HomeMy WebLinkAbout12142011 - packet CITY OF UKIAH
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
December 14, 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 BRENNER, DOBLE, SANDERS,
WHETZEL, AND CHAIRPERSON PRUDEN
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes from the November 9, 2011 meeting 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. For items on this agenda, an appeal must
be received by the City Clerk no later than Tuesday December 27, 2011 at 5:00
p.m.
7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION
8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Walmart Expansion Project Environmental Impact Report (File Nos.: 09-
42-EIR-PC/09-28-SDP-PC). Conduct a public hearing, provide Planning
Commission comment, and possibly adopt a resolution to certify the Walmart
Expansion Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR). 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
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.
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 EIR analyzes an addition
of 52,320 square feet for a total store size of 161,350 square feet (a 3% increase of
the proposed square footage).
This item was continued from the November 9, 2011 P/anning Commission
meeting, Pub/ic comment oa this item is c%sed,
B. Walmart Expansion Project Site Development Permit and Statement of
Overriding Considerations (File Nos.: 09-28-SDP-PC and 09-42-EIR-PC).
Conduct a public hearing, receive public comment, provide Planning Commission
comment, and provide 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. 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 e�erior 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 P/anning Commission
meeting, Pub/ic comment on this item is open,
10. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
11. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
12. ADJOURNMENT
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 November 9, 2011
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 Kim Jordan, Senior Planner 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 — November 9, 2011
27
28 M/S Sanders/Whetzel to approve September 28, 2011 minutes, as submitted. Motion carried with
29 Commissioner poble abstaining.
30
31 5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
32
33 6. APPEAL PROCESS—Chair Pruden read the appeal process. For matters heard at this meeting,
34 the final date to appeal is November 21, 2011.
35
36 7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION - Site visit for agenda item 9B was verified.
37
38 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE —Agenda items 9A & 9B were properly noticed in accordance with
39 the provisions of the Ukiah Municipal Code.
40
41 9. PUBLIC HEARING
42 9A. Walmart Expansion Project Environmental Impact Report (File Nos.: 09-42-EIR-PC/09-28-
43 SDP-PC). Conduct a public hearing, take public and provide Planning Commission comment, and
44 possibly adopt a resolution to certify the Walmart Expansion Project Environmental Impact Report
45 (EIR). The project proposes a 47,621 square foot expansion of the existing 109,030 square foot
46 store, for a total square footage of 156,651 to include expanded general merchandise floor area
47 and expanded grocery sales floor area, indoor and outdoor garden centers, as well as the
48 possibility of distilled alcohol sales, and a medical clinic and/or vision center on the 13.44 acre
49 site located at 1155 Airport Park Boulevard, APN 180-070-38, in the Airport Industrial Park. Also,
50 included as part of the project is a change in store hours to 24 hours per day, seven days per
51 week, modifications to the landscaping, and other associated site improvements. The EIR
52 analyzes an addition of 52,320 square feet for a total store size of 161,350 square feet (a 3%
53 increase of the proposed square footage). The expansion of the store requires approval of a
54 Major Site Development Permit.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 9, 2011
Page 1
1 Chair Pruden: Briefly advised the public about Planning Commission meeting procedures/protocol
2 concerning tonight's review of the FEIR and Site Development Permit for the Walmart Expansion project
3 for the benefit of those public members wanting to comment and specifically asked commenters to stay
4 on topic because the FEIR and Site Development Permit are two different matters. Many of the comments
5 received and/or made publicly concerning the DEIR did not relate to environmental impacts or the
6 adequacy of the EIR, but rather to the existing development on the site and Walmart's corporate business
7 practices.
8
9 It was noted since this type of comment is not related to the potential environmental effects of the Project,
10 they are not addressed at length in the FEIR.
11
12 Planning Director Stump:
13 • The Walmart expansion is a big project for Ukiah.
14 • The project is controversial to many people.
15 • Welcomes public testimony regarding the Walmart expansion project.
16 • The purpose of tonighYs meeting is twofold and will include Site Development Permit portion of
17 the Project can be reviewed, the FEIR must be determined to be adequate and certified by the
18 Planning Commission.
19 • It may be review of the Walmart Expansion Project FEIR and Site Development Permit will not
20 get finished tonight and will be continued for further discussion/review at a Commission meeting
21 in December.
22 • Advised project consultants will be available to participate in the discussion for the FEIR.
23 • Also, explained the how discretionary review of the Walmart Expansion Project will proceed.
24 • Introduced Brian Grattidge of ESA, City(Lead Agency) consultant for the Walmart EIR.
25
26 Brian Grattidge of ESA, gave a PowerPoint presentation regarding an overview of the Ukiah Walmart
27 Expansion FEIR and provided information about relevant/applicable topics that include project location,
28 architect renderings & design concept, EIR process, selection of the EIR consultant and Administrative
29 process, scoping/DEIR/FEIR processes, the five `Master Responses' contained in the FEIR made to
30 public comments/questions about the existing Walmart store, scope of urban decay and job impacts,
31 General Plan consistency, market area and existing and future shade. Other topics discussed in the
32 presentation included information about the existing Walmart Store, 1992 Mitigation Measures and
33 Conditions of Approval, the CIP that was adopted in 1999, Walmart business operations, scope of the
34 what constitutes urban decay, how urban decay is analyzed, EIR General Plan consistency, market area
35 and grocery stores, shade calculations, landscaping and the 50% shade coverage in 10 years
36 requirement, EIR certification, and CEQA requirements in conjunction with the standard of adequacy of
37 an EIR.
38
39 Mr. Grattidge:
40 • Noted CEQA review`basically takes the environment as it exists and does not attempt to go back
41 in time and determine how it is that it got there.' For purposes of the EIR analysis as of March
42 2010, this is Walmart as it exists today and it is consistent with the Ukiah General Plan and
43 corresponding zoning designation when the project was initially approved in 1992.
44
45 Senior Planner Jordan commented on the PowerPoint topics as follows:
46 Selection of EIR Consultant
47 • Once it was determined an EIR was necessary for the Walmart Expansion project, a RFP went
48 out for a consultant. The City received approximately 10 proposals and interviewed the top three
49 consulting firms, including each firm's subconsultants. Based on this interview process, staff
50 recommended Environmental Science Associates (ESA) and corresponding subconsultant W-
51 Trans from CBRE to prepare the EIR. City Council approved staff's recommendation in this
52 regard.
53 • Work begins on the EIR after payment is received from the applicant. The City pays the EIR
54 consultant directly from the money deposited for this purpose.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 9, 2011
Page 2
1 • The contact between the consultant and applicant, in this case Walmart, is limited and what
2 contact there is the City is aware of. This represents the City of Ukiah's process for the
3 preparation of an EIR and this is the process that was followed for the Walmart Expansion
4 Project. CEQA does not require this relationship. CEQA allows an applicant to prepare an EIR
5 and submit it with the project to the local agency.
6
7 Accordingly, some commenters have stated there was a conflict of interest because of Walmart's
8 relationship with CBRE and asked how CBRE was selected. CBRE is an international real estate and
9 economic/fiscal consulting firm. The CBRE real estate division is separate from the economic/fiscal
10 consulting division. CBRE was the subconsultant to two of the EIR consulting firms interviewed as part of
11 the selection process. Amy Herman of CBRE was interviewed as part of the selection process. Staff is of
12 the opinion based on Ms. Herman's experience and expertise in fiscal and economic data collection,
13 analysis and reporting was highly qualified to prepare the urban decay analysis and fiscal impact study for
14 the Walmart DEIR. Prior to the preparation of the FEIR, CBRE dissolved its economic consulting division.
15 Ms. Herman established ALH Economics and conducted the work on the FEIR. CBRE had no relationship
16 or input on the preparation of the FEIR. Even without the dissolution of CBRE consulting, staff disagrees
17 a conflict of interest exists. CBRE operated the real estate division and economic consulting division as
18 separate units. There is no evidence to suggest or reason to believe Walmart, through CBRE's real estate
19 division, unduly influenced the outcome of the urban decay analysis or fiscal impact report.
20
21 The following topics are not part of the EIR discussion, but are being addressed because of public
22 questions/concerns raised:
23
24 1992 Mitiqation Measures & Conditions of Approval
25 • As alluded to by Mr. Grattidge, the 1992 Mitigation Measures and Conditions of Approval are not
26 related to the EIR or to CEQA, but since there were so many public comments made on this topic
27 they are being addressed.
28 • The 1992 approval of the Walmart store included mitigation measures and conditions of approval
29 and there were many inquiries whether or not the project complied with those mitigation
30 measures.
31 • One of the mitigation measures required that US 101 south to Talmage Road exit ramp be
32 reconfigured in some way. It specified one way the ramp could be reconfigured. It also stated an
33 alternate design could be configured if it was approved by the City Engineer and Caltrans. An
34 alternate design was in fact configured and approved by the City Engineer and Caltrans so the
35 project is in compliance with this mitigation measure.
36 • The second issue raised was the requirement to install sidewalks from South State Street along
37 Hastings Road to Commerce Drive. Bike lanes and sidewalks were installed as required. The
38 only section of bike lane that was not installed was at the intersection of South State Street and
39 Hastings Road because of inadequate right-of-way. The project is consistent with this mitigation
40 measure.
41 • Street trees were to be planted on Hastings/S. State Street to Hastings/Commerce provided they
42 comply with Airport Compatibility. No trees were planted in this area due to Airport Compatibility.
43 The project is consistent with this mitigation measure.
44 • There was concern expressed about the landscaping requirements whether or not 1 tree for
45 every 4 parking were planted. Compliance with this mitigation measure was determined as part of
46 the building permit review and prior to occupancy of the building. Based on the number of parking
47 spaces, 147 trees were required and 221 were planted on the site. The project is consistent with
48 this mitigation measure.
49 • Lastly, there were comments related to the requirement pertinent to the carpool coordinator. The
50 applicant did provide additional information about carpool for the sites and incentives are
51 provided as part of the program.
52
53 Capital Improvement Proqram
54 • Inquires were made about the CIP for the Redwood Business Park and whether or not Walmart
55 was subject to the CIP at the time.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 9, 2011
Page 3
1 • The CIP for the Airport Industrial Park (AIP) and Redwood Business Park did not exist when
2 Walmart was initially approved.
3 • The CIP was adopted in 1999 so projects approved prior to adoption were not subject to the fee.
4 • The CIP did not exist at the time when Walmart was approved so no fees were paid.
5 • There were questions about what projects are currently included in the CIP. They include Airport
6 Park Blvd./Talmage intersection improvements, minor widening of Talmage Road and
7 intersection improvements at Hastings Road/South State Street.
8 • The CIP balance as of November 2, 2011 is $260,348.79
9 • The estimated CIP fee for the proposed Project is $17,835.99.
10
11 Walmart Business Operations
12 • There were questions about Walmart business operations and this aspect is not related to the
13 EIR.
14 • There were inquires as to whether or not the outdoor garden sales were permitted. Walmart did
15 apply for a use permit and it was approved by the Planning Commission.
16 • Another use permit that was approved was for seasonal outdoor sales for 30 days or fewer per
17 year.
18 • Panhandling is prohibited by City Code section 6091.
19 • Camping is prohibited by City Code section 6091.
20 • There were questions about Walmart's current hours of operation and what City limitations might
21 exist for store operations. Currently Walmart operates 6 a.m. to midnight. Food Max and
22 Safeway have 24-hour operations.
23 • The City Code does not have any limitation on hours of operation.
24 • As part of the original approval for Walmart there were no limitations placed on its hours of
25 operation.
26 • Based on information from the applicant, the majority of new jobs resulting from the expansion
27 would be full-time.
28 • Medical and vision services are available to Walmart employees.
29
30 Brian Grattidge:
31 • Added the aforementioned topics did come up so we wanted to address them. For purposes of
32 the FEIR, these are separate from the environmental issues.
33 • Noted the matter of urban decay was subject to numerous public comments. The topic came up
34 during both the scoping and draft EIR hearings.
35 • An EIR is not required to analyze a projecYs social or economic effects.
36 • An EIR may trace a chain of cause and effect through economic or social change to a physical
37 change in the environment.
38 • An urban decay analysis is included in this EIR and is frequently prepared for big box
39 development.
40 • Although other socio-economic considerations such as quality of jobs and the nature of the
41 businesses that may be misplaced are not EIR issues, they may be appropriate for consideration
42 when the decision makers act on the Project.
43
44 Senior Planner Jordan further commented with regard to the urban decay analysis:
45 • Commenters stated Walmart has used CBRE for real estate services and this presents a conflict
46 of interest for the EIR.
47 • CBRE had a real estate division and economic/fiscal consulting division.
48 • Amy Herman of CBRE (economic consulting division) prepared the urban decay analysis
49 included in the DEIR.
50 • After the DEIR was released, CBRE dissolved the economic consulting division.
51 • Amy Herman subsequently established ALH consulting.
52 • ALH consulting prepared the responses to the DEIR. CBRE had no relationship or input on the
53 preparation of the FEIR.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 9, 2011
Page 4
1 • There is no evidence to suggest Walmart influenced the urban decay analysis or fiscal impact
2 report though its relationship with the CBRE real estate division.
3
4 Brian Grattidge:
5 General Plan Consistencv
6 • An EIR is required to consider the extent to which a project is consistent with applicable general
7 plans and/or specific plan, in this case, the Ukiah General Plan.
8 • A potential inconsistency does not necessarily mean the project will have a significant impact on
9 the environment for purposes of CEQA. It is merely a factor to be considered in determining
10 whether a particular project may cause a significant environment effect.
11 • Final determination for an EIR as to whether or not it is consistent with the general plan can only
12 be made by the decision making body and this body is the Ukiah Planning Commission.
13 • A general plan must consider a wide range of competing interests.
14
15 Market Area & Grocery Stores
16 • The determination was deliberated prior to the urban decay analysis.
17 • This analysis is not meant to encompass everybody who may potentially shop at Walmart.
18 • The analysis is intended to capture approximately 85% of those who shop at Walmart.
19 • The analysis takes into consideration competing retail shopping nodes, travel time/distance and
20 population density.
21 • Smaller local food stores do not compete directly to the extent larger and closer grocery stores
22 so, such that grocery stores in Willits and Calpella and smaller markets in Ukiah are not
23 considered as likely to be displaced.
24
25 Shade Calculations/Landscapinq 50°/o Shade Coveraqe Requirement
26 • Has been the subject of comments.
27 • Relates to the CEQA analysis for identifying what is or is not an issue for purposes of the EIR.
28 • Is an important consideration with regard to the Site Development Permit aspect of the project.
29 • The 50% landscaping standard for the AIP was not in effect when the original store was
30 approved.
31 • The level of shade that exists in the parking lot depends upon how it is calculated.
32 • There are some difficulties in applying the City's shade requirements.
33 • The calculation used for the draft EIR was 19%taking into consideration existing shade, mid-day.
34 • For the drive isles, back-up spaces, and entryways and/or other paved sections of the parking lot
35 calculated for the existing conditions is 8.3°/o shade.
36 • Existing conditions under CEQA is not an effect even if the existing store fails to meet current or
37 even past standards.
38 • Since there is a net improvement using any of the methodologies, failure to meet current
39 standards is not a significant impact.
40 • For existing conditions under CEQA whether the calculation used is 8.3% or 19%
41 acknowledgement that this meets the current 50% shade coverage standard is not an impact
42 because the intent is to look at what the change is. In terms of future proposed shade using either
43 the methodology for the draft EIR or other methodologies considered, the shade coverage
44 roughly doubles from what is existing. Future proposed shade for the parking spaces is calculated
45 at 45% for the DEIR and 15% for the FEIR using the Forest Service method that considers all
46 paved areas using a 10-year growth rate or 40% using the City of Davis calculation method over
47 the entire area and 61% in the new parking area. Not many cities use the 10-year growth rate
48 method because it is rather difficult to do. What is involved is the existing parking lot that will be
49 retrofitted and the parking area for the expansion. There is the expectation the expansion area
50 would come closer to the 50°/a landscaping standard than the older existing parking lot. It is for
51 this reason, the existing and proposed parking lot shade scenarios are addressed separately.
52 Because the landscaping would be an improvement, it would not be considered an adverse
53 impact. The failure to meet the landscaping standard is a separate issue the Planning
54 Commission will address for the Site Development Permit.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 9, 2011
Page 5
1 Senior Planner Jordan:
2 Landscapinq 50% Shade Coveraqe Requirement
3 • The proposed project is subject to AIP Ordinance 1098 adopted in 2007. This ordinance requires
4 50% shade coverage of paved parking areas within 10 years of planting. This requirement was
5 not in place at the time of the existing development and does not apply to the existing parking
6 areas. The existing parking lot does not meet this requirement and is not required to comply with
7 the 50% landscaping standard.
8 • There is no requirement the existing parking lot must be retrofitted to comply with the 50%
9 landscaping requirement.
10 • The new parking for the expansion area is required to comply with the standard.
11 • Consistency with the landscaping standards will be discussed during review of the Site
12 Development Permit.
13
14 City Attorney Rapport:
15 • Is available to answer legal questions regarding the FEIR and Site Development Permit.
16
17 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:44 p.m.
18
19 Chair Pruden: Commenters either support or oppose that the EIR is adequate and should therefore be
20 certified. Just because the EIR may be certified does not approve or disapprove the project. Again
21 determining whether or not the Final EIR is adequate stands apart from the Site Development Permit
22 portion of the project. Also, if commenters do not stay to the topic of the EIR process, they will be asked
23 to sit down.
24
25 Brent Lorenz:
26 • EIR is adequate. Project is good for the community.
27
28 Dennis Owen:
29 • Is disabled and on a fixed income.
30 • Would like to be able to one-stop shop as much as possible and purchase food and other items at
31 a lower price more in keeping with his living situation.
32 • Supports certification.
33
34 Pamela Whitiker:
35 • EIR is adequate and should be certified.
36 • Supports that Walmart be allowed to expand so the community can take advantage of the
37 affordable grocery component part of the project.
38 • Noted Walmart donated money toward a worthy cause she is involved with.
39 • Project is good for the community as it provides local jobs and lower prices.
40 • Likes the concept of a one-stop shop because it is convenient.
41 • Community will profit from the local revenue generated.
42
43 Debbie Vinson:
44 • EIR is adequate.
45 • In terms of EIR and growth inducement, the project does provide jobs for handicapped, disabled
46 and senior persons.
47 • Lives in Redwood Valley and shops at Walmart every day.
48 • Is disabled and likes to one-stop shop.
49 • Supports the expansion so she will not have to spend the time shopping in other stores and it is
50 affordable.
51 • With regard to urban decay is of the opinion that smaller stores will not be affected by the
52 expansion.
53 • Does shop at other local stores.
54 • Project would prevent sales leakage into other areas, such as Santa Rosa.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 9, 2011
Page 6
1 Penny Vinson:
2 • Is disabled.
3 • Has friends that work at Walmart.
4 • Walmart provides good jobs.
5
6 Chris Brown:
7 • Is the County air quality control officer.
8 • Worked with Mr. Grattidge and staff concerning the EIR.
9 • This is the first EIR project under the new air quality guideline recommendations that include
10 GHG modeling and other analysis and provides for a much more expansive air quality analysis
11 than has been seen before in an EIR document.
12 • Mr. Grattidge has done an excellent job putting together the air quality section of the EIR
13 document, noting the new guidelines that were adopted by the Bar Area Qir Quality Control
14 District are stringent.
15 • The air quality effects in the EIR analysis are adequate and acceptable, but is of the opinion the
16 project should not move forward without some changes.
17 • He will speak to the Site Development Permit portion of project when it is reviewed.
18
19 Clayton Mulberg:
20 • Has professional expertise for assessing road conditions and functioning adequacy.
21 • Has some concerns about the EIR pertinent to significant and unavoidable impacts to traffic
22 volumes and queues.
23 • The current road conditions on Airport Park Boulevard are poor; The road was likely designed for
24 light to moderate traffic and is inadequate for large volumes of traffic.
25 • Is cognizant of the large freight trucks that use Airport Park Boulevard to accommodate Walmart.
26 • Larger store means more trucks.
27 • The EIR document does not require Walmart to help maintain Airport Park Boulevard. Local
28 taxpayers pay to fix City roads.
29 • The document mentions some efforts made for mitigation to traffic queues, but understands the
30 CIP for this area remains unfunded for this improvement.
31 • Addressed the issue of urban decay and noted there are a significant number of large stores
32 already per capita in Ukiah.
33 • Allowing Walmart to sell groceries will have a negative impact on the other local food stores by
34 potentially decreasing the demand for sales and corresponding revenue for these stores.
35 • Other larger local grocery stores pay a livable wage and while he is not familiar with the Walmart
36 wage structure understands they are not comparable to these other stores. It is likely these jobs
37 could be replaced with Walmart jobs if an expansion to include an increase in the sales area for
38 food sales is approved.
39 • Asked the decision makers to take a closer look at the supply and demand issue and traffic
40 situation in the area of the project.
41 • FEIR is not adequate in the area of traffic and urban decay.
42
43 Dorotheye M. Dorman:
44 • There is a severe conflict of interest with the hiring of a `spin off' subconsultant for the preparation
45 of the urban decay analysis for the EIR who worked for CBRE Consulting that had a real estate
46 division that had business affiliations with Walmart and an economic/fiscal consulting division that
47 is now dissolved. This is an outrage.
48 • This type of `spin off' company having a 'revolving door of employees' is what has ruined our
49 governmental regulatory agencies.
50 • Our regulatory agencies are working with corporations instead of working on the public's behalf.
51 • The acceptance of ALH to do the urban decay analysis is a disgrace.
52
53 Jeff Spharler:
54 • The EIR is adequate and should be certified.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 9, 2011
Page 7
1 • Is currently a vendor at Walmart and is of the opinion Walmart is a 'fantastic' company to work
2 for.
3 • Some of his employees have or are working at Walmart and enjoy it.
4 • His company maintains the Olive trees in the existing parking lot and has knowledge that Walmart
5 is looking at replacing them with a species that provides better shade canopy and requires less
6 maintenance.
7 • Supports Walmart having a 24-hour operation.
8 • Does shop at Walmart while his wife does not; People that shop at Walmart will continue to do so
9 no matter how big the store becomes.
10 • The project will create 85 more jobs for people wanting to be employed with Walmart. Ukiah
11 needs more job opportunities.
12
13 Craig Davis:
14 • Is the store manager of Walmart.
15 • Appreciates the work in process and that has been done on the project by staff and the
16 consultants.
17 • With regard to General Plan Consistency, Goal G-7, which pertains to improving the appearance
18 of the community's gateways is of the opinion given the location and a remodeled store will
19 improve the gateway in this area.
20 • Walmart is working with Ukiah Main Street Program in an effort to draw more people to the
21 Downtown area.
22 • The expansion project would be beneficial to the community.
23 • Referencing the section on recapturing of existing sales leakage, is aware that many of his
24 customers drive to other cities to shop.
25 • It is important that Ukiah keep that tax dollar and sales revenue by encouraging people to shop
26 locally.
27 • Supports approval of the project.
28
29 Pascal Milon:
30 • Is a frequent shopper at Walmart.
31 • Supports that Walmart expand.
32 • Likes that food at Walmart; The food is cheaper and there is a variety.
33
34 Sandra Wilhart:
35 • EIR is adequate and should be certified.
36 • Is grateful that Walmart hired her when she needed to work.
37 • Walmart has paid 100% of her husband's medical bills.
38 • Her family members shop at Walmart as well as other stores.
39
40 Miro (Inaudible)
41 • Is employed at Walmart and is thankful for his job.
42 • Walmart provides employment for many people in the community.
43 • An expanded Walmart will provide further employment opportunities in the community.
44 • Highly supports the Walmart Expansion project.
45 • The EIR is adequate and should be certified so Ukiah can enjoy an expanded Walmart with new
46 affordable grocery products. An expanded Walmart is good for the future of our community.
47
48 Serena Stanford:
49 • Is employed at Walmart.
50 • EIR is adequate and should be certified so Ukiah can enjoy the amenities of an expanded
51 Walmart.
52 • Customers have expressed to her the need for an expanded Walmart that includes increased
53 sales area for general merchandise and for food sales.
54 • Has been a patron of`Super WalmarY stores in other areas and they are really nice.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 9, 2011
Page 8
1 • The project will create new jobs for people in the community.
2 • Has high regard for Walmart.
3 • Project will provide one-stop shopping benefits for the elderly and the disabled.
4
5 Chair Pruden: Reminded public speakers to stay on the topic of the EIR as it relates to environmental
6 impacts rather than subject matter that pertains to the existing development and/or the proposed Site
7 Development Permit.
8
9 Laura Fogg, Speaking on behalf of herself and Jeannie Sheppard
10 • The section relative to urban decay has not been adequately addressed.
11 • The expansion project would result in long term decay of commercial buildings and disagrees
12 with page ES4, Table ES-1, Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures, urban decay, Impact
13 4.3-1: The Project would not result in long term commercial building vacancies and therefore
14 would not result in increased urban conditions and Impact 4.3-2: The Project in conjunction with
15 other development would not result in long term commercial building vacancies and therefore
16 would not result in increased urban decay conditions.
17 • Has lived in Ukiah for a long time and has witnessed one shopping center after another decay
18 after a new shopping center has been built and cited examples of such shopping centers that no
19 longer exist.
20 • Asked the Planning Commission to look closely at how the EIR reached the conclusion that no
21 mitigation is required and that the level of significance after mitigation is `LTS' regarding urban
22 decay and that the project would not result in long term commercial building vacancies and result
23 in increased decay conditions.
24 • The independent entity having a connection to Walmart should not have been allowed to prepare
25 the urban decay analysis for the EIR and should have been prepared by an independent entity
26 having no prior connection to Walmart.
27 • While the decision to close the US Post Office on Oak Street was not up to the community and its
28 decision makers, the Walmart Expansion project is. It is time for the community to say 'enough is
29 enough' and to encourage projects that benefit the community not draw from it.
30 • Asked the Planning Commission to closely look at the project and whether or not it would be good
31 for the community given certain potential impacts and cumulative impacts addressed in the DEIR.
32
33 Ellen Faulkner:
34 • Lives on a fixed income.
35 • Appreciates that Walmart has affordable prices.
36 • Finds problems with the adequacy of the EIR.
37 • Does not agree with the EIR with regard to the issue of traffic and traffic impacts. The existing
38 infrastructure is inadequate relevant to the issue of traffic and the potential significant impacts that
39 will occur as a result of the Project and noted the taxpayers will have to pay to make the
40 improvements to the infrastructure in order to accommodate expansions of operations and new
41 developments leaving less money for subsistence purposes because taxpayers would be
42 responsible for improvements to the infrastructure.
43 • Supports the concept of `localization' and/or shopping locally and purchasing food that is grown
44 locally so that the wealth generated stays in the community to benefit the people living here rather
45 than going to large corporations whose corporate offices exist outside of the area and/or whose
46 produce would comes from outside of the community or country.
47 • Unlikely Walmart would support the local community.
48
49 Jeffrey Blankfort:
50 • The EIR is inadequate and inaccurate.
51 • Since participating in review of the DEIR found information that CBRE consulting firm did, in fact,
52 have a long standing business relationship with Walmart. Specifically, CBRE Portfolio Services
53 has sold 197 assets on behalf of Walmart. In other words, the largest real estate company in the
54 world, CBRE, is the real estate agent to the largest commercial retail company in the world,
55 Walmart.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 9, 2011
Page 9
1 • The conflict of interest that occurred alone relative to CBRE should be sufficient grounds to
2 negate the entire EIR because the public, staff and Planning Commission was not informed.
3 • Commented on people having to work at low paying jobs with little or no medical benefits and
4 how this is allowed to occur. Questioned the legality under CEQA guidelines of allowing
5 intermediaries such as ESA to work with CBRE subconsultants on the urban decay analysis
6 portion of the EIR. This appears to be unethical wherein the EIR was prepared by consulting staff
7 from ESA under contract to the City of Ukiah, the Lead Agency, in accordance with CEQA.
8 • He referred to CEQA guideline section 15151 on page 5 of the staff report that states, `An EIR
9 should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision makers with
10 information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of the
11 environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effect need not be exhaustive,
12 but the sufficiency of the EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible.
13 Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize
14 the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection
15 but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at disclosure.' Accordingly, City staff was
16 not aware of the CBRE connection with Walmart until he informed them. As far as he is
17 concerned this is not ethical.
18 • Is of the opinion the law is even worse according to the PowerPoint presentation by ESA
19 consultant Brian Grattidge, that CEQA allows the applicant to prepare their own CEQA document
20 for consideration by the Lead Agency.
21 • Elaborated on the EIR process and what was allowed to occur without disclosure in this case
22 with the preparer consultant and subconsultant.
23 • It is good the City does not allow direct contact with the applicant and subconsultants, but how
24 can this be enforced?
25 • ESA and City staff do not believe there is a conflict of interest. CBRE is an international
26 corporation with various business groups.
27 • The claim is the economist working on the EIR was part of the CBRE consulting firm, which is a
28 distinct business group was not part of commercial real estate business and this is not true.
29 • CBRE consulting is or was until recently a division of CBRE worldwide.
30 • The public was told that Walmart had no influence on CBRE's analysis but is of the opinion the
31 analyst would act favorably toward such an influential and prestigious company as Walmart.
32 • The information regarding CBRE subconsultants in conjunction with the preparation of the urban
33 decay analysis of the Walmart EIR should have been disclosed according to CEQA guidelines.
34 • CBRE's analysis regarding potential urban decay is insufficient/inaccurate because urban decay
35 already exists in this community. If the EIR concluded that urban decay would be less than
36 significant this is simply ludicrous.
37 • If approved, Walmart would be directly competing with Food Max selling all products at a lower
38 price so low that Food Max would be unable to compete, but according to the EIR Food Max has
39 business or retail experience or sales to demonstrate it will probably survive. This is nonsense
40 because anyone who has studied economics and the track record of Walmart would know it is a
41 possibility Food Max would not survive if Walmart were to increase its sales area for food sales
42 and merchandise.
43 • Eventually, the beautiful shade trees along School Street across from the Courthouse might
44 resemble parts of Oakland because of urban decay not to mention the closure of the US Post
45 Office in the Downtown. The closure of the US Post Office was not mentioned in the EIR. There
46 will be businesses in the Downtown that will close if Walmart is allowed to expand.
47 • Imagine what two or three empty supermarkets would be like in this community.
48 • The EIR talks about the fiscal benefit to the City with commercial development that provides for
49 increased sales tax revenue and increased property tax revenues and this is nonsense.
50 Whatever sales tax Walmart would generate would be reduced by the revenue losses from the
51 other stores and when some of these stores are forced to close, their property tax will decrease
52 so there is no financial gain in this regard.
53 • The EIR states Walmart's revenue will come from existing stores.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 9, 2011
Page 10
1 • The EIR talks about new jobs that will be created for residents of this community with the
2 expansion, which is ludicrous because what will be created is new low paying jobs and put
3 scores of employees with good paying jobs and health benefits out of work.
4 • Those persons criticizing the EIR were told the document was not intended to address economic
5 issues for the lives of the workers in Ukiah's better paid supermarkets and the families that will
6 be severely impacted should this project be approved. The economic consideration in this regard
7 will be left to the decision of the Ukiah City Council. `LeYs not wait for this.'
8 • This is the kind of review where the members of the Planning Commission representing Ukiah
9 have the opportunity to stand up against corporate Walmart and vote not to approve the EIR.
10
11 Don Larsen:
12 • Walmart was featured on the front page of the New York Times November 8 advising the
13 corporation will be going into the finance business by offering check cashing services and
14 charging lower fees. Walmart will be directly competing with banks and other financial
15 institutions.
16 • There are people who do not want to deal with banks anymore and are going to Walmart for
17 financial services. This represents a problem in the future.
18 • Walmart is planning to set up 'full-fledged' banks inside their stores.
19
20 Chair Pruden: Asked Mr. Larsen what this has to do with the EIR the Planning Commission is discussing
21 tonight.
22
23 Don Larsen:
24 • Setting up banks inside Walmart stores represents an environmental impact. This is a new
25 approach that has not been done before.
26
27 Fred Innerebrer:
28 • Preference is to shop at stores that have lower prices.
29 • Supports that Walmart expand.
30 • The Project will offer more jobs to people in the community.
31
32 Ann Vanderhart
33 • The Project presents urban decay and traffic impacts.
34 • Asked the Commission to look closely at these issues in their review of the FEIR.
35
36 Gene Hoggrene:
37 • The Project does present impacts to the environment.
38 • Does not dispute Walmart's right to expand the store.
39 • He objects to a change in store hours to 24 hours per day, seven days a week because this will
40 significantly impact other retail stores.
41 • Is familiar with Walmart's business practices because his wife used to work at a Walmart store for
42 10 years and in his travels around the country has observed how this corporation operates.
43 • Walmart has the ability to change and/or lower prices any time they want to the degree other
44 stores are not be able to compete. He used the price of a can of soup as an example that was
45 lowered to the point no other grocery store could compete.
46
47 Wes Canby.
48 • Of concern are the shade trees that create an environment for panhandling.
49 • Walmart is very good about asking panhandlers/camping transients to leave if they bother
50 customers.
51 • The EIR is sufficient and should be approved.
52 • This country was created to encourage competition and what the expansion of Walmart would do
53 is to `stand up and take notice and compete.'
54
55 Charley Vaughn:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 9, 2011
Page 11
1 • Does not make a lot of money and does not shop at Walmart.
2 • Does not support approval of the EIR and corresponding expansion project. His opinion likely
3 represents that of other persons not speaking tonight.
4 • People will lose their jobs if the expansion project is approved.
5 • Walmart does not pay living wages or provide health benefits.
6 • Walmart uses unfair business practices to manage competition.
7 • Walmart lowers the employment standards in this country and this is what people have come to
8 expect. Walmart is destroying our economy with their business practices.
9
10 Nathan Porter:
11 • He and his wife shop at Walmart as well as a variety of other stores.
12 • Does pay attention to pricing and value.
13 • Where a person shops is a matter of choice.
14 • The EIR is adequate and encourages the City to certify it.
15 • Commented on the topic of economics and it is a mistaken idea to think that the other stores
16 somehow own those sales by offering values to customers. If Walmart can do a better job at
17 creating values they should have the opportunity to do this.
18 • Urban decay is present in Ukiah and has not occurred because of the presence of Walmart. It is a
19 process that occurs in communities.
20 • Competition is part of market conditions.
21 • Sales leakage does occur because people shop outside of the area.
22 • As long as the community is not willing to grow, sale leakage will occur.
23 • There may be stores that are unable to compete with Walmart competition, but they certainly
24 have the opportunity to do so.
25 • People also have a choice where they want to work because employment is voluntary. If a person
26 does not want to work at Walmart, he/she would not.
27
28 Rex Ramsey:
29 • Has been a resident of Mendocino County for some 30 years.
30 • Is involved with planting trees for the good of the county.
31 • Finds the proposed new parking lot to be `exciting.'
32 • Would seek volunteers to maintain the trees in Walmart's parking lot, but is of the understanding
33 Walmart plans to replace the existing trees with tree species that provide for a better canopy.
34 • Is pleased to see Walmart expand.
35 • Likes to shop at Walmart and will drive a hundred miles to do so to find a product he cannot find
36 in other stores.
37 • Larger Walmarts carry items that are not normally found in other stores.
38 • Fully supports the Project.
39
40 Chair Pruden: The Planning Commission will review the parking lot requirement during discretionary
41 review of the Site Development Permit.
42
43 Lasara Allen:
44 • Was present for review of the EIR for the initial development of Walmart.
45 • Because of Walmart businesses practices, this community is at risk for losing other businesses
46 that financially support many people and offer a higher standard of living than Walmart does.
47 • Does not necessarily agree with the statement that if a person does not want to work at Walmart,
48 he/she would not because existing economic conditions make finding a job more difficult. A
49 person may have to settle for a job at Walmart because there are no other employment
50 opportunities available and work for less money than he/she would elsewhere.
51 • Also, if Walmart made other businesses close, there would be fewer job opportunities available
52 than there are currently.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 9, 2011
Page 12
1 • The infrastructure for traffic in Ukiah was not built to support the growing population. Airport Park
2 Boulevard was built to accommodate light to moderate traffic at best and is still problematic.
3 Traffic in the vicinity of Redwood Business Park and Talmage Road is congested.
4 • The expansion of Walmart is not a good idea for this community. The impact the project will have
5 on the infrastructure in our community will be significant.
6
7 Dianne Durham, on behalf of Sheila Blake:
8 • The negative impacts of the Walmart Expansion Project far outweigh the positive.
9 • Walmart already exists in Ukiah making money and lots of it.
10 • The expansion of Walmart is not necessary.
11 • Once again the negative impact on our community include: job losses and with this is the loss of
12 health insurance, possible home foreclosures, more people having to impact the County with the
13 need for food stamps and other living services to subsidize for the low wages and non-health
14 benefits that Walmart gives its employees, traffic issues particularly in view of the Downtown US
15 Post Office, increasing noise and pollution levels, increase in safety and security concerns with a
16 24-hour store operation which this community has no need for, high probability for the closure of
17 Lucky that will result in the loss of available food within walking distance for people living in the
18 area and other relative negative impacts to the community.
19 • Martin Luther King once stated `our lives begin to change the day we remain silent about things
20 that matter.'
21 • I will not remain silent with regard to the Walmart Expansion Project.
22 • Asked the Planning Commission for the good of community to let Walmart remain at its current
23 level of business operation.
24 • Allowing Walmart to expand, a decision obviously motivated by greed will permanently impact
25 Ukiah and Mendocino County in ways that cannot be recovered from.
26
27 Dianne Durham:
28 • Wonders if the decision makers have already made up their minds about the Walmart Expansion
29 Project.
30 • When the US Postal Service informed Ukiah about its intent to close the Downtown post office on
31 Oak Street and expand to the Orchard Avenue location, public comment was allowed on the
32 issue. Despite overwhelming opposition to the closure by the public and City officials an
33 opposition based on sovereign researched facts related to the economic detriment to our
34 community dispute the large opposition, the Downtown post office is going to close. We know
35 now the public hearing and appeal process were a farce. The US Postal Service wants this
36 closure and got its way.
37 • Walmart wants the expansion and wonders if this million dollar operation of Walmart already has
38 its expansion.
39 • Asked the Planning Commission not to allow themselves to become like the Federal government
40 agency that made a mockery of the public hearing for the US Post Office in downtown Ukiah.
41 • Asked the Planning Commission to seriously consider the overwhelming evidence that the Project
42 is not good for Ukiah. Common sense clearly indicates that the economic and environmental well-
43 being of Ukiah will be gravely jeopardized by the Walmart Expansion Project.
44 • Encourages the Commission to do what is right for the people and businesses in Ukiah.
45
46 Terry Poplawski:
47 • Commented on the element of how wealth is created. Wealth is created by paying workers their
48 fair share of labor in place of profit. This is the system Walmart uses in its business practices.
49 • Allowing Walmart to increase its sales area for food will put this store in direct competition with
50 other stores that pay union wages.
51 • Walmart is one of the leaders in the race to the bottom in the economy that this nation is
52 experiencing.
53 • Allowing Walmart to expand will take that much more dollars out of Ukiah and not in the pockets
54 of workers that live here.
55 • Is of the opinion the urban decay issue of the EIR is `too rosey', if not inadequate.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 9, 2011
Page 13
1
2 Aurora:
3 • Has lived in Ukiah for 12 of her 14 years.
4 • Walmart is an entity that many community members turn to for cheap resources.
5 • Most basic needs for people can be met at the Walmart store we currently have.
6 • Allowing for an expanded Walmart would create a much larger carbon footprint compared to what
7 exists for the current building footprint.
8 • Supports Walmart's building footprint remains the same.
9
10 Kerri Porter:
11 • Shops at a variety of stores.
12 • Supports certification of the EIR.
13 • Where a person shops reflects values and is a personal choice.
14 • It is immoral to limit someone's choice. People need to have choices where they shop.
15 • People shop at Walmart by choice.
16 • Not every grocery store carries the same quality produce.
17 • Environmentally speaking, more carbon emissions are created by persons driving out of the area
18 to shop. There are also more emissions created driving to multiple stores.
19 • The only way to keep people shopping locally is to have an adequate market place in Ukiah.
20 • Ukiah needs more choices.
21 • Supports other retail establishments come to Ukiah.
22 • Supports approval of the EIR.
23
24 Alan Nicholson:
25 • Commented on the traffic impacts in the EIR.
26 • Traffic on Talmage Road between Highway 101 and Airport Park Boulevard is awful.
27 • There will be an increase in the daily and weekend number of trips on these roads should
28 Walmart be allowed to expand so the traffic congestion will be even worse.
29 • No plan has been developed and approved by Caltrans that will solve any of the traffic problems
30 on Talmage Road because a plan and a funding mechanism are not in place
31 • The EIR somehow recommends the City adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations
32 approving the project on the grounds that while the project impacts are significant, they are
33 unavoidable where the project objectives or benefits outweigh these significant traffic impacts.
34 There are three issues with this reasoning: 1) It makes no sense to approve any project that will
35 control/contribute to the continued degradation in the level of service (LOS) for traffic on Talmage
36 Road and Highway 101 until an approved plan and funding mechanism are in place. In this way
37 any additional projects will be required to contribute to the upgrade of these roadways rather than
38 getting a `free pass' at the ultimate cost of taxpayers. 2)Why is the implementation of the project
39 objectives being promoted by the EIR as an overriding consideration regarding traffic issues that
40 will affect the public's safety. These traffic issues include inadequate merging lanes for traffic
41 exiting Highway 101 and inadequate lanes for making a left turn at Talmage Road and Airport
42 Park Boulevard. Both of these issues could create traffic accidents and as stated in the EIR is a
43 significant safety hazard. 3) Almost all of the project objectives will be achieved if the City adopts
44 'Alternative 3' of the project, `no footprint expansion' allowing `groceries sales within the existing
45 store and expanded hours.' No footprint expansion will not add to existing traffic impacts. Project
46 alternatives include: 1) No Project Alternative (Existing Conditions, No change); 2) Reduced
47 Project Size; 3) Grocery Sales within Existing Store and Expanded Hours.
48 • Is of the opinion the tax benefits to the City and the job gains from the expansion are illusory and
49 therefore, should not be a basis for approving the expansion.
50 • Alternate 3 meets all of the project objectives. It is recommended the City approve Alternate 3 as
51 the best means of avoiding traffic impacts while also meeting project objectives.
52 • Recommends the Planning Commission approves the EIR as presented and approve Alternate 3
53 as the superior environmental alternative.
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 9, 2011
Page 14
1 Tara McMilin:
2 • Is employed by Lucky grocery store.
3 • Is of the opinion if the Walmart Expansion project is approved, she will lose herjob.
4 • She is representing herself and all other Lucky employees.
5 • Opposes the project expansion.
6 • Her life has already been negatively affected by Walmart and explained the reason why.
7 • Many customers of Lucky have expressed concern about the Walmart expansion and how it
8 could potentially impact Lucky.
9 • The 85 new jobs at Walmart that would be created as a result of the expansion do not offset the
10 100 plus jobs that will be lost at Lucky.
11
12 Chair Pruden: Asked Tara McMilin if she knows the exact number of Lucky and Food Max employees
13 because this information is not included in the EIR.
14
15 Tara McMilin: Did not know the exact number of employees Lucky has and had no knowledge about
16 Food Max.
17
18 It was noted Lucky has over 120 employees.
19
20 Pinky Kushner:
21 • Has some objections to the EIR.
22 • Lucky is a good and centrally located grocery store. Many customers walk to this store to shop.
23 • Staff states on page 4 of the staff report that CBRE is an international real estate and economic
24 and fiscal consulting firm. The CBRE real estate division is separate from the economic and fiscal
25 consulting division. Even though there are two divisions of the same company they are still
26 interlocked and this has not been fully accounted for.
27 • Page 5 of the staff report refers to how an EIR is adequate or not adequate and further referred to
28 CEQA Guidelines section 15151 that states `An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree
29 of analysis .......... The Courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness
30 and good faith effort at disclosure.' Is of the opinion the lack of disclosure at the outset that CBRE
31 was associated with Walmart should raise flags and make you Planning Commissioners request
32 a new economic report on urban decay.
33 • Page 6 of the staff report provides a summary of environmental topics that resulted in less than
34 significant (LTS), potentially significant impacts and significant and unavoidable impacts.
35 Requests `Urban Decay' be moved to significant and unavoidable impacts rather than LTS.
36 • As addressed by public members tonight, urban decay will occur.
37 • According to the Environmental Quality Act, urban decay is defined as `buildings that are
38 decayed.' The buildings should include the houses that go into foreclosure, the shopping centers
39 and small shops that`go under.'
40 • John Pinches before he was a County Supervisor stated when Walmart first came in `there was a
41 huge `sucking noise' in Laytonville.'
42 • Is of the opinion aesthetics (light and glare) should be moved to significant and unavoidable
43 impacts. The EIR states with regard to light and glare that lighting will be fully shielded and shine
44 downward, but the problem with this is lights do shine downward but once they are downward the
45 light goes back up into the heavens and this will happen 24-hours a day.
46 • The lights are shielded fully downward for the auto sales car lots in Petaluma, but they shine right
47 back up into the heavens because the lights reflect off the shiny surfaces of the new cars and go
48 right back upward. Even pavement will send lights back upward.
49 • Yesterday, it was announced the State Department of the United States Federal Government
50 Inspector General will review the Tarzan's Pipeline project in response to complaints concerning
51 conflicts of interest in the preparation of the environmental impact statement for the Keystone XL
52 Pipeline.
53
54 Danny Jacques:
55 • The EIR is more than adequate.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 9, 2011
Page 15
1 • Talmage Road and the freeway ramp southbound existed long before Walmart and has always
2 been a problem.
3 • A 24-hour operation would be a deterrent for panhandlers/homeless.
4 • In terms of urban decay and with vacant buildings in the Downtown because of business
5 closures would not likely occur if they were more competitive with their prices.
6 • New stores always make a draw but after a while people revert back to their shopping habits.
7 • While there may be some environmental impacts, new jobs will be created so the issue becomes
8 inconsequential because there are no jobs available in Ukiah.
9 Ross Mayfield:
10 • Is a life-long resident of Ukiah for 62 years.
11 • Shops in Walmart and other stores.
12 • Has observed many businesses come and go over the years.
13 • The concern for loss of jobs was the same when Safeway and the other grocery markets came to
14 town.
15 • Competition is competition.
16 • Urban decay in this community has existed for a long time.
17 • Do not be afraid of change. Change happens, we adjust to it and make it work.
18 • Fully supports certification of the EIR and expansion project.
19
20 Fred Thompsen:
21 • Likes that Walmart will offer more jobs.
22 • Asked about plans for road improvements in the area.
23
24 Mary Anne Miller:
25 • The Planning Commission has an obligation to consider cheap groceries as part of the
26 environmental impacts.
27 • CEQA provides for a range of project alternatives that can be considered by the Planning
28 Commission.
29 • It is important to have a viable set of alternatives that can replace the project being proposed by
30 determining whether or not it is environmentally superior.
31 • The most significant environmental impacts regarding the project are Transportation and Traffic
32 and Urban Decay. These impacts are significant and unavoidable.
33 • Impacts having significant effects to the environment cannot be ignored and must reduced to less
34 than significant with the incorporation of mitigation measures.
35 • With regard to the environmental impact of urban decay, grocery stores will close as a result of
36 the Walmart Expansion Project.
37 • Supports Alternative 3, Grocery Sales within Existing Store and Expanded Hours (no footprint
38 expansion). This alternative would add food sales to the existing Walmart store without expanding
39 the building footprint.
40 • Table 6-3 provides a breakdown of the floor plan for a project with no footprint expansion.
41 • Recommends the public review Chapter 6 of the EIR that describes and evaluates the
42 alternatives to the proposed Project as alternatives are developed to reduce or eliminate the
43 significant or potentially significant adverse environmental effects that would result from
44 development of the proposed project.
45 • CEQA requires that an EIR describe and evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to the
46 proposed project, or to the location of the proposed project, and evaluate the comparative merits
47 of the alternatives.
48 • Table 6-5 provides a summary of the environmental effects of each alternative in comparison to
49 the proposed Project. Alternative 3 would avoid impacts in five significant categories where the
50 proposed project would result in potentially significant (PS) impacts that would be reduced to less
51 than significant(LTS).
52 • Under CEQA provisions, the decision making body is obligated to approve the environmentally
53 superior alternative.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 9, 2011
Page 16
1 • Chapters 3 and 6 of the EIR addresses `Project Objectives' and noted the current Walmart
2 operation is doing all these things. A new project is not necessary in order to meet their project
3 objectives.
4 • With regard to Objective 3, provide commercial development that creates new jobs for City
5 residents. Jobs will be lost as a result of the Project.
6 • The EIR does have alternatives to the proposed Project.
7
8 Break: 8:31 p.m.
9
10 Reconvene: 8:43 p.m.
11
12 William B. Kopper:
13 • Is an attorney and represents Citizens for Sustainable Commerce, a California Association, Steve
14 Scalmanini, Alan Nicholson and Jeffrey Blankfort.
15 • Provided written comments to the Planning Commissioners on the FEIR, dated November 9,
16 2011.
17 • Specifically drew the Commission's attention to Mitigation Measure 4.10-2 and 4.10-4 of the EIR
18 that are essentially the same. Page ES 14 of the FEIR, Mitigation Measure 4.10-4 states 'Prior to
19 issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall provide proportionate-share payments to
20 the City of Ukiah for the planned improvements and reconfiguration of the interchange, which
21 would improve traffic conditions to acceptable conditions at Talmage Road/Airport Park
22 Boulevard and Talmage Road/U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp. This mitigation measure is
23 included in either option A(signal or a roundabout), or option B.
24
25 The improvement is planned by the City of Ukiah at Talmage Road/Airport Park Boulevard
26 (described in Future Transportation Improvements, above) would need to be implemented in
27 addition to Mitigation Measure 4.10-2.
28
29 This improvement is currently unfunded and does not appear in the City of Ukiah's Capital
30 Improvement Program, so the improvement cannot be considered a feasible mitigation measure.
31 Because this improvement addresses existing queuing problems, it is legally infeasible to require
32 the applicant to pay more than its fair share for the cost of this improvement. The balance of
33 funding required for this improvement, over and above the applicant's fair share, has not been
34 identified. Without a funding mechanism, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.'
35
36 • This mitigation measure is not a feasible mitigation, is misleading and does not comply with
37 CEQA. The City cannot condition the issuance of building permits on the payment of a
38 proportionate share payment if the City has no fee plan in place. As Caltrans suggests in
39 comment W-11, the approval of the Walmart expansion would allow the Walmart Supercenter to
40 go forward without their proportionate-share contributions to the City of Ukiah for the planned
41 improvements needed at Talmage Road/US 101 Southbound Off-Ramp. Caltrans suggests the
42 approval of the Walmart Expansion Project should be delayed until the improvements needed at
43 Talmage Road/US 101 Southbound Off-Ramp have been identified, developed into a conceptual
44 plan, priced, and included in a fee program.
45 • Caltrans comment W-11 states, `The DEIR given an unclear explanation about the potentially
46 significant and unavoidable impact designation of transportation and circulation impacts due to
47 the fact the interchange improvement is not on the City's existing capital improvement project
48 (CIP) list. This would appear to be a technicality that the City is capable of remedying. During
49 preliminary discussions with the City about feasible mitigation measures at Route 1-1/222, we
50 were told the City intended to construct the mitigation and collect fair share mitigation funds to
51 partially offset the costs. If this is no longer being proposed, we recommend delaying approval
52 until mitigation can be constructed or fair share funds collected.'
53 • The FEIR fails to answer comment W-11 and explain why it would be infeasible to delay the
54 project until the mitigation necessary at the Talmage Road/Airport Park Boulevard is worked out.
55 As such, the EIR's response to Comment W-11 is inadequate and does not meet the
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 9, 2011
Page 17
1 requirements of CEQA, as well as fails to adopt feasible mitigation for project impacts at the US
2 101 Talmage Road intersection.
3 • What will occur if the EIR is certified and the project is approved is that Walmart will get out of
4 paying their fair share of the improvement because the issuance of a building permit is ministerial.
5 • If Walmart complies with all the project conditions of approval and project plans, a building permit
6 has to be issued and if there is no funding mechanism in place or plan, their fair share
7 contribution cannot be assessed.
8 • Mitigation Measure 4.10-4 is not an effective mitigation measure and will allow Walmart to get out
9 of paying their fair share of the improvements. Caltrans in their comments to the DEIR brought
10 this information forward, noting the issue to be a technicality.
11 • Again, what needs to be done is to develop a conceptual plan, price it and include it in a fee
12 program so Walmart can be assessed their fair share for improvements and provide for a feasible
13 mitigation. This will not happen if the FEIR is approved.
14 • Page 5 of the staff report regarding the Walmart Site Development Permit & Modification to
15 Landscape Standards portion of the project, Table 1, mitigation measures and conditions of
16 approval, #2b: Traffic is from the initial Walmart project. In mitigation measure 2b, Walmart was
17 required within three months of the approved Site Development Permit to coordinate with
18 Caltrans for constructing an additional access approach to Talmage Road east exist ramp. Such
19 an approach would include a `T' intersection with Talmage Road on its southern border.
20 Construction regarding the necessary improvements was required to be completed within six
21 months of receiving all necessary permits. Walmart was allowed to construct an alternate design
22 provided the design is approved by Caltrans and the City Engineer. According to staff, the
23 mitigation measure allowed the construction of an alternate design if the design was approved by
24 Caltrans and the City Engineer. An alternate design was constructed; therefore the project is
25 consistent with mitigation measure/condition of approval#2b.
26 • Did Walmart pay for the improvements as alternatively designed for the necessary
27 improvements?
28 • Did Walmart meet this condition and actually provide for a site plan and do the construction for
29 the improvements? Did the City pay for improvements or did Walmart get out of that particular
30 mitigation measure that somebody else paid for? This is information the City should have
31 knowledge of when the store was first built.
32 • Walmart is notorious at getting out of requirements and responsibilities with respect to their
33 projects because there was a time that still exists in other communities where such communities
34 were so desperate to have a project, they would cut all sorts of breaks just to get the project to
35 come to fruition.
36 • Would like to know if this is what happened in Ukiah for the Walmart store and mitigation
37 measures/conditions of approval regarding transportation and traffic.
38 • There are other issues very important to traffic that are not adequately addressed in the EIR and
39 corresponding traffic study. Traffic consultant, Dan Smith, pointed out with regard to the work-up
40 in the traffic study of the queuing that will occur at the southbound US 101 off-ramp was not
41 sufficient because it did not provide any numbers as to how far out the queues would go under
42 different circumstances. One circumstance would be the addition of Walmart and the other would
43 be cumulative circumstance when Costco is added. The reason this is important is if the queuing
44 is not properly addressed traffic backup becomes more severe and depending upon the length of
45 the backup, minor rear-end accidents are likely to occur becoming much more serious when there
46 is more high speed traffic. It is important to know the length of the queues and this information is
47 not provided in the traffic study.
48 • When asked for the queuing information was told the issue has already been considered a
49 significant impact and this is all that has to be done. Is of the opinion an EIR has to be more than
50 this and should provide information to the decision makers about the environmental impact and
51 part of this information is about how serious the traffic impact will be and how long the queues will
52 be. This information is not available.
53 • Is familiar with many EIRs but has never seen a scenario like the Walmart EIR where a company
54 comes forward and says not all the traffic impacts have been considered for the project.
55 Accordingly, a letter from Costco included in the EIR says their pm traffic is not going to be the
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 9, 2011
Page 18
1 600 trips per hour, but rather 933 trips in the pm peak hour. The general rule according to the
2 Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip General manual actual counts are supposed to be used instead
3 of estimates through the use of equations to calculate the general traffic counts. While the actual
4 counts are known they are not included in the EIR because this would show the traffic impacts for
5 the project and under cumulative conditions would be much worse. Why would Costco come
6 forward and provide information about traffic impacts which could be very detrimental to them.
7 The only explanation in this regard is the concern the project would be approved without
8 assessing any fees on Walmart for improvements and Costco would get stuck paying for them.
9 • Another issue concerning the EIR includes Condition of Approval 8b for the initial project that
10 clearly states for every four parking spaces in the existing Walmart parking lot there is supposed
11 to be one tree to shade four parking spaces. The initial project is clearly in violation with this
12 project condition and, as such is relevant and should be addressed properly in the EIR. Why this
13 is relevant is under CEQA, the whole of the project must be considered. The proposed project is
14 adding new trees in the existing parking lots so the shading of the parking lot becomes relevant
15 wherein you have to go back and determine what the appropriate shading is supposed to be.
16 • The last issue concerning the EIR being brought to the Commission's attention tonight is the
17 issue of carpool. `Carpooling' was a requirement as a mitigation measure for the initial project
18 relevant to traffic and air pollution. In this regard, Walmart was supposed to monitor the carpool
19 program and make the appropriate adjustment so that the program would be effective. There is
20 no evidence in the staff report for the Site Development Permit or the EIR that this was done.
21 Walmart was also supposed to file a written report with the City Director of Community
22 Development describing the carpooling project. There is no evidence this was ever done. The
23 reason this issue is important is because there is no evidence the carpool program was ever
24 addressed because carpooling is supposed to be a continuing mitigation measure for the
25 proposed project moving forward. If this is the case, the EIR should contain much more
26 information about the carpooling program whether or not it worked, what changes were made and
27 the report made to the City. This information is missing.
28
29 Susan Sher:
30 • In reference to the democratic process, many Americans are saying they are sick and tired of
31 watching large corporations suck the life out of communities in the U S.
32 • Emphasized the importance the Commission look at the EIR with extreme scrutiny. We are not
33 talking about a small business operation, but rather a large conglomerate with unlimited funds to
34 get what it wants.
35 • Is skeptical that Walmart believes there is no significant impact relative to urban decay and the
36 likelihood that local grocery stores would close as a result of the Walmart Expansion Project.
37 • Resides in the Wagonseller Neighborhood where many residents have low incomes are without
38 cars and walk everywhere, including the Lucky grocery store in the Pear Tree Shopping Center.
39 • It is very important to have local grocery stores and not just one Walmart superstore where
40 people can just walk to.
41 • The public has heard testimony that Walmart is getting into the banking and financing industry
42 and medical clinics so this is not just a grocery and a dry goods store, it is a monolithic
43 enterprise/large retail chain resulting in economic impacts having a net loss of jobs and a strong
44 negative effect on existing retail establishments. The goal of Walmart is to be the largest retail
45 store in town with proposed expansion and other development goals such as a bank and/or
46 medical dinic.
47 • Addressed the concept that Walmart is necessary because of the lower prices. Understands
48 while we are experiencing economic hard times and want to take advantage of stores that offer
49 lower prices, encourages people to look at the bigger cost. In order to save some money on our
50 groceries, we might further add to the deterioration of school and local infrastructure as the tax
51 base continues to decrease.
52
53 Mariam Montesinos, Attorney for Walmart:
54 • Commented on the mitigation measure that says you would pay improvement fees prior to
55 issuance of a building permit and that this was basically an unfunded mitigation measure.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 9, 2011
Page 19
1 • Noted many years ago EIRs used to say that if you had an improvement identified, you would pay
2 your fair share. Then a lawsuit was brought against a Walmart project probably by Mr. Kopper in
3 the City of Anderson where he contended this was not a feasible mitigation measure because a
4 reasonable program plan was not in place that says this measure will get carried out. The Court
5 agreed with Attorney Kopper and said you cannot say that improvement is a feasible mitigation
6 measure. Ever since that day EIRs now have to say if a measure is not funded with a reasonable
7 plan in place that shows that measure and/or improvement is going to be carried out you cannot
8 say it is feasible and the environmental impact has to be declared significant and unavoidable.
9 • What Mr. Kopper is complaining about to some degree in his comments above and in his letter to
10 the Planning Commission is the result of a law he created.
11 • What has occurred is while project improvements have been identified they are not currently part
12 of your CIP.
13 • The key to the mitigation measure is the part that says prior to the issuance of building permits
14 ..., and the reason for this language is should the City decide to extend the list of improvements
15 in the CIP to include some of the improvements identified in the EIR or the Costco EIR or
16 somewhere else and if this list is increased by the time Walmart goes to pull a building permit
17 Walmart will pay fees that cover those improvements.
18 • Mr. Kopper is also familiar with a case in the City of Gault when preparing the EIR for that
19 Walmart project, the City did not have an updated CIP. By the time the project went to public
20 review the CIP had been updated to include a lot of the improvements. It is for this reason the
21 City had to include the `prior to issuance of building permits,' language in Mitigation Measures
22 4.10-2 and 4.10-4.
23 • Providing this background information shows that Walmart is not trying to avoid anything, but
24 rather abiding by the law created as a result of the City of Anderson lawsuit for a Walmart project
25 in that city.
26 • If the improvement fees are increased, Walmart will have to pay those fees.
27
28 Chair Pruden declined to allow Debbie Vinson to comment again on a topic that was not relevant to the
29 EIR.
30
31 Ken Steely:
32 • On the subject of urban decay, has observed over the years that shopping centers in Ukiah come
33 and go and get redeveloped.
34 • Understands it is scary to lose a major business in Ukiah, but this is part of the cycle of business
35 life.
36 • Worked in the grocery industry for 20 years locally and every time a new store comes to Ukiah,
37 people shop at that store. Eventually people return to their shopping habits and things even out.
38 • Recalls the same concern of adding another competitive grocery store when Raley's supermarket
39 came to town in the mid-80s.
40 • Agrees it is important to look at potential environmental impacts for new stores, but not with the
41 attitude that the `sky is falling.'
42 • On the issue of allowing for a 24-hour operation, finds this to be a convenience to the consumer.
43 • Walmart offers items that other stores do not.
44 • Does support the concept of shopping local first and he tries to do this, but it is not always
45 possible.
46 • Allowing Walmart to expand will make him think again about going out of town to shop or
47 shopping on the internet for items that are not offered locally.
48 • Many of the local stores including Walmart do support local events.
49 • While Walmart certainly has its issues and this is the reason for public hearings, is of the opinion
50 that Walmart is not the monster people perceive.
51 • Supports approval of the EIR.
52
53 Susan Knopf:
54 • Thanked Senior Planner Jordan for helping her to better understand the EIR process for the
55 Walmart Expansion Project.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 9, 2011
Page 20
1 • Also thanked the Planning Commission for the giving of their time without compensation and the
2 many hours reviewing documents and preparing for the public hearing on the Walmart Expansion
3 Project.
4 • Has concerns about the FEIR:
5 ■ Is concerned with such environmental impacts as air, water, and light pollution. The
6 project will cause an increase in traffic, runoff from the parking lot, air pollution from the
7 idling of car engines and other associated pollution impacts.
8 ■ If the project causes other businesses to fail then there will be additional acres and acres
9 of unused asphalt or blacktop that creates pollution and blight.
10 • Is concerned about safety and issues that would involve service by the City police
11 department.
12 ■ It has been interesting to read how dramatically the police calls to the Redwood Business
13 Park have increased since Walmart came to town. It is anticipated these police calls will
14 go up even more if Walmart operates 24 hours a day and is allowed to expand.
15 ■ The City is already stressed financially and is concerned the cost of providing the store
16 with City services, such as road maintenance, police and fire will further encumber the
17 City's financial situation.
18 ■ In terms of lighting pollution, Walmart has made some attempts to subdue lighting in the
19 parking lot and with the new project more of the same will likely occur by installing lighting
20 that is downcast and energy efficient. The problem is the lighting on the building does
21 create lighting impacts and recommends such lighting fixtures be a maximum of 15 feet
22 high on the building, the parking lot, and other outdoor areas.
23 ■ Is concerned with economic issues in that Walmart is a huge conglomerate with the
24 ability to adjust prices any time such that other stores are unable to compete.
25 ■ Walmart profits go outside of Mendocino County and California and do not help sustain
26 our local economy.
27 ■ Employees of Walmart are poorly paid, part-time without health benefits and as a result in
28 some cases are forced to seek public assistance or pay for themselves to maintain a
29 decenUmodest life style.
30
31 Ed Nieves:
32 • The EIR is inadequate. Is particularly concerned with issues of traffic and urban decay.
33 • Can attest to the traffic and congestion problems in the area of the Redwood Business Park and
34 the safety concerns created as a result.
35 • The Walmart project will only add to the traffic problems that exist in the AIP.
36 • The issue of traffic impacts needs to be addressed in the EIR.
37 • Big box retailers such as Walmart provide for depressing wages and no benefits.
38 • Using his mother as an example of a person who took pride in shopping at locally-owned stores
39 and in a variety of stores changed when she discovered Walmart and now buys everything at this
40 store. This demonstrates how the arrival of a big-box retailer can displace sales at existing
41 businesses which must then downsize or close resulting in job loss and subsequent declining tax
42 revenue.
43 • Supporting locally grown food establishments is very important to the health of people and to the
44 local economy that would be compromised if Walmart is allowed to expand the sales area for
45 food sales.
46 • The expansion of Walmart would fail to produce real economic benefits to the community.
47 • Does not support approval of the EIR.
48
49 Steve Scalamini:
50 • The Planning Commission was given documents that were submitted by Mr. Scalamini i.e.,
51 Walmart's Economic Footprint: A literature review prepared by Hunter College Center for
52 Community Planning & Development and New York City Public Advocate Bill de Blasio, dated
53 January 10, 2010 and a publication entitled, `Key Studies on Walmart and Big-Box Retail.'
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 9, 2011
Page 21
1 • The obligation on the part of the public and decision makers is to determine whether or not the
2 EIR document is adequate and represents `your' judgment and standards of the environmental
3 situation.
4 • Would like to comment on both sides of the EIR.
5 • Regarding the traffic problems on Talmage Road and Airport Park Boulevard intersections,
6 despite the details being incomplete as alluded to by a former public speaker the traffic impacts
7 are significant and cannot be mitigated.
8 • Addressed an annoyance that is reoccurring in the EIR document and referred to the number of
9 `coulds' and `possibilities' versus the number of`likelys' and `probables in the document.
10 • Regarding the information in the EIR, the 'coulds' and `possibilities' relate to the possible risks
11 that make the project not look so good. The `likelys' and the `probables' are all about the back-
12 filing and good news they want to put in the report. The counter of these represents the goods
13 and possibilities.
14 • Two most significant examples of `back-filing' used in the document were Home Depot and
15 Mervyns wherein Mervyns does not apply.
16 • When Mervyns closed and the building purchased by Kohl's there was no competitor that went in
17 that increased the square footage in the City with that kind of inerchandise/goods. This is not
18 what we are talking about with the Walmart Expansion Project because Walmart proposes to add
19 more square footage for food sales and then whatever grocery stores go out of business the hope
20 is they are back-filled. The scenario is essentially apples and oranges. The EIR wants you to
21 believe and accept this. Is of the opinion this is nonsense. The same square footage was used for
22 apparel products for the new Kohl's store as was used for Mervyns. No other competition came in
23 this regard. The Walmart project does not represent the same sort of situation.
24 • Regarding the topic of jobs that has been discussed is confused how this issue was addressed in
25 the EIR because there is an economic component and physical impact report from the City that is
26 a separate document. Is unsure what to say on this topic. However, since jobs were mentioned,
27 drew attention to the publication, `Walmart's Economic Footprint' and noted these document
28 explains what happens when Walmart comes to town or expands. The document states the local
29 economy will lose three jobs for every two jobs that are created at Walmart.
30 • Suspects that of the many Walmart employees speaking none had threatened jobs. The only
31 threatened job concern was from an employee of another grocery store.
32 • Questioned how many of the Walmart employees supporting adequacy of the EIR actually read
33 10% of the document.
34 • Regarding the tax revenue calculation done to the City General Fund is actually in a separate
35 fiscal document analysis and found the document to be incorrect in some areas and will explain
36 the details later.
37
38 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 9:28 p.m.
39
40 Chair Pruden thanked the public for speaking.
41
42 Chair Pruden commented Mr. Kopper and Mr. Scalamini have both submitted documents that require
43 review by the Planning Commission and asked staff how to proceed because it would not work to take a
44 break and read the documents in order to make an effective analysis as to the subject matter and
45 charges made.
46
47 Planning Director Stump recommended taking a break to determine how best to proceed.
48
49 Chair Pruden asked the City Attorney to respond concerning the charged laid out tonight that there is a
50 conflict of interest concerning the consulting firm and the urban decay element of the EIR. She is not sure
51 how CEQA addresses conflict of interest and questions whether or not there is a concern. Staff is of the
52 opinion there is no concern.
53
54 City Attorney Rapport:
55 • CEQA does not address conflict of interest.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 9, 2011
Page 22
1 • There was a lot of references to disclosure in the public comments. The disclosure and the CEQA
2 Guidelines referred to is the disclosure of environmental effects or information related to those
3 effects.
4 • There is nothing in CEQA that says a consultant has to disclose some relationship to an
5 applicant.
6 • State conflict of interest laws are addressed in the Political Practices Act.
7 • Is not prepared at this time to have an opinion about whether or not there is an issue.
8 • If there is an issue this would have more to do with remedies for the violation of that kind of
9 conflict of interest and are either administrative sanctions or other remedies against the party that
10 has the conflict. The economic conflict of interest of that type does not advise staff whether they
11 can or cannot rely on a study that was done by a consultant. What staff did was look at the
12 information they had available to determine whatever relationship the division of that company
13 has had with Walmart and whether this had the potential to result in an exercise of undue
14 influence over the way the report was prepared. Based on the information staff looked at
15 concluded it would not be an exercise of undue influence both because of the separation between
16 the divisions and the person who prepared the report was actually in a separate company when
17 they prepared the response to comments. This in combination with just looking at the report itself
18 should be able to provide staff with a sufficient basis to make that judgment as to whether there
19 was any potential for undue influence.
20
21 Break: 9:35 p.m.
22
23 Reconvene: 9:45 p.m.
24
25 Planning Director Stump:
26 • Is of the opinion the Commission needs to read the documents provided by Mr. Kopper and Mr.
27 Scalamini.
28 • Staff reviewed the documents during the break and is of the opinion most of the concerns
29 expressed in the documents have been responded to in the final EIR.
30
31 Chair Pruden:
32 • Implementation of the proposed project would result in three significant an unavoidable impacts
33 that cannot be mitigated to a LTS level:
34 ❖ Impact 4.10-2, Implementation of the Project would substantially increase potential traffic
35 safety hazards by increasing the degree to which an existing queuing backup would
36 exceed the available storage length.
37 o US 101 Southbound Off-Ramp at Talmage Road
38 ❖ Impact 4.10-4, Implementation of the Project would increase traffic volumes on area
39 roadways under cumulative conditions.
40 o Talmage Road / Airport Park Blvd would operate at an unacceptable level of
41 service (LOS).
42 o Talmage Road / US 101 Southbound Off-Ramp would operate at an
43 unacceptable LOS.
44 ❖ Impact 4.10-5, Implementation for the Project would substantially increase potential traffic
45 safety hazards by causing queuing backups that exceed, or by increasing the degree to
46 which queuing backups are projected to exceed the storage length under 2030 No project
47 conditions.
48 o The northbound right-turn lane on Airport Park Boulevard at Talmage Road
49 would extend past the Walmart access, and the westbound Talmage Road left-
50 turn lanes at Airport Park Boulevard would have maximum queues that extend
51 beyond the available storage more than under Future No Project conditions.
52 o The US 101 Southbound Off-Ramp at Talmage Road would have maximum
53 queues that extend beyond the available storage more than under Future No
54 Project.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 9, 2011
Page 23
1 • In order to allow the impacts that cannot be mitigated to go forward, the Commission would have
2 to make a Statement of Overriding Considerations that require findings. A project with significant
3 and unavoidable impacts may be approved if the economic, legal social, technological or other
4 benefits of the proposed project outweigh the significant and unavoidable environmental effects of
5 the project in which case these environmental effects may be considered acceptable. This
6 process may be lengthy and will probably initiate quite a discussion.
7 • In addition to certifying the EIR is adequate, the Planning Commission must review the Site
8 Development Permit for the project to make certain the expansion project is consistent with the
9 Ukiah General Plan.
10
11 Commission:
12 • Would like to defer acting on the final EIR until the Commissioners have had the opportunity to
13 review the new documents submitted by Mr. Kopper and Mr. Scalamini, as well as take time to
14 further review and revisit the Transportation and Traffic to include corresponding studies and
15 Urban Decay sections of the EIR.
16
17 Commissioner poble asked on the topic of fair share payment for improvements as to what controls the
18 City has once the building permits have been applied for if the City has not determined what the fair share
19 costs are to be. If a condition of approval is made, is it dependent upon the City then to determine those
20 costs before the building permit is issued?
21
22 City Attorney Rapport:
23 • The City had a situation like this before when Friedman's Home Improvement came to Ukiah. The
24 CIP for the Redwood Business Park had not been adopted. An EIR was completed for the project
25 that identified what the probable mitigation measures would be for traffic impacts, but the
26 improvement plan was not in place or a determination made as to what the fee would be. The
27 condition was that Friedman's had to sign an agreement that they would pay their fair share as
28 determined through a study that was done for the mitigations identified in the EIR.
29
30 Commissioner poble: Was this similar to a development agreement?
31
32 City Attorney Rapport: It was an agreement between the City and Friedman's requiring Friedman's pay
33 their fair share of traffic impact fees. Another approach as alluded to by Attorney Montesinos would be if
34 the City had the CIP fee in place before a building permit was applied for, this would be a way to collect.
35 The latter would probably be the preferable approach. Between the time identification is made as to what
36 the CIP improvements are in an EIR and the time a CIP plan is actually developed and design the project
37 in more detail situations can change in which questions can be raised.
38
39 Commissioner poble: Was the option of an assessment district or bonding for the necessary
40 improvements to the Talmage Southbound Off-ramp discussed as a mitigation?
41
42 Planning Director Stump: Is not aware this occurred as part of the EIR.
43
44 Chair Pruden: The Redwood Business Park and/or Airport Industrial Park (AIP) is governed by
45 Ordinance 1098 and does not recall discussion about an assessment district for the business park.
46
47 Planning Director Stump: Since his tenure of 18 years with the City to his knowledge does not recall a
48 discussion about establishing an assessment district for the AIP. The CIP for the traffic impacts did
49 originate as a result of the 1996 program EIR that was done for buildout of the AIP at that time.
50
51 Chair Pruden: Commented on the approximate $260,000 that currently exists in the CIP fund as of
52 November 2, 2011 that is slated for three projects noting the estimated CIP fee for the Walmart
53 Expansion Project is almost$18,000 so some figures regarding the CIP for the AIP have been discussed.
54
55 Planning Director Stump: The remaining improvements for the AIP as part of the CIP are not required
56 for `traffic impacts today or tomorrow' but rather are required for buildout of the Park. The City wants to
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 9, 2011
Page 24
1 move forward on getting the necessary those improvements done. Ways in which to fund for those
2 improvements in their entirety are being discussed. It is his understanding there is not enough funding
3 available to make the necessary improvements at this time.
4
5 Chair Pruden: Regarding the issue of traffic impacts, Mendocino Council of Governments has talked
6 about a mitigation program and funding for the year 2030, which is not part of the current CIP.
7
8 Planning Director Stump:
9 • Suggested Amy Herman who did the urban decay analysis for the EIR comment on the conflict of
10 interest issue that has been raised tonight. She is considered an extension of staff as a
11 subconsultant to ESA hired to complete the urban decay analysis for the Walmart EIR.
12
13 Amy Herman:
14 • Is formerly of CBRE Consulting and currently of ALH Economics.
15 • When she was with CBRE Consulting and doing urban decay studies involving Walmart projects
16 or other projects, did not have an affiliation with other divisions of the company other than a
17 mapping group to help support our work and contribute to the study. For purposes of the studies,
18 there was no communication between divisions or who the divisions were affiliated with.
19 • In terms of CBRE Consulting, there were many'lines of command' and had no knowledge at what
20 point those lines of command overlapped other than to say the president of the company. The
21 number of layers between the president and herself were numerous.
22 • There was never any interaction between CBRE international real estate division and the
23 economic and fiscal consulting division.
24 • The approach, the methodology and the conclusions reached in the EIR were really no different
25 than what have been done for any other study of this nature depending upon what the findings
26 are and these kinds of studies were done for many types of applicants not just for Walmart
27 applicants.
28
29 Chair Pruden: Asked if Ms. Herman had a conflict of interest and/or was biased in any way?
30
31 Amy Herman: There is no bias in any way.
32
33 Commissioner Sanders inquired how long Ms. Herman worked for CBRE Consulting in the economic
34 and fiscal division?
35
36 Amy Herman:
37 • In 1999 CBRE purchased another consulting firm she was affiliated with and was a principal of
38 the firm at that time so she was acquired into CBRE in November of 1999 and worked there until
39 July of 2011.
40
41 Commissioner Brenner:
42 Q1. What do you mean that you do not know the chain of command?
43 Q2. Was the payroll through the larger firm portion of the firm, the international real estate division?
44 Q3. What was the timeline difference between the time you did the report and left CBRE Consulting
45 and started your own firm?
46 Q4. Do you still reference CBRE Consulting on your resume?
47 Q5. Is it nice to say I used to work for CBRE Consulting, that you can trust my work and it is a
48 reputable firm?
49 Q6. Do you use CBRE Consulting for getting other work?
50
51 Amy Herman:
52 A1. Has no knowledge how the people in the property division reported as to chain of command or
53 even if there was any overlap between the two groups, i.e., real estate division and economic/
54 fiscal division.
55 A2. Yes.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 9, 2011
Page 25
1 A3. The report was first completed in 2010 to include some updates toward the end of 2010 and as
2 early as May 2011.
3
4 Began her own firm in June 2011 and was an employee of CBRE Consulting until July 7, 2011.
5
6 Confirmed there was an approximate two week overlap between the time she left CBRE
7 Consulting and began her own firm, ALH Economics.
8 A4. I worked for CBRE Consulting effectively for 20 years with the acquisition so this represents the
9 bulk of my professional career.
10 A5. This does not have any relevance.
11 A6. To date, work has come from my personal and professional connections.
12
13 Commissioner Brenner: His concern is about the relationship between international real estate division
14 and economic and fiscal division that Ms. Herman was once affiliated with. It does not make any sense to
15 hire someone to do the urban decay analysis fiscal impact study who might have had a connection to
16 larger division, which in this case is the international real estate division that has had business
17 relationships with Walmart. Ms. Herman was working for CBRE Consulting in the economic/fiscal division
18 that was affiliated with the international real estate division of CBRE Consulting at the time when the
19 urban decay analysis was written even though economic/fiscal division was dissolved prior to the
20 preparation of the FEIR. There still exists that `I don't know' concern. It would have made more since to
21 have another consultant do the entire urban decay analysis and fiscal impact report.
22
23 Chair Pruden: The Commission will have to determine whether or not the urban decay analysis is
24 adequate and conclude whether or not to agree with the report. The `General Fund Analysis' is very
25 interesting and adds another layer to the matter of economic decay she was not aware of. The Planning
26 Commission has a lot of decisions to consider and make.
27
28 Commission consensus:
29 To continue certification of the Walmart Expansion Final Environment Impact Report and Walmart
30 Expansion Site Development Permit to the regular Planning Commission meeting of December 14, 2011.
31
32 M/S Sanders/Brenner to continue the Walmart Expansion FEIR and Walmart Expansion Site
33 Development Permit and Statement of Overriding Considerations to the regular Planning Commission
34 meeting of December 14, 2011. Motion carried (5-0).
35
36 City Attorney Rapport advised public comment on the Walmart Expansion Project Environmental Impact
37 Report is now closed.
38
39 Staff advised the public will have the opportunity to comment on the Walmart Expansion Project Site
40 development permit and Statement of Overriding Considerations once the EIR has been certified.
41
42 9B. Walmart Expansion Project Site Development Permit (File Nos.: 09-28-SDP-PC). Conduct a
43 public hearing, take public comment and provide Planning Commission comment, and provide
44 direction to staff on the Walmart Expansion Project Major Site Development Permit, 1155 Airport
45 Park Boulevard, APN 180-070-38, in the Airport Industrial Park. The project proposes a 47, 621
46 square foot expansion of the existing 109,030 square foot store, for a total square footage of
47 156,651 to include expanded general merchandise floor area and expanded grocery sales floor
48 area, indoor and outdoor garden centers, as well as the possibility of distilled alcohol sales, and a
49 medical clinic and/or vision center on a 13.44 acre site. Also included as part of the project is a
50 change in store hours to 24 hours per day, seven days per week, modifications to the design of
51 the exterior of the building, the addition of new parking spaces, modifications to the landscaping,
52 and other associated site improvements.
53
54 10. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
55 None.
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 9, 2011
Page 26
1 11. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
2 Commissioner poble introduced himself, provided background/personal information about his business
3 and professional expertise and added he is pleased to serve as a Planning Commissioner.
4
5 12. ADJOURNMENT
6 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:21 p.m.
7
8
9 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
10
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 9, 2011
Page 27
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: December 14, 2011
4
5 TO: Planning Commission
6
7 FROM: Kim Jordan, Senior Planner
8
9 SUBJECT: Review, comment, and possible certification of the Walmart Expansion Project
10 Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR)
11 1155 Airport Park Boulevard, APN 180-070-38
12 File Nos.: 09-28-SDP-PC and 09-42-EIR-PC
13 This item was continued from the November 9, 2011 Planning Commission meeting
14
15 RECOMMENDATION
16
17 Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and adopt a
18 resolution to certify the Walmart Expansion Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (see
19 attachment 1).
20
21 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SETTING
22
23 Project Description
24
25 An application has been received from TAIT and associates on behalf of Walmart for approval
26 of a major site development permit to allow a 47,621 square foot expansion (47,463 square foot
27 building expansion plus 158 square foot expansion of the outdoor garden center) of the existing
28 109,030 square foot store (104,152 square foot building plus 4,878 square foot outdoor garden
29 center) for a total square footage of 156,651 (151,615 square foot building plus 5,036 square
30 foot outdoor garden center) on a 13.44 acre site in the Airport Industrial Park Planned
31 Development (AIP PD). As part of the site development permit, the applicant is also requesting
32 approval of two modifications to the AIP Ord. 1098 landscaping requirements.
33
34 The proposed expansion would include the following:
35
36 ■ Increase in the sales area for general merchandise;
37 ■ Increase in the sales area for food sales;
38 ■ Increase in the food sales support and ancillary areas;
39 ■ Removal of the Tire and Lube Express;
40 ■ New indoor garden center;
41 ■ Change in store hours to 24 hours per day, seven days per week;
42 ■ Modification to the design of the exterior of the building;
Walmart Expansion Environmental Impact Report(EIR)12142011
1155 Airport Park Boulevard,APN 180-070-38
File Nos.:09-42-EIR-PC/09-28-SDP-PC
1
1 ■ Increase in the number of parking spaces to 612 spaces (640 total parking spaces, 28 of
2 which would be used as cart corrals);
3 ■ Modification to the landscaping, including removal of the olive trees in the parking lot and
4 replacement with a more suitable species; and
5 ■ Incorporation of sustainable building features, such as daylighting of the grocery sales
6 area, retrofitting the lighting in the store, use of energy efficient HVAC units, and
7 installation non-PVC "white" roof.
8
9 Other possible uses as part of the expansion include distilled spirit sales, medical clinic, and/or
10 vision center.
11
12 The existing access to the site is provided from three driveways off of Airport Park Boulevard
13 and two additional driveways off of Commerce Drive. The access to the site is not proposed to
14 change as part of this Project.
15
16 The Project has been revised to include a pedestrian walkway from the new sidewalk on Airport
17 Park Boulevard through the parking lot to the walkway at the front of the store (see FEIR, site
18 plan). The applicant has also provided revised shade calculations in response to comments
19 received on the Draft EIR.
20
21 BACKGROUND
22
23 At the November 9, 2011 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission received a
24 presentation on the Walmart Expansion Environmental Impact Report (EIR) from Brian
25 Grattidge of Environmental Science Associates (ESA), the City's EIR consultant, and staff and
26 took public comment. Time did not allow Planning Commission review and discussion of the
27 EIR; therefore, the item was continued to the December 14, 2011 Planning Commission
28 meeting. The minutes from the November 9`" meeting are included as part of this packet for
29 Planning Commission review and approval. The written comments submitted at the meeting by
30 Steve Scalmanini and William Kopper are included as attachment 3.
31
32 EIR Consultant
33
34 Environmental Science Associates (ESA) and there sub-consultants were selected by the City
35 Council to prepare the EIR. The sub-consultants are W-Trans (Circulation and Traffic),
36 CBRE/ALH (Urban Decay), and Whit Manley of Remy Thomas Moose and Manley (Legal
37 Review) (see attachment 2).
38
39 STAFF ANALYSIS
40
41 Additionallnformation
42
43 Based on comments received on the landscaping plan for the Project, the tree removal required
44 for the Project was reevaluated and the Existing Tree Resources table was revised to include
45 the removal of two Quercus coccinea (Scarlet oak) (see attachment 6).
46
47
48
Walmart Expansion Environmental Impact Report(EIR)12142011
1155 Airport Park Boulevard,APN 180-070-38
File Nos.:09-42-EIR-PC/09-28-SDP-PC
2
1 Public Comment and Response to Comments
2
3 Much of the public comment received at the November 9t" Planning Commission meeting
4 focused on the Traffic impacts and the Urban Decay analysis included in the EIR (see draft
5 Planning Commission minutes included under approval of minutes for this packet and
6 attachment 3). Based on review of the comments, no new environmental impacts were
7 identified. In order to be as responsive and to provide as much information as possible to the
8 public and Planning Commission, ESA and staff have prepared responses to many of the
9 comments received at the meeting (see attachment 4). Most of the verbal comments made at
10 the meeting are captured in the letter from William Kopper (see attachment 3). Steve
11 Scalmanini submitted two reports (see attachment 3). Amy Herman of ALH Urban and Regional
12 Economics has prepared an evaluation and response to the reports submitted by Mr.
13 Scalmanini (see attachment 5).
14
15 As noted in the November 9th staff report and the Final EIR, Walmart's business practices are
16 not related to the environmental effects of the proposed Project; therefore, these issues are not
17 addressed as part of the EIR. However, as noted in the Final EIR, the City (Planning
18 Commission) will consider all comments when making a decision on the Project; therefore,
19 these comments would be considered as part of Planning Commission's review of the site
20 development permit and statement of overriding considerations and are not a consideration
21 when deciding to certify the EIR.
22
23 EIR Adequacy
24
25 Many of the commenters disagreed with the conclusions reached in the Urban Decay section of
26 the EIR. However, no evidence or alternative methodology for analysis of the potential urban
27 decay impacts have been presented to support the disagreement with the conclusions reached.
28 In addition, the urban decay analysis was prepared by an expert (see attachment 2). The
29 comments received to date regarding urban decay do not appear to have been provided by an
3o economic expert.
31
32 It is not unreasonable that there may be a disagreement with some of the conclusions reached
33 in the EIR; however, disagreement alone does not indicate that the EIR is inadequate or the
34 information, analysis, or conclusions are faulty. CEQA Guidelines section 15204(c) states:
35
36 Reviewers should explain the basis of their comments, and should submit data or
37 references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion
38 supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect
39 shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.
40
41 The EIR was prepared by ESA in consultation with staff. The Draft and Final EIRs were
42 reviewed by staff, as well as attorney Whit Manley of Remy Thomas Moose and Manley (the
43 subconsultant responsible for legal review of the EIR). In staffs' opinion, the EIR provides
44 sufficient information to inform decision makers and the public of the potential environmental
45 effects of the project. CEQA Guidelines section 15151 states:
46
47 An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide
48 decisionmakers with information which enab/es them to make a decision which
Walmart Expansion Environmental Impact Report(EIR)12142011
1155 Airport Park Boulevard,APN 180-070-38
File Nos.:09-42-EIR-PC/09-28-SDP-PC
3
1 intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the
2 environmental effects need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of fhe EIR is to be
3 reviewed in fhe light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does
4 not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of
5 disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection but for
6 adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at disclosure.
7
8 Certification of the EIR
9
10 In order to certify the EIR, the City (Planning Commission) is required to make the following
11 specific findings pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15090(a):
12
13 1. The Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA;
14
15 2. The Final EIR was presented to the decisionmaking body of the lead agency and that
16 the decisionmaking body reviewed and considered the information contained in the final
17 EIR prior to approving the project; and
18
19 3. The Final EIR reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis.
20
21 The certification of the EIR is separate and independent of an action on the site development
22 permit and statement of overriding considerations required for approval of the Project.
23 Certification of the EIR does not require the Planning Commission to make a statement of
24 overriding considerations in support of the Project or to approve the site development permit.
25 Staff has included a draft resolution to certify the EIR (see attachment 1).
26
27 Process
28
29 Once the EIR has been certified, Planning Commission would conduct a public hearing on the:
30
31 ■ Site development permit and associated landscaping modifications; and
32 ■ Statement of overriding considerations.
33
34 The above items have been agendized together to allow the Commission and public to review
35 and comment on the site development permit, landscaping modifications, and benefits of the
36 project as required for a statement of overriding considerations. As noted in the agenda for this
37 meeting, no action would be taken on the statement of overriding considerations or site
38 development permit. Staff is requesting Planning Commission to take public comment and
39 provide direction to staff. Staff would then return to the Planning Commission with a resolution
4o supporting the direction provided by the Commission.
41
42 PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT
43
44 At the November 9, 2011 meeting, this item was continued to a date certain of December 14,
45 2011; therefore, no public notice is required for the project. However, due to the public interest
46 in this project, notice was provided in the following manner:
47
48 ■ mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject parcel on December 1, 2011;
Walmart Expansion Environmental Impact Report(EIR)12142011
1155 Airport Park Boulevard,APN 180-070-38
File Nos.:09-42-EIR-PC/09-28-SDP-PC
4
1 ■ mailed to all property owners within Airport Industrial Park Planned Development on
2 December 1, 2011;
3 ■ mailed to all tenants on parcels contiguous to the subject parcel on December 1, 2011;
4 ■ mailed and/or emailed to all persons on the Walmart Expansion interested parties list on
5 December 1, 2011; and
6 ■ posted on the City's website on December 7, 2011.
7
8 Notice of this public hearing and the availability of the FEIR was provided in the following
9 manner:
10
11 ■ published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on October 30, 2011;
12 ■ posted on the subject parcel on October 27, 2011;
13 ■ mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject parcel on October 27, 2011;
14 ■ mailed to all property owners within Airport Industrial Park Planned Development on
15 October 27, 2011;
16 ■ mailed to all tenants on parcels contiguous to the subject parcel on October 27, 2011;
17 and
18 ■ mailed and/or emailed to all persons on the Walmart Expansion interested parties list on
19 October 27, 2011.
20
21 On October 27, 2011, the FEIR was made available on the homepage of the City of Ukiah
22 website under Walmart Expansion Project. On October 31, 2011, copies of the FEIR and
23 appendices were available for review at the following locations:
24
City of Ukiah Main Branch Library
Planning & Community Development Dept. 105 North Main Street
300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482
Ukiah, CA 95482
25 One additional written comment was received on the EIR (see attachment 7). This comment
26 was received after the close of the public comment period on the EIR and after the November 9,
27 2011 Planning Commission meeting; therefore, staff has not provided a response to this
28 comment.
29
30 CONCLUSION
31
32 As part of this hearing, ESA (the City's EIR consultant) and staff will respond to the comments
33 provided at the November 9t" meeting. Public comment on the EIR was closed at the
34 November 9t" meeting.
35
36 The purpose of this public hearing is to:
37
38 1. Receive Planning Commission comment on the adequacy of the Walmart Expansion
39 EIR; and
40 2. Adopt a resolution to certify the Walmart Expansion Project EIR.
41
Walmart Expansion Environmental Impact Report(EIR)12142011
1155 Airport Park Boulevard,APN 180-070-38
File Nos.:09-42-EIR-PC/09-28-SDP-PC
5
1 Should the Planning Commission be in a position to adopt the resolution to certify the EIR, staff
2 requests the Planning Commission begin the public hearing for the site development permit and
3 statement of overriding considerations which are agendized as a separate item.
4
5
6 ATTACHMENTS
7
8 1. Draft Resolution to Certify the Walmart Expansion Project EIR
9 2. Subconsultant Qualifications
10 3. November 9, 2011 Written Public Comment— Scalmanini and Kopper
11 4. Response to Comments
12 5. ALH Urban & Regional Economics Response to Reports
13 6. Final Environmental Impact Report Errata-Existing Tree Resources Table
14 7. Public Comment on EIR
15
16 S:Planning/Planning Commission/Staff Reports/Walmart FEIR12142011
17
Walmart Expansion Environmental Impact Report(EIR)12142011
1155 Airport Park Boulevard,APN 180-070-38
File Nos.:09-42-EIR-PC/09-28-SDP-PC
6
1 ATTACHMENT 1
2
3 RESOLUTION NO.
4
5 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF UKIAH MAKING
6 FINDINGS PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21081 AND
7 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ("CEQA") GUIDELINES SECTION 15090 IN
8 CONNECTION WITH THE CERTIFICATION OF THE WALMART EXPANSION PROJECT
9 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
10
11
12
13 WHEREAS:
14
15 1. The City of Ukiah ("City") as Lead Agency has conducted an environmental review for
16 the proposed Wal-Mart expansion project that included the Environmental Impact Report
17 (EIR) scoping period, the Draft EIR, public review of the Draft EIR, and the Final EIR;
18 and
19
20 2. The Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR, as revised, plus the Final EIR. The Final EIR
21 includes all written comments received regarding the Draft EIR, responses to comments,
22 and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).
23
24 3. The implementation of the EIR scoping and review process is described in Section 1.2 of
25 the Final EIR. The following is a summary of the City's environmental review for this
26 project.
27
28 A. The City issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for a 30-day comment period between
29 March 11, 2010, and April 12, 2010. The NOP was distributed to governmental
30 agencies, organizations, and persons interested in the proposed project. The City
31 sent the NOP to agencies with statutory responsibilities in connection with the
32 proposed project with the request for their input on the scope and content of the
33 environmental information that should be addressed in the EIR. The City Planning
34 and Community Development Department held a Scoping Meeting on March 18,
35 2010 to take comments regarding the scope of the EIR in response to the NOP. The
36 environmental issues raised during the scoping process were considered in the Draft
37 EIR.
38
39 B. The Draft EIR was released on July 5, 2011. The Notice of Availability was published
40 in the Ukiah Daily Journal on July 3, 2011. The Notice of Completion was delivered
41 to the State Clearinghouse on July 5, 2011 (State Clearinghouse # 2010032042).
42 The review period closed on August 18, 2011. The Planning Commission of the City
43 of Ukiah held a public hearing to receive comment on the Draft EIR on August 10,
44 2011. 24 written comment letters were received during the review period, in addition
45 to comments made at the Planning Commission hearing on August 10. These
46 comments are included in their entirety in Chapter 2 of the Final EIR.
47
Walmart Expansion Environmental Impact Report(EIR)12142011
1155 Airport Park Boulevard,APN 180-070-38
File Nos.:09-42-EIR-PC/09-28-SDP-PC
7
1 C. The Final EIR was released on October 31, 2011, 10 days prior to the first Planning
2 Commission hearing regarding EIR certification and project consideration.
3
4 D. On November 9, 2011, the Planning Commission considered the Final EIR,
5 received public testimony, and closed the public hearing on the Final EIR.
6
7 4. The custodian of the Project record is the City of Ukiah Planning and Community
8 Development Department. The documents and other materials, which constitute the
9 record of proceedings for the City's certification of the EIR and potential approval of the
10 Project, including, but not limited to the items described in Public Resources Code
11 Section 21167.6(e), are located at the Planning and Community Development
12 Department, 300 Seminary Ave., Ukiah, CA 95482, and are available for review during
13 normal City business hours.
14
15 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Ukiah
16 finds as follows:
17
18 1. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15090 (Title 14 of the California Code of
19 Regulations, Section 15090) the Planning Commission certifies that the Final EIR has
20 been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA")
21 and the State CEQA Guidelines. The Planning Commission makes the following
22 findings:
23
24 A. The Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA.
25
26 B. The City retained ESA of San Francisco, California, to prepare the Draft and
27 Final EIR documents for the proposed Project. The EIR was prepared under the
28 supervision and direction of the City Planning and Community Development
29 Department staff and presented to the Planning Commission. The EIR was
30 presented to the Planning Commission on November 9, 2011. The Planning
31 Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final
32 EIR.
33
34 C. The Final EIR reflects the City's independent judgment exercised in accordance
35 with CEQA Section 21082.1 (c) by reviewing, analyzing and revising material
36 prepared by the consultant; circulating the Draft EIR as a City document and
37 certifying that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the lead
38 agency.
39
40 2. The proposed Project has the potential to result in significant impacts on the
41 environment. Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR is the required environmental
42 documentation for the City's consideration of the Project.
43
44
45
46
47 Judy Pruden, Chairperson
48
Walmart Expansion Environmental Impact Report(EIR)12142011
1155 Airport Park Boulevard,APN 180-070-38
File Nos.:09-42-EIR-PC/09-28-SDP-PC
8
1 ATTEST:
2
3
4 Joanne Curry, City Clerk
5
Walmart Expansion Environmental Impact Report(EIR)12142011
1155 Airport Park Boulevard,APN 180-070-38
File Nos.:09-42-EIR-PC/09-28-SDP-PC
9
1 ITEM NO. 9B
2
Community Development and Planning Department
G�ity of Zikah 300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482
planninq c(�.cityofukiah.com
(707)463-6203
3
4 DATE: December 14, 2011
5
6 TO: Planning Commission
7
8 FROM: Kim Jordan, Senior Planner
9
10 SUBJECT: Walmart Expansion Site Development Permit & Modification to Landscape
11 Standards
12 1155 Airport Park Boulevard, APN 180-070-38
13 File Nos.: 09-28-SDP-PC
14 This item was continued from the November 9, 2011 Planning Commission meeting
15
16 RECOMMENDATION
17
18 Staff recommends the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing, receive public comment,
19 provide Planning Commission comment, and provide direction to staff on the Walmart
20 Expansion Project:
21
22 ■ Site development permit (SDP) and associated modifications to two landscaping
23 requirements included in AIP Ordiance 1098; and
24 ■ Statement of overriding considerations for the significant and unavoidable environmental
25 impacts identified in the EIR.
26
27 BAC KG ROU N D
28
29 This item was originally agendized for the November 9, 2011 Planning Commission meeting.
3o Due to time limitations, this item was not heard at the November 9t" meeting and was continued
31 to a date certain of December 14, 2011.
32
33 STAFF ANALYSIS
34
35 Site Development Permit
36
37 Staff analysis of the site development and associated modifications to AIP Ordinance 1098
38 landscaping requirements was included in the staff report for item 9B in the November 9, 2011
39 Planning Commission meeting packet. Please refer to this staff report for analysis of the site
40 development permit and landscaping modifications.
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
2 Statement of Overriding Considerations
3
4 Before the required site development permit and associated landscaping modifications could be
5 approved, Planning Commission is required to first certify the EIR and adopt a statement of
6 overriding considerations. If findings of overriding consideration are not adopted, the site
7 development permit and associated landscaping modifications cannot be approved.
8
9 CEQA Guidelines section 15093(a) states CEQA requires the decision-making agency to
10 balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a
11 proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to
12 approve the project. If Planning Commission determines the benefits of the proposed Project
13 outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects of the Project, the adverse
14 environmental effects may be considered "acceptable."
15
16 Considerations for adoption of a statement of overriding considerations for the proposed Project
17 could include: additional jobs created by the Project; additional revenue for the City and
18 redevelopment agency generated by the Project in the form of sales tax, property tax, and
19 business license tax (see fiscal impact report for the project); landscaping improvements to the
20 parking lot; improvements to pedestrian facilities; and/or other considerations identified by the
21 Planning Commission. The Fiscal Impact Report for the Project was provided to Planning
22 Commission separately on 10/31/2011 and is also available on the City of Ukiah website
23 homepage at cityofukiah.com.
24
25 Should Planning Commission determine that the benefits of the Project outweigh the significant
26 and unavoidable environmental effects identified in the EIR (Traffic and Circulation), CEQA
27 Guidelines section 15093(b) states the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to
28 support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement
29 of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. This is
30 formally known as a "Statement of Overriding Considerations." Should the Planning
31 Commission determine that the benefits of the Project do not outweigh the significant and
32 unavoidable environmental impacts of the Project, the Planning Commission cannot approve
33 the site development or associated landscaping modifications.
34
35 PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT
36
37 At the November 9, 2011 meeting, this item was continued to a date certain of December 14,
38 2011; therefore, no public notice is required for the project. However, due to the public interest
39 in this project, notice was provided in the following manner:
40
41 ■ mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject parcel on December 1, 2011;
42 ■ mailed to all property owners within Airport Industrial Park Planned Development on
43 December 1, 2011;
44 ■ mailed to all tenants on parcels contiguous to the subject parcel on December 1, 2011;
45 ■ mailed and/or emailed to all persons on the Walmart Expansion interested parties list on
46 December 1, 2011; and
47 ■ posted on the City's website on December 7, 2011.
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 The public comment received on the Project after the November 9th Planning Commission was
2 distributed to the Planning Commission is included as attachments 1 and 2.
3
4 CONCLUSION
5
6 The purpose of this public hearing is to:
7
8 1. Receive public and Planning Commission comment on the Walmart Expansion Project
9 site development permit and associated modifications to the requirements of AIP
10 Ordinance 1098 and statement of overriding considerations;
11
12 2. Receive Planning Commission direction on the adoption of a statement of overriding
13 considerations and approval, conditional approval, or denial of the site development
14 permit and associated modifications to the requirements of AIP Ordinance 1098 and
15 adopt in order to allow staff to prepare the required findings and return to the
16 Commission; and
17
18 3. Continue the matter to the January 11, 2011 Planning Commission meeting and direct
19 staff to return with a resolution supporting the direction provided by the Commission.
20
21 ATTACHMENTS
22
23 1. Public Comment Support
24 2. Public Comment Opposed
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