HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-24 CC Reso - Findings for Costco Revised EIR-Findings to Address Sig. Environ. Impcts-Stmnt of Overriding Considerations1
1
RESOLUTION NO. 2017-24
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH (1) MAKING FINDINGS
PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ("CEQA") GUIDELINES
SECTION 15090 IN CONNECTION WITH THE CERTIFICATION OF THE COSTCO WHOLESALE
REVISED PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND (2) ADOPTING FINDINGS TO
ADDRESS SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH PUBLIC
RESOURCES CODE ("PRC") SECTION 21081 AND CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15091
AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH PRC
§21081(b) AND CEQA GUIDELINES §15093.
WHEREAS:
1. On June 21, 2016, the California Court of Appeal in Citizens for Safety First v. City of Ukiah
et.al., Case No. A145581, held that under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
the City could not add as an Addendum to the environmental impact report (EIR) for the
Costco Wholesale Project an Energy Analysis after the EIR had been certified by the City
Council. Except for this procedural error, the court of appeals found that the EIR fully
complied with CEQA. Accordingly, it remanded the case to the Mendocino County Superior
Court with instructions to issue a writ of mandate compelling the City to set aside its
certification of the Costco EIR and its approval of the Costco Project and to circulate a draft
Energy Analysis section in the EIR for public comment and consider the Energy Analysis
before recertifying a FEIR for and approving the Costco Project; and
2. On September 23, 2016, the Mendocino County Superior Court issued a peremptory writ of
mandate which directed the City to set aside its certification of the EIR by Resolution No.
2013-34, dated December 18, 2013 and its Findings and Statement of Overriding
Considerations by Resolution 2013-35, dated December 18, 2013, its Findings of Fact for
an adoption of the Addendum to the EIR by Resolution No. 2014-47, and its amendment to
the land use designation for the Costco Project site from Industrial/Automotive Commercial
to Retail Commercial, adopted on January 14, 2014; and
3. On November 16, 2016, in Resolution No. 2016-62, the City Council set aside the approvals
described in Recital No. 2, above; and
4. On December 2, 2016, the City filed its return to the peremptory writ of mandate showing its
compliance with its commands; and
On February 12, 2017, in order to solicit review and public comment, the City gave Notice
of Recirculation to responsible agencies, organizations and interested parties of a portion of
the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Costco Project, consisting of Section 3.15
Recirculated Partial Draft Environmental Impact Report ("RPDEIR"), containing an energy
analysis of the project in compliance with Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines and California
Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal. App. 4th 173. Pursuant to 14
California Code of Regulations ("CCR") §15088, subsections (c) and (f) of the CEQA
Guidelines, the City limited public comment to the RPDEIR; and
On March 27, 2017, the 45 -day public comment period ended; and
1
7. The City has prepared a Final RPEIR for inclusion in the Final EIR ("FEIR") for the Costco
Project, which includes the responses to comments on the RPEIR which were submitted
during the 45 -day public comment period. The final RPEIR supplements the Final EIR
approved by Resolution No. 2013-34, which resolution is attached hereto as Exhibit A and
incorporated herein by this reference; and
8. By this Resolution, the City Council (1) makes findings in support of its decision and certifies
the Final EIR for the Costco Project, including a mitigation monitoring and reporting program
for the Costco Wholesale Project, which is comprised of: (a) the Draft EIR, dated January
2013; (b) the Final EIR, dated November 2013 as approved by the City Council on
December 18, 2013 ("2013 EIR"), through the adoption of Exhibit A (Resolution No. 2013-
34),; (c) the RPDEIR, dated February 2017, and the Final RPEIR, dated April 2017 which is
adopted by this Resolution and (2) readopts the Findings Pursuant to Public Resources
Code ("PRC") Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 and a Statement of
Overriding Considerations as set forth in Resolution No. 2013-35, attached hereto as
Exhibit B, and incorporated herein, as required by PRC Section 21081(b) and CEQA
Guidelines Section 15093; and
9. Based on the certification of the FEIR for the Costco Project and the findings herein, the
Planning Commission has recommended and the City Council has determined to introduce
and adopt an ordinance re -designating the Costco Site with a Retail Commercial land use
classification;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Ukiah finds as follows:
1. The EIR for the Costco Project was prepared and made available for public review and
comment in full compliance with the procedures set forth in CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.
2. The revised EIR with the Energy Analysis was considered by the Planning Commission at a
public meeting on May 24, 2017 and the Planning Commission voted 4-1 to recommend that
the City Council certify the revised FEIR for the Costco Project, which was considered by the
City Council at a public meeting on June 7, 2017.
3. The City Council has considered all documents submitted during the public comment period
for the revised EIR with the Energy Analysis and all testimony presented during its meetings
as well as the revised FEIR, the Staff Reports, dated February 13, 2017 to March 29, 2017,
the Costco Warehouse and Fueling Station project files, and the minutes or recording of the
May 24, 2017 Planning Commission meeting. The Staff Reports are incorporated herein by
reference. The City Council has independently reviewed and analyzed this resolution and the
revised FEIR for the Costco Project and they accurately reflect the Council's independent
judgment and analysis.
4. The findings in Exhibit A (Resolution No. 2013-34) are incorporated herein by reference as
though set forth in full.
5. The findings in Exhibit B (Resolution No. 2013-35) are incorporated herein by reference as
though set forth in full.
2
6. The Statement of Overriding Considerations as set forth in Exhibit B are incorporated herein
by reference as though set forth in full.
7. Based on the Energy Analysis in Section 3.15.4 of the revised FEIR and the mitigations
described in Section 3.15.5, the Costco Project will not have a significant adverse
environmental impact. The Project would have a significant adverse impact on the environment
from its use of energy, if the energy use by the Project would (1) result in wasteful, inefficient,
or unnecessary consumption of energy, (2) conflict with existing energy standards and
regulations, or (3) adversely affect local and regional energy resources or require additional
capacity.
8. The City Council finds that energy use by the Costco Project will not have any of the significant
adverse environmental impacts described in No. 7, above.
9. The Costco Project will not result in the inefficient, unnecessary, or wasteful consumption
of energy per Public Resources Code Section 21100(b)(3):
a. Operational Energy Use: Site and Structures
i. Energy Use During Construction:
1. The building system uses pre-engineered, metal components. The
metal building system contains 80% recycled content and is itself
100% recyclable. This results in the consumption of less fossil fuels
during transportation, as compared to conventional masonry, due to
the need for less material for the project.
Locally extracted and manufactured building materials will be
utilized where feasible. Pre -manufactured building components,
including structural framing and metal panels, are designed to
minimize waste during construction.
ii. Operational Energy Usage: Site and Structures
1. The Project building and site design contain the following energy
conserving features that the City Council finds will avoid inefficient,
unnecessary, or wasteful consumption of energy:
a. Parking lot light standards are designed to provide even light
distribution and use 20% less energy compared to a greater
number of fixtures at lower heights.
b. Pre -manufactured building components, including structural
framing and metal panels, are designed to minimize waste
during construction. Pre -manufactured metal wall panels
with insulation are designed to conserve energy by
increasing R -value and solar reflectivity. Building heat
absorption is reduced by a decrease in the thermal mass of
3
the metal wall when compared to a typical masonry block
wall.
c. Pre -manufactured building components, including structural
framing and metal panels, are designed to minimize waste
during construction. Pre -manufactured metal wall panels
with insulation are designed to conserve energy by
increasing R -value and solar reflectivity. Building heat
absorption is reduced by a decrease in the thermal mass of
the metal wall when compared to a typical masonry block
wall.
d. Reflective roof material will meet the requirements for the
USEPA's Energy Star energy efficiency program. Reflective
roofs produce lower heat absorption and thereby lower
energy usage during the summer months.
e. Triple glazed skylights are used on the roof to reduce the
need for interior lighting. A "daylight harvesting" system
monitors and adjusts the mechanical and lighting systems in
order to conserve energy. The system includes the skylights,
light monitors, energy efficient lighting fixtures, and
associated control systems. On a typical sunny day, fewer
than one third of the interior lights are needed.
f. Tree plantings are planned to reduce summer heat gain
within the parking field.
g. Proposed planting incorporates a substantial amount of
drought tolerant species.
h. The proposed irrigation system incorporates the use of deep
root watering bubblers for parking lot shade trees to
minimize water usage and ensure that water goes directly to
the intended planting areas.
iii. Ongoing Energy and Water Use:
a. The Project's energy performance would be 12% more
efficient than the Title 24 performance standards.
b. Project includes high efficiency restroom water fixtures,
which result in a water savings of 40% beyond the building
standard.
c. The Project incorporates drought resistant landscaping and
water -efficient irrigation reduced demand for water.
1
1
1
1
b. Operational Energy Use: Transportation
i. Mitigation Measures addressed in the FEIR sections 3.2.2b, 3.10.2a,
3.10.2b, and 3.10.2c. result in an estimated 8.97% savings in transportation
energy, which does not include the likely energy savings from current
Costco customers in the market area of the Project not driving to the
Costco store in Sonoma County.
10. The Project will not conflict with energy standards and regulations.
a. The proposed warehouse building will not exceed applicable state standards,
because it will be 12% more efficient than the Title 24 performance standards.
11. The Project will not have an adverse impact on local and regional energy resources
and will not require additional energy production capacity.
a. The City of Ukiah has adequate capacity to serve the project from existing
distribution facilities.
b. The City of Ukiah derives 49% of its electrical energy from renewable energy
sources such as small hydroelectric energy and geothermal energy. It derives
another 25% of its electrical energy from large hydroelectric generating facilities.
c. Onsite renewable energy could come from solar energy panels. The project
includes pre -wiring and an engineered roof to accommodate solar panels, which
Costco will evaluate after the warehouse store is in operation based on cost of the
solar system, tax incentives, the quantity of solar energy producible, and the cost
of energy from Ukiah's Electric Utility.
Adopted on June 7, 2017, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Crane, Mulheren, Doble, and Mayor Brown
NOES: Councilmember Scalmanini
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Ji n. Brown, Mayor
5
ATTEST:
Kristine Lawler, City Clerk
1
1
1
EXHIBIT A
1
2 RESOLUTION NO. 2013-34
3
4 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF UKIAH MAKING FINDINGS
5 PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
6 ACT ("CEQA") GUIDELINES SECTION 15090 IN CONNECTION
7 WITH THE CERTIFICATION OF THE COSTCO WHOLESALE
8 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 consists of the Draft EIR, as revised, plus the Final EIR, plus the responses
20 to late comments received on the Final EIR included in the Addition to the Final EIR. The
21 Final EIR includes all written comments received regarding the Draft BR, all responses
22 to comments, 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 (pp. 1-2 and 1-3). The following is a summary of the City's environmental
26 review for this project.
27
28 A. The City issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for a 30 -day comment period between
29 November 6 and December 6, 2011. 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 November 21,
35 2011 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 January 30, 2013. The Notice of Availability was
40 published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on January 27, 2013. The Notice of Completion
41 was delivered to the State Clearinghouse on January 30, 2013 (State Clearinghouse
42 # 2011112025). The review period closed on March 15, 2013 at 5:00 p.m. The
43 Planning Commission of the City of Ukiah held a public hearing to receive comment
44 on the Draft EIR on February 27, 2013. Seventy-three (73) written comment letters
45 were received during the review period, in addition to comments made at the
46 Planning Commission hearing on February 27t. These comments are included in
47 their entirety in Chapter 2 of the Final EIR.
48
49 C. The Final EIR was released on November 1, 2013, 21 days prior to the Planning
50 Commission public hearing regarding EIR certification and project consideration.
1
1
2 D. On November 21, 2013, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the
3 certification of the EIR and voted (3-1) to recommend the City Council certify the
4 EIR.
5
6 E. On December 4, 2013, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the
7 certification of the EIR, received public comment on the EIR, closed the public
8 hearing on the EIR, and continued its consideration of the EIR to the December 18,
9 2013 meeting.
10
11 F. On December 18, 2013, the City Council completed its consideration of the EIR.
12
13 4. The custodian of the Project record is the City of Ukiah Planning and Community
14 Development Department. The documents and other materials, which constitute the
15 record of proceedings for the City's certification of the EIR and potential approval of the
16 Project, including, but not limited to the items described in Public Resources Code
17 Section 21167.6(e), are located at the Planning and Community Development
18 Department, 300 Seminary Ave., Ukiah, CA 95482, and are available for review during
19 normal City business hours.
20
21 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Ukiah finds as
22 follows:
23
24 1. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15090 (Title 14 of the California Code of
25 Regulations, Section 15090) the City Council certifies that the Final EIR has been
26 completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the
27 State CEQA Guidelines. The City Council makes the following findings:
28
29 A. The Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA.
30
31 B. The City retained ESA of San Francisco, California, to prepare the Draft and Final
32 EIR documents for the proposed Project. The EIR was prepared under the
33 supervision and direction of the City Planning and Community Development
34 Department staff and presented to the City Council and Planning Commission.
35 The EIR was presented to the Planning Commission on November 21, 2013 for
36 review and consideration of the information contained in the Final EIR. The
37 Planning Commission recommended certification of the EIR. The EIR was
38 presented to the City Council on December 4, and December 18, 2013 for review
39 and consideration of the information contained in the Final EIR. The City
40 Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR.
41
42 C. The Final EIR reflects the City's independent judgment exercised in accordance
43 with CEQA Section 21082.1 (c) by reviewing, analyzing and revising material
44 prepared by the consultant; circulating the Draft EIR as a City document and
45 certifying that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the lead
46 agency.
47
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 D. The City may reject testimony that it believes is false, not supported by
2 evidence, or not as well supported as the evidence underlying the testimony and
3 analysis of its own experts, as "evidence that is not credible" does not qualify as
4 "substantial evidence" under CEQA. (CEQA Guidelines §15064 subd, (f)(5).
5 Accordingly, the City Council finds that public comments suggesting that the
6 aesthetic, biological, energy, noise, traffic, and urban decay -causing impacts of
7 the Project are greater than those disclosed in the EIR, even with mitigation, are
8 based on assumptions and analysis that are erroneous in Tight of the expert
9 testimony from the City's consultants and experts and other evidence in the
10 record regarding the ultimate significance (including after implementation of
11 mitigation) of these impacts of the Project.
12
13 2. The proposed Project has the potential to result in significant impacts on the
14 environment. Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR is the required environmental
15 documentation for the City's consideration of the Project.
16
17 Adopted on December 18, 2013 by the following roll call vote:
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 •''lip E. Baldwin, Mayor
27
28
29
30 ATTEST:
31
32 ��
33 Kristine Lawler, City Clerk
34
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Councilmembers Crane, Thomas, Landis, and Mayor Baldwin
None
None
None
3
1
1
1
EXHIBIT B
RESOLUTION NO. 2013-35
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH MAKING FINDINGS
PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE ("PRC") SECTION 21081 AND CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ("CEQA") GUIDELINES SECTION 15091 AND A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH PRC §21081(b)
AND GUIDELINES §15093 IN CONNECTION WITH THE DECISION TO CERTIFY THE COSTCO
WHOLESALE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND APPROVE THE COSTCO
WAREHOUSE STORE AND FUELING STATION PROJECT
WHEREAS:
1 The City Council has certified as adequate and complete an Environmental Impact Report
("EIR") for the Costco Wholesale Project. The EIR consists of a Draft Environmental Impact
Report. dated January 2013, ("DEIR"), and a Final Environmental Impact Report, including
responses to comments on the DEIR, dated November 2013, and additional responses to
late comments, dated December 2013, ("FEIR"); and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program; and
2. The Project includes a Rezoning to amend the Airport Industrial Park Planned Development
to change the Land Use Designation of the Costco Project site to Retail Commercial from
Industrial/Auto Commercial and Light Industrial/Mixed Use and a Site Development Permit in
order to allow the construction of a 148,000 square foot membership -based retail store and
20 -pump fueling station on a 15.33 acre site on the east side of Airport Park Boulevard
between Ken Fowler Auto Center and the southern terminus of Airport Park Boulevard, and
3. The EIR has identified significant environmental impacts of the Project; and
4. The EIR has determined that not all of the project specific adverse environmental impacts
can be mitigated to less than significant levels; and
5. The Final EIR has found that certain Air Quality, Transportation and Traffic, and Global
Climate Change impacts cannot be mitigated to a level considered less than significant, and
6. As stated below, the City Council has made the findings and the statement of overriding
considerations required under CEQA, where, as here, a project has one or more adverse
environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance; and
7. The Project Proponent hereby undertakes a legally binding commitment to comply with the
mitigation measures under the Project Proponent's control, which are incorporated into the
Project and/or included as conditions of project approval; and
8. The City Council has determined to approve the Project; and
9. The City Council has based its decision on the whole of the record, which includes those
items identified in Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e), including, but not limited to,
the EIR. including the appendices to the EIR and the staff reports; and
10 The record of proceedings upon which this decision is based, including the Costco
Warehouse EIR and Costco Warehouse and Fueling Station project file, is maintained in the
office of the Planning and Community Development Department, Civic Center, 300
Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482, as the custodians of the record, and is available for
public inspection upon request of the Director of Planning and Community Development or
his designee; and
11. PRC section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines section 15091 provide that the City shall not
approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed which identifies one or
more significant environmental impacts, unless it makes specified findings; and
12 PRC section 21081(b) and CEQA Guidelines section 15093 require a Statement of
Overriding Considerations to approve a project that will have any unmitigated adverse
environmental impacts.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Ukiah finds as follows.
1 The EIR was prepared and made available for public review and comment in full compliance
with the procedures set forth in CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.
2 The EIR was considered by the Planning Commission at a public meeting on November 21
2013 and the Planning Commission voted 3-1 to recommend the City Council certify the EIR,
and the EIR was considered by the City Council at public meetings on December 4 and
December 18, 2013.
3. The City Council has considered all documents submitted during the public comment period
for the EIR and all testimony presented during its meetings as well as the EIR, the Staff
Reports, dated November 21, 2013, December 4, 2013, and December 18, 2013, the Costco
Warehouse and Fueling Station project files, and the minutes or recording of the November
21, 2013, Planning Commission meeting. The Staff Reports are incorporated herein by
reference. The City Council has independently reviewed and analyzed this resolution and
the EIR and they accurately reflect the Council's judgment
4. The Project is described in the EIR. including the DEIR at pp. 2-1 to 2-14. and FEIR pp 4-1 to
4-5 This description is incorporated herein by reference.
5. The EIR evaluated the impacts of the Project itself as well as its impacts in combination with
impacts from past, present and probable future projects. Those impacts, both individual and
cumulative. along with recommended mitigation measures and suggested conditions, are
summarized in Table ES -1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures, FEIR pp. ES -3 to
ES -14,
Measures designed to avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of
the Project as identified in the EIR are set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Plan ("Plan"), attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. The
measures constitute binding commitments of the Project Proponent, if the Project is
approved by responsible agencies upon acceptable conditions and undertaken by the
Project Proponent, and those measures shall be incorporated into the Project and monitored
in accordance with the Plan
a. Aesthetics:
Proiect Specific Impacts (Light and Glare): The EIR concluded implementation of the
Project may create a new source of substantial light or glare which could adversely affect
daytime or nighttime views of the area. (DEIR, pp. 3.1-10 to 3 1-11) The EIR identified
mitigation measures that would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. (FEIR,
pp Aesthetics mitigation measure 3.1.2) The mitigation measures include: locating,
aiming, or shielding light fixtures to minimize light trespass over property lines; use of full
cut-off and night-time friendly fixtures; preparation of a photometric plan that complies
with specific quantified Tight levels; and turning off all or 50% of parking lot lighting one
hour after store closure
The Project Proponent commits to these mitigation measures as conditions of approval
1
1
1
1
1
1
for the rezoning and site development permit. (That commitment and all Project
Proponent commitments referenced in these findings will be made conditions of the Site
Development Permit required for the project which is the mechanism for enforcing the
Project Proponent's commitment ) The City Council, therefore, finds that these mitigation
measures constitute changes or alterations which have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project which will mitigate or avoid or reduce to insignificance the adverse
environmental aesthetic effect of potential light and glare.
b. Geology and Soils:
Project Specific Impacts (Seismic Ground Shaking): The EIR concludes that the Project
could expose people to injury or structures to damage from potential rupture of a known
earthquake fault, strong ground shaking, seismic -related ground failure, or landslides
(DEIR, pp. 3.4-10 to 3.4-13) The EIR includes mitigation measures that would reduce
the seismic ground -shaking impacts to a Tess than significant level. (Geology and Soils
mitigation measures 3.41a) The mitigation measures include: preparation of a
site-specific design level geotechnical report prepared by a registered geotechnical
engineer to be submitted to the Building Inspection Division as part of the building permit
submittal required for construction of the Project; incorporation of the recommendations
included in the geotechnical report into the foundation design, earthwork, and site
preparation Project plans; and that the Project structural engineer review site specific
investigations, provide any additional mitigations necessary to meet Building Code
requirements, and incorporation of all applicable mitigation measures from the
investigation into the structural design and ensure that all structural plans meet current
Building Code requirements; City review of all Project plans and other relevant
construction permits for compliance with the applicable geotechnical investigation and
Code requirements.
Project Specific Impact (Liquefaction and Earthquake Induced Settlement): The EIR
concludes the Project could expose people to injury or structures to damage from
potential liquefaction and earthquake induced settlement. (DEIR, pp. 3.4-10 to 3.4-13)
The EIR includes mitigation measures that would reduce the liquefaction and earthquake
induced settlement impacts to a less than significant level. (Geology and Soils mitigation
measure 3.4.1 b) The mitigation measures include: submittal of a site -speck, design
level geotechnical investigation prepared by a registered geotechnical engineer that
complies with all state and local code requirements, includes site specific mitigations for
mitigation of liquefiable soils; identified mitigations reviewed for compliance with CGS
Geology Guidelines related to protection of public safety from liquefaction; incorporation
of all mitigations in the site specific mitigations into the Project plans for foundation
design, earthwork and site preparation; review of the site specific recommendations by
the Project structural engineer and the inclusion of recommendations from the Project
structural engineer into the structural design plans and compliance of all structural plans
with current Building Code requirements; registered City geotechnical engineer or third
party engineer retained to review the geotechnical report and site-specific geotechnical
investigation, approve the final report, and require compliance with all geotechnical
mitigations; and City review of Project plans for grading foundations, structural,
infrastructure, and all other relevant construction permits to ensure compliance with the
geotechnical investigation and Code requirements
Proiect Specific Impacts (Fill Soils) The EIR concluded that the Project could be located
on fill soils that are potentially unstable. or that could become unstable as a result of the
Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse. (DEIR p 3.4 14 to 3.4 15) The EIR includes mitigation measures
that would reduce this impact to a less than significant level (Geology and Soils
mitigation measures 3.4.1 a and 3 4.1 b) The mitigations include all of the mitigations for
seismic ground -shaking, liquefaction, and earthquake induced settlement identified
above.
The Project Proponent commits to these mitigation measures for the above-described
effects on geology and soils as conditions of approval for the rezoning and site
development permit. The City Council, therefore, finds that these mitigation measures
constitute changes or alterations which have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which will mitigate or avoid or reduce to insignificance the adverse environmental
effects relating to geology and soils.
c. Hazards and Hazardous Materials:
Prosect Specific Impacts: The EIR concluded that during construction, the Project could
create a hazard to the public or environment through upset or accident conditions
involving the use or release of hazardous materials or the release of hazardous wastes
to the environment resulting from contaminated soil and/or groundwater. (DEIR. p
3.5-14) Although the available studies suggest no contaminated soil and/or groundwater
would be found on site, mitigation has been included in the unlikely event contamination
is encountered. (Hazards and Hazardous Materials mitigation measure 3.5 2) The
mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. The
mitigation measure includes: the halting of work if contaminated soil and/or groundwater
is suspected or discovered during Project construction activities: identification of the type
and extent of the contamination in coordination with overseeing authorities, development
of an appropriate method to remediate the contamination, and determination of the
appropriate disposal method
The Project Proponent commits to these mitigation measures for the above-described
impacts relating to hazards and hazardous materials as conditions of approval for the
rezoning and site development permit The City Council, therefore. finds that these
mitigation measures constitute changes or alterations which have been required in, or
incorporated into. the project which will mitigate or avoid or reduce to insignificance the
adverse environmental effect relating to hazards and hazardous materials.
d. Hydrology and Water Quality:
Project Specific Impacts (Dewatering and Discharge): The EIR concluded that
subsurface excavation during Project construction could require dewatering which may
result in a discharge that could adversely affect water quality (DEIR, p. 3.6-16 to 3 6-17)
The EIR includes mitigation measures that would reduce this impact to a less than
significant level (Hydrology and Water Quality mitigation measure 3 6.2) The mitigation
measures include. coordination with the City regarding dewatering activities and
compliance with provisions of the dewatering permit; applicant Submittal of a Report of
Wastewater Discharge and Application for NPDES Permit along with a feasibility study
for the reuse of the groundwater to RWQCB; and discharge flows only upon receipt of the
Discharge Authorization Letter from the RWQCB (Hydrology and Water Quality
mitigation measure 3 6.2)
Project Specific Impacts (Impervious Surfaces and Runoff) The EIR concluded that the
installation of new impervious surfaces associated with the Costco building and parking
lot would increase the impervious surfaces on the site which could decrease stormwater
infiltration and increase stormwater flows, causing downstream flooding, erosion or
sedimentation. (DEIR, pp. 3.6-17 to 3.6 19) The EIR includes mitigation measures that
would reduce this impact to a level considered less than significant. (Hydrology and
Water Quality mitigation measure 3 6 4) These mitigations include preparation and
submittal of a Final Drainage Plan by the Applicant to the City Engineer and North Coast
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
Regional Water Quality Control Board for the final design/plan of the Project that includes
the proposed storm drainage system, vegetated swales, and water quality features,
storm water system designed, implemented, and maintained such that there would be no
net increase in Project condition downstream runoff; Final Drainage Plan based on
modeled runoff volumes and flow rates specific to the with -Project conditions; design and
implementation by the Applicant of volume- and/or flow- based Treatment Control Best
Management Practices (BMPs) as defined in attachment 4 of the State Water Resources
Control Board small municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) General Permit.
and submittal of design drawings and any related documents or specifications to the City
of Ukiah and North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to implementation
(implementation of Hydrology and Water Quality mitigation measure 3.6.4).
Cumulative Impacts: The EIR concludes implementation of the Project, in conjunction
with other foreseeable development in the City could result in cumulative hydrology and
water quality impacts. (DEIR, p. 3.6-21 and 3.6-22) The EIR includes mitigation
measures that would reduce this impact to a level that is considered less than significant
(Hydrology and Water Quality mitigation measure 3.6.4) The mitigations include all of
the mitigations for impervious surfaces and runoff as described above (Hydrology and
Water Quality mitigation measure 3.6.4).
The Project Proponent commits to these mitigation measures for the above-descnbed
impacts relating to hydrology and water quality as conditions of approval for the rezoning
and site development permit. The City Council, therefore, finds that these mitigation
measures constitute changes or alterations which have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project which will mitigate or avoid or reduce to insignificance the adverse
environmental effects relating to hydrology and water quality.
e. Biological Resources:
Proiect Specific Impacts (Special Status Species): The EIR concluded
construction -related activities could affect special status species (nesting birds) (DEIR,
pp. 3.12-12 to 3.12-13) The EIR includes mitigation measures that would reduce this
impact to a level considered less than significant. (Biological Resources mitigation
measure 3.12.1) The mitigation measures include: preconstruction survey by a qualified
biologist of all potential habitats within 30 days of the start of grading or other
construction -related activities if construction will occur during bird nesting season
(February 15 through August 31); in the event an active nest is found, a no -work buffer
zone is required or as required by the Department of Fish and Game; and no mitigation is
required if the preconstruction survey indicates nests are inactive or potential habitat is
unoccupied. (Biological Resources mitigation measure 3.12.1)
The Project Proponent commits to these mitigation measures for the above-described
impacts on biological resources (special status species) as conditions of approval for the
rezoning and site development permit. The City Council, therefore, finds that these
mitigation measures constitute changes or alterations which have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project which will mitigate or avoid or reduce to insignificance the
adverse environmental effects on biological resources.
f. Cultural Resources:
Project Specific Impacts (Archeological and Paleontological Resources): The EIR
determined that ground disturbing activities associated with implementation of the
Project could result in a substantial adverse change to previously unknown archeological
or paleontological resources and identified mitigations to reduce this impact to a level
considered less than significant. (DEIR, pp 3.14-10 to 3.14-11) These mitigation
g.
measures include. ceasing activity in the vicinity of the find until the find is evaluated by a
qualified archeologist and a Native American representative; notifying the City of Ukiah in
the event the find may be significant; development of a treatment plan for resources
determined to be significant; and consultation with Native American representatives in
determining the appropriate treatment for prehistoric or Native American cultural
resources. (Cultural Resources mitigation measure 3.14.2)
Project Specific Impacts (Discovery of Human Remains). The EIR also determined that
ground disturbing construction activities associated with implementation of the Project
could result in damage to previously unknown human remains and identified mitigation
measures to reduce this impact to a level considered less than significant. (DEIR, p
3.14-11) These mitigation measures include: compliance with Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5 which requires no further disturbance until the County Coroner has made
the necessary findings as to ongin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98,
coroner notification of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in the event
the remains are determined to be of Native Amencan descent; and NAHC determination
of the Most Likely Descendent, who will assist in determining disposition of the remains
(Cultural Resources mitigation measure 3.14.3)
The Project Proponent commits to these mitigation measures for the above-described
cultural resources impacts as conditions of approval for the rezoning and site
development permit. The City Council, therefore, finds that these mitigation measures
constitute changes or alterations which have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which will mitigate or avoid or reduce to insignificance the adverse environmental
effects on cultural resources.
Transportation and Traffic (Public Transit, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Facilities):
Project Specific Impacts The EIR determined that implementation of the Project would
conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, pedestrian, or
bicycle facilities or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. (DEIR.
p. 3 10-28) The EIR identified mitigation measures that would reduce this impact to a
less than significant level (FEIR, Transportation and Traffic mitigation measures 3 10.2a,
3.10 2b. 3.10 2c) These mitigation measures include. providing a location for a bus
shelter on the Project site and construction of a concrete pad for a bus shelter.
construction of sidewalks as shown on the Project plans; installation of high visibility
crosswalks across dnveway entrances to the site and installation of ADA compliant curb
ramps, installation of pedestrian connections from the Project frontage and main parking
area to the store entrance, installation of a Class III bike route on Airport Park Boulevard.
and installation of bike parking as required by Airport Industnal Park Planned
Development Ordinance 1098.
The Project Proponent commits to these mitigation measures for the above-described
impacts relating to public transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities as conditions of
approval for the rezoning and site development permit. The City Council, therefore, finds
that these mitigation measures constitute changes or alterations which have been
required in, or incorporated into, the project which will mitigate or avoid or reduce to
insignificance the adverse environmental effects relating to public transit, pedestrian. and
bicycle facilities.
h. Transportation and Traffic (Traffic Volume and Queuing):
1 Project Specific Impacts (Existing Plus Project Conditions): The EIR concludes the
Project would increase traffic volumes on area roadways under Existing Plus Project
Conditions The analysis in the EIR indicates the level of service (LOS) at the
1
1
1
intersection of Airport Park Boulevard/Talmage Road would not meet the acceptable
LOS established by the General Plan. General Plan Circulation and Transportation
implementation measure CT -16.4(e) establishes the acceptable LOS for signalized
intersection and four-way stops as LOS D Under Existing Plus Project Conditions,
the intersection of Airport Park Boulevard/Talmage Road would operate at LOS E In
addition, queuing would exceed available storage in two locations: 1) westbound
Talmage Road/Airport Park Boulevard left tum; and 2) southbound Talmage
Road/US 101 Ramp right tum. The EIR traffic study indicates that under existing
conditions (without the Project) both intersections also have queues that exceed
available storage. (DEIR, Appendix E, pp 10-11)
The EIR includes mitigation measures that would reduce this impact to a level
considered less than significant. The mitigation includes the construction of Talmage
Road Interchange improvements with the provision of two left -tum lanes on the
westbound Talmage Road approach to Airport Park Boulevard (FEIR, Transportation
and Traffic mitigation measure 3.10.1).
2. Cumulative Impacts (Future 2030 Plus Project Level of Service): The EIR concludes
that the Project would increase traffic volumes on area roadways under Future
(2030) Plus Project Conditions The analysis in the EIR indicates the level of service
(LOS) at three intersections would not meet the acceptable LOS established by the
General Plan (DEIR. pp 310-33 to 3 10-35) General Plan Circulation and
Transportation implementation measure CT -16.4(e) establishes the acceptable LOS
as LOS D or better Under Future (2030) Plus Project Conditions, the intersection of
Airport Park Boulevard/Talmage Road would operate at LOS F; the intersection of
Talmage Road/US 101 Southbound Off -Ramp would operate at LOS E; and the
intersection of South State Street would operate at LOS E.
The EIR includes mitigation measures that would reduce this impact to a level
considered less than significant (FEIR Transportation and Traffic mitigation measure
3 10 1 and 3 10 4) The mitigation measures include: installation of a left -tum lane on
the eastbound approach of South State Street/Hasting Avenue and the construction
of Talmage Road Interchange improvements with the provision of two left -tum lanes
on the westbound Talmage Road approach to Airport Park Boulevard (FEIR,
Transportation and Traffic mitigation measure 3.10.1).
3. Project Specific Impacts (Near -Term Plus Proiect): The EIR concludes that the
Project would increase traffic volumes on area roadways under Near -Term
(Baseline) Plus Project Conditions The analysis in the EIR indicates the level of
service (LOS) at two intersections would not meet the acceptable LOS established
by the General Plan. General Plan Circulation and Transportation implementation
measure CT -16 4(e) establishes the acceptable LOS as LOS D or better. Under
Near -Term Plus Project Conditions, the intersection of Airport Park
Boulevard/Talmage Road would operate at LOS E, and the intersection of Talmage
Road/US 101 Southbound Off -Ramp would operate at LOS F. In addition, queuing
would exceed available storage in two locations: 1) westbound Talmage
Road/Airport Park Boulevard left tum, and 2) southbound Talmage Road/US 101
Ramp right turn. The EIR traffic study indicates that under near-term conditions
(without the Project), both intersections also have queues that exceed available
storage. (DEIR, Appendix E, pp. 22-23)
The EIR includes mitigation measures that would reduce this impact to a level
considered Tess than significant (Transportation and Traffic mitigation measure
3.10 3 requires implementation of mitigation measure 3.10.1). The mitigation
includes the construction of Talmage Road Interchange improvements with the
7
provision of two left -turn lanes on the westbound Talmage Road approach to Airport
Park Boulevard.
4 Cumulative Impacts (Future 2030 Queuing): The EIR concludes that under Future
(2030) Plus Project Conditions, the Project would contribute to an existing
inadequate queuing storage condition. The analysis in the EIR indicates queuing
storage would exceed maximum queues at westbound Airport Park
Boulevard/Talmage Road left turn and Talmage Road/US 101 Southbound
Off -Ramp right tum. The EIR traffic study indicates that under Future conditions
(without the Project). both intersections also would have queues that exceed
available storage. (DEIR, Appendix E, pp. 27-28) The EIR includes mitigation
measures that would reduce this impact to a level considered less than significant
(Implementation of Transportation and Traffic mitigation measure 3.10.1) The
long -planned mitigation includes the construction of Talmage Road Interchange
improvements with the provision of two left -turn lanes on the westbound Talmage
Road approach to Airport Park Boulevard.
With respect to 14, A -D, above, the improvements which will reduce the adverse
traffic impacts to a level of insignificance are called the "Talmage Road Interchange
Improvements." The City of Ukiah is pursuing the Talmage Road Interchange
Improvements as a separate City -sponsored project, because those improvements
are required for the build -out of the Redwood Business Park, with or without the
Project. Costco is subject to an off-site traffic mitigation fee imposed on parcels in the
Airport Industrial Park pursuant to Government Code Section 66000 et seq. These
fees were imposed to help fund a portion of the Talmage Road Interchange
Improvements and will be used for this purpose. As of the preparation of the EIR,
funding sources for the full cost of theTalmage Road Interchange Improvements
have been identified but full funding has not yet been secured However,
Transportation and Traffic mitigation measure 3.10.1 requires that the Project
funding must be obligated prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Project
and the interchange improvements substantially completed prior to issuance of the
certificate of occupancy for the Project (FEIR, p.4-12); thus assuring that no
Project -related traffic will be allowed to occur before these City -sponsored traffic
mitigations are funded and substantially completed
A portion of the Talmage Road Interchange Improvements (Southbound Hwy 101
off -ramp and Talmage intersection reconstruction, 'Cal Trans Improvements') is
within the California Department of Transportation (Cal Trans") right of way and
subject to its jurisdiction The remaining improvements at Airport Park Boulevard and
Talmage Road ("City Improvements") are within the City's rights of way and subject
to its jurisdiction. The City can design and construct the City Improvements but the
design and construction of the Cal Trans Improvements are within Cal Trans'
jurisdiction and are its responsibility. If funding were not secured for the Cal Trans
Improvements or Cal Trans does not approve the timely construction of those
improvements, the City Council finds that the above-described traffic impacts would
be significant and unavoidable because specific economic. legal, social.
technological, or other considerations (lack of funding or timely approval by Cal
Trans), make infeasible any further mitigation of them
i. Air Quality:
Project Specific Impacts (Operational Emissions). The EIR concluded that operation of
the Project would generate significant emissions of criteria air pollutants that could
contribute to existing nonattainment conditions for nitrous oxide (NOX), PM 10, and PM
2.5 and degrade air quality The EIR analysis indicates that vehicle tnps are the pnmary
8
1
1
1
1
1
J•
1
source of these emissions. (DEIR, pp. 3.2-13 and 3.2-14, and table 3.2-5) The EIR
includes mitigation measures that would reduce the level of this impact. (FEIR, pp. 4-6 to
4-8, Air Quality mitigation measures 3.2.2a, 3 2.2b and 3.2.2c) The mitigation measures
include: incorporating building and site design features that achieve a building energy
efficiency rating greater than the Title 24 requirement; incorporating sustainability
features into the project, including the use of locally extracted building materials where
feasible, pre -manufactured building components to reduce construction waste
pre -manufactured wall panels with insulation designed to conserve energy by increasing
R -value and solar reflectivity, reflective roof material that complies with requirements for
USEPA's Energy Star energy efficiency program, skylights as part of a daylight
harvesting system, tree planting to reduce summer heat gain in the parking lot, plant
palette that includes a substantial amount of drought tolerant species, and an irrigation
system that minimizes water use and ensures water goes directly to the intended
planting area; implementation of measures to reduce motor vehicle trips and operational
emissions, including promoting the use of alterative fueled vehicles and equipment and
providing incentives for employees to use altemative transportation, such as
carpoolvanpool, transit, bicycling, or walking, and use of low VOC coatings.
The Project Proponent commits to these mitigation measures relating to operational
emissions as conditions of approval for the rezoning and site development permit The
EIR concludes, however, that the implementation of these mitigation measures would
not reduce the impact to a less than significant level and, therefore, the City Council finds
that the impact would be significant and unavoidable because specific economic, legal,
social, technological, or other considerations, make infeasible any further mitigation of
operational emissions to a level considered Tess than significant.
Cumulative Impact (Operational Emissions): The EIR concluded that construction and
operation of the Project would result in cumulatively considerable increases in cntena
pollutant emissions. (DEIR, pp. 3.2-16 and 3.2-17) The EIR identifies the same mitigation
measures for cumulative emission impacts as for operational emissions impacts
(implementation of Air Quality mitigation measures 3.2.2a through 3.2.2c).
The Project Proponent commits to these mitigation measures relating to the cumulative
impact of operational emissions as conditions of approval for the rezoning and site
development permit. The EIR concludes, however, that the implementation of these
mitigation measures would not reduce the impact to a less than significant level and,
therefore, the City Council finds that the impact would be significant and unavoidable
because specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, make
infeasible any further mitigation of operational emissions to a level considered less than
significant.
Global Climate Change:
Proiect Specific Impacts (Operational Emissions): The EIR concludes the Project could
generate greenhouse gas emissions that may have a significant impact on the
environment. (DEIR, pp. 3.11-16 to 3.11-18 and table 3.11-3) The EIR includes
mitigation measures that would reduce this impact (implementation of Air Quality
mitigation measures 3.2.2a through 3.2.2c). The mitigation measures include:
incorporating building and site design features that achieve a building energy efficiency
rating greater than the Title 24 requirement; incorporating sustainability features into the
project, including the use of locally extracted building materials where feasible,
pre -manufactured building components to reduce construction waste, pre -manufactured
wall panels with Insulation designed to conserve energy by increasing R -value and solar
reflectivity, reflective roof material that complies with requirements for USEPA's Energy
Star energy efficiency program, skylights as part of a daylight harvesting system, tree
9
planting to reduce summer heat gain in the parking lot, plant palette that includes a
substantial amount of drought tolerant species, and an irrigation system that minimizes
water use and ensures water goes directly to the intended planting area, implementation
of measures to reduce motor vehicle trips and operational emissions, including
promoting the use of alterative fueled vehicles and equipment and providing incentives
for employees to use alternative transportation, such as carpool/vanpool, transit,
bicycling, or walking; and use of low VOC coatings. These are the same mitigation
measures included for Air Quality operational emissions The Project Proponent
commits to these mitigation measures relating to global climate change as conditions of
approval for the rezoning and site development permit. The EIR concludes that the
implementation of these mitigation measures would not reduce the impact to a less than
significant level and that this impact would remain significant and unavoidable; therefore.
the City Council finds that the impact would be significant and unavoidable because
specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, make infeasible
any further mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions to a level considered less than
significant.
FINDINGS REGARDING UNMITIGATED ADVERSE IMPACTS:
The EIR has identified the following seven significant and unavoidable impacts that, as explained
in the preceding sections, are subject to mitigation measures that will substantially lessen their
adverse environmental impacts, but those impacts cannot be successfully mitigated or avoided to
a level of insignificance
Transportation and Traffic Impact 3 10 1- Implementation of the Project would increase traffic
volumes on area roadways under Existing Plus Project conditions (Final EIR, p ES -11)
2 Transportation and Traffic Impact 3 10 3 Implementation of the Project would increase traffic
volumes on area roadways Near -Term conditions (Final EIR. p ES -12).
3 Transportation and Traffic Impact 3.10 4. Implementation of Project would increase traffic
volumes on area roadways under Future (2030) conditions (Final EIR, p ES -12).
4 Transportation and Traffic Impact 3 10 5 Under Future plus Project conditions, traffic associated
with the Project would contnbute to inadequate queuing storage at Talmage Road/Airport Park
Boulevard and Talmage Road/US 101 Southbound Off -ramp (Final EIR, p. ES -12).
The EIR identifies improvements to the intersection of the Highway 101 southbound
intersection with Talmage Road that would mitigate the impacts identified above. These
improvements are currently being undertaken by the City of Ukiah as a separate
City -sponsored ("Talmage Interchange Improvement Project") The purpose of this Project is
to remedy the existing and future queuing conditions described above and to make traffic and
circulation to serve future build -out of the Airport Industrial Park, as well as the future
circulation needs in the immediate area and to accommodate population growth.
Improvements within Caltrans right-of-way will require Caltrans approval of design plans and
an encroachment permit. The City has been in consultation with Caltrans throughout the
design phase of the Talmage Interchange Improvements and Caltrans agrees that
improvements to the interchange are needed
Although the City has identified potential funding sources for these improvements, including a
possible grant under the Entitlement Communities Community Development Block Grant
(`CDBG") program, proceeds from the 2011 Series A Tax Allocation Bonds issued by the
City's former redevelopment agency and a loan from the California Infrastructure and
Economic Development Bank ("Bank"), as of the consideration of the EIR and proposed
Project funding for these improvements has not been secured. However, Mitigation
10
1
1
1
1
1
1
Measure3 10 1 requires that the Project funding must be obligated prior to the issuance of a
building permit for the Project and the interchange improvements substantially completed
prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the Project. Nevertheless, without funding
for the improvements necessary to mitigate the impacts identified in the EIR, the impacts
remain significant and unavoidable, if the Project is completed. While Transportation and
Traffic mitigation measure 3.10.1 should prevent adverse traffic impacts from occurring, the
adverse air quality and greenhouse gas emission impacts associated with Project traffic
remain significant and unavoidable.
5. Air Quality Impact 3.2.2: Operation of the Project would generate significant emissions of criteria
air pollutants that could contribute to existing nonattainment conditions and degrade air quality
(Final EIR, p. ES -3).
6. Air Quality Impact 3.2.5: Construction and operation of the Project would result in cumulatively
considerable increases in criteria pollutant emissions (Final EIR, p. ES -5).
7. Global Climate Change Impact 3.11.1: The Project could generate GHG emissions that may
have a significant impact on the environment or conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted to reduce GHG emissions (Final EIR, p. ES -12).
For the following reasons, the City Council finds that specific economic, legal, social,
technological or other considerations make infeasible the project alternatives identified in the
EIR.
The primary City objectives of the proposed Project, as explained in the DEIR, p. 2-5, are to.
locate regional retail development within the existing commercial areas; locate retail
development within existing commercial areas of the City; enhance the retail opportunities within
the City of Ukiah. fulfill the City's role as a regional retail center and reduce the number of vehicle
trips to retail centers in Sonoma County and thereby reduce regional air pollution and
greenhouse gas emissions. further develop the Airport Industrial Park in accordance with the
City's general plan and Ordinance No 1098. encourage development that generates enough
revenue for the City to pay for the City services received by the development; and encourage
urban design that enhances the US 101 corridor.
The primary Project Proponent's objectives, as explained in the DEIR, p. 2-5, are to: provide a
Costco facility on a site with good access in a central location within the trade area; provide a
Costco facility in a location that is convenient to employees to travel to work; increase the
number of employees and contribute to a jobs/housing balance; provide a Costco facility to
better serve Costco members within the greater Ukiah area; and enhance the area with an
economically viable development which is architecturally designed to be sensitive to the Ukiah
community and compatible with Costco's needs for a new warehouse.
The traffic, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions impacts that cannot be mitigated result
from the vehicle trips associated with the Project. Consideration of an alternative location or a
reduced Project size would not reduce the level of traffic, air quality, or greenhouse gas
emissions to Tess than significant levels. Due to the nature of the Project, which sells limited
numbers of goods in bulk quantities, the Project relies on vehicles for the delivery of goods and
customer trips. In order to reduce the air quality and greenhouse gas emissions impacts to a
less than significant level, the number of vehicle trips would need to be reduced to two -percent
(2%) of the number of trips estimated for the Project (see FIER, pp. 3-75 to 3-76, response to
comment 18). This reduction in vehicle trips would make the Project financially infeasible for the
Project Proponent
FINDINGS REGARDING THE FEASIBILITY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES DISCUSSED IN
EIR:
11
The following social, economic, legal, technological, and other considerations make the three
alternatives identified and analyzed in the EIR infeasible. The three altematives are: 1) no project
alternative, 2) altemative location; and 3) reduced project alternative
1. No Project Alternative: Under the No Project Alternative, the Project would not be undertaken
and the site would not be developed This alternative would reduce most of the impacts
associated with the Project; however, this altemative would not achieve any of the Project
objectives (DEIR, p 2.5) Under this alternative, there are transportation and traffic impacts
under the following conditions: under existing conditions, the maximum queue exceeds available
storage for the Talmage Road/US 101 Southbound Off -Ramp right turn; under near-term
(baseline) conditions, the maximum queue exceeds available storage for the Talmage
Road/Airport Park Boulevard westbound left turn and the storage for the Talmage Road/US 101
Southbound Off -Ramp right turn; and under Future (2030) conditions, the maximum queue
exceeds available storage for the Talmage Road/Airport Park Boulevard westbound left turn and
the storage for the Talmage Road/US 101 Southbound Off -Ramp right tum
The no project alternative is not feasible, because it would not achieve any of the project
objectives and does not eliminate existing traffic congestion problems.
2. Alternative Location: This alternative would locate the Project on the west side of Airport Park
Boulevard across from the currently proposed location on three separate parcels totaling 14 69
acres. Since the location of this alternative is similar to the proposed Project location Urban
Decay. Geology and Soils, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use, Noise, Public Services and
Utilities, Cultural Resources, and Biological Resources impacts would be similar to the Proposed
Project This altemative site is located in Airport Compatibility Zone B1 of the Mendocino
County Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan, which is more restrictive than Zone C (the zone
in which the proposed Project is located). The purpose of the compatibility criteria is to assure
compatibility with noise and safety criteria for uses and development located within the
boundaries of the CLUP. (Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan, p. 7-10) The Costco store is
considered an "intensive retail" use, a use considered "Not Normally Acceptable" in the B1 zone.
Development in this location within the B1 zone would be subject to more restrictive
development conditions than development of the proposed site which is in zone C
Although the Project may be allowed in this location if determined to be consistent with the
commercial uses allowed, it may exceed the allowed development density or be inconsistent
with other criteria established to the safety and compatibility of ensure uses located within the
CLUP. If the density exceeded the density allowed in the 61, the impact would be equal or
greater than the proposed Project (DEIR, p 5-9 and 5-10, Hazards and Hazardous Materials).
Denser development means more people per acre, which means more people potentially
impacted by an aviation accident (plane crash) on the site The B1 Compatibility zone is an area
of -substantial risk" as opposed to the currently proposed Costco site. which is located within the
C Zone an area of limited risk" (Table 7A Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan Report, July
1996)
If the Project at this altemative location was found to be inconsistent with the Mendocino County
Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan as discussed above, the Project would be inconsistent
with applicable plans and regulations resulting in a potentially significant Land Use and Planning
impact which does not exist at the proposed location for the Project.
The construction and operational activities under this alternative would be similar to the
proposed Project since it is served by and would receive access from the same street network.
Therefore, this altemative would generate a similar number of vehicle trips as the proposed
Project. This similar number of vehicle trips would result in similar traffic, air quality, and
greenhouse gas emissions impacts as the proposed Project. The traffic, air quality and
greenhouse gas emissions impacts would remain significant and unavoidable under this
12
1
1
1
1
1
alternative (DEIR, pp. 5-8 to 5-11 and FEIR, p. 4-14).
Because the altemative location altemative poses the potential for increased impacts in other
areas not posed by the proposed project (i.e., hazards and land use compatibility), and it would
not achieve substantially different or reduced impacts as compared to the proposed project in
other areas, this altemative is considered Tess desirable from a policy standpoint by the City
Council and is therefore considered infeasible.
3. Reduced Project Size Alternative: This Reduced Project Size Alternative (No Fuel Station)
would remove the fueling station from the Project, which would eliminate 492 p.m. peak hour
vehicle tnps The construction related impacts of this altemative would be similar to the
proposed Project. The elimination of 492 vehicle trips would still not reduce the Existing plus
Project, Near -Term plus Project, or Future (2030) traffic impacts to a Tess than significant level
and the impact would remain significant and unavoidable under this altemative (DEIR, pp 5-6 to
5-8, and 5-11. FEIR, p. 4-14).
The removal of the fueling station would reduce some emissions from mobile and area
sources by eliminating 492 p.m. peak hour vehicle trips and the need for fueling trucks.
This reduction in vehicle trips would reduce the area and mobile source emissions
associated with the Project; however, the reduction of vehicle trips would not be
substantial in comparison with the total vehicle trips from the Project. According to Sonia
Hennum Daleiden, PE PTOE, Principal Engineer for Costco, who testified at the
December 4, 2013, City Council hearing, based on internalization data from other
Costco stores with a fueling station, the projected reduction of 492 p.m. peak hour
vehicle trips may overstate the reduction, because only members of Costco can
purchase gasoline and many members do not travel to the store only to buy gasoline.
The internalization data submitted by Ms. Daleiden show that between by 22%-44% of
p.m. peak traffic going to the fueling station is linked to a trip to the Costco store which
would have occurred, with or without the fueling station. For this reason, the removal of
the fueling station would not substantially reduce traffic related impacts of the Project
Moreover, the elimination of the fueling station would not reduce the traffic related
impacts of the Project to a Tess than significant level (FEIR, p. 3-45, response to
comment #3). The air quality impact and global climate change impacts, although
somewhat reduced, would remain significant and unavoidable under this altemative
(DEIR, pp. 5-6 to 5-8, and 5-11, FEIR, p. 4-14).
Based on the market data in the fiscal impact report and the Urban Decay Analysis, the Project
location produces substantially less revenue under this altemative. Costco representatives
have indicated that gasoline sales are an essential service they provide their
membership. Their current business model relies on gasoline sales as part of the profitability
for a warehouse. They have indicated further that gasoline sales are a very important
component to making the Ukiah warehouse profitable, particularly given the smaller
population base from which this warehouse would draw as compared to other Costco
locations. For these reasons, the Costco representatives have indicated further that a no
fueling station alternative would not meet their objectives for the project. (November 25, 2013
email, and December 4, 2013, oral testimony from Michael Okuma, Costco) Additionally.
because the reduced project size altemative would not achieve substantially reduced impacts as
compared to the proposed project and would not provide an additional local fueling option for
City residents, this altemative is considered less desirable from a policy and practical standpoint
by the City Council. For all of the foregoing reasons, and any of them individually, this altemative
is therefore determined to be infeasible.
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS:
13
As set forth in the preceding sections, approving the proposed project will result in some
significant adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided even with the adoption of all
feasible mitigation measures. As determined above, however, there are no feasible alternatives
to the project that would mitigate or substantially lessen the impacts. Despite these effects. the
City Council, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15093, chooses to approve the project
because, in its judgment, the following economic, social, and other benefits that the project will
produce will render the significant effects acceptable
Any one of these reasons is sufficient to justify approval of the project. Thus, even if a court were
to conclude that not every reason is supported by substantial evidence, the City would stand by its
determination that each individual reason is sufficient on its own to justify approval of the project in
spite of its significant adverse environmental effects. The substantial evidence supporting the
various benefits can be found in the preceding findings, which are incorporated by reference into
this section. in the documents found in the Record of Proceedings, and in the information
referenced in the discussions below
1. The Project Would Further Develop the Airport Industrial Park Planned Development:
The Airport Industrial Park was approved in 1981 with most of the land area within the AIP
designated for industrial uses, with office/commercial and highway oriented commercial uses
allowed between Talmage Road and Commerce Drive (Use Permit 81-59). In 1991, the AIP
was amended to expand the locations where commercial uses were allowed to include part of
the area south Commerce Drive between US 101 and Airport Park Boulevard (Use Permit
91-4). In 1992 Ordinance 929 was approved in order to allow general commercial uses in
addition to Highway Oriented Commercial uses in the area bounded by Talmage Road.
Commerce Drive, US101, and Airport Park Boulevard (Ordinance 929).
In 1996, Ordinance 964 was adopted to make the following changes to the land use
designations' Industrial/Commercial to Retail Commercial; Office/Commercial to Professional
Office, and Highway Oriented Commercial/General Commercial to Highway Oriented
Commercial. This amendment increased the amount of land that allowed commercial uses
and correspondingly decreased the amount of land designated for industrial uses In 1996,
Ordinances 979 and 991 further amended the AIP to change the designation of approximately
16 acres of land from Industrial to Industrial/Auto Commercial. In 1999, Ordinance 1024
amended the AIP PD to change the designation of the land bounded by Commerce Drive,
Airport Road, Airport Park Boulevard and the railroad tracks from Industrial to Industrial/Mixed
Use The purpose of the amendment was to provide flexibility in the types of allowed and
permitted land uses that can occur in the designated area and to allow compatible uses that
can co -exist, support one another, and contribute to the goal of creating a self-sustaining
employment and commercial center within the AiP (Ordinance 1024). In 2000, Ordinance
1030 expanded the commercial uses allowed in the Professional Office designation to include
hotels and sit-down restaurants. In 2004, Ordinance 1051 changed the land designated
Industrial/Mixed Use to Light Industrial/Mixed Use. The purpose of this land use designation
was to provide for a compatible mix of light manufacturing activities, commercial land uses,
professional offices, and limited low-density residential uses (Ordinance 1051).
The proposed Project would amend the AIP to change the land use designation of 15.33 acres
from industrial/Auto Commercial and Light Manufacturing/Mixed Use to Retail Commercial
This is consistent with the amendments to the AIP that have occurred since the original
approval of the AIP. These amendments are a reflection of an increase in demand for land
that could be developed with commercial uses and a corresponding decrease in the demand
for industrial properties Approval of the amendment would allow development of land that
has remained undeveloped for more than 30 years. The shift from industrial development to
commercial development also reflects the lack of demand for industrial uses and Ukiah's
place as a regional as well as local destination for commercial goods and services. The
14
1
1
1
1
1
1
Project could also assist with the development of the remaining vacant land within the AIP
since there is the potential for other businesses to locate near Costco. Costco provides an
opportunity for greater market visibility of the AIP and may also act as a draw for other retailers
(DEIR, p. 3.3-17)
2. The Project would Recapture Retail Sales Leakage: The City of Ukiah and Airport Park
Planned Development provide local and regional retail serving commercial areas. The
Project would expand the retail offerings in the AIP PD and City of Ukiah, thereby recapturing
sales lost through leakage. Leakage represents the demands for goods by market area
residents that are not met within the market area. Therefore, these market area residents
shop in retail centers outside of the market area (such as Santa Rosa and Rohnert Park).
In 2011 the Project's market area, which includes the City of Ukiah, experienced $188.1
million in retail sales leakage annually in the categories of motor vehicle and parts dealers
home fumishings and appliances, building materials and garden equipment, clothing and
clothing accessories, general merchandise stores, food services and drinking places, and
other retail (DEIR, p.3.3-14 and DEIR, Appendix F, Exhibit 16).
Given the broad range of products sold at Costco, all of the leakage categories are relevant to
the Project. Recaptured sales leakage, not including sales recaptured from the Santa Rosa
and Rohnert Park Costco stores, is estimated to be $20.5 million (DEIR, p. 3.3-16, table 3 3-2
and pp. 3.3-14 to 3.3-17). In addition, the Project would recapture Costco sales made by
market area residents at the Santa Rosa and Rohnert Park Costco stores. This recaptured
leakage is estimated to be $20 million. Total recaptured leakage is estimated to be $40 5
million. (DEIR, p. 3.3-17)
The remaining retail sales leakage for the market area is estimated to be $363.8 million in the
categories of motor vehicle and parts dealers, building materials and garden equipment,
clothing and clothing accessories, general merchandise stores, and food services and
drinking places
Therefore, the demands of market area residents for products within these categories would
not be completely met with the Project. This provides opportunities for new retail development
within the market area and for existing retailers to position their businesses to fill the unmet
demand for products in these categories. (DEIR, p 3 3-17)
3. The Project would Enhance the Retail Opportunities within the City of Ukiah: The Ukiah
Costco store would include the sales of over 4,000 products in the categories of motor vehicle
and parts dealers, home furnishings and appliances building materials, food and beverage.
clothing and accessories, general merchandise, food services and drinking places, and other
retail (DEIR, p. 3.3-13, table 3.3-1). As stated above, the market area currently experiences
leakage in the categories of motor vehicle and parts sales, home furnishings and appliances.
building materials and garden equipment, clothing and clothing accessories, general
merchandise stores, food services and drinking places, and other retail. The Project would
increase the retail offerings in categories that expenence leakage which would expand the
retail opportunities within Ukiah and allow Ukiah and market area residents to shop in Ukiah
(DEIR, pp. 3.3-14 to 3 3-17)
4. The Project would Locate Local and Regional Serving Retail Within an Existing
Commercial Area in the City of Ukiah: Costco is a business that draws from a large market
area as demonstrated by the market area identified for the Project (DEIR, pp. 3.3-2 and 3.3-5,
and figure 3.3-2) This is further exemplified by the number of Costco members that have
Ukiah addresses or that are located within the market area. In 2012, there were 18,288
Costco members with Ukiah addresses, not all within the incorporated City limits. These
15
members made 201,809 trips to the Santa Rosa and Rohnert Park Costco stores in 2012 In
2011, there were 18,335 Costco members within the Project market area.
The Project would provide local and regional serving retail within the AIP which is an area that
has been developed with local and regional serving businesses. The AIP is an area that has
been designated by the City as an area appropriate for regional commercial development
based, in part, on its location adjacent to US 101. access to US 101, and ability to attract
commercial development. The demand for commercial development within the AIP has
increased over time as exemplified by the amendments to the AIP that have expanded the
allowed and permitted commercial uses and increased the amount of land area that allows
commercial development
5. The Project would Provide an Opportunity for Residents of the City of Ukiah and
Greater Ukiah Valley to Shop Locally: In 2012, there were 18,288 Costco members with
Ukiah addresses. These members made 201,809 trips to the Santa Rosa and Rohnert Park
Costco stores in 2012. In 2011, there were 18,335 Costco members within the Project market
area. In 2011. market area members spent $20.6 million at the Santa Rosa Costco, including
$3.3 million in gasoline sales, and $4.9 million at the Rohnert Park Costco, including gasoline
sales. It is reasonable to assume that with the construction of a Ukiah Costco store. a portion
of these trips would be recaptured and redirected to the Ukiah Costco store (DEIR, p 3.3-14).
6. The Projects would Help to Fulfill the City's Role as a Regional Retail Center and Reduce
the Number of Vehicle Trips to Retail Centers in Sonoma County and Thereby Reduce
Regional Air Pollution and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: As stated above, in 2011 and 2012
there were more than 18,000 market area residents with Costco memberships In 2012, Costco
members with Ukiah addresses made 201,809 tnps to the Santa Rosa and Rohnert Park Costco
stores Construction of a Ukiah Costco store would allow some of these trips to be redirected
to the Ukiah Costco store.
The EIR air quality and greenhouse gas emissions analysis indicated that the majority of the
emissions generated by operation of the Project was the result of vehicle trips. (DEIR, pp
3.2-13 to 3.2-15, and table 3.2-5; DEIR, pp. 3.11-16 to 3.11-18 and table 3.11-3) The Project
has the potential to reduce regional air pollution since at least some portion of the more than
200,000 annual trips made by Costco members with Ukiah addresses would be redirected to
the Ukiah Costco In order to be conservative in its analysis, the air quality and GHG analysis
in the EIR did not include a deduction for potentially redirected vehicle trips This redirection
of trips to the Ukiah Costco store has the potential to reduce vehicle miles traveled in the
region and to correspondingly reduce vehicle emissions. The reduction in vehicle emissions
could result in a reduction in regional air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
7. The Project would Create Employment Opportunities Within the City: The Project would
create 175 to 200 new full and part-time jobs. Sixty -percent of the jobs would be full-time and
40% would be part-time. In January 2012, the unemployment rate in Ukiah was 10.2%. Ukiah
has a workforce of 7,160 people with 6,430 people employed, leaving 730 people potentially
available to fill the 175 to 200 jobs that would be created by the Project. The Project would
also create construction jobs. Based on the unemployment rate in Ukiah and the number of
people available for employment, some of the construction jobs would be filled by Ukiah
residents or people from Ukiah Valley. Construction jobs filled by workers from outside the
Ukiah area would benefit the City of Ukiah by increasing lodging, dining. and shopping in the
area while these employees work on construction of the Project.
8. The Project would Create Above Minimum Wage Jobs with Benefits Within the City:
Information provided by the applicant provides a sampling of wages' Service Assistant
$11.50 - $20.30 per hour; Service Clerk $12 00 - $22.00 per hour; and Meat Cutters $12 00 -
$23 50 per hour (November 14. 2013 email from Jeff Berberich) Entry level managers start
16
1
1
1
1
1
1
between $60,000 and $68,000 per year and senior level managers start between $68,000 and
$74,000. (Michael Okuma, Costco, November 21, 2013 Planning Commission public
comment)
Costco provides insurance benefits including medical, dental, vision, pharmacy, mental
health, life insurance, disability, and long-term care. Costco pays 90% of the cost of the
insurance and the employee pays 10% of the cost Costco also provides an employee
assistance program, flexible spending accounts. employee stock purchase program, 11 paid
holidays, college student retention program, and 401(k). Costco provides a matching
contribution to the 401(k) and makes an annual contribution. (Michael Okuma, Costco,
November 21, 2013 Planning Commission public comment) Full-time employees receive
benefits after 90 days Part-time employees working more than 23 hours per week receive
core medical. dental, and vacation benefits after 6 months and are guaranteed 24 hours per
week (Michael Okuma, Costco, public testimony, November 21, 2013 Planning Commission
meeting and November 14. 2013 email from Jeff Berberich)
Costco has an employee turnover rate of 5.8% after the first year. The industry average is
approximately 20% (Michael Okuma, Costco, November 21, 2013 Planning Commission
public comment )
9. The Project would Provide Certainty as to the Number and Types of Jobs Created with
the Development of the Project Site: Development of the site with the Costco Project would
provide the City certainty as to the number and types of jobs created, wages paid, and
benefits provided. The number and types of jobs provided, wages paid, and benefits provided
by the Costco Project have the potential to be jobs that provide better wages and benefits than
if the site were developed with several smaller scale retail and/or service developments that
could provide lesser wages and benefits
10. The Project would Generate Tax Revenue for the City Allowing the City to Fund
Needed Services: The Project would generate additional revenue for the City's general fund
from sales tax, measure S sales tax property tax.. franchise tax, other taxes, licenses, permits
and fees The gross general fund revenue generated by the Project is estimated to range
from $471,194 to $709,149. Measure S sales tax is estimated to range from $198,051 to
$308,856. The estimated cost of providing the City services for the Project is $57,477. The net
general fund revenue is estimated to range from $413,747 to $651,702, excluding Measure S
sales tax, and $611,798 to $960,557, including Measure S sales tax. (Ukiah Costco Fiscal
Impact Analysis dated July 2013, p.3, exhibit 1 )
11. The Project would Generate Additional Revenue for Mendocino County, Local School
Districts, and Other Special Districts: The Project would generate revenue for the County
of Mendocino and a variety of special districts due to an increase in property tax revenue and
special purpose sales tax, including the 1/8 cent library sales tax and the 1.25% tax funding
county law enforcement, mental health, and other Mendocino County services. (Fiscal Impact
Analysis, p. 10 and Appendix A, exhibit 4) The property tax revenue generated by the Project
is estimated to be: Mendocino County $65,001. Ukiah Unified School District $92,886;
Educational Augmentation Funds $42,510; Mendocino Community College $17,420; and
Mendocino County Office of Education $11,180. In addition, $15,146 would be shared by the
library, Russian River Cemetery District, County water agencies, and others. (Ukiah Costco
Fiscal Impact Analysis dated July 2013, pp. 4-5) The special purpose sales tax generated for
the County would exceed the City sales tax, excluding Measure S.
12. The Project would Contribute Funds to Needed Infrastructure Improvements: In 1999.
the City Council adopted the Redwood Business Park Capital Improvement Program and
associated fee schedule. The Project is required to pay the capital improvement fee which is
based on the size of the development. Based on a development area of 15.33 acres the
17
capital improvement fee is estimated to be $152,640 based on the retail and gas station uses
of the site and their respective acreages (memo from Ben Kageyama, Public Works dated
November 14, 2013)
13. The Project would improve Pedestrian Circulation and Expand the Use of Public
Transit: The Project would provide the following pedestrian facilities sidewalks along the
Airport Park Boulevard frontage, sidewalks along the northern project frontage: a pedestrian
pathway through the parking lot that connects the fueling station to the front of the building, a
sidewalk from Airport Park Boulevard along the south elevation of the store to the store entry,
and a concrete pad for the installation of a new bus shelter adjacent to the new sidewalk
located along the northern project frontage (plans date stamped November 12, 2013)
The Project would provide a pad for a bus shelter as shown on the Project plans Mendocino
Transit Authority would provide and install a bus shelter on the created pad and would extend
the bus route to serve the Project site (FEIR. Appendix A. letter from MTA dated May 21,
2013)
14 The Project includes energy conserving measures: The Project would include
energy conservation features including: building envelopes insulated to meet or exceed
current energy code requirements, commissioning of mechanical systems;
installation of energy star rated skylights. reduction in the interior warehouse lighting by
from 100% to 66% to 33% to 0%, based on daylight contribution through the skylights.
interior and exterior photo sensors to measure daylight and reduce the amount of
lighting based accordingly, lighting controlled by the overall project energy
management system; parking lot and exterior lights controlled by a photo sensor and
time clock, use of high -efficiency Tight source and ballasts (pulse start Ceramic Metal
Halide HID) and bi-level switching for fluorescent fixtures; Cool Roof designs designed
to reduce heat transfer through the roof- HVAC comfort systems controlled by a
computerized building management system to maximize efficiency, high efficiency,
direct ducted HVAC units: use of energy efficient Transformers; use of variable speed
motors on make-up air units and booster pumps. direct vent gas water heaters that are
94% efficient or greater, use of reclamation tanks to capture heat released by
refrigeration equipment to heat domestic water in lieu of rejecting heat to the outside •
use of pre-engineered metal building for efficiency and sustainable materials when
compared to a full height masonry counterparts (results in the consumption of fewer
building materials in construction burning of fewer fossil fuels in transportation since
steel contains over 80% recycled content and is 100°/ recyclable). (Project Description
dated November 13. 2013)
The Project is subject to the requirements of the California Green Building Code Air Quality
mitigation measure 3.2 2a requires the Project to incorporate sustainability features into the
budding and site design to achieve a building energy efficiency rating that is greater than the
Title 24 requirement in order to reduce energy consumption and associated GHG emissions
(FEIR. p ES -3 and ES -4, FEIR, pp. 5-3 sand 5-4)
Based on the foregoing findings, the benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse air quality and
global climate change operational emissions impacts and traffic and transportation level of serve
and queuing impacts. Moreover, Mitigation Measure 3.10.1 (requiring a commitment of funds
before a building permit can issue and substantial completion of traffic mitigation improvements
before a certificate of occupancy can be issued) and Costco's declared commitment not to open
a Ukiah store for business until the traffic mitigations are complete assures that the traffic
mitigations will be completed before the Project generates traffic.
18
1
1
1
1
1
Adopted on December 18, 2013, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Crane, Thomas, Landis, and Mayor Baldwin
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
P
ip E. Bal•, in, Mayor
ATTEST:
kptiD 4.4A44,6b(L,----.
Kristine Lawler City Clerk
19
Exhibit A
TABLE 5-1
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure
Measure 3.1.2:: All outdoor light fixtures shall be located, aimed or shielded so as to minimize
stray light trespassing across property boundaries. Fixtures shall be full cut-off and nighttime
friendly, consistent with LEED coals and Green Globes criteria for light pollution reduction.
The Project applicant wit be required to prepare a photometric plan demonstrating that lighting
wit not spillover onto adjacent properties. Furthermore, the Project will adhere to all City
regulations relating to signage and the shielding of light In order to reduce any potential negative
effects from new light sources (per Building Code Sections §3225, §3226. §3227). The revised Tight pian
shall demonstrate an average light level no greater than 4 footcandle (fc) at grade (ground surface), and
shall not exceed 10 fc In any location. Light trespass onto adjacent private property shall not exceed 0.2 fc
(at the property line). Light trespass onto adjacent public rights of way or private roadway easements shall
not exceed 0.2 fc measured at the centerline of the right of way. Pole -mounted parking lot lighting shaN be
tumed off one hour after the store closes. Alternatively, 50% of pole -mounted lighting may be turned off if
the City or store operator requests additional security Fighting. These standards shall be included in the
Project conditions of approval as well as the mitigation monitoring and reporting program.
Measure 3.2.2a: The Project will incorporate sustainability features in building and site design with
the goal of reaching a buikfinc efficiency rating that is greater than the Title 24 requirement, in order
to reduce energy consumption and associated GHG emissions. As set forth in the "Project
Description," the Project will incorporate the following sustainability features:
• Parking lot light standards are designed to provide even light distribution and use 20% less
energy compared to a greater number of fixtures at lower heights. The use of metal halide
lamps provide a color corrected white light and a higher level of perceived brightness with less
energy than other tamps such as high pressure sodium.
• Locally extracted and manufactured building materials will be utilized where feasible.
• Pre -manufactured building components, Including structural framing and metal panels, are
designed to minimize waste during construction.
• Pre -manufactured metal wall panels with insulation are designed to conserve energy by
increasing R -value and solar reflectivity. Building heat absorption is reduced by a decrease in
the thermal mass of the metal wall when compared to a typical masonry block wall
• Reflective roof material will meet the requirements for the USEPA's Energy Star energy
efficiency program. Reflective roofs produce lower heat absorption and thereby lower energy
usage during the summer months.
• Skylights are used on the roof to reduce the need for interior lighting. A `daylight harvesting"
system monitors and adjusts the mechanical and lighting systems in order to conserve energy.
The system includes the skylights, light monitors, energy efficient lighting fixtures, and
associated control systems. On a typical sunny day, fewer than one third of the interior lights
are needed.
• Tree plantings to reduce summer heat gain within the parking field.
Monitoring Responsibility
City of Ukiah Planning and
Community Development
Department
City of Ukiah Planning and
Community Development
Department
City of Milt Costco wholesale Prgacl
Fina Environmental Impact Report
5-1
Timing
Plan prepared and approved prior to
issuance of building permit
Monitoring ongoing during
construction.
Plan prepared and approved prior to
issuance of building permit.
Monitoring ongoing during
construction.
Sign Off
ESA/211109
November 2013
Exhibit A
TABLE 5-1
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring Responsibility Timing Sign Off
• Planting to incorporate a substantial amount of drought tolerant species.
• Irrigation system to incorporate the use of deep root watering bubblers for parking lot shade
trees to minimize water usage and ensure that water goes directly to the intended planting
areas.
Measure 3.2.2b: The applicant shall Implement the following measures, to the extent feasible and
appropriate, to reduce motor vehicle trips and emissions associated with Project operations:
• Promote the use of alternative fueled vehicles and equipment (i.e., CNG, electric, etc) for
Project operations. The applicant shall implement two or more of the following measures:
o Warehouse equipment, including forklifts, will be electric powered.
o Landscaping equipment will be electric powered.
o Preferred parking for zero emission vehicles.
o Retail fueling station will include a CNG refueling station.
o Customer parking will include a minimum of one (1) electric recharge station.
• Provide commute incentives for employees to utilize attemative transportation, such as
carpooWanpool, transit, cycling, or walking. A Costco carpool and alternative transportation
manager shall be designated to oversee the implementation of these TDM measures. Costco
will provide its employees the following Incentives:
o Four carpool parking spaces reserved for Costco employees;
o Bicycle parking as required by City standards;
c Employee locker rooms;
o Rideshare Program, including recognition of rideshare participants at monthly staff
meetings and an annual update of rideshare benefits and incentives provided to
employees;
o A Rideshare BuNetin Board to be located In the employee breakroom, which will contain
information about the Rideshare Program, transit, bike routes, and other alternate
commute information;
o A Rideshare Newsletter to be published and posted on the Rideshare Bulletin Board on a
quarterly basis;
o Costco employees commuting to work in a rideshare program will be eligible for a
guaranteed ride home program in the event of an emergency or unexpected situation
(such as unscheduled overtime) on the days they rideshare.
o The applicant shall increase transit accessibility. Such measures could include the
purchase of transit passes for employees. Also, implement Mitigation Measure 3.10.2a.
• The applicant shall Improve the pedestrian and bicycle network Implement Mitigation Measure
3.10.2b and 2c.
City of Ukiah Planning and Plan prepared and approved prior to
Community Development issuance of building permit.
Department Monitoring ongoing during
construction.
City et UMW Costes Wholesale Project
Pinel Environmental Impact Report
5-2
FSA / 211169
November 2013
Exhibit A
TABLE 5-1
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring Responsibility
Timing
Sign Off
Measure 3.2.2c: Use low VOC architectural coatings.
City of Ukiah Planning and
Community Development
Department
Plan prepared and approved prior to
issuance of building permit.
Monitoring ongoing during
construction.
Measure 3.4.1a (For Seismic Ground Shaking) - Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any
portion of the Project site, the Project sponsor shall:
1. Submit to the City Building Services Division a site-specific, design level geotechnical
investigation prepared for each development parcel by a registered geotechnical engineer. The
investigation shall comply with all applicable state and local code requirements and:
a. Include an analysis of the expected ground motions at the site from known active faults
using accepted methodologies;
b. Determine structural design requirements as prescribed by the most current version of the
California Building Code, including applicable City amendments, to ensure that structures
can withstand ground accelerations expected from known active faults;
c. Determine the final design parameters for walls, foundations, foundation slabs, utilities,
roadways, parking lots, sidewalks, and other surrounding related Improvements;
2. Project plans for foundation design, earthwork, and site preparation shall incorporate all of the
mitigations in the site specific investigations_
3. The Project structural engineer shall review the site specific investigations, provide any
additional necessary mitigation to meet Building Code requirements, and incorporate all
applicable mitigations from the investigation In the structural design plans and shall ensure that
all structural plans for the Project meet current Building Code requirements.
4. A registered City geotechnical engineer or third -party registered engineer retained to review the
geotechnical reports shall review each site-specific geotechnical investigation, approve the final
report, and require compliance with all geotechnical mitigations contained in the investigation in
the plans submitted for the grading, foundation, structural, infrastructure and all other relevant
construction permits.
5. The City shall review all Project plans for grading, foundations, structural, infrastructure and all
other relevant construction permits to ensure compliance with the applicable geotechnical
investigation and other applicable Code requirements.
Measure 3.4.1b (For liquefaction and earthquake Induced settlement) — Prior to the Issuance of a
building permit for any portion of the Project site, the Project sponsor shall:
1. Submit to the City a site-specific, design level geotechnical investigation prepared for each
building site or installed facility location by a registered geotechnical engineer. The investigation
shall comply with all applicable state and local code requirements and:
a. Provide site specific engineering requirements for mitigation of liquefiable soils;
City of Ukiah Costco Wholesale Protect
Final Envaannantal Impacl Repon
City of Ukiah Planning and
Community Development
Department, City Building
Services Division
City of Ukiah Planning and
Community Development
Department, City Building
Services Division
Plan prepared and approved prior to
issuance of building permit.
Pian prepared and approved prior to
issuance of building perk.
5-3
ESA i 211189
November 2013
Exhibit A
TABLE 5-1
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring Responsibility Timing Sign Off
b. Specify liquefaction mitigations that shall use proven methods, generally accepted by
registered engineers, to reduce the risk of liquefaction to a less than significant level such
as:
i. subsurface soil improvement,
ii. deep foundations extending below the liquefiable layers,
Iii. structural slabs designed to span across areas of non-support,
iv. soil cover sufficiently thick over liquefaction soil to bridge liquefaction zones,
v. dynamic compaction,
vi. compaction grouting.
vii. jet grouting,
viii. mitigation for liquefaction hazards suggested in the Califomia Geological Survey's
Geology (CGS) Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards (CGS
Special Publication 117, 1997) including edge containment structures (berms, dikes,
sea walls, retaining structures, compacted soil zones), removal or treatment of
liquefiable soils, modification of site geometry. lowering the groundwater table, in-situ
ground densification, deep foundations, reinforced shallow foundations, and structural
design that can withstand predicted displacements.
2. The geotechnical investigation shall evaluate these mitigations and identify the most effective
and practicable mitigation methods for inclusion in the Project plans. These identified
mitigations shall be reviewed to ensure compliance with the CGS Geology Guidelines related to
protection of the public safety from liquefaction.
3. Project plans for foundation design, earthwork, and site preparation shall incorporate all of the
mitigations in the site specific investigations.
4. The Project structural engineer shall review the site specific investigations, provide any
additional necessary mitigation to meet Building Code requirements, and Incorporate all
applicable mitigations from the investigation in the structural design plans and shall ensure that
all structural plans for the Project meet current Building Code requirements.
5. A registered City geotechnical engineer or third -party registered engineer retained to review the
geotechnical reports shad review each site-specific geotechnical investigation, approve the final
report, and require compliance with all geotechnical mitigations contained in the investigation in
the plans submitted for the grading, foundation, structural, infrastructure and all other relevant
construction permits.
6. The City shall review all Project plans for grading, foundations, structural, infrastructure and all
other relevant construction permits to ensure compliance with the applicable geotechnical
investigation and other applicable Code requirements.
Measure 3.5.2 Hazards Remediation. If contaminated soil and/or groundwater are encountered or City of Ukiah Planning and
suspected contamination is encountered during Project construction activities, work shall be halted Community Development
During Project construction.
City d Ulesn Costco Wholes.* Project
Finis Environmental Impact Report
5-4
ESA/211103
November 2013
Exhibit A
TABLE 5-1
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring Responsibility Timing
Sign Off
in the area, and the type and extent of the contamination shall be identified In accordance with Department
coordination of the overseeing agency (RWQCB, DTSC, and/or MCEHD). A qualified professional,
in consultation with regulatory agencies (RWQCB, DTSC, and/or MCEHD) shall then develop an
appropriate method to remediate the contamination, and determine the appropriate disposal
method of any contaminated soil and/or groundwater. At this time, the available studies suggest that
no contaminated soil or groundwater will be found on site. Nevertheless, this mitigation measure
would require remediation procedures in the unlikely event that contamination is encountered.
Additionally, 11 required by an overseeing agency, a remediation plan shall be implemented either
before or in conjunction with continued Project construction.
Measure 3.6.2: In the event that construction period dewatering Is required, The Project Applicant
will coordinate with the City concerning dewatering activities and compliance with the provisions in
the permit, such as the effluent limitations in the permit, prior to discharge. The applicant will:
• Submit a Report of Waste Discharge and Application for NPDES Permit along with a feasibility
study of reuse of the groundwater to the RWQCB.
• Discharge flows only upon receipt of the Discharge Authorization Letter from the RWQCB.
City of Ukiah Planning and
Community Development
Department
Prior to Project construction.
Measure 3.6.4: The Applicant shall prepare and submit to the City engineer and the North Coast City of Ukiah Planning and Plan prepared and approved prior to
Regional Water Quality Control Board for approval a Final Drainage Plan. The Final Drainage Plan Community Development issuance of building permit
shall include design/plan level depiction of the proposed stormwater drainage facilities on site, Department Monitoring ongoing during
including the proposed storm drainage system, vegetated swales, and the water quality features. The construction.
following measures shall be implemented within the Final Drainage Plan, based on modeled runoff
volumes and flow rates specific to with -Project conditions:
• The applicant shall design, implement, and maintain a stormwater system such that there would
be no net increase in Project condition downstream peak flows; and/or, with respect to the
additional impervious surface area proposed for the Project, the [applicant] shall design and
implement volume- and/or flow -based Treatment Control Best Management Practices (BMPs)
as defined in Attachment 4 (pages 5-6) of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
small municipal separate store sewer systems (MS4s) General Permit (Small MS4 General
Permit) (SWRCB Order 2003-0005-DWQ).
• The Final Drainage Pian is not required to include retention and/or retention features if such
features are not necessary to satisfy the above requirements.
• Prior to implementation, design drawings and any related documents or specifications with
respect to these required mitigation measures shall be submitted to the City of Ukiah and the
North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board.
• Modification of storm drain facilities within the State right-of-way (U.S. 101), may require an
encroachment permit, and shall be submitted to the California Department of Transportation.
Measure 3.10.1: The Cly shah construct Talmage Road Interchange improvements, including the
City of Ukiah Planning and
The Project funding shall be
City of Ukiah Costco wholesale Prgect
Final Environmental Impact Report
5-5
ESA : 211169
November 2013
Exhibit A
TABLE 5-1
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring Responsibility
Timing
Sign Off
provision of two left -tum lanes on the westbound Talmage Road approach to Airport Park Blvd. The
improvements include the following components:
• Closure of the existing stop -controlled US 101 Southbound Off -Ramp right -tum to westbound
Talmage Road
• All US 101 Southbound Off -Ramp traffic would be redirected to access Talmage Road via a
new full access intersection where the current loop ramp connects with Talmage Road so that
all off -ramp traffic would utHize the off -loop ramp.
• The existing US 101 Southbound Off -Ramp loop would be reconfigured to a more standard
90 -degree angle.
• The intersection of the loop ramp with Talmage Road would be controlled by a new traffic
signal.
• Both the eastbound Talmage Road and northbound US 101 Southbound Off -Ramp right -tum
lanes will have right -tum overlap phasing, while the westbound Talmage Road approach would
include protected left -tum phasing.
• The design would also provide for two lett-tum lanes on the westbound Talmage Road
approach to Airport Park Boulevard, which should extend the entire distance to the adjacent
intersection.
• Since the left -tum lanes would extend all the way to the Intersection, signs and markings on the
off -ramp are provided to direct drivers to the correct lane for their destination.
• Intersection markings should be incorporated that provide guidance so as not to create a trap -
lane situation for drivers in the far northbound left lane.
• Removal of the existing northbound right -tum overlap phasing at Airport Park
Boulevard/Talmage Road.
The City shall coordinate with the California Department of Transportation regarding improvements
to state facilities. The traffic mitigations shall be completed before Costco is issued a certificate of
occupancy. The City shall establish a funding mechanism to pay for the cost of the improvements.
Community Development
Department (in coordination with
the City of Ukiah Public Works
Department and Califomia
Department of Transportation)
obligated prior to the issuance of a
building permit. The interchange
Improvements shall be substantially
completed prior to issuance of the
certificate of occupancy for the
Project
Measure 3.10.2a: Provide a concrete pad suitable for future location of bus shelter on the northern
frontage of the Project site, adjacent to the proposed sidewalk.
City of Ukiah Planning and
Community Development
Department and Mendocino
Transit Authority
The concrete pad location will be
identified on the approved building
plan, as determined through
coordination between the City and
the Mendocino Transit Authority.
Measure 3.10.2b: The Project Applicant shall implement the following measures to reduce potential
pedestrian impacts associated with the Project:
• Install sidewalks along the Project frontage on Airport Park Boulevard as identified in the project
site plan.
• Install high visibility crosswalk markings across driveway entrances to the Project including the
existing cul-de-sac on the north side of the project to increase visibility of pedestrians.
City of Ukiah Planning and
Community Development
Department
Complete prior to certificate of
occupancy.
city d Muth Costco wholesale Project
Final Environmental Impact Report
5-6
ESA/211169
November 2013
Exhibit A
TABLE 5-1
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring Responsibility
Timing
Sign Off
• Install ADA compliant curb rarnps at driveway crossings and transition points along the Project
frontage. Also, ensure that the existing curb ramps at the existing cul-de-sac intersection with
Airport Park Boulevard are compliant with current ADA standards.
• Provide an adequate pedestrian connection from the street frontage and main parking area to
the retail store entrance (per Ordinance 1098).
Measure 3.10.2c: The Project Applicant shall implement the following measures to reduce potential
bicycle impacts associated with the Project:
• Install Class III bike lanes along the Project frontage on Airport Park Boulevard.
• The Project Applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1098, Airport Industrial Park Planned
Development, requirements to install the required number of bicycle parking spaces (long-term
spaces [bicycle lockers or covered parking spaces to reduce exposure to the elements and
vandalism] for Project employees and short-term spaces for Project patrons and employees [at
a convenient location adjacent to the store's primary entry points]). Bicycle racks should be an
appropriate design and installed correctly to ensure proper function.
Measure 3.10.4: In addition to the planned City -constructed left -tum lane on the westbound
approach of Airport Road, the City shall construct a left -tum lane on the eastbound Hastings Avenue
approach at South State Street/Hastings Avenue -Airport Road. Implementation of the recommended
Improvements at Talmage Road/Airport Park Boulevard would result in acceptable operating
conditions during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours.
City of Ukiah Planning and
Community Development
Department
City of Ukiah Planning and
Community Development
Department
Complete prior to certificate of
occupancy.
City shall Incorporate improvements
into planned improvements at South
Street/Hastings. To be completed
within five years of Project operation
(as measured from certificate of
occupancy).
Measure 3.11.1: Implement Mitigation Measures 3.2.2a through 3.2.2c.
Measure 3.12.1: The following measures shall be implemented to reduce potential impacts on
nesting birds:
1 If construction -related activities are to occur during the nesting bird season (February 15 through
August 31), a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey of all potential nesting
habitats wrthin 30 days prior to the start of activities (grubbing, dirt -moving, mobilization, or other
constriction -related activities) and within 500 feet of construction activities. If ground -disturbing
activities are delayed or suspended for more than 30 days after the pre -construction survey, the site
shall be resurveyed. The results of these surveys shall be documented In a technical memorandum
that shall be submitted to the California Department of Fish and Garne (if nesting birds are
documented) and the City of Ukiah.
2. If an active nest is found during the preconstruction survey, a no -work buffer of 500 feel will
be established unless otherwise approved by the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG).
City of Ukiah Planning and
Community Development
Department
City of Ukiah Planning and
Community Development
Department
Pian prepared and approved prior to
issuance of building permit.
Monitoring ongoing during
construction.
30 days prior to construction IF
construction begins February 15
through August 31.
If active nest is found, monitoring
schedule to be determined by the
qualified biologist and the California
Department of Fish and Game
City of ukah Costco Wholesale Prole
Final Envlronmemal Impact Report
5-7
ESA/211169
November 2013
Exhibit A
TABLE 5-1
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring Responsibility Timing
Sign Off
The qualified biologist will coordinate with DFG to determine the appropriate nest avoidance,
monitoring, and protective measures appropriate for the species and site conditions. In addition
to establishment of a no -work buffer, these measures may include daily or spot-check
monitoring of the nesting activity as deemed appropriate by DFG.
3. If the preconstruction survey indicates that nests are inactive or potential habitat is unoccupied
during the construction period. no further mitigation is required. Trees and shrubs that have
been determined to be unoccupied by birds or that are located more than 500 feet from active
nests may be removed (500 feet is the distance regularly recommended by DFG to prevent
impacts to active avian nests).
Measure 3.14.2: If cultural resources are encountered, all activity in the vicinity of the find shall
cease until it can be evacuated by a qualified archaeologist and a Native American representative
Prehistoric archaeological materials might include obsidian and chert flaked -stone tools (e.g.,
projectile points, knives, scrapers) or toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil ("midden")
containing heat -affected rocks, artifacts. or shellfish remains; and stone milling equipment (e.g.,
mortars, pestles, handstones, or milling slabs); and battered stone tools, such as hammerstones and
pitted stones. Historic -period materials might include stone, concrete, or adobe footings and walls;
filled wells or privies; and deposits of metal, glass, andlor ceramic refuse. If the archaeologist and
Native American representative determine that the resources may be significant, they will notify the
City of Ukiah. An appropriate treatment plan for the resources should be developed. The
archaeologist shall consult with Native American representatives In determining appropriate
treatment for prehistoric or Native American cultural resources.
In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the archaeologist and Native American
representative, the City will determine whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light of factors
such as the nature of the find, Project design, costs, and other considerations. If avoidance is
infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) will be instituted. Work may proceed in
other parts of the Project area while mitigation for cultural resources is being carried out.
Measure 3.14.3: If human remains are encountered unexpectedly during construction excavation
and grading activities, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further
disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and
disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American
descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the NAHC. The NAHC will then identify the persons)
thought to be the Most Likely Descendent, who will help determine what course of action should be
taken in dealing with the remains.
City d Uwah Costco Wholes/de Prated
Final Environmental Impact Report
5-8
ESA / 211169
November 2013