .
Do we know if the existing plants/trees and proposed plants/trees are the appropriate species for the areas
proposed as swales and/or for water treatment?
YES, THE PLANT MATERIALS ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN ARE APPROPRIATE. (OUR LANDSCAPE PLANS
INDICATE A " BERKELEY SEDGE, " WHICH IS APPROPRIATE ALONG WITH A RUSH GRASS . ) NO EXISTING TREES
OR PROPOSED TREES ARE LOCATED IN THE BIORETENTION AREA; WE MODIFIED THE BIORETENTION
CONFIGURATION TO AVOID THE TREES.
As we discussed on the phone, I would like to request some additional information regarding the proposed
modifications to the new parking spaces along Airport Park Boulevard and Commerce Drive, as well as the access lane
around the rear of the building. These areas are now proposed to be Grasspave . In order for the parking spaces to
function and be used as parking spaces, they would need to be delineated in some way and identified as parking so that
people will actually use them . This is especially important since all of these parking spaces are needed in order to
provide the minimum number of parking spaces required by the City Code . Please provide information on how the
parking space could be delineated and identified as parking, how they would be maintained as grass and parking, etc.
THE GRASS TURF AREA WILL BE SEPARATED FROM THE ADJACENT LANDSCAPED AREA ALONG COMMERCE
AND AIRPORT BY A CURB, MAKING IT CLEAR THAT IT IS A SEPARATE AREA. EACH INDIVIDUAL PARKING
STALL WILL BE DELINEATED WITH BRICKS ( I . E . , BRIGKS WILL BE USED INSTEAD OF PAINTED STRIPING ) ,
FURTHER IDENTIFYING IT AS A SEPARATE AREA INTENDED TO BE USED FOR PARKING .
THE GRASS TURF WILL BE IRRIGATED VIA IRRIGATION THAT WILL TIE INTO THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM FOR
THE ADJACENT LANDSCAPED AREA. IT WILL BE MOWED ON A REGULAR BASIS, AND THE BRICKS WILL BE
KEPT CLEAR OF GROWTH TO REMAIN VISIBLE .
I also discussed the material with the Fire Marshal . He is fine with the material but needs to make sure that the fire
access lane is delineated in some manner and that the material and delineation are both maintained .
THE SIDES OF THE FIRE ACCESS LANE WILL BE DELINATED WITH SHRUBS , AS SHOWN ON THE LANDSCAPE
PLAN .
AS WITH THE GRASS TURF AREA IN THE PARKING SPACES , THIS AREA WILL BE IRRIGATED VIA IRRIGATION
THAT WILL TIE INTO THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM FOR THE ADJACENT LANDSCAPED AREA. IT WILL BE MOWED
ON A REGULAR BASIS, AND THE SHRUBS WILL BE MAINTAINED TO ENSURE DELINEATION .
Thank you ,
Miriam
Circular 230 Notice: In accordance with Treasury Regulations we notify you that any tax advice given herein
(or in any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the
purpose of (i) avoiding tax penalties or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any
transaction or matter addressed herein (or in any attachments) .
1
Attention: This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If
you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any
attachments.
2
����;���; ��°j�f°�t ,� ,� �
Kim Jordan
From : Deborah Herron [Deborah . HerronQwal-mart.com ]
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 2: 09 PM
To: Kim Jordan
Cc: Miriam Montesinos; Alexis Smith - Barbary Coast Consulting
Subject: For Ukiah Planning Commissioners
Follow Up Flag : Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Kim :
Please distribute to the planning commissioners to notify them that I am unable to attend the
hearing on March 14 . Also , note that I have left voicemails for both Commissioners Doble and
Whetzel to connect with them about specific questions asked previously , although I understand
�that they tend to not have one - on - one conversations , I wanted to make the best effort to be
responsive .
Commissioners :
In advance of next week ' s hearing I wanted to alert you that a hearing in another
jurisdiction , that requires my presence to make a presentation , is scheduled for the same
evening . Unfortunately , this means that I will be unable to be in Ukiah on March 14 .
Understanding that there may remain one or two issues the Commission wishes to hear more
about , if it pleases the Commission , I am happy to make myself available for a phone
conference ahead of time . Or please advise if there is another means to ensure that all
information needed from Walmart is obtained prior to the hearing .
Best and appreciate your time ,
Deborah
Deborah Herron
Walmart Senior Manager
Public Affairs & Government Relations
Northern California , Utah and Idaho
( 415 ) 444 - 6096 �
Deborah . herron(�wal - mart . com
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the
individual or entity to whom they are addressed . If you have received this email in error
destroy it immediately .
* * * Walmart Confidential * * *
i
d°°aa'iCd$�� 3 'i�"'I��C'9'� ; � ��.._.... ,
Kim Jordan
From : David Willoughby
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 2 :44 PM
To: Kim Jordan
Subject: Walmart
Hi Kim,
After reviewing the Walmart site plan dated 10-28-11 I believe it meets general intentions of the 2010 California Building
Code and the 2010 DAD Standards for Accessible Design requirements for an accessible route from site arrival points.
The plan shows 3 accessible routes to the store entrances; two from Airport Park Blvd and one from Commerce Dr. Site
arrival points include public transportation stops, accessible parking spaces, accessible passenger loading zones, and
public streets and sidewalks. State and Federal law both require an accessible path of travel from site arrival points.
Details are not included with these plans, but when a building permit is applied for all accessibility requirements will
need to be met including an accessible path of travel from one side of the public sidewalk through the driveway
approach and to the other side . The site plan does not show this, nor does is show the required way finding signage, but
it will be a requirement included in the construction documents.
I hope this addresses your concerns .
Sincerely,
David
DAVID WILLOUGHBY� BUILDINCz OFFICIAL
�� ��tX�t•
Office 707-467-5718
Fax 707-463-6204
dwilloughbyQcityofukiah.com
1
e�',s�(;c("; n�#'�'i.'.:�:��� 7�` �
`_"""_'-•.—°----------
City of Ukiah Walmart Expansion Report
Final Environmental Impact Report Errata
Revised Table 4. 12-2
Existing Tree Resources
Number
Species Existing Trees Removed Number Retained
Cedrus deodara 22 3 19
_ . _ . . . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _
Fraxinus v. `Raywood' 18 3 15
_ _ _ _ _. . _ . _ _ _ _
Lagerstromeria 10 10 0
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Liquidamber 3 3 0
_ _ ._ _
O/ea 'Swan HiIP 50 50 0
Pinus nigra _ . 26 2 _ 24 _
_ _ _ . _. _ . _ __ . _ . _. . _ _ . ._ . _ . _
Pistachia chinensis 44 19 25
_ _ _ . .. __ _ . _ _ _ . . _ . . _ _
Prunus c. `Krauter Vesuvius' 28 14 14
_ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ . _ _
Quercus coccinea 14 2 12
. _ _ .. . _ _ . - __. _.. __ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ __
Quercus lobata 6 0 6
_ _ , _- - _ . _
Total 221 106 115
SOURCE: HLA Group, 2011 ; ESA, 2011
New Trees To Be Planted : 155
.j"�7; 1M1 't, ra.3�:,n �£ 147�SaA � 6 '.!)� �
6. Altematives
Hydrology and Water Quality
The No Project Alternative would not require construction activities that would be associated
with the proposed Project; therefore, water quality issues related to runoff during construction
would not occur. The amount of pervious surface would remain greater than the proposed Project.
Existing drainage conditions on the Project site would continue with this alternative. Therefore,
this alternative would have less impacts on hydrology and water quality compared to the Project.
Land Use and Planning - ,
The No Project Alternative assumes no change would occur on the site. The alternative would
have no impacts related to land use, plans, and policies. Therefore, this alternative would have
less impacts on land use and planning compared to the Project.
Noise
No construction or changes to the site would occur with the No Project Alternative. Therefore,
the noise environment would exist as it does today, and impacts related to construction and
operation noise would be avoided. Therefore, this alternative would have less impacts on noise
compared to the Project.
Public Services and Utilities
No construction or changes to the site would occur. Impacts to fire and police protection, water,
wastewater, recreation, and schools would be avoided. Therefore, this alternative would have
less impacts on public services and utilities compared to the Project.
Transportation and Traffic
No construction or changes to the site would occur with the No Project Alternative. All of the
study intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS) during both peak hours
(LOS D or better). Freeway segments north and south of Talmage Road would also operate at
acceptable LOS during both peak hours. However, the U. S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp at
Talmage Road currently has a maximum queue that extends beyond the available storage. Future
traffic conditions will also worsen in the No Project scenario at the intersections of U.S .
101 /Talmage and Talmage/Airport Park Blvd. Therefore, this alternative would have less impacts
on transportation and traffic compared to the Project.
6 .4 . 2 Reduced Project Size
The Reduced Project Size Alternative would expand the existing Walmart store by 24,495 square
feet, which would be approximately 50 percent less expansion area relative to the proposed Project.
The total square footage of the expanded store (excluding the outdoor garden center) would be
approximately 128,500 square feet� Under this alternative, all of the new square footage would be
dedicated to general merchandise and food sales. In addition, the store would extend its operating
hours to 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.
City of Ukiah Walmart Expansion Project 6-7 ESA / 209418
Draft Environmental Impact RepoR July 2011
6. Altematives
Table 6-1 presents a breakdown of the proposed floor area and the square footage under the
Reduced Project Size Alternative.
TABLE 6-1
PROPOSED PROJECT AND REDUCED PROJECT SIZE FLOOR PLAN
Reduced Project
Use Proposed Project Size Alternative Change
General Merchandise Sales Area 83,896 sq. ft. 73,050 sq. ft. (10,846) sq . ft.
_ _ _ .
Food Sales Area 27,408 sq. ft. 25,000 sq. ft. (2,408) sq. ft.
Stockroom Receiving Area 11 ,747 sq. ft. 11 ,747 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft.
_ _ _ _ _
Ancillary Area 20,271 sq. ft. 17,972 sq. ft. (2,299) sq. ft.
_ _ _
Tire and Lube Express 0 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
Food Sales Support Area 858 sq. ft. 720 sq. ft. (138) sq. ft.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
Indoor Garden Center 7,435 sq . ft. 0 sq. ft. (7,435) sq. ft.
__ _ _ . _ _ _ _
Building Total 151 ,615 sq. ft. 128,489 sq. ft. (23,126) sq. ft.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Outdoor Garden Center 5,036 sq. ft. 5,036 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Total Area 156,651 sq. ft. 133,525 sq. ft. (23,126) sq. ft.
Impacts
Aesthetics
The aesthetic impacts under the Reduced Project Size Alternative would be similar in nature to,
but somewhat diminished in degree from, those of the proposed Project. This alternative would
have a smaller building mass, making the views into and across the sight less obtrusive than the
proposed Project. Project light/glare impacts would still occur under this Alternative, although
they would be mitigated through lighting design. Therefore, this alternative would have slightly
less impacts on aesthetics compared to the Project.
Air Quality
Construction activities under this alternative would be similar to the proposed Project. Similarly,
operations would not result in significant emissions of pollutants under this alternative. Fewer
emissions from mobile sources would result due to fewer vehicle trips generated by the Reduced
Project Size store.
Impacts regarding exposure to carcinogenic substances (diesel particulate matter) and as well as
acute and chronic risks from exposure to non-carcinogens would be reduced under this
alternative. The Reduced Project Size Alternative would also reduce the Project impact regarding
exposure to PM2.5 concentration at the maximum exposed offsite worker.
Therefore, this alternative would have less impacts on air quality compared to the Project.
City of Ukiah Walmart Expansion Project 6-8 ESA / 209418
Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2011
6. Alternatives
Biological Resources
The impact to nesting/breeding habitats and special status species that would occur due to Project
construction activities would also occur under this alternative. Therefore, biological resources
impacts under the Reduced Project Size Alternative would be similar to the proposed project.
Climate Change
The Reduced Project Alternative would reduce the amount of greenhouse gases emitted as
compared to the proposed Project since a smaller footprint means less electricity. Also, less
vehicle trips would be generated by the alternative compared to the Project. The actual level of
reduction would depend on a combination of mitigation and sustainability features incorporated
into the building and site design in order to reduce energy consumption and associated
greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, this alternative would reduce GHG emissions as compared
to the proposed Project, and would remain less than significant for GHG emissions and climate
change.
Economics/Urban Decay
The Reduced Project Alternative would result in fewer sales relative to the proposed Project.
While sales impacts from this alternative and other potential cumulative developments may be
substantial enough to result in store closures in the market area, potential vacancies axe likely to
be backfilled or redeveloped within a reasonable timeframe. Therefore, this alternative would not
likely cause urban decay, resulting in similar impacts compared to the proposed Project.
Geology and Soils
This alternative would have similar construction impacts to the proposed Project as earthwork
actives (i.e., grading, excavation, and fill) would be similar in nature. However, the Reduced Project
Size Alternative could create less impervious surfaces that could result in erosion impacts if existing
landscaped areas are not developed. Therefore, this alternative would have less impacts on
geology and soils compared to the Project.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The Reduced Project Size Alternative would result in similar construction and operational
activities as the proposed Project. This alternative would also result in similar hazards through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, hazards and hazardous
materials impacts would be similar to the proposed Project. '
Hydrology and Water Quality
This alternative would result in a slight reduction in impervious surface area on the site.
Development of the Reduced Project Size Alternative would incorporate existing regulatory
standards, requirements, and best management practices (during construction and operations)
aimed at reducing untreated runoff, soil erosion, and potential flooding in particular. Standard
conditions identified to reduce the impacts to less than significant would applyto this alternative.
City of Ukiah Walmart Expansion Project 6-9 ESA / 209418
Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2011
6. Altematives
Overall, the smaller building footprint would result in slightly less hydrology and water quality
impacts than those identified for the proposed Project.
Land Use and Planning
The reduced size would be consistent with applicable plans and regulations of the City of Ukiah.
It would also be consistent with surrounding land uses and would not divide an established
community. This alternative would have similar land use impacts as compared to the proposed
project.
Noise
Construction activities under this alternative would be similar to the proposed Project and,
therefore, would have the potential to expose nearby sensitive receptors to excessive noise levels.
Operational noise impacts due to maintenance activities would also be similar to those by the
proposed Project. As with the proposed Project, traffic noise would be less than significant.
However, fewer vehicle trips generated by the Reduced Project Size Alternative would result in a
corresponding decrease in vehicular noise as compared to the proposed project. Therefore, this
alternative would have less impacts on noise compared to the Project.
Public Services and Utilities
Since the Reduced Project Size Alternative would develop the site with the same use, impacts
related to public services and utilities would be similar to the proposed Project. Due to the smaller
store size and reduced number of customers accessing the site, however, the public services and
utilities impacts associated with the proposed Project would be reduced under this alternative.
Transportation and Traffic
Trip generation has been calculated for this Alternative, as well as Alternative 3 ("No Footprint
Expansion"). As shown below in Table 6-2, average weekday traffic and weekday peak traffic
increases, but not to the extent of the proposed Project. Weekend traffic increases on a daily basis
but not to the extent of the proposed Project. Weekend peak (mid-day) hour traffic is reduced
compared to Proj'ect conditions. This is 'anticipated due the replacement of general merchandise
shopping trips wi`th grocery shopping trips, which are generally more dispersed throughout the
weekend shopping days. ;
TABLE 6-2
REDUCED PROJECT SIZE ALTERNATIVE TRIP GENERATION
Weekday Weekend
Alternative Daily a.m. peak p.m. peak Daily Weekend Peak
Project 2,335 151 200 2,603 110
Alternative 2 865 104 72 830 -46
City of Ukiah Walmart Expansion Project 6-10 ESA / 209418
Draft Environmental impact Report July 2011
6. Alternatives
While weekday peak hour trips would be reduced under this alternative, it would still contribute
trips to queues extending beyond available storage for the U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp at Talmage
Road. Under 2030 Conditions, the reduction in project trips as a result of a reduced store size under
this alternative would lessen impacts to LOS operations at the Talmage Road / Airport Park Boulevard
intersection and the Talmage Road / U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp intersection. Therefore, this
alternative would have less impacts on transportation and traffic compared to the Project.
6 .4 . 3 Grocery � Sales within Existing Store and Expanded
Hours ( " No Footprint Expansion ")
This alternative would add food sales to the existing Walmart store without expanding the
building footprint. Approximately 25,000 square feet would be dedicated to food sales and the
general merchandise sales floor axea would be reduced in comparison to the proposed Project.
The total square footage under this alternative would be identical to the existing store ( 104, 152
square feet) with 25 ,000 square feet dedicated to food sales and 48,713 square feet for general
merchandise. Only interior modifications to the existing store would occur under this scenario in
order to allow for grocery sales. In addition, the store would extend its operating hours to 24
hours per day, 7 days per week.
Table 6-3 presents a breakdown of proposed floor area and the square footage under the No
Footprint Expansion Alternative.
TABLE 6-3
PROPOSED PROJECT AND NO FOOTPRINT EXPANSION FLOOR PLAN
No Footprint
Expansion
Use Proposed Project Alternative Change
General Merchandise Sales Area 83,896 sq. ft. 48,713 sq . ft. (35, 183) sq. ft.
Food Sales Area 27,408 sq. ft. 25,000 sq . ft. (2,408) sq. ft:
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Stockroom Receiving Area 11 ,747 sq. ft. 11 ,747 sq . ft. 0 sq. ft.
. _ _ _ _ _
Ancillary Area 20,271 sq. ft. 12,819 sq. ft. (7,452) sq. ft.
_ _ _ _ _
Tire and Lube Express 0 sq. ft. 5, 153 sq. ft. 5, 153 sq. ft.
_ _ _ _ _
Food Sales Support Area 858 sq. ft. 720 sq. ft. (138) sq. ft.
_ _
Indoor G�rden Center 7,435 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft. (7,435) sq. ft.
Building Total 157 ,615 sq. ft, 104,152 sq. ft. (47,463) sq. ft.
Outdoor Garden Center 5,036 sq. ft. 4,878 sq. ft. (158) sq. ft.
Total Area 156,657 sq. ft. 109,030 sq. ft. (47,621 ) sq. ft.
Impacts
Aesfhetics
No exterior construction or changes to the site would occur with this alternative. Views of and
across the site from public viewpoints would not be altered. Under this alternative the existing
vegetation on the site would remain. Therefore, this alternative would have less impacts on
aesthetics compared to the Project.
Ciry of Ukiah Walmart Expansion Project 6-11 ESA / 209418
Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2011
����E;rrt��t #
Cit �,iah
MEMQRANDUM
TO: Kim Jordan, Senior Planner
FROM: Tim Eriksen, Public Works Director/City Engineer
DATE: March 5, 2012
RE: Wa1-Mart Off-Site Traffic improvements Fair Share Contribution Determination
The City Public Works Department reviewed the Wa1-Mart Final EIR, including the Traffic &
Circulation Report contained in Appendix 2, and has determined that the project's (Wal-Mart
expansion) fair share for the off-site traffic mitigation improvements is 8.6 percent.
This determination was made by using the PM Peak Hour Volumes at Talmage Rd/Airport Park
Blvd information Table found on page 40 of the Traffic& Circulation Report: This table shows
` that the Redwood Business Park (Build-out) traffic volurnes for the PM peak period would be
2167 trips. The Wal-Mart vehicle trips were 187 for this peak period, which is 8.6% of the 2167
totaL
The City Council recently added the Loap Signai TrafFic Improvement alternative to the City's
Capital Improvement Plan. - If this $2,8980,000 project becomes the alternative supported by
Ca1-Trans and required for buildout of the Park, the fair share contribution from the Wa1-Mart
expansion project would be $248,540:
PM Peak Hour Volumes at Talmage RdlAirport Park Bivd
2500
2250
2000
� U50
E ,
� 15Q0
0
y
� 1250
0
_
s; 1000
a�i �
a' 750 °'
E
°� E'�her
500
t----�#
250
.. .. <„ .�,'
0 — • —:
Existing Project Discount Club Future Other(Baseline)
Scenarios
■Tatal PM Peak Hour Volumes
■ Redwood Business Park Volumes
❑ Background Valumes
24-Hour Store Operation
The proposed Walmart would remain open and generate tra�c 24 hours per day, though based on
observations the majority af traffic associated with this type of retail use occurs during the daytime and
early evening. The hourly traffic volumes on Airport Park Boulevard during the hours when most stores
are closed (10`.00 p.m. to b:00 a.m.) represent less than I.Q percent of total weekday traffic; in other
words, traffic volumes are at least 75 percent lower during these periads than during the p.m. peak
haur. While the increase in traffic on study area roadways could be proportionately higher during
overnight periods than during the p.m. peak hour, the potential to adversely affect traffic operation is
very low. Surrounding streets and intersections have ample capacity during these off-peak periods to
accommodate praject-reiated traffic,
Project Trip Distribution
Based on the population densities included in the Ukiah Walmart F�cpansion Market Analysis, CB Richard
Ellis (CBRE), 2010, the distribution of project traffic was determined. The distribution assumptions
shown in Table (3 were used to assign the project vehicle generated trips thraughout the surrounding
circulation system.
Walmart�pansion DEIR Tra�c& Circulation Report for the City of Ukiah
April 28,201 I Page 40 wacran��'
ITEM NO.:
12e�'a�������t���t� �
MEETING DATE: March 7, 2012
�-it,y p,�'�i�ZU�
AV N M � M i T
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION FOR INCLUSION OF THE INTERSEGTION PROJECT OF HWY
101 SOUTH BOUND OFF RAMP AND TA�MAGE ROAD INTO THE CITY'S CAPITAL '
IMPROVEMENT PLAN AS ADOPTED '
Background: On April 14, 2010 the City Council was presented with the "City of Ukiah Capital '
Plan 2q09-2018". The development of this plan was a joint effort of all departments and a '
City Council appointed Ad-Hoc committee. This plan should be updated periodically with '
future projects that are proposed or needed. Engineering staff has been reviewing this list as
it relates to the environmental work for proposed prajects in the Redwood Business Park
(Park) and the ultimate build out of the park. All the projects that have been �identified in
recent build out studies are contained in the Plan, with exception of the south bound freeway !
off ramp and Talmage road intersection. Staff has prepared the draft pages far inclusion into '
the plan (Attachment 1). '
In order to mitigate traffic for the build-out of the Park, the Gity Engineering Staff have relied '
on the expertise of GHD Engineering (GHD), formerly Winzler & Kelly, to provide a design
and cost estimate for a traffic solution at this intersection (Attachment 2). These
improvements have been simulated in the GHD traffic model for build-out of the park. It
appears that this project will address the traffic issue resulting from build out. However,
depending on what future uses are established in the park, the traffic may vary.
This project has been discussed with Caltrans. These discussions have had a favorable '
tone, but have only been in a preliminary manner. Afi this early stage af this project Caltrans
has not made any formal comments. GHD has advised city staff that the design as it is
Continues on Paqe 2
Recommended Action(s): Direct Staff to include this project into the Capital Improvement
Plan as adopted on April 14, 2010 and included in the 200912010 budget. '
Alternative Council Option(s): Discuss the proposed projeet and provide staff with
alternative direction.
Citizens advised: N/A �
Requested by: Tim Eriksen, Director of Public Works /City Engineer
Prepared by: Tim Eriksen, Director of Public Works/City Engineer '
Coordinated with: Jane Chambers, City Manager '
Attachments: 1. Draft Capital Improvement page far inclusion
2. Plan view of intersection improvements
3. Engineers Estimate
Approved: '
J Chambers, City Manager
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION FOR INCLUSION OF THE INTERSECTION PROJECT OF HWY 101
SOUTH BQUND OFF RAMP AND`TALMAGE ROAD INTO THE CITY'� CAPITA� IMPROVEMENT
PLAN AS ADOPTED
shown in Attachment 1 may require Caltrans to approve some geometric design exceptions.
These types of issues wouid be explored upon formal application to Caltrans. If the Council
approves the inclusion of this project into the plan, staff would continue with the efforts to
obtain all the required permits from Caltrans and all other resource agencies.
The Engineers Estimate for this project is $2,890,OQ0. This detailed estimate was also
prepared by GHD and is attached (Attachment 3). The funding for this project is coming from
the bond proceeds acquired by the Ukiah Redevelopment Agency.
Fiscal Impact: \
Budgeted FY New Budget Amendment
� 11/12 � Appropriation Not Applicable Re uired '
� � q
Amount Budgeted Source of Funds (title and #� Account Number Addit.Appro�riation '
Reauested
$ 3,065,000 RDA Bond Proceeds
AT°i"�CHM��� �
� '
[
� o '
...C• � y O . ��.
W A � ... - .�.
v
°�� m O � '� O O � O O ��.
0 0 �" y Q � O O � p. p ��.
�
C C o. p�i � Q O�i w
3 3 � � o F, m m F, � m '
V Uti N � N N N N '�.
� � Rt jy �
U �n �
y m oa A t�'. ,,.°',�', w � °o o �
� p (-�i "'� � c �° N o o �
m � � m �" u ~ � � ~
G. ,07, (� a" � c.i nP
A � � r.°,
a � '
m � '
o �t ti � '
M. E" a�i ' '
'-d � H ti
� � rl r4
� V
4�-.
� �
� '
�"' yC ri ry � � �....
. Q` F'+ o o p p I.
o O � rf �--I � a�o
� y � N N
o �
'O
N
�
��+
� � O o� '
� � a
y w° a o
� °, �
> � �
r.�+ w
�'+ ° O o
W � O O '
� � '
� � � � '
w r' �° E
ec3 O °
.� `� �
°' � �
� �o a,
� � � � � �
;= � .� a � E � '
� a
(, \p �a Ix a � > V] C '
� *1 � �v ^o °' ao � '
� � � m
� � � � � b � � � �
Q.I '� a Q o t� C.�° (� tt' (� L�
.� y,� � o � � p '
,`� O *� z .a � v � '
� ° " � ,� o '
� � � o � a� � .�
L� �3 0; � q ,c ti �
� '
.c o
. �
co �
� A .
� °'
x
3 3 '
V � �
� Qy
� V
W ,�
� O
R U
a
d
A
M .
M J
\
�
�
�
�
�
�
0
\
� �
0
•*y �
ry
t1 �
� �
�y �
CCl �
V �
�
� b
,S�y � O
� g� O �
ti � � o
��, a �4 O ro
�
�'� c� "' ,
e�,\� � �
� � �
U U � � ',
. —
�, ,. ;;<� , � <, - - - -
.I � �K��,�r�` �,�,"�� .r� 3�
r .. .���'?:l :r '' ct�"* �
.�
�., ,. . .. .At'i� f�..:�f�.;:•��:,.,.��.- �,t ..
S,..v�.� „Yr+'1 �' ' =S '.
• � � � ,
a« I.. .. -,.:s ' ' -"`' : •
� . ,_,,,,,s sz-^`, ,�3�v�s � ,s
'�,-�..� �_���,,��_ �,�. '
_ • _ i ,y�.n ;r - : -
'" I' - _� .• _�� �° -
. i � ..._.W,.�. t •
• _,� -.u= -
--- ; �
:. ::c:;
�
. �� .�m.�x+ > _ �
_- . , -
. �
; � ...... .�... `--; .
_ � i;�,,,,_,,..�.._..,_---..�.-_ ._._,,;,,�,
_ i —_ m'= +.j;1 ,
.. ^� .
; :,, , " � ��, . � � „
i a .�.
i a� 4
. - ,l a �`\\ ,
a � ��� �8 r
,�;� ti .,�,,.�\ ''
*� • � .r ` ����\ ��.Y �
t,� ix ;�t 1'\� i�� •
�,�-•� ��,� ,� / .
� \.. ,� y�;l � #�;� /,/ � •
' �r , p'�� I- .
i �s �'
; iy .; :`� � t :
� � / �f ' r,'
. e, ,�s �1/�� �i :
;s �� � �.
/!��" , a m :
� `� �n
u
r i�/ �,i-
� ���� �r � ' � � �� � _�
� ' ..� ��� � � � ��;
�.:�.•� . • �: � h'M1.. n. �..�//� }{ -f � �fl' •
�i .�-b�d�'- i� � � .� ��_.. : ,.�` ..�r>..i r��'4 a x�
:-� � : .� �- .:.�+--+- r � ,�•�i
�.�} c'*�.rm}R'' /� ',. _ ,C�. ".�i ..� � ..1"x'.. -.` i•�y.y�.
�- .:-prj �` �'_- "' 3-m°'°e. Q`m ^��3� �.
•'� an
•H e: ��R� . ,-�25-�;:_.y- a7+ °"'t��` l� G7 +����.
/ .�WI 1 � J . : �I� �:
�� �� �
Y �� �
� � ��f��� �
�� .a �� 1}. ,a� � ( �`(;, � . r +-t
� T � �� __� � L� `� �
-',
I I ;i� � �� �; 1�� __. � � �
I f � 7"�» °¢��� .� c.T .F' /�i' "+f,� ,s'a+� ;
. , � ' ��:- r ���. i � ,�,.,� �r�.+ �. et �.
~ 1� i I ��.1� � � �'�`veai --i n �� �. `�.�"� �a� i
� ' :�
1 ) i"i � rfi--`_ ° �� ;;�. -=� � �:\ :.y ,� �.
.���� � IL (� � y el ��`� �i � r.°� � '�' � �l� +��P � ,.
���h� � �r ����� � � j , jG ;�� ,�?e �.
����' ��L 4•.'-ee,�..-e..-�wy„i.,r� �=...._. ' . :-.-'!. ' [�' ��.�
:t � 4 tp t 5j a.. . � . �� �1
tt . ,�/ �� '�.� ^ t`�,i � '; 1.�..'T'�(' !.- !'' (. B I'
� ' / � z.. .�:.� .._ _ � � _��y�-
• F �� f l 1 f [ �� �. �" � ..Y'�♦
� �� I�'L�� 1' � � '�,e��'�-..�, ��, � J'-iY.3 �-5;��t"
'1��- .7 ;;� -�� ti Y ad°����' �{ - e�`.
K� � ;,�, ���, / �fl � � R` A^��r � �.
� s 1 t � '- �p . I� 4.
""r /''..r�� , r 5, i� ]�,. _ �F� d��� '
`�'-- '3�}'
�� �r.�'�;��$t��� � _ � �� `" v-� � �
� .,.,�_, �:�.sa/ ..E .`\� -�.�� � �r �:���C����''�` L �.., "'+w, �„T- n�,
�a� . � � �t t _
:;�, 7 � r� � • �.. �a ----� �,F '�
a �`' �n+ v,'�'ia x �''G. .Y ���.�J � ���---� :x
_i���*.la�� s `" a�_�.,.� a� �r -
;-5�r �n.r-y c. F ��--._��,,�:c�;_ -=`-r.--�,�..:r ,," ��� 'z � '— �
"�'`�( m��-'^�. �t 1j ,_�� �cau�??mau�"��ta„�c�'4-a., �3� _ 's„�� �.
;�� � �c i=___ -`J' :�.,'.������'f�r..�.T1tA1.�,..����%��' ��. � , c^� . �
;,,,� i�^--� �, s� � rt.
:��t 4� 3 ��/:,� � � �°�y��'�''i's'°'� � � �'
�`a a,, '
h+ . .j.y! . . _ ,l
.._„ -. . -.._'. .:: �.:s..
�.t . 1�( � � . � ��i.�.v�"-z -a.".�" _
� a �; 1'�'�?':4� ,�,.--. 1���,i ���J��� � f y..��� ., -
1 . � � .('� 4. :t. ) �,i .:t � . -V'§".
i
`� r a� � � i r . �!
�;,�� � 3x �� ''`` �(:, , ` �1, . '� ° ' {, � =a�^ �r�_
�_ --._. t :� ��� � �.�'' v s �� ��'
�� x�/rT �/ J �rt ,� Ia .'},�{ ,-�`�T., � i
�� �d l�� J �� � u- _t �'�i ( � �5�( `' � r�
. ,
t..f
w � ,w
Y . g t
s,��C� _�1I .� ��`' J k � ' ,��V '' -
.r�
���7 y'� ���_, � � ,` a -� ` �*- Q �` _ _
.
.., t '� � ,... _ ua. _
�. a �- �
�,. i��q, ": .^+.; .. . �-L'• .'� '. ' 1 '
. ,
' rFs'`'�9� / "� � Ga � :: �� ��< � 4�-- �� � t :: �1
a.i:
�.��" � . n; r .. . ' . ° � � : �� ,
�r- : JJ . �� � C�� . _.. m , • �.S -' �. 1
�� ��,'�t „! , �. � . .. . e : r
�
. �{'a�� •_ j �v s;. � -
.- F-F : - � ' � �,
-r�,�� . _ , �;:.. '° � � � .,�:
. ,
; [ � - , , ; . � �-
�. _- > . �,
1 � ..:. .. ,::_.>. � �
. ,! :.,...�-.:.�"rr+ :
A�T i'�CHN�ENTe�
° ��-�
U.S.101/Talmage Interchange:Op6an A(Signaq
Preliminary
Engineer's Opinion ofProbabie Cost
24-Jan-12
1.ROADWAY ITEMS Qua ' Unit Unit Price Item Cost
Section 1 Demolition
Remove(E)Concrete Curb&Gutter,Swaie 5,500 LF $ 6.00 $ 33,000
Remove(E)Sidewalk 3,090 SF $ 1.00 $ 3,090
Remove(E)Median 2,158 LF $ 5.00 $ 10,790
Remove(E)AC 22,000 SF $ 3.Q0 $ 66,000 '
Subtotal Section 1 Demolition $ 712,880
Section 2 Earthwark
Ciearin and Grubbin 1 LS $ 12,000.00 $ 12,000
Roadwa Exqvafion 2,900 CY $ 40.d0 $ 116,000
Subtotai Section 2 Earthwork $ 728,000
Section 3 Pavemerrts
Hot Mix Asphaft(fype A) 2,600 TON $ 120.00 $ 312,000 '
Aggregate Base(Ciass 2) 5,200 CY $ 75.00 $ 390,000 '
Minor Concrete(Sidewaik) 41 CY $ 750.00 $ 30,750 '
Minor Concrete(ADA Ramp) 1 EA $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000
Minor Cancrete(Median Isiand) 10 CY $ 750.00 $ 7,500
Minor Concrete(Curb&Gutter,6"Type A2) 152 CY $ 750.00 $ 113,913
Subtotai Section 3 Pavemerrts $ 859,163
Section 4 Drainage '
Drainage 1 LS $ 35,OQ0.00 $ 35,000 '
Subtotal Section 4 Drainage $ 35,000
Section 5 Speciaity ftems
Progress Schedule 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000
Water Poliufion ControUSediment Controi 7 LS $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000
Highway Planting and Imgation 1 LS $ 75,000.00 $ 75,000
Prepare Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 1 LS $ 6,000.00 $ 6,000
Erosion control 1 LS $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000
Subtotai Sect.ion 5 Speciatty Items $ 151,000
Secfion 6 Traffic items
Thermopiastic Striping(4") 2,610 LF $ 1.5Q $ 3,915
Tf�ermoplas6c Striping(6") 825 LF $ 2.00 � 1,650
Thermoplastic Striping(g") 2,835 LF $ 2.25 $ 6.379 '
Thertnopiasfic Pavement Markings 665 SF $ 8.00 $ 5,320 � '
Pavement Marker(Non-reflective) 200 EA $ 10.OQ $ 2,000 � '
Pavement Marker(Retroreflective) 100 EA $ 70.00 $ 1,000 '
New Signal and Lighting 7 EA $ 225,000.00 $ 225,000
Retrofit Signal and Lighting 1 EA $ 70,000.00 $ 7Q,000
Signal Interconnect 1 LS $ 30,000.00 $ 30,000
Portable Changeable Message Sign(PCMS) 4 EA $ 7,000.00 $ 28,dpp
Relocate Roadside Sign 1 LS $ 6,000.00 $ 6,000
Remove Roadside Sign 1 LS $ 2,400.00 $ 2,000 '
Instail Roadside Sign 1 LS $ 6,000.00 $ 6,000 '
Construction Area Signs 1 LS $ 20,OoQ.00 $ 2�,000 '
Subtotai Section 6 Traffic items $ 40],264
Subtotal(Sections 1 thru 6) $ 1,693,307
Traffic Additions(Added in"Subtotal Sections 1 thru 6)
Traffic Controi System 1 LS (6%Item Subtotap $ 101,6�0
Maintain Traffic 1 LS (7%Item Subtotal) $ 118,600 '
Subtotal Traffic Additions $ 220,200
Subtotai Section 1 thru 6 $ 1,913,507 !
02502-1000132052
��.
,} ��'``h- :tit,x .
I.ROADWAY(TEMS Qua ' Unit Unit Price Item Gost
Section 7 Minor items
(Subtotal Sections 1 thru 6) $ 1,913,507 x(5%)_ $ 95,675
TOTAL MINOR ITEMS $ 95,675
Section 8 Roadway Mobilization
(5ubtotai Sections 1 thni 7) $ 2,009,182 x(10°/a)_ $ 200,918 '
TQTAL ROADWAY MOBILIZATION $ 20Q918 '
Section 9 Roadway Additions '
Contingencies ',
{Subtotal Sections 1 thru 7) $2,009,182 x(25%}_ $ 502,2gg '
RE Office($2200/month for 6 morrths) $ 13,200 '
TOTAL ROADWAY AD�ITIONS $ 515,496 '
TQTAL ROADWAY MOBILIZATION!ADDITIONS(Sections 8�9j � 716,414
TOTAL ROAQWAY ITEMS $ 2,730,000 '
II.STRUCTURES ITEMS '
Retaining Wall 1,450 SF $ 710AU $ 159,500
Totai Structural Items $ 159,500
(Sum of Tatal Cost for Structures) '
Railroad Related Costs N/A $ _ $ ',
TOTAL RAILROAD ITEMS $
111.RIGHT OF WAY ITEMS
A.Acquisffion,including excess Iands � '
B.Mitigation acquisition&credits � _
C.Project Development Permit Fees. $
D.Utility Relocation(State Share) $
E.Relocation Assistance{RAP) �
F.ClearancelDemolition �
G.Tdle and Escrow Fees $
TOTAI.R16HT OF WAY ITEMS $
PROJECT TOTAI. $ 2,890,000 '
Anticipated Date of Right of Way Certifiqbon (N/A)
(Date to which Values are Escaiated)
Estimate Prepared by:Matt Kennedy,PE,TE
GHD Inc.
Phone#:(707)523-1010
02502-10001-32052 '
_----- i ._. ..
C� ' �i
. � � �
n�o�A� Qu
�
. � �
To. Members of the.City Council �
From: Tim Eriksen, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
cc: JoAnne Currie, City Clerk '
Date: March 5, 2012 � '
Re: ITEM 12e—Meeting of March 7, 2012
. CONStDERATION FOR INCLUSION OF THE INTERSECTION PRQJECT OF HWY 101
SOUTH BOUND OFF RAMP AND TALMAGE ROAD INTO THE CITY'S CAPITAL
tMPROVEMENT PLAN AS ADOPTED �
Attached plea�e find a technicai memorandum from GHD, Inc. dated March 5, 2012 which pr.avides further
explanation as ta the analysis of the three options for the US 101 southbound off-ramp and Talmage Road
interchange. Matt Kennedy, GHD, Inc. will be in attendance at the Council meeting on March 7, 2Q12 to
answer further questions.
Fiscal lmpact: '
o Budgeted FY 11/12 � New Appropriation � Not Appiicable � Budget Amendme�t Required
Amount Bud-geted Source of Funds(title and#) Account Number Addti.Appropriation Reauested
$3,065,000 RDA Bond Proceeds ' '
. ¢?��.`�+�,�t1,� `{j �
, ��. �v' .._.. i
....... ' "_G._' " _ ' . _ .. _....._...__. _..___.. . .. .. . ... . .
.... .. .._...._. . .. _ ._._ _ ,
. . . . ........... .._.
..*'� .`:::5 -.....__...__ . .
�
...._.._.._.__._._.
M{w'r'O��D�,tl,
Talmage Road Southtiound tnterchan.ge ImproVement.Alternat�ves
!/V�
Reviewed by: .�
� Date: ''
P�aAtt�p Ft�r; Tim E�iksen,PE, City of Ukiah ��
PR�P�BY: Matt Kennedy, PE,TE, GHD Inc, �,�"'�\ ,
i
DATE: Ma�ch 5,.2092 !
� I
Jos#: 02502-90001-32320 ; '
�
The Cihr has,been;pl.anning for the continued.deve(opment of the Reduvood Busin�.s.s Park..To facilitate �
futu�e devefopment, improvements to:the surrounding transportation system are needed to�ncrease the
vehicuJar capacity and safety,and to provide accepi��te operations.7�e City retained GHD Inc;to develop ,
and anatyze prelimin�ry�designs and,prepare'probaple construction c.osts for improvement options for the �
1�:5. 101.Talmage Interchahge s.oufhbound ramps to a5srs,t iri.�iie�selectidn and funding of a preferred i
improvement project, �
� . �
s
A:total of three interchange'impravemeng options vuere deYeloped.and,analyzed,one sig:nal.'�zed ii�tersection �
a�d�tuvo roundabou#intersections.V1lhen compared with a h�vu tr,af�ia:�:signai;.the two roundabout�aptions �
were found ta have rr��oie geometric complexifiesr higher'capital consCntction and ngl�trof way co5�s,arid �
would require gceater amounts of eaithwork,includin�fill slopes and possibly�etainin�walis.The . ;
ro,undabouts may also require acquisition of:addifional 'right-of-way. !n ail.options consi.dered,the e.ast 5'rde of �
the interchange woutd r'erriain in its current.confguratioln;inciuding the�xi�ting two-fane Tatmage Road +
averpass. ;
;
The signal optian.would�emoye the�xisting U.S: �1.01�sou#hbou.:nd off=.ramp to wes#bound Talmage.Road � '
iram use,and widen the e�isting U.S. 101:souttibouhd loop off-ramp to ea5tbound Talmage,Road sou#h of �
the Talmage Road averpass 'f�e loop ramp wouid be rin�d�ed to terminate at:Talmage Read with a mqie �
sfandard:90-degree a..ngle.UVith tFiis cpnfiguration aIl southbound traffc�xi�ng U:S. 101:at Talmage Road 4
would.use the loop±aff-rai��a ferrininafing at a new s'ignaiized ir�terse�ti.on. Phasing afi the n�w tr�ffic:signal ;
would,include nght tum ove�taps for ttie eastbound Talm.age.Road right:tum ati.to.south��oupd U.,:S. '.(.U�'I 011- j
Camp and.the U.S. 1.01.southbound.offi�amp right turr�lane an to eastbound Taimage Road.Prdte:cted left- {
turn phasCng wauld also be�provide�for'th��t�st6aund Talmage Road approach.The new�rafFrc:signal i
would be interconnec#ed_and coo�dinated with fhe t.raffic si�n.al at trie i�ntei�"•sec�on of�A'irpbrt Park Bou:leva"rd �
and:Talmage Road. � . �
Level of setvice analysis.and operationaf,5imulations wece p�cfomned:fo�the•signal:option to verify requi[ed
Cane geometrics and confirm�ccepta�le traf�c signal and.l'almage,.Road cor�idor operahans.Tlie.analysis �
was perform�d using Synchro/Sir►iTra.��c saftware forthe futu��build-out tra�c volumes,mc[uding"fu0 �
deyetopment nf the Redwood Bu.s.iness Park..The new larie configura�ons addr.ess futu�e v�h►cle queuing i �
concems.The resultir�g F�.i�ure Build out Levels of S�rvice for�the�nter�ections of Talmage Road/AirporE..Park �
Bouleyard and:the new�nterchange mt��section.are a LOS D and lOS B,tespectively.It i5 important to iiote �
that�fhis ana(ysis�approxirriates potential future conditions,and tFiat futui�e�t�affic volumes,development leuels g
and land u5es esta6lished�n the Redwaotl Busin.ess P�rk may vaiy. 4
�
Design excepfiions frorn Caltrans District 1 �vould b�e expected for all of fhe op#ions conside�ed 6ecause the �
existing interchange d,aes not meet current Caltrans desigh requirements.The raundabout options wbuld �
require additional design exeeptions parficu{ariy aE the$tate Weadquar�ers level by tlie Chief Div�sion of � ,
Design 6ecause#heir designs are higiily nonstandard, '
a
Table 9 below summarizes the oyerall opin�ion of probable cost for the fhree interchange altematives. ( !
;
;,
;
� ,
, _,
y
; '
,
Memorandum
_ __ , -=--..._ . ..__ _._._.... . __ __ . _. ._.__.
Mareh 5,2012 ____ __.__
Page 2 �
;
Table 1.t3pinion of ProbaBte Cast Summary for Talmage interctiange Optians
Interchange Aiternative Opinion of Prababie Cost '
1'raifc Signat(coordinated) $2,890,000 I
Two-L�;ane Raundabout $3,790;Q0.0 f ',
One-Lane Raundabout $3,422,000 � '
i '
� '
i
I
I '
� ,
�
; '
�
. �
C
i
�
�
}
� � I
�
�
i
{
i
. �
� !
� '
�
��
�
�
i '
� '
. � '
1
i
�
t
,I
F
;i
i
1 '
:�
i
�U;�c��.a.�€?����� �
� Sheppard Mullin Richter&Hampton LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
San Francisco,CA94111-4109
415.434.9100 main
415.434.3947 main fax
www.sheppardmuliin.com
415.774.2980 direct
mmontesinos@sheppardm u Ilin.com
January 25, 2012
File Number: 15CM-130475
VIA E-MAI�AND HAND DELIYERY
City of Ukiah Planning Gommissian
300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482
Re: Walmart Expansion Project- Proposed Findinas For Statement of OveRidina '
Considerations
Dear Chair Pruden and Members of the Planning Commission:
Qn January 25, 2012, the Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing, receive public
comment, provide Planning Commission comment, and pravide direction to staff on a Statement '
of Overriding Consideratians for the Walmart Expansion Project. We are submitting this letter
on behalf af our client,Wal-Mart Stores, lnc., with respect ta that agenda item.
Pursuant ta the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA"}, in order to adapt a Statement of
C3verriding Considerations, the Planning Commission will need to find that specific economic,
legal, social, technological and other anticipated benefits of the Project oufinreigh the significant
and unavoidable tra�c impacts identified in the EIR, and therefore justify approval of the Project !
notwithstanding the identified significant and unavoidable impacts. We believe there are I
numerous benefits to the project that outweigh the three significant and unavoidable traffic
impacts. To that end, for the Planning Commission's consideration, we have prepared the '
enclased draft findings in support of adaption of a Stetement of�verriding Consideratians.
Please note that each of the overriding cansiderations expressed as a benefit in the attachment
constitutes a separate and independent ground for a finding that the Project benefit outweighs
the significant and unavoidable impacts. In other words, any ane of the reasons cited in#he
attachment is sufficient to justify approvaf of the Project. Thus, even if the Planning !
Commission ware ta conclude that not every benefit in the attachment exists in its view, the '
Planning Commissian can still adopt a Statement af Overriding Cansiderations if it finds at least '
one benefit exists—or if it finds that a separate benefit not addressed in the attachment exists. '
Thank you in advance for your time and considerations.
1
City af Ukiah Planning Commission
January 25,2012
Page 2
Sin ,
--___.-
Miriam Montesinos
for SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RlCHTER & HAMPTON ��P '
W02-WEST:5M IM2�404566830.1
Attachment
cc: Deborah Herron, Wal-Mark Stores, Inc. '
Draft Findin�s Far Statement of Qverriding Considerations
Walmart Exgansian Project
Ukiah,California '
1. The Project Will Create Diverse Employment Opportunities within the ',
City.
The Project will generate diversity in employment oppartunities,including '
temporary construction jobs as well as 85 new perrnanent full-time and part-time positions. '
Consequently, it is reasonably expected that the City and its residents will enjoy the economic ',
and social benefits from added employment opportunities offered by the Proj ect.
2. The Project Will Generate Tax Revenue For the City,Allowing the City '
To Fund Much Needed Services.
The Project will provide much needed sales t�and praperty taai revenues to the
City's coffers. The General Fund Fiscal Impact Analysis prepared for the Project by CB Richard
Ellis found that the Project will generate General Fund revenues of$44,965 annually,mainly
through the anticipated increase in Sales Tax and Measure S Sales Tax proceeds. Once new !
household growth and associated new demand is taken inta account,these net fiscal benefits will '
increase. '
The City's General Fund is the primary funding source for the constnzction,
operation and maintenance of a number of essential City services,programs and facilities '
including fire and police services,recreation programs, and administrative functions, among
other things. Therefore,the additianal tax revenue generated by the Project will allow the City
to fund much needed services.
It should be noted that due to the recent demise of redevelopment agencies in '
California,future tax increment proceeds will no longer accrue to the City's Redeveloprnent
Agency,especially by the time the expansion is operational. According to the General Fun
Fiscal Impact Analysis,however,this loss in revenues will be accompanied by an increase in the
City's property t�revenues,with the City's General Fund likely retaining a portion of the
property taxes collected by Mendocina County. As a result,the revenues that will accrue to the
City's General Fund by the time the Project is coznplete will likely be considerably greater than
the estimated cited in the General Fund Fiscal Impact Analysis.
W Q2-VJEST:SMIM2\404534109.3 -I-
3. 'I'he Project Will Contribute to and Fund Nceded Infrastructure
Improvements.
The Project will contribute to needed transportation infrastructure improvements
by paying its fair share of the City's transportation irnpact fee. Currently,that fee would equal to
$17,835.99. However, if the City updates its Capital Improvement Program prior to the issuance
of building permit,the Project will be required to pay a proportionate fee reflective of that
update.
For exarrzple,if the City updates the Capital Improvement Program to i�clude '
improvements and reconfiguration of the Talmage Road and U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp '
interchange prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Project,the Project's fee would ',
increase in order to contribute its fair share to the City for those improvements. (DEIR '
Ivlitigation Measures 4.10-2,4.10-4, 4.10-5.}
4. The Project Will Provide a High-Quality Development Design That Will '
Be Pedestrian Friendly ',
The Project will redesign numerous elements of the existing building and site to
provide a high-quality design that was canceived with a pedestrian-friendly perspective in mind.
The Project will utilize a contemporary retail architectural design that incorporates a curved
fa�ade and walls, earth tone colors,and a combination of natural materials, such as stone. The '
remodeled entrance of the store will include architecturat elements such as canopies,ornamental '
lighting including pedes�an-level lighting,landscape planters,benches,windows,and awnings.
(DEIR p. 3-9.)
5. The Project Will Feature Numerous Energy Conserving Measures
Which Also Have the Effect of Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
The Pxoject will incorporate numerous energy-conserving features. For instance, '
parts of the expanded store will ineiude features such as the fallowing: daylight harvesting '
system, occupancy sensors,LED signage and refrigeratian illumination, centralized enexgy '
management system, energy efficient HVAC units,a dehumidifying system,white roofs,use of '
non-ozone-depleting refrigerant,heat reclamation system,high efficiency urinals and toilets,
sensor-activated low flow bathroom sinks and environmentally friendly materials and finishes.
(DEIR p. 3-11 to 3-13.} The result of these features is a building that is more energy-efficient ',
than the existing stare. By providing a more energy-efficient building,the Project in turn will '
help reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with operation of the building.
W02-WEST:SMIM2\4d4534104.3 '2' '
6. The Project Will Pravide Attractive Landscaping
The Project's landscape design will provide screening, shade, delineation of
space,axad accents and focal points. A mix of various trees ranging in size and type will be
planted on the Project site. New parking areas will be shaded with at least one tree for every four '
parking spaces. The existing olive trees in the parking field planters will be replaced with more
suitable shade trees. New trees will be planted on the east side of the expanded building to break
up the massing of the building and to provide visual relief aiong the Highway t O1 corridor. In '
addition,new planter islands and trees will be placed along the front of the building sidewalkto ',
provide shade and seating for waiting custamers. (DEIR p. 3-13.) '
'7. The Project Will Improve Pedestrian Access At the Site '
The Project will improve pedestrian access around the perimeter of the Project '
site and through the site. This will be accomplished by constructing sidewalks along the street
frontages and a pedestrian path in the middle of the site. ADA compliant ramps and high-
visibzlity cxosswalk pavement rnarkings will be provided at driveway crossings.
Also,the existing bus stop will be relocated to the north side of Commerce Drive. '
This will enhance transzt use,safety and accessibility for residents and custorners.
8. The Project Will Improve Bicycie Circulation Around the Site
The Project will install new Class III bicycle lanes to increase accessibility for
bicyclists to the Project site and adjacent commercial/residential destinations. Bicycle lanes will
be installed along bath sides of Airport Park Boulevard between Talmage Road and Comrnerce
Drive. '
The Project wi11 also provide a proportional-share payment to extend the '
westbound Class II bicycle lane on Hastings Road.
In addition, short-term and long-term(covered)bicycle parking spaces wiil be
provided adjacent ta the store's entry points: '
9. The Project Will Improve Stornnwater Treatment and Detention at the '
Site '
The existing site does not provide for stormwater treatznent prior to discharge
from the site. The Project will implement Low Impact Design(LID)measures where feasible
and implement treatnnent controi Best Management Practices(BMPs}as required by the General
Permit.The Project will also provide detention features such that there will be no net increase ir� '
peak stormwater runof£ '
W02-WEST:SMIM2\404534109.3 -3- '
10. The Project Will Provide a 24-hour,FullPService Shopping
Op�portunity,Which Will be Bene�ciai to Residents.
With inclusion of full-service groceries, a deli and a balcery in addition to general
merchandise, and the ability to serve customers 24 hours per day,seven days per week,the
Project will provide convenience and a one-stap shopping opportunity for residents with lirnited
mobility and for those with non-traditional schedules.
For exa.nnple,having groceries and general merchandise under one roof allows the '
elderly,disabled and others who have difficulty in moving around to complete all their shopping '
without the difficulties of going to different locations. Also,24 hour aperation allows people '
who work during the day and have obligations in the evening, or people who work overnight '
hours to shop late at night or early in the znorning in order to get necessities when convenient for '
their u�dividual schedules.
l l.. The Project'�Uill Be a Stabilizing Influence In the City's Retail Market
Sector !
The retail sector is very dynamic. According to a paper published by Emek
Basker entitled "The Causes and Consequences of WaI-Mart's Growth" (Journal of Economic
Perspectives, Summex 2007),the normal °churn"in the retail sector is high,with 50 to 60
percent of retailers disappearing within five years of opening. Walmart has maintained stable
and consistent operations in Ukiah for more than 1 S years. With this expansion,Walmart will
continue to be a stabilizing influence in the City's retail market sector.
12. The Project Will Be a Good Member of the Community.
For 18 years, Walmart has actively engaged as a corporate member of the Ukiah
community, assisting schools and nan-profits,and contributing ta various efforts in the City.
The store donates hundreds af dollars worth of inerchandise to local charities each week.
Additionally, it ma.kes regular grants to local nonprofit organizations and provides smalier '
donations to up to fifty community organizations every year as well as opportunities for '
associates to volunteer. Walmart's level of participation, in grants as well as volunteerism, will
increase with the addition of a full grocery,as well as the increased number of associates. A full-
service grocery also opens up an opportunity to enhance the store's existing partnership with the
LJkiah Food Bank.
W02-WEST.5MIM2\404534I09.3 � -4`
j� u�,����`��,���:��� ��
� �_ .�,�
CBRE COI�ISIILTING
� GB�RICHARD ELI.IS
101 California Street,44'h Floor
San Francisco,CA 941 1 1
� T 415 772 01 23
� F 415 772 0459
www.cbre.com/consulti ng
November 12, 2010 '
Mr. Brian J. Grattidge '
ESA � Community Development ',
2600 Capitol Avenue, Suite 200 '
Sacramento, CA 95$16
Re: General Fund Fiscal Impact Analysis of the Walmart Expansion in Ukiah,California '
Dear Mr. Grattidge:
CBRE Consulting is pleased to submit this memorandum regarding the impact of the City of ,
Ukiah General Fund based on changes in fiscal revenues and costs due to the expansion of the '
Walmart store at 1155 Airport Boulevard (the "Project"). For this analysis, CBRE Consulting
collected information from the California Board of Equalization, the Mendocino County
Assessor's Office, the City of Ukiah, and the Ukiah Redevelopment Agency related to property
tax, sales tax, and fiscal costs. In particular, CBRE Consulting reviewed the City of Ukiah Fiscal
2010/201 1 Budget documents and contacted the City of Ukiah officials in the Finance, Public I
Safety, Public Works, and Community Services departments for their input on the incremental
service requirements related to the store expansion. Construction eost estimates were prepared
using data from Marshall and Swift, a real estate information service that provides building cost
data by property type. In addition, CBRE Consulting compared the Marshall and Swift '
construction cost figures against construction estimates for the Project, which were provided by '
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
The analysis finds that the Project will generate net General Fund revenues' of $79,798 to
$116,728 annually, mainly through the anticipated increase in Sales Tax and Measure S Sales '
Tax proceeds. To calculate net fisca) benefits, CBRE Consulting also estimated the potential '
Genera) F�nd costs of up to $32,488 per year related to the Project. Consequently, the Project
has the potentia) to add $47,310 to $84,240 to the Ukiah General Fund annually excluding the '
potential expenses.2 Additional income from property tax, estimated at $58,103 per year, is
also anticipated to be allocated between the Ukiah Redevelopment Agency ($45,890 annually) '
and Mendocino County ($12,213 annually).
The first part af this memorandum presents how General Fund revenues related to the Project '
were calculated, while the second section describes the estimated fisca) costs. Details about the '
calculations are shown in supporting tables and exhibits. Both sections of the analysis rely in
' Net General Fund revenues include Sales Tax,Measure S Sales Tax, Franchise Tax,and Triple-Flip Properfy Tax in Lieu,and '
the caleulation factors in the potential of the Project to divert sales(and related Genera)Fund sales tax income)from existing '
Ukiah retailers. '
2 The lower end of the range excludes Measure S Sales Tax,which curre�tly extends until 2015 when the tax will either expire
or be re-approved by voters.The upper end of the rpnge includes Measure S revenues,which are likely to be appGcable for at '
least two to three yeprs assuming a 2012 Project opening date.
CBRE CONSULTING
Mr. Brian Grattidge
CB RICMARD El.LlS
November 12, 2010
Page 2
part on CBRE Consulting's estimate of the °service population" base for the City of Ukiah. The
service population is calculated as the City of Ukiah population plus 50 percent of the number
of persons employed in Ukiah, which assumes that an employed person incurs half of the costs
of a resident, a standard approach in conducting fiscal impact analyses. For 2010, the City of
Ukiah's population is estimated at 15,379 according to research prepared for the "Walmart
Expansion Economic Impact and Urban Decay Analysis, Ukiah, California" (June 201-0). The '
California Employment Development Department reports that the City's employment level has '
ranged between 6,450 and 6,780 during September 2009 through August 2010, which '
represents the most recent publicly available 12-manth cycle at the time of CBRE Consulting's
analysis; the average employment (evel for this period, as calculated by CBRE Consulting, is '
6,611. Therefore, the City's service population is estimated at 18,684 based on the sum of the
15,379 residents plus one-half of the average employment (3,305 people with rounding). '
For consistency with CBRE Consulting's economic impact analysis of the Project, all dollar
figures in this report are presented in 2009 dollars, unless otherwise specified. Inflation between ,
2009 and 2010 is estimated at 1.38 percent based on the Consumer Price Index for urban ',
consumers in the Western region. This inflation figure is used for downward adjustments of '
estimates that were initially based on 2010 dollars or that are projected in the City of Ukiah '
General Fund Budget for 2010/2011 in order to provide consistency with other dollar amounts I
in this analysis.
FISCAL REVENUES
The General Fund revenues for the City of Ukiah are classified across 11 categories as shown !
in Table 1 below.
Table 1
City of Ukiah General Fund Budget '
2010/2011 Category
2010/2011 Approved Budget in Percentage
General Fund Category Approved Budget 2Q09 Dollars(1) of Total
Property Taxes $1,170,000 $1,154,081 9.5% '
Sales Tax $2,686,625 $2,650,072 21.9%
Measure S Sales Tax $1,890,542 $1,864,820 15.4% '
Triple-Flip Property Tax in Lieu $919,144 $906,638 7.5% '
Franchise Taxes $1,612,372 $1,590,435 13.2%
Other Taxes 866 380 854 592 7.1%
Subtotal—All Taxes $9,145,063 $9,020,b38 74.6°J6 '
Licenses, Permits, Fines, Penalties $148,550 $14b,529 1.2% !
Intergovernmental $1,385,129 $1,36b,283 11.3%
Use of Money and Property $735,217 $725,214 6.0% '
Charges for Services $801,150 $790,250 6.5%
Miscellaneous 46 000 45 374 0.4%
Total $12,261,109 $12,094,288 100.0% '
Source:Ciiy of Ukiah;Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index for the Western region,and CBRE Consulting. '
(1) Figures have been converfed to 2009 dollars for consistency with prior economic analysis of the Proiect by '
multiplying the 2010/2Q11 budget numbers by 9$.64%based on the Consumer Price Index for#he Wester� Region. '
C�RE CONSULTING
Mr. Brian Grattidge
GB RICMARD EL�IS
November 12, 2010
Page 3
This part of the analysis focuses on the Project's potential to add to the five major revenue
categories within the General Fund budget — specifically, Sales Tax, Measure S Sales Tax,
Franchise Taxes, Property Tax, and Triple-Flip Property Tax in Lieu. These five categories
account for 67.5 percent of the projected 2010/2011 Genera) Fund revenues. It is possible that
the Walmart expansion could contribute to revenues in other categories as well, though these
related contributions are nat part of the analysis.
Sales Tax and Measure S Sales Tax '
The Project is estimated to generate $21.b million in stabilized sales as s�mmarized in Exhibit 1
and described further in CBRE Consulting's economic impact and urban deeay analysis for the '
Ukiah Walmart expansion. However, not all of these incremental sales are taxable because
certain items (e.g., food, pharmaceuticals) are exempt from California sales tax. The analysis
classifies approximately $12.9 million of the future Project sales in the Food Stores segment, '
which is a California Board of Equalization (BOE) category that consists primarily of grocery
products. Moreover, another $5.1 million are forecasted in the General Merchandise category, '
which may include some pharmacy items. The analysis assumes that 30 percent of sales in the '
Food Stores category, 90 percent of the Genera) Merchandise sales, and all of the remaining
Project sales are taxable. Table 2 presents these adjustments and the taxable sales estimate of
$12.1 million.3
Table 2
Estimated Taxable Sales for the Walmart Expansion Project
(in millions of dollarsj
Project Sales Estimated
Retail Category By Retail Category Taxable Sales '
General Merchandise $5.1 (1) $4.6 (1) '
Food Stores $12.9 (2) $3.9 (2)
Eating and Drinking $0.1 $0.1 '
"Other Retai) Stores" 3.6 3.6 '
Total $21.6 $12.1
Source:Exhibit 1 a�d CBRE Consulting '
(1) The analysis assumes that 90 percent of the General Merchandise sales are taxable. '
(2) An estimated 30 percent of sales in the Food Stores category are assumed to be ',
taxable. '
The City of Ukiah receives 1.0 percent of taxable sales (out of the 8J5 percent (ocal sales tax '
rate) and another 0.5 percent in Measure S sales tax. This 1.0 percent (eve) is equivalent to
$120,888 in annua) sales tax for the Ukiah General Fund based on stabilized sales levels for '
the Project. The Measure S sales tax is equivalent to $60,444 annually,though this revenue may '
end in 2015 when Measure S is currently scheduled to expire. Therefore, the analysis presents
3 CBRE Co�sulting's estimates of taxable sales percentages are based on conversations with BOE representatives about the '
non-taxable components of retail sales and-analysis of taxable sales data for Mendocino Couniy.These percentage estimates
are plso consistent with the figures used in CBRE Consulting's economic impact analysis of the Project.
CBRE CONSULTING
Mr. Brian Grattidge
CB RIGFiARD ELLIS
November 12, 2010
Page 4
the Measure S revenue separately since this form of sales tax could either be renewed by voters
or no longer be applicable after 2015.
Table 3
Sale Tax and Measure S Sales Tax Estimates
Sales Tax Measure S Tax
Based on Total Based on Total Combined '
Retail Category Pro�ect Soles Project Sales Total '
General Merchandise $45,786 $22,$93 $68,679 '
Food Stores $38,723 $19,362 $58,085
Eating and Drinking $765 $382 $1,147
"Other Retail Stores" 35 b15 17 807 53 422 '
Total $12Q,888 $60,444 $181,333 '
Source:Exhibit 2 and CBRE Consulting
The analysis also considers the potential that some of the Project's taxable revenues may be ',
diverted fram existing retailers. As shown in Exhibit 2, CBRE Consulting's economic impact and '
urban decay analysis calculated that the Project could lead to sales diversions of up to $13.2 '
million, primarily concentrated in the Food Stores category. The analysis adjusts for the non- '
taxable components of this amount and assumes that up to 75 percent4 of these potential
diversions could come from retailers within the City of Ukiah boundaries (versus the broader
market area defined for the Project.) Based on these adjustments, the Project's net taxable sales '
and related sales tax revenues are lower as summarized in Table 4 below. '
Table 4 '
Sale Tax and Measure S Sales Tax Estimates Based on Net Taxable Sales
Sales Tax Measure S Tax
Based on Based on ,
Estimated Net Estimated Net Combined
� Retail Category Taxable Sales Taxable Sales Total '
General Merchandise $30,463 $15,231 $45,694
Food Stores $18,334 $9,167 $27,502 ',
Eating and Drinking $765 $382 $1,147 '
"Other Retail Stores" 24 298 12 149 36 447
Total $73,860 $3b,930 $110,790
Source:Exhibits 2,3,and 4;and CBRE Consulting '
Based on these calculations, the net incremental sales tax associated with the Project is ',
calculated at$73,860 per year. In addition, the net Measure S revenue is estimated at $36,930 '
'This assumption is based on the concentration of existing competitive retailers within the City of Ukiah. Additional details
about competitive stores are presented in CBRE Consulting's economic impact analysis of the Project.
CBRE CONSt1LTING
Mr. Brian Grattidge
CB RIGHAFiD EL,L.IS
November 12, 2010
Page 5
annually for a combined total of $110,790 unti) at (east 2015 when Measure S will require
voter approval to be extended.
Franchise Tax
In the City of Ukiah General Fund Budget for 2010/2011, Franchise Taxes represent the third ',
largest revenue category after Sales Tax and Measure S Sales Tax. Adjusting to 2009 dollars, '
the budgeted amount for the 2010/201 1 fiscal year is $1,590,435,5 which translates to $85.12
per capita based on the Ukiah service population of 18,b84. According ta information provided
by Walmart Stores, Inc., the Project is anticipated to (ead to the additional hiring of 85 people, ',
which is equivalent to a 42.5-person service population increase. Assuming a proportiona) ',
increase in the Franchise Taxes, which primarily consist of Utility Franchise Fees and Refuse
Disposal Fees, this additiona) employment is projected to add $3,618 annually to the General I
Fund's Franchise tax base (i.e., 42.5 multiplied by the$85.12 per capita rate).
Property Tax !
The Project is (acated in the City of Ukiah Redevelopment Area and incrementa) property taxes '
are anticipated to be allocated among the Ukiah Redevelopment Agency and Mendocino '
County. While this revenue will not directly contribute to the Ukiah General Fund income, it
represents another benefit for the municipal area,which is calculated for consideration.
This part of the analysis assumes that the Mendocino Caunty Assessor's office will value the '
expansion based on the cost approach. In other words, the Project's construction costs wil) be
the basis for calculating incremental property taxes since the land and existing facilities are
already being taxed at a baseline value.
As proposed by Walmart, the Project will add 47,621 square feet to the existing 109,Q30- '
square-foot store size, though for purposes of this analysis, the increase is estimated at 49,050
square feet in order to allow a 3.0 percent buffer for potential design changes. CBRE
Cansulting developed construction cost estimates for this Project using data from Marshall &
Swift based on the Warehouse Food Stores and Supermarket categories and adjusting costs to '
the Mendocino County area. Based on this approach, CBRE Consulting estimated Project
construction costs of $5.5 million to $6.4 million for the 49,050-square-foot expansion, as
shown in Exhibit 3. This range is lower than the cost estimates that Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. '
provided for review, though the full construction budget is likely to include renovations to '
existing areas of the store, as well as numerous "green building" features (e.g., energy-efficient
heating and cooling systems, freezers and refrigerated displays; lighting and roof
improvements, etc,) that are not captured in the CBRE Consulting analysis. Therefore, a $59 '
million estimate for construction costs, which is the midpoint of the range, is likely to be ',
conservative. '
CBRE Consulting worked with the Ukiah Redevelopment Agency and the Agency's financial '
consultant, Public Financial Management, Inc., to calculate both the leve) and distribution of the '
Project's incrementa) property taxes based on the $5.9 million construction cost estimate. A
spreadsheet provided by Public Financial Management indicates that the assessed value tax
5 The 2010/2011 budgeted Franchise Tax amount is $1,612,372, which is deflated to 2009 dollars for purposes of this
analysis. '
CBRE CONSULTING
Mr. Brian Grattidge GB RICHARD EL,US
November 12, 2010
Page 6 '
increment will generate $58,103 annually;b of this total, $45,890 will be allocated to the Ukiah
Redevelopment Agency for a mix of redevelopment and housing initiatives while the additional
passthrough to the Mendocino County government wil) be $12,213 per year. ,
Triple-Flip Property Tax in Lieu ',
This General Fund revenue category, which is also known as Property Tax in Lieu of Vehide '
License Fees (V�F), is based on the extent to which the total assessed value in a city increases
over its prior fiscal year. In addition, Ukiah's assessed value for this calculation encompasses
properties located within the City boundaries including those in the Ukiah Redevelopment area. ,
Exhibit b presents the assessed valuations for 2010/2011 as pravided by the County of '
Mendocino Assessor's Office and adjusts the figures to 2009 dollars. Using the estimated
Project construction value of $5.9 million, the analysis calculates that the Ukiah Walmart '
expansion will add 0.28 percent to the total assessed value for the City and will increase the
General Fund revenue within the Triple-Flip Property Tax in Lieu category by a proportional ,
amount. Based on the 2009/2010 figures for this category, CBRE Consulting estimates that the '
General Fund wil) receive an additiona) $2,320 per year following the Project's construction. '
General Fund Revenue Impacts Findings
The Project is estimated to generate up to $187,270 annually in incremental General Fund '
revenues based primarily on increases in sales tax and Measure S sales tax income. Since some '
of the calculated tax revenues may be based on diverted sales from existing City of Ukiah
retailers, the analysis also calculates General Fund revenues based on net taxable sales
($116,728 per year), as shown in Table 5 below. In addition, because there is a possibility that ',
Measure S will not be renewed in 2015, a third scenario without Measure S revenue is shown '
and is anticipated to provide a minimum of$79,798 annually in net General Fund revenues.
Table 5
Annual General Fund (GF) Revenues Related to the Project
Project GF Project GF Revenues
Incremental GF Revenues Based Based on Net '
Revenues from on Net Taxable Sales& '
General Fund Category the Project Taxable Sales Excluding Measure S
Sales Tax $120,888 $73,860 $73,860
Measure S Sales Tax $60,444 $36,930 -- ',
Triple-Flip Property Tax In Lieu $2,320 $2,320 $2,320 '
Franchise Tax 3 61$ _3 618 3 618
Tota) $187,270 $116,728 $79,798 '
Source: Exhibit 2 and CBRE Consulting
The Property Tax component of the General F�nd was also evaluated within the analysis. '
However, since the Project is located in the Ukiah Redevelopment Area, the annual benefits in
6 Assuming constant 2009 dollars. '
CBRE CONSULTING
Mr. Brian Grattidge
CB RIGHARD ELI.iS
November 12,2010
Page 7
this category ($58,103) will be received by the City Redevelopment Agency and the County
rather than the Genera) Fund. '
FISCAL COSTS '
Methodology
Two approaches are generally used to estimate fiscal costs for a new development: a marginal ',
cost approach and an average cost approach. A margina) cost approach estimates the actua) ',
cost of adding new City services to accommodate new development while maintaining the City's '
current level of service. For instance, a new retail development may require the hiring of an '
additional police officer to respond to incidents, such as shoplifting or vandalism. In this case, ',
the marginal cost would be the variable cost of hiring one additiona) police officer. ',
By contrast, the average cost approach takes the total costs to the City to provide a particular
service (e.g., Police, Fire, etc.) and divides by the number of °persons served,° which could
represent the number of persons, households, or some other base units being served by the city.
Average costs to City's persons served may decrease for any service category in which no
additiona) variable costs are added by the development. For example, if the total cost for police
service is essentially fixed and will be spread over a larger number of persons served by adding
a new development, and the average cost per service population would decrease. This fiscal '
report does not consider any of these reductions in average costs in order to provide
conservative estimates. Instead, the analysis ass�mes that the related increase in service
population due to the Walmart expansion wil) generate a proportiona) increase in General
Fund expenses across all categories.
Average Cost Approach
CBRE Consulting reviewed the City of Ukiah Budget for Fiscal Year 2010/2011 to derive '
average cost estimates. For the current fiscal year, the City Council adopted a budget of '
$13,201,680 in 2a�a dollars, which is allocated among the categories of Genera)
Government, Public Safety, Public Works, and Community Services. Table 6 presents the
conversion of this budget to 2009 dollars and the estimates of average costs by category based
on a City service population of 18,864 defined above.
CBRE CONSULTING
Mr. Brian Grattidge
CB RICMARD El.�l�
November 12, 2010
Page 8
Table 6
Average General Fund Costs per Service Population
2010J2011 Esfimated
2010/2Q11 Budget Amounts Average Cost Incremental
General Fund Budget Amounts Converted to Per Person in Projecf Cosis,
Expense Categories in 2010 dollars 2009 dollars(1) 2009 Dollars(2) 2009 Dollars(3) '
Genera) Government $2,003,524 $1,976,265 $104J6 $4,452 ',
Public Safeiy $8,363,603 $8,249,810 $437.33 $1$,587
Public Works $1,Ob8,451 $1,053,914 $55.87 $2,374 '
CommunityServices $1,766,102 $1,742,073 92.35 3925 '
Total $13,201,680 $13,022,062 $690.31 $29,338 '
Source:City of Ukiah Budget for Fiscal Year 2010/2011;Burepu of�abor Statistics Consumer Price I�dex(CPI)for the Western
region;and CBRE Consulting.
(1) 2010/2011 Budget Amounts are discounted to 2009 dollars bqsed on the CPI for the Western region for tonsistency
with other sections of#he analysis. '
(2) The Average Cost per Person is calculated by dividing the 2009 dollar budget amounts by the City of Ukiah service
population of 18,864 persons. '
(3) The Average Cost Per Person multiplied by the incremental service population of 42.5 persons. '
As shown, General Fund spending is calculated at $690.31 per person on average; almost
twa-thirds of this tota) ($437.33) is budgeted in the Public Safety category, which covers the
Police and Fire services for the City. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. estimates that the Ukiah Walmart will '
add 85 employees following the opening of the expansion space, which translates into a service '
population increase of 42.5 persons. The average service cost for this employment gain is
calculated as $29,338 (i.e., $690.31 per person multiplied by the 42.5 person increase in
service populationj. Note that this approach assumes that al) related costs are variable and will
grow proportionately with the service population, which is less likely in the near term given ',
municipa) budgeting limits. Moreover, this approach assumes that there is no other offsetting '
income from the Project (e.g., permit and inspection fees) that would offset one-time costs,
particularly in the Public Works category. '
Marginal Cost Approach '
The marginal cost approach is based on estimates of which service costs are variable, and thus
are more likely to increase following the introduction of the Project. To prepare this analysis, ,
CBRE Consulting worked with Gordon Elton, the City of Ukiah Director of Finance. CBRE '
Consulting also interviewed Chris Dewey, the City of Ukiah Director of Public Safety, with more
specific questions about how the Project's opening could affect police and fire service costs.
General Government. CBRE Consulting's review of the General Government budget found that
this category consists primarily of fixed expenses including management and staff salaries,
which is common among comparable California cities. The analysis did not identify specific ,
areas in which costs would increase following the opening of the Project. ',
Public Safefy. Within this budget category, the Project was evaluated based on its potential
impact to service delivery for both the Fire and Police departments. In terms of Fire service, '
Director of Public Safety Chris Dewey did not anticipate any increase in staffing costs or other ',
CBRE CONSl1LTING
Mr. Brian Grattidge
CB RICMARD ELLIS
November 12, 2010
Page 9
expenses d�e to the Walmart store expansion. Therefore, the analysis assumes there wil) be no
marginal costs in the Fire component of the Public Safety budget
For the Police Department, Chief Dewey also did not expect to change staffing following the '
Project opening. However, he did foresee that the number of incidents reported at the Walmart '
could increase by up to 25 percent due primarily to the planned change in operating hours '
from 7 am — 11 pm daily to a 24-hour format, noting that a similar increase had accurred '
when the Ukiah Safeway became a 24-hour store. Even though departmenta) spending would '
remain relatively fixed with an increase in incidents at the Walmart,the share of expense related '
to the Project site would increase. For example, in 2009, figures provided by the Ukiah Police
Department indicate that there were 744 reported incidents at the Walmart store, which is ,
about 2.5 percent of the tota) incidents in the City of Ukiah. If reported incidents increase by 25
percent ta 930 per year following the Project's opening, the Walmart store share of incidents
would increase to 3.1 percent of the Police Department total. CBRE Consulting estimates that
the marginal cast of this increase is O.b percent of the annua) Police budget, or approximately '
$32,488, as shown in Exhibit 6. '
In discussing the potential increase in incidents, Chief Dewey noted that the Police department
was actively working with the Ukiah Walmart store manager to prevent shoplifting, parking lot
panhandling, camping and loitering, and other behaviors that generate police calls. He
believes that the addition of store security guards, even on a limited basis, would help prevent a
substantia) number of incidents.
Public Works. CBRE Consulting did not identify net marginal costs in the Public Works category !
related to the opening of the Project. In general, assessed fees such as permitting and '
inspection charges are set at levels that cover the upfront costs of construction projects. !
Communiiy Serv+ces. CBRE Consulting did not identify net marginal costs for Community
Services, which encompasses the General Fund expenditures for Parks, Recreation, and other '
city amenities.
Fiscal Cost Conclusion
Incremental service costs are estimated to range from $32,488 based on the marginal cost ,
approach to $29,33$ according to the average cost calculations. For the fiscal impact '
comparison, CBRE Consulting used $32,488 figure to be conservative.
FISCAL IMPACTS SU/�tYtARY
The Walmart expansion is likely to generate a minimum of $79,798 annually in incrementa) ',
General Fund revenues and is anticipated to add $1 16,728 per year from the Project opening '
unti) 2015, when the Measure S sales tax measure may expire. The fiscal costs for the Project '
are calculated at $32,488 per year such that the net benefit will be at least $47,310 annually
as shown in Table 7.
CBRE CONSULTING
Mr. Brian Grattidge
CB RICHARD E�I.IS
November 12, 2010
Page 10
Table 7
Summary of Annual General Fund Fiscal Benefits
Calculations Calculafions
excluding including ',
Measure S Measure S '
Categories Sales Tax Sales Tax '
Net Sales Tax $73,860 $73,860 '
Net Measure S Sales Tax -- $36,930 ',
Triple-Flip Properry Tax In Lieu $2,320 $2,320 '
Franchise Tax 3 b18 3 618
Subtatal $79,798 $116,728 '
Genera) Fund 6cpenses 32 48� 32 488 ',
Net Benefits $47,310 $$4,240 '
Source: Exhibits 4 and 7;and CBRE Consulting. '
In addition, the analysis identified annual property tax benefits of $5�,103, which will be '
allocated between the Ukiah Redevelopment Agency ($45,890 per year) and Mendocino '
County ($12,213 per year).
CLQSING COMMENTS
It has been a pleasure working with you on this project. Please let us know if you have any
questions or additional needs.
Sincerely, !
� ��� � �
C:�.� �.�
Amy L. Herman,AICP Gregory G. Keller '
Senior Managing Director Managing Director
Exhibit 1
Ukiah Walmart Expansion
Distribution of Sales and Net Sales Estimates
In 20Q9 Dollars
Planned Walmart
Distribution Size/Sales '
Store Characteristic of Sales Estimates '
Total Square Feet(1) -- 49,050 i
Sales Per Square Foot(2) -- $441
Projected Sales -- $21,633,005
Allocation of Sales bv BOE Retail Cateaorv (3) '
Apparel 0.0% $0
General Merchandise 23.5% $5,087,307
Food Stores 59.7% $12,907,752
Eating & Drinking Places 0.4% $7b,455
Home Furnishings&Appliances 0.0% $0 '
Building Materials OA% $0 '
Motor Vehicles& Parts 0.0% $0
Service Stations 0.0% $0
Other Retail (4) 16.5% $3,561,490
Total Net Sales 100.0% $21,633,005 '
Sources: Environmental Science Associates (ESA), Notice of Preparation (NOP),March 1 1, 2010;
United States Securities and Exchange Cammission,Walmart Stores, Inc. 10-K forms for the fiscal '
year ending January 31, 2009, and the four prior fiscal years; Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Consumer Price Index for the United States; "Walmart Expansion Economic Impact and Urban
Decay Analysis, Ukiah, California,June 2010" prepared by CBRE Consulting; and CBRE
Consulting. '
(1) CBRE Consulting estimate of the Project square feet based on information provided in the
Notice of Preparation and the calculation of a +3 percent buffer for design changes.
(2) CBRE Consulting estimate of sales per square foot based on the five-year average store sales '
for the U.S. Walmart Stores segment, including adjustments to 2009 dollars. '
(3) CBRE Consulting estimates based on the planned square footage of the Project.
(4) Sales from the planned garden center addition are included in the Other Retail category. ',
�
�
0
� �
y cj � M CV N h � 'N .
O� �O a0 O � ` �
� X O a0o')M W d' .
NF� x N CT�� Q p � �.
N � �
� `� U �i» +,9 � � >
�� II .� a
� =p o
O C � '
C ,� -p
a � '
� ,N 3
�
o � �
m �O M � � Cp � Q� `
� � ] w N
O 6 ° � n � `0 Op `a' y ��.
=y � �, M�M N � -p �
O� v�v� tn � o o �
d N
� � (� Q m � ��.
V Q � � 'C � ,..
h
Q�O d
�° o �
� U �
� � o
O TN
u � c
� f� �O u� O pp L � � �,.
O � m NM V� � p� s 'O � ��.
N
m � Q °�° �� ,� � 3 a a
o� II v� mva�n o � � E
� U s�v� sMa � � � a �
_ � � �
� � � �
y c a �
c
o � �,
U � '
o N � ° �� '
� � m �, u �
o � U o >
�a� m o 0 0 0 -a 6 rn 3
� ° °°o °o 0 0 ° i
c o � c
X a��i o �
O �O '6 6 p a '�,
6. N � �
�a N o a�i
� 'o � u
v � • �
W s C (�j_
O � � N
N �
.� V I� CV � O � � � � �
� o �nv� o, p a o a
� c�, � vv � m o � a
Q �ti�o �y 6 � � x
� � O P�t� � 'C N p �6
I� � tf� N M ,� `p � x �
W y 3 e fl N i ..�., y. O � .�.
69 � . .O � C N ....
U � G y '
N �
c o a �
�
3 -� N
� o �' �
� � 6 E '
6 �
O V Q V '+
IU N
� C Q L �
� C a N
N �
� U LL 6 � p
C � 6 p ` � 0- '�.
.� ; � _ � � � ��.
N W 6 0 ,>
O � � � � � N u
W X � u � � � �
FS u -� .`-' � U rn o -�
'� � a '� m c rn .��- � '��'
� a •{�� N S � � � N � � ��.
� O V
�S y Q o o n� � � � x s o a �
} � � w U
� � t o � `o ,� � w w a�i U
,� a O U - a N � H � � m i w
� � � N � o � o .�.� o � cn U a H
X �
W � W � t"'n QU' � w° O ~ N �.N� �? .
�
c
:«-
a
c a�
M � = � W
� �
� 0 00 c� O O '— i,yi C> co
y L \
� oo � � M � �- � (�
O � Y n CV 00 �O p0 �p O C y_.
0 � � X M M M N v � � �
F- � Q m �O �- o � j Q p
a Q X r N r � -� °� � �-
;� Q b4 Efl tfl yq N s N
i p *- p
,+N- � U �� Q. L O �
�
� N r'=-. U � Q C u
`p Q O V -�p
O U � c
O S Q" Q
N p � y
C � O ��`
� ''' O
� vi � C
� 'y � p
>. �- i-
N i � � �
C .t i
N `� d' y �C
� C
u N m ° � � ° U � � �
� o00o a� E c
� o� r> o o s p :� o
d � � y
X �C 6 � v
h � � '+�-_ � '
N
� N
_T � � � '
C a U � '
Q � .� '
� Q. w �
� O
� � � m '
y rNO �D p 0 V v �
�
G '� O 69 r i- N
p O O I`�. �- p�p � � N �
S *- � O � �Lj � � � �p s '
a +� > ¢ N Q QJ N � O � O
� � Q NO� � W � � '
� � y� ff}d3 6A � � O +�- ,� ,'�.
Q �
� � �� � �
:� � °- Q � U
U � x u �
� v W � � u
� �
E O
� o •� 'o
� o E � -� �
O o a? �n � °' '
~- LLI > 'T � -� �.
C � C y � � i
� � � � � i � '
.� � � } � .� �
�
c ?' 'a °- C a � �
•N � � -� V � E o
w � o �
a p O ti E � o � E '
Q.y u � o U � .a? '�
°� ° � � ..,_ E ° '�
� a� � � ._ � - '
II -� L- ` a� a � cv � op � •� c
C a � � .,- v=i � t�i ° � o
� O O � N v � -° � = = °� — a�i
t3 � (� a o a� �n '� — -� U -° r° � '� y,
M � 8 0� .c p � O � � W � w w � c �
C
� � � N � � c � � � � � U cn cn m o `� '
� � O � N � � '� � p � > O
W � � N Q � IL w Q cn O �. N M'� �
�
Exhibit 4
Ukiah Walmart Expansion
Annua) Net Sales Tax Revenue Estimates
In 2009 Dollars
Category Amount
Walmart Expansion Taxable Sales (1) $12,08$,848
less: '
Potential Taxable Sales Diversions for City of Ukiah (3) ($4,702,831� ',
, Net Taxable Sales $7,386,017 '
Incrementa)Ciiy of Ukiah Sales Tax(4j $73,860
Incremental Measure S Sales Tax(5) $36,930
Sources: Exhibits 2 and 3; and CBRE Consulting '
(1)See Exhibit 2.
(2)See Exhibit 3.
(3)The Ciiy of Ukiah share of the base sales tax is 1.0 percent of net taxable sales.
(4)Measure S sales tax revenues are based on 0.5 percent of net taxable sales. This supplemental tax !
will provide revenue to the City of Ukiah through 2015 or longer if reapproved by voters at that time. '
Exhibit 5
Ukiah Walmart Expansion
Construction Cost Estimates
Marshall and Swift Calculator Method
In 2008 and 2009 Dollars(1)
Warehouse
Supermarket Food Store
Cost Component Estimate(2) Estimate(2) Average '
Average Floor Area(3) 49,050 49,050 49,050 '
Base Square Foot Cost(4) $87.10 $72.51 $79.81
Heating and Cooling Square Foot Cost(5) $9.35 $9.35 $9.35
Sprinkler Square Foot Cost(5) $3.99 $3.99 $3.99
Subtotal in 2008 Dollars $100.44 $85.$5 $93.15 '
Height Multiplier(6) 1.17 1.17 1.17
Subtotal with Height Multiplier in 2008 Dollars(6) $117.51 $lOd.44 $108.98 '
Base Construction Cost in 200$Dollars(6) $5,764,101 $4,926,803 $5,345,452 I
2009 Cost Multiplier(1) 1.00 1.00 1.00 '
Base Constrvction Cost in 2009 Dollars(1) $5,764,101 $4,92b,803 $5,345,452
Parking in 2009 Dollars(7) $1Q3,917 $103,917 $103,917
Local Cost Multiplier(8) 1.09 1.09 1.09
Total Expa�sion Cost in 2009 Dollars(9) $6,396,140 $5,483,485 $5,939,812 '
Sources: Exhibit 1;Marshall and SwiR Construction Cost Estimation data;and CBRE Consulting.
(1)Marshall and Swift provides cost index adjustment factors by time period. Between May 2008 and December 2009,this factor was '
1.00 for Class C construction in the Western region,which indicates that the 2008 dollar and 2009 dollar estimates are equivalent.
(2)The Marshall and Swift data do not provide information specific to a store expansion.CBRE Co�sulting reviewed the available
retail store types and selected the Supermarket and the Warehouse Food Store categories as the best matches for the proposed '
(3)See Exhibit L '
(4) For both store iypes,Marshall and Swift presents per square foot cost ranges based on construction quality(e.g.,Class A-B,C, D;
Below Average,Average,Good,Excellent).The Marshall and Swift figures are from May 2008 and include lighting,store equipment
and standard fixtures,restrooms,and other specialty areas.CBRE Consulting used estimates for a Class C-Good retai)store format
based on the numerous green building features and store equipment that are planned#o be included in the Project. '
(5)Marshall and Swift provides additional cost estimatesxelated to Heating and Cooling Systerns and Sprinklers.CBRE Consulting '
relied on mid-range estimates for these components of the construction. '
(b)Marshall and Swift's base data assume a 12-foot ceiling height for a retail store.CBRE Consulting's analysis assumes that the
Project will have a 20-foot ceiling level,a�d relies on the Marshall and Swift height multiplier for this height. ',
(7)Marshall and Swift estimate of$1,551 per parking space multiplied by 67 additional spaces for the Project.This estimate does not ',
factor in other improvements that may be done to the existing Walmart store parking lot '
(8)The Marshall and Swift Local Cost Multiplier for Class C construction in Mendocino Couniy,California
(9)The sum of Base Construction Cost and Parking,both in 2009 dollars,adjusted upward based on the local Cost Multiplier for
Class C w�struction in Mendocino County,California. ',
Exhibit 6
Net Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle Licenses Fees Estimates
In 2009 and 2010 Dollars
Item Amount
2010/2011 Assessed Valuation of Properly�thin the City of Ukiah in 2010 Dollars(1)
City of Ukiah District $1,254,865,088
Ukiah RedevelopmentArea District $796,670,543
Ukiah Parking District $59,712,821 '
Total in 2010 Dollars $2,111,248,452
Adjusted 2010/2011 Total Assessed Valuation in 2009 Qolldrs(2j $2,082,523,4b3
Changes in Assessed Value due to the Walmart Expansion Project in 2009 Dollars(3) $5,939,812 '
Total Assessed Value including Changes(4) $2,088,463,275
Percent Increase in Assessed Value(5) 0.28%
Projected Fiscal Year 2009/2010 Triple-Flip Properfy Tax In Lieu Revenue(b) '
In 2010 Dollars $826,856 '
Adjusted to 2009 Dollars $815,606 '
Net Annual VI.F In-Lieu Revenues from SUMC Projed in 2009 Dollars(7) $2,320 '
Sources:County of Mendocino Assessed Valuations by Distrid,2010/2Q1 1;Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index(CPI)for
the Western region;Exhibit 5;City of Ukiah 20i0/201 1 General Fund Budget;and CBRE Consulting. ',
(1)Assessed valuation figures from the Cou�iy of Mendocino for the three property Distrids within the Ci1y of Ukiah boundaries
(2)Assessed valuation adjusted to 2009 dollars by multiplying by 98.64%based on the CPI for the western region. '
(3}See Exhibit 5 for CBRE Consulting's estimate of the Project construdion value.
(4)The sum of the 2010/201 1 Total Assessed Valuation in 2009 Dollars and the estimated Assessed Value of the Project.
(5)The estimated assessed value of the Project divided by$2,088,463,275. '
(6)Projeded prior year amounts from the 2010/2011 General Fund Budget are presented in 2010 dollars and adjusted to 2009
dollars based on the CPL
(7)Calculated based on fhe percentage increase in assessed value(0.28%)multiplied by the Triple-Flip Property Tax in Lieu revenue in
2009 dollars. ',
� � � �i � a � �
�
'�o c�, N � o� �, �
a �oV'o, � M U � -� a m
O � � L O 6 � �� .
'� .e c 3 0 � � o�
m ,�+o y a� �
m � O y '° °u o =� I
� � U r- y ,�
c � � u- --o �
� — � � o c3° p
'� oo v �t
0
a Z �°�oZZ 'rn ° � °'_��
7'n � .c m � c � � H E>,
, p � W o � .o � p .X� �.
C) � o ci .� � s s o�
o w � � � y '9 c � a_
c
.m � } _� o 'o � o�-
0 0�
� � � o a� E �c �
-� �° °Nm' �° °»-� r�i —. � a� a,o N �.°�a
� v. n_
_$ Q; o; U o °- � .5 $ •�o
EQ V' N N �� C � L 0 C � '�^ ��.
� � O
W "O � � C � �^ C � � •v�i V
00 V y p 'O � � �,C
N C � N N V �
a -C o� � u p .0 :O '�.
� 2 .� .C-. � � �� � ����
, = N V
N I� c!' � pp C 3 �p C m � � ¢
� N I� N� M p. O ,U E E .
�P V h M U M U C N U O a �' � ��.
O.. O M � � � � � N .0 � 0- � �,-C.. ��.
N t� �
e c � � � ��'-' c y U � � � °
� .e p o oL N y oCj�
� 'Ci � N U Y t 6 � O � .
m(j� �O ,� � p- O yp'� .
G 6 p �0 ,� 6 ;a��� .
� ,� � � C � N
O � U O � � �m
� M t0 M M d U7 � O ,C � O x O
d p V �1� �A N p 7 a�i ��` �� �� N O_�.
� V O �M �A O�I p� [O S. "� Q O N a�
U C � � � � � � � t � �h � N L � O
� C.� O p N o V „�-
p ° � O rn � o o � � a m a
m o a p a -o—
� � o- o � � a � 'U �'
� Q U o'•B � ��-', ,
u o } � ° a �' -o c
Vm c -n a-� o s m m
,� ^ �n o v ch N �" o `o 0 o c ; o a
� N W O� O p v6 N O N '6 � �` y'� . '..
'C:` �O U M N N � a � u 6 a 3 � ��.
� � O 4 � O��N O f'��. p � � O� .N � tn � ��- .
j �.a � tA � tH tA M 'O O N 0 � .Mp '`i' C � .
C N O
B p m O � � 'O '`' N y L V � N
N'O O ^ O� � E � ,Z` m U�
p�p N O � C � 'O N w m p '.
O 'a
V � � N C
C O N > ..0 6 '�,
O 'O y1 .�• y .0 �� ��.
O -p �`� d O � C m
N � '� T O N � a V �
C � -0 N �a+ �' p,C
O 7 + i1 �` . �.
.� 7 M N p T' � � � � C � y� �
=O iA � V � � � N u •Q'�- 6 � �L �
O � � O � � � � � o � � � `� d � '�
CV �0 O M O I� N p� a �� � ..�- aj � � � ����.
O � N W �.«�. } ..�- C C O ���..
�`9 C O O ,O N �a
�� EA FA V9 H3 `N > > L � C � 3 ,C a
� N'D � � � C ° d ��., c N � 3`v,
� m •G � � Z � �.
Ca U a N N Q_1- � � � �
C '�1j O K W '�n �n � N C ,�,,C N �.
O
O W � m '� 0 O � p) �� p)� ��.
'y � � U m U U V � .- > O �
O C O � '- O� O>•O "� v,i C E (MV
dS °- � � � a� a`, � '� ° °s �
c m U`�� N > > ,t- p ;Z'U M` +fl
'C t� � E .$ � ° ° � � i, °"U� °�-�o -o '
c 'o y o �
p � �rn � m �o ° � � O °' �U � '
-� � "� m > v, �n �:x a o.-. a�
1� g � u�. U (� �o �}'-` v°� .� v c�m v m ,o vi T�o a .
� 3 � m � 3 �
� s � ° " a � ��...
p � m � a� .� .� � o
s � a� � a � � � o `o '
t� � 'U U' t�S C9 � d U ~ '
i
ALH Urb�n � R��ional E�onomi�s
2239 Oregon Street
Berkeley,CA 94705
510-704-1599 '
aherman(c�alhecan.com
January 13, 2012 '
Mr. Brian Graitidge '
ESA � Community Development '
2600 Capitol Avenue, Suite 200 ',
Sacramento, CA 95816 '
Re: Errata Addendum to Ukiah Walmart Fiscal Impact Analysis '
Dear Mr. Grattidge:
The purpose of this (etter is iwofold. First, the letter provides a review of public comments submitted to the
City of Ukiah by Citizens for Sustainable Commerce (Citizens) relative to the fiscal impact analysis
conducted by CBRE Consulting for the Ukiah Walmart expansion project. Second, the letter provides an
errata to the CBRE Consulting fisca) impact analysis independent of any of the comments provided by
Citizens.
REVIE�I�F�1'fI�ERlS F(S��L 9�P��'T���f�/1EIVTS '
On December 12, 2011, Citizens for Sustainable Commerce (Citizens) submitted materials to the Ciiy of
Ukiah Planning Commission regarding the economic benefits of the Walmart's application to expand the
existing Ukiah Walmart store. One of the documents, titled "Evaluation of Alleged Economic Benefits of
Walmart, Ukiah,Application to expand into a Supercenter° included a topic regarding "Fiscal Impact to the
City of Ukiah." In their discussion of this topic, Citizens claims that CBRE Consulting, the preparer of a '
November 12, 2010 fiscal impact analysis of the Walmart expansion, miscalculated the benefits that will '
accrue to the City of Ukiah's General Fund. Pursuant to their own recalculations, Citizens estimates that the '
Walmart expansion will have a negligible or possibly negative impact on the City's General F�nd.
In the Citizens materials, they state that despite citing that 75%of the Walmart sales will be diverted mainly '
from Ukiah retailers, that the CBRE Consulting fiscal impact analysis instead estimates a figure comprising '
only 39% of the Walmart sales (please note this 39% figure is not cited in the CBRE Consulting analysis). '
Citizens then provides their estimate of the revenue gain to the City of Ukiah, estimating $36,160
(including sales tax, property tax in lieu, and franchise tax), or $32,388 (ess the franchise tax, which they
state would be offset by employment (osses incurred by other retailers. Net of the estimated police costs,
cited as $32,488 in the CBRE Consulting fiscal impact analysis, Citizens then estimates that only $54 will
accrue to the City's General Fund on an annual basis, or a negative amount if the City's Measure S sales '
tax is not extended beyond 2015. They further cite that the fiscal impact analysis does not take into account I
other potential fiscal costs, such as lost property tax revenues due to store closures and social service costs '
due to declining living standards. In another document, "Analysis of Project Objectives of Application by
Walmart in Ukiah, CA, to expand into a Supercenter" Citizens additional cites a belief that the estimated '
police costs of$32,488 are too low.
�:,��! � �
�
ALM Urb�n & R�gic�nal Ec�nc�mics
Citizens does not provide support for their calculations, but it appears that they divided the amount of
estimated diverted taxable sales into the total taxable sales estimate to derive 39%. In the cantext of that '
analysis, this figure is correct, and explained in a series of exhibits in the CBRE Consulting fiscal impact '
analysis. However, iwo intermediary steps missed by Citizens leading to this 39% figure include 1) the '
estimate of potential sales diversions (which is less than the tota) project sales) and the estimate of the
taxable share of these potentia) sales diversions, and then 2) the 75%share of these diversions estimated to
come from existing Ukiah retailers. Therefore, the analysis did use the 75% figure cited in the CBRE
Consulting fiscal impact analysis. In addition, the Citizens analysis also did not take into account the share
of project sales estimated to originate from outside the market area. Their analysis effectively assumed that
of the $12.1 million in estimated taxable project sales, only 25%would comprise net new sales to the City '
of Ukiah (i.e., 100% less the 75% diverted from existing businesses). However, a portion of these sales,
estimated at 15% of the total, were assumed to be generated from outside the market area and wauld
comprise all net new sales and sales taxes to the Ciiy of Ukiah.And again,the $12.1 million figure cited by ',
Citizens did not comprise the estimated amount of diverted taxable sales. That figure was a considerably '
lower $4.7 million reflected in the fiscal impact analysis. In summary, therefore, Citizens was '
misinterpreting the assumptions regarding diverted sales and the fiscal impact implications of these sales.
In addition, Citizens questions the validity of the $32,488 estimated public service costs. It is notable that
this cost estimate was provided by City of Ukiah staff and exceeds cost estimates separately calculated by ,
CBRE Consulting. Thus the $32,488 figure is conservative and comprises the City's own best estimate.
ERRATA'T����E �ORISl1LTItVG FIS�AL IMPA�1'Ah1ALYSIS ,
While the analysis included in the CBRE Consulting fiscal impact analysis is methodologically sound, in the
process of reviewing this document I became aware of inconsistencies belween this document and the June
2010 Urban Decay analysis for this project. Therefore, the primary purpose of this letter is�to provide an
errata addendum to the CBRE Consulting fiscal impact Analysis.
CBRE Consulting prepared several internal iterations of the Urban Decay analysis prior to completing the !
report that was released with the project's Draft Environmental (mpact Report (DEIR). I was a Senior
Managing Director with CBRE Consulting at that time, and have since formed my own firm, A�H Urban &
Regional Economics (ALH Economics). The CBRE Consulting fiscal impact analysis was prepared prior to '
the public release of the Urban Decay analysis. Severa) changes in the analysis occurred between the '
internal drafts of the Urban Decay analysis and the preparation of the report document. Two of these
changes resulted in revised project impact estimates that should have been factored into the fiscal impact
analysis but were not. These changes include a slight modification in the mix of retail merchandise
anticipated to be sold in the expanded Walmart and a methodological change in the treatment of new
retai) demand generated by household growth. This latter change is the most important to the fisca) impact '
analysis, with the change in the retail mix being relatively immaterial. In the initial internal analysis, new '
retail demand was credited against the project's impacts, and then also factored into the cumulative project
analysis. In the Urban Decay report, however, the analysis conservatively considered new retail demand '
only on a cumulative basis, and did not account for this in the estimated project impacts. '
Prior to the two referenced changes, the internal Urban Decay study estimated project impacts totaling '
$13.2 million, of which $4.7 million was estimated to be taxable and diverted from City of Ukiah retailers
(i.e., of the taxable amount, 75% was estimated to be diverted from Ukiah retailers). This $13.2 million in
sales diversions was the net result of estimated new demand offsetting a portion of $18.3 million in
estimated project impacts. The project's total estimated sales in the internal working version of the Urban '
Decay study totaled $21.6 million, with $12.1 million comprising taxable sales. Therefore, the share of '
i
t
I
§
� .. ..��.. . �
? ALH Urban & RegionaC Econornies
ti
� taxable sales estimated to result in net sales fiax revenues to the �iiy of Ukiah totafed $7.4 million (i.e., ���
� $12.1 million less $4J million), which is reflected in the CBRE Consulting fiscal impact analysis. �
`� Despite the changes that accurred in CBRE Consulting's interna) version of the Urban Decay analysis prior '
to the release of the DEIR, the project sales estimate continued to tota) $21.6 million. However, without '
cansideration of new household demand offsetting project impacts, the resulting sales impact figure was ,
$20.4 million (see Exhibits 4 and 14 in the CBRE Consulting Urban Decay analysis). This $20.4 million
sales impact figure compares to the $13.2 million figure reflected in the fiscal impact analysis. '
ALH Economics has updated the CBRE Consulting fiscal impact analysis mode) to reflect the analysis and '
estimates included in the Urban Decay study. This update results in changes to the General Fund revenue '
estimates included in the fiscal impact analysis. The Appendix includes four exhibits that comprise ',
corrections to the same exhibits in the CBRE Consulting fiscal impact analysis. These include Exhibit 1, '
which presents the estimated percent and sales distribution of the project sales by retail category. Exhibit 2 '
then translates the total sales into estimated taxable sales and identifies the associated local sales tax '
revenue proceeds. Exhibit 3 identifies the potential sales diversions, estimated at $18.0 million, and then '
the taxable portion of these proceeds anticipated to comprise diversions from existing Ukiah retailers, '
totaling $6.3 million. Finally, Exhibit 4 calculates the net increment of sales tax proceeds anticipated to '
accrue to the Ciiy of Ukiah, as well as the Measure S sales tax revenues. These figures are $47,677 and '
$23,838 respectively. These figures are lower than the comparable figures included in the CBRE Consulting '
fiscal impact analysis, which totaled $73,86Q from sales tax revenues and $36,930 from Measure S sales
tax revenues.
The end result of the corrected fiscal impact analysis is summarized below in Table 7. This table uses !
figures derived from corrected Exhibits 1 through 4 as well as the original fiscal impact analysis. This table !
is comparable to Table 7 in the CBRE Consulting fiseal impact report, which summarized the net fiscal
impacts of the Walmart expansion project on the Ciiy of Ukiah Genera) Fund.
Table 7: Summa of Annual General Fund Fiscal Benefits
November 2010
CBRE Consulting January 2012
Fiscal Impact AnaJysis Errata Fiscal Impact Analysis ',
Net Impact Net Impact Net Impact Net Impact !
Cate ories Excl. Measure S Inc. Measure S Excl. Measure S Inc. Measure S
Net Sales Tax $73,860 $73,860 $47,677 $47,677 '
Net Measure S Sales Tax -- $36,930 -- $23,838
Property Tax In Lieu $2,320 $2,320 $2,320 $2,320
Franchise Tax ' $3,618 $3,618 $3,618 $3,618
Subtota) $79,798 $116,728 $53,615 $77,453 ',
General Fund Expenses ($32,488) ($32,488) ($32,488) ($32,488)
Net Benefits $47,310 $84,240 $21,127 $44,965
i
ALH Urban � Regic�n�t E��nomi�s
As can be saen from Exhibit 7, the CBRE Consulting fiscal impact study estimates that the ann�al net fiscal
impact to the Ukiah General Fund pursuant ta Walmart's planned expansion was $47,310 excluding '
Measure S sales tax proceeds and $84,240 including Measure S sales tax proceeds. The corrected analysis '
suggests lower annual net benefits to the City's Genera) Fund, but still well into the positive. These figures
are $21,127 excluding Measure S and $44,9b5 including Measure S. Notably, once new household
growth and associated new demand is taken into account, these net fiscal benefits will increase and
become more consistent with the figures reporfed in the CBRE Consulting fiscal impact study.
In addition, while the net fiscal impact estimates to the General Fund are initially lower with the corrections, '
one potentially significant change has occurred in the interim period between the two analyses. This '
change is the probable demise of Redevelopment in California, with future tax increment proceeds no '
longer accruing to the City's Redevelopment Agency, especially by the time the Walmart expansion is '
operational. Along with the loss in these revenues, however, will come an increase in the City's property tax '
revenues, with the City's General Fund likely retaining a portion of the properly taxes collected by '
Mendocino Couniy. Thus the revenues that will accrue to the City's General Fund by the time the Walmart
expansion project is complete will likely be considerably greater than the estimates cited above totaling
$21,127 to $44,965.
�01V�LtJDIN��O�MEtdT'S '
ALH Economics appreciates the opportunity to provide this review and errata addendum. If there are
any questions to the analysis please let me know. I can be reached at 510-704-1599 or '
Aherman@alhecon.com. '
Sincerely,
A�H Urban & Regional Economics
�.,`� ��"�'`,-�-----.._
C_" 4
Amy L. Herman,AICP '
Principa) '
ALH Econ/201 1 Projeds/1113 ESA Ukiah/Walmarf Fiscal Errata/Walmart Fiscal Errata.doc
�
�
i
�
�
, a.�,,,. .��� �z�� .w�.��e „���� �_.e. ..� aum,� . ,�..��m������,� .���� �
i
j APPENDIX
r
Exhibit 1 - .lanuary 2012 Errata
Ukiah Walmart Expansion
Distribution of Sales and Net Sales Estimates
In 2009 Dollars
Planned Walmart
Distribution Size/Sales
Store Characteristic of Sales Estimates
Total Square Feet(1) -- 49,050
Sales Per Square Foot(2) 4818054 $441
Projected Sales $12,186,752 $21,633,005
Allocation of Sales by BOE Retail Cateqorv 13) '
' Apparel 0.0% $0 '
General Merchandise 26.2% $5,668,298
Food Stares 66.3% $14,337,356
Eating& Drinking Places 0.0% $0
Home Furnishings&Appliances 0.0% $0 ,
Building Materials 0.0% $0
Motor Vehicles&Parts -10.8% ($2,340,87b)
Service Stations 0.0% $d
Other Retail (4) 18.3% $3,968,227 '
Total Net Sales 100.0% $21,633,005 '
Sources: Environmental Science Associates(ESA), Notice of Preparation (NOP),March 11, 2010;United
States Securities a�d Exchange Commission,Walmart Stores, Inc. 10-K forms for the fiscal year ending
January 31, 2009,and the four prior fiscal years; Bureau of Labor Statistics,Consumer Price Index for ,
the United States;"Walmart Expansion Economic Impact and Urban Decay Analysis, Ukiah,California, '
June 2010"prepared by CBRE Gonsulting; and CBRE Consulting. '
(1) CBRE Consulting estimate of the Praject square feet based on information provided in the Notice of
Preparation and the calculation of a +3 percent buffer for design changes.
(2)CBRE Consulting estimate of sales per square foot based on the five-year average store sales for the !
U.S.Walmart Stores segment,including adjustments to 2009 dollars. !
(3)CBRE Consulting estimates based on the planned square footage of the Project. '
(4)Sales from the planned garden center addition are included in the Qther Retail category.
3
�
i
{
t �
� o �
' N � �°r\i � �oo � o 'y
? a o oo�o � P c `
}
i N�- � � � o: � 0 �
x m m U �»E» �n E» � c
;. �N � •° o
; � —
3 � C �
C ,� �
� �
N 'N N
` 0 C
. a � �
� m InNO �CV � �W v_>
` �N � OO�vo.. � M � O cn
= x � !!' M M o C 'D �
o� c� `��' �`fl � a y '
0
� y II � •�'C° � '
m o N ,a �
tJ�p o� L N '
n a� �
,o �a � '
} U �
o ? � o
-p p �N
C V �
O
m o0 I�O ,p I� ,,p O S � �
a � �m � OFH� N N u S � �Q
y X a0 O O p �
m E Q o 0 0� o 0 3 a a
-n:�= II � M �,.� o� c°> � °' v,
�� �,.� o E
Q N N -Q N
�W � �� �� ^ [ � � �N �
� � �
� � C � ;
N O � �
O O � � L
� � N
�c N � d5 � ��
N N � `
G � � U � N O ;
N
� �� try o�o 0 0 0 �O _C O �
'Q m m m (T �MO00 a > � � � .
e�� °� c =
G X O � m O �
a Ma 6 E � � Q
N C y � C
6 c � c u
W �u s � o-
a � � � �r?
�
m ^ eo �ao �o� �n a � � o �
O� �tA 1� N p �.
. N } N M 00 (V O m � a -Q 0 ��'..
� O � a0 I� O 00 M N �
O � �O M <1' �O M � O C .a O ,.
�O�M M O� �D i � � a v�
F- y � � N M .- O p N
W EA 64 Efl N `t '� m �� O
`fl "9 U � a o N
� � c �
� W 3 a N
E � o � �
o -6 0 �
Q � N U E
O � 6 a
n. a� v .�
O m o � p a �
� Q� CJ �- � a � u
� o
W C C �a s � � d 2
N O fU � q � �n �,
,- 'y � � _ � � � �
O C � W ,,,_ � a o •�
N � x � � O •y � N U
� X 6 � � 6 .t � � N p � .
(7 W � U � .�? 6 U � p� O 'C. ���.
a t v, � y N � °- � vs c �- �
C � �t
C Ce7 � � 'C � O C �S ^ ] � �
; C N o �j � U C N -Q " C �+- wp ...
� Q y C� p� O N � ' .U -o -C S O O �
c � � x U c
'0= � O O (� 0 O � °�S � K N N W � V V '..
� Q `p �' N � O � � 00 �� ,.
X � .� CV O � � � .0 � s FO � v�i CJ o_is-
W = W C N QC� t� w � O v�i � �� M
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
;
r
�
?
�
�
i
�
1
�
C
C � •�
O `�
M U � � +s�- �.
W O oO
m a V �
� C p o 0�0 ��� � � m ON C '�+- �
6 p� � ,- o �o � c+� U m o
� � -C N
p s' = x � �I' � CM`! � -a j Q- Q `� O
H j p oo N i� I� O ty -p -� N y .� .�n
p 0 x M N N .p � � � � � ��.
:� y Q F/-T ty9 d9 EF! y9 p �C �+, i� C
,�m � �l �� p� � � � N
��„ N;� V a � a�i � a
p u -p 6
� a U � � � H
..� O s Q O �t a
N p � �n � �
� � � •y
G � O ?` i � '..
� a N
� � Q � .Q � ��.
� T �
C � � � � �
N � C L
' `1= Q N O � �N
N '� T � � i �
� m
U � a -O � O
m y o 0 0 0 o N � � Q-�i
i m O O O O O t p O 6 �
�� O� MO00 � C � u � �
6 i �
x � � � N 6 N
F6 `� � � y � a
o � � -a � �
o U � � ,>
Q �i �= a a
a Q �' c Q- �
m o
'- u�i E U -a °� �
� V . y � �
y �f' NO `OM M
C � U�K�I`� Q� CV �c � � a u � ��
S a .� o � o0 0. o, a . .a t
o c
5e m m Q 00 0`°0 ° � M � o � a ' °
� •- :> pp �— M M O _O w � � � N �.
�y„ d� d' � N M pp C c t = O .•-c-
0 N v� �va � o p � o � �
m e» bq +- o
u 'fn �.- � —
V N � Q � U � v
m - w � � • a 'a
.�Ci- u t � c .N �S m
�- p � �u -6 � .� O
`� � y '�n p N .0 O
C p w > ?� u � u �- '
Cf � � � �' � � `o � �
a �` � �� � ° a� >.� �
� � U � �
w > - Q ' Y �° � v '
� O x C O N N � L ��.
N O � N W O E � +- o
O C N w o w c � Q-"c o
r� a s O N v E � � �*- E � y
�' �.� °� � � y ° V " °�' U E -°'
p w cu � � .y 6 � � � �.�- E � '� � a
' � � L 'i� N Z7 � O- y= 0 C � O N y
y C � N— �
C . N 00 C O
a � O () � N u =� m -° � "' N � Q a�i 'v+ a
� u
� O ~ � 6 O N N �L V- s U � � C 3 N A N �.
�"� � C7 Q� t c � O � � a� W � w w � c .� o '�
-Q s � a V �� a `n �> � � u U a�i a�i a '� � s �-�
� 6 � (y � U C "Q C O N � N V3 00 � C �- j
�jy 0 O � O ' 0-c 7 'O y
W � a�. � N QU' �° w° � O ~ cn° o �. NP?=oUd' �' '
�O v c� � aa
N
� C��") �O �O 00
`a �O d' N
p � N I'� N9 t9 ���..
E � d' '
Q � � x '
o �
a •�
c .
a� �
E
� �
a
LL y
� �
N y-
N �
_ �
� � �
� � �
N
� � �
� N �
� � fl
a a �
� x v
C d
v- ��
� G N
�
N 0 0
u .�
`N C — '
Q � � '
V .
M � N �
r Q'O
s y �A N
N a •-
� �C p} X �-C ���
a � �� � C � ���
O
E O � � -a OL '
:� �. C p N� � ����.
� W C.7 e1' U � ��
o � .� ° a �- � � �'�
W � � C N a m � O
U �
N O � c° '� o H � �+- � ;z' '
O 'G � � > t a ° � > � '
N O p o � o 'n �`'> a �} '
L� X�~ a N � N � N O � �.
tA 1-- � N
v- N
' '� � L � N N O N CV � N �
�C— C
v � � a C � p � � � N C`") � � � ���.
� � 0 Q O � U � � .Q.9 � N � ���.
e{. � Z � W i- � o a W S L .�" � �
x x •- �'o
� � � O � ° � a E E a� a� a� a� � o
C I° i N N S
K � G � O y� y � N u u > N tn I- � Q' ���.
W = Q S V > ud Z C G N vNM�f'?� '..
Kim Jordan
From: Amy L Herman [aherman@alhecon.com�
Sent: Wednesday,January 25,2012 12:12 PM
To: Kim Jordan
Subject: RE:submissions for Planning Commission
Attachments: HdL document on the sales tax triple flip.pdf; California Sales and Use Tax Rates0001.pdf
Kim, I have reviewed the most recent CSC analysis of the fiscal impact analysis for the proposed Walmart expansion
project in LTkiah.In this January 24,2012 document CSC provides three criticisms of the ALH Economics errata to the
CBRE Consulting fiscal impact analysis.These three criticisms are:
1. A�H Economics used the wrong sales tax rate for the City of Ukiah,with CSC citing a rate of OJ5%instead of the '
1.0%rate used in the analysis.
. 2. The sales tax revenue estimates should be reduced by one-half pursuant to a sales tax sharing agreement that
the City proposed to the County at the time the Masonite site was under consideration for development but has
not yet negotiated or implemented.
3. Because CSC thinks the potentiat sales diversions resulting from the Walmart expansion will result in equal or '
greater job losses they do not believe there will be any net franchise tax revenues accruing to the City pursuant '
to the Walmart development. '
Sales T�Rate
In CSC's January 24, 2011 document it provides citations to prevailing sales tax rates.While the 0.75%rate cited by CSC '
may be the current base sales tax rate in the City of LTkiah,the effective sales tax rate is the 1.0%rate used in the CBRE
Consulting and then the ALH Econornics analysis.This is because in 2004 the State of California initiated the"triple- '
flip",which is a series of three revenue swapping pracedures designed to make localities whole pursuant to the State's
diversion of 0.25%of the local share of sales taxes.The state diverts these sales taxes to guarantee bonds that were taken
out to help close the State's then deficit.That is the first flip.The second flip is when revenue lost through this shift is�
backfilled to locai agencies with property tax revenue from the County Education Revenue Augmentation Fund(ERAF).
Payment of this backfill occurs twice a year.Finally,the third flip is not directly related to the sales tax bacl�illing,but '
rather provides for the State general fund to provide any shortfall in county ERAF funds if needed to meet the minimurn
funding requirement for schoois.The attached document authored by HdL,professional tax consultants in California,
provides some explanation of the triple flip.This document can be found at:
http://www.hdlcompanies.com/downloadlindex.efm?fuseaction=download&cid=686.
The upshot of the triple flip is that cities are made w�ole relative to the local share of the sales tax rate, which in the case '
of U�kiah is 1.0%.The attached sheet from the Board�of Equalization's website documents this 1.0°Io tax rate.This sheet, '
which is Table 23A,can be found at: http://www.boe.ca.�ov/annuaUstatindex0910.htm.
The Walmart fiscal irnpact analysis did not detail the machinations of the triple flip because the effective sales tax rate is '
1.0%,which is the rate used in the analysis. Referencing the triple flip would have unnecessarily complicated the text and
potentially confused readers while adding nothing to the analysis.
Sales Tax Sharing with the County
CSC mentions a potential sales tax sharing agreement with the County dating most recently to fa112009,when Measure A
was on the ballot to allow retail development of the Masonite site just north of the City of Ukiah boundaries.According to
CSC the City requested the County Board of Supervisors to oppose the initiative so such retail development would not
thwart the potentiai for future retail development in the Airport Industrial Park. CSC's discussion suggests a 50/50 sales I
tax agreement applicable to future retail development. '
The fiscal impact analysis,including the fiscal impact errata,did not assume tax sharing because no tax sharing agreement
has been negotiated between the City of Ukiah and Mendocino County.
1 '
Franchise Tax Revenues
For the purpose of the fiscal impact analysis,franchise tax revenues are projected using employee count as a basis for
projection.CSC claims that the projected franchise tax revenues will not comprise net tax revenues because it believes the
estimated new Walmart employment count will displace an equal or greater amount of employment at other Ukiah
retailers and thus supplant the franchise tax revenues generated by those employees.
The franchise tax revenue projection is prepared on a per employee basis as an analytical convention,with employrnent
serving as a proxy for measuring franchise tax revenues.However, franchise tax revenues will not be generated based on
employment count but rather business use of utilities such as PG&E,refuse collection,and City utilities.Utility
consumption is a product of many factors, with employment probably not the primary determinant.Other critical factors
likely include size of occupied space,business hours,and weather conditions.Thus,employment declines alone will '
likely not result in a material reduction in existing franchise tax revenues. Such reduction would only occur if businesses
completely close, which the parallel urban decay analysis for the Walmart store suggests could occur.However,the '
referenced urban decay study also indicates the long-term potential for vacated retail store spaces to be backfilled, which '
would resuit in resumed franchise tax payments from the replacement business operations. '
Implications of CSC Comments
ALH Economics believes that CSC's revised estimate of net fiscal impact for the Walmart expansion project is not '
correct.The City of Ukiah's sales tax rate is not the 0.75%figure incorporated by CSC in its analysis and there is no
existing sales tax sharing agreement in place.Even if the estimated Walmart expansion franchise tax fees do not comprise
net revenues to the City of ITkiah the Walmart expansion project is estimated to produce a net pasitive benefit to the City
of LTkiah's General Fund. _ _
In addition,as referenced in the fiscal impact errata, with the pending demise of Redevelopment in the State of California '
the City of Ukiah General Fund will ultimately receive a portion of the property tax revenues generated by the expansion.
This will increase the estimated project-related revenues to the General Fund.Because the site was in the Redevelopment
Project Area at the time the fiscal impact analysis was conducted the City's property tax rate absent Redevelopment was
not germane to the analysis.I am in the process of identifying this rate.For informational purposes,the fiscal impact
analysis estimated the incremental value af the project as$5.9 million.Based upon this value,for every 1.0%increment in
the City of Ukiah's property tax rate(the City's share of the 1.0% collected by the County)the City will collect$590 from
this increment following the demise of Redevelopment(note these figures are in 2008/2009 doliars,and thus will increase
by the time the project is developed). CSC would argue that these property tax revenues would be offset by losses
incurred by properties associated with negatively impacted businesses.Any prospective property value declines at this
juncture would be speculative and thus cannot be estimated.Moreover,any such impacts are not likeiy to be permanent
assuming replacement tenants are located for closed business spaces.
Closing Comment '
Please let me know if you have any questions about the preceding information.I will be availabie by e-mail and phone all
day. If you cannot reach me at my business line,which is 510-704-1599,then please try me on my cell phone at 415-531-
3048. '
Thank you,Amy Herman '
.�my L Herman �ICP '
ALH Urban&Regional Economics
2239 Qregon Street
Berkeley,CA 94705 '
510.704.1599 T '
2
i i
,I i 1340 Valley Vista Drive,Suite 200
Ie ' Diamond Bar,CA 41765
� e� (909)861-4335
�����
�AN � � �a��
HOW THE TRIPLE FLIP WO S ����'r����g
PIANNI���EPi;
In March 2004, California voter's approved Proposition 57, the California Economic Recovery '
Band Act, which authorized the issuance of up to $15 billion in bonds to close the State's budget
deficit. $10.9 billion of these bonds were issued in 2004 and the rernainder in 2008.
To guarantee bond repayment, a dedicated revenue source was required. The revenue source '
provided for under the California Economic Recovery Bond Act is '/a of the sales and use ta,xes '
levied for local governments under the Bradley-Burns Uniform Sales Tax law. The bonds are
repaid from the revenue received througk the shift ofthe local portion of sales and use taxes plus
transfers from the Budget Stabilization Account (BSA) which is a special reserve established in
the State's general fund approved by Proposition 58. '
The confiscated local sales tax is reimbursed through a series of revenue swapping procedures.
These exchanges are referred to as the "triple flip". The triple flip will continue until the bonds '
are retired. As of June 2009,the Department of Finance estimates that to be Spring 2016.
How the triple flip works:
(Flip 1} '/4 of the one percent local sales and use taxes are shifted to the State to the '
guarantee the bonds.
(Flip 2) Revenue lost through the shift is backfilled to local agencies with property tax
revenue from the County Education Revenue Augmentation Fund(ERAF). '
(Flip 3) Any shortfall in County ERAF monies needed to meet the minimum funding
requirernent for schools is backfiiled from the State general fund.
No later than September 1 of each year, the State Department of Finance is required to send a
notification to each County Auditor specifying the amount of the triple flip reimbursement '
(backfill payment) due to each jurisdiction in the county for the coming fiscal year.
Reimbursements are based upon the estimated sales and use tax revenues allocated to the
jurisdiction in the prior fiscal year, plus an adjustrnent based upon projected statewide growth or
decline. !
�
�
;
� _ _
�
Sales and llse Taxes
{
; TABLE 23A-LOCA�SAIES AND USE TAX RATES IMPOSED
f BY CALIFORNIA CITIES ON JULY 1,2010
i C'ty C�Y
� County ratea Cities County rate� Ciiies
� 1 2 3_ 1 2 3 �'
� Aiameda.............. 1.00 Du61in/LivertnorelSan Leandro Mapa.................... 1.00 Al(citles '�
" .95 AII other cities Nevada................ 1.00 All cities '
Aipine................... - No incorporated cities Orange................. 1.00 All cides '
: Amador................ 1.00 Ail cities Placer................... I.00 1lli cities
� Bufte.................... .95 Chico Plumas................. .95 Podola
� 1.00 NI other cities Riverside.............. 1.00 Ali citlas
°`: Cataveras............ .95 Angeis Camp Sacramento.......... 1.00 AII cities
��? Colusa.................. lA0 All citiss San Benito........... 1.00 AII cities '
tContra Costa....... 1.00 dakley San Bemardino.... 1.00 AII cities
t .975 All other cities San Diego............ 1.00 All cities
'?,' Del Norte.:............ 1.00. Crescsnt Gity San Franpsco...... 1.00 -
'.G EI Dorado............. 1.00 All ci6es San Joaquin......... 1.00 All cities
';; Fresno.................. .9472 Fresno San I.vis Obispo... 1.00 AII cities
'; .95 Glovis/CoalingalFire6aughlFowler/KermaN San Matea........... .95 AIf cities
Kings6urg/Reedley/Ssnger/Selma Saeta Barbara...... SO Goleha
.985 Mendote 1.00 AII other cities
€
lA0 All other cities SaMa Clara.......... 1.00 All cities
� U1lenn................... 1,06 Ail ckles 3anta Cn¢........... 1.OQ NI citles '
Humboldt............. 1.0(1 All cittes Shasha.................. 1.00 Atl cities '
;; Imperial................ 1.00 AII cities Slerra................... .95 loyalton
°t: In}ro...................... 1.00 Bishop Siskiyou............... 1.00 /UI cities '
3; Kem..................... 1.00 All ci8es Sula�ro.................. 1.00 All cities '
'; Kings.................... .95 Nanforcl Sonoma............... 1.00 Windsor
.98 All other cities .975 Ali other alies '
' Lake..................... 1.00 Ail ciBes SFanis�us.....,...... .95 GeresiMOdesto/Oakdaielfurbck
' Lassen................. .95 Susanville 995 PattersoNRiverbank '
LosAngetes......... 1.00 Allcities I.04 Aitothercities '
``';', Madera................. .92 Chowchilla Sutter................... I.i10 AII cities '
; .94 Madera Tehama .............. .90 CominglRed Biulf ,
; Mann ....:.:.:.::.... 1.00 AIi cities _ 1.00 Tehama _
Mariposa.............. - No incorporated alies Trinity....._....... - Na inco orated cdies
..... � .
Mendocino........... 1.00 All cities 7utare................... .95 All eities
Me�ced................. .925 Merced T�lumne............. .87 So�mra
< .95 Los Banos Venfura................ 1.06 Ojai
1.00 Allothercfties .967 Allatherci6es
""" Modoc.................. 1.00 Alturas Yo(o ..................... 1.0f1 Ali cities
` Mono.................... 1.00 Mammoth Lakes Yuba.................... 1.00 NI cihes
s Monterey.............. 1.00 Ail cities
a Each city's tax rale Is credted agai�st the county's one percent tau. �'�..
�����
JAN � � �p��
� � CIT!°OF i1dCfA,F9
• PLAN�lIh!G DEPT.
i
A-39
� - '
I '
I '
..� ��3� � ... � `��. ::��..� �I;s�.�// /�� t;� �c �" ..� wwd�w ww aV�ri�V6ri �.r/ ••- �.. .. . . '�
0
, �
0
W
: F
♦
a�
��
...
c 15 � �... . . : .��, . : �;� : �'.. :: NEW ENTRY �
, � �
: . ,, :.
,.
I •�-, � �: _ . �. ..:; , .' !. -: VESTI # - u�.�
.;
,.: _ . . . � . ;� BULE WM �OJ�� �� � Z °,� ��°
,< I: . . i . ... ..: � �K >_:....::.:.
.,: i ,� . - � , ,� _ _ , o o � G�o
, �: . � � C 150E GL-NQ
,.. I . . : _ . — � Q
r , � � /�� �
� � �. . . . . . . . . . / <? . : 5 /� �
. . � a:� ..7 . .�.y . .: � . . . .�.��:7 . .�.� . . . . . � .� /. •. „ . /+� .. . ',.. . .! ���4� ���� 2 . .fQ
. . . : .. . . .. ...� i4\ .✓.�� .:�.. .. ... ., . �+'� .. . . . � :.:: � . . Z . ...� I: : ..'�C.. �: �.. O� .� .
. ..r� ... . ..�. ,.. . .. .: . . . �: . . : . ..ti:\; � � . V�S ��.� � .. . .. ..� � . �. . .
�► 2 .: . . 1 ;�
� f TC3TAL 15 51 S : N
.
4 ;
: ; .:...._.....:..:.:::
.., � , . . , .
� . � . : a
. . . ...... ,.
: .: ,, . :
. : :_ . .
. ... - , . : .. . . : �
, ,
. . � a
... . . ; . , . . .:.:....:.:::..:::::
,� : :
°< .. ;.. . . : . , 2�„ .."<. , , ..:. . . .
. , F F E. 591 4fi :� � � �
, � . . � , �
, ._ , .... .: . :. , . . �t �
. ., . . . ; .;,. , ,� a......
, . , � � `
::..::..::.
. . ;:.:.u:::
. � 2 , : . . . . : . . .�,ti,: , ,�.. .. :: � �:y ��.:.
, � , , L12 1� �. � , , � �
, , . . . . . . . . ; . .
o .. :
� G ..� . . : .: .:c v. � . : .
W
.: . . � ;: . . . ._ . . . _ : ��;� , . � �: ��... •�• _� <.:::.:._��: :.�.:
� � ti c �, ..�_ �: ;. �.�, .> . ::..;:...:<��€:.::>.:.�
. . . < . . . . . . . . . ._ . : . : _ i i :�. �- .z ;,.._�.:;.:::,:-:�
NE GRA S PAVE PARKI G .AR A. . . . . : . . : . . . ._ . � . : : �, �_. �� . ::: :.:::::....;::::..::
. . . : I. . . . . . . : . . . .: . . . . :. . . : : . : , ;:z� :>, . .. ,*,.¢ �
, ,::;.::��.�.:.::::;::.�
. . _ : . . � $: :... "
,: i . :.:: :: , ,.., o,, . �:_::.:::<:::<w.;:;>;;.
w : . . . : . . . : : . . . . . . . . . ._ : . . . . �; ._ i f �; ; :.
G A S TURF SURFAC . �. .� ti �: NEW P .:: � v� �
f E . . . . . . . :_ . ._ . : . . . . . : , : ._ . . . . : LANTER. SEE .... ,�
) :__....::::.::.:�...:;
/ `::r :i � : .: t(1 •
:�..�: . : J ...� 3 � .:�p�.. :��.�. . . � � � ..:. . . ���.�: �/ .. ....: ��.� � . . . . .. .
• .� . . .. � .,. . . .�.. . . .� .� . / / ._ ,_ . . .. . . . �: .: �.I�. � . i
L. .. : �� . ..::�.:". �.. .. .. . . �
. . : . . ._ . . : . . . ..;., �ANDSCAPE PLAN =
,. � .. 2 � ,a ,� , ,
: . . . . . . : . . . . . : . _ . . . :::. �� �_ ....
�.. � � ��� :
: � ,:. ,. ::,. . , .. � .,... � t .oicv
� . . . . . . . .
4 . . . .
. ;,. ,� "� i a.0 .
. . , ; , , .
..,. ..
��
' ' :� . . . . . :` ti;. `-. • _ ,� , : . : � �25' 3
ry
., . . . ._� ,.: �" �
v) . . , f . ..: ,:.. . .� . . �, . . : .�: f' . >.: , EXISTING WATER LINE ` �° '- `4
'. � ,N�r� ' :?. .>s';;t:;
2 . . . .� . . �. �.=.� .� :.�.� �' ' :�: :.::::::. BIKE RACKS , ::.,: .. : � : � . :::
. .
� . . � � � . : . . � . . ., . . �. . . . :-, ; ��> ,.: ,' �; , AND FIRE HYDRANT : �y .. � � -
. �
.
NE1�V.�. . �: .:N. E . :�:�. .�. . , :� :�. � � � ..:.� ,_ ., o
. :
,; �,4 :�` � �• , . :. z:: i�
l . . . : . . . . . ._ . . . . : . : . . . . . . . . . ,� , : ::..: NEW DECORATIVE TO BE RELOCATED . . . .. ,,.. .. _ �.:,....,,n....:.:
: I . � SE LAND CAP � �'RLA(��,,. . . . . :. . . . . . , , �. ;� : /'� :�� :.: �c
, . � . . .�. . ... �'1 . .�:�;: . . .��.�.. / �� -�.:y �• 1,ro... . � 4`\" � � ��/ O .
. •: � � � ,. . . , . � ... ,. �. .�. NCRETE WITH < Z
. . , .
� �� . . ��� ...... ,: :' � :.4.� ��: . . .. . .� . . . . � � ,� . .
s. ..a....y ..W . . . .. ..
< � �
f \:' :. . : : : � •'°",. :. .h::1 t
; . . . ._ , -.
,, . 2 ,
. �
' � ' '\�,.�, ,., .: . ;. ;;, . .�. <` ` �x
.� v �° �:t;� MUTCQ STRIPING .
.�, � C� ...: . . . . . . . ;3�. ; 4 � �;.� t`�� �
. : . . . . . .
. . : ,�. : . . . . .� ,�... :w .:.:•F,: .: `'�`,;;. ;
. . �
., . . . ....:. . � `
; �''�,_p `�
� . . . . . . . . . ; ,.
n ;..,, >.. ,r:., ...:: :,�;�.:� .` .. : ,,. ; .�;,
. . . . . . . . . . , . >:,.. � NEW ENTRY �� � <
. . . . :
..
� � ,. I. . � .. .
. . .-o . � 'C
. .`�,�,,: , r :
.:✓`�
:
� Q
�
.. ,..� : . . . . . : . . {�. . . .q , ,:_
(�} (�}��� ; ,'(:�,:.:. . - :�. ,,.. . . . � . . . � � . . " .. -. . ..e,. ::,::. ��.�� Q ':��:� . .'.".".. ��a:: '-� ' �
( .�. . � . . .C . G . .:C . . .�,_ . ..G. . .. �1t� . �+.:.i� ;v�. ... _r_ � � .. .. � •�. 1 � �:,..: ��•.._ �.., ., ..� : � .
, � .� VESTIBU�E . , :�
. . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . .; .. . . . :
. . � ,� � ,�� ,
. . . .: . . . . : ; „. s :, r, j .. . >, t.'rl
.
1 -1. . . ._ ; . . . . , : . . . . :�� . �. ::. .. .:� . . '�� � �
, . . > ,.. �:' , '��. - : . �`� �
, ...,_.::::�.::::�._�:.:.:.
. . . . . : . . : :. . . . . . : : r
, . ., :.. .,_::..:::.::....::::.:. <�
_. :
. ,. :: .., . ..... . .
; a � . G ._
. , . . . . . . . . . . - . ., , _:�.:.r;,
.:...:::.. .....::
.:. .........:::<:::::.,::::::::_:
. . , , .: �: .:. . . ;. . ...: :.�� . ., :..
.:. .:
� .
, . . : . . . . : .
� ... : :. :.. . .. . ,
, , ::.. .:.. . .. .. .� ... ,.� . ,. . ... � 1. �. .;y: � .
1 NEtN P�ANTEf�.•..:.� . � .. ... :.. . : :•: :. . ..: -: : �, : �.. .::. 4. ..�
.. r a� �.....� �� �..� ,,.. � � ., .� ,�<•� �. .r. . . . . .
.�.�:. ' . ... � _;. ... �i:...:...: .�,: ._... . �. ._.
.�.". � �. . . ..:- , . � .� . . . . _. . . .. `.:?..:;.�'.":; ' _, . .. .. . . .
��4 :� _... .
�' �. . :....:. . ... ,�:� . . .. .. _ .: .� . . .. .
.. z.
:. . . • �
...� . ... . '::.i •_. . :...: .• � r .
� ��.... .... , �. � ..,,.:' � . ::.. . .. .
.
� c, : . : ,:<; . �.�� , :: LANDSCAPE F���A(� t �< `,:,
.
� . �, 4 :.:.;. . . . �.. �
i ,:... . :: � : �
� . : . . ,; , . �. ::..
I ' r
, . , � .. .: . . , ,:;... , � �, C< <
:
.A. , . : :: - :� , ;,.. .�
. .:: .' .
� ..F. . : ::: ;:. :.��
. . . .... ::
:.:. _ ... .. . ..: -
1... ��.... �. . .. ..�� .. r. . � Y�.:�: i�
. .... . . . �.:. . . . .���.�. .. : �. �\.
. .. . . �r;`....., "..�..�
���:W�:��r� :¢:� � �� t.., a .,e . � •;:: .:� � _ $ .. .
. I G
..:�.:.. . . �. r: "_:: . .: �..,. :. �.. . .:•o�. : . ... c.��X .\� :.Q� ..r,� .
,' : . . .
. . . . : . . . . ..
. :�.:. . .� <: � . .... . � . � .
: . .. . . . � . :::,.. . �
BIK RA �, ;
. . , ..: .... E CI��.:: . .�....,:�:.:......:.:: , � r.
� .... . ,
..: � : .... : :.. .,: �.; t
.:.�:
. . . . . : ,..� :: . .- �� ,.;:, .. .,�,*. �
. . . :, r r � : ..; ... :: . . .. . . .:: ;;: .
� � ... ..
. � . . : .h.� . r. .- .� ,._ :.:. . ... : . ::.
�
. ,. : :;
.:: , . ,`�
: ,
..
� ., � :: . s .:r. : . ... :i:. : .
.r. . �
.:.
. .
., , �.
� � �- . � :� :.� : ;... r. ..� �..: ,� � 4
V ,V � . .
. . .
. . : :_ � : . ... ....: r. < � _.:: , . :.t- ::�: :� , � �°.
. . .
. . :.. ..;:;;:.:::::.�:... :..: �.���� .. :. . .:
X S I�1 G FI . . �...:.,., .. � ... ...:.. ..:
. . E . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . : .:: .. : .. , : .. .: ..... .n.,.:..:::::,..::.:�:.. :<���;�. <::,� .:�.:� � � _� .
. � . : ::- � :.s. ��� �t'�E..;.:SR.E��C .ARE.A :� : ,: � � ,,: ,.,'�:..:� . .:, :
'..� . . . . ..... . . . .... .. ... . . . .:.....� .. .d .'� '�'..,' ; � .•....'.. .. .. .. . .�` � �1. "�.'+. �L:� .. � .
.. �......, :: ��.,.,. ..
.
.. . . �.` ; �.[ .. : .. �� I..
�...�. . . : :.�:. .�e �.: .r...�, . . .:."... ..�:. . . ..�.�.� .�.. � ..
� ...... .•. .:;.� .\.� . .
� --— T . . . : . . . . . . : : . . . . . . . �.. ..
J�YD.$�.N T0 REMAIN �; � i
----- _.....' .� <.,:
.... . T. :, _
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .__._ . . : : . . . . . :
� � , � �.r .L .�,
, . . .... ,:
_ . . . . . : , w � < . . : .. : ..:
-- : < .. : . . . .r ; L f
..._... :.,� ... . �. .. .. ,. . � ` `;
� : .;
: . . . . . , �.,. .� . :�. , .:, , , .. , . P' . . . s . . �l. '. ' � ,�
RC)f'.aO��D..._......... . . .
a: � ..� ,�:. . �. ,3 ., .,. : , . , . ., . . . : , . . .... � _: �:. ,... ... ... _ .. .. -�.
.� � . ... .. , . _ o. o o. a•• ;o _./ . .� . .....,.h ... ...., .. „.,... `.�'._ •�
. , o .. / / `'��•
. �. . . . . . :� ..c . . . . .. . .. , �� .,.. ._ ��. �:�.. . . .. � : .
... . : . . .- . . .��. ..� �.... ... ... ... _ < .;._ .,......•. .. .. , .:.:;; o cV
...: .., y . � �.. a �. . , . . ,�.�.+. . . �. .. �. .� . .. ;.. . � .. .:. . .. . ..�..a.. ..
�..a\. . ... . . . . S.. ♦ ; s � .�a.. � � . <
� .: . ... ......... ...... :,. � ��c���� M
. . . . .,.r... . .... . . EW PLAk�T�ER:.. SEE , �}
. . . . . . . . :..�..:�. . : : . . ; . : . , . . . ..; . . :<,:. .. . . . . .- ... :,�. � :< .
�. > . . . ,. . : , , . : . . . . . . . . . . .:« �''..�. 1� '::r .,. . ,' ICV .-
.
»....: ..:.• ,..� .r: '
. .. . . ,: : :
. : � ,
., ,_ ` ° �
,, . :_
r . i: . . : _
.. : . .. : , . ,. ., . . .. . , . . , . . �
EXPANSI:O�:t�R�- : .:
.::�__:. . . . , . :, . .: .:. . . : : . . . . .:.: , .� .,_:f... . >
. � .. ,� , . . ..... ... : : ,.. 4 ,
. . . . . . . , , .. .. . . : : ..... .. .. . . .
..
. � .
... , t . . , �. . � ..:, :, .... . .. : ...,. . ... ..: > .:: 3�= �
...
� . .
...... . : . . ... ... . � LANDSC_.<P , �'LAN s < : .
....,; .. ... . � .�E 1
�.. . �......:..7��.:\. . . c. . �:.�. ���:.: /� .... .�: . <.. 2 \ .�... ....} -... - �..: ...... . ....�:�� : ��[.
'� .
: .
��..o� . . . . . . . ,.,..\ ..,.,.,� : .. .� .... �. ,.. . '.....w �. . ., , _ .. . + .4 ...:...�� . •:c
. . . m.i.. ...x.vp.����� �.a� ��..t.v. �v��� . 1 .... ....s..... .�. v...�T�.....\ .... .,....� . . �. . .... �.�. :� . . . . .
.�.��� ..... ' ..�.. �.� ....'�.. '. .•' �-.,l .
� `m . r" ./ .r ., . . .. .-..� . ., n�. f a;'L .
. . ... . . . . . . . ..... . .. . . . . . .... . �. . . . . .�. _
� . . . ..... . . . �. . . . . �. f.... . �. . —.
.�.... . � � :...,.. ���
.:.:.. . .. .., �
, y � . : . . � y re - _... -z—� <. .e ' . �
.� � � �ti:.....: . . : . . < .... :e�
: ; . �... .-. . .� ... . . .: �..�. .� �... .�. :��.�:. �. . ..;... . . . .�. ,-�. /� . �..: .�.. y�
.� � . � ..p . � ... . .. . .� �.. .
w •
.�., ... . �. r .��. .r .. .r ' •c :. �� . ,. . ..: ..�.. � ,i�.
. . G i ..:�::. i.�'.
. . . ... . . . �. ...r• . .
. ........ ...... . . . �.,.. �. .. . .;.. ......- ... .. . . ' •.\
. .�. :�.�. . :�...,�. ��. .. . . �.;.: . . . . .. .. ��. :� � , . -.. ,. ...� �: �.. . �..,...� �Ef . , „ t� <� ��.f`� .
..� . ...: ..�. . . :. ..... . . . .�. :�...� .�.. :c .� :r;. .... . . . .� �, .... ; �.� G . k .
� , ..� . � � .;�, k
a .. � ��...fi4.. .:-,.,. � . . ���. .. �.: .� . .
. . ... � '— --- . . .d.�- �. ��.. � �: ,. . . :. , . ..,.� �... ..;.� ..+.� '�i
. . .�.. _..:�. .� � �. . �_ . ,:..� �. , . . .. . ��
.. �..... w..:t .s ......�.' S.
�:G: ��.G. .G. �:4. .C:. �G. . G�. . : ;: : � . . . �: ��: . . . ..... . /� .,.:.. . � ... .�. . . .... . �.. ... .:T.. .��;
�,:. . . . . . . .��.� G G �G G. . �. ... . � s ... �.. � .. .. � .:.... . �.�: : „ .:�:s� : .....i .... :.... �
:e�� i:•. :.
. . �a. �:'G /: .. . . . .. � . . .. �v � . �.: �..��.. ' � .�.'< .
� _
:�....�, . . . ��..:.� . ,.�;.., .... � . ��.....'.[... : ..�..., ..'.... ...i ..: '.r .
.. .. ....�. . . . �. ...�.:. . ��... . ....... :.�. . �:�.�. �: ..... . .:. : .�.. .�. . . . . .. . ... . . . . .
...L �.� ..,.. : . . . . .��. . �� .: .<� .. `i �. �t �I�. ���:
� �.,: .... ..
:+:. .< . : :� .. �.
. . ��.:�:'t:.'. .., � ��� . • ' � ..
. ... . . . . .�: :.�. ...._ .. . : ; �..: .:_ .� . .. .. �:./ .., t:.' . ..{L.;. .�`. ':.. ... .a . •.�a ...�
.\2:,u� . . . �.���. . . .�:...., . �.... �.�.�.. . . �,�/. �. . . ..:. . . . . ....: . ::r � . ... .... . y _ �.. � tG . � ..
�( .� �.:
/
... :�o:�. . .. . .
�
... /.�� . .. . .. � . � , ' . ...,<J �'�:� �,.;. .-. ....
�. .�. �.�... . . . .... �. . .....�.�. . : . .� . . . ... . . . . �:�.�. �.�. ; . .a. . . . .��. '1.�, . .
....:.
..:.� � � ::f�.+'r .
.. 1VEW PaRKI�1G � :; .. ..:.. ::: ,' � � � , , , , A ..,... . .. . . . . .� , .... I _ °,�( � .r: : ;. ,.. ,:�
. ;:._� . . . . . . . . , . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . ,• f i � > � t
. . , . ....:.:.....:.., .. _, ;,.. . . . � ; �j
. , . ; ✓ � .i` f � � ✓ i � i f i � i i � � � ' :;-°<. , .... .
f �'; :. . : . . . . : . : . . . . . . . . . .,..- .. ..w. . . . . ,-. . . . .:.. . ., . . .. . . . i i � i i i �..,.... .....r....,:, „ ,. ..t .�
�„` .�./. ./. . . . . . ; i � i � i � � i r ,, i � ✓ ;i, f ,j ... . . ,. r s . .:.. .. �.�. ,,. �
. :,. . . , . : . ._ . . : . :: : : . .. . : . . . . , , :: . . . ,, , . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . : ,. ,i. .. � i t., , :
�R�A t .:. : �
J• �O/ . . ;. / / y� / / f / � / / / >, : / , r. �. ...n� :/ ✓ � r:.i . E .. . :; -` ;t
'' ; . . . , , , . . . : . . . . . , . . . . . <," . : � .; J J / / / ' ,� I / J ...{ .. , r.. c.. � ''01
. . 1 .r � . •. . . . . . .�. .. : �. . . . ..:.. . . . :�.� � : ..�: /. /- ��., /: f � :� . /�.�� /: �/ /:�� . /r�. :/. /'.� : ..:�.-.. ,`.i . .4 4z
.� i :ti� �: . .��.� . . � . . .�.:. . C..� . ...� . .� . .. ..., ...;. / ? /.: � /.. /�'� � .:�/ _ . /�� . .. 1. ..0�:�. . :�.' �. .•.:.�. . .t .i:` . r .:` .....� � . . .
• :..:. �. . . . : . . . . . . ,: /, , , . , , , i y i , , , , , , , .�.......:. . . r....�� .�, ; . :. �:�.� :.
, . <�... , . . : . . . . . . ; , . . _ . : f . . <_ ✓ �- � i i i r .... .. . , r. . , - �
, >;, � . . . . i ' r ,� i
„ ...,. . .._ .. . . . . ; . . '. , . . . , . . , ,, � � :1::�, . ;; o
, I , ,.:: . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . / , /: , . . . . . . ....: .
. . . . . , . . . . . ,. . : _.. .::. . . . . . . .
, , � . �:<� :, : . . . . . . : . . . . . . : , , . . � . . . :. . . . . . .
. ..,.. . . . . . . . . , , . ,. . : . : . .. ; . . : .: . : . .. .. : : . . . . . � 1�:.1�- :o
, /—' � ,, ,. s> . . ; ;: . . . . : . . �t �4 :':� Z
_.... .
. : . . .
. �,, . . . . . : . . . . . . :. . . : . . ... : . . . . . ., , ,
� - ___
——' .
: , . . .,..n : .
, °-a � --�,._�:—=,.<:._,:._.�.: � ,. _ . ic ,. '� � �< � �`�`•
. : : : . . .
. .
�
. . � �
: . : :
R=25.00 ; �.•. ,. . . . :;.. �.. ———--—7n— : _ � '-.—r-`".c ,�••�
.. : L
,. L=37.64' � , .. . . � �, ,. _ . —— — -— — ——
. : . . . . . . .' . . .'
.. �
,.. .: . .
. —
� . ' . _
�' . . . • � � .... ...SD . o . .r •.:.'��t � � .:: �' � � � .
. 1
..e .� : ... �. , , . �v .. . .
. � � ;�. .. .�� �.�. � . `' �.
. . �� _ i r .. �:�. ... .. ' �'.�
..
. . ��
, ..
. ........... .. . . . � .. �
.���� � ;..... . ♦ 1�....:. .:s. �
_ � � ,
. .... .. .. . . . .'�.�.:..' .
. .... .� . . ��� ' V .
d� ,
.. ...;r.:..., �.o0 2 30"SD
. . .... .. . . .._ . .., 3Q6.56'
.:. . ,. .
� �
`v N89'16 7'W .. . ,. . , . _ .. . .... .. . _ .. .. —— — -�°ss— �
� �
�- - — - - -.�_ � ._ i _ __ _ — _ � ` , — 1
- - - - , .
w � � :� _ — ___, — — —�e=w---�-�-- q •43` " �, —— — — — — : < _ _ ,�w�,/ � 1P��?3.t` �`Q'D
, � , . — -- — —
N N69"i617 W 430.12' r =`�� --- — _ _ y DO' � �,*�,x
N N �� �- d?• �1p�
.._��. _ �� . . . � .. .,. � .. � �� . � {i � � ta{����� '�m,�, R.t.� �����?I���� s�� . � � � � � - _ : .� � .hh� � . ... .
..:.: . ' ' . . � � . . � . .
. . ,_ �. ' '. _- . .
... .:. .. _ _
.,� . . �_�� . . .: .....:� .� � . ..
� , •:' .:.... •.`. � ... ,. � : � . . . . ..
_ ..
.,.., . . ..::.q. � .:...' : >.. �..�. .''. .. . .
t;+.
.....;.. .... . ., ....�. ..� .. ...�� . .
., „,�.... �..
D
..:. . .:�:. . ��. . .. .
:: PB .... :. ,..;. 8 p ..: . .. >.> ;. . . oo.::. o: \�� a EP6❑ I
�
.. , "EV.� � �EPB 2) �
:' •� TPB :. . ......: ... o ' EP8 CP8 EPB �
.,. m '�' ,. ..... . .
�
EP8
���t2���� : ���, � 4 � E XI S TI N G 35 � EPBa �
,. '
. . .. B
.. ::
� :::: .., . B�s . .:.,.. ,. ; D R I VE WA Y TO �e o "
,. ...... .. :.
I
�' f. � ��. ���L����t REMAIN EPB�° X
�
� � . �.,> ��.
� � I
CC.)MM ��tuu�t �u� ��� �,�� ��ra .��-�
� �
� CE �RIVE � x
. �.�� �
.
�������� ����..��� �� '
.
,. .,
NE1N �I�A'�� PA!!E PARKIf�� �4i�EA ;4LTERNATE �l�S PRQ EXI�TII�� 35' EXlSTlNG F!!�E ..o
�
(GRASS TURF SURFACE) AND MTA PROVIDED DRIVEWAY TO REMAIN HYDRANT TO REMAIN �.�,'''�„�e�t�
SHELTER LOCATIQN ; ��.�► �, .
G:�CLIENTS\WALMART\WM1128—UKIAH—EXPANSION\Drawings\Planning\SP-1 Site Plan.dwg �*����� 1� '
���� ' '��1,� �r► ���������"��t
1