HomeMy WebLinkAbout94-47RESOLUTION NO.
94-47
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH
APPROVING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR
USE PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 93-32, KMART
WHEREAS,
1. The City has circulated a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact for Use Permit Application No. 93-32, KMart Corporation; and
2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated to all interested public
and private persons and entities and made available for public review and
comment as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and
implementing guidelines (CEQA Guidelines); and
3. After the public comment period and in connection with the noticed
hearing on the project and Mitigated Negative Declaration, the City. received
additional comments after the public comments period had expired; and
4. The City Council has chosen to consider those comments and the
responses thereto prepared by Staff, which are contained in the February 18, 1994
Staff Report to the Planning Commission and the Agenda Summary Report for the
May 4, 1994 City Council hearing; and
5. The City Council finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
related documents adequately discuss the potential environmental impacts from
the project, and fully complies with the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA
Guidelines; and
6. The City Council has fully reviewed and considered the contents of the
Mitigated Negative Declaration prior to approving the project;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Use
Permit No. 93-32, KMart, attached as Exhibit A, with the addition of the mitigation
measure that "KMart will, prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy,
contribute $36,250 to an "Air Quality Offset Fund" to be established by ordinance
by the City of Ukiah. The primary purpose of the Fund will be to benefit air quality
and to reduce vehicular emeissions within the Ukiah Valley. The Fund will be
jointly administered by the City of Ukiah and the Air Quality Management District.",
and the Mitigation Monitoring Program attached as Exhibit B are hereby approved.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of May, 1994, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Mastin, Malone, Wattenburger, and Mayor Schneiter
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Councilmember Shoemaker
A'l-r',~. T:
~hy'Mc~ay, Cizy~lerk
rnfh:pL-nning
UP 93-32 NEGt DEC RESO REV
2
CITY OF UKIAH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
DATE:
APPLICANT:
APPLICATION:
LOCATION:
March 17, 1994
KMART Corporation
Use Permit No. 93-32
Orchard Avenue and Hospital Drive
Description of Proposal: The project consists of the construction of a new 117,000+ square foot KMART retail
store with attendant parking and landscaping, a 4,800 square foot pad for a future commercial business
(potential 90 seat restaurant), and the vacation of a portion of Hospital Ddve. The project is located on
approximately 11 acres, immediatedly north the existing Pear Tree Shopping Center.
Environmental Settinq:. The site is within the urban core of the City of Ukiah; the proposal is consistent with
the City's General Plan and Zoning, and the project will not have significant impacts on the environment which
cannot be mitigated. The site encompasses 24 parcels previously subdivided which are currently vacant, and
Hospital Ddve extending through the area in an east-west direction. Residential development is located to the
north, commedcal to the east, south, and west. A hospital is also located to the west. Access to the site is by
the existing street system surrounding the property.
Environmental Analysis: The impacts which must be addressed are traffic/circulation, shading in the parking
lot, on-site lighting, and air quality.
An analysis of the traffic and circulation entitled "Traffic Impact Analysis, Proposed KMART Expansion in Pear
Tree Center'' was completed by Barton-Aschman Associates in January 1994. The study indicates the project
will increase the PM peak hour traffic by 450 vehicle tdps. This document is referenced here as the basis for
the majodty of the measures attached to the project to mitigate the identified impacts to a point of insignificance.
Parking lot shading and on-site lighting are addressed in the site and landscaping design and have specific
mitigation measures identified. The project as mitigated will not result in the breach of any ambient air quality
standard and will not contribute substantially to any existing or projected air quality violation and therefore will
not have a significant impact upon the environment.
The project was evaluated in the context of overall traffic circulation and impact on the residential neighborhood
to the north. Though not required to mitigate impacts generated by the KMart project, the developer agreed to
participate in substantial off site improvements to improve the conditions in this segment of the community.
These improvements include the construction of the Orr Creek bddge at Orchard Ave., extension of Orchard
Avenue to Brush Street, and the improvement of Brush Street westedy to the railroad tracks.
Findings Supporting a Mitigated Neqative Declaration:
* The site is within the urban core, the project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning, and no
significant impacts which cannot be mitigated have been identified.
* Mitigation measures listed in Attachment 1 will be incorporated into the project.
* The project will not be detrimental to health, safety, and welfare of the general public.
Statement of Declaration:
After appraisal of the possible impacts of this jproject as mitigated by the measures enumerated in
Attachment 1, the City of Ukiah has determined that the project will not have a significant effect on the
environment. This Mitigated Negative Declaration constitutes compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act.
This document is available for public review at the City of Ukiah Planning Division, Ukiah Civic Center, 300
Semi~na~ Ave~Ukiah, CA.
Michael F. Hams, AICP
Director of Community Development, City of Ukiah
II.
INITIAL STUDY
PROJECT NO.:
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
Background
le
.
4.
5.
6.
Name of Proponent
Address and Phone Number of Proponent,
Address of subject property
Date of Checklist Submitted
Agency Requiring Checklist
Name of Proposal, if applicable
Environmental Impacts
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.)
Yes Maybe No
Earth.
a.
Will the proposal result in:
Unstable eadh conditions or in changes
in geologic substructures?
b.
Disruptions, displacements, compaction
or overcovering of the soil?
Co
Change in topography or ground surface
relief features?
d,
The destruction, covering or modification
of any unique geologic or'. physical features?
ee
Any increase in wind or water erosion of
soils, either on or off the site?
Changes in deposition or erosion of beach
sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or
erosion which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the ocean or
any bay, inlet or lake?
g.
Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as eadhquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
-2-
o
e
Yes
Air.
ae
be
Will the proposal result in:
Substantial air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality?
;
The creation of objectionable odors?
C,
Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally?
Water. Will the proposal result in:
a,
Changes in currents, or the course of direction
of water movements, in either marine or fresh
waters?
b,
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of sudace runoff? ~
O,
Alterations to the. course or flow of flood
waters?
d.
Change in the amount of surface water in any
water body?
e,
Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality, in-
cluding but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
Alteration of the direction or rate of flow
of ground waters?
g,
Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or with-
drawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations?
he
Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public
water supplies?
Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding or tidal waves?
Maybe
No
.
.
.
.
Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diver.,'sity of species, or
number of any species of plants (including
trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic
plants)?
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rate or endangered species of plants?
Ce
Introduction of new species of plants into
an area, or in a barrier to the normal
replenishment of existing species?
d.
Reduction in acreage of any agricultural
crop?
Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a.
b.
Change in the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals including reptiles, fish and
shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)?
Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rate or endangered species of animals?
Co
Introduction of new species of animals into
an area, or result in a barrier to the
migration or movement of animals?
d.
Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
Noise. Will the proposal .result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
Yes
X
Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new ;
light or glare? ~
Maybe
No
.
Land Use. Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources?
b.
Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable
natural resource?
Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve:
ae
A risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or
upset conditions?
b,,
Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation
plan?
Population. Will the proposal alter the location,
distribution, density, or growth rate of the
human population of an area?
Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing,
or create a demand for additional housing?
Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal
result in:
a.
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
b.
Effects on existing parking facilities,
or demand for new parking?
C.
Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems?
d.
Yes
Alterations to present patterns of circulation
or movement of people and/or goods?
MaYbe
No
e.
Alterations to waterborne, rail or air
traffic?
Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
4
14.
'15.
16.
17.
Public Services. Will the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered governmental services in any of the
following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
e,
Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads?
f. Other governmental services?
Energy. Will the proposal result in'
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
Substantial increase in demand upon exist-
ing sources of energy, or require the
development of new sources of energy?
Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need
for new systems, or substantial alterations to
the following utilities?
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
c. Water? ;
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
Human Health. Will the proposal result in'
a,
Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)?
Yes
No
18.
19.
20.
21.
b,,
Exposure of people to potential health
hazards? ~
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the
obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to
the public, or will the proposal result in the
creation of an aesthetically offensive site
open to public view?
Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities?
Cultural Resources,
a.
Will the proposal result in the alteration
of or the destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site?
b.
C.
Will the proposal result in adverse physical
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
historic building, structure, or object?
· ,
Does the proposal have the potential to
cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values?
d.
Will the proposal restrict existing religious
or sacred uses within the potential impact
area?
Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a.
Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild-
life population to drop below self sus-
raining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory?
bo
Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, environmental goals? (A short-
Yes
Maybe
No
X
6 "- 7 ""
Iil.
term impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a rblatively brief, definitive
period of time while long-term impacts
will endure well into the future.)
C.
Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulative con-
siderable? (A project may impact on two
or more separate resources where the impact
on each resource is relatively small, but
where the effect of the total of those
impacts on the environment is significant.)
d.
Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Yes Maybe
No
IV.
Determination
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:.
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect
on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect
on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case
because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been
added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,
and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
Date
Date
MU: RE PORTS\LE GAL15
Revised: 12/13/93
Signature
Community Development Director
7
DISCU:.. ON OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVAI. TION
USE PERMIT NO. 93-32, KMAR'~
March 17, 1994
Explanations of "Yes" answers in Initial Study Checklist
lb.
The project entails construction of a 117,000+ square foot building, with attendant parking and
landscaping. As with any new construction, the soil will be compacted and overcovered. The
site in is an urban area, previously subdivided, with an existing public street traversing it. This
is not a substantial negative impact.
2a.
Air emissions will increase with the additional vehicular traffic to the site as well as on-site
construction activities. Air quality will be affected by this increased traffic and construction
practices. The site is adjacent to an existing shopping center and within an urban core.
Based upon an air quality analysis dated February 18, 1994 conducted by Giroux and
Associates (attached as Exhibit A) the City concludes that project emissions will not result in a
breach of ambient air quality standards and will not contribute substantially to any existing or
projected air quality violation. The adoption of a required transportation management plan
approved by the Air Quality Management District, will reduce future emissions associated with
employee transportation.
2b.
Due to the building size, some air movements will be altered. Increased extent of asphalt in the
parking area may increase the site temperature during the summer 'months. Shade trees will
be required to reduce this impact. This impact will be mitigated through site design in which a
standard of one shade tree per four parking spaces is imposed.
3b.
The construction of the building and parking areas will increase the amount of impervious
surfaces, reducing absorption by the ground. This will result in increased surface runoff on and
off-site. All drainage shall be contained on-site and directed to existing or new storm drainage
facilities as approved by the City Engineer. This impact will be mitigated through facility design,
and the installation and maintenance of storm water interceptors in the parking areas to collect
and contain sediment, grease, and oil on-site.
48.
Existing weeds will be removed and new plant species will be introduced through landscaping.
This will change both the diversity and number of plants on the site. Based upon an analysis
of the biological attributes of the site completed by Wetlands Research Associates, Inc. on
February 22, 1994 (Exhibit B) the City has concluded this is not a negative impact.
4C.
The overcovering of soil and new landscaping will introduce new species and eliminate the
replenishment of the weeds. This is not a negative impact.
Sa.
The site does not support large animals, but there will be a change in both diversity and number
of insects and small rodent type animals. Based upon an analysis of the biological attributes
of the site was completed by Wetlands Research Associates, Inc. on February 22, 1994 (Exhibit
B) the City has concluded this is not a negative impact.
69..
Currently there is no development on the site and the only noise is caused by the minimal
vehicular traffic on Hospital Dr. The construction and daily operation of the business will
increase the ambient noise levels in the area. The levels will be no higher than those normally
associated with standard commercial activities. This is not a negative impact. Based upon an
analysis of potential noise impact and its relationship to the City of Ukiah noise regulations
completed by Brown-Buntin Associates, Inc., on February 22, 1994 (Exhibit C) the City has
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUA r"' .USE PERMIT NO. 93-32, KM~. ·
Explanations of "Yes" answer ,Initial Study Checklist
Page 2
/'lARCH 17, 1994
78.
13a.
13b.
13d.
15a.
concluded this is not a negative impact.
The project includes lighting for the structure and parking area. All lighting is required to be
directed away from existing residential uses and situated at a height to minimize overall "glow"
from the project. Mitigation is through site design.
Approximately 450 new PM peak hour vehicular trips are anticipated for this development.
Analysis of the traffic impact is provided in the "Traffic Impact Analysis, Proposed KMART
Expansion in Pear Tree Center, January 1994" prepared by Barton-Aschman Associates.
Specific measures to mitigate the negative impacts associated with this project are listed at the
end of this evaluation. This report is available for public review at the Ukiah Planning Division,
Civic Center, 300 Seminary Dr., Ukiah, CA 95482, (707) 463-6200.
117,000 square feet of retail space requires 468 parking spaces; 615 are proposed to be
provided. The new demand for parking is met. Thus there is no negative impact.
The Project requires the closure of Hospital Drive east of Hamilton, removing the direct east-
west linkage between Orchard and the Hospital. Alternative access can be gained by means
of Clara and Hamilton. This impact is addressed in the "Traffic Ir:npact Analysis, Proposed
KMART Expansion in Pear Tree Center, November 1993" prepared by Barton-Aschman
Associates. Other traffic improvements as noted in the listing of mitigation measures will
alleviate any impacts caused by the elimination of this connection. The proposed construction
of the bridge, extension of Orchard Ave., and improvements to Brush Street are not included as
mitigation measures.
The operation of a business of this size will use 350 KW of electric energy. The consumption
however is well within the City of Ukiah's capacity (currently supply exceeds demand) and
represents a minuscule portion of the needs of the entire community. This is not a negative
impact.
Attachment 1
MIT NEG DEC UP 93-32 KMART, MARCH 17, 1994
MEASURES MADE PART OF THE PROJECT TO MITIGATE IMPACTS.
IMPLEMENTATION IS RESPONSIBILITY OF PROJECT APPLICANT.
.
The parking areas shall include at least one shade tree for every four parking spaces spread
throughout the areas.
,
All project drainage shall be collected on site and directed to existing or new storm drainage
facilities including on site storm water interceptors as approved by the City Engineer.
.
All on site lighting shall be of a height and orientation so as to not shine on adjacent residential
properties.
,
Twelve feet of property on the west side of Orchard Avenue north of Perkins Street the entire
length of the corner property (APN # 002-200-38) shall be dedicated to the City of Ukiah and
the increased right-of-way improved to provide a "right turn only" lane (See Attachment lA). Ten
feet of property on the north side of Perkins Street west of Orchard the entire length of the
corner property (APN # 002-200-38) shall be dedicated to the City of Ukiah to coincide with
previously dedicated property to the west for the widening of Perkins Street.
.
Orchard Avenue shall be restriped as a four-lane roadway between'Perkins Street and Clara
Avenue (See Attachment lA) and the center island between AIbertsons and J.C. Penny shall
be removed.
.
,
.
,
10.
The north leg of Orchard Avenue at Perkins Street shall be re-striped to include a southbound
left turn lane, a southbound through lane, a southbound right turn lane, and two northbound
through lanes. (See Attachment lA)
The south leg of Orchard Avenue at Perkins Street shall be re-striped to include a northbound
left turn lane (11 feet wide), a northbound through lane (11 feet wide), a northbound shared
through/right turn lane (13 feet), and a single southbound lane (13 feet wide). (See Attachment
lA)
Signs shall be posted to reroute project-generated traffic destined for southbound U.S. Highway
101 to travel south past Perkins Street and access the freeway at the Gobbi Street interchange
subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
Applicant shall contribute a dollar amount equal to five percent of the total cost of the
signalization at Gobbi and Orchard shall be deposited with the City prior to use and occupancy
of the structure for use in construction of these traffic devices.
The applicant shall pay the entire cost of adding a separate right turn lane on the southbound
off ramp of U.S. Highway 101 at Perkins Street. Completion of the improvements shall be
coordinated between the City of Ukiah and Cai Trans; application for these improvements must
be filed and a dollar amount equal to the estimated cost must be deposited with the City prior
to use and occupancy of the structure. (See attachment lB).
-//-
Attachment No. 1
MIT NEG DEC UP 93-32 KMART, MARCH 17, 1994
PAGE 2 .,,
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Applicant shall contribute a dollar amount equal to five percent of the project cost of relocating
the signal at Scott and State or Norton and State to Clara and State shall be deposited with the
City prior to use and occupancy.
Applicant shall pay the entire cost of upgrading the traffic signals, including new controller,
related equipment, and relocation of poles and related equipment, at Orchard and Perkins to
accommodate the expanded rights-of-way (does not include or require dedication of property at
the northeast corner of the intersection).
A minimum of 20 feet of landscaping, including a meandering sidewalk, with berming, hedging,
or screen walls/fencing shall be provided along the entire Orchard Ave. property frontage.
The northern exposure of the existing center (Albertsons and Big 5) shall be improved with
architectural features, colors, and/or landscaping to present a more aesthetically pleasing
appearance.
Applicant shall develop and implement a Transportation Management Plan, acceptable to the
Air Quality Management District, reasonably capable of achieving an average vehicle ridership
of 1.5 by the year 2000 for KMart employees. The plan shall incorporate the elements set forth
in Exhibit D. A monitoring program 'shall be approved by the Air Quality Management District
to ensure compliance with this measure.
Preferential parking for both employees and customers who rideshare to Kmart shall be provided
as designated on the site plan.
During the construction phase of the development, the following measures shall be required:
a. exposed earth surfaces shall be watered twice daily or as conditions warrant to reduce
airborne particulates;
b. all vehicles shall use tarpaulins or other effective covers when transporting materials
to and from the project site;
c. the maximum speed of vehicles on site shall be 15 mph to reduce the amount of dust
generated;
d. permanent soils stabilization measures (paving, landscaping, etc.) shall be
implemented immediately following the completion of construction of any portion of the
site. If a portion of the site will be idle for longer than ten working days and the soil has
been disturbed on that portion, the soil shall be stabilized (seeding and watering until
growth is evident, dust palliative for suppressants, etc.);
e. all clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation activities shall be ceased during
winds greater than 15 mph;
f. streets adjacent to the project site shall be manually swept or flushed, as needed, to
remove silt which may have accumulated from construction activities;
g. no construction vehicles are permitted to utilize Clara Avenue;
h. construction equipment shall be properly tuned and a maintenance schedule shall be
available within a 24 hour request.
,~ttachment No. 1,
MIT NEG DEC UP 93-32, KMART, MARCH 17, 1994
-PAGE 3
18.
Property owner shall agree to annex property north of Orr Creek, south of Brush Street
(Mendocino County Assessor Parcel Numbers 002-101-01 and 002-030-05) at request of the
City of Ukiah to ensure completion of required improvements to this area.
19.
Property owner shall provide 66 feet of right of way for the extension of Orchard Avenue from
the Orr Creek bridge to Brush Street, and 33 feet of right-of-way on the east side of Orchard
Ave. from Ford Street to the Orr Creek bridge.
B~lrton-AscY~rnart Assoc{ " Ir~c.
la'
13'
PERKINS
I
I
11' [
/
1
i
13'
c'
>
(trot to S'c~xle)
Perkins Street
/ 11' /
/
11
13'
STREET/ORCHARD AVENUE
SCHEMATIC MITIGATION
Ba~'to~-Asch.~'r~a~, Associ, ·
Perkins Street
PERKINSSTREET/SOUTHBOUND U.S.
HIGHWAY 101 RAMPS
SCHEMATIC MITIGATION
Attachment 2
MIT NEG DEC UP 93-32 KMART, MARCH 17, 1994
DEVELOPER PARTICIPATION IN OFF SITE MEASURES WHICH ARE NOT REQUIRED TO
MITIGATE IMPACTS
Orchard AveJOrr Creek Bridge
Applicant shall contribute $200,000 towards the construction of the Orchard Ave. bridge at Orr
Creek; bridge design and filings for required regulatory permits shall be completed prior to the
public opening of KMart. City shall commit the existing $25,000 in the Orr Creek Bridge Fund
and the applicant and shopping center property owner shall pay $75,000 for bridge completion.
Orchard Avenue extension, Brush Street improvements
The applicant shall loan to the City funds equal to the estimated construction cost ($220,000)
to extend Orchard Avenue northerly to the bridge, develop two lanes of travelway northerly from
the bridge to Brush Street, and improve two lanes of Brush Street westerly to the railroad tracks.
Said improvements shall not include any new access to adjacent properties and shall
accommodate only through traffic from existing Orchard Ave. to Brush Street at Orr Street.
Terms and conditions of the loan shall be approved by the City Council if Use Permit 93-32 is
approved. '
The bridge and road improvements described above are not included with this project and shall not be
constructed without compliance with CEQA. City shall make every reasonable effort to complete the
CEQA review and the constrUction of the improvements by November 1995.
rnfh:environment
UP 93-32 MIT NEG DEC REC
MARCH 17, 1994
.~ Hnvizonme~tal Consult-
February 18, 1994
Lars Andersen & Associates
Attn: Scott Mommer
4630 Jacquelyn Avenue, Suite 119
Fresno, CA 93722-6405
Re: Ukiah K-Mart Air Quality Study
Dear Mr. Mommer:
As requested by Noel Bucu from your office, I reviewed the NOP
response from the Mendocino County AQMD dated February 9, 1994 and
the. memo from Richard Henderson faxed to you on February 14. Based
on my experience in similar projects throughout California in
twenty-two years of air quality analysis, I would offer the
following comments:
We do not concur with.the AQMD's finding that project-related
mobile source impacts will have a significant impact and that
a focused EIR is required. The AQMD's contention of impact
significance is based on their calculation that project-
related traffic will cause the emissions significance
threshold in.pounds per day to be exceeded, seen as follows:
Pollutant
Project
Emissions
Significance
_Threshold
Potentially
.Significant
_
ROG 67.5 220.
NO~
CO
166.6 220.
No
No
822.6 550. Yes
ROG and NOx are ozone precursors. Since it is not possible to
model ozone generation from any single project (it requires complex
computer models and millions of dollars in costs), assigning an
emissions-based threshold makes sense. For CO, however, the
potential air quality impact is directly measurable. The 550 pound
per day threshold level then becomes a warning flag that a more
17744 $~y park Circl~. S~dre, 210. h'~{~e, CMifomib 92714 - Phou¢ (-II,~) 851-3609 .Fax, Cll4) 851-~'612
.!
detailed analysis is warranted Attachment 1 shows the Bay Area
AQMD's interpretation of CO impact significance Their guidelines
zpecifically state: ·
"However, since CO emissions are to be modeled, this
level of emissions (i.e., greater than 550 lbs/day) is
considered 'of significant effect' ... only if it leads
to exceedance of concentration standard, ...,,
To determine whether the predicted 822.6 pounds of co per day from
the proposed K-Mart Expansion do threaten continued attainment of
CO standards in Ukiah, a CALINE4 computer dispersion model analysis
was conducted for a worst-case assumption of peak traffic,
dispersion conditions and maximum non-project background
conditions. The computer printout for the CO analysis near the
roadway segments in proximity to the hospital and the nearby
residences is shown in Attachment 2. The hourly CO concentrations
are as follows:
Hospital
Residence N of Clara Ave.
Receptor N of Perkins St.
Residence N of Gobbi St.
Maximum Total'
~ ~ ys Standard
3.9 ppm' 7.9 ppm 20 ppm
4.9 ppm 8.9 ppm 20 ppm
4.5 ppm 8.5 ppm 20 ppm
3.8 ppm 7.8 ppm 20 ppm
Maximum impact + maximum background (4 ppm) = total impact.
The maximum theoretical impact is seen to be well below the most
stringent hourly standard. The maximum theoretical hourly CO
exposure is even less than the B-hour standard of 9 ppm.
Additionally, since neither the rush hour traffic or calm winds
used in the analysis p~rsist for 8 hours the 8-1]our CO impact is
insignificant. '
With proper interpretation of the concept of a significance
threshold, wa thus do not believe that the proposed project, even
before the application of any mitigation, has a predicted impact
that should be considered as significant.
-3-
·
We find that many of the recommended mitigation measures do
not have any reasonable cost/benefit analysis associated with
them. Concepts such as "urban heat island" or building
apartments above the K-Mart might be applicable in Los Angeles
or New York or London, but not necessarily in Ukiah. The
AQMD's recommendation to shield parking areas from view also
does not take into account the public safety aspects of
keeping parking lots visible. We agree that the hospital
proximity requires extra attention to dust and other emissions
control during construction. We also agree, that all
"reasonable and feasible" vehicular emissions and energy
consumption mitigation should be implemented. We do not
believe, however, that many of the AQMD's suggestions meet the
reasonable and feasible criterion.
Please call me if you have any questions regarding the enclosed
materials.
Sincerely,
Hans D. Giroux
Senior Scientist
Giroux & Associates
HDG:ai
ATTAC}t~ENT 1
BAY AREA AQMDCRITERIA FOR ASSESSING
AIR QUALITY IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE
VIII.
ASSESSING THE SIGNIFICAN£~E OF AIR qUALITY IMPACTS
A. Definitions of Siqnificance
The California Environmental Quality Act defines "significant effect
on the environment" to mean "a substantial,, er potentially substantial,
adverse change in the environment" (CEQA Section 21068). This is elaborated
upon in the CEQA GuiCeline~ in the definition "...adverse change in any of the
physical condition~ within the area affected by the project including ... air
· .." (Section 15382). As mentioned in Chapter .II of these GUIDELINES, a
significnt air quality effect is cited as a project which will "violate any
ambient air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations" (CEQA Guidelines Appendix G).
Operationally, from the point of view of the Bay Area 'Air Quality
Management District, a project or plan which violates air quality standards or
is estimated to lead to violations in the future, is recon~ended for mitigation
or alternatives (or denial of approval) by the "lead agency". Ideally the
mitigations and/or alternatives would reduce the impacts to the point wh~re
the project or plan would no longer lead to violations; it therefore would no
longer be classified as of significant effect.
B. ~Measures of Significance
-- .
~est (1~. The proceeding chapter of these GUIDELINES described a
simplified method for estimating carbon monoxide concentrations from motor
vehicle sources. Obviously any project or plan which--when added to bac~-
ground levels--would generate CO concentrations above the State or national CO
standards (eight hour average of 9 parts per millio,,) would be "of significant
effect" by definition.
Test (2~, Because modeling to arrive at concentration levels of other
air contaminants from mobile sources is not called for, except for large
projects, a surrogate quantitative standard is proposed. Emissions totals
from motor vehicles for each suspect contaminant would be derived as described
in the proceeding chapter. The level of emissions from a total of direct and
indirect sources would be considered significant.if any contaminant, other
than carbon monoxide, equalled or exceeded the emissions levels set by BAAQMD
to trigger Best Available Control Technology (BACT) requirements for a
stationary source (Rule 2-2-301.1 of BAAQMD Rules and Regulations). These
emissions levels are listed in Table VIII-A-1. For non-criteria pollutants
classified as hazardous or toxic (Section IV-B), a risk-assessment should be
conducted in addition to the standard analysis.
VIII- 1
L.
TABLE VIII-A-1. AIR CONTAMII~IT EMISSIONS LEVELS CONSIDERED SIGNIFICANT FOR
PURPOSES OF YHESE GUIOELINES (BACT Threshold Levels)
Tons/Day [bs/Da~ Kms_~
Criteria Pollutants (emission rates from motor vehicles in Table VI-B-2)
Hydrocarbons .075 150 68
· Nitrogen Oxides .075 150 68
Sulfur Dioxide .075 150 68
Particulates .075 150 68
Carbon Monoxide* ..~75 550 249
Non-Criteria Pollutants (emissions rates vary greatly by source)
Lead 3.2 1.45
Asbestos .04 .017
Beryllium .002 .0009
Mercury ·
,5 .24
Vinyl Chloride 5,5 2.45
Fluorides 16 7.45
Sulfuric Acid Mist 38 17.4
Hydrogen Sulfide 55 24.8
Total Reduced Sulfur 55 24.8
Reduced Sulfur Compounds 55 24.8'
*Carbon Monoxide levels whicll trigger 8ACT from stationary sources are listed.
However, since CO emissions are to be modeled, this level of emissions is
considered "of significant effect" for purposes of these GUIDELINES only if
it leads to exceedance of concentration standards, or is produced by a
stationary source. '
Test (3). Any project or plan should also beconsiUeredofsignificant
effect if emissions of any criteria contaminant from combined direct and
indirect Sources reaches or exceeds one percent (1~) of county emissions of the
contaminant {compared to the county in which the project or plan will bu). If
emissions are solely from indirect sources the project or plan is to be con-
sidered significant if emissions levels equal or exceed one percent {1%) of the
trar~sportation-related emissions of the county (see pages VII-8 and VII-g).
VIII- 2
ATTACI-II~ENT 2
CALINE4 ROADWAY SOURCE
DISPERSION MODEL:
INPUT AND OUTPUT DATA SHELFS
FOR FILE : kmar~'
1. ~e Variables
U= 0.5 M/S ·
BRG= 0,0 DEGREES
CLASS= G STABILITY
MIXH= 1000.0 H
SIGTH= lO.O DEGREES
ZO= 'lO0.O CM
VD= 0.0 CM/S
VS= 0.0 CH/S
AHB= 3.0 PPM
TEHP= S.O DEGREE (C)
2. Link Deecription
LINK
DESCRIPTION ,
. ORCHARD
· PERKINS
· CLARA
. DRV LINK1
. DRV LINK2
. DRV LINK3
. DRV LINK4
· FORD
· GOBI
· COLLEGE
* EF h
Y1 X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G/HI) (M) (M)
-1000 0 1000 0 AG 1364 20,3 O.S 15.0
-278 -lO00 -390 .:. 974 AG '1360 20,3 0.5 20.0
236 0 219 1000 AG 292 20,3 0.5 15.0
37 31 37 104 AG 385 42.4 0.5 9.0
56 31 56' 104 AG 385 42.4 0.5 9.0
116 24 116 110 AG 385 42.4 0.5 9.0
134 24 134 110 AG 385 42.4 0.5 9.0
414 0 396 1000 AG 400. 20.3 0.5 15.0
-1107 1000 -1107 -1000 AG 1281 20.3 0.5 15.0
-1000 744 1000 794 AG 1677 20.3 0.5 20.0
* MIXW
* L R STPL ~CLT ACCT SPD EFI IDT1 IDT2
L..X * (H) (M) (H) (SEC) (SEC) (HpH) NCYC NDLA VPHO (G/MIN) (SEC) (SEC)
A. 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0,0
B. 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 '0 0 0 0 0,0 0.0 0,0
C.' 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
D. 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
E, 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
F. 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
G. 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0o0 0,0 0.0
H. 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0,0 0.0 0.0
I. 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
J. 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0
: ·
3. Receptor Coordinates
X y Z
IECEPTOR 1 0 232 1.5
~ECEPTOR 2 350 80 1,5
:ECEPTOR 3 -280 100
~ECEPTOR 4 -900 370 1.5
,- r%iU
MODEL RES{ S FOR FILE KMARTU
!
, ~- PRED ZWIND ~. COCN/L'~NK
RECEPTOR * CONC :~ BRG . (PPH)
:* (PPM) .(DEG):~ A 8 C D E F G
:~ ....... · ..... · ........ H
RECPT i · 3.9 :~ 245 z 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
RECPT 2 :~ 4.'9 :~ 2~,i :~ 0.8 0.2 0.1 O.i O.i 0.2 0.2 o.0
RECPT 3 :~ 4.5 ~ 389' ~ 0.4 i.i 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.o
RECPT 4 :~ 3.8 :~ ~09 :~; 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.o o.o 0.0 0.0
· PRED ZWIND ~ iCOCN/L~NK .
· CONC · BRG . (PPM)
RECEPTOR * (PPM) *(DEG)z I J
RECPT. ! ~ 3.9 z 245 z 0.2 0.0
RECPT 2 z 4.9 · 26[ · 0.2
RECPT 3 z 4.5 z 159 · 0.0 0,0
RECPT 4 ~ 3.8 · i09 · 0.0 0.0
W'etlancl~ R~sca~ch4~oclate$, fac,
February 22, 1994
Scott Mommer
Lets Anderson & A~ociatee, Inc.
4630 W. ~acquelyn Ave., Suite 119
Fresno, CA 93722.6405
Dear Mr. Mommer,
On February IS, 1994, Wetlands Research As.~ociates Inc. ('WI~) blotogists visited the
proposed Kmart site in Ulrich, California. The purpose ofth~ visit w~ to determine the presence
of' potential habitat for special interest species. Prior to visiting tim site, a 5catch through the
.Cal~ornia Natural Diversity D~tabase (NDDB) for the.Ukiah quadrangle v,~ conducted. The NDDlq
is s database of'special status species compiled by the CDFG and orgardzcd by USGS 7.5 minute
quadrangles. Only one species, Baker's Meadowfoam (Limnanlhes baker0 was listed i~[ thc NDDB
(Appendix A). Charles W'd[iams, president and rare plant coordbator for the Sard~ddn Chapter of
the California Native Plant Society, w~ contacted prior to making the sltc visit. Mr. Williams
confu'med th~ the Bakeds M~dowFoam sldng, rcpo[te.,d in thc NDDB, occurred several blocks south
of'the Project ha'ca. Thc habitat £or.Bakcr's Mcadowfoam is seasonally saturated or indundated clay
soll in low swales or along die margins ofmmhy areas (CDI~G 1991, p. 135). Mr. W-dliams had also
walked the Project Area and did not fce[ it was a likely h'abitat'for the listed'plant; lie h,~d not~
however, waJkcd the entire site.
During tl~e site visit, WRA biologists surveyed the site south o£ tho Project Area where
Baker's meadowf'oam was re, ported to occur in order to compare a known l~bitat to the Proje~ Area.
This known habitat site had been partially plowed ~d mowed, but supported a diverse herbaceous
conuuunity with scvcra/awalcs of standing water surrounded by wetland ¥cget'ation.
WllA biologists tra(,ersed the enGc Projcct Area and the surrounding open 1auld to assess its
potential as plant and animal habitat. The emire site has bccn disc. cd, gr[[dcd, and mowed. Mr.
Williams, s Iong-tlme resldmt of U~ah, stated that the site has a long history of agricultur,,fl use. The
Project A. rca north of Hospital Drive has no swales or local l~w areas which would off.er potential
habitat for Bakcr's Meadowfo~n. Vegetation cover was domiiiatcd by nou-native ,'mnual grasses
(wild oat and barley) and common weeds (black mustard, geranium, teasel, m~d radish). A rcnmm~t
2169.G East F~ancisco Blvd., Son ~al'aol, CA 94901 (415) 454-8868/FAX (415) 454-O!29
lanevoy, now a shrubby t} ~ wi~h a single oak surrounded by blat. ,~rries, borders appro:~mately
60 feet o£the northwestern ed~lO o£the Projecl Area. Tl~e o~ tree ~houid be preserved; however,
th~ thicke~ it.self docs not WmT~nt special attention as it does not provide u.n/que or tmusual wildl~e
habitat. The majority of the Project A~ea south of'Hospital Drive has also been plowed, mowed, and
graded. The site ~outh ofHospita/Drive do~ not provide potential habitat for sensitive pl~t species.
$~]a~ yours,
//Michael Josselyn, Ph,D. Pre~dent
California Department of Ftsh and Game (CDFO), {991. Annual report on the status of Califomh
State listed th'eatencd and endangered a~uals and plants. CDFG Natural Heritage Division,
Sacramento, CA.
A~pcndi~ A
California Department ~( £sh and Game ***** Nati~ ~ Diversity Data Base
.
LIM/~A~ITHE8 BAKERI
Baker'G Mea~owfoam
......... Status '
~ed~ral~ Category 2
state: Raze
NDDB Element Ranks ........ Other Lists .........
Global~ G1 CDFG: ,
State~ S~.i Audubon:
CNPS List
* ---Habitat Associations-.. CNP$ RED Code: 3-3-3
* Genm~al: ~Pd~SHWATER MARSH, VALLey GRASSLAND
* Microhabtta~: SRASONALLy MOIST OR SATURATED SITES WITHIN GRASSLAND; ALSO
* SWALES, ROADSIDE DITCHES AND MARGINS OF MARSHY AP~As
**~ Element ID: PDLIM02020
Occurrence' N~mber~ 16
Quallty~ None
Type: Natural/Native
~resence: Possibly Extirpated
Trend: Unknown
Main Info Source: BOOT}{, J. 1990 (O~S)
Quad Summary, Ukiah (3912322) ' County(les): Mendocino
Location~ W SIDE HWY 101, 800 YDS S OF TALMAD~E RD IN REDWOOD BUSINESS
PARK.
--Dates Last Seen--
Element, 1990/04/19
Site~ 1990/04/18'
Lat/Long: 39d 07m 44s / 123d llm 41~ Township: 15~
UTM: Zone~10 ~4350889 E483158 Range: 12W .
Mapping Precision: ~PECIFIC (80m Mile) Section: UN LX Q'.::r
Symbol Type~ POINT M~ridian: M
Group Number: More Information? N Acres: 0
M~p Index Number: 20903 More Map Detail? N Elevation: 580
Threats: COMMERciAL ZONED INDUSTRIAL SITE (UNDEVELOPED IN 1990, BUT FILL
PLACED ON SITE). A/{EA USED ILLEGALLY BY ATV ENTHUSI~TS.
Comments: Dietrtbution Notes ~ ON N SIDE OF S~%LL SEASONAL WETLAND.
EcoloNical No,es - SEASONAL WETLANDS WITH PLEUROPOGON DAVYI,
LI~qA~{ES DOUGLASII, JUNCUS SP, ETC. General Notes - OVER 25
PLA/~£S SEEN IN 1990. 9 DAYS LATER O~;ER HAD SITE PLOWED ~
DITCNED, COVERING ALL PLANTS AT THE SITE. Owner/Manager
RareFtnd Repor~
Oate of Report: 02/23/94
Commercial Client
Date Information Purchased: 09/08/93 Page 1
CBBA
BROWN- BUNT N ASSOCIATES, nc.
Au~ation Nol~e Stuc~es , Communio~ Noise · Architectural Acous6cs . Enu[ronmental ~loise Ar~g,~ments
February 22, 1994
Mr. Scott Mommer
LAgS ANDERSEN & ASSOCIATES,
4630 W. J'acquelyu Ave., Suttc
Fresno, California 93T22-6405
gE:
PRELIMINARY NOISE ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED K-MART STORE,
UKIAH, CALIFORNIA
Dear Scott:
As you requested, we have made a prdiminary evaluation of possible' noise impacts from
the proposed store on neighboring properlies. Our evaluation wa{ based on the October
12, 1993 situ plan. A site inspection was not conducted to verify the location and type of
laud use-,, amuud the facility, or other factors that could influence sound propagation.
According to the City of Uldah noise o~dinance adopted In 1980, notse levels due m
machinery and stmilar equipment may not exceed the ambient noise level by 5 dBA. The
ambient noise level is defined a~ the normal baekgro.nd noise level without the contribution
of the noise source ~,nder consideration. If lhe ambient noise level is Del measured, it ts
assumed to be am shown ia Table L
319 West School ADo., Vlsali,L CA 93291 , (209J fi27.4923, Fax; (209) 627.6284
$I$0 Sunrhe glud., SuRe D-5 · Fagr Oa~, CA 95628 ' (916) 961.~22 , F~: (916) 961-~18
_
Lam Andersen & Assoclales, Inc.
February 22, 1994
Pnge 2
As shmvn by Table I. the city noise standard is 45 or.50 dBA in R1 or 11.2 areas dependlng
on thc time of day. The standard ht comrncrclal areas is 65 dBA. Note that them are no
standards during the daytime period between '/:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Tbs city ordlnanc=
does not d¢~ine the metric to be used when applying their etandanta. It is assumed to be
the Equivalent Sound ~vel (LO. The La ts commonly u-~ed to determine nois~ impacts
horn noise ~ources that am stationa~' or occur on private property.
Truck_lSlol~¢~
For the purposes of the prcllrnlnm¥ cvahalion, It was e.~umed that ttucJ~ will am ~e
loading dock ~ea ~a ~c e~g development lo~tcd on ~c mu~ o~ tho si~. By ~g
~s ~out~ ~cy ~I not ~avel near the re, idcntial a[~ no~ of ~¢ store. U~g ~e wont.
ca~ a~mDtion ~at ~o t~ucks tn a ~ven 15-m~u~ peri~ may travel to ~, loading doc~,
fl~e 15-mlnut~ L~ flora thc tmc~ at ~e west prope~y line adja~nt to ~e medial o~
would be about 64 dB& ~ts le~l ts 1¢~ than the 65 dDA ohandard for commcrcl~
prol~rty listed ~ Table I.
Loa.dina DockJSlolse:
Bas~ on measurements of aimilar loading docks, preliminaD' analysis at thc propcrt7 line
adjacent to the mcdic,'d offices susgest~ m~ Lq of about 60 dBA. Again, this ls 1¢~ th~ thc
65 dBA ~hxnda~d liated in Table I.
Although tho mechanical equipment to bc u-~cd in ~ etor¢ haz not l>cen Zl~Cifically
analyzed, we have compared it to equipment that was used on a similar nltlaough larger K-
mart store. PrelJmlna~3' analysis suggests that mechanical equipment noise at thc residential
property lh~c north o[ rite atoro wood be about 4~ dBA, thereby satisfying the 45 dBA
atandard ~pplicd for R.t & P,2 uses between 10:00 p.m. and 7:(10 a.m.
-3/"
Mr, Scott Mommer ..,
L.'~rs Andersen & Associates, Inc. '
Februacy 22, 1994
Pas~ ~
In coticluston, it alalagars slier preIlmlnary anat~ls that noise generated by the proposed K-
mart store in l. lldah will sa~fy the cib/$ nots6 ordinance standarck
If you bare any questions about thiz analysis, please call me.
BCr:dw/94.012
Sincerely,
Bill C. Thies~en
Senior Consultant
MEMORANDUM
POA/K-MART EXPANSION
Air Quality Issues
Proposed Mitigation Measure re Traffic Management Plan
K-Mart shall develop a Traffic Management Plan in order to reduce to a~
acceptable level employee traffic associated with the project and with the existing
Pear Tree Center. The TMP shall include as a minimum the following elements.
A.
Statement of Goals: Assuming an initial Average Vehicle Ridership factor
of 1.20, the AVR for K-Mart will be increased incrementally by
approximately 0.6 annually to reach at least 1.5 AVR by t.he year 2000. The
plan shall include a reasonable method for verification by the AQMD.
Attainment of Goals: The Plan shall provide for the development of
additional requirements and/or incentives in the event that AVR goals are
not inet for any particular year in order to ensure that the following year's
goal is met.
Co
Incentives: The Plan shall include a system of employee incentives and
disincentives to encourage the timely attainment of established goals. All
data pertaining to attainment or non-attainment shall be subject to
verification.
Do
Implementation: The Plan shall provide for the appointment of an on site
employee Traffic Coordinator who 'shall be responsible for the
administration of the TMP. The Plan shall also provide for the adoption of
a reasonable budget and a source of funds reasonably necessary to
implement the TMP.
E°
Enforcement: The Plan shall provide for a reasonable enforcement
mechanism available to the AQMD. The enforcement mechanism shall
provide for the recovery by AQMD of reasonable fees involved in any
enforcement action.
The Traffic Management Plan shall pertain specifically to the K-Mart
project. However, both K-Mart and the owners of the Pear Tree Center shall
exercise their best efforts to secure the voluntary cooperation of other primary
merchandisers in the Center in the TMP. The requirement for the attainment of
stated AVR goals shall be restricted to the K-Mart project because the
participation of other retailers in the Center is voluntary.
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
OF RESOLUTION APPROVING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR USE PERMIT NO. 93-32, KMART
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
To facilitate and enforce the conditions of approval constituting mitigations of this project
to eliminate or reduce environmental impacts to an insignificant level, the following
constitutes this mitigation reporting and monitoring program:
1. Shade Trees. The Director of Community Development shall, prior to issuance
of building permits, review and approve all landscaping plans to ensure at least
one shade tree for every four parking spaces spread throughout the areas.
2. Drainage. The City Engineer shall, prior to issuance of building permits, review
and approve all drainage plans to insure drainage is collected on site and directed
to existing or new storm drainage facilities including on site storm water
interceptors.
3. Ughtlng. The Director of Community Development shall, prior to issuance of
building permits, review and approve all on site lighting plans to insure height and
orientation is such so as to not shine on adjacent residential properties.
4. Orchard Avenue Dedication and Improvements. The City Engineer shall,
prior to issuance of building permits, secure the dedication of fee simple title from
the property owner to the City of Ukiah of twelve feet of property on the west side
of Orchard Avenue north of Perkins Street the entire length of the comer property
(APN # 002-200-38) and ten feet on the north side of Perkins Street west of
Orchard the entire length of the same property and, prior to the granting of the
Certificate of Occupancy for the KMart building, insure that the increased right-of-
way on Orchard Avenue has been improved with a 'right turn only' lane as
depicted by Attachment lA in the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
5. Orchard Avenue Restriping. The City Engineer shall, prior to the granting of
the Certificate of Occupancy for the KMart building, insure that Orchard Avenue
is restriped as a four-lane roadway between Perkins Street and Clare Avenue as
depicted in Attachment lA of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the center
island between Albertsons and J.C. Penny is removed.
6. North Side Orchard Avenue/Perkins Street Intersection Restriping. The City
Engineer shall, prior to the granting of the Certificate of Occupancy for the KMart
building, insure that the north leg of Orchard Avenue at Perkins Street shall is re-
striped to include a southbound left turn lane, a southbound through lane, a
southbound right turn lane, and two northbound through lanes as depicted in
Attachment lA of the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
7. South Side Orchard Avenue/Perkins Street Intersection Reetrlping. The
City Engineer shall, prior to the granting of the Certificate of Occupancy for the
KMart building, insure that the south leg of Orchard Avenue at Perkins Street is
re-striped to include a northbound left turn lane (11 feet wide), a northbound
through lane (11 feet wide), a northbound shared through/right turn lane (13 feet),
and a single southbound lane (13 feet wide) as depicted in Attachment lA of the
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
8. Freeway Signs. The City Engineer shall, prior to the granting of the Certificate
of Occupancy for the KMart building, insure that signs be posted to reroute project-
generated traffic destined for southbound U.S. Highway 101 to travel south past
Perkins Street and access the freeway at the Gobbi Street interchange.
9. Gobbi/Orchard Signalization Fund. The Finance Director shall, prior to the
granting of the Certificate of Occupancy for the KMart building, insure that KMart
has deposited with the City a dollar amount equal to five percent of the total cost
of the signalization at Gobbi and Orchard for use in construction of these traffic
devices.
10. Southbound Off Ramp of US Highway 101 at Perkins Street. The Finance
Director shall, prior to the granting of the Certificate of Occupancy for the KMart
building, insure that the KMart has deposited with the City a dollar amount equal
to the estimated cost of adding a separate right turn lane on the southbound off
ramp of U.S. Highway 101 at Perkins Street as depicted in attachment 1B of the
Mitigated Negative Declaration, and the City Engineer shall, prior to the granting
of the Certificate of Occupancy for the KMart building, insure that the application
for these improvements is filed and project construction is coordinated.
11. State/Clara Signalization Fund. The Finance Director shall, prior to the
granting of the Certificate of Occupancy for the KMart building, insure that KMart
has deposited with the City a dollar amount equal to five percent of the total cost
of relocating the signal at Scott and State or Norton and State to Clara and State.
12. Orchard/Perkins Interaection Improvements. The City Engineer shall, prior
to the granting of the Certificate of Occupancy for the KMart building, insure the
KMart has completed all of the upgrades to the traffic signals, including new
controller, related equipment, and relocation of poles and related equipment, at
Orchard and Perkins to accommodate the expanded rights-of-way (without
dedication of property at the northeast comer of the intersection), in accordance
with the plans and specifications approved by the City Engineer.
13. Orchard Avenue Frontage Improvements. The Director of Community
Development shall, prior to the issuance of building permits, review and approve
landscaping and streetscape plans to insure that a minimum of 20 feet of
landscaping, including a meandering sidewalk, with berming, hedging, or screen
walls/fencing is provided along the entire Orchard Avenue property frontage.
14. Existing Center Architecture. The Director of Community Development shall,
prior to the issuance of building permits, review and approve plans for the northern
exposure of the existing center (Albertsons and Big 5) to insure the structures are
improved with architectural features, colors, and/or landscaping to present a more
aesthetically pleasing appearance and prior to the granting of the Certificate of
Occupancy, insure said improvements are completed.
15. Preferential Parking. The Director of Community Development shall, prior to
the issuance of building permits, review and approve the site plan to insure
preferential parking for both employees and customers who rideshare to KMart
shall be provided.
16. Construction Measures. The Building Official and City Engineer shall, during
the construction phase of development, insure that the following measures are
complied with:
a. exposed earth surfaces shall be watered twice daily or as conditions
warrant to reduce airborne particulates;
b. all vehicles shall use tarpaulins or other effective covers when
transporting materials to and from the project site;
c. the maximum speed of vehicles on site shall be 15 mph to reduce the
amount of dust generated;
d. permanent soils stabilization measures (paving, landscaping, etc.) shall
be implemented immediately following the completion of construction of any
portion of the site. If a portion of the site will be idle for longer than ten
working days and the soil has been disturbed on that portion, the soil shall
be stabilized (seeding and watering until growth is evident, dust palliative
for suppressants, etc.);
e. all clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation activities, shall be
ceased during winds greater than 15 mph;
f. streets adjacent to the project site shall be manually swept or flushed, as
needed, to remove silt which may have accumulated from construction
activities;
g. no construction vehicles are permitted to utilize Clare Avenue;
h. construction equipment shall be properly tuned and a maintenance
schedule shall be available within a 24 hour request.
17. Annexation of Property. The Director of Community Development shall,
within six months of the approval of Use Permit No. 93-32, secure an agreement
with the property owner shall to annex property north of Orr Creek, south of Brush
Street (Mendocino County Assessor Parcel Numbers 002-101-01 and 002-030-05)
to ensure completion of required improvements to this area.
18. Dedication of Orchard Avenue. The City Engineer shall, prior to the
issuance of building permits, insure that the property owner dedicates in fee simple
to the City of Ukiah 66 feet of right of way for the extension of Orchard Avenue
from the Orr Creek bridge to Brush Street, and 33 feet of right-of-way on the east
side of Orchard Avenue from Ford Street to the Orr Creek bridge.
19. Employee Transportation Management Program. The Director of
Community Development shall, with the concurrance of the Air Quality
Management District, prior to the issuance of building permits, insure that
implementation of the contents and schedule prescribed in the March 11, 1994
"Transportation Management Plan for the KMart Store #7702 Ukiah, CA", cited as
Attachment 2 of the April 18, 1994 letter to Mr. Michael F. Harris from David
Morrow, Air Quality Management District. The District shall monitor the program's
ongoing effectiveness and the achievement of Average Vehicle Ridership of 1.5
by the year 2000.
20. Transit Stops. The City Engineer shall, prior to the issuance of building
permits, review and approve street improvement plans for modifications to Orchard
Avenue to insure two transit turnouts (one in each direction) are provided by KMart
as approved by the City Engineer and located with the assistance of Mendocino
Transit Authority.
21. Pedestrian Access. The Director of Community Development shall, prior to
the issuance of building permits, review and approve the site plan for the KMart
project to insure the parking lots are redesigned to provide safer walks and that
the walkway in the northwest corner of the existing center is improved so that
shoppers can readily walk between the existing and new center.
22. Air Quality Offset Fund. The Director of Finance shall, prior to the granting
of the Certificate of Occupancy for the KMart building, insure that an 'Air Quality
Offset Fund' is established by ordinance by the City of Ukiah, and that KMart
Corporation has deposited $36,250 into said fund.
E~H~BT A
UP ~ NEG DEC PESO REV