HomeMy WebLinkAbout08102011 - packet CITY OF UKIAH
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
Wednesday August 10, 2011
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 HELLAND, BRENNER, WHETZEL,
SANDERS AND CHAIRPERSON PRUDEN
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes from the July 13, 2011 meeting are included for review and approval. The
minutes from the July 27, 2011 meeting will be available for review and approval at the
August 24, 2011 meeting.
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 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. For items on this agenda, an
appeal must be received by the City Clerk no later than Monday August 22, 2011 at 5:00
p.m.
7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION
8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Redevelopment Agency Plan Amendment - Eminent Domain. Conduct a
public hearing on the proposed redevelopment agency plan amendment to restore
eminent domain for a portion of the Redevelopment Plan Area (see map) and the
associated CEQA document and make a recommendation to the Redevelopment
Agency. Staff is requesting this item be continued to a date certain of
August 24, 2011.
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.
B. Walmart Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: 09-42-
EIR-PC/09-28-SDP-PC. Conduct a public hearing and take public and
Commission comment on the Walmart Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report
(DEIR). 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 the 13.44 acre site located at 1155 Airport Park
Boulevard, APN 180-070-38, in the Airport Industrial Park. 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 expansion of the store also requires approval of a Major Site
Development Permit.
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 July 13, 2011
3 Minutes
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
6 Judy Pruden, Chair None
7 Mike Whetzel
8 Jason Brenner
9 Linda Helland
10 Linda Sanders
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
17 1. CALL TO ORDER
18 The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by
19 Chair Pruden at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue,
20 Ukiah, California.
21
22 2. ROLL CALL
23
24 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Everyone cited.
25
26 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — June 8, 2011 and June 22, 2011
27 M/S Sanders/Helland to approve the June 8, 2011 minutes, as submitted. Motion carried (5-0).
28
29 The following recommended changes to the minutes were made:
30 Page 4, line 45, correct to read, `Is of the opinion the sign should not be taller than the building.'
31
32 Page 5, line 1,strike language and replace with, `Understands that the letter of Conditions of Approval for
33 the SDP were violated; unsure if it was with intent.'
34
35 M/S Helland/Sanders to approve the June 22, 2011 minutes, as amended. Motion carried (5-0).
36
37 5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
38 Susan Knopf:
39 • Is of the opinion the City Manager, some staff and City Council are doing what they can to
40 suppress citizen input and the removal of the Planning Commissioner stipend is a part of this.
41 • During this time of staff storages, is a time when citizen input and participation is even more
42 important and should be more encouraged and more welcomed.
43
44 Pinky Kushner:
45 • Supports during this economic hard time when the City is concerned with balancing the budget
46 and maintaining a fund balance that has lead to reduced staff hours encouraging the City to think
47 about using its citizens to do some of the things that City staff usually does.
48 • The community understands the City does not have a lot of money.
49 • Is pleased to see the progress and contribution the Tree Group Committee has made in its efforts
50 to update the City's Master Tree List. It is outstanding what citizen advisory groups can do for a
51 city, especially during economic hard times.
52 • As opposed to the City hiring expensive consultants, it may be beneficial to consider utilizing
53 citizens many of which are highly skilled professionals who can donate their time and expertise
54 because they are retired or for other reasons.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 13, 2011
Page 1
1 Chair Pruden:
2 • Cited the UVAP process as an example of citizens helping to formulate a very important working
3 document that benefits the community and agrees this community has a great many people who
4 have expertise in amazing areas.
5
6 • Advised that discussion of agenda item 10A regarding the proposed revisions to the Ukiah
7 Municipal Airport Building and Land Use Development Plan Guidelines will be continued because
8 Senior Planner Jordan is sick and further advised that Planning Commissioners Whetzel and
9 Brenner will be recusing themselves from the discussion and possible action.
10
11 6. APPEAL PROCESS—There are no appealable items.
12
13 7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION - N/A
14
15 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE— N/A
16
17 9. NEW BUSINESS
18 9A. Approved Projects and Condition Compliance. Discussion and possible direction regarding
19 compliance with imposed conditions of approval.
20
21 Planning Director Stump gave a staff report and welcomed a discussion and questions by the
22 Commission and the public concerning project condition of approval compliance/enforcement.
23
24 Commission:
25 • In some state jurisdictions Code Enforcement Officers wear police uniforms and carry guns. In
26 terms of code compliance for health and safety reasons does California law allow for this
27 approach?
28
29 Planning Director Stump:
30 • The Ukiah Police Department does assists with code enforcement issues as they pertain to
31 health and safety and agreed uniformed persons in police vehicles are very effective in this
32 aspect.
33 • Due to the lack of a Code Compliance Coordinator, staff does not have the ability/capacity to
34 conduct routine inspections to ensure ongoing compliance of every condition of approval on
35 every project approved by the Planning Commission.
36 • With the limited staff the City has, staff is doing the best it can to ensure compliance with
37 Planning Commission required conditions of approval wherein staff has been exploring
38 measures that could improve the monitoring of these conditions. As staff resources have been
39 impacted, an effective measure has been for the Building Official during construction through
40 routine site visits or inspections review whether or not the Planning Commission conditions are
41 being met. In this way, communication is being established interdepartmentally regarding the
42 status of projects and with identifying any associated condition violations that are occurring.
43 • Increased communication interdepartmentally concerning projects allows staff to do a better job
44 of monitoring violations and with enforcing the Planning Commission conditions.
45
46 Commission:
47 Q1. What is the life of the conditional use permit?
48
49 Staff:
50 A1. The condition stays in effect for as long as the use is active. If the use ceases for six months, the
51 use permit is lost.
52
53 There are conditions on some permits that may be ongoing forever, such as the requirement for
54 the planting of a tree and in the event the tree has to be removed, it is required to be replaced
55 and cited a specific incident.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 13, 2011
Page 2
1
2 Commission:
3 • MacDonald's at the north end of town cut down trees that were required as part of the SDP and
4 had to be replanted. One of these trees is now dead and will have to be replanted.
5 • Noted the numerous flags/banners that advertise businesses in violation of the Sign Ordinance
6 and require a banner permit is a code enforcement issue.
7
8 Planning Director Stump:
9 • The former Code Compliance Coordinator position was full-time and even then it was difficult to
10 monitor the entire City for code violations many of which were reoccurring even after a citation
11 was issued for an infraction.
12 • One consideration may be to get a retired police officer and/or some qualified person to volunteer
13 and assist with code compliance issues. It does take a special person to be able to do code
14 enforcement and actually like the job. Staff intends to consult with the City Attorney whether or
15 not having volunteers assist with code enforcement issues is possible.
16
17 Commission:
18 • Likes that one measure can be the creation of a project conditions binder that would have a listing
19 of all active projects and the corresponding conditions that pertain to each so that the binder
20 would be available for public review at the front counter. In this way, the public could alert staff in
21 the event of a violation.
22
23 Planning Director Stump:
24 • Acknowledged that staff does and/or will as much as is possible monitor code violations/project
25 conditions with the limited staff resources.
26
27 Chair Pruden:
28 • Commented on projects that were not developed according to what was approved by the
29 Planning Commission. One example is the City Skateboard Park project and commented on how
30 the final product was not what the Planning Commission approved relative to landscaping.
31 • Understands that while things/plans can change in the field requiring modifications to plans, the
32 Planning Commission reviews projects based on final development/landscaping plans and not
33 conceptual plans.
34
35 Commissioner Brenner:
36 • It may have been the Ukiah Players Theater had a special request with regard to having an
37 access road as opposed to the proposed landscaping for the area and this is the reason a
38 change was made in the field.
39
40 Chair Pruden:
41 • Projects must be developed according to what is approved by the Planning Commission and not
42 according to a conceptual plan where plans can potentially change.
43 • Is of the opinion the Skateboard Park was approved for what was later identified as a conceptual
44 plan. The Planning Commission did see the footprint/envelop for the project that included plans
45 concerning drainage, landscaping/screening in addition to project plans and specs for the facility.
46
47 Planning Director Stump:
48 • In all fairness the project was completed as proposed except for that one landscaping
49 component.
50 • Speaking to the final inspection process of a project, if conditions are required to be implemented
51 prior to final inspection and the grant of occupancy, staff when conducting its final inspection
52 ensures compliance with all applicable conditions of approval such that if landscaping has not
53 been planted as approved, staff will typically not sign off on the final inspection and direct the
54 applicant to plant the landscaping consistent with the final landscaping plan.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 13, 2011
Page 3
1 • There are instances that occur in the field where modifications have to be made for projects,
2 which might have been what happened to the proposed landscaping for the City Skateboard
3 Park.
4 • The City project manager for the City Skateboard Park did submit a Final Landscaping Plan. He
5 also consulted with staff concerning the final project conditions of approval. There was not
6 sufficient space in the planting strip for the proposed trees to be planted.
7 • Acknowledged the project may not have been completed as closely to what the Planning
8 Commission approved.
9
10 Chair Pruden:
11 • All projects must comply with the conditions that were approved by the Planning Commission and
12 this includes all City projects. If the skate park project had been done by a private developer, the
13 project would have been stopped and returned to the Planning Commission for review and
14 approval.
15
16 Susan Knopf:
17 • The skate park facility is an example of a chronic problem that occurs for City projects where
18 trees are removed and not replanted or planned for and never planted.
19 • The skate park needs shade trees for the users of the facility.
20 • Cited the City fire station facility that is fenced wherein trees/bushes were intended to be planted
21 in the planter strip in order to screen the storage area as another example of a City project that
22 was not completed according to plan.
23 • Cited the Golf Cart Barn project as another example of a project that was not completed
24 according to plan.
25 • Has observed the City breaking its own rules all the time.
26
27 Planning Director Stump:
28 • Disagrees the City has a chronic problem with breaking its own rules.
29
30 Chair Pruden:
31 • Finds the City `pretty responsible' regarding City processes in conjunction with projects. The Golf
32 Cart Barn was not reviewed by the Planning Commission because of the process at that time.
33 • City projects do not have to be reviewed by the planning Commission and are basically exempt,
34 but are now reviewed out of courtesy because the citizens have demanded it.
35 • City projects should be subject to some level of discretionary review as do projects from the
36 private sector.
37 • There appears to be a 'disconnecY with regard to City projects, citing the Skateboard Park
38 project as an example and supports working on this.
39 • The trees approved for the Skateboard Park project just went away so it is important to work on
40 this to make certain projects are in substantial compliance with the approved plan(s).
41
42 Pinky Kushner:
43 • Recognizes the importance of using native plants for projects as much as possible.
44 • People complain that native plants are not available in places like Home Depot and plant
45 whatever they like.
46 • Native plants are available locally in nurseries, from the County, Mendocino College and other
47 places.
48
49 Planning Director Stump:
50 • Disagrees that people plant what they like or use a substitute species when they cannot find
51 native plants. To the contrary, people ask staff where they can find native plants.
52
53 Commissioner Brenner:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 13, 2011
Page 4
1 • Commented on the matter of changes that become necessary in the field and stated with regard
2 to the Skateboard Park issue, it is likely staff had to make a reasonable decision in order for the
3 project to work.
4 • The Planning Commission `has to let go' of circumstances that somewhat changes the original
5 intent for projects because of a problem that has come up behind the scenes.
6 • City Planning staff is very knowledgeable and trusts their judgment/decision when changes at the
7 preliminary stage for a project have to be made in terms of whether or not Planning Commission
8 would approve.
9
10 Commissioner Sanders:
11 • There may be a very good reason why the landscaping approved for the Skateboard Park had to
12 be changed.
13 • It would be helpful to provide feedback as to why projects change.
14
15 Commissioner Whetzel:
16 • Highly trusts decisions made by the Zoning Administrator since minor changes to a project
17 approved by the Planning Commission would be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator as to
18 whether or not a project needs to return to the Planning Commission for review and approval.
19 • With regard to the matter of changes for projects when the Planning Commission reviewed the
20 new City Substation project, the focus was so much on the wall that he was surprised to see two
21 big access gates constructed for the project that were not really talked about but are necessary
22 for the project. The point being, people and decision makers have to be able to broaden the
23 scope for projects and understand changes/additions may be necessary so the project is
24 workable.
25
26 Planning Director Stump:
27 • When an applicant has an issue/problem with a project condition after the Planning Commission
28 has reviewed and approved the project, staff works closely with the applicant to address the
29 issue(s) whereby the applicant typically conforms because it is too costly and time consuming to
30 have to return to the Planning Commission.
31 • Accordingly, if the applicant fails to comply with the ongoing conditions of approval, staff will alert
32 the applicant of the failure to comply and attempt to gain voluntary compliance and if voluntary
33 compliance is not achieved, the next step would be to schedule a revocation hearing before the
34 Planning Commission.
35 • In some cases, if the issue/problem is minor, staff must use its judgment as to whether or not
36 compliance with a condition has been fully achieved. For example, it may be during the final
37 inspection staff may discover that not the exact landscaping species that was called for in the
38 final landscaping plan was planted. Staff would then make the determination whether what was
39 planted achieved the same purpose as the species in the final landscaping plan is in substantial
40 compliance with the approved plan and not require the applicant to return to the Planning
41 Commission for review and approval.
42 • Agrees a system for providing feedback is a good idea concerning projects that change in the
43 field in order to keep the community informed.
44
45 There was discussion about condition compliance, citing `Mikes Unlimited' business as an example of an
46 applicant failing to comply with the conditions of approval and the corresponding revocation hearing that
47 occurred as a result.
48
49 It was noted a lot of unnecessary staff time and costs are involved when an applicant fails to comply with
50 ongoing conditions of approval.
51
52 Commission consensus:
53 • Supports staff's discussion in the staff report about how conditions are implemented and enforced
54 and the measures proposed by staff on ways to improve the monitoring of these project
55 conditions, noting the information in the `Conclusion' section of the staff report will be very helpful.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 13, 2011
Page 5
1 • Approves of establishing a feedback system for projects that change in the field.
2 • Is important project conditions approved by the Planning Commission be enforced not only for the
3 good of the community, but to avoid surprises about elements of the project that were not what
4 the Planning Commission approved.
5
6 10. OLD BUSINESS
7 10A. Workshop. Conduct a Public Workshop to review and make a possible recommendation City
8 Council regarding the revisions proposed to the Ukiah Municipal Airport Building and Land Use
9 Development Plan Guidelines updated by the Airport Commission. Continued from the June 22,
10 2011 meeting.
11
12 M/S Sanders/Helland to continue agenda item 10A to the regular July 27 Planning Commission meeting.
13
14 11. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
15 Planning Director Stump reported:
16 • City Council conducted the third DZC workshop last night wherein progress is being made in this
17 regard.
18 • City Council approved the General Plan Housing Element.
19 • With regard to the Courthouse relocation project, a decision should be made shortly on one of
20 two sites.
21 • A contract has been approved for a consultant for the MSR. Once the MSR is complete and
22 considered by LAFCO, the Sphere of Influence can be amended.
23 • The Water Rights EIR is officially in the making.
24 • Three CEQA documents have been completed for City projects and identified these projects.
25 • The Walmart Expansion project is moving along whereby the associated EIR document is ready
26 for the Planning Commission to begin review. Copies of the document can be purchased at City
27 Hall.
28 • The UVMC expansion project has been submitted.
29 • The UUSD project has also been submitted.
30 • There will be a General Plan Amendment and rezone project coming to the Planning Commission
31 for the vacant property located at Clara Avenue and Orchard Avenue.
32 • Commented on the Planning Department Budget and City Budget for FY 2011-12.
33
34 Pinky Kushner:
35 • Mary Ann Miller would like to contribute some landscaping details concerning the tree wells on
36 the Walmart site and has some ideas about providing for meandering walkways relative to the
37 Walmart expansion project.
38 • Has concerns about a rezone for the property located at Clara Avenue and Orchard Avenue to a
39 commercial designation because of potential impacts to a very dense low-income housing project
40 being constructed across the street.
41 • Commented on property located on Airport Park Boulevard that has become blighted with the
42 storage of cement blocks and questioned why the City did not require a permit for this use
43 because the fees would be more than enough to pay Planning Commission stipends that the
44 Commissioners are not going to receive this budget year.
45
46 12. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
47 Commissioner Sanders also commented on the unsightly cement blocks being stored on property on
48 Airport Park Boulevard.
49
50 13. ADJOURNMENT
51 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:14 p.m.
52
53
54
55 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 13, 2011
Page 6
1
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 13, 2011
Page 7
ITEM NO. 9A
Community Development and Planning Department
�Zty � ukah 300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482
planninq(a�citvofukiah.com
(707)463-6203
DATE: August 10, 2011
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Charley Stump, Director of Planning & Community Development
SUBJECT: Continuance: RDA Plan Amendment - Eminent Domain
BACKGROUND: The Ukiah Redevelopment Agency is considering restoring its power of
eminent domain for a portion of the Redevelopment Plan Area (see map page 2). California
redevelopment law requires the City Planning Commission to consider the CEQA document and
project, and to make recommendations to the Agency. This item was scheduled for Planning
Commission consideration on August 10, 2011, but due to a number of factors, Staff is
requesting that the Commission continue the matter to the August 24, 2011 meeting.
RECOMMENDATION: Continue this item to the regularly scheduled meeting on August 24,
2011.
Eminent Domain Boundary
Ukiah Redevelopment Project Area
� CYWBLhgC��.- . KL�Kb
r��,�"R,r� . . . .
F o y
w
, � ,��FPS',.1`��.
z ��_4 y `
� � �i � �u
y
v a
v, M
tp�,%��pRL m �r� f
n _ 1 I
� l:cH ST,
}'---'
n'�q��t��� � �G�SON T.
�OR� T.`�.�,1 PG
� V ��z '
�Q_ ��1 GYPRES A � ,�'C '�
.� . AL'�.� ,.aC� :y,^.. P
� . R' ,U. � � -� � �,C�v `SO�, .
�y aA � _��5� '�'D
�H,Q � .U � � �i�`��
3i�JRVOAVE �$l�.D .`n ST.
��4 SEMI
,, SrANtX�µ�-- - .t<n ��p �—-- 'o.
:i.c1L
;X���`' ... I.GHUR��, . s �
� - �,.f�CR'� ' N ��., �
rAL'�;ERT q� ..�1C� q 8 g
o f
� nl A�'�� �' W �'�'
1.\r}£. . �� � � � -
c � � m
.� �
o.tEUOac,NO s
ti�Ae'E. -' � °
peHR Y. - lSC qV� - �x. �
�
..� � .w � cia
s o z
z o �
�' A �� h 57fNGSAVE. r�Ly�`'sE °
� NO NA 6E RG o
4UA S AVE. �� �
� � � �
�
� � � � �
� BEA L . g �
J �o w o
PilUL05 CT. }' z
➢
LAI�JS AV � �
�
D
�F��ER56
CR�Sf49E�4C�R. Stp4�...
�.�RCR�- � �� .
N
�
��
N
'�'�ON R�., ....-No
3
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 O
Miles
�� Eminent Domain Baundary
� Ukiah Redevelopment ProjectArea
� Ukiah Cify Limit
. .
Ukiah#2edevelopmentAgency June 2011
Eminent Domain Redevelopment Plan Amendment
1 ITEM NO. 9B
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: August 10, 2011
4
5 TO: Planning Commission
6
7 FROM: Kim Jordan, Senior Planner
8
9 SUBJECT: Review of and comment on the Walmart Expansion Draft Environmental Impact
10 Report (DEIR)
11 1155 Airport Park Boulevard, APN 180-070-38
12 File Nos.: 09-28-SDP-PC and 09-42-EIR-PC
13
14 RECOMMENDATION
15
16 Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing, provide Commission
17 comments on the draft environmental impact report (DEIR), and take public comment on the
18 DEIR for the proposed Walmart expansion at 1155 Airport Park Boulevard, APN 180-070-38.
19
20
21 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
22
23 An application has been received from TAIT and associates on behalf of Walmart for approval
24 of a major site development permit to allow a 47,621 square foot expansion (47,463 square foot
25 building expansion plus 158 square foot expansion of the outdoor garden center) of the existing
26 109,030 square foot store (104,152 square foot building plus 4,878 square foot outdoor garden
27 center) for a total square footage of 156,651 (151,615 square foot building plus 5,036 square
28 foot outdoor garden center) on a 13.44 acre site in the Airport Industrial Park Planned
29 Development (AIP PD). The proposed expansion would include the following:
30
31 ■ Increase in the sales area for general merchandise;
32 ■ Increase in the sales area for food sales;
33 ■ Increase in the food sales support and ancillary areas;
34 ■ Removal of the Tire and Lube Express;
35 ■ New indoor garden center;
36 ■ Change in store hours to 24 hours per day, seven days per week;
37 ■ Modification to the design of the exterior of the building;
38 ■ Increase in the number of parking spaces to 612 spaces (640 total parking spaces, 28 of
39 which will be used as cart corrals);
40 ■ Modification to the landscaping, including removal of the olive trees in the parking lot and
41 replacement with a more suitable species; and
42
Walmart Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR)
1155 Airport Park Boulevard,APN 180-070-38
File Nos.:09-42-EIR-PC/09-28-SDP-PC
1
1 ■ Incorporation of sustainable building features, such as daylighting of the grocery sales
2 area, retrofitting the lighting in the store, use of energy efficient HVAC units, and
3 installation non-PVC "white" roof.
4
5 Other possible uses as part of the expansion include:
6
7 ■ Distilled spirit sales;
8 ■ Medical clinic; and/or
9 ■ Vision center.
10
11 For a more detailed description of the project see DEIR Section 3: Project Description.
12
13
14 SETTING
15
16 The project is surrounded by parcels with the following general plan and zoning designations
17 and land uses.
18
General Plan Zonin Land Uses
Pt'ojeCt Master Plan Area Planned Development(PD)- Walmart-retail sales,food
(MPA) Airport Industrial Park tenant,Tire&Lube Express,
outdoorgarden center
North Master Plan Area Planned Development(PD)- Gas station and fast food
(MPA) Airport Industrial Park restaurant
Commercial (C) Community Commercial(C-1) Residential neighborhood north
of Talmage Road
South Master Plan Area Planned Development(PD)- Retail stores and restaurants
(MPA) Airport Industrial Park
East(1) Commercial (C) Heavy Commercial (C-2) Equipment rental,tractor sales
Community Commercial(C-1) and rental,construction yard,
lodge and rv parking
West Master Plan Area Planned Development(PD)- Hotels, restaurants, retail stores,
(MPA) Airport Industrial Park office
Public(P) Public Facility(PF) Ukiah Municipal Airport
Industrial (I) Manufacturing(M)
1.Eastside of Highway 101
19
20 The existing access to the site is provided from three driveways off of Airport Park Boulevard
21 and two additional driveways off of Commerce Drive. The access to the site is not proposed to
22 change as part of this project.
23
24
25 BACKGROUND
26
27 The original Walmart store and associated site improvements were approved in 1993
28 (Resolution 93-19 and File No. 90-87 site development permit). The project required approval
29 of a Major Site Development Permit and an amendment to the Airport Industrial Park (AIP)
Walmart Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR)
1155 Airport Park Boulevard,APN 180-070-38
File Nos.:09-42-EIR-PC/09-28-SDP-PC
2
1 Planned Development (PD). An EIR was prepared and certified for the Walmart project site
2 development permit as well as for the amendment to the Airport Industrial Planned
3 Development (Resolution 93-16, certification of the Final EIR; Resolution 93-17, required CEQA
4 findings pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15091; and Resolution 93-20, establishing
5 mitigation monitoring program). The EIR evaluated a 93,792 square foot single story retail
6 store on a 14.8 acre lot with 740 parking spaces. The evaluation included in the EIR allowed
7 the future addition of 30,000 square feet.
8
9
10 STAFF ANALYSIS
11
12 Review of the EIR
13 CEQA Guidelines Section 15200 states that the purpose of the review of an EIR includes
14 sharing expertise, disclosing agency analysis, checking for accuracy, detecting omissions,
15 discovering public concerns, and soliciting counter proposals.
16
17 CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 states that the focus of the review of an EIR should be on the
18 sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts of the project on
19 the environment and ways the significant impacts of the project may be mitigated or avoided.
20 The adequacy of the EIR is to be determined based on what is reasonably feasible in light of
21 factors such as the magnitude of the project, the severity of its likely environmental issues, and
22 the geographic scope of the project.
23
24 Section 15204 further states that if persons believe that the project may have a significant effect
25 on the environment, they should 1) identify the specific effect, 2) explain why they believe the
26 effect would occur, and 3) explain why the effect would be significant. Reviewers should also
27 provide the basis for their comments and submit data or references offering facts, reasonable
28 assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts to support their comments. In
29 the absence of substantial evidence, an effect shall not be considered significant.
30
31 Preparation of the EIR
32 The DEIR was prepared by the City's consultant, Environmental Science Associates (ESA), in
33 coordination with City staff. ESA was selected as part of a request for proposals process. ESA
34 works under contract with the City to prepare the EIR. The cost of the EIR, including staff time,
35 is paid by the project applicant/proponent to the City prior to the commencement of work and
36 held in an account. The consultant (ESA) is then paid by the City from this account.
37
38 Format of the EIR
39 The DEIR is separated into the following six sections and also includes appendices A-F which
40 are described in Section 1 of the DEIR (page 1-4).
41
42 Section 1: Introduction. This section describes the purpose and use of the EIR and
43 provides an overview of the EIR process.
44
45 Section 2: Summarv. This section provides a brief summary of the project, identifies the
46 significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the DEIR, identifies the areas of
47 controversy identified as part of the scoping process for the EIR, and lists the project
48 alternatives. Lastly, this section provides a summary table that includes each
Walmart Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR)
1155 Airport Park Boulevard,APN 180-070-38
File Nos.:09-42-EIR-PC/09-28-SDP-PC
3
1 environmental impact analyzed in the DEIR, the mitigation measure required (if any),
2 and the level of significance after mitigation.
3
4 Section 3: Proiect Description. This section provides a detailed description of the
5 proposed project.
6
7 Section 4: Environmental Settinq, Impacts, and Mitiqation Measures. This section
8 analyzes the environmental impacts of the proposed project and provides mitigation
9 measures where required. This section includes a project level analysis and a
10 cumulative analysis for each environmental topic addressed.
11
12 Section 5: Other CEQA Considerations. This section discusses other CEQA
13 considerations, including growth and development inducement, provides an explanation
14 of the cumulative impact analysis required by CEQA, and provides a description of the
15 effects that were determined not to be significant and, therefore, are not discussed in
16 detail in the DEIR. The effects found not to be significant include agricultural resources,
17 cultural resources, mineral resources, recreation, and population and housing (see
18 DEIR, pages 5-5 and 5-6).
19
20 Section 6: Alternatives. This section identifies and analyzes the alternatives to the
21 project as required by CEQA, including the Environmentally Superior Alternative.
22
23 Section 7: Report Preparers. This section identifies the names of the EIR authors and
24 consultants as well as the agencies and/or individuals consulted during the preparation
25 of the EIR.
26
27 Appendices. The appendices include the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and background
28 reports and data. In this case the appendices include: Notice of Preparation, NOP
29 comment letters, and scoping meeting notes (DEIR Volume 2, Appendix A);
3o Transportation and Traffic Report (DEIR Volume 2, Appendix B); Air Quality and Health
31 Risk Assessment (DEIR Volume 3, Appendix C); Economic Impact and Urban Decay
32 Analysis (DEIR Volume 3, Appendix D); Noise Study (DEIR Volume 3, Appendix E); and
33 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (DEIR Volume 3, Appendix F).
34
35 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
36 The DEIR identified several areas where the proposed project would result in an environmental
37 impact. The impacts are identified as less than significant (LTS) or potentially significant (PS).
38 Most of the impacts identified as potentially significant can be reduced to less than significant
39 with the incorporation of the mitigation measure(s) identified in the DEIR. The environmental
40 topics requiring mitigation include the following (see section 2, Table 2-1: Summary of Impacts
41 and Mitigation Measures for a summary):
42
43 • Aesthetics (light and glare)
44 ■ Air Quality
45 ■ Geology and Soil
46 ■ Hazards and Hazardous Materials
47 ■ Hydrology and Water Quality
48 ■ Noise
Walmart Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR)
1155 Airport Park Boulevard,APN 180-070-38
File Nos.:09-42-EIR-PC/09-28-SDP-PC
4
1 ■ Transportation and Traffic
2 ■ Biological Resources
3
4 Mitiqation Measures. Most of the impacts identified as potentially significant can be reduced to a
5 less than significant level with the incorporation of the specific mitigation measures identified in
6 the DEIR. These mitigation measures would be incorporated into and carried out through a
7 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and project conditions of approval.
8
9 The environmental topics that resulted in less than significant impacts (LTS) and, therefore, do
10 not require mitigation include:
11
12 ■ Urban Decay
13 ■ Land Use and Planning
14 ■ Public Services and Utilities
15 ■ Global Climate Change
16
17 Land Use. In the Land Use analysis, the determination of project consistency for the following
18 two General Plan goals was left to the Planning Commission (DEIR page 4.7-4, Table 4.7-1:
19 City of Ukiah General Plan Consistency). As such, staff requests that the Planning Commission
20 determine if the project is consistent with each of these goals as part of its review and comment
21 on the DEIR. The Planning Commission may also determine that a specific goal does not apply
22 to the project.
23
24 Goal GP-1: Promote, attract, or assist in developing businesses, particularly those that
25 add value to resources already found or processed in the Ukiah Valley.
26
27 Goal GP-2: Promote business development, emphasizing local ownership of
28 businesses in order to keep capital growth within the community.
29
3o In the Land Use analysis, the DEIR identified the following two areas as possibly requiring
31 modification from the requirements of AIP Ordinance 1098 (DEIR, pages 4.7-3 and 4.7-4). As
32 noted in the DEIR, the project is not a new development but rather an expansion of an existing
33 development and as such not all elements of Ordinance 1098 may be applicable to the project.
34 AIP Ordinance 1098 grants the Planning Commission the authority fo modify the required
35 elements of a Landscaping Plan depending upon the size, sca/e, intensity, and location of the
36 development project.
37
38 Staff requests that the Planning Commission determine for each of the following AIP
39 requirements identified below if: 1) the requirement is applicable to the project, 2) the project is
4o consistent with the requirement, and/or 3) if the project requires a modification as part of the site
41 development permit application required for the project.
42
43 ■ AIP Repuirement 1(1n). All new developments shall include a landscaping coverage of
44 20% of the gross area of the parcel, unless because of the small size of a parcel such
45 coverage would be unreasonable.
46
47 The project would not comply with this requirement. However, in staffs' opinion, the
48 project is not new development but rather an expansion of an existing development.
Walmart Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR)
1155 Airport Park Boulevard,APN 180-070-38
File Nos.:09-42-EIR-PC/09-28-SDP-PC
5
1 Planning Commission has the authority to determine if this requirement is applicable to
2 the proposed project.
3
4 ■ AIP Repuirement 1(1i) . Parking lot trees shall be primarily deciduous and shall be
5 designed to provide a tree canopy coverage of 50% over all paved areas within 10 years
6 of planting.
7
8 As noted in the DEIR, the project as designed does not comply with this requirement in
9 terms of canopy coverage. However, the project would increase the existing shade
10 canopy of 19% to 45% within 10 years of planting. Planning Commission has the
11 authority to determine if this requirement is applicable to the proposed project or if the
12 project is generally consistent with the intent of the requirement and complies to the
13 degree feasible given that the project is not new development but rather an expansion of
14 an existing development. Planning Commission may also determine that the project is
15 not consistent with this requirement and that a modification to this standard must be
16 requested/reviewed as part of Planning Commission's review of the site development
17 permit required for this project.
18
19 ■ AIP Requirement 1(11� Parking lots with 12 or more parking stalls shall have defined
20 pedestrian sidewalks or marked pedestrian facilities within landscaped areas and/or
21 separated from automobile travel/anes. Based upon the design of the parking lot, and
22 the use that it is serving, relief from this requirement may be approved through the
23 discretionary review process.
24
25 The existing parking lot includes more than 12 parking spaces and more than 12 parking
26 spaces would be added to the parking lot as part of the project. The project includes the
27 installation of sidewalks along Airport Park Boulevard that would connect to new
28 sidewalks along Commerce Drive (DEIR page 3-6, Figure 3-3: Existing and Proposed
29 Site Plan). The sidewalk along Commerce connects to the sidewalk along the south end
30 of the building via a marked pathway. In addition, there is an existing walkway that will
31 be retained/rebuilt that would connect the new sidewalk on Airport Park Boulevard to the
32 sidewalk through the north and east portions of the parking lot. This sidewalk then
33 connects to the north end of the building (indoor garden center) via a marked pathway.
34
35 In addition to the AIP requirement for pedestrian connections, Transportation and Traffic
36 mitigation measure 4.10-3d bullet 4 states provide adequate pedestrian connections
37 from the modified or expanded parking areas to the building entrances (DEIR, pages
38 4.10-28 and 29).
39
40 Staff requests that Planning Commission determine if the project as proposed is
41 consistent with the above AIP requirement and the mitigation measure or if a
42 modification to the AIP standard is required as part of Planning Commission review of
43 the site development permit and/or an additional pedestrian connection is required
44 through the parking field to connect to the building entrance(s).
45
46 Urban Decav. Comments received during the scoping phase of the DEIR expressed concerns
47 that the proposed expansion of Walmart could result in Urban Decay. An analysis of the
48 potential for the project to result in urban decay was prepared by CBRE Consulting (see
Walmart Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR)
1155 Airport Park Boulevard,APN 180-070-38
File Nos.:09-42-EIR-PC/09-28-SDP-PC
6
1 appendix D) and included in the DEIR for CEQA purposes (DEIR section 4.3). The DEIR
2 includes an analysis of the potential for urban decay to result from the project and the
3 cumulative condition of the project plus five other proposed retail developments.
4
5 For the purposes of CEQA analysis in the DEIR, urban decay is defined as physical
6 deterioration that is so prevalent and substantial that it impairs fhe proper use of affected real
7 estate, or the health, safety and welfare of the surrounding community. The purpose of the
8 urban decay analysis is to determine whether or not the project would result in significant
9 adverse physical impacts from urban decay, not whether or not the proposed project would
10 result in competition as a result of the expansion of the existing store to include additional
11 general merchandise floor area, grocery sales, a vision center, and/or medical clinic.
12
13 The Urban Decay analysis acknowledged that the proposed project could result in negative
14 impacts to some existing stores. The analysis concluded that any such vacancy would likely be
15 backfilled or redeveloped in a reasonable timeframe and, therefore, would not result in urban
16 decay.
17
18 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
19 The DEIR also identified potentially significant impacts on the environment that cannot be
20 mitigated to a less than significant level. Significant and unavoidable impacts were identified in
21 regards to Transportation and Traffic (see section 2, Table 2-1: Summary of Impacts and
22 Mitigation Measures for a summary and section 4.10: Transportation and Traffic).
23
24 Transportation and Traffic. CEQA and related case law requires that the existing traffic
25 condition as well as the cumulative traffic condition be analyzed as part of the EIR. The traffic
26 and circulation report prepared as part of the EIR (DEIR, Appendix B) analyzed ten different
27 traffic scenarios. The analysis included the following three background scenarios:
28
29 ■ Existing traffic. This scenario represents the traffic and circulation as it exists at the time
30 of the traffic analysis. In this case, vehicle turning movement volumes were collected in
31 February 2010.
32
33 ■ Baseline traffic. This scenario represents the near-term horizon of the end of 2012 and
34 includes projects that the City has determined would likely be constructed and
35 generating traffic. This scenario includes Branches Chop House, Arco AM/PM, Guillon
36 at 1230 Airport Park Boulevard, and the Kunzler Terrace Mine project.
37
38 ■ Future traffic. This scenario utilizes the Ukiah Valley Area Plan (UVAP) traffic model for
39 the future year 2030 traffic conditions and assumes that the existing network of
4o roadways is in place (no improvements to the roadway system). This represents a
41 worst-case scenario.
42
43 Vehicle trips generated by the project (Walmart expansion) were added to the above
44 background scenarios resulting in the following three scenarios which were analyzed:
45
46 ■ Existing plus project;
47 ■ Baseline plus project; and
48 ■ Future plus project.
Walmart Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR)
1155 Airport Park Boulevard,APN 180-070-38
File Nos.:09-42-EIR-PC/09-28-SDP-PC
7
1 Since there is the potential for a Discount Club (Costco) to be built in the Airport Industrial Park,
2 the following two background scenarios were analyzed:
3 ■ Baseline with Discount Club; and
4 ■ Future with Discount Club.
5
6 Vehicle trips generated by the project (Walmart expansion) were added to the above Baseline
7 and Future volumes with the Discount Club (Costco) and also analyzed as part of the traffic and
8 circulation report:
9
10 ■ Baseline with Discount Club plus project; and
11 ■ Future with Discount Club plus project.
12
13 Since the existing traffic condition is required to be analyzed as part of the EIR, this scenario is
14 discussed in the DEIR (see Existing Plus Project). Also required to be included in the EIR is a
15 cumulative analysis. Since the Future with Discount Club plus project represents the worst case
16 cumulative scenario, this scenario is included in the DEIR as Future Year 2030 Plus Project. All
17 ten of the above scenarios are analyzed in the traffic and circulation report (DEIR, Appendix B).
18
19 Transportation and Traffic Impacts. The following significant and unavoidable impacts have
20 been identified in the DEIR:
21
22 Existinq Plus Proiect Queuinq Analysis
23 Impact 4.10-2: Implementation of the Project would substantially increase potential
24 traffic safety hazards by increasing the degree to which an existing queuing backup
25 would exceed available storage length.
26
27 Mitigation Measure 4.10-2 has been identified and would improve queuing conditions to
28 acceptable conditions. However, since the improvement required by Mitigation Measure
29 4.10-2 is unfunded and is not included as part of the City of Ukiah's Capital Improvement
3o Program it cannot be considered a legally feasible mitigation measure. Without the
31 required funding mechanism, impact 4.10-2 remains significant and unavoidable.
32
33 Cumulative Analysis-Future 2030 Plus Proiect Intersection Levels of Service
34 Impact 4.10-4: Implementation of fhe Project would increase traffic volumes on area
35 roadways under cumulative conditions.
36
37 Mitigation Measure 4.10-4 has been identified and would result in acceptable conditions.
38 However, since the improvement required by Mitigation Measure 4.10-4 is unfunded and
39 is not included as part of the City of Ukiah's Capital Improvement Program it cannot be
4o considered a legally feasible mitigation measure. Without the required funding
41 mechanism, impact 4.10-4 remains significant and unavoidable.
42
43 Cumulative Analysis-Future 2030 Plus Proiect Queuinq Analysis
44 Impact 4.10-5: Implementation of the Project would substantially increase potential
45 traffic safefy hazards by causing queuing backups that exceed, or by increasing the
46 degree to which queuing backs are projected to exceed, the available storage length
47 under 2030 No Project conditions.
48
Walmart Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR)
1155 Airport Park Boulevard,APN 180-070-38
File Nos.:09-42-EIR-PC/09-28-SDP-PC
8
1 Mitigation Measure 4.10-5 requires the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.10-2
2 (see above). However, since the improvement required by Mitigation Measure 4.10-2 is
3 unfunded and is not included as part of the City of Ukiah's Capital Improvement Program
4 it cannot be considered a legally feasible mitigation measure. Without the required
5 funding mechanism, impact 4.10-5 remains significant and unavoidable.
6
7 Overriding Considerations
8 CEQA Guidelines section 15091 requires public agencies to make one or more written findings
9 supported by substantial evidence in the record for each of the significant environmental
10 impacts identified in the EIR prior to project approval and to provide an explanation of the
11 rationale for each finding.
12
13 Where potentially significant and unavoidable environmental impacts have been identified,
14 CEQA Guidelines section 15093 requires decision makers to balance the economic, social,
15 technological, or other benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental
16 impacts when determining whether or not to approve the project. If the economic, legal, social,
17 technological or other benefits of the proposed project outweigh the significant and unavoidable
18 environmental effects of the project, these environmental effects may be considered
19 "acceptable."
20
21 In order to approve a project that would result in significant and unavoidable environmental
22 effects identified in the EIR, the Lead Agency is required to make a "Statement of Overriding
23 Considerations." This requires the agency to state in writing the specific reasons to support
24 approval of the project based on the EIR and/or other information contained in the record. The
25 findings required for a statement of overriding considerations are made in addition to the
26 findings required by CEQA Guidelines section 15091. A Lead Agency cannot approve the
27 proposed project when unavoidable project related environmental effects are identified in the
28 EIR without first certifying the EIR and adopting a statement of overriding considerations.
29
30 Project Alternatives
31 The DEIR evaluated three alternatives to the proposed project: the No Project Alternative; the
32 Reduced Project Size Alternative; and the Grocery Sales within Existing Store and Expanded
33 Hours Alternative. As part of the alternatives analysis, the DEIR evaluated the environmental
34 effects associated with each alternative and compared them with the project and each other.
35 The alternatives discussion begins on DEIR page 6-1. Table 6-5 provides a summary of the
36 impacts associated with the proposed project and each of the three alternatives (DEIR page 6-
37 14).
38
39 No ProiectAlternative. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e) requires the DEIR to include an
40 evaluation of the No Project alternative. The No Project Alternative would result in a
41 continuation of the existing conditions on the site in that the existing store and its associated
42 parking, landscaping and other improvements would remain. The No Project Alternative would
43 reduce the impacts for all environmental topics to less than significant levels (LTS).
44
45 The purpose of the No Project Alternative is to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of
46 approving the proposed project with the impact of not approving the proposed project (CEQA
47 Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(1)).
48
Walmart Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR)
1155 Airport Park Boulevard,APN 180-070-38
File Nos.:09-42-EIR-PC/09-28-SDP-PC
9
1 Reduced Proiect Size Alternative. Under the Reduced Project Size Alternative, the size of the
2 expansion would be reduced by approximately 50% to 24,495 square feet. Under this
3 alternative, the resulting store size would be approximately 128,500 square feet and all of the
4 new square footage would be dedicated to general merchandise and food sales with store hours
5 expanded to 24 hours per day, seven days per week. This alternative would result in potentially
6 significant impacts to Aesthetics; Air Quality; Geology and Soils; Hazards and Hazardous
7 Materials; Hydrology and Water Quality; Noise; Transportation and Traffic; and Biological
8 Resources. Climate change was identified in the table as potentially significant (PS). However,
9 this was a typographical error with the Climate Change impact being less than significant (LTS)
10 and comparatively less than the impacts of the project (LTS-).
11
12 Grocery Sales within Existinq Store and Expanded Hours Alternative. Under the Grocery Sales
13 within Existing Store and Expanded Hours Alternative, the footprint of the store would not be
14 expanded. Instead, approximately 25,000 square feet of existing floor area would be converted
15 to food sales by reducing the general merchandise floor area and store hours would be
16 extended to 24 hours per day, seven days per week. This alternative would not include any
17 exterior modifications, only interior alterations would occur as needed to accommodate the
18 conversion from general merchandise floor area to food sales floor area. This alterative would
19 result in potentially significant (PS) impacts to Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Noise; and
20 Transportation and Traffic. However, these potentially significant (PS) impacts are
21 comparatively less than the impacts of the project (PS-).
22
23 Environmentally Superior Alternative. CEQA requires that the EIR identify an environmentally
24 superior alternative. Since the No Project Alternative would reduce the impact to all
25 environmental topics to less than significant, the No Project Alternative would be the
26 environmentally superior alternative.
27
28 When the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project alternative, CEQA requires a
29 second alternative be selected. In this case, the Grocery Sales within Existing Store and
3o Expanded Hours Alternative has been identified as the environmentally superior alternative.
31 This alternative would reduce potentially significant (PS) impacts to Aesthetics (light and glare),
32 Air Quality (PM 25 health risk), Geology and Soils, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Biological
33 Resources to less than significant (LTS) levels. However, this alternative may not meet most of
34 the project objectives identified in the DEIR (page 6-2).
35
36
37 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
38
39 Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) advising that an
4o environmental impact report (EIR) was to be prepared for this project was sent to the State
41 Clearinghouse for distribution to responsible and/or trustee agencies on March 11, 2010. After
42 receiving the NOP, these agencies had 30 days in which to comment on the scope and content
43 of the environmental information related to the specific agency's statutory responsibilities that
44 should be included in the EIR.
45
46 Once the DEIR is prepared, it must be routed through the State Clearinghouse to all responsible
47 and trustee agencies. These agencies have 45 days in which to comment on the DEIR. At the
48 same time the DEIR is sent to the State Clearinghouse, the public is notified that the DEIR is
Walmart Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR)
1155 Airport Park Boulevard,APN 180-070-38
File Nos.:09-42-EIR-PC/09-28-SDP-PC
10
1 available for review. This DEIR was sent to the State Clearinghouse and available for public
2 review on July 5, 2011. Notice of Availability of the DEIR was provided as indicated in Public
3 Notice and Comment below.
4
5 The purpose of the August 10, 2011 meeting is to receive public and Planning Commission
6 comment on the adequacy of the analysis presented in the DEIR. There is a 45 day comment
7 period on the DEIR which runs from July 5, 2011 through August 18, 2011 at 5:00 p.m.
8
9
10 PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT
11
12 A Notice of Availability of the DEIR was provided in the following manner:
13
14 ■ filed with the State Clearinghouse on July 5, 2011;
15 ■ filed with the Mendocino County Clerk on July 1, 2011;
16 ■ published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on July 3, 2011;
17 ■ posted on the subject parcel on July 1, 2011;
18 ■ mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject parcel on June 30, 2011;
19 ■ mailed to all property owners within Airport Industrial Park Planned Development on
20 June 30, 2011;
21 ■ mailed to all tenants on parcels contiguous to the subject parcel on June 30, 2011;
22 ■ mailed and/or emailed to all persons on the Walmart Expansion interested parties list on
23 June 30, 2011; and
24 ■ posted on the City of Ukiah website on July 5, 2011.
25
26 Although not required, a second public notice was provided in the following manner:
27
28 ■ published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on July 31, 2011;
29 ■ mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject parcel on July 27, 2011;
30 ■ mailed to all tenants on parcels contiguous to the subject parcel on July 27, 2011;
31 ■ mailed to all property owners within Airport Industrial Park Planned Development on July
32 27, 2011; and
33 ■ mailed and/or emailed to all persons on the Walmart Expansion interested parties list on
34 July 27, 2011.
35
36 As of July 5, 2011, copies of the DEIR and appendices have been available for review at the
37 following locations:
38
City of Ukiah Main Branch Library
Planning & Community Development Dept. 105 North Main Street
300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482
Ukiah, CA 95482
City of Ukiah website
http://www.cityofukiah.com/pdf/city hall11/Walmart%20Expansion%20Draft%20EIR.pdf
http://www.cityofukiah.com/pdf/city hall11/Walmart%20Expansion%20Draft%20EIR°/o20Append
ices%20A-B.pdf
http://www.cityofukiah.com/pdf/city hall11/Walmart%20Expansion%20Draft%20EIR%20Append
Walmart Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR)
1155 Airport Park Boulevard,APN 180-070-38
File Nos.:09-42-EIR-PC/09-28-SDP-PC
11
ices%20C-F.pdf
1
2 As of the writing of this staff report, no written correspondence has been received regarding the
3 DEIR. The written correspondence received to date regarding the EIR is included in appendix A
4 of the DEIR (NOP Comment Letters and Scoping Meeting Notes).
5
6
7 CONCLUSION
8
9 The purpose of this public hearing is to take public and Planning Commission comment on the
10 Draft Environment Impact Report for the Walmart expansion project. As part of this hearing,
11 ESA (the City's EIR consultant) will provide an overview of the EIR process, discuss the steps
12 completed to date as part of this process for the Walmart EIR, and identify the next steps in the
13 process for the Walmart EIR.
14
15
16
17 ATTACHMENTS
18
19 1. Draft Environmental Impact Report with Appendices (hand delivered July 13, 2011)
20
21
22
23
24 S:Planning/Planning Commission/Staff Reports/Walmart DEIR
25
Walmart Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR)
1155 Airport Park Boulevard,APN 180-070-38
File Nos.:09-42-EIR-PC/09-28-SDP-PC
12