HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-47 CC Reso - Findings Per CEQA in RE to Addendum to Costco EIR i
�
Z
� 3 RESOLUTION NO. 2014-47
4
5 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF UKIAH MAKING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA
6 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ("CEQA") GUIDELINES SECTION 15164 IN
7 CONNECTION WITH THE CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF AN ADDENDUM TO THE
8 CERTIFIED COSTCO WHOLESALE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
9
10
11
12 WHEREAS:
13
14 1. The City of Ukiah ("City") as Lead Agency has conducted an environmental review for
15 the proposed Costco Wholesale Project that included the Environmental Impact Report
16 (EIR) scoping period, the Draft EIR, public review of the Draft EIR, and the Final EIR;
17 and
18
19 2. The Final EIR consisted of the Draft EIR, as revised, all written comments received
' 20 regarding the Draft EIR and the Final EIR, all responses to all comments, and the
I 21 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP); and
22
23 3. On December 18, 2013, the City Council completed its consideration of the EIR and
24 adopted Resolution 2013-34 certifying the Costco Wholesale Project EIR; and I
25 I
� 26 4. Subsequent to the certification of the EIR, and in reliance upon the EIR, the City Council
27 approved the necessary entitlements for the Costco Wholesale Project, including
28 rezoning of the project site and a Site Development Permit; and
29
30 5. The City has prepared an Addendum to the certified EIR to address (1) revisions to a
31 previously approved agreement among the City, its Successor Agency and Costco, as i
32 discussed in recital nos. 6-$ below, (2) changes to the Project Description, the Drainage I
33 Plan and minor changes to the Site Plan (Exhibit A), as discussed in recital nos. 8-10,
34 below, and (3) clarification and additional discussion of Energy Consumption and
35 Electrical Utilities, as discussed in recital no. 11, below; and
36
37 6. Subsequent to approval of the rezoning and Site Development Permit, the City and the
38 Successor Agency to the former Ukiah Redevelopment Agency ("Successor Agency')
39 entered a 3-Party Agreement under which the Successor Agency would sell and Costco I
40 would buy the approximately 15.33 acre Project Site and the City would construct certain
41 road improvements at the intersection of U.S. Highway 101 and Talmage Road
42 ("101/Talmage Improvements°). Because that agreement provided for the sale of the
43 Project Site owned by the Successor Agency, Health and Safety Code Section 34181(a)
44 and (� required approval of that agreement by an Oversight Board and the California
45 Department of Finance ("DOF"). While the Oversight Board approved the agreement, the
46 DOF disapproved the agreement on April 23, 2014. As a consequence, the City and the
47 Successor Agency are required to revise the 3-Party Agreement in order to obtain DOF
48 approval. To accomplish this, a single 3-Party Agreement has been replaced by two '
49 separate agreements: (1) a Real Property Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA)
50 between the Successor Agency and Costco; and (2) an Improvement Agreement
51 between the City and Costco (Improvement Agreement). This separation clarifies and
I 1
II
IL - --
1 distinguishes the respective rights and obligations of the City from those of the
2 Successor Agency without significantly changing those rights and obligations. The
3 Costco Wholesale Project EIR considered all phases of the project and the potential I
4 effects on the environment. However, as the approvals of separate agreements between '
5 Costco and the City and Costco and the Successor Agency were not identified as
6 necessary entitlements in the EIR, the Addendum has been prepared to describe the
7 minor change to the project entitlements and to consider any resulting changes to the
8 EIR's conclusions; and
9
10 7. Both the Costco Site on the north side of a wetlands area adjacent to the Project Site
11 that has been delineated by the Army Corp of Engineers and a .8 acre parcel on the
12 south side of the wetlands, designated as "Lot 3" on the Lot Line Adjustment map
13 attached as Attachment 6 to the Improvement Agreement, are owned by the Successor
14 Agency to the Ukiah Redevelopment Agency. By State law, all California redevelopment
15 agencies were dissolved and each successor agency is required to prepare a Long
16 Range Property Management Plan with a goal of liquidating the real property assets of
v the former redevelopment agencies. The Long Range Property Management Plan '
1s ("Plan") must be approved first by an oversight board composed of representatives of
19 local public jurisdictions and then by DOF before the successor agencies can sell those I
20 assets. The Ukiah Successor Agency proposed a Plan that was approved by the local
21 oversight board and called for the Successor Agency to transfer Lot 3 to the City as a
22 governmental use property. DOF indicated in a preliminary review that it was likely to
23 reject this proposed Plan for several reasons, one of which was that Lot 3 did not qualify
24 as governmental use property under the law dissolving redevelopment agencies
25 ("Dissolution Law"). As a result, under the Dissolution Law the property must be sold for
26 fair market value or used for a redevelopment project, subject to a compensation I
27 agreement with every affected taxing jurisdiction. The Ukiah Successor Agency is
28 processing a revised Plan to address DOF's objections to the Plan.
29
3o a. At the same time, the Regional Water Quality Control Board ("Regional
31 Board") has indicated to Costco, in reviewing its drainage plan for the Project,
32 that Lot 3 should be used for additional habitat surrounding the wetlands. To
33 satisfy the conflicting direction from DOF and the Regional Board, Costco and
34 the Successor Agency have revised the PSA to include Lot 3 in the property that
35 will be sold to Costco, for at least its appraised fair market value. Concurrently,
36 Costco and the City have revised the Improvement Agreement to provide that
37 Costco will donate Lot 3 to the City and the City will amend Ukiah City Code
38 Section 1965 to designate Lot 3 as a City Park which must remain in its natural
39 state until the City adopts a management plan for the park.
40
41 b. The Successor Agency's sale of Lot 3 to Costco, Costco's donation of Lot 3 to
42 the City and the City's acceptance of Lot 3 as a park are changes to the
43 agreements. However, these changes do not constitute a substantial change to I
44 the Project or substantial new information implicating changed or new �
45 environmental impact conclusions, and do not othenvise require preparation of a
46 supplemental or subsequent EIR under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 or
47 15163. This is because these actions with respect to Lot 3 merely further
48 mitigate adverse impacts to the wetlands identified in the FEIR for the Costco
49 Project.
50
2
i �
i
1 c. Additionally, the decision regarding the disposition of Lot 3 is exempt from
, 2 CEQA. California Public Resources Code Section 21084 requires the CEQA
3 Guidelines to include a list of classes of projects which have been determined not
4 to have a significant effect on the environment and which shall be exempt from
5 the provisions of CEQA. The Secretary for Resources has found that certain
6 classes of projects do not have a significant effect on the environment. The
7 Secretary has declared projects in those classes to be categorically exempt from
8 the requirement for the preparation of environmental documents. The acquisition
9 of Lot 3 by the City for a city park qualifies for a Class 16 categorical exemption.
10 Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15316 (14 CCR 15316), Class 16 consists of
11 the acquisition, sale, or other transfer of land in order to establish a park where
12 the land is in a natural condition or contains historical or archaeological
13 resources and either: (a) The management plan for the park has not been
14 prepared, or (b) The management plan proposes to keep the area in a natural
15 condition or preserve the historic or archaeological resources. CEQA may apply
16 when a management plan is proposed if the implementation of such plan would
1� change the area from its natural condition or cause substantial adverse change
18 in the significance of the historic or archaeological resource. The City has not
19 established a management plan for Lot 3, but the proposed amendment to Ukiah
2o City Code Section 1965 requires the City to preserve Lot 3 in its natural state
' 21 until the City adopts a management plan for the park; and
22
I 23 8. The certified EIR included Mitigation Measure 3.6.4, requiring the Project applicant to
24 prepare and submit a Final Drainage Plan to the City Engineer and Regional Water
25 Quality Control Board for approval. This mitigation measure reads as follows:
26 i 27 "Measure 3.6.4: The Applicant shall prepare and submit to the City Engineer and the
28 North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board for approval a Final Drainage Plan. ,
29 The Final Drainage Plan shall include design/plan level depiction of the proposed I
3o stormwater drainage facilities on site, including the proposed storm drainage system,
31 vegetated swales, and the water quality features. The following measures shall be
32 implemented within the Final Drainage Plan, based on modeled runoff volumes and flow I
33 rates specific to with-Project conditions:
34
35 • The applicant shall design, implement, and maintain a stormwater system such that
36 there would be no net increase in Project condition downstream peak flows; and/or,
37 with respect to the additional impervious surface area proposed for the Project, the
38 [applicant] shall design and implement volume- and/or flow-based Treatment Control
39 Best Management Practices (BMPs) as defined in Attachment 4 (pages 5-6) of the
40 State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) small municipal separate storm
41 sewer systems (MS4s) General Permit (Small MS4 General Permit) (SWRCB Order
42 2003-0005-DWQ).
43
44 • The Final Drainage Plan is not required to include retention and/or retention features
ns if such features are not necessary to satisfy the above requirements.
46
47 • Prior to implementation, design drawings and any related documents or
48 specifications with respect to these required mitigation measures shall be submitted i
49 to the City of Ukiah and the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board.
50 I
3
� I
1 • Modification of storm drain facilities within the State right-of-way (U.S. 101), may
2 require an encroachment permit, and shall be submitted to the California Department I
3 of Transportation; and
4 9. A drainage plan has been submitted to the City and Regional Board as required. In order
5 to accomplish the performance criteria of the Mitigation Measure, minor revisions to the
6 Project Site Plan are required. Some of the key considerations in the development of the I
7 plan, and the resulting changes to the Site Plan (see Revised Site Plan — Exhibit A), are
8 described below. I
9
10 1) Measure 3.6.4 requires inclusion of water quality features. The proposed site
11 storm water treatment is modified to meet the following specific project concerns
12 from the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board:
13
14 a. Maximizes the use of low impact development practices throughout the Site.
15
16 b. Consolidates two (2) existing wetland drainage outfalls into one (1) that
17 discharges to a constructed wetland area that provides the following
18 characteristics:
19 i. Separation from new storm drain outfall and existing wetland area
20 ii. Enhance habitat for wildlife
21 iii. Additional floodplain storage
22
23 2) Enhances habitat between the parking lot/fueling facility and the wetland. This is
24 accomplished by rotating the fuel facility (see Revised Site Plan — Exhibit A).
25
26 3) To accommodate the enhanced habitat, reduces overall parking by
2� approximately five (5) stalls (see Revised Site Plan — Exhibit A).
28
29 4) Rehabilitates the wetland area and the enhanced habitat by:
30
31 a. Revises tree species near wetland area to California natives (Valley Oaks
32 and Interior Live Oaks).
33
34 b. Incorporates wetland grasses adjacent to and within the expanded planting
35 areas south of the gas station (4 different species).
36
3� c. Modifies tree layout to conform to new bio-swales within the parking lot and
38 behind the building.
39
40 d. Adds additional shade trees in parking area to comply with parking lot
41 shading requirement.
42 e. Revises shrub planning to incorporate more California native species.
43
44 5) Relocate and redesign parking lot lighting to shield enhanced habitat area from I
45 lighting spillover (note that this change is also consistent with Mitigation Measure
46 3.1.2 regarding lighting spillover). I
47
48 6) Increase water flow into wetland to insure wetland sustainability.
4
1
2 7) The rotation of the fueling facility does not adversely affect vehicular circulation
3 on-site or pedestrian safety (see Revised Site Plan — Exhibit A). The reduction of
4 parking does not cause a violation of City parking standards (the remaining 579
5 spaces still exceeds the required 565 spaces based on the building plan for a
6 141,125 square foot warehouse store as revised by by Costco to accommodate
7 the required changes to the Site Plan), and in fact addresses public concerns
8 raised during the Project hearings that the Project was over-parked. Similarly, the
9 increase in both the overall number of shade trees and the number of California
10 native trees is consistent with suggestions received from members of the public.
11 While the previous Site Plan was consistent with City requirements, these
12 revisions provide greater benefits regarding the effectiveness of vegetation for
13 both shade and water quality purposes, and provide enhancements to the
14 existing wetlands adjacent to the Property.
15 !
16 8) These changes to the Site Plan, as a result of compliance with Mitigation !
17 Measure 3.6.4, while relatively minor, will lessen the effects of the Project on the
18 environment. The warehouse building, location, and overall project operation
19 would not change. The Revised Site Plan does not constitute a substantial
20 change in the project and would not result in new or more severe significant
21 impacts beyond those previously identified in the certified EIR. Therefore, the
22 Revised Site Plan does not trigger subsequent or supplemental EIR under CEQA
23 Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163. An addendum is, therefore, the
24 appropriate documentation of the change pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section
25 15164.
26
27 9) The previous Site Plan (Exhibit A page 2) was approved by the City Planning
28 Commission as part of the Site Development Permit on January 22, 2014, and
29 affirmed by the City Council on appeal on March 5, 2014. Pursuant to authority
30 under Ukiah City Code Section 9268.B, the Zoning Administrator has determined
31 that the minor changes to the Site Plan are in substantial conformance with the
32 Site Plan approved by the Planning Commission and, therefore, are not subject
33 to discretionary review by the Planning Commission. This determination is based
3u on the following:
35
36 a. The warehouse building size has been reduced by 7,000 square feet to
37 141,125 square feet, and the location and overall project operation would not
38 change.
39
40 b. The entrances into and the exits out of the site would not change and traffic
41 circulation in and around the site would be substantially the same as the Site
42 Plan approved by the Planning Commission.
43
44 c. While the exact location and orientation of the fueling facility is slightly
45 different, it is regarded as a superior location and layout because it allows
46 more habitat area between the fueling facility and the wetland area. The
47 revised location and orientation will not adversely impact or substantially
48 change parking, drainage, or landscaping on the site.
49
5
i
1 d. The revised location and orientation of the fueling station is similar in terms of '�
2 visual quality because it is still in the southern portion of the site, will have
3 ample landscaping, and the view of the facility from Highway 101 would be
4 very similar to the location on the Site Plan approved by the Planning
5 Commission.
6
� e. Views of the fueling facility by motorists traveling north on Highway 101 will
8 improve from the location on the Site Plan approved by the Planning
9 Commission, because there will now be a larger habitat area to the south of
10 the fueling facility that will be an open space area with new vegetation; and
11
12 10. CEQA provides that an environmental impact report shall include a detailed
13 statement setting forth all of the following:
14
15 a) Mitigation measures proposed to minimize significant effects on the
16 environment, including, but not limited to, measures to reduce the
17 wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy. (Public
18 Resources Code Section 21100(b)(3)).'
19
20 In addition, Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines includes suggested
21 information to "assure that energy implications are considered in project
22 decisions." Appendix F further states that "the California Environmental
23 Quality Act requires that EIRs include a discussion of the potential energy
24 impacts of proposed projects, with particular emphasis on avoiding or
25 reducing inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary consumption of energy (see
26 Public Resources Code section 21100(b)(3))."
27
28 The Addendum clarifies and provides additional discussion of Project energy
29 consumption and electrical utilities. The City is clarifying its determination that
30 "the Project would not exceed existing gas and electric supply or result in the
31 wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy," in part, based
32 on the recent court decision, CCEC v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal. App.
33 4th 173, which was published after the City certified the EIR. That decision
34 held that CEQA requires a more detailed discussion of energy use than was
35 previously understood at the time the EIR was certified. This discussion
36 augments, but does not alter, the analysis and conclusions of the EIR
37 regarding the effects of Project-related energy usage; and
38
39 11. Draft EIR Section 3.9, Utilities and Services, describes the provision of utilities,
40 including energy, to the proposed Project. As described in the EIR, no additional
41 energy infrastructure is required to serve the Project site.
42
43 In addition to the information contained in this Draft EIR section, the City notes
44 that the energy sources for the electricity provided by the City of Ukiah Utilities
45 Department include an unusually high percentage of renewable energy sources
46 compared to the state average. Ukiah's 2011 energy supply included 49%
� All Mitigation Measures cited in the nddendum and this Resolution are existing mcasines
contained in the Final EIR and the Addendum does not add or revise a�y Mitigation Measures.
6
1 eligible renewable sources, compared to a 2010 statewide average of 14%. The
2 "Energy Content Label" for the City shows the above-average amounts of
3 renewable geothermal and hydroelectric power used in the City.
4
5 Large hydroelectric energy, while not considered an "eligible" renewable source
6 for purposes of the California Renewable Portfolio, is nevertheless a clean
7 energy source, and at 25% is a substantial additional component of Ukiah's
8 energy mix.
9
10 In addition, on-site renewable energy sources have been considered. The Project
11 would include pre-wiring and an engineered roof to allow for future solar energy
12 panels. It is Costco standard practice to determine the feasibility of installation of
13 rooftop solar at the time of the completion of warehouse construction and
14 beginning of operation (anticipated build out year is 2017). Factors evaluated by
15 Costco include cost of the solar system, tax incentives, how much power the
16 system will produce and the utility cost of electricity. For the Ukiah warehouse, it
17 is estimated that rooftop solar would only contribute to approximately 25% of the
1S building electricity needs. In contrast, as noted above, Ukiah's 2011 energy
19 supply included 49% eligible renewable sources and an additional 25% from
20 large hydroelectric — approximately 75% from renewable sources. Thus, the
21 Project significantly supports the use of renewable energy sources.
22
23 The other potential source of onsite energy, small wind energy, is infeasible, as
24 the Project site is within the Airport Influence Area/Compatibility Zone "C' of the j
25 Ukiah Municipal Airport (which included restrictions on tall structures such as
26 wind turbines).
27
28 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Ukiah finds as
29 follows:
30
31 1. As the decision making body for the proposed project, the City Council has reviewed and
32 considered the information contained in the Addendum and supporting documentation,
33 including the certified EIR. The City Council finds that the Addendum contains a
34 complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the minor
35 modifications to the Project.
36
37 2. The Addendum has been completed in compliance with the requirements of the
38 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines.
39
n0 3. The Addendum reflects the independent judgment of the City Council.
41
42 4. Based on the Addendum and all related information presented to the City Council,
43 including all substantial evidence, the modifications to the Project do not constitute a
44 substantial change in the Project, modify any adopted mitigation measures or add any
45 mitigation measures. Therefore, the modifications to the Project do not trigger a
46 subsequent or supplemental EIR under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163. i
47 Specifically, the modifications (1) do not result in new significant environmental effects or
48 a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) do not
49 constitute substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the
50 proposed Project is undertaken that will require major revisions to the Final EIR due to
51 the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
7
II
�
1 severity of previously identified significant effects; and (3) do not contain new information
2 of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the
3 exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the Final EIR was certified, that shows any
4 of the following: (a) the proposed Project will have one or more significant efFects not
5 discussed in the Final EIR; (b) significant effects previously examined will be
6 substantially more severe than shown in the Final EIR; (c) mitigation measures or
7 alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would
8 substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the proposed Project, but the lead
9 agency or project proponent declined to adopt such measures; or (d) mitigation
l0 measures or alternatives considerably different from those analyzed in the Final EIR
11 would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but which
12 the lead agency or project proponent declined to adopt. The Addendum is the
13 appropriate document for the minor changes to the project.
14
15 5. Substantial evidence in the administrative record shows that only minor technical
16 changes or additions are necessary and none of the conditions described in CEQA
v Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.
18 6. The Addendum included an adequate explanation of the decision not to prepare a
19 subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 and is supported by substantial evidence.
20 7. None of the public comments to the Addendum or elsewhere in the administrative record
21 constitute substantial evidence that would require preparation of a supplemental or
22 subsequent EIR or that would require substantial revision of the previously-certified Final
23 EIR.
24
25 8. The Ukiah City Council hereby adopts the Addendum to the Final EIR and approves the
26 Zoning Administrators determination as stated in recital no. 9(9), above.
27
28 9. The custodian of the Project record is the City of Ukiah Planning and Community
29 Development Department. The documents and other materials, which constitute the
30 record of proceedings for the City's certification of the EIR, approval of the Project, and
31 Addendum including, but not limited to, the items described in Public Resources Code
32 Section 21167.6(e), are located at the Planning and Community Development
33 Department, 300 Seminary Ave., Ukiah, CA 95482, and are available for review during
34 normal City business hours.
35
36 Adopted on December 3, 2014 by the following roll call vote:
37
38 AYES: Councilmembers Plulheren, Doble, Brown, Scalmanini., and Mayor Crane
39 NOES: None
40 ABSENT: None
41 ABSTAIN: None
42 � .��"
43
44 - - . �� .�C
45 ouglas F. Crane , 8y0� I
46 ATTEST: � . "
na � i, u� l� l LL ��1. G � I.�� � � � I
49 Kristine Lawler, City Clerk
8
i
— I
I
1
2
I 3 �
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 �
12 EXHIBIT A
13
1a Revised Site Plan
15 and
16 Previously Approved Site Plan
17 USW 804785097.2
I
, 9 I
i- _
� j°�,
I y� � 1 a _ _ _ " _ ' _ _ _ ' _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ ' _�- . -� �-n._
�r�lRp6AT lAl� HIPo
� L. �
I� I �\ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I � >, • _ � U
I ij ��,1 :
I � i/ ! ��iu�u�lflJli�i�u�un��� � �_ :�.
� / Jf j �ml_lI1IIl11Vt1���iL•• _ i
, � ,� ����� �pp `.�«,�
/ . Q � �..... ".�,.�.
I f i /�� i �; �
J ' - 6..,.,., �. V
//_�\� // <���j, J �:B_�- �
. . �ll$�
,a � � � m
I � �— / �'. � :. � Q N 3
� � i , i ... .. ; � �
l ' � , i ...__.__.... . . ; (A 'a
/ ��i� \ ��� ... . . • • � ' � O D
� .�� � � � � p '..� fC M
� � .��A�VV � �� O��II��I�i� y �
� ��\�A��� \���� � � 3
i ����� � �� � . __ -
� V\��` \���VAV�� � . ...��. �
..,.. .....
--_..... .._...... : .....
� ���� A` �AAAV� V�,� . ..._.... . . ._._ . � ,_.
I - -- - _ ._ _ - - - - �- ---_— _-_—_ --
NICHW�Y lol
I ' ^ II
j�l cve a.�a
I `
�1 STi
I F •
l
I g Fi�uRe xa
S SOVRCE:MWVa�nyG2M�ikcNre Revised Site Plan
s DUDEK
I N 7913
A�OENDUM TO 741E COS7C0 WHOIESALE FROJECT EIR
I _ __—
� _-- _—. . _ ._ __. _
PROJECT DATA
cueur cpsrcow��w�
sss w�e owvE
55/AVPl1.WP 9QQ3]
PR W EGT PCOI�55: IIMNli,GLIFORNIA
SITE DATA
TOTKSIiENtA 15.2{pCRE518B],fiPS.Fj
1 I ^ I�CLII ES
II .. c.rwa i i 3 _ _._. C.44 "��-..___ .. ��°��,. . � _..______ & _ _____ __________. wsncrmr.. ,�,.,.,wP.�. �cm��auxen
.A �>>e-.. ' , o
P a�., e
� _.rvrooie.asv.nuv
i
___' _..� . ....`_.. .........__'
�5 ' �
�� lr� � 5.' zaxnc_ n .aicarnu[acw
�_—--�'- = , � _- %3't"FC - - - - - - -— -
_ _— . ; �-. �� ° �v —r �—r� —� �%iNeo�"�°.q'�s -
` � ' 9 . _'p—i �f - ,. �� ` -.. . _ � � _ _ ..\ -�_�_-.�� �rc��aeuvwGws�a�rt�GVUeEOBV�
_ _ _ _ _ .. � . ...."
�� -, � _ _ _I ___ __ _��.:.._
�L��"�j ... � .�"`�'� \ 3; --' � r BUILDING DATA:148K PROTOI <
�,,
;/i. /� _'_ �, .�(�� � i ', �1 �.oruaui�oixcu�ca C
� ' � � 9 y
�: f � „- � ,'�'.� ��, o � ' j'(PARKINGDATA:
I �i � '"�J/ �- .�� '� /��� l ' II , � roruenwaxc D O�i m
�f- w�/�v �', S ' . i ,a �p �C
l �I � -.s��'� _ u] �iceic°Y• � . I .I ��irvuuoes_ fp 2
��� � / / BIlI1� i ' i �P.a,.��o� a ra W
���y //� � .� I�r� o .�n..0 < o —I
r\ 'fi i�� I � � iit O .�,es..�o�,m, Q N D
� � . r I {. NO.OFSTPLLSPERi(�MSF
♦; � >. !� �". �OFBUIIIMNGARNII�BW�.4} �
I fi���;\ !;�/ .��,r 'li " � J� � =�uwsomiwwu W
: ar'�; . .
�Y /, ' ' I �' _
:;i —GPPI(MGPEIXIIREO-. �
��'�oEiw�pxaa�'x� „-�� ••Qs i i NOTESN GI
Y � _�,,,,,,,�Q �. ��IXIST GCONOflIOnSTOBEFIELOVEfi1FIE0 �
, • Ili��� � .. •-. . ,
� , , �!, - : _ � �
� �,._ �., � . - -- . o �.� � ° o u- ' ne u I�v�aN�TV e.ua
, --�_
� _ � ..... y..
, '___ _..._.. .... .. . .. ..
_ _. __... ._
„ �-- ` --- I .: . ... . ..
- -_ _ • .`�__.—__---'-_- �- "�` r�r-�"i
---�----�---_, - - - — '-a''`�'"'-._ '� I '._..___. I _ � -...
a
_ �
. - - - - - - - -� _ -- _ - - � ' �/��
- -e - - - H I G FL.,NE�,1.16� 1 0 1 � - - - - - _ �"O"°
.`�.e 0������� ���
VIQNI.CR
__-'__--"_ —��_��_—'—"_— — — ' REGIONAIMAP
„ —_�—�.__`• — _
�!�--__'_—_'__——_ .�_ V ' — _ —— _
_ �m
'___'_____—'___'____'_` -° .
—_ —_____. � � �
, _ ___.'___— —____ .
� --__ —_ _ _—_—__
� � —._—.'___ --__ "__'___ '_
�"°«a�.o-a.,+.a.�—___ —'__ ,.
. — _—_..__ __
- .'-.—_'_'_ _'___
�iy 1( � —___"—__— �__ ,,,—�.
�al
O1tt3?41
NAFCNE.341'
IR NrCEPTSiE�
COSTCO WHOLESALE CONCEPT SITE PLAN s
UKIAH. CALIFORNIq
� MARCH29, 2013